Month: April 2023

A column in the NYT about a week ago made the case that the Fed’s attempts to reduce inflation by focusing on wage increases constitutes class warfare. The author went on to argue that wage increases aren’t necessarily inflationary, because businesses could choose to accept lower profits instead of raising prices. Does this argument hold water?

Not really. It is true–at least in my opinion–that wage increases are not the principal reason for the current rate of inflation, so I don’t support additional interest rate action by the Fed. However, to the extent that interest rate increases actually do limit inflation in today’s environment, it is largely by reducing asset prices and thereby making affluent consumers feel poor; that doesn’t sound like class warfare to me. As to the second proposition, the events of the past year have proved otherwise; businesses aren’t going to be willing to accept lower profits in the name of the public interest.

If you want to improve the lot of workers without just adding more inflation, it has to be done through the tax system. Period.

Put yourself in Putin’s position. The winter offensive isn’t going particularly well. What do you do now? Should you consider engaging in meaningful negotiations?

At this point, barring a decision from the Chinese to give you more help, your best option is probably to give up fighting on the offensive, hang on to what you have won, and hope that either Trump or DeSantis will hand you the rest of Ukraine on a silver platter in a couple of years. Let’s face it–it could happen.

If you continue with the World War I analogy, Bakhmut looks a lot like Verdun: a gory battle of attrition over a location with limited strategic significance. At this point, it also appears that the result of the battle will be the same: a victory for the defenders.

There is one meaningful difference. I could never figure out why the German General Staff thought attrition was a viable tactic. The Russians, however, have an obvious manpower advantage, so attrition makes some sense.

The GOP would have you believe that paying hush money to cover up discreditable activity that could have an impact on the outcome of an election is not a big deal, so the indictment makes Trump a political martyr, not a criminal. Well, when Richard Nixon did it, wasn’t it considered a big deal, even by many Republicans?

Changing times, changing standards. As I’ve noted before, Nixon would have survived Watergate if Fox News had been in his corner.

If this case goes to trial, I’m sure Trump will insist on testifying in his defense. Cross-examination should be fun.

Several months ago, I predicted that Ian meant the end of the Florida “freedom project,” because it would either force the legislature to raise taxes for a massive insurance company bailout or impose tough new regulations on coastal development. I was wrong, because for once, I underestimated the cynicism of Florida Republicans. They have “solved” the insurance crisis by replacing insurance with the illusion of insurance.

What do I mean by that? Three things. First of all, the new legislation takes much stronger steps to prohibit Florida property owners from buying from the state-owned insurance company: Citizens. This is consistent with the GOP’s desire to avoid “socialism,” but private companies in Florida have a history of refusing to pay valid claims, and still going under. Second, the legislation is clearly designed to shift as much liability as possible from Citizens and the private companies to FEMA. Third, and most importantly, the legislation makes it much more difficult to file and successfully pursue a claim. The new attorney fee provision, in particular, will put desperate homeowners in a weaker position relative to the insurance companies, who will then refuse to pay claims and dare the owners to sue them. Most owners will be in no position to do so and will take whatever crumbs are thrown their way in lieu of the full compensation they deserve.

The idea here is that the private insurance companies will eventually charge less for the mere illusion of insurance, so the affordability crisis will be resolved without tax increases or new land use regulations. The problem is that the companies will be called out in the media on a regular basis for the unscrupulous tactics that the Florida Legislature is clearly encouraging (this is already happening), so the illusion won’t last. In any event, even the illusion of insurance costs lots of money after a huge hurricane, so the companies are still raising their rates. There will be no short-term relief even with the new “reform.”

Do you know who has figured this out? A man who knows a hustle when he sees one–Donald Trump! He is attacking DeSantis for encouraging insurance companies to rip off Floridians.

For once, good for him.

As I’ve noted many times before, the anti-anti-Trumpers agree with most of the man on golf cart’s reactionary agenda, but recoil from his innumerable personal shortcomings. Between 2016 and 2020, therefore, they concentrated on attacking Trump’s enemies instead of defending the man himself. They presumably felt this kept them on the side of both the angels and the militant right.

When a DeSantis candidacy became more and more plausible, they came out openly against Trump in language that wouldn’t be out of place in this blog. But what will they do if Trump wins? How do they unring the bell?

They will just return to AAT mode and hope desperately that Trump and his principal supporters forget what they said in 2023. My reaction? Good luck with that; Trump never forgets a slight.

On the 45th President Trump.

The indictment turned him to a grump.

But there’s irony there

For the base doesn’t care.

It’s DeSantis who’s now in a slump.

Trump is back at Mar-a-Lago, discussing the indictment circus with one of his attorneys.

T: Well, that was a huge success, don’t you think?

A: What do you mean?

T: Look at all of the attention I got! It was like OJ takes NYC!

A: Is that a good thing? Are you really comfortable coming across as a white OJ?

T: Absolutely! DeSantis would kill for that kind of coverage! It reminds everyone that the Republican Party revolves around me. The base loves it, and it’s good for fundraising.

A: Whatever. I’ll leave the politics to you. We need to discuss what comes next, and what doesn’t.

T: OK.

A: First of all, I would advise any other client not to attack the DA, but I know you’re going to do it, so I won’t bother. It doesn’t make that much difference, anyway. That said, there are two things you absolutely cannot do.

T: They are?

A: Don’t attack the judge at your rallies and on social media, and don’t do anything to encourage violence. Both of those things will hurt you in the legal proceeding.

T: I’ll do my best, but I make no promises. The base likes it when I’m on the attack. What happens next?

A: We’ll go after the indictment. We’ll argue that it is legally flawed. That’s the best defense we have. It may or may not work.

T: What else?

A: We’ll ask for a change in venue, but I doubt we’ll get it. You’re the most famous man in the world, and everyone knows about the charges, so getting an impartial jury will be a challenge no matter where we go. Besides, you’re not entitled to a jury of Trump voters. You know that, don’t you?

T: That doesn’t seem fair to me.

A: We may dig into the grand jury proceedings and see if we find anything useful there.

T: OK. Just remember to be as aggressive as possible. That’s my brand.

A: One question we have for you–do you want this to move slowly or quickly? I know you usually do whatever you can to delay legal proceedings, but do you really want a trial during the middle of 2024, as opposed to sometime this year? It’s a political question, not a legal question, so it’s up to you.

T: I’ll think about it. (The attorney leaves)

The first reason–the obvious one–is to discredit and financially damage the heart of the vast right-wing media conspiracy: Fox News. The second one is to make it clear to the general public, and to the Supreme Court, that the New York Times v. Sullivan test can be met in an appropriate case, so there is no need to change the test. A victory for Fox would provide support for the DeSantis theory that the law needs to be revised and ultimately strike a blow to liberal democracy in America.

My guess is that the attorneys for Fox will push desperately for settlement now that the company’s summary judgment motion has been denied. Let’s hope their client can’t be persuaded to make a deal.

Following the latest mass school shooting, I read a number of columns from genuine Christians who argue that prayers are, indeed, useful—both as a source of comfort and an inspiration for action. I accept that reasoning from them.

But, far too often, “thoughts and prayers” is a phrase used by reactionary politicians who use it to deflect criticism from their real, but unspoken, belief that the lives of children are acceptable collateral damage for the greater good of permitting and even expanding gun ownership. These people have zero interest in using “thoughts and prayers” as a motivation for legislative action; they just don’t want to be viewed as the cold-hearted cretins they really are. That is the reason the left usually scoffs at the phrase.

Fast forward to October. The GOP debates have begun. True to form, Trump has been unloading unmercifully on DeSantis, calling him, among other things, an ingrate, a RINO, an establishment figure, and an opportunist. Also true to form, and in deference to the beloved reactionary base, DeSantis has been attempting to rise above the attacks. He occasionally gets in a passive-aggressive jab or two, but mostly he takes the punishment and focuses on Biden and the Democrats.

Does this approach work? Does the reactionaries give DeSantis credit for laying off Trump, or do they just consider him a wimp?

I’m guessing the latter.

Here’s where they stand on fascism:

1. CLs: Ugh! Ugh! We believe in a tiny state and in maximizing freedom. Fascists glorify and increase the size of the state and use it to control every aspect of life in their country. It is the worst possible political system other than communism.
2. CDs: We support the effort to bring back and enforce traditional values, but the cost in freedom isn’t worth it.
3. PBPs: A fascist state has too much arbitrary control over business.
4. Reactionaries: We’re split. Some of us believe our objectives can be accomplished through constitutional means, while others think the only way forward is to burn it down, give power to a despot, and return America to the 1950s. The second group is fascist; the first group is not.

And that, in a nutshell, is the fundamental difference between Trump and DeSantis voters. DeSantis voters want an illiberal democracy; Trump supporters are ready to go full fascist, as evidenced by January 6.

In 1914, Henry Ford increased his employees’ wages to $5 per day, which apparently was the equivalent of about $17 per hour in today’s dollars. He did not, however, jack up the price of a Model T. This was done primarily to reduce employee turnover, but it also had the impact of making it easier for his workers to buy a Model T. It created a virtuous cycle.

Today’s businesses are doing their best to keep wages down, but when labor shortages make that impossible, they increase prices (frequently at a rate higher than their cost increases) in order to maintain their profits. This has the effect of increasing inequality and decreasing the size of their consumer base, which makes them more vulnerable to a recession. It is Ford in reverse, and it won’t end well.

Ron DeSantis hasn’t even announced he’s running for president, much less run any commercials or participated in any debates. And yet, based on the current state of the polls, some commentators are already writing him off. Is that fair?

Absolutely not. It’s way, way too early to draw conclusions like that; for one thing, the polls are all over the map. The one thing DeSantis genuinely has to worry about, however, is the attitude of Fox News. If Rupert Murdoch suddenly decides he’s a loser, he’ll make it up with Trump, and then DeSantis will be in real trouble. He’s not going to win without Fox in his corner.

The Israeli opposition claims to be defending “democracy.” The government, however, insists that making the judiciary more responsive to the electorate is “democratic.” Who is right?

It depends on how precisely you frame the question. If the issue is purely about majority rule, the government is right. The big picture, however, is about protecting minorities and individual rights from government overreaching; in other words, the actual issue is about liberal democracy, not any old kind of democracy. On that point, the opposition has a very strong case; the Netanyahu ideal, much like the Orban and Trump visions, is a government with no meaningful guardrails except occasional elections.