David Penberthy and Will Goodings six to nine five double a breakfast, chat again to a man. We greatly enjoyed our last conversation with John Shaw, the director of the Paul Simon Policy Institute at the Southern Illinois University. Last time we chat it was about the opening of the JFK files. Today it is about a matter of public policy. It's about these Trump tariffs and how they've been received internally. Obviously we're the external component of this conversation, john Shaw, good morning to you and what would again to five double a breakfast.

David Penberthy and Will Goodings six to nine five double a breakfast, chat again to a man. We greatly enjoyed our last conversation with John Shaw, the director of the Paul Simon Policy Institute at the Southern Illinois University. Last time we chat it was about the opening of the JFK files. Today it is about a matter of public policy. It's about these Trump tariffs and how they've been received internally. Obviously we're the external component of this conversation, john Shaw, good morning to you and what would again to five double a breakfast.

It's my pleasure before to chatting so John.

It's my pleasure before to chatting so John.

Here in Australia, it's been a bit of a guessing game trying to work out what's in what's out? Is it ten percent? Is it twenty percent? Are we going to get an exemption or are we just going to be lumped in with everyone else? I guess domestically in the US more so from a consumption perspective. You guys there have probably been playing a similar sort of game, have you not.

Here in Australia, it's been a bit of a guessing game trying to work out what's in what's out? Is it ten percent? Is it twenty percent? Are we going to get an exemption or are we just going to be lumped in with everyone else? I guess domestically in the US more so from a consumption perspective. You guys there have probably been playing a similar sort of game, have you not.

Yeah, I mean there's about as much intrigued with this as there are the JFK assassination files.

Yeah, I mean there's about as much intrigued with this as there are the JFK assassination files.

And uh, it.

And uh, it.

May take us fifty years to unravel the nuances of the Trump policy, and I guess that's the central point. Yeah, as I'm sure you gentlemen have seen from your distance, and I see from my distance. You know, any expectation that this will be a thoughtful, nuanced, strategic plan is of course ridiculous. That's not how Donald Trump rolls. I mean, this is throwing stuff against the wall. See what happens, See what the effect is. I mean it's I say this in a somber way as an American, but it's just it's just a non serious effort, but it has profoundly serious consequences. And so yeah, Trump is, you know, meeting with his advisors and trying to put together a plan. You know, the business world, who's been completely complicit with Trump so far, is getting very uncomfortable. Republican lawmakers who have been utterly complicit are starting to go to town hall and people are saying, what in the name of God is going on? And so I think it's hard to know how this is going to play out, but I think we are seeing and then to say, to speak nothing of the fact that this policy may actually start pushing American prices up again. In a significant way, which was the one issue that Trump leveraged pretty shrewdly against Kamala Haara. So there's a lot of pieces on the board here. I have no confidence it's thought through in a careful way in terms of economics, and I'm not even sure thought through in a very careful way in terms of politics, because a lot of these tariffs are going to have a really negative effect on you know, agriculture, as you guys mentioned, and you know that kind of the red states that have been at the core of Trump's base. I mean this, this tariff policy is going to hit them pretty darn hard. And final point I'll make I think, you know, Trump has played on very shrewdly the notion that Americans in concept seem to like the notion of disruption. It's not clear to me they like disruption in their personal lives and their individual economic lives. They like the concept of disruption. But now this is going to start disrupting individual lives and communities and economies and industries, and I think Trump has unleashed something that he's may come to regret. Pretty pretty much.

May take us fifty years to unravel the nuances of the Trump policy, and I guess that's the central point. Yeah, as I'm sure you gentlemen have seen from your distance, and I see from my distance. You know, any expectation that this will be a thoughtful, nuanced, strategic plan is of course ridiculous. That's not how Donald Trump rolls. I mean, this is throwing stuff against the wall. See what happens, See what the effect is. I mean it's I say this in a somber way as an American, but it's just it's just a non serious effort, but it has profoundly serious consequences. And so yeah, Trump is, you know, meeting with his advisors and trying to put together a plan. You know, the business world, who's been completely complicit with Trump so far, is getting very uncomfortable. Republican lawmakers who have been utterly complicit are starting to go to town hall and people are saying, what in the name of God is going on? And so I think it's hard to know how this is going to play out, but I think we are seeing and then to say, to speak nothing of the fact that this policy may actually start pushing American prices up again. In a significant way, which was the one issue that Trump leveraged pretty shrewdly against Kamala Haara. So there's a lot of pieces on the board here. I have no confidence it's thought through in a careful way in terms of economics, and I'm not even sure thought through in a very careful way in terms of politics, because a lot of these tariffs are going to have a really negative effect on you know, agriculture, as you guys mentioned, and you know that kind of the red states that have been at the core of Trump's base. I mean this, this tariff policy is going to hit them pretty darn hard. And final point I'll make I think, you know, Trump has played on very shrewdly the notion that Americans in concept seem to like the notion of disruption. It's not clear to me they like disruption in their personal lives and their individual economic lives. They like the concept of disruption. But now this is going to start disrupting individual lives and communities and economies and industries, and I think Trump has unleashed something that he's may come to regret. Pretty pretty much.

The domestic political seale from AFAR appears to be that this whilst will hurt Whilst it will hurt you in the short term and hurt prices, and yes, the stock market's going in the red, the reality is that long term it's going to drive investment and long term it's going to bring back manufacturing to the United States. I don't think that's that cell appears to be working on Wall Street or amongst amongst economics. But do you get a sense that that cell is cunning through it all to rank and file American voters.

The domestic political seale from AFAR appears to be that this whilst will hurt Whilst it will hurt you in the short term and hurt prices, and yes, the stock market's going in the red, the reality is that long term it's going to drive investment and long term it's going to bring back manufacturing to the United States. I don't think that's that cell appears to be working on Wall Street or amongst amongst economics. But do you get a sense that that cell is cunning through it all to rank and file American voters.

I don't think so because I think you know, again, let's let's pause for a second Republican orthodoxy from Dwight Eyes Hour. You know, going way back to Ronald Reagan, et cetera, has been you know, free trade, open markets. You know, good economies prevail over long term. So you know, the Trump's tear off policies, you know, strikes a short term nerve. It is not a sustainable long term policy. Now it may persist in you know, kind of patchwork way for his four years, but you know, this is not the basis of a sustained economic policy. It's going to do a lot of economic damage, but it's not the basis of a sustained economic policy, and I just you know, and plus I mean Trump has shown no administrative discipline about enforcing these I mean, you know, Canada, Mexico, China, I mean throws them on, throws them off. I mean, no one in the every rational player in the world says sit should be thinking, Sit tight, keep cool, try to wait out this chaos. It's going to pass. It maybe longer than we want. But you know, I suspect they would avoid making fundamental changes to their economy if they're in anticipation that this is the long term American policy, because they don't think it is.

I don't think so because I think you know, again, let's let's pause for a second Republican orthodoxy from Dwight Eyes Hour. You know, going way back to Ronald Reagan, et cetera, has been you know, free trade, open markets. You know, good economies prevail over long term. So you know, the Trump's tear off policies, you know, strikes a short term nerve. It is not a sustainable long term policy. Now it may persist in you know, kind of patchwork way for his four years, but you know, this is not the basis of a sustained economic policy. It's going to do a lot of economic damage, but it's not the basis of a sustained economic policy, and I just you know, and plus I mean Trump has shown no administrative discipline about enforcing these I mean, you know, Canada, Mexico, China, I mean throws them on, throws them off. I mean, no one in the every rational player in the world says sit should be thinking, Sit tight, keep cool, try to wait out this chaos. It's going to pass. It maybe longer than we want. But you know, I suspect they would avoid making fundamental changes to their economy if they're in anticipation that this is the long term American policy, because they don't think it is.

John. When we last spoke, we were talking at the end of our chat about how you spent quite a bit of time in Sydney as part of your studies. I'm sure you're familiar with our system of public health here, Medicare, which is underwritten through major taxation, where the more money you earn, if you're in the higher income bracket, you pay even more towards supporting universal access to healthcare. In a similar vein we have a thing called the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme where we try again through our taxes, to artificially depress the cost of medicine so that poorer people who are going through cancer treatment or have you can get access to medicines. Can I ask you what is it do you think in the sort of and I say this respectfully, is it a sort of sense of a slavish commitment to market forces or a sense of individualism that any sort of collectivist approach to public health in the US is regarded as a bit of a communist plot because we quite comfortable with it here in Australia.

John. When we last spoke, we were talking at the end of our chat about how you spent quite a bit of time in Sydney as part of your studies. I'm sure you're familiar with our system of public health here, Medicare, which is underwritten through major taxation, where the more money you earn, if you're in the higher income bracket, you pay even more towards supporting universal access to healthcare. In a similar vein we have a thing called the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme where we try again through our taxes, to artificially depress the cost of medicine so that poorer people who are going through cancer treatment or have you can get access to medicines. Can I ask you what is it do you think in the sort of and I say this respectfully, is it a sort of sense of a slavish commitment to market forces or a sense of individualism that any sort of collectivist approach to public health in the US is regarded as a bit of a communist plot because we quite comfortable with it here in Australia.

Yeah, I mean, I think the political debate is different, but I mean you would be surprised at the you know, I'm not going to say it's a majority, but you know, there's a very very strong group that says what we are doing now is not rational in terms of you know, health care spending and healthcare coverage. There has to be a better way. And you know, we had a debate you know, some years during ago, during the Obama presidency about you know, a single payer system and so forth. So, I mean, I don't think you should assume that Americans are just delighted with the health care they're getting, the prices they're paying. There is a lot of discontent and you know, there has not been a really good political coalition that has has formed to to have a more rational policy. But you know, rank and file Americans don't love what we got.

Yeah, I mean, I think the political debate is different, but I mean you would be surprised at the you know, I'm not going to say it's a majority, but you know, there's a very very strong group that says what we are doing now is not rational in terms of you know, health care spending and healthcare coverage. There has to be a better way. And you know, we had a debate you know, some years during ago, during the Obama presidency about you know, a single payer system and so forth. So, I mean, I don't think you should assume that Americans are just delighted with the health care they're getting, the prices they're paying. There is a lot of discontent and you know, there has not been a really good political coalition that has has formed to to have a more rational policy. But you know, rank and file Americans don't love what we got.

Because it seems it really seems to be a big thing for people over there, like when they get a job, does it come with medical all that sort of stuff. Like in Australia, nobody has that conversation because you know that you know, we complain about ramping and delays at public hospitals, but we can still get into them.

Because it seems it really seems to be a big thing for people over there, like when they get a job, does it come with medical all that sort of stuff. Like in Australia, nobody has that conversation because you know that you know, we complain about ramping and delays at public hospitals, but we can still get into them.

Yeah. No, this is I mean, that's this is a critical part of the US system. This this healthcare that's that's kind of tied to your employer. Employer based health care, I mean, and it is, to be fair, kind of an uh you know, intrinsic part of the American economy. I mean, you hear people say, you know, I don't like my job, but I have good benefits, so I'm going to stick it out. So you know, there's a lot of inefficiencies that it creates. But but yeah, the employer, you know, and there's as you read the history of public health in America, I mean, there have been some some major debates about is there you know, is there a better way? I mean, I've been doing some work on Ted Kennedy, and you know, in the late seventies there was almost, you know, an ability to put together a package that was single payer, which would be probably much closer to your system than ours. But in the end there was it fractured in the Senate, and in part because of a dispute between Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. So I don't know how this is going to play out in the future, but I think you should know that rank and file Americans do not love our healthcare system.

Yeah. No, this is I mean, that's this is a critical part of the US system. This this healthcare that's that's kind of tied to your employer. Employer based health care, I mean, and it is, to be fair, kind of an uh you know, intrinsic part of the American economy. I mean, you hear people say, you know, I don't like my job, but I have good benefits, so I'm going to stick it out. So you know, there's a lot of inefficiencies that it creates. But but yeah, the employer, you know, and there's as you read the history of public health in America, I mean, there have been some some major debates about is there you know, is there a better way? I mean, I've been doing some work on Ted Kennedy, and you know, in the late seventies there was almost, you know, an ability to put together a package that was single payer, which would be probably much closer to your system than ours. But in the end there was it fractured in the Senate, and in part because of a dispute between Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. So I don't know how this is going to play out in the future, but I think you should know that rank and file Americans do not love our healthcare system.

And John, and loinking back to an answer to your first question of one of our first questions, where you said that there's something temporary about all this and that these policy settings might won't outlive the Trump administration. Effectively, I'm wondering whether there might be a point in time, even sooner where things might change, and that's the midterm elections. It's still a little way off. But do you think what potential do you think there is for the Trump a policy approach to be frustrated by the midterms, And is that potentially while we're seeing this really dramatic introduction of things so early in his second term.

And John, and loinking back to an answer to your first question of one of our first questions, where you said that there's something temporary about all this and that these policy settings might won't outlive the Trump administration. Effectively, I'm wondering whether there might be a point in time, even sooner where things might change, and that's the midterm elections. It's still a little way off. But do you think what potential do you think there is for the Trump a policy approach to be frustrated by the midterms, And is that potentially while we're seeing this really dramatic introduction of things so early in his second term.

Yeah, I think so. I mean, I think the Democrats have a really good chance at least to recapture the House and you know, in twenty twenty six, and that would at least allow them to play defense better. It would allow them to hold hearings to slow things down, you know, like this big tax bill that's probably coming up in the coming weeks. Would be able to block that. So if you control one chamber, you can have a lot of you know, a lot of powerful impact. And frankly, you know, we're at such a unique moment in American history because you know, in a more regular time, there'd be lots of Republicans who are deeply, deeply uncomfortable with Trump's policies, who would be pulling back, they'd be joining Democrats, they'd be trying to create some bipartisans solutions. But they're so terrified of Trump and his base that they are just utterly complicit. And again, it's going to be a great little test between you know, the Trump threat on the one hand, and then going to town hall meetings and having to run out the back door because your constituents think that you're, you know, you're not supporting policies that advance their interests. So you know it's but I do think the Democrats have a reasonably a good chance to win back the House, and I think that allows them to play defense a lot better. But proactively, I mean, they have to develop a positive agenda. They've lost the American people and they need to find a way to develop a coherent, positive agenda that they can push on the campaign trail.

Yeah, I think so. I mean, I think the Democrats have a really good chance at least to recapture the House and you know, in twenty twenty six, and that would at least allow them to play defense better. It would allow them to hold hearings to slow things down, you know, like this big tax bill that's probably coming up in the coming weeks. Would be able to block that. So if you control one chamber, you can have a lot of you know, a lot of powerful impact. And frankly, you know, we're at such a unique moment in American history because you know, in a more regular time, there'd be lots of Republicans who are deeply, deeply uncomfortable with Trump's policies, who would be pulling back, they'd be joining Democrats, they'd be trying to create some bipartisans solutions. But they're so terrified of Trump and his base that they are just utterly complicit. And again, it's going to be a great little test between you know, the Trump threat on the one hand, and then going to town hall meetings and having to run out the back door because your constituents think that you're, you know, you're not supporting policies that advance their interests. So you know it's but I do think the Democrats have a reasonably a good chance to win back the House, and I think that allows them to play defense a lot better. But proactively, I mean, they have to develop a positive agenda. They've lost the American people and they need to find a way to develop a coherent, positive agenda that they can push on the campaign trail.

Yeah. Great to chat to you as always, John. We really appreciate you making the time all the way over there from the US and this time in a bit over twenty five hours. The guessing game will be over when I watch in, when I watch out. But for now, John, the director of the Pol Simon Public Policy Instituted US ire you thanks for joining us this morning here in Australia.

Yeah. Great to chat to you as always, John. We really appreciate you making the time all the way over there from the US and this time in a bit over twenty five hours. The guessing game will be over when I watch in, when I watch out. But for now, John, the director of the Pol Simon Public Policy Instituted US ire you thanks for joining us this morning here in Australia.

My pleasure's fine. Have a great day by mate.

My pleasure's fine. Have a great day by mate.

Cheers,

Cheers,