E.J. Antoni

They take money from you, but that money is going to get spent somewhere else. So it may be less efficient, but it's not a complete subtraction from the economy. Regulation, however, is exactly that. It is a complete subtraction. It represents a loss of economic activity that's not being transferred from one person to another. It just vanishes.

And so that deregulation can have a tremendous impact on increasing economic activity, on increasing profits for businesses, and on increasing take-home pay for workers. Again, all of which we saw during the first Trump administration. And it looks like they're really willing to go whole hog during their second term. So that's a reason to be very, very bullish.

And so that deregulation can have a tremendous impact on increasing economic activity, on increasing profits for businesses, and on increasing take-home pay for workers. Again, all of which we saw during the first Trump administration. And it looks like they're really willing to go whole hog during their second term. So that's a reason to be very, very bullish.

Manufacturing is a big one. People don't realize that there is a tremendous regulatory burden on the manufacturing sector in this country. And it's a key reason why so much of our manufacturing has been shifted overseas, why there has been so much corporate inversion of our heavy industry.

Manufacturing is a big one. People don't realize that there is a tremendous regulatory burden on the manufacturing sector in this country. And it's a key reason why so much of our manufacturing has been shifted overseas, why there has been so much corporate inversion of our heavy industry.

For a typical manufacturing worker, let's say they're making about $50,000 a year, it's not uncommon for the regulatory burden attached to that worker that the factory owner, let's say, is effectively paying, that that regulatory burden would be $60,000. In other words, it's even more than the person's wages.

For a typical manufacturing worker, let's say they're making about $50,000 a year, it's not uncommon for the regulatory burden attached to that worker that the factory owner, let's say, is effectively paying, that that regulatory burden would be $60,000. In other words, it's even more than the person's wages.

Now, you throw on a benefits package, let's say, of another $40,000 or $50,000 for that worker, and all of a sudden, what looks like a $50,000 worker is to the rest of the world is actually about $150,000 in terms of total compensation costs for that factory owner. Conversely, you can send that job overseas and avoid most of that regulatory burden, avoid a lot of that benefits package, let's say.

Now, you throw on a benefits package, let's say, of another $40,000 or $50,000 for that worker, and all of a sudden, what looks like a $50,000 worker is to the rest of the world is actually about $150,000 in terms of total compensation costs for that factory owner. Conversely, you can send that job overseas and avoid most of that regulatory burden, avoid a lot of that benefits package, let's say.

And you throw on top of that the fact that we tax manufactured goods at a lower rate when they come in from overseas than when they're made here at home. And all of a sudden, it's a no-brainer to send those jobs overseas. burden would be a tremendous boon for the American economy and for the American worker.

And you throw on top of that the fact that we tax manufactured goods at a lower rate when they come in from overseas than when they're made here at home. And all of a sudden, it's a no-brainer to send those jobs overseas. burden would be a tremendous boon for the American economy and for the American worker.

I think so. It's very much a carrot and stick approach at the same time. We saw it in more distant history as well, and it produced exactly the same results. We forget that during America's golden age, when we saw our fastest rates of sustained economic growth, we didn't even have an income tax. The federal government fueled itself entirely basically based on tariff revenue.

I think so. It's very much a carrot and stick approach at the same time. We saw it in more distant history as well, and it produced exactly the same results. We forget that during America's golden age, when we saw our fastest rates of sustained economic growth, we didn't even have an income tax. The federal government fueled itself entirely basically based on tariff revenue.

And so this idea that somehow increasing tariffs or relatively high rates of taxes on imported goods is somehow going to crash the economy or cause runaway inflation, I'm sorry, nothing could be further from the truth. Again, America's golden age had exactly those circumstances, high tariffs, except we didn't have high inflation.

And so this idea that somehow increasing tariffs or relatively high rates of taxes on imported goods is somehow going to crash the economy or cause runaway inflation, I'm sorry, nothing could be further from the truth. Again, America's golden age had exactly those circumstances, high tariffs, except we didn't have high inflation.

We actually had slight deflation during that period of about a tenth of percent per year. So again, there was no runaway inflation. There was no widespread unemployment. It really was America's golden age. And I think it's a key component to repeating that economic success.

We actually had slight deflation during that period of about a tenth of percent per year. So again, there was no runaway inflation. There was no widespread unemployment. It really was America's golden age. And I think it's a key component to repeating that economic success.

No, it wasn't, and it really demonstrates her complete economic illiteracy and also her ignorance of history. Again, just recent history, because under the first Trump administration, every dollar that was imposed of tariffs, only about 19 cents out of each of those dollars was actually paid for by American consumers. The other 81 cents about...

No, it wasn't, and it really demonstrates her complete economic illiteracy and also her ignorance of history. Again, just recent history, because under the first Trump administration, every dollar that was imposed of tariffs, only about 19 cents out of each of those dollars was actually paid for by American consumers. The other 81 cents about...

was paid for by overseas producers like Chinese steel producers, for example. The reason being is that if they tried to pass the full cost of the tariff on to American consumers and American businesses in the form of higher prices, then American consumers and businesses would simply choose an alternative that would at that point have been cheaper.