Let's talk about the home page of The New York Times.

As it looks right now:

1. I had thought the Jeffrey Epstein story was running out of energy, but here it is back on the front page and in the top spot. But it's a real estate story: "A Look Inside Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan Lair." As if we're into his mystique!

2. Sharing the top of the page is "How to Break Free From Your Phone" — a generic self-help topic, not news at all. The pretty blue of the sky in the illustration lines up with the blue sky in Jeffrey Epstein's stairwell. The legs of the phoneless woman in the grass chime with the legs of the stairwell woman. Both women grip something tubular — one, a flower stem and the other, a rope. We are reminded that Jeffrey hanged himself — reminded whether he did it or not. 

3. 2 things to angst over: declining school enrollment and a nuclear reactor on the moon.

4. Something that isn't even vaguely surprising — an old bookshelf contained a particular old book. It might be worth $20,000. Who cares!? This is like the news that somebody won the lottery. The winning ticket is rare, but you know it's in the great mass of tickets, and somebody found it.

5. Suddenly, it's time to talk about your intestines. That seems to scream: slow news day.

6. At last, the name Trump appears. Tariff business. The ongoing story. The photo is of immigrants — caption (outside of my screen shot): "Trump’s New Tactic to Separate Immigrant Families."

7. And then, there's Thomas Friedman, supplying the overarching and very high-level-abstract theme: "The America We Knew Is Rapidly Slipping Away." It begins: "Of all the terrible things Donald Trump has said and done as president, the most dangerous one just happened...."

***

Strangely low-level anxiety wafts up from the usual jumble of well-worn topics.

"Formidable economies like the European Union and Japan have abruptly made peace with higher tariffs on their exports, acquiescing to President Trump’s demands...."

"As major economies fall in line to sign agreements that include the highest tariffs in modern history, the president’s vision for global trade is rapidly being realized. That new normal uses America’s economy as leverage, with other countries accepting tariffs of 15 to 20 percent to do business with the United States.... The outcome has seemingly proved Mr. Trump right that his tariff threats are a powerful bargaining tool...."

Writes Ana Swanson, in "Trump Is Winning His Trade War. What Will That Mean for the Economy?/The president’s vision for reshaping global trade is falling into place, but he is embarking on an experiment that economists say could still produce damaging results" (NYT)(free-access link).

They're even submissively adopting his hairstyle:

Once mocked, now emulated.

That's Ursula von der Leyen, the head of the European Commission, enduring the announcement of Trump's victory in the trade war.

"It took just 75 minutes for President Trump to get what he wanted out of the European Union."

"That’s how long he and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen were away from the cameras. When they returned, Trump was triumphant. Europe agreed to buy $750 billion in American energy products, invest $600 billion in new money in the US and purchase additional US military equipment, according to the terms of the preliminary agreement. Tariffs on many American exports will drop to zero. Duties on most European goods coming into the US rise to 15%. 'I think it’s the biggest deal ever made,' Trump proclaimed."

The New York Post reports.

"Remember, Japan is, for the first time ever, OPENING ITS MA[R]KET TO THE USA, even to cars, SUV’s, Trucks, -and everything else, even agriculture and RICE..."

"... which was always a complete NO, NO. The Open Market Japan may be as big a profit factor as the Tariffs themselves, but was only gotten because of the Tariff Power. They also agreed to buy BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF MILITARY AND OTHER EQUIPMENT, and give us 90% of 550 BILLION DOLLARS - AND MORE!!! MAGA!!!"/"Indonesia has also agreed, for the first time ever, to COMPLETELY OPEN ITS MARKET TO THE USA. That’s BIG!!! Our businesses will make a fortune. Likewise Japan!"/"I will always give up Tariff points if I can get major countries to OPEN THEIR MARKETS TO THE USA. Another great power of Tariffs. Without them, it would be impossible to get countries to OPEN UP!!! ALWAYS, ZERO TARIFFS TO AMERICA!!!"/"I WILL ONLY LOWER TARIFFS IF A COUNTRY AGREES TO OPEN ITS MARKET. IF NOT, MUCH HIGHER TARIFFS! Japan’s Markets are now OPEN (for first time ever!). USA BUSINESSES WILL BOOM!"

Writes Trump on Truth Social this morning, here, here, here, and here.

"The U.S. government posted a surplus in June as tariffs gave an extra bump to a sharp increase in receipts, the Treasury Department said Friday."

"With government red ink swelling throughout the year, last month saw a surplus of just over $27 billion, following a $316 billion deficit in May...."

CNBC reports.

Meanwhile, WaPo explains "Why Wall Street is brushing off Trump’s escalating tariff threats/President Donald Trump’s escalating tariff threats have not deterred Wall Street, with the stock market continuing to rise despite trade policy uncertainty" (free access link): "Investors feel free to continue bidding up stock prices because they assume Trump will always back down from his most costly tariff plans, market analysts said. But the president views stocks’ steady rise as a license to intensify his trade threats, acting out the economic policy equivalent of his 2016 quip that he could 'stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody' without paying a price."

"With Taxes and Tariffs in Place, Trump Takes Reins of U.S. Economy President/Trump has achieved much of his agenda, leaving the fate of the economy squarely in his hands."

A surprisingly pro-Trump headline in the NYT, so I guess he really deserves it.

His expensive tax cuts have been signed into law. His steep global tariffs are taking clearer shape. And his twin campaigns to deregulate government and deport immigrants are well underway. With the major components of his agenda now coming into focus, President Trump has already left an indelible mark on the U.S. economy. The triumphs and turbulence that may soon arise will squarely belong to him.

To give him credit is to set him up for blame. 

Not even six months into his second term, Mr. Trump has forged ahead with the grand and potentially disruptive economic experiment that he first previewed during the 2024 campaign. His actions in recent weeks have staked the future of the nation’s finances — and its centuries-old trading relationships — on a belief that many economists’ most dire warnings are wrong.... 

So far, the U.S. economy has remained resilient in the face of these seismic changes....

"But the big picture remains one of surprising resilience — strong job growth, low unemployment and little sign that tariffs and uncertainty have so far derailed the labor market."

That feels like a grudging admission, in "Live Updates: U.S. Hiring Remains Solid, Sign of a Resilient Economy/Employers added 147,000 jobs in June, and the unemployment rate ticked down to 4.1 percent, suggesting that tariffs, interest rates and other headwinds are not yet causing employers to pull back significantly" (NYT).

Did Trump drop those papers out on purpose to make Starmer bend over?

Headline at The Guardian: "Starmer says he picked up Trump’s dropped papers to avoid security scare/UK prime minister says it ‘would not have been good’ for anyone else such as member of media to try to help" ("I mean, look, there weren’t many choices with the documents and picking it up, because... as you probably know there were quite strict rules about who can get close to the president.I mean, seriously, I think if any of you [the media] had stepped forward other than me – I was just deeply conscious that in a situation like it would not have been good for anybody else to have stepped forward, not that any of you rushed to. There’s a very tightly guarded security zone around the president, as you would expect").

Trump is such a master of showmanship... no? Or do you think the paper-dropping was mere happenstance and Starmer was the only one in the Very Tightly Guarded Security Zone who could pick up the papers? The press could have photographed those papers. And no one could expect the President of the United States to pick up what he dropped. He was holding the Very Firmly Bound Leather Folder, and Starmer was the one with his hands free and ready to serve.

"This is, like, utter chaos that Trump started. Utter chaos. I understand that you want to make product in your country, but you also need to trade."

Said Pauline Ridley, the union chairwoman at KB components, quoted in "Canadians Fear Trump’s Tariffs Will Create a ‘Ghost Town’ in Ontario/President Trump’s tariffs on auto parts are already causing job losses in Windsor, Ontario, the heart of an industry that makes components for vehicles bound for the United States" (NYT).

"And what's interesting here is that even people who are skeptical of Trump's tariffs might be in favor of reining in fast fashion for environmental reasons or because they're against overconsumption."

"And you can actually see that playing out online. 'We need to stop filling up our closets and fill up our banks. There's this whole buy less movement.' 'We're not rich enough to afford these tariffs. So let's embrace the idea of under consumption.' 'Maybe we need to start taking responsibility for how much textile waste is in landfills in other countries.' 'Our relationship with consumption is fundamentally unhealthy, and people cannot stop buying stuff.' On TikTok, alongside the massive Shein hauls, you can also see people having conversations about consuming less... and being more intentional about where they're buying things from...."

From today's episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast, "The End of Fast Fashion?" (audio and transcript at Podscribe).

I'm happy to see the NYT devoting some attention to the progressive argument in favor of Trump's tariffs on China.

"President Donald Trump on Thursday will announce a new trade pact with the United Kingdom, the first of dozens of agreements he is seeking with countries around the world."

"In early April, Trump announced tariffs on more than 70 countries worldwide, but he then implemented a 90-day pause to allow for negotiations before they went into effect.... 'It is an agreement in concept. There’s a lot of details to be worked out,' Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on Fox Business. Critics have expressed skepticism of the significance of the 'deals' the White House is attempting to negotiate in strikingly little time. Administration officials have also said not to expect the current 10 percent tariffs on Britain to be removed as part of the trade talks, intensifying doubts about any potential concessions...."

WaPo reports (free-access link). This is the "big news" teased yesterday.

What do we import from the U.K.? — you might wonder. I know I did. According to WaPo, it's mainly "high-end cars" and pharmaceuticals.

Here's the announcement:

"Until now, arguments for limiting consumption have tended to come from the left rather than the right."

"They date back at least to the economist Thorstein Veblen, who, at the start of the twentieth century, wrote acidly about the 'conspicuous consumption' engaged in by grandees of the Gilded Age. More recently, a 'degrowth' movement has emerged, which aims to decrease consumption and to de-prioritize G.D.P. growth on the grounds that they are harmful to the environment and that, in any case, accumulating more 'stuff' doesn’t really increase the well-being of people.This argument depends on two concepts familiar to economists: the diminishing marginal utility of consumption, which is, roughly speaking, the notion that if you already own nineteen dolls, buying a twentieth won’t give you much pleasure, and competitive consumption, or the idea that many people are trapped in an endless cycle of trying to outshine their friends and neighbors with their purchases.... 'Trump, degrowther,' the leftist journalist Doug Henwood commented online last week.... 'What he is doing is fairly unprecedented: explicitly saying that he is willing to pay an economic price in terms of growth in order to protect something else that he thinks is valuable and important,' Daniel Susskind, an economics professor at King’s College London who is the author of the 2024 book 'Growth: A History and a Reckoning' told me...."

Writes John Cassidy, in "Donald Trump Versus Barbie/Can the Administration retain public support for a trade policy that could force Americans to buy less stuff?" (The New Yorker).

Why don't the anti-consumption lefties embrace Trump? 

My first reaction to Trump's "Maybe the children will have 2 dolls instead of 30" was: "This reminds me of what those on the left used to say to us

"The tariffs have made it impossible for Mr. Liu to continue selling on Amazon, where he previously made about $1 on every garment but now just 50 cents."

"And he felt he could not cut his employees’ pay, Mr. Liu said, as workers at a labor market crowded past his motorbike, which he had parked on the sidewalk with a dress sample draped over the handlebars. 'You can’t sell anything to the United States right now,' Mr. Liu said. 'The tariffs are too high.'"

From "China’s Garment Factories Face a Tipping Point After New Tariffs/As a U.S. tax loophole ends, the apparel makers that sell to America are forced to consider alternative markets or cheaper locations in and outside China" (NYT).

"The client, a townhouse owner in Williamsburg, had a vision of a rooftop greenhouse for morning yoga and coffee."

"Dankman had been hired on in January and the initial estimate for the project was around $55,000 — $40,000 for materials alone. But by the time he started placing aluminum orders in April, Trump had kicked off his chaotic tariff spree, and the cost of materials jumped to almost $50,000. This is a tricky thing to have to tell someone, even if that someone has the sort of funds to build a yoga gazebo on their roof. 'Some of our clients are understanding the situation; some of them are just expecting us to eat the cost,' says Dankman...."

I'm reading "How to Tell a Client Their Yoga Gazebo Just Got $10,000 More Expensive/Navigating the tariffs on high-end renovation projects" (NY Magazine).

A rooftop greenhouse for morning yoga and coffee.... yes, this is exactly the point at which I'm going to start caring about the tariffs.

I almost started caring a few days ago when I heard a story about a young woman who ordered 4 dresses because they only cost $8 each and might later cost $12 each. 

Are these tariff empathy stories trying to get us not to care?

Maybe you have enough toys.

I'm trying to read "Trump, on Tariffs, Says ‘Maybe the Children Will Have 2 Dolls Instead of 30’/At the end of a cabinet meeting, the president allowed for the possibility that trade war could disrupt supply chains" (NYT).

This reminds me of what those on the left used to say to us around the theme of global warming: We have too much stuff already. We should think small. Less plastic. Consume less. Lighten your carbon footprint. 

The NYT writer, Shawn McCreesh, is offended that ordinary people are asked to do with less by "the billionaire, crypto-salesman, golf-club-operating, Palm Beach-by-way-of-Fifth Avenue president with the golden office and the golden triplex apartment."

Reminds me of how righties would criticize the experts and celebrities for living in mansions and flying halfway around the world in private jets to hobnob at climate change conventions.

"The single worst thing I think this White House could do politically is what they are doing, right?"

"Creating a causal relationship between their signature economic policy and prices going up. And so if... we do see that inflation or we do have a recession... this White House will be blamed... And that creates the perfect conditions for Democrats to have a good midterms and feel good about 2028. And that's nothing to do with their own vision.... Right now, it seems like the chaos, they're kind of used to. Donald Trump up against his usual enemies. And I think there is some leeway — for art of the deal... negotiation, things like that. But the guy who says he'll eat a rat for Donald Trump is the exception. If those prices increase, the only person who will be blamed for that is the president. And if you're a Democrat, that's the best thing that could happen for the prospect of the party returning the power, right?"

Said Astead W. Herndon, in "Do Trump Voters Like His Tariffs? We Went to Michigan to Find Out," today's episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast.

Was there a guy who said he'd eat a rat for Donald Trump? There was a guy who said he wouldn't care if prices go up, that he would "survive," "adapt," and: "I'm the kind of guy that'll, if I'm starving, I'll eat a rat. I'll eat cockroach. I'm a survivalist." I wouldn't say that's eating a rat for Donald Trump. It's eating a rat for himself — to survive. The implication is that he's self-reliant. He doesn't look to the government to solve his problems. The podcast made it sound like a "Fear Factor" challenge or a sick devotion to Donald Trump, the man. 

Anyway, I'm trying to highlight the idea that — on the tariff issue — those who are rooting for the Democrats seem to think their best strategy is to do nothing but hope for inflation and recession: "That's the best thing that could happen for the prospect of the party returning the power, right?"

“Let those peasants in the United States wail in front of the 5,000 years of Chinese civilization."

"The Chinese people do not cause trouble, nor are they afraid of trouble. Pressure, threats and blackmail are not the right way to deal with China."

Said "a top Chinese official," quoted in "China fumes ‘peasants in the US’ will suffer as country issues stark warning on Trump’s ‘shameless’ tariff war" (NY Post).

Camera time for Geraldo: "This is why Trump is triumphant!... That charisma is unbelievable! I could sing his praises forever. I wonder, if the markets were down, if I would be singing the same tune. I hope so...."

🚨NEW: Geraldo Rivera heaps praise on Trump over "BRILLIANT" tariff moves🚨

"I believe that he ambushed China ... I just think he wants the best possible deal he can get the United States of America. God bless him for that. That's why people really dig the guy. That's why he's… pic.twitter.com/IU2zwTvD2g

— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) April 9, 2025

When things go well, let loose with your Trump-is-a-genius tirade. 

Prompt I gave Grok this morning: "Write an essay 'On Gloating.'"

I don't like to quote A.I., because I don't think people want to consume material that didn't originate in a human mind, but some human-generated material is insipid — I can live without the emanations of the mind of Rivera — and my non-human companion brought up Shakespeare (and Napoleon), so I'm making an exception to quote 3 sentences:

"In literature and history, gloating often serves as a cautionary trope. Shakespeare’s Iago gloats over his manipulations in Othello, only to meet a grim fate. Victorious generals who boasted excessively, like Napoleon at the height of his power, often found their hubris prelude to downfall."

Remember, all gloating is pre-gloating. You could end up in a montage over which your enemies gloat:

"President Trump on Wednesday said he would pause his reciprocal tariffs for most countries for the next 90 days, backing down on his policy..."

"... that had sent markets into a tailspin and threatened to upend global trade. But Mr. Trump said his break did not include China....  Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the tariff level would be brought down to a universal 10 percent.... The reversal, which immediately prompted the S&P 500 to climb over 7 percent in a matter of minutes.... Treasury Secretary Bessent reiterated that the pause indicated that Trump cared about trade and wanted to make 'bespoke' trade deals with countries that were willing to lower barriers. Bessent also argued that Trump 'goaded' China into showing that they were the 'bad actors.'... ... Bessent tried to spin the pause as part of Trump’s strategy and not a capitulation, saying that the tariffs had worked to get some of China’s closest neighbors to seek deals with the United States. 'Do not retaliate, and you will be rewarded,' he said...."

The NYT reports.

"The fallout from the trade disruption will hurt the United States, which relies on China for all sorts of manufactured goods, but will do more damage to China..."

"... aid Wang Yuesheng, the director of the Institute of International Economics at Peking University. 'The impact on China is mainly that Chinese products have nowhere to go,' Mr. Wang said. That will ravage export-oriented companies making things like furniture, clothing, toys and home appliances along China’s eastern seaboard, which largely exist to serve American consumers. 'These companies will be hit very hard,' Mr. Wang said.... Beijing’s strategy now is to push back at the United States and hope that Mr. Trump succumbs to domestic pressure to reverse course, said Evan Medeiros, a professor of Asian studies at Georgetown University who served as an Asia adviser to President Barack Obama. 'They know that if they give in to pressure they will get more pressure,' he said. 'They will resist it with the belief that China can withstand more pain than they can.'"

I'm reading "For U.S. and China, a Risky Game of Chicken With No Off-Ramp in Sight/Neither side wants to look weak by backing down on tariffs. But if their trade relationship collapses, the global consequences could be profound" (NYT).

The off-ramp is free trade!

Until then, it's a test of who "can withstand more pain." I can see thinking Americans will give up first, but the pain is worse for China. They have all this junk they made for us — furniture, clothing, toys and home appliances — and we'd just be saving money and going without a lot of extra items we might be better off without — all that "fast fashion," all the plastic toys, all the home redecorating madness. We may even learn that life is better without so many cheap consumer goods. Less waste. Less damage to our soul from the slave labor.

They need to break before we learn to live without them. But if they don't, we pocket in the money from the tariffs.

Why aren't progressives on Trump's side here?