The U.S. as trade war leader; Russia/China infowar; Biden and inflation; Yglesias on industrial policy; How to get immigrants to the Rust Belt; How to lose money
I realize you believe Joe Biden is having a successful Presidency however I do not share your perspective. Here are my points. Good people can disagree.
1) He said he would be a transitional President and return things to normal. We all knew Biden as center-left for most of his career. , not a Progressive. Most of the antipathy towards him is that he lied to us about what he was going to do.
2) His dithering over Ukraine's armament, along with his inane comment regarding a small incursion, blundered Russia into an invasion.
3) He did not need to increase the Federal Government budget by 50%. The Inflation Reduction Act was neither inflation-reduction nor budgetary responsible.
4) His border policy not only imperials US security but has put such strains on the social compact that a majority of Americans now support mass deportations. It is overwhelming public schools and social services, and he may lose his presidency.
5) His climate change policies are ill-conceived and lack a cost-benefit analysis worth a bucket of spit. You cannot make a market that is not there. In fact, his EV strategy may end up putting US Automakers out of business. Having spent 35 years in Automotive Marketing, I can firmly tell you that US Automakers cannot make a $25,000 EV sedan and remain profitable.
6) It is clear that Americans do not want their daughters competing against men, no matter if they call themselves girls. We, Dads who went to after-school sports to support our daughters think this is nuts.
7) He can actually thank the 10 GOP Senators who approached him about doing an Infrastructure Bill. He didn’t initiate that legislation and I wish Democrats would stop writing history.
8) His reactionary posture to China and American jobs caused him to oppose Nippon Steel’s purchase of US Steel. A shell of its former self. Japan is our ally....Stupid.
Anyway, there are probably 10 or so other items....and my proof of his “failed” Presidency are his horrid poll numbers.
Umm. Perhaps you don’t remember. The 10 GOP Senators sent a letter to him offering their support for an infrastructure plan. Number 4, the border crisis? You don’t believe that have any number of millions of unvetted immigrants and an untold number of got-a-ways is a security problem? Ok. Thanks for your response.
You are right Earl, kind and good people can disagree. That said, I'm genuinely confused about some of your points though and I like to hear what people's unique opinions are on things.
1) What policies has Biden initiated that seem to be very Progressive outside of Student Loan forgiveness? Compared to the Trump years he definitely has returned a state of normalcy to the White House, standard decorum and general affairs of the state. He doesn't spend all his day on Twitter or trying to destroy our institutions which is a nice start. Considering that most Progressives don't seem to like Biden because he hasn't done enough seems to support his standard center left policy positions. It seems like maybe you have a different expectation of what center left is vs what others think.
2) He didn't dither over Ukraine's armament, unless you think you had other options at his disposal to send them more without Congressional approval. Blaming Biden for Russia's invading is also certainly a bold take. Considering that if Trump was President then we are all confident that Ukraine probably wouldn't have gotten anything from the US.
3) We can definitely agree that the IRA didn't reduce inflation but it certainly didn't increase the Federal Government budget by 50% that is just straight misinformation. Do you have a source for that number? See this article (https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/the-inflation-reduction-acts-benefits-and-costs) ; Key Quote "IRA's fiscal cost to the federal budget would amount to more than $800 billion over 10 years."
4) If you care about immigration and southern border security then I think you would be especially upset that his immigration proposal which was probably the most restrictive border policies in decades sat on Mike Johnson's desk and the GOP negotiated with Dem's in bad faith on the bill before killing it because of Trump. Blaming Biden for that alone is poor form.
5) I don't think anyone is expecting US Automakers to turn a profit for EV's at $25k because there just isn't scale for that at this point. The US will never be as cheap as Asia, specifically China or India on automotive manufacturing. However, we should be able to turn a profit on EV cars at $45k. Clearly his EV policies aren't putting US automakers out of business either, there is no data to support that. If you don't support net zero initiatives or EV's that is fine. But to make it seem like Biden is single handedly killing the auto industry seems like a bad take. Car prices have been trending up in the US for almost a decade and the average cost for a new car is already > $40k.
6) As the father of a daughter, I can concur I don't want my child competing against men in kids sports. That said I don't believe Biden saying that he wants men competing against young girls or women either. You are bringing up a social issue as a reason to not support Biden. Just because he thinks that LGBTQ or trans kids specifically here should be able to play sports or get equal protections doesn't mean he or most people want trans kids or student athletes to have an unfair advantage over biological women. Can you share where he said that or claims to support that? Most people think it should probably be handled locally and with experts who know more about it than the average person.... From a straight political standpoint though I can see why most people just generally don't support this or why it has become such a hot culture war issue even though it literally affects such a small population of kids and probably should just be handled locally with data and expert guidance.
7) More Democrats voted for the Infrastructure bill than Republicans in both the House and Senate. It was also a bipartisan group that negotiated it, it originally started off as the Invest in America Act (HR 3684), and Peter DeFazio and Mitch McConnell helped kick it off. To say that is all is thanks to 10 GOP senators either shows you don't know how many votes are needed to pass bills in the House or Senate or you genuinely don't want to give Biden credit for something that Trump tried for years to pass.
8) Most economically intelligent and foreign policy nerds like us who probably read Noah's blog would agree that his reactionary posture to the US Steel purchase by Nippon was only done to hopefully retain some steel worker and local votes in an election year. Let's hope the deal goes through in the future. It would be a win win for Japan and American workers.
For most President's overseeing 2 new countries into NATO, passing overtime protections, passing rules on banks for overdraft fees, passing an Infrastructure bill (which also included savings for people on certain drugs like insulin) that was decades overdue as well as the Chips Act and the rescheduling of Marijuana would be amazing accomplishments for a 1st term Presidency but because of polarization, and inflation we are just shrugging like he hasn't done a lot of really positive things for America. The Infrastructure bill and Chips Act will help America in the long term. I do agree that he could've done a little bit more on Inflation though but to make it seem like he had a "failed" presidency is a bit of an overreaction maybe?
I’m not going to rebut each of your points. However, I will address two items. One is his title nine changes regarding men competing on girls' teams.
If I seemed to suggest that the IRA increased the Federal Budget by 50% as you say that is not accurate. The American Rescue Plan, along with other Bills, managed to increase the Federal Budget by 50% from budgets prior to COVID-19.
Can you please address what changes were made to Title 9 that you have an issue with? The only thing it did regarding LGBTQ students were to make sure they couldn't be discriminated against... Unless you like that sort of thing. Calling all LGBTQ+ kids or young people men is entirely bad faith and misleading as well. You can read the changes made to Title 9 in 2024 and then let me know where it allowed men to compete on girls teams.
Regarding your second point, you did specifically say the IRA increased the federal budget by 50%. That was what your original post said. Now if you are including the Chips Act, Infrastructure bill and the American Rescue plan as part of that then please make sure you also include the ramifications of the Trump tax cuts, CARES Act, and of course the disaster that was PPP loans. Not all decisions are made in a vacuum.
His Dark Brandon speech calling White Supremacy the biggest threat to the nation, and that anyone who disagreed was racist is an example. It was totally unnecessary, and Old Sniffer probably has no idea he even gave the speech. Maybe democrats don't realize how offensive it was. I d k
Well I'm not a white supremacist so it didn't bother me at all... Nor did I find it offensive... /Shrug. We all have different priorities I guess.
I personally think any type of ism or othering that has Americans hating other Americans based on any type of protected class of identity is probably the biggest threat to our nation. If we can't work together over small stuff there is no way we'll continue to be a world power and compete to solve the larger issues imo.
"Well I'm not a white supremacist so it didn't bother me at all.."
Neither are most of the people insulted by the speech. That was my point.
"I personally think any type of ism or othering that has Americans hating other Americans based on any type of protected class of identity is probably the biggest threat to our nation."
I agree with you. So, which party is all in on dividing us based on identity?
> Neither are most of the people insulted by the speech. That was my point.
I guess I'm lost why most people were offended by that speech then? I don't know any of those people in real life and I have family and friends that vote Republican and they are against racism and white supremacy as well.
> I agree with you. So, which party is all in on dividing us based on identity?
That's a good question, you seem to have an answer that you want to share? I think it's the political party that tends to recently support white supremacy, and also take rights away from marginalized groups? Are we agreeing or arguing? I'm not really sure lol.
The Inflation Reduction Act was the marketing name for the kind of spending bill the U.S. government passes regularly. The name was chosen for the same reason medicines have a sweet, syrupy flavor.
I read up until the part where Biden “dithered Russia into an invasion”, ie forced Russia to send thousands of tanks and artillery into a neighboring country. That was so ridiculous I tend to think it’s probably an example of the divisive professional content Noah mentions in this post, either directly or at one level removed.
Most of these arguments are preposterous, but my favorite is the one about EVs. When you were in Automotive Marketing, were you also telling your company things like "COMPUTERS?? inside the car??? Preposterous!!". Because that's exactly how you're going to sound in less than a decade when EVs are the standard, not by way of coercion, simply because they will be the right choice for the overwhelming number of consumers as component prices come down and the EV infrastructure leave arguments about "range" and the like completely hollow.
I believe I said forcing a market. EVs may well be huge sellers 10 20 years from now. I have no idea....However there are problems in forcing a market that is not there. Charging stations will not take a few years, it will take at a minimum a decade or more. US Car companies cannot make a $25k EV and still be profitable. There is a reason the avg proce of an EV is over $60k, well beyond the price point Americans can afford. There is no viable used car market. Nobody wants to be the guy who gets stuck putting in a new battery pack. I will not buy an EV until I can charge in 5 to 10 min. I personally won’t wait 30 min for an 80% charge....
My other issues is that there has not been a cost benefit analysis. Not to mentioni any study on the economic dislocation of swithchign to EV’s from ICE’s. Our transportation fuel emits 15% of all US CO2 emissions. Our power generations emits 40%. There are over 275 million registered cars and trucks....they move and they have to have the ability to recharge.
There are approx only 28,000 power plants of various sorts. Any moderately intelligent person would understand it would easier to make our power generationi less carbon polluting that trying to chase a F150 with an extension cord. So, as you who is prosperous I’ll let you decide if you actually know something or are just spouting crap you know nothing about.
I can never tell whether people like you making these ridiculous statements are Russian troll-bots or just red-hatted ninnies. All federal legislation of this magnitude goes through cost-benefit analysis, as required by law. The average price of an EV is not $60k. The US average new car transaction price for all cars is about $47,500, which is about $200 less than the unsubsidized price of the Tesla Model Y (the world's best selling EV and the best-selling vehicle of any kind globally in 2023). Other high selling EVs are considerably less expensive, including the Model 3 ($40,700), the Hyundai IONIQ 5 ($41,500), the Ford Mustang Mach-E ($46,950), the VW ID.4 ($37,500), and the GM Chevy Bolt ($27,500). The Ford F-150 Lightning starts at $49,950, but the average transaction price for new pickup trucks in $65,250.
I can never tell whether people like just talk out of their hat. There is a vast difference on what is advertised vs. what is available. Most manufacturers advertise the base model. Not the model that has all the bells and whistles which is actually how they make their money. For example genuine leather is a expensive option....but let me ask you what do you think a piece of cowhide from a slaughter house actualls costs the car company. There are ad, fees, documents fees, prep fees.....Sure there is the Nissan Leaf....not very disireable. Most Americans prefer SUV’s due to our population being fat. So, talking the base model and sending me the price is ridiculous....but hey, go ahead and live in your dream world. Currently buying an EV is not for the average America....unless you are a coastly pinhead. Have a loverly day and yes I am a Russian bot.
Talking out of my hat? Are you writing me from inside a Humphrey Bogart movie? All the prices quoted are for cars that can be purchased. All the phenomena you cite about the differences between advertised prices and "actual" prices apply to all cars, not just EVs. Therefore, if you are trying to claim (as you originally tried to claim) that EVs are vastly more expensive than ICEVs, you have failed...again
It seems to me the Heartland Visa is likely to be subsidizing people to do remote work (or remote work 3-4 days a week, and long commutes the other 1-2). Which I guess is probably fine -- they'll still spend money in their communities, so you'll get standard multiplier effects. I'm very skeptical this is going to somehow create new clusters of knowledge work in the exurbs.
Companies will be reluctant to expand remote work because 1. if an employee tries to arbitrage their salary to get a Silicon Valley job but try to buy all of Wyoming, the employer will then arbitrage the wage to provide a comparable standard of living to Silicon Valley at the lower wage, or 2. the company will transplant the work to the low-cost region.
Our primary residence is in Teton County WY. Housing is nearly as expensive as Silicon Valley (where we moved from 6 years ago). But, the no state income tax part is a big savings over California
Yeah fair enough. Like it doesn't seem like a terrible idea, but I'm not very optimistic it would have a large effect, and hence doesn't seem like it'd be worth a lot of political capital, or prioritizing it above other aspects of immigration policy. Though Kenny Easwaran's post in another thread has some good food for thought. I'm open to being persuaded it's better than a first-glance evaluation might suggest.
I have enjoyed quite a lot of your analysis about Second China Shock, but as a Vietnamese I am really doubtful that our government will raise tariffs to counter the influx of cheap Chinese goods (or EV at least), as in the case of many other countries though, since:
1. China could raise tariffs, reciprocally, against Vietnamese exports, and China has always been one of the biggest trade partners to VN, so the effect towards our export to China could be much higher compared to the benefits from a protected industry;
3. As for EV case, VN actually has one big conglomerate in the field (Vinfast), however it is struggling with debt, various lawsuits in the US, as well as being infamous for bad quality for the software and control systems, so much so that Vinfast has to inflate their sale from stuffing with its own taxi company: https://hntrbrk.com/whats-going-on-with-vinfast/.
Even though the risk of Vinfast failling is big, historically our government has not really bailed out private companies (rather than SOE), and so I doubt that they will raise tariffs to defend that company against cheap Chinese cars. In fact BYD and Wuling have already started selling their cars in Vietnam though!
Think about this: John Maynard Keynes was smart enough to make a ton of money in the stock market in the middle of the Depression. And he never gave a stock tip to anybody.
“Any policy of intensified strategic competition with China needs to be premised on closer relationships with Japan, Korea, Australia, and other Asian allies, not on treating them as enemies.”
Building an economic moat around China is an effective defense. What better time to do this than now, when direct foreign investment to China has dropped off a cliff? That money has to go somewhere. And many countries have been treated by China, via Silk Road, the way certain (unnamed) U.S. financial capital firms load up a corporation with debt, layoff (gut) employees, and make money on the fees (debt service). If that’s China’s idea of soft diplomacy, it’s resulted in a hard landing for many already poor countries. And much of the funded infrastructure is shoddy work by Chinese engineers (e.g., hydroelectric dams already failing/leaking). I would think the West could view this as opportunity.
“. . . Rust Belt areas that could benefit the most from skilled immigration often languish, because immigrants don’t move there.”
This is one of many reasons chip fabs receiving government matching funds should be contingent upon building facilities throughout the Rust Belt. The largest fresh-water source is an environmental plus, legacy infrastructure could be upgraded; and, in addition to the high-skilled workers, the ancillary vendors and services related to huge 24/7 chip fabs would provide jobs for less skilled workers.
“There are a minority of smart advice-givers out there, but regular folks are very bad at picking which ones they are.”
Approximately 85% of fund managers (mutual and hedge) don’t beat the S&P 500. An investors is just paying fees for underperformance. Small wonder after the Financial Crisis many investors became indexers. And a significant percentage of mutual funds are just closer indexing. Why pay a management fee? Warren Buffet won a $1 million bet with a hedge fund manager. The bet was that he could beat the S&P 500 Index over the next 12 months but Berkshire could. Proceeds went to Buffett’s choice of charity: The Girls Club of Omaha. The hedge fund manager threw in the towel after eight months, when it was apparent he would beat the S&P 500, and cut Buffett a check.
My biggest concern with the Heartland Visa idea, especially the provision that high-wage applicants be prioritized, is that most of the regions in need of revitalization simply… don’t have high-wage jobs, which is why they’re in decline in the first place. You’re sort of competing against the idea of urban agglomeration? I suppose that provision is normalized to local prevailing wage, but without some attempt to reformat American economic growth such that high-wage jobs are in the Rust Belt (which we know to be difficult, if not impossible, even if you think that’s a good idea), such a program could just become a pretextual excuse to reduce immigration even further. I also have a vague objection to the idea of telling people where to live, but the politics here are what they are. definitely open to being wrong about this, though - are there successful examples of these types of visas historically or in other countries?
Most of the regions definitely wouldn't work. But I could definitely imagine some company that has strong demand for importing high-end talent setting up an office in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Buffalo, Milwaukee, or perhaps even Memphis or East St. Louis. I have some worries about them setting up an office in the far suburbs of Austin or San Antonio and expecting their visa employees to commute in from two counties away.
It would definitely be interesting to know about places that have made this sort of visa work. I don't like it, but it's obviously better to say that people can come and only live in certain places than to say that they can't come. But I'm not sure how landlords and employers checking the visa would do things - presumably landlords could only approve leases for people with visas that apply at the address of the rental, but place of employment is a bit more fuzzy (and I could also imagine deals where someone connected to the employer buys a crash pad in an off-limits city and allows people to sleep there without checking their visas).
A Ukrainian won the Barkley Ultramarathon (100-130 miles). The exact course is a secret until the start, is unmarked, and no GPS allowed. And a Ukrainian is now the undisputed heavyweight boxing champion:
At least one more interesting thing: I have a theory that explains everything.
I call it Calicrisis. The polycrisis turns out to be that California is responsible for everything.
So, 90% of the Calicrisis is a consequence of criminal justice reform (Props. 47 and 57, AB 109). The next 9% of the Calicrisis is the patient zero effect -- either something happened to California or was caused by a Californian. The remaining 1% is randomness. But there's a fractalness to everything. For the remaining 1% of random stuff, the salient cause is probably connected to California as a second order effect. Or a third order effect.
Inflation can be explained by everybody having to pay more because of organized shoplifting, followed by businesses still doing business in California that have to pay more in taxes and costs that are recovered nationally or globally. Insurance prices are going up because of reckless driving, GTA and bipping, as well as California's property claims for natural disasters.
California is also the leading agricultural producer for many foods. Because of drought, the cost of growing in California has risen and taken a lot of commodity prices up with it.
I could go on, but the gist of it everything going wrong in the world is because California allows crimes to happen, something bad happened in California, or something bad was caused by a Californian.
"the Nozickian libertarian perspective on media regulation looks increasingly untenable and self-defeating. This is liberalism’s big test."
Intriguing phrases. Do you mean liberalism must find a way to further control media, or to resist the urge to control media? Or maybe to not regulate too far, which may mean many things.
It seems on one hand that regulation, especially for social media, will be illiberal. And to refrain for reasons of liberal principles is likely to bring more power to the illiberal, who have advantages in that space.
For the illiberal person, you only need to win the information space game once. When you win and get power you end the game (or at least change the rules to be in your favour). But a liberal plays the game specically not to win. The objective is prolonging the game.
Too bad, too. I lived in California for decades. It had a lot to offer but the politics became one party controlled, and that party is itself tightly controlled by public employee unions.
Absolutely. But some problems, like the special gas formulation (that was based on wrong settled science) were put in place decades ago, and nothing current voters can do about it. Of course, no oil company will invest in a new refinery with climate crazy policies, which you can blame current voters for. Yes, ultimately, people are always to blame for their government.
I'm not a grass-roots MAGA, so maybe I am out of touch, but to the extent I've spoken with or read Trump supporters, exactly zero of them have said anything like that. In fact, Ukraine (and Israel for that matter) are not topics they bring up. I'd say immigration, inflation, DEI and transing ("mutilating") children are the topics that do come up.
You are doing that thing I see a lot lately, which is conflating population with market size. You forgot about buying power…
China is a very large market for goods and services and there are definitely structural advantages that come with that, but it’s not true that it’s a bigger market than the US. Americans are richer and also vastly more profligate. There are certainly product categories where you could sell more into China than the US, but US consumers spend way more than Chinese consumers, in aggregate.
"You are doing that thing I see a lot lately, which is conflating population with market size." <-- If I were doing that, I wouldn't have written the thing that I wrote about India, in that same paragraph.
"The U.S., being 1/4 the size of China, can’t hope to match that internal market."
That's what you wrote Noah. Yes, later in the same paragraph, you indicated that buying power was relevant in the context of India, but I think my criticism absolutely still stands. The US market can and does outmatch China's market, even with a quarter of the pop, because Americans are much richer and much spendier.
According to tradingeconomics.com, US consumer spending is more than DOUBLE that of China... but you got India right so... it doesn't matter that you are wrong about the US? Come on.
Love your substack; not sure why you wouldn't just accept that your sentence is wrong (or at least an overstatement) here.
Hi Noah! Today’s news from the ICC reminded me of what you argued the US do related to the Israel/Hamas conflict - i.e. “wash their hands of it”. I agree with you 1000% in principle, but what do you think that actually looks like at this point? Does the US government have an “off ramp” to being embroiled in this conflict? Appreciate your thoughts, thanks for what you do!
I realize you believe Joe Biden is having a successful Presidency however I do not share your perspective. Here are my points. Good people can disagree.
1) He said he would be a transitional President and return things to normal. We all knew Biden as center-left for most of his career. , not a Progressive. Most of the antipathy towards him is that he lied to us about what he was going to do.
2) His dithering over Ukraine's armament, along with his inane comment regarding a small incursion, blundered Russia into an invasion.
3) He did not need to increase the Federal Government budget by 50%. The Inflation Reduction Act was neither inflation-reduction nor budgetary responsible.
4) His border policy not only imperials US security but has put such strains on the social compact that a majority of Americans now support mass deportations. It is overwhelming public schools and social services, and he may lose his presidency.
5) His climate change policies are ill-conceived and lack a cost-benefit analysis worth a bucket of spit. You cannot make a market that is not there. In fact, his EV strategy may end up putting US Automakers out of business. Having spent 35 years in Automotive Marketing, I can firmly tell you that US Automakers cannot make a $25,000 EV sedan and remain profitable.
6) It is clear that Americans do not want their daughters competing against men, no matter if they call themselves girls. We, Dads who went to after-school sports to support our daughters think this is nuts.
7) He can actually thank the 10 GOP Senators who approached him about doing an Infrastructure Bill. He didn’t initiate that legislation and I wish Democrats would stop writing history.
8) His reactionary posture to China and American jobs caused him to oppose Nippon Steel’s purchase of US Steel. A shell of its former self. Japan is our ally....Stupid.
Anyway, there are probably 10 or so other items....and my proof of his “failed” Presidency are his horrid poll numbers.
(6) and (8) have a case. The rest of these points make no sense at all to me.
Umm. Perhaps you don’t remember. The 10 GOP Senators sent a letter to him offering their support for an infrastructure plan. Number 4, the border crisis? You don’t believe that have any number of millions of unvetted immigrants and an untold number of got-a-ways is a security problem? Ok. Thanks for your response.
You are right Earl, kind and good people can disagree. That said, I'm genuinely confused about some of your points though and I like to hear what people's unique opinions are on things.
1) What policies has Biden initiated that seem to be very Progressive outside of Student Loan forgiveness? Compared to the Trump years he definitely has returned a state of normalcy to the White House, standard decorum and general affairs of the state. He doesn't spend all his day on Twitter or trying to destroy our institutions which is a nice start. Considering that most Progressives don't seem to like Biden because he hasn't done enough seems to support his standard center left policy positions. It seems like maybe you have a different expectation of what center left is vs what others think.
2) He didn't dither over Ukraine's armament, unless you think you had other options at his disposal to send them more without Congressional approval. Blaming Biden for Russia's invading is also certainly a bold take. Considering that if Trump was President then we are all confident that Ukraine probably wouldn't have gotten anything from the US.
3) We can definitely agree that the IRA didn't reduce inflation but it certainly didn't increase the Federal Government budget by 50% that is just straight misinformation. Do you have a source for that number? See this article (https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/the-inflation-reduction-acts-benefits-and-costs) ; Key Quote "IRA's fiscal cost to the federal budget would amount to more than $800 billion over 10 years."
4) If you care about immigration and southern border security then I think you would be especially upset that his immigration proposal which was probably the most restrictive border policies in decades sat on Mike Johnson's desk and the GOP negotiated with Dem's in bad faith on the bill before killing it because of Trump. Blaming Biden for that alone is poor form.
5) I don't think anyone is expecting US Automakers to turn a profit for EV's at $25k because there just isn't scale for that at this point. The US will never be as cheap as Asia, specifically China or India on automotive manufacturing. However, we should be able to turn a profit on EV cars at $45k. Clearly his EV policies aren't putting US automakers out of business either, there is no data to support that. If you don't support net zero initiatives or EV's that is fine. But to make it seem like Biden is single handedly killing the auto industry seems like a bad take. Car prices have been trending up in the US for almost a decade and the average cost for a new car is already > $40k.
6) As the father of a daughter, I can concur I don't want my child competing against men in kids sports. That said I don't believe Biden saying that he wants men competing against young girls or women either. You are bringing up a social issue as a reason to not support Biden. Just because he thinks that LGBTQ or trans kids specifically here should be able to play sports or get equal protections doesn't mean he or most people want trans kids or student athletes to have an unfair advantage over biological women. Can you share where he said that or claims to support that? Most people think it should probably be handled locally and with experts who know more about it than the average person.... From a straight political standpoint though I can see why most people just generally don't support this or why it has become such a hot culture war issue even though it literally affects such a small population of kids and probably should just be handled locally with data and expert guidance.
7) More Democrats voted for the Infrastructure bill than Republicans in both the House and Senate. It was also a bipartisan group that negotiated it, it originally started off as the Invest in America Act (HR 3684), and Peter DeFazio and Mitch McConnell helped kick it off. To say that is all is thanks to 10 GOP senators either shows you don't know how many votes are needed to pass bills in the House or Senate or you genuinely don't want to give Biden credit for something that Trump tried for years to pass.
8) Most economically intelligent and foreign policy nerds like us who probably read Noah's blog would agree that his reactionary posture to the US Steel purchase by Nippon was only done to hopefully retain some steel worker and local votes in an election year. Let's hope the deal goes through in the future. It would be a win win for Japan and American workers.
For most President's overseeing 2 new countries into NATO, passing overtime protections, passing rules on banks for overdraft fees, passing an Infrastructure bill (which also included savings for people on certain drugs like insulin) that was decades overdue as well as the Chips Act and the rescheduling of Marijuana would be amazing accomplishments for a 1st term Presidency but because of polarization, and inflation we are just shrugging like he hasn't done a lot of really positive things for America. The Infrastructure bill and Chips Act will help America in the long term. I do agree that he could've done a little bit more on Inflation though but to make it seem like he had a "failed" presidency is a bit of an overreaction maybe?
I’m not going to rebut each of your points. However, I will address two items. One is his title nine changes regarding men competing on girls' teams.
If I seemed to suggest that the IRA increased the Federal Budget by 50% as you say that is not accurate. The American Rescue Plan, along with other Bills, managed to increase the Federal Budget by 50% from budgets prior to COVID-19.
Can you please address what changes were made to Title 9 that you have an issue with? The only thing it did regarding LGBTQ students were to make sure they couldn't be discriminated against... Unless you like that sort of thing. Calling all LGBTQ+ kids or young people men is entirely bad faith and misleading as well. You can read the changes made to Title 9 in 2024 and then let me know where it allowed men to compete on girls teams.
https://apnews.com/article/title-ix-sexual-assault-transgender-sports-d0fc0ab7515de02b8e4403d0481dc1e7
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-final-rule-factsheet.pdf
https://www.acenet.edu/News-Room/Pages/Biden-Admin-Final-Title-IX-Rule-Effective-Aug-1.aspx
Regarding your second point, you did specifically say the IRA increased the federal budget by 50%. That was what your original post said. Now if you are including the Chips Act, Infrastructure bill and the American Rescue plan as part of that then please make sure you also include the ramifications of the Trump tax cuts, CARES Act, and of course the disaster that was PPP loans. Not all decisions are made in a vacuum.
His Dark Brandon speech calling White Supremacy the biggest threat to the nation, and that anyone who disagreed was racist is an example. It was totally unnecessary, and Old Sniffer probably has no idea he even gave the speech. Maybe democrats don't realize how offensive it was. I d k
Well I'm not a white supremacist so it didn't bother me at all... Nor did I find it offensive... /Shrug. We all have different priorities I guess.
I personally think any type of ism or othering that has Americans hating other Americans based on any type of protected class of identity is probably the biggest threat to our nation. If we can't work together over small stuff there is no way we'll continue to be a world power and compete to solve the larger issues imo.
"Well I'm not a white supremacist so it didn't bother me at all.."
Neither are most of the people insulted by the speech. That was my point.
"I personally think any type of ism or othering that has Americans hating other Americans based on any type of protected class of identity is probably the biggest threat to our nation."
I agree with you. So, which party is all in on dividing us based on identity?
> Neither are most of the people insulted by the speech. That was my point.
I guess I'm lost why most people were offended by that speech then? I don't know any of those people in real life and I have family and friends that vote Republican and they are against racism and white supremacy as well.
> I agree with you. So, which party is all in on dividing us based on identity?
That's a good question, you seem to have an answer that you want to share? I think it's the political party that tends to recently support white supremacy, and also take rights away from marginalized groups? Are we agreeing or arguing? I'm not really sure lol.
The hit dog hollers.
OTOH, the Bee had a field day with it.
https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-announces-invasion-of-poland/
The Inflation Reduction Act was the marketing name for the kind of spending bill the U.S. government passes regularly. The name was chosen for the same reason medicines have a sweet, syrupy flavor.
I read up until the part where Biden “dithered Russia into an invasion”, ie forced Russia to send thousands of tanks and artillery into a neighboring country. That was so ridiculous I tend to think it’s probably an example of the divisive professional content Noah mentions in this post, either directly or at one level removed.
Are you suggesting that Biden’s not sending weapons to Ukraine was a good idea?
Most of these points are terrible but I think the funniest one is “[governments] can’t make a market that’s not there”. They do, all the time lol
Most of these arguments are preposterous, but my favorite is the one about EVs. When you were in Automotive Marketing, were you also telling your company things like "COMPUTERS?? inside the car??? Preposterous!!". Because that's exactly how you're going to sound in less than a decade when EVs are the standard, not by way of coercion, simply because they will be the right choice for the overwhelming number of consumers as component prices come down and the EV infrastructure leave arguments about "range" and the like completely hollow.
I believe I said forcing a market. EVs may well be huge sellers 10 20 years from now. I have no idea....However there are problems in forcing a market that is not there. Charging stations will not take a few years, it will take at a minimum a decade or more. US Car companies cannot make a $25k EV and still be profitable. There is a reason the avg proce of an EV is over $60k, well beyond the price point Americans can afford. There is no viable used car market. Nobody wants to be the guy who gets stuck putting in a new battery pack. I will not buy an EV until I can charge in 5 to 10 min. I personally won’t wait 30 min for an 80% charge....
My other issues is that there has not been a cost benefit analysis. Not to mentioni any study on the economic dislocation of swithchign to EV’s from ICE’s. Our transportation fuel emits 15% of all US CO2 emissions. Our power generations emits 40%. There are over 275 million registered cars and trucks....they move and they have to have the ability to recharge.
There are approx only 28,000 power plants of various sorts. Any moderately intelligent person would understand it would easier to make our power generationi less carbon polluting that trying to chase a F150 with an extension cord. So, as you who is prosperous I’ll let you decide if you actually know something or are just spouting crap you know nothing about.
I can never tell whether people like you making these ridiculous statements are Russian troll-bots or just red-hatted ninnies. All federal legislation of this magnitude goes through cost-benefit analysis, as required by law. The average price of an EV is not $60k. The US average new car transaction price for all cars is about $47,500, which is about $200 less than the unsubsidized price of the Tesla Model Y (the world's best selling EV and the best-selling vehicle of any kind globally in 2023). Other high selling EVs are considerably less expensive, including the Model 3 ($40,700), the Hyundai IONIQ 5 ($41,500), the Ford Mustang Mach-E ($46,950), the VW ID.4 ($37,500), and the GM Chevy Bolt ($27,500). The Ford F-150 Lightning starts at $49,950, but the average transaction price for new pickup trucks in $65,250.
I can never tell whether people like just talk out of their hat. There is a vast difference on what is advertised vs. what is available. Most manufacturers advertise the base model. Not the model that has all the bells and whistles which is actually how they make their money. For example genuine leather is a expensive option....but let me ask you what do you think a piece of cowhide from a slaughter house actualls costs the car company. There are ad, fees, documents fees, prep fees.....Sure there is the Nissan Leaf....not very disireable. Most Americans prefer SUV’s due to our population being fat. So, talking the base model and sending me the price is ridiculous....but hey, go ahead and live in your dream world. Currently buying an EV is not for the average America....unless you are a coastly pinhead. Have a loverly day and yes I am a Russian bot.
Talking out of my hat? Are you writing me from inside a Humphrey Bogart movie? All the prices quoted are for cars that can be purchased. All the phenomena you cite about the differences between advertised prices and "actual" prices apply to all cars, not just EVs. Therefore, if you are trying to claim (as you originally tried to claim) that EVs are vastly more expensive than ICEVs, you have failed...again
Agree completely about Tik Tok & Bytedance. Force the MFs to sell.
It seems to me the Heartland Visa is likely to be subsidizing people to do remote work (or remote work 3-4 days a week, and long commutes the other 1-2). Which I guess is probably fine -- they'll still spend money in their communities, so you'll get standard multiplier effects. I'm very skeptical this is going to somehow create new clusters of knowledge work in the exurbs.
You're right that the multiplier effect will still work if people are fully remote.
Also, think about tax revenue and where it goes.
I think the effect will limit itself.
Companies will be reluctant to expand remote work because 1. if an employee tries to arbitrage their salary to get a Silicon Valley job but try to buy all of Wyoming, the employer will then arbitrage the wage to provide a comparable standard of living to Silicon Valley at the lower wage, or 2. the company will transplant the work to the low-cost region.
Our primary residence is in Teton County WY. Housing is nearly as expensive as Silicon Valley (where we moved from 6 years ago). But, the no state income tax part is a big savings over California
Yeah fair enough. Like it doesn't seem like a terrible idea, but I'm not very optimistic it would have a large effect, and hence doesn't seem like it'd be worth a lot of political capital, or prioritizing it above other aspects of immigration policy. Though Kenny Easwaran's post in another thread has some good food for thought. I'm open to being persuaded it's better than a first-glance evaluation might suggest.
I have enjoyed quite a lot of your analysis about Second China Shock, but as a Vietnamese I am really doubtful that our government will raise tariffs to counter the influx of cheap Chinese goods (or EV at least), as in the case of many other countries though, since:
1. China could raise tariffs, reciprocally, against Vietnamese exports, and China has always been one of the biggest trade partners to VN, so the effect towards our export to China could be much higher compared to the benefits from a protected industry;
2. With recently slowing growth after the Covid pandemic, I don't think VN could afford a new trade war against China, especially with an increasingly more integrated market with Chinese one: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-05-05/-blazing-furnace-turns-vietnam-into-another-chinese-province
3. As for EV case, VN actually has one big conglomerate in the field (Vinfast), however it is struggling with debt, various lawsuits in the US, as well as being infamous for bad quality for the software and control systems, so much so that Vinfast has to inflate their sale from stuffing with its own taxi company: https://hntrbrk.com/whats-going-on-with-vinfast/.
Even though the risk of Vinfast failling is big, historically our government has not really bailed out private companies (rather than SOE), and so I doubt that they will raise tariffs to defend that company against cheap Chinese cars. In fact BYD and Wuling have already started selling their cars in Vietnam though!
Think about this: John Maynard Keynes was smart enough to make a ton of money in the stock market in the middle of the Depression. And he never gave a stock tip to anybody.
“Any policy of intensified strategic competition with China needs to be premised on closer relationships with Japan, Korea, Australia, and other Asian allies, not on treating them as enemies.”
Building an economic moat around China is an effective defense. What better time to do this than now, when direct foreign investment to China has dropped off a cliff? That money has to go somewhere. And many countries have been treated by China, via Silk Road, the way certain (unnamed) U.S. financial capital firms load up a corporation with debt, layoff (gut) employees, and make money on the fees (debt service). If that’s China’s idea of soft diplomacy, it’s resulted in a hard landing for many already poor countries. And much of the funded infrastructure is shoddy work by Chinese engineers (e.g., hydroelectric dams already failing/leaking). I would think the West could view this as opportunity.
“. . . Rust Belt areas that could benefit the most from skilled immigration often languish, because immigrants don’t move there.”
This is one of many reasons chip fabs receiving government matching funds should be contingent upon building facilities throughout the Rust Belt. The largest fresh-water source is an environmental plus, legacy infrastructure could be upgraded; and, in addition to the high-skilled workers, the ancillary vendors and services related to huge 24/7 chip fabs would provide jobs for less skilled workers.
“There are a minority of smart advice-givers out there, but regular folks are very bad at picking which ones they are.”
Approximately 85% of fund managers (mutual and hedge) don’t beat the S&P 500. An investors is just paying fees for underperformance. Small wonder after the Financial Crisis many investors became indexers. And a significant percentage of mutual funds are just closer indexing. Why pay a management fee? Warren Buffet won a $1 million bet with a hedge fund manager. The bet was that he could beat the S&P 500 Index over the next 12 months but Berkshire could. Proceeds went to Buffett’s choice of charity: The Girls Club of Omaha. The hedge fund manager threw in the towel after eight months, when it was apparent he would beat the S&P 500, and cut Buffett a check.
My biggest concern with the Heartland Visa idea, especially the provision that high-wage applicants be prioritized, is that most of the regions in need of revitalization simply… don’t have high-wage jobs, which is why they’re in decline in the first place. You’re sort of competing against the idea of urban agglomeration? I suppose that provision is normalized to local prevailing wage, but without some attempt to reformat American economic growth such that high-wage jobs are in the Rust Belt (which we know to be difficult, if not impossible, even if you think that’s a good idea), such a program could just become a pretextual excuse to reduce immigration even further. I also have a vague objection to the idea of telling people where to live, but the politics here are what they are. definitely open to being wrong about this, though - are there successful examples of these types of visas historically or in other countries?
Jobs often follow workers!
Most of the regions definitely wouldn't work. But I could definitely imagine some company that has strong demand for importing high-end talent setting up an office in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Buffalo, Milwaukee, or perhaps even Memphis or East St. Louis. I have some worries about them setting up an office in the far suburbs of Austin or San Antonio and expecting their visa employees to commute in from two counties away.
It would definitely be interesting to know about places that have made this sort of visa work. I don't like it, but it's obviously better to say that people can come and only live in certain places than to say that they can't come. But I'm not sure how landlords and employers checking the visa would do things - presumably landlords could only approve leases for people with visas that apply at the address of the rental, but place of employment is a bit more fuzzy (and I could also imagine deals where someone connected to the employer buys a crash pad in an off-limits city and allows people to sleep there without checking their visas).
A Ukrainian won the Barkley Ultramarathon (100-130 miles). The exact course is a secret until the start, is unmarked, and no GPS allowed. And a Ukrainian is now the undisputed heavyweight boxing champion:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/19/world/europe/oleksandr-usyk-tyson-fury.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20240520&instance_id=123890&nl=the-morning®i_id=96376757&segment_id=167188&te=1&user_id=bf65a32244bbe02dcf4565a7c11740dc
Putin picked a fight with the wrong people.
At least one more interesting thing: I have a theory that explains everything.
I call it Calicrisis. The polycrisis turns out to be that California is responsible for everything.
So, 90% of the Calicrisis is a consequence of criminal justice reform (Props. 47 and 57, AB 109). The next 9% of the Calicrisis is the patient zero effect -- either something happened to California or was caused by a Californian. The remaining 1% is randomness. But there's a fractalness to everything. For the remaining 1% of random stuff, the salient cause is probably connected to California as a second order effect. Or a third order effect.
Inflation can be explained by everybody having to pay more because of organized shoplifting, followed by businesses still doing business in California that have to pay more in taxes and costs that are recovered nationally or globally. Insurance prices are going up because of reckless driving, GTA and bipping, as well as California's property claims for natural disasters.
California is also the leading agricultural producer for many foods. Because of drought, the cost of growing in California has risen and taken a lot of commodity prices up with it.
I could go on, but the gist of it everything going wrong in the world is because California allows crimes to happen, something bad happened in California, or something bad was caused by a Californian.
"the Nozickian libertarian perspective on media regulation looks increasingly untenable and self-defeating. This is liberalism’s big test."
Intriguing phrases. Do you mean liberalism must find a way to further control media, or to resist the urge to control media? Or maybe to not regulate too far, which may mean many things.
It seems on one hand that regulation, especially for social media, will be illiberal. And to refrain for reasons of liberal principles is likely to bring more power to the illiberal, who have advantages in that space.
For the illiberal person, you only need to win the information space game once. When you win and get power you end the game (or at least change the rules to be in your favour). But a liberal plays the game specically not to win. The objective is prolonging the game.
Gas prices are still pretty high in LA:
$4.73 - $6 / gallon.
Yeah, California has some special factors.
https://www.kcra.com/article/gas-prices-high-california-spring-2024/60447455
All self-inflicted.
See my Calicrisis hypothesis. Everything is California's fault.
Too bad, too. I lived in California for decades. It had a lot to offer but the politics became one party controlled, and that party is itself tightly controlled by public employee unions.
Californians themselves deserve blame, no?
Absolutely. But some problems, like the special gas formulation (that was based on wrong settled science) were put in place decades ago, and nothing current voters can do about it. Of course, no oil company will invest in a new refinery with climate crazy policies, which you can blame current voters for. Yes, ultimately, people are always to blame for their government.
How much is grass-roots MAGA politics a case of "we need cheap oil and gas, and if that means handing over eastern Europe to Putin then so be it"?
I'm not a grass-roots MAGA, so maybe I am out of touch, but to the extent I've spoken with or read Trump supporters, exactly zero of them have said anything like that. In fact, Ukraine (and Israel for that matter) are not topics they bring up. I'd say immigration, inflation, DEI and transing ("mutilating") children are the topics that do come up.
Left one off: Some are staunch pro-lifers
You are doing that thing I see a lot lately, which is conflating population with market size. You forgot about buying power…
China is a very large market for goods and services and there are definitely structural advantages that come with that, but it’s not true that it’s a bigger market than the US. Americans are richer and also vastly more profligate. There are certainly product categories where you could sell more into China than the US, but US consumers spend way more than Chinese consumers, in aggregate.
"You are doing that thing I see a lot lately, which is conflating population with market size." <-- If I were doing that, I wouldn't have written the thing that I wrote about India, in that same paragraph.
"The U.S., being 1/4 the size of China, can’t hope to match that internal market."
That's what you wrote Noah. Yes, later in the same paragraph, you indicated that buying power was relevant in the context of India, but I think my criticism absolutely still stands. The US market can and does outmatch China's market, even with a quarter of the pop, because Americans are much richer and much spendier.
According to tradingeconomics.com, US consumer spending is more than DOUBLE that of China... but you got India right so... it doesn't matter that you are wrong about the US? Come on.
Love your substack; not sure why you wouldn't just accept that your sentence is wrong (or at least an overstatement) here.
How long until the Heartland Visa is scare-mongered by right-wing reactionaries as "Biden wants to put immigrants in your backyard!!!!"?
Hi Noah! Today’s news from the ICC reminded me of what you argued the US do related to the Israel/Hamas conflict - i.e. “wash their hands of it”. I agree with you 1000% in principle, but what do you think that actually looks like at this point? Does the US government have an “off ramp” to being embroiled in this conflict? Appreciate your thoughts, thanks for what you do!
How does one short the antiskilled finfluencers?
Buy shares in an index fund.
15 Funds That Have Destroyed the Most Wealth over the Past Decade:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/15-funds-that-have-destroyed-most-wealth-over-past-decade
Too bad for shareholders that 2-and-20 doesn’t include losses incurred.
There are only two speed limits in Greenwich, Connecticut: 2 mph and 20 mph.
Sammy Hagar would hate Greenwich. The guy couldn't drive 55, so 20?? And 2 is right out.