Month: May 2022

Once upon a time–and it wasn’t that long ago–the GOP was operated by and for business interests. Its primary concern was to limit the size, intrusiveness, and cost of government. The record will show that, over the last forty years, it was largely successful.

But that was then, and this is now. Today’s GOP is run by reactionaries, whose principal concern is to hijack government to fight and win culture wars. The GOP now believes in arbitrary interventions in the market in order to accomplish that purpose. It is also a force for instability and unscripted constitutional change, which is even worse for business than high taxes and heavy regulations.

If, as seems likely, the GOP wins control of both houses of Congress in November, a terrifying debt ceiling crisis is likely to result, with all of the risks that brings to investors and business interests. Will that prevent PBPs from supporting Republican candidates in November? Probably not, so don’t feel sorry for them if the inevitable occurs thereafter.

Marco Rubio thinks the tariffs should stay, as they give us leverage with the Chinese. Of course he does! He’s the architect of our unsuccessful attempt to depose Maduro with sanctions, and he still believes in the Cuba embargo. Hey, just because it hasn’t toppled the Cuban regime in its first sixty years doesn’t mean it won’t work tomorrow.

The tariffs are stupid. The cost of them is borne by American consumers, not the Chinese. China isn’t even abiding by the managed trade agreement that was the product of the tariffs. Shooting yourself in the foot does not create leverage.

The only reason Biden hasn’t jettisoned the tariffs by now is that he fears the political repercussions of looking soft on China. Well, how about looking soft on inflation? Why not take advantage of the inflation rate and use it as a pretext to ditch the tariffs? If the GOP wants to talk about being weak on China, he can respond by calling them inflation doves.

It’s an opportunity to make lemonade out of lemons. Let’s hope he takes advantage of it.

Opinion polls consistently show that Americans think their personal financial condition is very good, but that the economy as a whole is terrible. Paul Krugman is struggling to make sense of this apparent contradiction. Can we help him out?

The sense of personal well-being is based on savings and asset prices. The value of homes, in particular, has soared, so if you are an owner, your net worth has gone up substantially. The stimulus has helped, too. You never had it so good.

But opinions regarding the economy as a whole are not based on asset prices, or wage increases, or the low unemployment rate, but on the day-to-day experience with inflation. Most Americans have not been through an inflationary period before, and they don’t like it.

Finally, the media, including left-leaning TV networks, have focused exclusively and simple-mindedly on the evils of inflation. You never hear anything about the low unemployment rate, or on the fact that debtors are actually gaining from inflation. Every day, the story is the same–poor Americans can’t make it with rising prices.

Two items of considerable importance today:

1. Biden announced the creation of a watered-down version of the TPP. Since the significance of the TPP always revolved around its geopolitical, not its economic, impacts, that’s a step in the right direction. How big a step it is remains to be seen, given that agreement on trade rules tends to depend on increasing access to American markets, which has not been promised here. Let’s just hope we don’t have to listen to a lot of unjustified whining about it from the protectionist left.
2. Following a practice that most people would consider unfortunate, Biden got ahead of his skis and said, in response to a question, that America would provide military assistance to Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. The bureaucracy immediately walked that back and announced that American policy on “strategic ambiguity” had not changed. The divergence between Biden and his staff on key foreign policy issues is starting to resemble the one between Trump and his advisers. The difference between the two presidents is that Biden tends to react emotionally and be too honest in response to questions, without really meaning to change American policy, whereas Trump genuinely disagreed with his advisers on many critical issues and said so. So far, the divergence between Biden and his staff does not appear to have done any lasting harm; perhaps it can be used as a form of good cop, bad cop.

There is still no resolution of the Chinese tariff issue, which, in my opinion, has been one of Biden’s greatest failures. More on that tomorrow.

As anyone who has priced the cost of international travel can tell you, airfares for flights to Europe have skyrocketed. There are several reasons for this, none of which have anything to do with the Fed: the failure of the airlines to react in a timely manner to the increased demand following the waning of the pandemic; increased gas prices; and the amount of excess savings generated by pandemic restrictions and the relief bills. What can happen to eliminate the problem?

Nobody borrows money from a bank to finance a vacation. To the extent trips are being financed by balances on credit cards, the interest rates were already so high, any increases will go largely unnoticed. Nothing the Fed can or will do will matter.

The problem will be solved by consumer resistance to the high prices. That’s how we’re handling it.

Ross Douthat argues that the Roe decision divided the country and was a major factor in our current level of polarization. Is he correct?

He has confused cause and effect. Abortion was not a partisan issue when Roe was decided in the 1970s, as evidenced by the fact that the majority consisted primarily of GOP nominees. While opposition to abortion became identified more or less exclusively with the Republican Party in the 1980s, the country was not as polarized then as it is now. It was only when white Christians started to feel threatened– in their own eyes, they were no longer a moral majority–that our politics turned rancid. That was the result of changing attitudes about sex and religion among the young, legal victories for the LGBTQ community, the election of a black president, the evolution of the knowledge economy, to the detriment of white workers, and demographic changes that appeared apocalyptic to a large segment of the white population.

Putin claims that the expansion of NATO drove him to the invasion of Ukraine. Does that even make sense?

Put aside, for the moment, the fact that NATO expansion happened many years ago, without much complaint from the Russian government. The pertinent question is, would it be logical to respond to NATO expansion by invading a country that wasn’t included in the expansion, and had little hope of joining NATO?

Of course not. The invasion had nothing to do with NATO, and everything to do with Putin’s belief that Ukraine is properly part of Russia. He just wanted to be a latter-day Catherine the Great. Alas for him.

Jesus told his followers to turn the other cheek–not to blow their enemies away with assault weapons. The connection between guns and Christianity among American right-wingers is, therefore, more than a little illogical. Why does it persist?

It is a matter of historical accident. White Christian men used guns against the decidedly not Christian Native Americans to win and settle our country. Guns consequently became associated with Jesus, power, and self-reliance. Those are the pillars of today’s GOP.

Viktor Orban has become a conservative icon. Tucker Carlson, among many others, just loves the guy. He’s also Vladimir Putin’s best friend among the heads of state in Europe. He’s currently doing his best to stop the EU from effectively funding Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine.

So why shouldn’t the Democrats connect the dots? Hang the Orban albatross around the neck of every Republican candidate who pledges allegiance to illiberal democracy. Make it clear that Orban, Putin, and the GOP are all on the same side in a global battle over the rule of law and democratic norms.

It may be slightly unfair in some cases, but it’s far less outrageous than GOP complaints that the Democrats are weak on Putin, to say nothing of the persistent allegation that George Soros calls the shots all over the world.

Having argued that the expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe made his Ukraine invasion a matter of national life and death, Putin is now faced with the likelihood of Finnish and Swedish membership. A bogus cause has turned into a real effect. But from the American perspective, is expansion a good idea?

In my opinion, the following criteria should control:

1. Is the applicant country democratic and stable enough to be worth protecting?
2. Does it have the resources and will to carry its weight within the alliance?
3. Is it likely to become a tripwire that could lead to World War III?

Sweden meets all of these standards with room to spare. Finland creates issues with #3, but both the Russian Empire and the USSR had limited strategic objectives there, so the likelihood of a Russian invasion would be relatively low. The Ukrainian request for membership, however, comes with few advantages and immense risk to the alliance. The Ukrainians certainly aspire to a liberal democracy, and have shown the willingness to do whatever it takes to maintain their sovereignty against great odds, but does Ukraine meet the first and third standards? I would say not.

Snyder thinks we should be willing to call out Russian fascism for what it is. Is he right?

Yes. Some years ago, I did an analysis of fascism and applied it to Putin’s Russia. At the time, I argued that Russia was in a gray area between an extreme version of illiberal democracy and fascism, given that Putin was still showing some limited respect for elections and the rule of law. As a result of the war, he has moved out of the gray area. He is a fascist, period. We should not be afraid to say so.

Imagine that you are the leader of a large Third World country. You didn’t approve of Putin’s invasion, but you refused to openly condemn it because you rely on Russian weapons, you have doubts about the reliability of the US, and (ahem) you have some authoritarian leanings yourself.

The problem is that the war is doing your country enormous harm. Food prices are soaring. Capital is leaking out of the country as the US raises interest rates to combat inflation that is related, in part, to the war. Your people are getting desperate, and your hold on power is getting shaky. Something needs to be done.

Wouldn’t it make sense to get together with some of your influential non-aligned friends and demand that Putin end the war? If enough of you join the effort, he won’t be able to ignore you.

Something like this has to happen in the near future unless China is willing to support the war by paying to feed the entire Third World, which seems pretty unlikely.

Notwithstanding its overwhelming advantages in men and firepower, the initial phases of the Soviet attack on Finland were a humiliating disaster. At one point, Hitler even offered to help. The Soviets made adjustments, however, and ultimately crushed the Finnish defenses. Finland didn’t completely lose its sovereignty, but it had to sign a painful peace treaty.

Obviously, this is the scenario that has to concern Ukraine’s friends, even after its initial successes. Thus far, however, it isn’t happening. There are two factors that distinguish this conflict from that one. First, Ukraine is far larger than Finland relative to its opponent; second, it is getting extensive assistance from NATO. The Finns didn’t get any help from anyone.

Will that be enough to dictate a different result? I would say yes, but we’ll see.

C: Do you know why you’re here?

S: To talk about Brandon?

C: I suppose you have one of those flags?

S: You bet! I have a t-shirt, too! I thought about wearing it today, but I figured it would piss you off.

C: You figured right. Am I safe in assuming that you think Biden is the worst president ever, and that Trump would be infinitely better?

S: Absolutely!

C: We’re going to deconstruct that opinion. Where, in your view, has Biden failed the country?

S: Where do I begin? We’ll start with Ukraine. He hasn’t been tough enough on Putin.

C: So says a supporter of the man who called Putin a genius just before he invaded, who openly said he believed Putin over his own intelligence services, and who withheld weapons from Ukraine in an effort to blackmail its president. Biden has sent billions of dollars of weapons to Ukraine.

S: Trump didn’t mean any of that stuff. He just sucked up to Putin in an effort to keep him under control. When Biden stopped doing it, trouble began.

C: So you think appeasing Putin is the way to keep him happy?

S: Only if Trump does it. He’s the only one who can keep him under control.

C: Let’s move on. What else?

S: Afghanistan, man. The way we left there was a disgrace.

C: But Biden was just following an agreement signed by Trump.

S: Trump didn’t mean it. He would have bombed the crap out of those people, and things would have been different.

C: How do you know that? Even assuming that Trump would have broken his own agreement, how would bombing have helped once the Taliban had persuaded the Afghan military to give up?

S: The Taliban would have been too scared of him to challenge him. He’s a bad dude, you know.

C: Yeah, right. What else?

S: Inflation is terrible. We didn’t have that under Trump.

C: How did Biden cause supply chain problems?

S: He and the Democrats spent way too much money. That’s the reason we have inflation.

C: What, like the stimulus payment?

S: Yeah.

C: Do you realize that Trump supported the stimulus?

S: I don’t believe it.

C: It’s true. And would you give yours back in exchange for a slightly lower rate of inflation?

S: Of course not. My stimulus payment wasn’t the problem. It was the payments to the other, undeserving people that caused inflation.

C: This is getting more entertaining by the minute. Anything else?

S: Joe Biden is way too woke. Trump would take care of that.

C: I will admit that a small portion of the Democratic Party is woke, and that Trump definitely isn’t. I would like to know, however, what exactly Biden has done that was woke. He’s an old white guy, after all.

S: He appointed that black woman to the Supreme Court. Trump wouldn’t have done that.

C: Point conceded. However, there would have been no vacancy to fill if Trump were president. Breyer wouldn’t have retired.

S: Biden’s still woke, because his party is. He has to take responsibility for everything his party says and does, because he’s the boss.

C: So, by that standard, Trump is a white Christian nationalist who murders black people in Buffalo and tries to overthrow the elected government.

S: We’re done here.

The Stalin biography that I am currently plowing through also contains a detailed sketch of Hitler’s personality. According to the book, in contrast to the workaholic Russian tyrant, Hitler was lazy. He enjoyed manipulating the people around him and demanded that they suck up to him. He was capricious–or, as he would have put it, flexible in his tactics. He preferred to rely on his own instincts rather than the opinions of experts and the available data. He had an intense belief in his own infinite awesomeness. And, of course, he lied all the time.

Is this ringing any bells?