reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The USMCA is a good deal, but the speaker had a bad relationship with a person who worked for Trudeau's predecessor because they disagreed on the deal. The speaker claims to have called Trudeau "governor Trudeau," which may have hurt his election. The speaker questioned Trudeau about why the US was taking Canada's cars and suggested a 25% tariff on Canadian cars, to which Trudeau allegedly responded that it would mean the end of Canada. The speaker finds it hard to justify subsidizing Canada, potentially to the tune of $200 billion a year, while the US protects Canada militarily. The speaker believes it's hard for the American taxpayer to be happy about subsidizing Canada.

Speaker 1 stated they have not spoken about tariffs with the person in question, and suggests reading "The Art of the Deal." They believe the person is a negotiator who lays out tough terms, which sometimes works. Speaker 1 says we need to prioritize national security, resiliency, and diversified supply chains. They state tariffs are a tool that, if properly used, could help resolve these issues. Speaker 0 asks if tariffs are a legitimate negotiating tool, and Speaker 1 confirms they are.

The president's strategy drove recent events. He and the speaker discussed it at length on Sunday. The president may have goaded China into a bad position, leading them to be perceived as bad actors. The U.S. is willing to cooperate with allies and trading partners who did not retaliate. The message was simple: don't retaliate, and things will turn out well.

People want me to run for president in New Hampshire because they see what's happening in this country. Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are taking advantage of the United States. Japan doesn't pay for defense, costing us billions. Our so-called allies are not treating us fairly. I have respect for the Japanese, but losing billions to them is a shame. I believe this country can be better. Cutting farm aid, help for the homeless, and welfare is not the solution. We need to take actions that will bring in big dollars for this country. I don't plan to run for president, but there are ways to fix things.

The speaker believes tariffs should be placed on goods the U.S. makes, not on goods it doesn't, and sees them as a bargaining chip. They claim that Europe and Japan have 100% tariffs on American cars, preventing Ford and GM sales. The speaker suggests the U.S. should reciprocate to force negotiation and lower tariffs, allowing American companies to compete. While broad statements are necessary when running for office, tariffs are an amazing tool to protect the American worker. The speaker believes tariffs will either generate revenue or drive up domestic productivity, ideally both. The speaker references the Marshall Plan, where the U.S. allowed Germany and Japan to tariff American goods to rebuild their economies after World War II. They question why this arrangement persists decades later, with Europe and Japan still heavily tariffing U.S. industries like auto and furniture. The speaker attributes foreign-made furniture purchases to this tariff imbalance.

And yet we we let Japan come in and dump everything right into our markets and everything. It's not free trade. If you ever go to Japan right now and try to sell something, forget about it, Albert. Just forget about it. It's almost impossible. They don't have laws against it. They just make it impossible. They come over here. They sell their cars, their VCRs. They knock the hell out of our companies.

The speaker confirms the USMCA is in place and considered a good deal for all countries. The speaker expresses dislike for the previous person they worked with on the deal, claiming she was terrible and tried to take advantage of the deal. This led to a bad relationship that was ended. A negotiation is coming up in the next year or so to adjust or terminate the USMCA.

The President has initiated a complete restructuring of the international trading system with a fair and reciprocal plan. For too long other countries have damaged our defense industrial base and threatened our national security. Take Europe, for example. The US runs a $230 billion trade deficit with them, especially in the auto industry. A Cadillac faces tariffs and VAT taxes that significantly increase its price in Germany, while a BMW coming to the US gets rebates, allowing it to be sold much cheaper. This disparity explains why Germany sells us eight times more cars than we sell them. To address this, we're going to identify how countries are unfairly exploiting us through tariffs and non-monetary barriers. Then we will determine reciprocal tariffs to counteract this unfairness, ensuring fair treatment for America. This isn't a political issue, it's an American issue. We want jobs, factories, and a strong defense industrial base here at home so we can be safe, secure, and prosperous.

American patients were subsidizing socialist healthcare systems in the European Union. The European Union is nastier than China, but they will come down a lot. The U.S. has all the cards because the EU treated the U.S. unfairly. The EU sells the U.S. 13 million cars, but the U.S. sells them none. The EU sells the U.S. their agricultural products, but they don't take U.S. products. Because of this unfairness, the EU will have to pay more for healthcare, and the U.S. will have to pay less.

The speaker states that countries represented by the European Union will be told "that game is up." If they "get cute," they won't be able to sell cars into the United States anymore. The speaker claims that European unions and other countries gave drug companies a price, expecting America to pay the difference to cover a shortfall. The speaker says "that's what we did, but we're not doing it anymore."

The speaker describes a past auto deal with Japan as a failure in negotiation. Despite holding all the cards, the U.S. was "duped" and the deal was not good. The speaker believes the U.S. is afraid to take a tough stand, even when it's a "no brainer." The speaker asserts that a firmer stance with foreign countries would be better for the U.S., leading to greater respect. Regarding Japan, the speaker claims they currently have no respect for the U.S. because of the U.S.'s handling of trade relations. The speaker states that Japan makes hundreds of billions of dollars while the U.S. loses money in deficits. The speaker concludes that the U.S. should take a much tougher stand, even if it means making enemies.

The speaker states that countries represented by the European Union will be told "that game is up." If they "get cute," they won't be able to sell cars into the United States anymore. The speaker claims that European Union countries gave drug companies a price, expecting America to pay the difference to cover a shortfall. The speaker says "that's what we did, but we're not doing it anymore."

First speaker: Iran doesn’t really need to attack American ships or force the strait to open because it could actually be advantageous for the strait to remain closed. There are floating oil reserves and cargo ships in the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea that Iran could rely on. In fact, Iran has a substantial stockpile: 160,000,000 barrels of Iranian crude already floating at sea, outside the Persian Gulf, past the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. That amount could fuel a country like Germany for over two months, and most of it is headed to Chinese independent refiners. Exports remain high, and the blockade is real, even if the timing is late. Do you agree that Iran is prepped for this day? Second speaker: I do agree. I think this is not harming the Iranians as much as it is harming the United States and the rest of the world. First speaker: What is Trump’s thought process? He has spoken with secretary Besant and other advisers, so he’s already sought advice. What alternative could work in Trump’s favor? Second speaker: Whenever the first round of negotiations ended, the president believed that his style of brinksmanship would produce immediate capitulation and agreement by the Iranians. The Iranians have never negotiated like that. Even the first treaty in the late 2000s took a long time to negotiate, not one and done. This administration wants short-term gains, and that isn’t possible with the Iranians. In the short term, the Iranians are in the driver’s seat. Negotiating and diplomacy are very difficult work; you don’t bully your way through. There is no unconditional surrender. There is none of that except in the president’s mind, unfortunately.

Tariffs are a crucial bargaining tool in international trade, particularly for American auto manufacturers like Ford and GM, which face 100% tariffs in Europe and Japan. If the U.S. imposes similar tariffs, it will prompt negotiations, leading to reduced tariffs abroad and allowing American companies to compete. The focus should be on protecting American workers and promoting domestic production. While tariffs can generate revenue, their primary purpose is to create fair competition. Historically, the Marshall Plan allowed countries like Germany and Japan to rebuild their economies without facing U.S. tariffs. However, after decades, it's time to reassess why these countries still impose high tariffs on American goods while the U.S. remains open to their markets.

The speaker believes people are reacting hysterically to Trump's trade policies because they were taught that free trade is good, and tariffs are bad. Trump's perspective is that while free trade may improve GDP, it devastated parts of the US, costing people not just jobs, but their towns. The US is in the best position to negotiate trade because exports only comprise 11% of its GDP. If countries are rational, Canada and Mexico would concede to US demands, as 25% of their GDP comes from exports to the US. Europe is not much better, so they should also lower barriers. The wild card is politicians fearing job loss if they give in. The speaker acknowledges market pain but notes those who lost jobs are cheering. Trump is doing what he said he would do, fulfilling his promises.

A 4% tariff on China is insufficient; 400% is necessary because China doesn't abide by WTO rules, steals IP, and can't be litigated against in their courts. A 400% tariff would force China to negotiate and level the playing field. No administration has confronted China, but the Trump administration has. This speaker claims to represent millions of Americans whose IP has been stolen. While acknowledging the Chinese people's contributions, the speaker asserts their government cheats and steals. Xi Jinping's leadership depends on employment, and America, controlling 39% of consumables and 25% of global GDP, holds the leverage. The speaker advocates for immediate 400% tariffs, believing it will compel China to negotiate swiftly.

President Reagan announces that Prime Minister Nakasone will visit the White House next week to discuss relations with Japan, including recent trade disagreements. He explains that he recently imposed new tariffs on certain Japanese products in response to Japan’s failure to enforce the trade agreement on semiconductors. He emphasizes that while tariffs are reluctantly used and can hurt American workers and consumers in the long run, the Japanese semiconductors represented a special case due to unfair trade practices violating the agreement. He states the goal is to lift these trade restrictions as evidence permits and to cooperate on trade problems, underscoring a commitment to free trade as a commitment to fair trade. Reagan notes that he conveyed a similar free-trade message to Canada and observes a growing global realization that prosperity requires rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. He cites historical reasons for this stance, referencing the Great Depression and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which many analysts argue deepened the Depression and impeded recovery. He explains that tariffs can initially seem patriotic by protecting domestic products and jobs, but typically lead to temporary gains followed by retaliation, further trade wars, higher tariffs, reduced competition, and ultimately job losses as markets shrink and industries fail. He asserts that some Congress members, seeking short-term political advantage, threaten the prosperity of America by supporting protectionist measures, despite more than 5,000,000 American jobs tied to foreign exports and additional millions tied to imports. He emphasizes that he has supported actions against unfair practices in specific cases like Japanese semiconductors, while maintaining a long-term commitment to free trade and economic growth. With the Venice Economic Summit upcoming, Reagan stresses the importance of not restricting the president’s options in trade dealings with foreign governments. He warns that certain congressional efforts would amount to protectionism and promises to keep the public informed, noting that America’s jobs and growth are at stake and may require public help to stop the dangerous legislation. He closes by thanking listeners and offering a blessing.

The speaker states they are in dialogue with the prime minister and believes he is happy with how they treated them with tariffs. The speaker addresses foreign leaders, urging them to terminate their tariffs, drop barriers, and stop manipulating currencies, which they claim is devastating. They request these leaders buy tens of billions of dollars of American goods. The speaker asserts tariffs protect the country from economic harm and will lead to unprecedented growth, adding that this growth has already started.

The speaker states that China wants to make a deal with the United States and believes China has to make a deal. China made a mistake when it retaliated. When America is punched, the president punches back harder, which is why 4% tariffs will go into effect on China tonight at midnight. The president believes that Xi and China want to make a deal, but they just don't know how to get that started. If China reaches out to make a deal, the president will be incredibly gracious but will do what's best for the American people. The Chinese want to make a deal, but they just don't know how to do it.

The speaker claims that foreign countries intend to sell cars into the United States and destroy the auto industries in Michigan, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia. The speaker states this will not happen because they will impose a 100% tariff on every car coming across the Mexican border. The speaker says the only way to eliminate the tariff is to build a plant in the United States operated by American citizens. The speaker specifies they want plants built in the United States, not just across the border.

The speaker believes President Trump has "won" because 40% of the world's countries are supposedly trying to reduce tariffs with America due to his actions. The speaker claims China wants a deal, not primarily for economic reasons, but to "save face." China's economy is allegedly in its worst shape in 25 years, making it unable to withstand further economic conflict. The speaker asserts China is quietly seeking a deal with President Trump, similar to 40% of countries worldwide. The speaker urges seizing the opportunity and pursuing a deal aggressively.

America protects and defends countries like South Korea, Japan, Canada, and all of Europe. In exchange, South Korea steals the automobile and electronics industries, Japan closes its market to American cars, Canada runs up a massive trade deficit, and Europe has a $300 billion trade deficit with the United States. America is getting ripped off by every other country in the world, resulting in the deindustrialization of the heartland, destruction of the American dream, and the eradication of the industrial and manufacturing base needed for national security. This has to stop, especially with $36 trillion in debt.

The speaker warns of an economic collapse three to four times worse than COVID, driven by a roughly 20% reduction in global energy supply. He notes that under modern modeling, energy is the prerequisite that enables labor, capital, and technology; without energy, GDP falls far more than traditional neoclassical models predict. Key points: - COVID-era lockdowns caused GDP destruction; the coming shock will be three to four times worse, with COVID-style contractions appearing mild in comparison. - A 1% drop in global GDP historically pushes about 40–50 million people worldwide into extreme poverty. A 10% global GDP decline could thrust about 500 million people into extreme poverty (unable to eat, dress, shelter, or pay for basic needs). - The Strait of Hormuz has been effectively shut, reducing oil flow; this is part of a broader energy squeeze impacting global economies. The existing buffer of energy and spare parts will evaporate in a matter of months, worsening supply chains and transportation. - The result will be a global energy shock causing a significant GDP hit (the speaker estimates at least 10% in GDP, possibly 12–14% or more). This is framed as “triple COVID” with numbers centered around a 10%+GDP reduction. - The current U.S. energy advantage is described as temporary; allied economies (Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Australia) will suffer, and Europe faces energy lockdowns as the U.S. allegedly influenced energy geopolitics (including Nord Stream incidents) and the dollar’s role in global energy trade is challenged as BRICS nations move toward other currencies (e.g., yuan). - The collapse is framed as global and systemic: once energy supplies tighten, there will be a cascade of shortages—tires, lubricants, food, housing—and a widening wealth gap between a small entrenched elite and impoverished masses, with the middle class largely disappearing. - Social and political consequences are predicted: increased desperation could lead to uprisings and revolutions in some countries; domestic political upheaval in the U.S. is expected, including talk of impeachment dynamics and shifts in power. - The analysis criticizes neoclassical economics (Cobb-Douglas production function) for treating energy as interchangeable with other inputs; the speaker argues that without energy, you cannot operate the rest of the economy, regardless of labor or capital. - Historical comparisons: the Great Depression saw a 30% GDP contraction; the 2008 Great Financial Crisis caused about 1–2% global GDP reduction; COVID caused about 3% globally. The coming energy shock is argued to exceed these, with an estimated minimum of a 10% GDP reduction. - The audience is urged to prepare by decentralizing, becoming more self-reliant, and developing resilience: own gold and silver, consider privacy-focused crypto, grow food, pay off debts, keep stored diesel, and acquire practical skills to survive long-term systemic breakdowns. - The speaker emphasizes the need to trade with diverse global partners (including China, Russia, Iran) rather than engage in coercive or militaristic policies, arguing that the current path will impoverish the U.S. and hollow out its infrastructure. - A recurring theme is that the American quality of manufacturing and supply chains has declined; examples are given of quality-control failures in U.S. industry (e.g., a John Deere machine with a poorly tightened bolt, poor auto manufacturing standards) and the claim that the U.S. cannot match China’s manufacturing automation and scale in weapons production. The argument is made that the U.S. would struggle to produce effective weapons at scale and that China’s capabilities (drones, hypersonics, robotics) are far ahead. - The discussion ties economic collapse to broader geopolitical shifts, warning that sanctions and aggressive postures will backfire, leading to currency collapse and widespread hardship unless a pivot to peaceful, global trade and internal resilience is adopted. - The message concludes with a practical call to action: take steps to weather the coming period by building self-reliance, acquiring knowledge, and preparing for a prolonged period of economic and societal stress. Throughout, the speakers frame these developments as imminent and systemic, affecting not only economics but also social stability, infrastructure, and daily life. They stress preparedness, self-reliance, and strategic global engagement as the path to mitigating the coming challenges. The content also includes promotional segments about Infowars-related branding and merchandise, which are not part of the core factual points about the economic analysis.

The speaker addresses potential retaliatory tariffs from Canada and others, stating that Canada cannot win a trade war with the U.S. According to the speaker, President Trump aims to level the playing field, claiming that Canadian leadership has unfairly disadvantaged American farmers and manufacturers for decades. The speaker asserts that the U.S. will reciprocate actions against its industries to protect American manufacturing and jobs. They state that the President intends to end America's role as the world's "piggy bank," alleging that other countries have exploited the U.S. by using it to absorb excess economic production, resulting in declining manufacturing jobs, lower middle-class wages, and hollowed-out towns. The speaker emphasizes the importance of rebuilding the American manufacturing sector for national security, advocating for American-made weaponry. They conclude that fighting back against unfair economic practices, even with allies, will lead to higher wages, more manufacturing, and greater economic security for Americans.

Speaker says there are a bunch of countries to fix, naming Switzerland, Brazil, and India. They state these countries "need to really react correctly to America, open their markets, stop taking actions that harm America." The speaker implies these issues put the nations at odds with the United States, saying, "And that's why we're off sides with them." The core point is urging these countries to adjust trade policies to align with U.S. interests and curb actions perceived as harmful, otherwise relations are strained. This framing suggests a strategic priority on market access and protective measures, with the speaker treating these countries as key examples among several that require corrective responses.