BREAKING: Tusli Gabbard Will Run In 2020

Darkness (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 150)

End of the Year Bombshell (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 149)

So Mr. Trump, How Are Those Tariffs Going

A while ago I wrote an article about the problems with protectionism that are being done by the president. In that piece, I made it clear protectionism, in all forms, doesn't work. 
Well, it turns out that the president seems to agree. As it turns out he's giving money to industries struggling because of these tariffs. This is taxpayer money, by the way, not his own money. Of which, on a side note, he has millions.   
In case you're a little confused, allow me to explain: Donald puts a tariff (basically a tax) on an industry. He then uses that tax money to bail out an industry that is hurt because of his protectionism. You would think simply not placing tariffs on products would be easier, but what do I know? 
For that matter, let's just talk about how the average consumer doesn't benefit in the slightest here. You cause the consumers to pay more, and give it to corporations. That sounds like the definition of cronyism. Shouldn't the corporations set the prices and if they needs help, or in this case more money, they can raise the price themselves? 
But again, what do I know. Besides the fact that no economists support free trade. Although who knows, maybe the president can beat the odds. Hope to see him win a Nobel Prize in economics in my lifetime. Or just not get a recession. After all, a man can dream. 

Does The Political Compass Test Mean Anything?

When someone starts getting into politics one of the most important questions, in fact, one of the only questions is where do they stand on the important issues. So many of them, instead of actually forming opinions, choose to go to the political compass test in order to get a basic idea. This test has also been one many YouTubers take in order to have their audience understand who they are. But one question has still not been answered, is it worth anything? 
So, in order to properly answer this question, we need to look at some more questions. Specifically, the questions on the official political compass test (link here) in order to find out if any of them are, well, good questions. In order to test this, I took a handful of questions from this quiz and decided to see if they have any major issues. So let's figure this out, together.

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

This is the first question of the test and it shows one of the biggest problems with the test. It refuses to take into account that people regularly lie. Or, to use less loaded terms, most people don't like to think of themselves as the bad guys. No one is more hated than "the establishment", whatever that means.
Let me give you a real-world example. Many people believe that we should deregulate because it will cause jobs to come back here. Is that in favor of the corporations? They wouldn't. Afterall they're creating jobs.
Also, in the United States corporations are people. 

I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.

No one thinks like this, even the people who we think are like this, aren't like this. Reagan for instance, human super-patriot, only got anywhere by criticizing Carter. George W. Bush did the same thing with Bill Clinton. They didn't always support their country. 

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other racists

This question is directly asking you rather or not you're a racist. Even David Duke, the former KKK leader, doesn't think he's racist.

 The enemy of my enemy is my friend

This is a meaningless platitude. The test also gives you no context so this could mean anything. 
On a side note: When this country used this platitude we armed Osama Bin Laden.

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. 

Most people aren't economists. Plus most economic philosophies don't care for either inflation or unemployment. 

Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold

This question is directly asking you "are you a communist". Again, no one says they're something that most people believe being against is a "no-duh". Especially a philosophy most people believe killed 100 million people. 

Those with the ability to pay should have access to higher standards of medical care

I think this question is trying to ask "do you believe in universal healthcare", but there's one huge problem, that's not what this is asking. The vast majority of people who believe in UHC are fine with private healthcare being an option. 

Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal. 

Again this question is trying to ask "are you pro-life" but it doesn't really ask that. It's better than the healthcare question to be fair, but not much. 
A lot of people, including many pro-lifers, would also include rape and incest in times abortion is fine. That would make them pro-choice according to this question. Even though most of society would say otherwise.

All authority should be questioned

This question is asking you "are you an authoritarian". And even then even most authoritarians would answer yes. They had to rise to power somehow after all. 

All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind

This question is asking you rather or not you support "separate but equal". Which most people believe is the same as asking rather or not you're a racist. 

Good parents sometimes have to spank their children

This question has nothing to do with politics.

When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things

Second verse, same as the first.
In conclusion: These questions are meaningless and using them to describe your ideology is idiotic. 

Tariffs and Trade Wars

At this point, I think saying that our president is insane may be the nicest way of putting it. The latest way of proving this seems to be by giving a voice to people who watched Roger And Me 30 years and have never shut up about it, or the man who directed Roger And Me 30 years ago and never shut up about it, by attempting to implement protectionists in the United States. So I figured we should actually look at some of his cases and talk about why he's obviously wrong.
One of the most common cases Donnie and his supporters have made is that Canada, the country Washington D.C. is currently targeting the hardest, has incredibly high tariffs on some products. What Donald seems to ignore is that many economists consider Canada's policy to be a bad thing. For instance, when IGM asked economists from many different schools of economics if "Adding new or higher import duties on products . . . to encourage producers to make them in the US - would be a good idea" 0% of them said yes. And before anyone mentions it, this includes David Autor, who wrote The China Shock.
Caroline Hoxby, an economist from Stanford, commented that "tariffs would make the average American worse off". This is a  statement that is so obvious that it shouldn't take a Stanford economist to explain that. Why do I say that? Well just look at the definition of tariffs. 
Tariffs, as defined by the Merriam Webster online dictionary are "a schedule of duties imposed . . . on imported or . . . exported goods". Basically, a tax that increases the cost of goods from a certain country. Now here's the question no tariff supporter is willing to answer, who pays that tax? The answer is, obviously the consumer. And while the average virtuous middle-class liberal may go on about how "I wouldn't mind paying more", he never thinks that some people can't pay more. Those are the people who are hurt the most. 
So the President is right when he says Canada has a high tariff rate. But as the old saying goes, if your friend (or in this case, someone you're trying to make an enemy) jumped off a bridge, would you? 
So it's been established that protectionism hurts people, that's obvious. However, does free trade help people? The answer is also as obvious, but in this case, it's a yes.
While it's very easy to imagine that free trade only helps the big companies that ship jobs over to China, that's far from the case. What the people who support protectionism never tell you is that said "outsourcing" lowers the price of products and, as such, gives us greater purchasing power. 
YouTuber Shane Killian (who I don't agree with on most issues, but has made informative and entertaining content on free trade) calculated that in 1993, one year before the implementation of NAFTA, it would have cost someone over $17,000 to have all of the features present in your average iPhone. And that's ignoring the features that he couldn't calculate because they didn't even exist in any form back in the 1990's. Don't believe me, how many times did you video call someone over the course of that entire decade? Post NAFTA, the iPhone X is so easy to get people can line up around the block, regardless of income, to buy the newest model. This is only because they use so much oversea labor. 
Now, some may respond that this will cost the country a large number of jobs. This is true, but putting the economy in a vacuum like this is never a good idea. The fact is, the elimination of these jobs from the United States economy has been nothing but a positive for the average worker for all the reasons listed above. The fact is, the economy will adjust. In fact, it already has adjusted. At least, that's what the Trumpers keep telling me. After all, more jobs left this country in Trump's first year than Obama's last. So the prices of products only go up but that doesn't matter because it will create jobs the economy doesn't need.
So now there's only one thing that the president and his supporters have left to rely on, the old idea of the trade deficit. This is one his supporters, including many this blog has already covered, have left to rely on. For this, all you really need to do is understand what the "trade deficit" is to understand why this doesn't make any sense.       
A trade deficit, as defined by Investopedia, is "an economic measure of international trade in which a country's imports exceeds its exports". Basically, a trade deficit is when a country buys more from another country than it gives out. However, what the anti-free trade crowd never tell you is that this number is 100% meaningless.
Let me show you what I mean. Did you know you have a trade deficit with any store you go to? You give them money, but they never give you any money. Do you care? Of course not, they gave you what you bought. 
What I'm getting at is, the trade deficit is also a pretty silly argument. 
All of this makes one thing perfectly clear, the United States needs free trade to survive and continue to be prosperous.