Category: Uncategorized

Trump’s plan for the economy in his first term was a variant of Abenomics–stimulate the economy with large tax cuts, keep interest rates low, and see what happens. Up until 2020, it worked pretty well. Unemployment was low, the markets rose, and there was no meaningful inflation. Life was good.

Biden tried the same trick under different conditions, and it failed. Broken supply chains led to inflation, and large doses of federal spending made it worse, although American growth figures were the envy of the world. The deficit and interest rates went up. The public was unhappy.

Trump 2.0 is an attempt to recreate 2019 in a changed world in which inflation is a real threat and the deficit and interest rates are significant constraints. His tariffs and deportations, which were not a major factor in 2019, are only making matters worse. Growth is down, unemployment is up, and inflation hasn’t budged. It doesn’t look like an A++++ economy to me or anyone west of Washington.

As I’ve noted before, there was a split in the Nazi movement between the leaders of the SA, who took the “socialism” in National Socialism seriously, and more establishment figures in the business world and the regular military. Hitler ultimately chose to support the establishment figures, and the SA was humbled.

Trump doesn’t have an SA; his ties to the right-wing militias never developed to that level. He does, however, have plenty of followers on the internet who have had some success keeping potential opponents in line with threats of violence. He also has a Secretary of Defense who appears to want to turn America’s regular military into a right-wing militia usable for partisan purposes in our cities. If Hegseth succeeds in changing the culture of our military, Trump won’t need an SA, let alone a Night of the Long Knives.

J: Alex, you look very serious. What are you thinking about?

H: Religion and its role in American society and government.

J: That seems out of character for you. As I recall, when you were asked why God wasn’t referenced in the Constitution, you said “We forgot.”

H: I did say that. In retrospect, I wish I had taken the issue more seriously.

J: What do you mean by that?

H: I’ll start by saying what I don’t mean. For all of our disagreements, I was completely with you on whether government was created to serve man and not God. I had no more use for the divine right of kings than you did.

J: I’m glad we agreed on something. I never doubted you on that point.

H: And I never wanted to oppress anyone based on their religious views. Ultimate truth is not self-evident, and pure thought, unrelated to action, is not something that can or should be regulated.

J: Still on board with you.

H: Finally, in light of the vast proliferation of religious sects in America, it was probably unrealistic to think that we could ever establish a state religion here.

J: Why do I have the feeling that there is a “but” coming next?

H: Because there is, for two reasons. First, some institution in every society has to identify opinions that are so clearly indecent, they cannot be held without consequences. Second, strongly held and extreme religious opinions tend to get acted upon, with very negative consequences for the public. Just look at Germany in the 1520s and the UK in the Oliver Cromwell era, to say nothing of people like Osama bin Laden in a more modern context.

J: What would you suggest in a perfect world?

H: A very broad state church with minimal requirements would be best. One that excluded only the most extreme opinions, supported the legitimacy of the government, and left private worship alone.

J: That sounds like something out of the Roman Republic, or a Charles II wish list.

H: There’s probably some validity to those analogies. Just to be clear, I don’t think that is a realistic possibility in America today. You asked about a perfect world, and I answered your question.

J: What you really want is a gatekeeper other than the government to define and prohibit deviant political views. I agree, but I think public opinion as a whole is adequate to address your concerns.

H: For a long time, I would have agreed with that. In today’s world, I don’t. Have you seen what people are saying on the internet these days? Technology killed the gatekeepers, and the quality of public discourse has turned to sludge.

J: I won’t argue with that. But as long as it’s just talk, it doesn’t need to be controlled. Government has adequate resources to deal with it when it turns into action.

H: By and large, the job of enforcing decency on the internet has been delegated to right-wing and left-wing mobs. Do you think Trump will accept that as the ultimate solution, or will he go full authoritarian and use the government to crack down on free speech?

J: He’s an angry old man. I don’t see him tolerating dissent much longer. He won’t have any support in Congress for a new Sedition Act, but he’ll use his emergency authority for the same purpose and dare anyone to do anything about it.

H: I hope you’re wrong, but I’m afraid you’re right.

The startling level of price increases in higher education is due primarily to a change in business models that started, fortunately, after I left school. It consists of the following: schools treat their students as consumers and build resort-level amenities; affluent parents–frequently foreigners–consequently agree to pay exorbitant prices for the experience; and the additional funds from the higher tuition are recycled to increase aid for the less affluent. Does it work?

There are two problems with the model as of today. First, the prevailing public narrative includes the price increases, but not the added financial aid for the less affluent. That has to change. Second, the model probably works for elite schools because the sky-high tuition reflects the improved economic prospects for their students, but not for schools designed to train Americans of average ability for run-of-the-mill jobs. In that case, the higher tuition does not make economic sense for either the service provider or the consumer.

The bottom line here is that state schools should avoid using the model. That is primarily the responsibility of both blue and red state governments.

While Trump is doing his best to deregulate AI, DeSantis is pushing legislation in Florida that would put a number of new limits on it. What conclusions should we draw from this conflict?

First, DeSantis is running for president in 2028, and he sees AI regulation as a wedge issue that could separate J.D. from the base. He’s probably right. Second, since Trump is far more popular than the governor in Florida, and is less of a lame duck, do not expect the Florida Legislature to defy his wishes on this point.

With the possible exception of the use of weight loss drugs, I’m not aware of any evidence showing that Americans are much more enthusiastic consumers of drugs and medical services than Europeans. In addition, many of the issues with the workings of the market I have described in previous posts are inherent in all systems. So why is America such an outlier as to the cost of medical treatment?

The GOP would have you believe the problem is bureaucracy and middlemen; what we really need to do, they say, is to return to a less regulated market and rely on the good sense and bargaining power of consumers. The market in medicine, however, is characterized by monopolies and a complete disparity of knowledge and bargaining power between producers and consumers; the GOP approach will consequently force less affluent patients to do without essential services. The real difference between Americans and Europeans is the willingness of the latter to use their regulatory power against the providers to keep costs down. In America, that runs into the opposition of extremely influential vested interests. Nothing will really change in this country until a stronger effort is made to overcome that opposition.

If you think things are bad today, you should have been around in the 1970s. Double-digit inflation, Watergate, the fall of South Vietnam, the Iran hostages, plenty of political violence, rising drug use, increased unemployment and crime–everything was far worse then than it is now.

The difference, of course, is that Reagan was an optimist, not a grim authoritarian who saw the world in zero-sum terms and wanted to wage war on half of America. There is little reason to believe that history will repeat itself on this point.

Soaring child care costs are an enormous problem for families with working mothers. The Democrats have proposed to resolve the issue by throwing federal money at it, which will probably only make things worse in the long run. Is there a better way?

We know for a fact that the workers in this field are not overpaid, so the solution probably involves some measure of deregulation. You would think this approach would be right up the GOP’s alley, but the party has shown no particular interest in it. Why?

Because the Republican Party believes in the Godly Society. It doesn’t want working mothers. There is no other rationale that makes sense.

And in the meantime, Trump is busy deporting the kind of people who provide care for the elderly and children, which will only exacerbate the problem.

About a year ago, I identified three very different right-wing visions for America: the Godly Society; the New Confederacy; and the Techno-Aristocracy. How are those dreams faring under Trump 2.0?

The Godly Society is foundering. Trump has delivered on his promises by jacking up tariffs and instituting mass deportations, but manufacturing employment is actually down. There is no sign that America is about to enter into an industrial renaissance which will permit women to leave the workforce, get married, and have lots of babies. It’s not going to happen.

The New Confederacy had one huge symbolic victory–red state troops are being deployed in blue states, ostensibly to reduce crime, but really to show that Trump and his reactionary base are in charge. Other than that, however, there has been no meaningful progress on a “national divorce.”

The techno-aristocrats, however, are doing very well for themselves. Trump has treated them as national champions and has thrown lots of energy into deregulating AI. Share prices and investment are soaring. The concerns of the base about the impacts of AI on the workforce are being ignore. Will that last, particularly if things go awry? TBD.

There are a myriad of reasons for the rising cost of housing. They include: increased costs for materials; a shortage of construction workers, which started with the Great Recession and has never been resolved; overly restrictive state and local building regulations; demands from younger buyers for homes with far better amenities than their parents enjoyed; and a lack of innovation relating to building practices, probably exacerbated by unions. Trump’s tariffs, deportations, and efforts to protect single-family zoning districts are only making things worse. What could the Democrats offer in 2028?

Reversing Trump’s policies would be a good start. They could offer to provide financial assistance for worker training programs and better local zoning practices. On the rest of it, the federal government can’t do much except elevate the issues in the consciousness of the public and hope the private sector responds accordingly.

Trump is trying to decide what to do with FEMA. Here’s what the factions would tell him:

1. CDs: FEMA should be strengthened, but its functions should not change. People impacted by disasters need help from the rest of us, and many states and local governments simply don’t have the resources to cope with monster wildfires and storms.
2. CLs: Get rid of it! Disaster relief is a state function. FEMA is just encouraging them to fall into the hammock of federal dependency.
3. PBPs: It depends on where we’re located. We appreciate the help in affected states, but we dislike paying taxes to assist others.
4. Reactionaries: Keep FEMA solely to help real Americans in distress in red states. Use disaster relief for leverage on culture war issues in blue states.

Is it any wonder Trump is clearly struggling with this issue?

There is a low-level battle going on within the Democratic Party which pits the proponents of “abundance” against advocates of the redistribution of wealth. The two are not mutually exclusive, but it is likely that the 2028 primaries will be a debate between the two sides. What are the pros and cons of “abundance?”

“Abundance” is not synonymous with economic growth; it is an effort to identify and eliminate systemic problems which unnecessarily slow down public improvements and drive up the costs of essential services provided by the market. It is about making the system faster and more efficient without resorting to Trumpian overreach and capriciousness.

The great advantage of “abundance” is that it doesn’t cost much money, which will be important in an environment in which the deficit is enormous and climbing and interest rates are correspondingly elevated. As a result, it will appeal to centrist swing voters who want better government without higher taxes. The great disadvantage is that there is no single “abundance” magic bullet. Finding and eliminating systemic blockages will be a lengthy and prosaic process which operates at all levels of government, not just in Washington, and threatens powerful vested interests, including some that are vital to the Democratic Party.

To his credit, Trump isn’t really a warmonger, so it is safe to assume that the military buildup in the Caribbean is intended to pressure Maduro to leave peacefully. Unfortunately, Maduro knows that, so he is unlikely to comply. Then what?

My guess is that Trump’s plan would consist of a targeted strike on Maduro himself and a combination of bribes and threats to keep the rest of the Venezuelan security apparatus in line. The opposition would then come to power without the benefit of an invasion. Could that work?

It could, but it probably wouldn’t, and hope is not a strategy. If Trump really wants regime change, he will have to suck it up and order an invasion; air strikes alone would not be sufficient. I suspect he would have to use around 50,000 troops for that purpose. Would MAGA be happy about that? Would Congress authorize it? TBD.

The NSS isn’t just a massive insult to Europeans, international institutions, and weak, woke Democrats; it is a rebuke to Reaganite Republicans in Congress, as well. One would expect them to respond. Has it happened?

No. Mitch and company don’t have anything to say about a document that is completely inconsistent with their view of the world. That tells you everything you need to know about the state of the GOP.

On the pretext of a bogus emergency, Trump sends a large contingent of regular troops and red state National Guard members to cities in blue and purple states. They arrest the local political and intellectual leaders, who are ultimately sent to Third World prisons; reliable reactionaries are appointed to replace them. Unfriendly TV stations are taken over and left-leaning newspapers and universities are closed. The airports are put under federal control. Demonstrators are arrested or shot on site. In this way, dissent is completely quelled.

The internet is brought under control on a federal level, since it doesn’t recognize state boundaries, and Democrats in Washington are imprisoned, but for the most part, the red states are left alone. Some red state governors follow Trump’s example and imprison government critics; others continue to tolerate some level of criticism. Federal control increases as dissenters flee to the red states, but it never reaches the level that is experienced in blue states.

That’s all it takes, folks. And it would probably be blessed by the Supreme Court. This is why the Court’s ultimate decision on the scope of Trump’s emergency powers is so important.