Author: hamilton1788

AI enthusiasts insist that artificial intelligence will vastly increase productivity without reducing the net number of jobs, although many jobs will change in some respects. They have history on their side. On the other hand, AI pessimists point out that past technological revolutions have never made the human brain redundant. That’s true, too.

As I noted in a previous post, Marx wrongly thought the factory was the end of history. It is tempting to look at the current knowledge-based economy and imagine it is set in stone, too. With AI, it isn’t; entry-level office jobs are disappearing before our eyes. Then what?

I can only see two scenarios here. The optimistic one is that the welfare state is massively embellished through the use of UBI, and that millions of Americans will be freed to follow more creative pastimes. The other is that the redundant workers, lacking any other way to make a living, become retainers for a handful of incredibly wealthy people; in other words, we have a neo-feudal economy, with the owners of robots and AI models becoming the equivalents of medieval nobles, and everyone else providing services for them.

If it turns out to be the latter, I’m glad I won’t be around to see it.

All of the data suggests that support for the Democratic Party as a whole is faltering. Roy Cooper and Sherrod Brown, on the other hand, raised record amounts of money in the first days of their candidacies. What should we make of this?

The most important job of the Democratic Party, in the eyes of its voters, was to keep Trump out of office. It failed miserably and is paying the price for it. That in no way means there is less support for the resistance, or that centrists are moving closer to Trump; it just means blue voters want to put their money where it can actually do some good, as in flipping the Senate seats in Ohio and North Carolina.

Trump’s decision to send troops to LA and D.C., while completely unjustified, has resulted in theater, not practical consequences. Peaceful protesters have not been shot; local officials have not been removed from office; and the troops have only acted in a very limited capacity. Does that mean we shouldn’t be worried?

No, because the precedent has been established, the judiciary has done nothing to stop it, and the practice is becoming normalized. There is every reason to believe that Trump will expand it to other large blue state cities with even less legal justification. All it will take is one spark–one violent act of resistance to the occupation–and things will get really ugly, really fast.

I don’t know if it is a failure of imagination or something Roy Cohn taught him, but Trump loves to accuse his adversaries of things he actually did. Remember when he said, “You’re the puppet!” to Hillary Clinton?

Last week, the FBI carried out a search for classified documents in John Bolton’s house and office. Yesterday, Trump announced he was firing a Fed board member because she allegedly made false statements on financial documents years ago.

At least you can’t accuse him of lacking a dark sense of humor.

It’s 1828. The presidential election is imminent. Andrew Jackson, still seething with anger after the House ignored his electoral vote plurality and made Adams president in 1824, is the favorite. But Jackson has a problem; protectionism is popular in the mid-Atlantic states, but his base in the South hates tariffs, and he needs both to win. How can he square the circle?

Enter Martin Van Buren, known as “The Little Magician.” Van Buren hijacks the tariff bill and adds concessions to groups that Jackson needs in November. The final version of the bill makes no economic sense and is ultimately known as the “Tariff of Abominations,” but it is a winner for Jackson, as his base blames Adams, and the tariff beneficiaries give him the credit for the concessions. Jackson prevails in the subsequent election.

In 2024, an angry candidate who lost what he considered a rigged election in 2020 won in part by making economically nonsensical promises on tips, overtime, and Social Security. His promises were put into law in the BBB. Does that ring any bells?

Today’s NYT has two companion articles about the impacts of foreign trade. The first focuses on the problems created by a skimpy safety net when jobs are destroyed by foreign competition; the second discusses the failure of Congress to adequately fund transition programs for unemployed workers after China joined the WTO.

I’ve made the point before, but it is worthy of repetition; while both parties are frequently tied to “neoliberalism” by populists, their concepts of “neoliberalism” were actually quite different. The Democrats wanted the victims of globalization to be compensated by the winners, but the Republicans didn’t, and the votes for a more robust safety net were never there. The blue team subsequently received the same amount of blame for its failure to deliver as the red team did for its successful attempts at obstruction.

I provided a description of God in my last Metaphysical Monday post. Do the three major Western religions meet the test?

I have always described Judaism as a relatively logical religion that springs from a supremely illogical premise–that the Jews are God’s chosen people. Judaism thus fails the universality principle. It also fails the unchanging principle because its version of God, like the pagan gods, is perpetually intervening in the affairs of mankind.

Christianity is even worse. Because it grafts the Old Testament on to its central message in an effort to establish its historical bona fides, it fails the universality and unchanging principles. In addition, it flunks the immortality test as a result of the death of the son of God. Islam at least passes that test, but it too is tied to a particular time, place, and people; like the other two, for example, it attaches no importance to the great civilizations outside of the Middle East, so its God is neither universal nor unchanging.

What about the religions of Asia? I will discuss them in my next Metaphysical Monday post.

Trump and the Euros have finally come up with the outlines of a peace proposal that is reasonably based on facts on the ground. As of today, Putin is showing no interest in it. Why?

Because Putin wants Ukraine and the end of NATO, not peace. While the war has had some serious geopolitical down sides for him–NATO has expanded closer to his borders, he has lost influence in Central Asia, and he is more dependent on China than ever–the domestic impacts have been manageable. He thinks Trump will ultimately walk away from the war and leave Ukraine to his mercy if he is just patient enough. He may well be right.

The only way to force Putin to make peace is to persuade him that America will continue to support Ukraine, come what may. Does Trump understand that? Clearly not.

President Trump signed an executive order banning all European men from the US Open today. According to Trump, the failure of American men to win the Open for over 20 years constituted a national emergency requiring immediate legal action. In addition, Trump noted that the European men had an unfair advantage in that Europe had been sheltering under the American nuclear umbrella and ripping us off for years. With a fair playing field, Trump argued, Americans would always win.

The executive order also replaced the names of the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center and Arthur Ashe Stadium with Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe, respectively. Trump maintained that the honoring of King and Ashe was only due to wokeness. He went on to add that Connors and McEnroe were appropriate honorees because they were brash, ill-tempered white American men who reminded him of, well, himself.

Readers of this blog will know that I am no admirer of John Bolton’s foreign policy views. Nevertheless, you have to give the man credit for standing up for what he thinks is right, even when he is completely wrong.

For that, the FBI has now raided his house and his office. The administration insists that these actions were not “political,” but it is hardly entitled to the benefit of the doubt. And this is just the beginning. Do you think Kash Patel and Pam Bondi are going to sit back and let an irresponsible majority of the American people put their jobs in jeopardy? Of course not! Expect lots of Democrats to be investigated before the 2026 and 2028 elections.

Obama’s investments in clean energy were largely successful and brought us benefits we are still enjoying today. Nobody remembers that, however, because the GOP ran a successful PR campaign attacking the failed investment in Solyndra. The government didn’t have the ability to pick winners in the market, we were told. Federal interventions in the economy were just a waste of taxpayer money.

That was then, and this is now. Trump is using CHIPS money to buy a federal stake in Intel. It is fair to assume that he will then provide Intel with a favorable regulatory climate; he may even go so far as to demand that American tech companies buy their chips from Intel. Then what? Will he use his regulatory power to strongarm an equity stake from the other tech companies? Will he use his eminent domain powers to become the CEO of America? The possibilities are endless.

American businessmen by and large supported Trump in 2024 because they thought he would give them more freedom and respect. Don’t say you weren’t warned, guys.

Finally, there is the economy. Here’s what Trump has done in his first seven months:

1. Pushed through the BBB, a regressive tax and spending bill with a few temporary shiny objects to fulfill campaign promises;
2. Jacked up tariffs in a completely madcap fashion;
3. Attempted to deregulate AI in spite of the dangers it presents;
4. Dramatically cut spending on clean energy in spite of the growing demand for electricity generated by data centers;
5. Started acquiring shares of companies he thinks are critical for national security;
6. Began the mass deportation of essential workers, including those in health care, agriculture, and construction, thereby creating labor shortages;
7. Demanded that the Fed reduce interest rates regardless of the evidence; and
8. Fired the individual responsible for collecting and publishing economic statistics.

As you would expect, we are already starting to see the effects of stagflation. Worse is to follow as companies either raise prices or go out of business.

The word “dilemma” is frequently used to mean a difficult choice. That is incorrect; a “dilemma” is a choice between two unsatisfactory options.

Trump has a dilemma, in the true sense of the word, with Ukraine. On the one hand, if he simply washes his hands of the country and the Russians roll into Kyiv, it will make him look like a loser, not the boss of the world. Of course, he will blame the Europeans, Putin, Biden, and the Ukrainians, not himself, but he knows most people will see it otherwise. On the other hand, the MAGA base is divided on why it hates American involvement with Ukraine, but not on the undesirability of the involvement itself. Any attempt by Trump to maintain anything like Biden’s level of support for Ukraine will consequently meet with an immediate backlash from his most valued supporters.

Trump seems to be playing it down the middle. Will that work in the end? Probably not.

Greg Abbott has been summoned to the White House. He thinks he is there to take a victory lap for his successful Trump-inspired House gerrymander. Boy, is he in for a surprise!

T: Welcome, Governor.

A: We delivered for you, Mr. President. We got you the extra five seats. It could be enough to keep control of the House next year.

T: Good work, Governor. I appreciate it. Now we need to get started on Phase II.

A: What do you mean? Our work is done. There’s nothing left to do.

T: You’ve only solved my problem with the House. We have to deal with the Senate, too.

A: But the Senate is elected by states. We can’t change state boundaries.

T: That’s where you’re wrong, Governor. Texas is way too big to be one state. We’re going to divide it into three different states–East, West, and Central Texas. That will give me four more senators. You can be the governor of whichever one you want.

A: But that’s ridiculous. Texas has always been one state. Lone star, one state. That’s our history.

T: What’s that to me? Don’t forget–it’s not about you or the people of Texas. It’s about me. It’s always about me. God saved me to make America great again. God wants Texas to be three states.

A: It can’t be done without public support, and this ask is impossible. Texans see themselves as one.

T: Listen, Hot Wheels. You’ll do as I say, or the base will destroy you, and Ken Paxton will wind up running all three Texas states.

A: Please don’t call me that. That’s a Democrat slur.

T: At least one of the Democrats has figured out how to sound like me. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It’s kind of funny, too.

A: Anyway, I don’t see how I can make this work.

T: You’ll find a way, or the base will find you. Now go. (Abbott leaves)

So many “accomplishments” in only seven months! Here’s the list:

1. He threatened a NATO ally with the forced annexation of Greenland;
2. He also threatened to retake the Panama Canal;
3. He alienated the government and population of Canada with his tariffs and his jibes about the 51st state;
4. He similarly alienated the government and population of Mexico with his tariffs and threats of military action against the drug cartels;
5. He offended Brazil with his tariffs and attempts to intervene in domestic political and legal affairs;
6. He alienated India with an extremely high tariff;
7. He gave essentially unconditional support to Israel’s actions in Gaza;
8. He mostly abandoned America’s role as an indirect party in the Ukraine war and became a mediator or arbitrator, but none of it led to peace;
9. He bombed Iran in a brief and opportunistic attempt to put an end to the Iranian nuclear program, with limited success; and
10. He cut humanitarian aid to needy countries, thus reducing American soft power in the Third World.

It’s an impressive list of failures, no?