Category: Uncategorized

The GOP Speaker named Paul.

A disaster he’ll try to forestall.

Will he round up the votes?

Will the sheep beat the goats?

It appears that his back’s to the wall.

The NYT ran a brief article roughly two weeks ago about a new Chinese government initiative called “Made in China 2025.”  The gist of the program is that the government intends to eliminate virtually all high tech imports from China by 2025 by making hundreds of billions of dollars of cheap loans to Chinese companies to create and acquire new technology in the identified fields.

I know that Trump only likes to read bullet points and watch TV, but one hopes that one of his advisers managed to get him to read the article, because “Made in China 2025” sounds like a blatantly protectionist program.

Let’s face it:  “socialism with Chinese characteristics” means, in practice, a state capitalist, mercantilist economy, not a true market system.  Chinese companies doing business abroad are operating, in the final analysis, as the agents of their government, and not vice-versa.

It makes sense for a government which asserts the ultimate right to control every facet of life and which puts the highest priority on national strength and stability to view trade as a zero-sum game.  Our system, which is run for the benefit of individuals, not the government, is fundamentally different, so Trump’s mercantilist views on foreign policy are a horrible mistake.  That said, he isn’t wrong about the nature of the Chinese system, and we are burying our heads in the sand if we treat China as just another market economy.

In other words, we cannot and should not try to emulate the Chinese system, but our response to it needs to be based on its actual characteristics, not propaganda or wishful thinking.  Chinese claims to be standing up for an open global economy should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

The situation with North Korea is essentially similar to one of those ubiquitous crime dramas in which the bank robber holds people hostage, and the police have to figure out what to do.  Can they devise a way to arrest the bank robber without putting the hostages at risk?  Answers vary from movie to movie.

In this case, the hostages are millions of South Koreans and Japanese who are threatened by North Korean military retaliation in the event of an American air strike.  How much value will Trump place on the lives of foreigners in the era of “America First?”  If he really means it, not much, which should worry the hell out of the South Koreans and Japanese.

Beholden to few in the GOP leadership, determined to maintain his freedom of action, and desperate for popularity, Trump saw that he had an opportunity to rule as a man above party, and he seized it.  His inaugural speech was a well-received plea for unity and hymn to America’s greatness.  His first big policy initiative was a well-constructed infrastructure program acceptable to both parties.  He increased funds for immigration enforcement, but stopped talking about the wall.  His Obamacare replacement program was a genuine attempt to create a universal catastrophic health care system.  His tax cut plan, contrary to expectations, actually was skewed towards the middle class.  His popularity soared accordingly.

None of this happened, of course, but the point is that Trump didn’t have to be a bumbling hard right Republican president.  That he is one today is the product of a series of conscious decisions on his part, as well as his own moral and intellectual weaknesses.

About two weeks ago, I posted a column in which I discussed the points of friction between the PBP and Reactionary groupings within the Trump Administration, and how the great man would attempt to keep the peace.  The “budget” (given its level of detail, it is more like a manifesto), however, requires Trump to take sides.  At this point, who is winning?

Here are the principal issues, and where the factions stand:

1.  Social Security and Medicare cuts:  Loved by PBPs and loathed by Reactionaries.  Advantage:  Reactionaries.

2.  Immigration enforcement:  A threat to business interests, but demanded by Reactionaries.  Advantage:  Reactionaries.

3.  Defense increases:  Reactionaries like the idea of an increased defense budget even if they have no idea how the additional resources will be used.  Advantage:  Reactionaries.

4.  Cuts to the arts and sciences:  PBPs like watching “Downton Abbey.”  Advantage:  Reactionaries.

5.  Cuts to agricultural programs:  These are of minimal interest to PBPs, but have a substantial impact in rural areas.  Advantage:  PBPs.

6.  Cuts to regional development programs:  A small part of the budget, but important to Reactionaries.  Advantage:  PBPs.

On the really important items, then, the Reactionaries are winning.  The big ticket item for the PBPs, however, is the tax cut.  They can probably tolerate a Reactionary agenda in other fields as long as the tax cut has plenty of goodies for business.  How will that turn out? TBD.

The two predominant conflicts in today’s American political scene are between capital and labor, and between proponents of open and closed economic systems. Here is what that looks like in graphic form:

                             Open                    Closed

Capital               Bush                     Trump

Labor                 Obama                  Sanders

The Capital/Open quadrant represents the establishment Pro-Business Pragmatist wing of the GOP:  it firmly supports the mobility of capital and high levels of immigration, along with the usual regressive tax cuts and deregulation. Politicians in the Capital/Closed quadrant (i.e., Trump) oppose immigration and the free movement of capital, but support regressive tax cuts and business deregulation. The Labor/Open quadrant is the mainstream of the Democratic Party;  politicians in this quadrant support free trade deals, but also push for more progressive taxes and an increase in the size of the welfare state.  Voters in the Labor/Closed quadrant, represented by Bernie Sanders, share Trump’s views about free trade deals, but also support progressive taxation and a larger welfare state.

These are the battles that will be fought both between and within the two parties for the foreseeable future.  Expect to see them on display on a daily basis.

Much has been made of Tillerson’s decision to limit press access during his trip to Asia.  Some of that can be attributed to a degree of natural caution, given his lack of experience as a major player on the diplomatic stage, but I think there is more than that going on here.  I strongly suspect that he is giving the Chinese the message that they have x number of days to get their North Korean client under control or military action will ensue, and he quite understandably doesn’t want to read that in the newspaper.

Assuming that I’m right, how will the Chinese react?  Will they view it purely as standard negotiating tactic from “The Art of the Deal,” and disregard it?  Even if they take it seriously, do they have either the will or the practical ability to bring North Korea to heel?  I’m not optimistic on either score.

“The leader of the free world meets with Donald Trump.”  Yep, that sounds about right.

I’ve read the order.  While the plaintiffs made a variety of constitutional and statutory claims, the order focuses solely on their First Amendment argument. The decision relies very heavily on statements made by Trump and his principal surrogates during the campaign and shortly thereafter to show that the primary purpose of the new travel ban is not “secular.”

Does it please me to see Trump, Giuliani, Miller, and the rest being legally skewered by their own irresponsible public statements?  Yes, indeed, it does. That said, I have some legal concerns about the weight that was placed on comments made during the campaign.  I think Trump has a decent argument that the decision drifted too far away from the actual text of the order, and that an appellate court should reach a different conclusion.

Which is just another way of saying that the Trump campaign should be taken neither seriously nor literally by the judicial system.

Will the EU even exist in 2020?  That depends on the outcome of the French election.  I’m not making any predictions at this point.

Assuming, for purposes of argument, that there still is an EU in 2020, it will be looking for leadership.  As I noted yesterday, it is highly likely that the Germans, having been burned over the last several years, will prefer to play a more supporting role.  Their most plausible successors are:

1.  The Franco-German alliance is revived after a Macron victory.   The EU seems to work better when the French and Germans are collaborating as equals. The French provide a bridge between German austerity and south European poverty.  This is the best case scenario.

2.  Someone from the EU itself steps up to the plate.  Just who that would be is unclear to me.

3.  Nobody takes charge.  The EU, buffeted by nationalism everywhere, slowly descends into irrelevance.

The Holy Roman Empire, which the EU resembles in many respects, withered away after the Thirty Years’ War as a result of nationalist pressures and its own inability to maintain order.  Scenario #3 is a recipe for the same outcome.

 

Crooked Hawaiian so-called judge shouldn’t take my campaign statements seriously or literally.  Makes me look like a loser.  Bad!

Viewed as a stand-alone, Germany in 2017 is unquestionably a success story. Unemployment and inflation are low; the country is running a large trade surplus; and the debt is at reasonable levels.  If you’re a German today, life is pretty good.

Viewed as the leader of Europe, Germany has been an abysmal failure.  Its attempts to Teutonize its neighbors by imposing austerity have led to economic stagnation throughout much of the EU and a corresponding nationalist backlash. Putin is looking more dangerous by the day, and even the US may now see the Germans more as an enemy than a friend. Britain is leaving the EU, whose very existence can no longer be taken for granted.  If you’re a German today, you’re looking for friends, and you’re not sure whom you can call.

Since the Alternative for Germany tainted its anti-euro stance by hobnobbing with racists, there is no likelihood of any meaningful change in German opinions regarding the EU in the foreseeable future.  My guess is that the coalition will continue, and that the German government will pull back from its unrewarding EU leadership role and hope nothing evil fills the void.  That will be the topic of tomorrow’s post.

                   Angie

Angie, Angie

When will those clouds all disappear?

 

There’s no lovin’ from the Don.

All your US friends are gone.

Let me whisper in your ear.

Angie, Angie,

Where will you lead us from here?

 

No more bailouts for the Greeks.

Won’t they just leave you in peace?

You can’t say they’re satisfied.

But Angie, Angie

They can’t say you never tried.

 

All your dreams for the EU

Now it seems that they’re all through.

Come on, baby, dry your eyes.

But Angie, Angie

Keep democracy alive.

 

Angie, Angie

It ain’t time to say goodbye.

 

Parody of “Angie” by the Rolling Stones.

It may not be completely fair to judge the merits of a religion by the company it keeps, but it is consistent with human nature;  after all, other than Constantine’s conversion, nothing helped spread Christianity like the martyrs.  In light of that, the inevitable association of Christianity with irascible old Trump voters screaming about abortion, gay rights, and the wall isn’t exactly going to help spread the gospel among young people in this country.  In the long run, the connection between Trump and the religious right is going to accelerate the decline in Christianity, bigly.

Much has been made over the years about the impact of the Christian right on American politics, but it may well be that the more significant change has run in the other direction, and not for the better.  If Christians really want to take their country back, they would be well-advised to make more of an effort to win the intellectual and moral argument instead of imposing their will on the rest of us through the political process.

The condition of France in 2020 is obviously going to depend largely on the outcome of this year’s election.  If the current polls are accurate, and there is no particularly good reason to doubt it, the two finalists will be outsiders with very limited support in the National Assembly.  I can foresee four different scenarios, only one of which is positive:

1.  Macron wins, and succeeds in building a bipartisan center-right coalition for change within the current system:  This will only happen if he has very impressive political skills.

2.  Macron wins, but cannot get anything meaningful done through the legislative process:  France continues the Hollande drift, only more so.

3.  Le Pen wins and attempts to make constitutional changes by referendum, but fails:  The political temperature of the country reaches new highs, but nothing is accomplished.

4.  Le Pen wins and succeeds in pulling France out of the euro and the EU by referendum:  I don’t see how that makes France great again.

If I were a betting man, I would put my money on #2, but that remains to be seen.