The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Month: November 2024

Let’s Assume Trump Is Serious About Some Policies, What Are The Effects?

The great problem with Trump, predictively, is that he’s fickle. He often doesn’t do what he says he’ll do. Even if he was sincere he’s easily handled by flatterers. The best model for Trump is an arrogant and touchy king who wants to be made to feel he’s amazing.

This means that court games matter even more than in a normal Presidency, and those who play them best have the most power and influence.

But even a good courtier can step wrong with Trump and be pushed out. The limelight has to stay on Trump himself. A courtier can have great power, but the credit and the media must flow to the top. The last thing any courtier wants is to have people saying publicly that they’re the power behind the throne.

Trump also likes to please people, especially mobs of people and he can sometimes get the bit between his teeth and run with an idea no matter what anyone around him says.

Preamble aside, Trump did come back and back to some of the same issues.

Thirty Percent Tariff on Chinese Goods

This will raise costs for American businesses and for consumers. Prices will rise more than the actual cost, as many businesses will use this as an excuse to raise prices even more than their costs. It will not significantly improve US jobs because China’s cost structure is more than 30% cheaper than America’s. It will help other foreign producers, however, and it will lead to a lot of scamming, where Chinese goods are shipped to a third party, scrubbed, and sent to the US, similar to the way Europe is now buying so much “Indian” oil. But…

Mass Deportation Of Immigrants

This is one of those places where I’m uncertain how serious Trump is, especially when it comes to measures like using the national guard. But let’s say he does manage to both massively slow immigration and remove many current immigrants. The effect is an inflation riptide: it will reduce rent, and increase the price of groceries (because most farm workers are immigrants. There will be general wage increases in businesses which can afford them, offset by demand declines. Deported immigrants don’t consume, after all. Because there is a significant and increasing problem with long-term illness and disability, the labor market will wind up even tighter.

(If you like the writing here, well, support it if you can. There aren’t a lot of places like this left on the Web. Every year I fundraise to keep it going. Please Subscribe or Donate.)

Some people will win from this pair of policies and even win fairly big. If you’re in a business with pricing power, it’ll be able to afford the increased wages, if you’re in one that can’t, the businesses will fail and you’ll lose big. We’ll have to see how much the price of housing and rent drops to have a full feel for this. Ironically, for this to really work would require anti-trust action against large landlords who are colluding to increase rent. Withdrawing some federal price-support for housing prices would help cause a collapse in housing prices which would benefit a lot of people, but hurt the upper classes. Of course those upper-classes went for Biden, not Trump.

NATO

Trump’s going to push hard for increased NATO spending by members. They’ll say they’re going to do it, in most cases, then won’t. At this point there’s a chance that Trump leaves NATO. I think, of all his policies, this is the one where there’ll be the most pushback from elites, including many people in his own administration, so I’d say odds favor NATO surviving, but it’s not a sure thing. If the US does leave NATO, it will be a huge boon for the world, and the best thing which could happen to Europe, forcing them to get serious about handling their own affairs. The policies Europe should follow are not those America wants.

Favoring gas cars and disfavoring Electric Vehicles and Sustainable Energy

Obviously a disaster for the environment and climate change. Effectively a subsidy for American automobile producers, who are behind on EV tech and production, but it also puts them into a national ghetto, as the rest of the world moves towards electric and hybrid and they fall behind even further. I assume Musk will push hard against the EV part of this, we’ll see whether he succeeds.

Trump has more proposed policies and his allies have many more. How much of Project 2025 will be enacted is unclear. Trump repudiated it, but the architects will be a big part of his administration. We’ll touch more on these in a later article.

The basic issue is that policies need support from each other. If you want re-industrialization you need to do a number of things. Tariffs would be part of that, but they aren’t all of it. Mass deportation of immigrants could work economically, but not at the same times as measures aren’t taken to deal with long term sickness in the native population, and so on. Proper automobile policy would be to invite branch plants and insist on local part sourcing in addition to tariffs, so that domestic producers learn and the jobs are in America.

Trump’s fundamentally a scatterbrain. He’s not a systems thinker, and the people in his adminstration are ideologues of a set of policies which won’t work economically, so Trump’s economy is unlikely to be overall great, though there will definitely be some winners. In 2028 there will be an opening for someone with more genuinely economically populist ideas, because many people will have been hurt by the Trumpconomy.

More later.

It’s The Economy, Stupid (AKA Economists)

Over ninety-nine percent of economists did not predict the 2008 financial crisis.

The vast majority of economists were pro-globalization, by which I mean pro offshoring and outsourcing. They said it would be good for America, they were wrong.

China is predicted to wind up with over 50% of the world’s industry by 2030. Forget all the bullshit about great power competition. It’s over. There may be a war, but if there is one the West will either lose or the world will be destroyed in a nuclear exchange.

Back in the 90s an economist called Brockway liked to say “Economists are bad for your health.”

(If you like the writing here, well, support it if you can. There aren’t a lot of places like this left on the Web. Every year I fundraise to keep it going. Please Subscribe or Donate.)

Let’s bring this back to the election. I thought that abortion would be the election defining issue. Stupid of me, though abortion was and only four percent behind inflation. It was inflation, which given how much I write about it, I should have expected. Two tables from the CNN exit polls:

Abortion was the second most important issue. Inflation was , and people who voted for pro-abortion measures voted about 9% less for Harris.

Economists meanwhile keep talking about the : the idea that there is no recession, people just think there is.

Economists, as usual, are full of shit. They have a professional dependence on official statistics and refuse to realize that many of them don’t reflect reality. As I have written in the past, according to official inflation statistics the price of cards did not rise between 2000 and 2020. In another case, you will be happy to know that medical service costs are going down. Hedonic adjustments are completely out of control: prices are dropping, you see, because products are so much better now. (There are other finangles, this is the main one.)

Growth numbers are based entirely on nominal growth minus the inflation rate, as are real wage numbers.

I would bet that the US economy has been contracting since 2008, but since inflation is understated, it isn’t visible.

I would also bet that median welfare for Americans has been declining since somewhere between 1968 and 1979, though average might have been increasing till 2008 because of how much money was being shoveled to the rich and wealthy.

We live in a pretend world, and economists are the chief pretenders, the sycophants telling the Emperor how wonderful his new clothes are.

To riff on Galbraith, economists exist to make astrologers look good.

Economics, as a discipline, should be wiped from the face of the Earth. The less than 1% of economists who aren’t charlatans or fools are not enough to justify the harm economists do, which exceeds even that of MBAs.

Harris lost because of the insistence of Democrats that the economy was good, inflation was fine, and that voters were too stupid to read their own grocery bills. Because of this belief Harris said she wouldn’t have done anything different than Biden did. What she needed to do was get out there and say she was going to drive down prices, especially rent and groceries.

As for Trump, we’ll talk more about the effects of his economic plans, if instituted, later.

Democrats will not adapt to this defeat

There won’t be any introspection.

Empires, like fortunes, are lost slowly and then all at once.

I’m afraid what is coming is going to fall on every American fairly equally like the snow on the graveyard at the end of James Joyce’s “The Dead”

Yes, the newspapers were right: snow was general all over Ireland. It was falling softly upon the Bog of Allen and, further westwards, softly falling into the dark mutinous Shannon waves. It was falling too upon every part of the lonely churchyard where Michael Furey lay buried. It lay thickly drifted on the crooked crosses and headstones, on the spears of the little gate, on the barren thorns. His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead.

Democrats who have themselves not yet fallen into precarity or the economic abyss can not and will not accept that our system is completely rotten and we need to change course and leadership.
It took the GOP from 2008 to 2016 to admit that the Reagan/Bush playbook and leadership class was bankrupt and had to go.
It will likely take multiple election cycles before some figure or movement arises that can win a Democratic primary. And given that the Democrats have a long and proud history of sabotaging the most popular and most likely to win the general election candidates it might require a whole new party emerging.
Democrats had their chance at a new direction and likely multiple administrations and an even longer dominance of the Congress with Bernie Sanders but rejected the clear will of the overwhelming majority of the young voters of their party.
Those young voters are drifting away in multiple directions.
Of my comfortably retired upper-middle classic acquaintances none are even willing to admit publicly (some will in private) that the Democrats make poor tactical choices, much less admit that the whole party and every individual needs to really re-evaluate their approach and even core beliefs.
Trump is at least a wild card which presents some chance of positive change, but the odds of radically negative change are much higher.
Regardless, the status-quo has been thoroughly rejected by the majority of the American public.
That is a fact people need to accept in order to try and steer that majority in the least self-destructive direction possible.
It’s unfortunate that the members of professional-managerial class (and those of us who have pretensions to it) have never truly accepted the idea of majority rule.
We’re going to lose a war in humiliating fashion — with an outside chance that it will be over quickly — which will trigger economic collapse (and that’s if we don’t start nuking people).
Then and only then will our ruling elites turn on each other in something that will be like a post-modern parody of the first American Civil War.
Hopefully it’ll be over in 5-7 years and some of us will be alive to adjust to the new normal and enjoy a few decades of relative peace as we adjust to penury, plagues, and rapidly worsening climate change.
Jonathan Cook had some good observations:

Kamala Harris didn’t lose because she’s a woman or because she’s black.

She lost because, if your political and media system – rigged by donors – limits the choice to two hardline neoliberal candidates, with anything else denounced as “communism”, the most hardline, neoliberal candidate has an edge.

Over time, the system keeps moving further to the hardline, neoliberal right. You can’t stop that relentless shift by voting for one of the two symptoms of your diseased political system.

You have to rise up against the diseased system itself.

As did Freddie de Boer:

You can’t blame losing the popular vote and all seven swing states on Jill Stein.

You can’t blame losing the popular vote and all seven swing states on Putin and the Russians.

You can’t blame losing the popular vote and all seven swing states on Bernie Sanders and his supporters.

You can’t blame losing the popular vote and all seven swing states on Joe Rogan.

You can’t blame losing the popular vote and all seven swing states on Glenn Greenwald and The Young Turks.

You can’t blame losing the popular vote and all seven swing states on the decision to run with Tim Walz.

You can’t blame losing the popular vote and all seven swing states on the New York Times and its occasional Democrat-skeptical opinion pieces.

You can’t blame losing the popular vote and all seven swing states on Joe Biden for getting out of the race too late.

You can’t pull all the usual Democrat tricks. You have to actually figure out what’s wrong with your party, root and branch. Because you called the guy a fascist, again, and he walked right through that insult to the Oval Office, again. And the eternal question presents itself: what are you going to do about it?

Trump Wins

And it’s a big enough victory that we shouldn’t expect Lawfare to overturn it. He very likely even won the popular vote.

I thought Harris would pull it out based on abortion, but I was wrong. (I’m terrible at election prediction, as I warned.) What happened is that people voted for abortion at higher rates than for Harris. The numbers below aren’t final, but they’re indicative:

Men really showed up, as well.

It seems that running on:

  • I wouldn’t do anything different than Biden did;
  • I’ll keep the genocide going;
  • Cheney and other neocons are wonderful;
  • I’ll appoint Republicans to my cabinet.

wasn’t a winning strategy.

I suspect that we’ll find out it mostly came down to the economy, because no, people aren’t wrong that prices are too high.

I find it hard to be entirely certain what Trump will do as President because he’s, ummm, inconsistent and senile, but I’m sure it won’t be pretty. We’ll see how serious he was about huge tariffs, using the national guard against immigrants and ending the Ukraine war (which would be a good thing.)

We’ll also see whether he leads the US to war against Iran. The Resistance would be well advised to use the next two months wisely.

The biggest obvious loss will be Lisa Khan no longer leading the FTC. Anti-trust will take a big step backwards. Elon Musk has proved over the last few years that he’s an incompetent ideologue, whether he was sane and competent in the past or not, so that’s bad too. And RFK shouldn’t be in charge of anything.

Don’t expect Trump’s policies to improve the economy. Tariffs can work, but they require industrial policy and other steps he won’t take, as we’ve discussed often on this blog.

(This blog is for understanding the present, making educated guesses at the future, and telling truths, usually unpleasant ones. There aren’t a lot of places like this left on the Web. Every year I fundraise to keep it going. If you’d like to help, and can afford to, please Subscribe or Donate.)

2024 Election Day Open Thread

Use to discuss the election and its aftermath.

If Kamala Wins It’ll Be the Supreme Court Who Won It For Her

(This blog is for understanding the present, making educated guesses at the future, and telling truths, usually unpleasant ones. There aren’t a lot of places like this left on the Web. Every year I fundraise to keep it going. If you’d like to help, and can afford to, please Subscribe or Donate.)

Back in 2022 almost everyone expected the midterms to go Republican. They didn’t.

The Supremes won it for Democrats, because women were furious about the over-turning of Roe v.s. Wade.

Harris is a terrible candidate, but the Supremes seem likely to win it for her, too.

Men tend to vote Republican, women tend to vote Democratic. Women are far more likely to vote than men, and if they remains true on election day, Trump is toast.

What Republicans don’t get is that abortion is a health issue as well as a choice issue. There is a constant drumbeat of stories of women dying because doctors and hospitals were unwilling or scared to do an abortion when medically necessary. I recently saw a story of a late term 18 year old. She went to a hospital with Sepsis, they sent her home. She went to another one, they dragged their feet and insisted on two scans, and by the time they were willing to do what was needed, she was dead.

And the problems, electorally, is that while there is a hard minority of men who really care about abortion, more women care, and are pro-choice and pro-women’s lives. After all, but for the Grace of God, there they go, or their friends or children.

Added to the numbers above we have the Selzer poll which found Iowa, of all places, going Harris by 3 points. Selzer has historically been very reliable, but it’s the shock of it being Oiwa.

If the gender gap or the Iowa poll are accurate (Selzer), Harris isn’t just going to win, she’s going to blow Trump out of the water.

The problems I see with a Harris victory in this manner are:

  1. The democrats won’t do anything major about abortion, because they’ll figure if they keep it as a problem it’ll continue to win them elections;
  2. Harris winning will be seen as a sign that Biden’s policies are good, and should continue.

All this said, I suck at electoral prediction, so we’ll see. But this does seem to be the scenario.

When Labour Opposes Rapid Technological Change

So, I recently saw this:

our obsession with jobs might trap us – everything could look like healthcare, still using fax machines when email and text exists.

“sorry I know this is possible via AI but we have our manual spreadsheet guy, following regulation 1284”

Leaving aside the word “AI”, because it’s not clear how expansive the use case for current AI really is, there’s a point here and it’s an important one.

He’s exactly right about our obsession with jobs, but I’d state it a different way:

It’s our obsession with distributing resources through money gained by jobs. A pre-requisite of speedy technological adaptation is people knowing they won’t be hurt by it.

Recently we had the longshoreman’s strike. The issue that caused the strike is machines replacing workers. Longshoreman jobs are some of the few blue collar labor jobs that pay well. If the longshoremen lose them, most will never get a job again that pays as well.

But the issue isn’t the job. It’s the money. And the money is just a proxy for resources: housing, food, heat, cold, transport, medical, entertainment and so on. No money and your life is shit, and probably short. Not much money means misery in most cases.

Labor; which is to say the proletariat, people who have to sell their labor to survive, embrace technological change when it benefits them, when it doesn’t hurt them, or when they have no choice.

During the industrial revolution people were forced off the land thru enclosure. They worked in factories 12 hours a day, for 6 1/2 days a week because they had no choice.

After WWII in America, people flooded off the farms into the cities and suburbs because jobs that provided a better standard of living for less work were abundant.

(This blog is for understanding the present, making educated guesses at the future, and telling truths, usually unpleasant ones. There aren’t a lot of places like this left on the Web. Every year I fundraise to keep it going. If you’d like to help, and can afford to, please Subscribe or Donate.)

This lesson goes far beyond workers. No one wants change that hurts them. One of the main factors stalling industrialization in most countries was that most land couldn’t be bought: it was controlled by nobles or the Crown and they didn’t sell land if they could help it. The land was the basis of their wealth and power. Until they either perceived otherwise or they lacked the power to keep their land, they wouldn’t sell. (The game Victoria III, while not a very good game, is great for modeling this. Play Japan or Dai Viet and you will FEEL this: sheer hate of reactionary landowners holding you back.)

There was also the issue of money: for most of the Dark Ages and Middle Ages you couldn’t borrow large amounts of money, in part because the Church was against lending at interest and the Church was powerful. (There were other reasons, Economists include them in their hand waving of “primitive accumulation of capital” which is why sociologists, anthropologists and historians have written most of the important literature in the area.)

If you want change, whether technological or social, you either have to get people to be OK with it (for it, or not mind) or you need to remove their power to resist.

It is that simple.

 

Page 4 of 4

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén