Tariffs, State Banks, and the Key to Economic Growth Without Stagnation

Rethinking Tariffs: Protectionism or Strategy?

Few economic topics provoke as much debate as tariffs. Critics warn they lead to stagnation, shielding domestic industries from competition until they become inefficient and complacent. Proponents argue that tariffs are necessary to level the playing field against unfair competition, such as nations that exploit cheap labor, weak environmental laws, and heavy subsidies.

But history shows that tariffs, when applied correctly, are not synonymous with protectionism. Instead, they are a strategic tool—one that nations from Hamilton’s America to modern China have used to develop strong industrial bases.

However, tariffs alone are not enough. If an economy imposes tariffs without ensuring capital flows into productive businesses, stagnation becomes a real risk. The missing piece? State banks.

State-owned banks, like the Bank of North Dakota (BND), ensure that capital stays in the economy instead of accumulating in corporate monopolies or speculative Wall Street ventures. They can fund innovation, small manufacturers, and technological development, preventing industries from simply coasting behind tariff barriers.

In short: Tariffs protect, but state banks keep the economy dynamic.

Beyond Christendom: Brownson, Vatican II, and the Path to a Catholic Republic

A Traditionalist with Political Realism

Orestes Brownson was one of the most important Catholic intellectuals in 19th-century America, a forceful writer who defended both the Magisterium of the Church and the principles of the American political system. A former Transcendentalist who converted to Catholicism in 1844, Brownson brought philosophical depth and historical perspective to the Catholic cause in the United States. He was a staunch traditionalist in faith, upholding the teachings of the Church against secularism and Protestant influences, yet he also rejected the idea that a confessional state—where Church and government are merged—was the ideal political arrangement.

Brownson argued that Catholicism should shape society, but not through a theocratic government. Instead, he saw America’s constitutional system as a practical safeguard for religious freedom. In his influential work The American Republic (1865), he wrote:

“The Church is not dependent on the state, nor the state on the Church; and yet both are in the divine order and must work together in harmony… But their harmony is not that of fusion or identity; it is the harmony of mutual independence and cooperation.”

He recognized the dangers of government control over religion, warning that it could lead to political corruption, spiritual complacency, and a weakened laity. He pointed to historical examples where state power over the Church resulted in compromises of doctrine, and where clergy, entangled in politics, became mere tools of the ruling authorities. Brownson wrote:

“A Church allied with the state becomes subservient to political ends, losing its spiritual mission in the struggle for power.”

At the same time, he rejected secularism and anti-Catholic liberalism, arguing that religion must inform public life and that a nation without moral principles would ultimately collapse. He believed that the American experiment could succeed only if rooted in a Christian moral order, warning:

“Liberty divorced from religion is license, and democracy without Christian virtue is the path to tyranny.”

While many Catholic thinkers of his time struggled with how to reconcile their faith with American republicanism, Brownson saw in the U.S. Constitution a model that could protect religious truth without state interference. His vision—both critical and appreciative of the American system—was prophetic, foreseeing the challenges that modern secularism would pose to Catholic life in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Many modern Traditionalist Catholics correctly defend dogmatic theology and the sacred liturgy, but they often lack historical perspective when it comes to political developments. Their criticisms of religious liberty frequently create a straw man argument, failing to recognize that both Brownson and Vatican II advocated a Catholic engagement with society that was neither secularist nor theocratic. If Traditionalists read Brownson alongside Dignitatis Humanae (1965), they would see the logic and consistency of this approach.

From Space Race to Energy Chase: China Speeds Ahead While the U.S. Stalls

 

A New Nuclear Revolution Is Coming—But Will It Be Made in America?

In the 1950s, the United States and the Soviet Union raced to the moon, each desperate to plant their flag in history. Today, an even bigger race is happening—not for space, but for the future of energy. And this time, America isn’t in the lead.

While the U.S. government debates nuclear regulations and struggles with red tape, China is on track to deploy a revolutionary new reactor by 2030—one that could make nuclear energy safer, cleaner, and more abundant than ever before.

This isn’t just about electricity. Whoever controls this technology will dominate the global energy economy for the next 100 years.

And right now, it looks like China will get there first.

---

What’s So Special About This Reactor?

China is investing heavily in Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs), a next-generation nuclear technology that fixes the biggest problems with today’s reactors.

🔹 No Meltdowns: Unlike conventional nuclear plants, MSRs can’t melt down—they’re designed to shut down safely even in extreme scenarios.

🔹 Runs on Thorium, Not Uranium: Thorium is three times more abundant than uranium, meaning we won’t have to rely on expensive, geopolitically sensitive uranium supplies.

🔹 Minimal Nuclear Waste: MSRs produce only a fraction of the long-lived radioactive waste created by today’s reactors.

🔹 Super Efficient: They run at higher temperatures, converting more energy into electricity with less fuel.

China is already operating a small experimental MSR, and it plans to launch a full-scale commercial version by 2030. If successful, this could change the global energy game forever—and leave the U.S. playing catch-up.

---

So Why Isn’t the U.S. Leading the Charge?

The U.S. actually pioneered this technology—way back in the 1960s. Scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory built a working MSR, proving the concept was viable.

Then the project was shut down.

Why? Politics, uranium industry lobbying, and short-term thinking.

🔹 The U.S. was focused on building nuclear weapons, and traditional uranium reactors were better suited for making bomb material.

🔹 Regulations froze innovation—new reactor designs have to go through years of red tape, making it nearly impossible to bring something new to market.

🔹 Big energy companies saw no reason to change—they were making plenty of money off existing nuclear technology.

The result? The U.S. shelved MSRs, while China picked up the torch.

---

Can America Catch Up?

The good news? It’s not too late.

The key to making MSRs commercially viable is solving their last big technical hurdle: material durability.

These reactors run on hot, liquid salt, which corrodes most traditional reactor materials over time. But new advances in Silicon Carbide (SiC) piping and diamond-like reactor materials could be the game-changer we need.

🔹 SiC pipes don’t corrode in molten salt and can even self-heal microcracks under extreme heat—making reactors last longer with less maintenance.

🔹 Diamond-like coatings on reactor walls and fuel containers could resist radiation damage and extreme temperatures, extending reactor lifespan.

These innovations could make MSRs ready for mass deployment—but only if the U.S. commits to building them.

---

The Clock Is Ticking

China is moving fast, and if they commercialize MSRs first, they will own the global energy future—just like the U.S. dominated oil production in the 20th century.

This isn’t just about energy independence. It’s about who sets the rules for the next era of nuclear power.

The U.S. has the talent, the technology, and the history to take back the lead. But will we act before it’s too late?

The space race was about getting to the moon. The energy race is about controlling the power that will fuel the next century.

Will America lead? Or will we watch as China takes the prize?