Month: February 2024

One of the great mysteries of life in America in 2024 is why the public thinks the economy sucks, when it obviously doesn’t. Part of it, of course, is the unpleasant novelty of inflation. Is there more to it than that?

Consider the following examples:

Exhibit A is a relatively affluent retiree. He has done well in the Biden years. His house is worth almost twice what he paid for it. His investment portfolio has done well, too. His net worth is far higher than it was in 2020. His Social Security payments were protected from inflation by a COLA. His life is good.

But he is a Trump voter for culture war reasons. He gives Biden no credit for the increase in his net worth, which is actually a reasonable conclusion, since the federal government had little or nothing to do with the soaring value of his house. In addition, he experiences higher gas and grocery prices every day, while the increased value of his investments is just background music to him. As a result, even though he has done well in the Biden economy, he thinks it sucks.

Exhibit B is a young minimum wage worker. In the early Biden days, she did well, as a result of the stimulus and the expanded welfare state. Then inflation took off, and her real income went down, even though she found a better job with significantly higher wages. Today, her real wages are going up, but she is still struggling with the effects of past inflation–most notably, higher housing costs. She thinks the economy sucks, too.

Unlike our affluent retiree, our young worker experiences higher housing prices on a daily basis. She blames Biden for this, even though he had nothing to do with it. Housing prices are a function of increased demand for space arising from the pandemic and supply restrictions caused by local and state government regulation and shortages of labor and materials.

What is the message here? Biden is losing the public relations battle on the economy for reasons he cannot control. His only hope is that people get used to the new status quo on prices, see that Trump will only make matters worse, and vote accordingly.

I have about as much chance of interviewing Xi Jinping as I do of being the next quarterback of the Chiefs. But if I did, it would run something like this:

C: Thank you for seeing me today. Unlike most Americans, I’m not going to ask you about human rights or Taiwan or Ukraine. I’m going to focus on the meaning of “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

X: OK. That sounds interesting.

C: Marx was a European. You don’t much care for European thought. Does that feel like a contradiction to you?

X: No. Marx was a product of his time and place. Some of what he said pertains to China; some does not. That’s what we mean by “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

C: But Marx was putting forth dialectical materialism as a universal law. You and the CCP don’t appear to believe in universal laws, either.

X: Marx didn’t grow up in China. He didn’t know anything about China. He just thought we were a bunch of ignorant peasants living in the past. A lot of what he said didn’t apply to China, either then or now.

C: I think everyone would agree that Mao was a revolutionary. He broke a lot of things. He even went outside the party to break things when they got too stagnant. Are you a revolutionary like Mao?

X: Mao was a product of his time, too. He broke things that needed to be broken. Today, things are different. We’re building a China that is great again. We don’t need a revolution; we need to improve on what we have.

C: Based on what I’ve seen in your museums, the CCP’s claim to legitimacy is based on its success in overthrowing the hated foreigners, not the emperor, the aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie. Where’s the Marxism in that?

X: The powers that be in China at the time were lackeys of foreign imperialists. There is no contradiction between class struggle and anti-imperialism. We follow Lenin on that point.

C: But the Qings were in power in China long before the foreign devils had any influence over them.

X: They were foreign devils, too. The struggle against them was on behalf of the Chinese people.

C: Your office is located close to the Forbidden City. When you see it, are you impressed by the glory of Chinese culture, or do you see a monument to the oppression of workers and peasants?

X: Some of both. The French do the same thing with Versailles.

C: True, but France doesn’t claim to be a socialist state.

X: Neither does the CCP. We’re just on the way to true socialism.

C: The CCP has bourgeois members. There’s lots of inequality in China. Do you and the CCP really constitute the dictatorship of the proletariat?

X: We have to build a prosperous, industrial China before we can talk about true socialism. That’s one of the characteristics of socialism with Chinese characteristics. We work with the bourgeoisie in the short run, but we make it clear that we’re in charge, so to that extent, we are the dictatorship of the proletariat. Just ask all of the rich tycoons we’ve humbled over the last few years.

C: To the detriment of economic growth. Capital is fearful and distrustful of you now.

X: There are higher priorities than economic growth, important as it is. Maintaining the primacy of the party and the Chinese people as a whole over irresponsible capital is one of them.

C: So you would agree that China is not yet a classless society?

X: Yes. We’re working on it. Once we reach the requisite level of prosperity and have complete sovereignty over our area of the world, we can strive for full communism.

C: When do you think that will happen?

X: Probably not in my lifetime. It depends largely on what the capitalist countries do.

C: Will the Chinese state ever wither away, as Marx predicted?

X: Not while I’m in charge, that’s for sure. (Snickers)

C: Here’s my last question. China has always had a large, powerful, autocratic state. One could argue that the continuing existence of that state is one of the attributes of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Is that the case, or will the state at some point wither away?

X: We’ll have to see. We’re a long way from that point. It won’t happen in my lifetime.

C: Thank you for your time.

Guanxi–the cultivation, maintenance, and use of connections for economic gain–is a feature of all societies. The Chinese, however, take it to a completely different level. It is an integral part of their culture, which, of course, elevated the collective over the individual and celebrated bureaucracy long, long before 1949.

When you combine the widespread use of guanxi with a one-party system, a complete lack of government transparency, and politicized law enforcement and judicial systems, you have a recipe for corruption. It essentially means that wars on corruption, in the Chinese context, are nothing more than bureaucratic winners trampling on webs of hapless losers.

Keep that in mind the next time you read that Xi has uncovered evidence of corruption at the highest levels of Chinese government.

The left-leaning pundits are divided: some think Biden should withdraw from the race; while others believe he needs to make himself more available to the public and the press to reassure the voters on the age issue. Who is right here?

Actually, neither. He isn’t going to withdraw, and his public appearances rarely make me feel better about his acuity. His campaign strategy is to let his record speak for itself–the economy is roaring, after all– and to let Trump alienate swing voters in front of the cameras, as he always does. Becoming more of a public figure isn’t consistent with that approach.

Hard work and determination had made his country great. The welfare state, in addition to being a drag on growth, only created incentives for laziness and mediocrity. It was, therefore, essential to keep the people from falling into the hammock of dependency. The welfare state would not be expanded, even if doing so would encourage consumption, reduce inequality, and revive growth.

Is this neo-Victorian Xi or Paul Ryan? Spoiler alert–it’s both.

A large percentage of Taylor Swift’s most devoted followers consists of teenage girls who can’t vote. Much of what remains after that cohort would never vote for Trump under any circumstances. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that a Biden endorsement from Swift would make little practical difference in the election.

But Trump was a celebrity long before he was a politician. He still thinks like one. One of his favorite insults revolves around the television ratings of his opponents. As a result, it makes perfect sense for him to feel threatened by someone who is an even bigger celebrity than he is.

The leader wanted to transform his country’s economy in two ways. First, he wanted to reduce inequality, partly by reducing the power of the nation’s tech giants. Second, he thought it was essential to national security to maintain an advantage in some tech fields, including AI and the manufacturing of chips. To that end, he used large amounts of public money to fund these industries, to mixed reviews.

Is it Biden or Xi? Spoiler alert–it’s both.

The opinion of the special counsel will not matter in the long run. The American people will make a decision on that issue based on their observations of the president over his entire term of office. What that decision will be, I do not know.

One thing is for sure–the opinion on that subject of a man who told us to eat bleach is of no value whatsoever.

Imagine, if you will, that the January 6 trial goes forward prior to the Republican Convention, and that Trump is found guilty of numerous felonies. How does the party respond?

A fairly large segment of the electorate will care, and Haley may raise some concerns, but the delegates and the base will remain unimpressed. They have already made it clear that they won’t even accept a decision from a jury that is selected in part by Trump’s attorneys. The man is innocent, and a victim of the deep state, and that is that, no matter what anyone says.

And so, Trump will run as the nominee even with a felony conviction on his record.

To the surprise of precisely no one, the Supremes were clearly determined to find an off ramp to permit Trump to remain on the ballot in all fifty states during yesterday’s oral argument. Which rationale will they choose?

The three apparent contenders, based on the questions, are as follows:

1. PRIMARIES ARE RUN BY THE PARTIES, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, SO THE DISQUALIFICATION ISSUE IS PREMATURE: This line of reasoning is both legally sound and wildly impractical. Pulling Trump off the ballot months after he becomes the GOP nominee would be a complete nightmare.
2. THE PRESIDENT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF OFFICERS SUBJECT TO DISQUALIFICATION: This approach is inconsistent with logic and the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, has little support in the legislative history, and would give a green light to any future president who wants to use the armed forces to stay in office.
3. DISQUALIFICATION REQUIRES ADDITIONAL CONGRESSIONAL ACTION: The intent here is to provide a federal remedy for an essentially federal issue. No one state has the right to dictate a result to the others; no record in any state proceeding should be binding on the rest; and having a jumble of inconsistent state decisions would be a disaster. Of course, the Court could address most of these problems by providing one definitive ruling that is binding on all of the states, but it didn’t appear to want to do that, possibly for procedural reasons.

The bottom line here is that the last of the three lines of reasoning will do the least amount of harm to the system. There is reason to believe it will prevail. Let’s hope that it does, and that the quid pro quo for the three liberals is a decision not to hear Trump’s appeal on the immunity issue.

The last thing Mitch McConnell wants to see is Russian tanks rumbling into Kyiv. The penultimate thing Mitch doesn’t want to see is the American people blaming his party for it. And yet, he and his colleagues effectively voted for this outcome yesterday afternoon. They were sent home to try and figure out what they should demand in exchange for something they want to do anyway, which represents a level of dysfunction that would make the House proud.

Why is this happening? Because Donald Trump, who loves Putin and hates Ukraine, is going to be the GOP nominee for president. Why is that? Because McConnell made no effort to round up votes to convict him at his second impeachment trial. And why did that happen? Because McConnell thought Trump was finished, and he wanted to keep the base happy.

As a result of this atrocious miscalculation, the viability of the McConnell Project is highly questionable, and Mitch himself is a spent force. He can no longer keep his troops in line; Trump rules the GOP, even in the Senate. He’s definitely gone if Trump wins in November, and probably gone even if Biden prevails.

Here’s where the factions stand on the illegal immigration issue:

1. CDs: Asylum seekers are God’s children. They are seeking refuge from terrible conditions at home. They should be treated with compassion.
2. CLs: The last thing we need is some sort of massive government presence at the border.
3. PBPs: Immigrants fill jobs that Americans won’t take and generate economic growth. It would be insanity to stop them at a time of inflation and labor shortages.
4. Reactionaries: Immigrants poison the blood of America. They have to go! All of them.

What does this tell you? That the Reactionaries run the show within the GOP, and the rest of the party just has to shut up, even when their bottom line and their most cherished beliefs are at stake.

I’m torn about this. On the one hand, the failure of the leadership to deliver enough votes is a total embarrassment for House Republicans, which is always a good thing. On the other hand, having to put on a completely legally frivolous case in front of the Senate and the American people might have been even worse.

What do you think?

UPDATE: Apparently, the leadership plans to try the impeachment vote again tomorrow. Maybe we won’t have to choose.

The Supreme Court has already put a finger–perhaps not a thumb–on the scale in favor of Trump by refusing Jack Smith’s request for an expedited review of the immunity defense. Today, the D.C. Circuit decided, to nobody’s surprise, that the defense lacks merit. The opinion, which I have read, is comprehensive and well-written. What should the Supremes do now?

There is no need to give this issue further review. To do so will only provide further assistance to Trump’s stall ball defense. The entire world will understand that, and the Court’s credibility will be further undermined.

The Court, for its own sake and the sake of the country, should reject Trump’s forthcoming petition and let the trial move forward.

Driven by warmer weather and relatively low housing prices, there has been a perceptible shift of population from blue to red states. Should we expect that to continue?

Possibly not, for two reasons. First, housing prices in cities such as Austin and Charlotte have gone up significantly over the last several years. Rising prices and housing shortages are not limited to New York and San Francisco. Second, liberals tend to migrate to blue cities in red states, but red state governments are increasingly preempting the right of liberal municipal governments to regulate on social issues. As a result, red states may look less welcoming to blue people in the future.

Climate change may become a factor in the foreseeable future, too. It isn’t helping California, but it may help New York.