Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive May 24, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas
Episodes Episode #2866 Segments
MainContent Economics & Finance

Back to episode — Episode 2866 CWSA 06/12/25

Context —

ve enough enriched uranium. Anyway, so the IAEA might lead to some kind of UN Security Council action and there could be some repercussions there but things are heating up and so my question is this. Iran's entire approach is saying oh no we don't want a nuclear weapon. No, no, no. We need all this uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes for medical devices and just ordinary business. But why wo…

← Previous segment →

their insistence that there's going to be totally peaceful non-military work on nuclear? Nobody would do that. Nobody would do that. So they've signaled as strongly as they can that they plan to have nuclear weapons or at least the ability to very quickly have nuclear weapons which would be pretty dangerous on its own.

So given that I think Trump said his optimism about a deal is kind of low right now, we're pretty much guaranteed to have military action, aren't we? The only thing that's a mystery is how much involvement the US might have. But it does look to me like Israel is going to act and maybe the UN action where they're finding them being in non-compliance, maybe that's the trigger. So I wouldn't be surprised if you see some war happening this summer.

Meanwhile, Newsmax is reporting that the US budget deficit fell 9% in May and the reason is that tariffs boosted our revenue. So apparently there would have been a 316 billion dollar budget deficit but it's down 31 billion because of tariffs. All right. I didn't know that tariffs would make a difference. And I think some of these tariffs are temporary, so don't get too excited.

Meanwhile there is allegedly a China trade deal. And so I was looking at the Wall Street Journal to report on what the trade deal is all about and I cannot tell if the trade deal is good or bad for America. Can you? Is there any way to tell if the trade deal is good or bad for America? I mean I look at it and I say, all right, so China is going to loosen up on their rare earth minerals hold back. To which I say, wouldn't that be just going back to where we were, but a little bit worse because there's some kind of limit on it or now we know they can pull it anytime they want. So it's nice to have our rare earth mineral source back, but that didn't put us ahead. That's sort of where we were before.

Then there's we're going to restrict the most advanced AI chips from China, which is where we already were. We're going to allow Chinese student visas so they can go to college in the United States, which is where we were, right? There's nothing new about that. We're just going back to where we were. And then there's something about tariffs, but neither China nor the US seem to be mad about the tariffs they've agreed to, which sort of suggests that we're just going back to where we were.

So can anybody give me an argument about how we came out ahead? Did we come out ahead on anything? Did we get a commitment on fentanyl? No. Even Lutnick didn't try to bluff that. He just changed the subject. Did we get an agreement on the theft of IP? No, not that I'm aware of. And are we going to start reselling them jet engines and ethane, w

Context —

hich is a necessary part of making plastic, I guess. Yes. Which is exactly what it used to be, right? So the Wall Street Journal summarized it as we just are moving back to where we were, but the deal is leaning a little bit in China's direction now. So even our hometown newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, is saying that we came out behind. What do you think? So I'd love to hear an argument where…

Next segment → →