Category: Uncategorized

So how should Biden deal with the Chinese? It’s complicated. Here are some principles:

1. THIS AIN’T YOUR DADDY’S COLD WAR: As I’ve noted before, the Soviet Union presented an ideological and military challenge, while China is essentially an economic partner and rival. It’s a different situation that calls for a different response.
2. THERE’S NO GUARANTEE WE WILL WIN, EITHER: Don’t assume that we will prevail just because the Soviet Union imploded. This is not a morality play.
3. USE ALLIANCES: “America First” has played into the hands of the Chinese. Treat our erstwhile friends kindly and cooperate with them to apply pressure to the Chinese. Our greatest advantage over them is our cozier neighborhood; don’t blow it, like Trump.
4. BE FLEXIBLE, PRAGMATIC, AND REALISTIC: China isn’t going away. We need to try carrots as well as sticks. The ultimate objective is to reach an agreement on the rules of the game. For example, it is inevitable that China will gain more control over its coast; the real task is to make sure it doesn’t threaten Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan by creating a new chokepoint in the South China Sea.
5. COOPERATE WHERE NECESSARY AND POSSIBLE: As with the virus and climate change.
6. EMPHASIZE WHAT YOU CAN CONTROL, NOT WHAT YOU CAN’T: We’re not going to persuade the Chinese to change their regime and give up their dreams of moving upstream on technology. To the extent that is a threat to us, the correct response is to improve as a competitor, by attracting and cultivating more talent and by using subsidies for tech projects on occasion.
7. STAND UP FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: No more sucking up to Xi. On the other hand, it wouldn’t hurt to acknowledge the contributions of the Chinese people to world civilization from time to time.
8. GET RID OF THE STUPID TARIFFS: We should be trying to re-energize world trade institutions in a manner consistent with our values and interests, not to engage in mindless mercantilism that only hurts consumers and drives up costs.

No one, almost certainly including Donald Trump, knew how far he would press his ridiculous mercantilist ideas during his first term. Would he really demand fundamental changes in China, or would he apply tariffs briefly, win some illusory concessions, and declare victory? Your guess was as good as mine.

In the end, the answer was a muddle; Trump undoubtedly pushed the envelope with his tariffs, and did plenty of damage to both countries, but the situation never got completely out of control. Don’t expect that to continue in a second term. Having campaigned ferociously against the Chinese prior to November, and without any electoral accountability thereafter, he will be free to just let it rip. Relations between the two countries will become significantly worse. The trade war will intensify, the world will move towards spheres of influence, and some sort of a shooting war in the South China Sea is not out of the question.

The country is scarred and in no mood for an extended debate over M4A after Biden takes office in 2021. The pandemic and ensuing spike in unemployment has shown, however, that Americans need a viable alternative to employer-based insurance. The Biden budget consequently includes very large sums of money for public health and for more generous Obamacare subsidies. A watered-down version of the public option is also approved.

Unit price reduction, the other part of the health care equation, is impossible in light of the heroic efforts of the health care industry during the pandemic. Biden sees that quickly and doesn’t even try. The albatross of health care costs consequently gets even worse, but at least we have reached something close to universal care.

Having effectively beaten Obama in November, Trump will be eager to finish off his legacy by putting an end of Obamacare in 2021. To do so, however, he will have to deal with the GOP dissidents in the Senate, and there is the small matter of the virus to contend with, as well. Does he succeed?

It’s close, but the answer is yes. The left wing of the GOP, such as it is, is persuaded to take an axe to federal expenditures on health care in the name of austerity and deficit reduction. Congress turns Obamacare into a block grant, and millions of poor workers, many of them GOP voters, lose their insurance. Trump and the leadership rejoice. At long last, victory is theirs!

But what if Biden wins? What kind of a budget will we see in 2021?

It depends on whether the Democrats win the Senate or not. If they do, Biden and the Democratic leadership use reconciliation to approve massive new public health expenditures, a much higher minimum wage, and tax increases on the wealthy and corporations. If not, Mitch McConnell immediately returns to his 2009 playbook and starts screaming about spending and the deficit, and it becomes difficult just to keep the government open. The country limps forward, and any major efforts at restructuring await the 2022 election.

It’s January, 2021. Trump has just been re-elected, and the GOP controls both houses. What happens next, starting with the budget?

The Republicans tolerated a huge increase in public spending in response to the virus only because they knew it was necessary to hold on to power. With the election over, there is a dramatic shift in priorities. Trump argues that spending is out of control, and tax cuts and deregulation are essential to bring back American businesses. The new Congress, of course, agrees, so unemployment benefits and health care subsidies are slashed, along with payroll and capital gains taxes.

The economy continues to stagger, as consumer confidence is very low and the tax cuts don’t help, but who cares? The election is over! It’s time for our supporters to enjoy the fruits of victory! That’s the American way!

In the absence of live sports, I have been binge watching “The Tudors” on Netflix. The first few episodes of the third season are largely about the Pilgrimage of Grace. The Pilgrimage, for anyone who doesn’t already know, was a rising of a large segment of England’s rural north in the name of conservative values against the reforming establishment in London. The rebels, who wore pilgrim badges depicting the five wounds of Christ, demanded the restoration of their abbeys, the protection of what they considered to be the true religion, and the removal of ministers they considered to be heretics.

Does this ring any bells? Substitute MAGA hats for the pilgrim badges and you have “deplorable” Trump voters demanding that the swamp be drained.

The Pilgrimage ended badly; the rebels were tricked and defeated, and many of them were executed. Personally, I would gladly settle for just a Biden victory in November.

Trying to find a solution.

Like economists, socialists view voters as purely rational economic actors who should vote their financial self-interest. They are consequently endlessly frustrated by workers who are motivated primarily by issues of values or identity. They refer to this mentality as “false consciousness.”

There are two enormous issues with this concept. First, people are not, in fact, primarily motivated by their economic self-interest. If you don’t believe that, think about all of the millions of decisions you make each day, and ask yourself, how many of them are made based on financial considerations? A miserable few. Second, American socialists have not shown any viable approach to winning over this kind of voter. When they are confronted with this problem, they simply double down, or mock the person they are supposedly trying to persuade.

If you’re on the right, however, don’t take any comfort in this; Bernie Sanders may not understand values and identity voters, but AOC does, and she’s warming up in the bullpen.

The swaggering right-wing leader with the passionate evangelical base had nothing but disdain for the virus, which he compared regularly to the flu. He battled experts in his own administration and demanded that state and local governments open up as soon as possible. His approval rating dropped, but his base stood by him, so his support never completely collapsed. In the meantime, thousands of people died unnecessarily, and the economy went into hibernation.

Is it Trump or Bolsonaro? You decide.

The confluence of toxic masculinity and reactionary ideas in normal times is a guy in a black pickup truck with a Trump sticker deliberately cutting you off and blowing exhaust in your face. We’ve all been through it. It’s incredibly annoying, yes, and you may fantasize about blowing the guy away, but he’s no real danger to the public, and you don’t do anything.

The same guy in a pandemic is demanding his allegedly God-given right to be free of reasonable restrictions on movement. He doesn’t give a damn if he infects the rest of the world; the only thing that matters to him is his own personal freedom. He’s a genuine threat to public health. There is no serious political philosophy that justifies this kind of behavior under current conditions.

No one has greater respect for individual rights than I do, and few people have less regard for social media lynch mobs, but there is a legitimate place for shaming under these circumstances. Just use it reasonably, and with restraint.

Just one day after releasing a reasonably sober, if horribly incomplete, blueprint for the reopening of the country, Trump returned to form and encouraged residents of three states with Democratic governors to defy stay-at-home orders. This was completely predictable, if totally irresponsible, and is part of a plan to deflect blame by changing the subject from public health and economic hardship to individual freedom.

So how should blue states respond to premature demands to reopen? Here are some principles:

1. IGNORE THE NOISE AND DO WHAT’S RIGHT: Some noisy people are going to criticize you no matter what you do and how it turns out, so you might as well do the right thing and hope for the best.

2. USE OBJECTIVE PUBLIC HEALTH STANDARDS FOR REOPENING: That will cut down on complaints about arbitrary decisionmaking.

3. DON’T OVERREACH: Don’t create arbitrary distinctions among businesses, and don’t prohibit the use of large public outdoor spaces, just to name two things.

4. ERR ON THE SIDE OF TRANSPARENCY AND TOO MUCH INFORMATION: The public will be generally supportive if they understand what you’re doing and why.

5. DON’T OVERREACT TO A FEW RIGHT-WING NUTS: No elaboration is needed.

There is a long history of Russian tsars absenting themselves during hard times and letting their subordinates take the blame. Vladimir Putin apparently is no different. He’s absenting himself from the spotlight and letting lower officials take the heat for unpopular measures; when the virus is gone, however, he will undoubtedly take the credit for it.

Kind of sounds like Trump, doesn’t it? Except that Trump’s lust for publicity is too great for that. He can’t stand having anyone else be the center of attention. His press briefings tie him to the crisis in ways that he will regret in November. For better or worse, this is his pandemic and depression, because he demands that everything be about him.

He would have been wiser to pay more attention to his hero. Once again, it is his weaknesses, not any underappreciated strengths, that may be the country’s salvation in the long run.

Imagine that you are in a state which no longer has meaningful and enforceable restrictions on social distancing. The number of cases and deaths has fallen substantially over a period of weeks, but there is no vaccine, and universal testing is a distant dream. Would you:

1. Attend an athletic event, a concert, or a theatrical performance?

2. Go to a restaurant, even if its capacity is reduced?

3. Fly anywhere?

4. Use any kind of public transportation?

5. Go back to work in an office or manufacturing plant where management does not strictly enforce its own distancing and cleaning rules?

6. Shop in any store that does not enforce distancing, even if it is no longer legally required?

I suspect most people would respond negatively to the majority, and perhaps all, of these questions. If I’m right, it simply illustrates that the critical issue in the economic recovery is consumer and worker confidence, not regulations, and that confidence will not return until it is generally accepted that you can engage in standard economic activity without running the risk of catching the virus. That, in turn, cannot be done without a rigorous regime of testing. Why that part of the equation is not receiving the attention it deserves is a mystery to me.

Realistically, the private sector is probably our best hope here. Businesses will have every incentive to build confidence among their workers and consumers. They have the ability to enforce their own testing, cleaning, and distancing rules, even if the government doesn’t. Those that do will have the best chance of survival, regardless of what Trump and the governors decide.

You’re a major figure on Wall Street, and the Trump campaign comes to your door asking for a contribution. What do you do?

You appreciate the tax cuts, deregulation, and kind words from the president, of course, but you have major concerns about his tariffs and his erratic, autocratic behavior. You were concerned all along that he didn’t have what it takes to deal with a crisis. Recent events have confirmed that your fears were justified.

If Sanders were the nominee, this would still be a no-brainer, but he isn’t. Biden obviously isn’t a socialist, except to the extent that anyone in the White House at this point has to support enormous amounts of additional federal spending to deal with the fallout from the virus. The Trump campaign’s argument about socialism consequently falls on deaf ears.

And so, the answer to the question is, you demand more tax cuts for rich people and corporations as a condition precedent to a large campaign contribution. That is why, in spite of the arguments made by “national conservatives,” you are likely to see regressive tax cuts at the top of the agenda if Trump wins a second term.