The basic problem is that the average American can understand Trump's promises effortlessly. I will make everything great again! Disproving those simplistic promises takes enormous intellectual work. Indeed, the average human being is simply not up to the task. Not even Noah can make it simple enough. Also, because any single analysis of Trump's economics could be wrong, several must be digested and compared.
So, accepting Trump's promises at face value conserves tons of energy, and energy conservation has proved an outstanding survival strategy over the long course of human history.
BTW, my guess is that fewer than 40% of Americans could give a broadly accurate definition of a tariff. No multiple choice allowed!
"I also think four more years of a Trump presidency would be corrosive to American society as a whole, since it would bring back at least some of the bitterness and unrest that prevailed during his first term."
I couldn't disagree more. The bitterness and unrest of Trump's first term never dissipated. Trumps fans have never stopped believing that the US is going to hell in a handbasket. Left wing comments on the Washington Post and New York Times assure me that Anti Trump forces feel the same. Some folks on the middle went back to ignoring it all for a while. But there is no bitterness and unrest to bring back. It's here, and it will be for the foreseeable future.
Sometimes, I try to show the inaccuracy of exaggerated liberal fears held by Washington Post commenters. My experience is that I have less than 10% success rate. A few respond positively to my comments, but most denounce me as an agent of disinformation.
I took a medication that proved corrosive to my stomach. I stopped the medication, but the symptoms have not cleared up yet.
Still, it strikes me as insane to suggest going back and taking that medication again.
The fact that corrosive effects are long lasting does not negate the truth that something is corrosive. So unless you are simply nitpicking the words "bring back" and would suggest Noah replace this with "renew the bitterness and unrest" I have to disagree.
I would also point out that the existence of bitter left and right wing comments does not prove the issue. The size of the group in the middle is the salient point. We need to grow the size of that group -- the people who are not bitter towards either half of our population. This goal has nothing in common with the stated goals of Donald Trump.
I am not sure why you introduced the metaphor of corrosive medicine.
In my view, Trump and his supporters have been feeding the country corrosive medicine since the day he left office. The custom is for ex-presidents to lead a quiet life in retirement, but Trump has been trying to maintain and increase his influence every single day with remarkable effectiveness.
If you read Noah frequently, you should know that he regularly portrays the 2010s as a unique era of bitterness and unrest. As he says, “Let's leave the 2010s in the past where they belong."
I think few would agree with Noah that the bitterness and unrest of the 2010s did not continue quite obviously into the 2020s—the fact of Trumpism has gripped the nation since 2016 without meaningful interruption. I can see no good that could come out of embracing Noah's inaccurate characterization of recent history.
At the end of your comment, you suggest that we should work to grow the number of people who feel less bitter toward either side. I would suggest a more structured approach. I would work on helping Americans to understand the brilliance of federalism. Our country is a federation of 50 states rather than rather than a unitary nation with a single policy everywhere. We should be happy to allow California to live by a blue set of laws and customs, while we allow Idaho to live by a red set of laws and customs. A basic part of the problem is that left and right are trying to impose their preferences on the country as a unitary policy everywhere.
<I would suggest a more structured approach. I would work on helping Americans to understand the brilliance of federalism. Our country is a federation of 50 states rather than rather than a unitary nation with a single policy everywhere. We should be happy to allow California to live by a blue set of laws and customs, while we allow Idaho to live by a red set of laws and customs. A basic part of the problem is that left and right are trying to impose their preferences on the country as a unitary policy everywhere.>
The problem with that approach is that, at least to partisans on either side, these "preferences" are not merely policy decisions that you can agree to disagree about but rather fundamental and deeply-held values that can't be compromised on. Abortion, free trade, and open borders aren't just economic policy tools; they go to the heart of what kind of nation the United States (or any nation, really) wants to be and how our society/economy ought to work. People are more than happy to live and let live when it comes to petty preferences like dress codes or tax policy; not so much when it comes to free trade and immigration.
I agree. there's about 30% of the electorate at each extreme that wants "my way or the highway." That is why we need to revive the idea of federalism in the country. If we do not, there is no end in sight for our troubles. BTW, trade policy and immigration policy are clearly national interests by the Constitution to the national government. I do not think that abortion was entrusted by the constitution to the federal government. It should be a local issue.
From the perspective of labor and regulatory policy, federalism will be a disaster for progressive policy goals. The absence of any binding federal mandates on things like labor laws or minimum wages will mean that businesses will profit off of tax/labor arbitrage and cluster in pro-business states, thereby limiting the governmental capacity of state governments.
Also, one of the glories of this continent sized nation is that if you don't like the state you live in, you can pick up your sorry ass and move. If we homogenize the entire country, this glorious outlet will become unavailable for both left and right wingers.
These issues have long been adjudicated by the Supreme Court to be part of the national portfolio under the interstate commerce clause. I am not in favor of a massive return of powers to the states. I just object to the progressive preference for everything to be nationalized. Also, it will remain a fact that states compete among themselves to be viewed as “business friendly.” When a state like California adds regulations and taxes, they are increasing the likelihood that they will become less attractive to business. That's the tradeoff that they choose to make.
BTW, California possesses advantages that many other states will never have— great weather, beachfront, etc. I guess we have to legislate that all other states should have those too.
It’s also relevant to observe the sources of the bitterness and unrest. Crying “impeach” before inauguration, pushing Russian control fables for years, Lacey Act nonsense, stretched interpretation of the emoluments article, and more were pushed not only by a biased press but prominent, elected Democrats.
Unless you think the actions of the press and the parties were normal, you should conclude that hyperbolic accusations of treason don’t lead to confidence in government. The difference between the parties during Trump’s term was, in general until the very end, Republican leadership adhering to traditional norms, the nutty stuff coming from a few scattered idiots in the party. The Democratic leadership, from the start, promoted nonsense and lies. Today, I don’t see much to pick between them.
Recapitulating the history doesn’t mean that I have any solutions. I only hope, in the old cliche, that God continues to look over drunks, little children, and the United States of America.
Same old list. How about yelling “Lock her up,” throughout the 2016 campaign? Last time I heard, imprisonment > impeachment. Now, your poor mistreated ex president has quite a long list of the people that he would like to lock up.
Republican leadership adhering to traditional norms by running the government via acting appointees, announcing policy by tweet, having to convince the president to provide disaster relief to states that didn’t vote for him and avoid massacring protesters. Yes, very traditional.
Even if the Democrats have also done novel and bad things, just please stop acting like Republicans are perfect angels. It’s obviously, obviously false and just makes you look like a partisan hack.
There is certainly some comparison, but in general Trumpists seem to dislike non-Trumpist _voters_ whereas non-Trumpists dislike Trumpist _politicians_.
The amount of scorn that has been heaped on the unwashed multitudes by enlightened progressives is endless. It goes back in movies to the 1910s. Everyone knew that Hillary Clinton meant it when she called those people “a basket of deplorable.” The fact that Trump's voters know that they are looked down on and laughed at by the left wing is 90% of the force behind Trumpism in my opinion.
I would put it this way, Trump voters hate and the Coastals despise.
The biggest threat is to the rule of law that undermines all economic activity. If all law is reduced to personal favors (a scenario that is more likely than not), and there is loss of any predictability who would invest in such an environment?
If, indeed, Trump policies were to bring about serious new inflation, that would not really be a problem. After all, this would be the fault of internal enemies.
I've already voted for Harris for the same reason as I voted for Hillary or Biden - I think Trump is unfit for the highest office, so this analysis doesn't change anything for me. I do think it's worthwhile doing a retrospective based on previous campaigns and subsequent results during the Presidencies. What was the analysis for Obama's proposal in 2008 vs the actual results? Three more data points in 2012, 2016, 2020. What is the average deviation in terms of proposals vs actual outcomes? I can even make an theoretical argument that if Trump gets a trifecta, he may make unpopular cuts to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid to lower the deficits because he doesn't have to worry about his reelection anymore. I don't think people are voting based on policy in this election and the last two weeks are what Obama often referred to as the silly season in politics so any undecided at this time is not going to vote based on a detailed policy analysis.
My contention is that both will be bad Presidents, but for mostly differing reasons. Kamala will keep the current tariffs or add to them. So will Trump; his will be more robust. Tariffs have bad consequences. Both are bad on this subject.
Trump may well spend more on defense, and Kamala may or may not, but certainly not at the level Trump will. Trump wins this debate.
Both will do nothing about the looming SS Trust Fund deficit. Both will spend money till its coming out their ears. Deficits will remain and get worse. Both are bad on this subject.
As Trade? Harris is the clear winner. Trump may start a Trade war.
As for immigration, Trump has said we should vet for skills and education. Allow immigration that matches our needs. Give PHD’s green cards. That is all good. We will need both skilled and unskilled labor. We should expand the H1B program. I believe he’ll deport the criminals that are immigrants. The rest will have to have asylum hearings than deportation hearings. He will be severely limited in how many he can deport. Congress won’t provide the money without restrictions. Congress will not pay for immigration detention facilities to hold 11 million immigrants. There are only 1.2 million prisoners. We’re building enough to house 11 million. Trumps wins this issue.
Reducing regulations, including business-friendly deductions for cap ex spending. Same-year deductions for the purchase of equipment will stimulate spending. Trump wins this hands down.
So, I reject the wholesale rejection of Trump as a disaster for the economy. It is a mixed picture with each candidate having pluses and minuses. One is not better than the other.
Sticking purely to economics and the deficit (since that's what this post is about). Trump's proposals increase the debt by so much more than Harris'. Look at that Penn Wharton Budget Model. Trump's policy adds $4.6 trillion more to the debt than Harris's plan - and Harris' plan only adds $1.2 trillion to our debt in the first place. Trump's deficit would be nearly 6 times larger than Harris's. If Harris is spending money until it's coming out of her ears, Trump is spending money like it's coming out of his every oriface.
If you are concerned about the debt, the right solution is to vote for Harris and a Republican Senate. The Republicans are already favored to take the Senate anyway, and this would force compromise from Harris to limit spending.
First of all do not take my observations as support for Trump. I was simply illustrating that their relative positions on the economy have pluses and minuses and that Harris’s positions are not better. Trump's positions have some positives.
First, it would be illegal, and I suspect he would get a quick rebuke from the courts. Next is the question of our institutions. Would the Pentagon follow Trump's orders? Military officers are under no obligation to obey an illegal order. In fact, they have to ignore them.
For that to happen, you would need a breakdown in the country, which is so profound that I can only imagine worse things happening. I suspect Trump has some understanding of this. His handpicked General cannot magically make a Lt. in the Army disregard his oath. I suspect that the order would be ignored.
What do I think of him saying that? I think the same thing about it as the other 2371 other stupid sh*t he has said. I believe it is improper, inane, and bat sh*t crazy. Most real fascists wouldn’t telegraph their arrests of the opposition. They would be more intelligent than to announce it.
Well here in the UK the bond vigilantes toppled Liz Truss after a mere 49 days, but the US won't be quite as vulnerable since it possesses the current global reserve currency.
Much easier too in the UK’s parliamentary system for a governing party to get rid of someone like Truss quickly. I guess hypothetically the GOP’s congresspeople could always impeach and convict Trump.
Which raises a fun hypothetical - how bad would a Trump Crash (or Trumpcession) have to be for his own party to try and can him?
All depends of what Fox News--and the mini-FOX's--would say. Trump and the entire modern GOP only have standing by virtue of the RW mediasphere acting as full-time propaganda cheerleaders.
It wouldn't be so bad, really, if it weren't for the incessant lies. A GOP politician lies (e.g., immigrants eating pets); but FOX et al won't call them on it. Or FOX lies (e.g., an obscure grad school course is being taught in every public school in the country to race-shame whites), and GOP pols parrot said lie. Or they just parrot Russian- or Chinese-Intelligence disinformation.
Four years is not forever. Ukrainians have dealt with worse. The Global North will survive it. I do suspect that NatSec interests will be untouched. They too have had four years to prepare for this possibility.
Since I know Republicans will make the old supply-side argument that tax cuts increase growth and therefore "pay for themselves," could Democrats make some variation on it for Harris' expensive policy proposals, too, and maybe even with some validity?
A Child Tax Credit, as expensive as it would be, potentially frees up parents to afford to buy other stuff. And also to potentially stay in the labor force, since they can better afford childcare. This is potentially even more true for the EITC.
Perhaps the effect on increasing the too-low birthrate would be minimal, but "paying people to have children" is at least the most effective of the generally ineffective suite of policies tried, right? And that would somewhat offset the long-term East Asian-style expensive demographic decline we're experiencing.
As for Trump's proposals, he has taken up the long-standing American fiscal tradition that old people are more important than families with children, but, to some degree you could argue that his SS proposal might somewhat net out, too: a reduction in taxation on SS benefits for seniors allows a wide swath of people who aren't in their peak earning years to spend the money saved, giving a consumer demand boost to the wider economy. And it also enables them (and, indirectly, their children) to afford things like healthcare, eldercare, etc. As they die off, it also gives a stimulus to their children, who can spend the inflated inheritance on other stuff. I'd certainly take this over his proposed tax cuts for wealthy, prime-earning people.
“Republicans have generally been less fiscally responsible than Democrats over the past half century.”
Indeed, Saint Reagan’s first tax cut was so outrageous, it was followed by six increments of tax increases. And he was known as a tax-cutter?
Today, Trump played with the idea of eliminating all personal income taxes. This is someone suffering from dementia that senses he’s going to lose the election. He’s so demented, his campaign staff is canceling more public events with each passing day. It’s been three consecutive election cycle loses for the GOP (it must be an acquired taste), and Trump is about to suffer a fourth. “His people” at the RNC have no experience and are incompetent. They’re still trying to hire more canvassers with two weeks to go? As for Trump being a great businessman: if he’d taken his inheritance from his father and put it in an S&P 500 Index Fund, he’d be multiples richer.
Where to begin. Right on with the recent writings.
So discouraging. 70 years of inadequate education, a lack of industrial policy leading to a thinned middle class and limited upward mobility, voracious billionaires thinking their success in one endeavor means they should impose their will on everyone and a morally bankrupt Republican party led by Trump.
The fact that there is even a need to compare and contrast Trump's policies with Harris's speaks volumes to the depth we've sunken to .
It rationalizes Trump's existence to even have a debate over policy.
If it walks, looks like and talks like a racist, impaired authoritarian, it's a racist impaired authoritarian.
It is past economics and politics. It is an existential moral imperative.
If Harris wins it is likely at least the Senate will be in GOP hands. Her spending proposals would be DOA. Also probably her wanting to increase Corporate taxes is DOA so there won’t be much change vs current path. If Trump wins and has both houses the potential of a massive increase in the debt is high. Noah is correct. But we don’t know what the critical debt level vs GDP is to trigger a bond vigilante revolt.
A side note about deporting non-citizen immigrants: I live in an upper middle class neighborhood and stroll through rich neighborhoods occasionally. These people like to do major renovations, and I don't think they'll sit still for paying much more and having to wait much longer for non-immigrant workers. And they have the money (especially if they benefit from tax cuts) which means they will be listened to.
Trump also has what is essentially a fourth economic idea, which is to take over the Fed and run the nation’s banking system himself by choosing interest rates to his own satisfaction. Such political interference with the Fed would likely destroy the world’s confidence in the dollar and faith in our credit and could easily lead to economic disaster.
The basic problem is that the average American can understand Trump's promises effortlessly. I will make everything great again! Disproving those simplistic promises takes enormous intellectual work. Indeed, the average human being is simply not up to the task. Not even Noah can make it simple enough. Also, because any single analysis of Trump's economics could be wrong, several must be digested and compared.
So, accepting Trump's promises at face value conserves tons of energy, and energy conservation has proved an outstanding survival strategy over the long course of human history.
BTW, my guess is that fewer than 40% of Americans could give a broadly accurate definition of a tariff. No multiple choice allowed!
"I also think four more years of a Trump presidency would be corrosive to American society as a whole, since it would bring back at least some of the bitterness and unrest that prevailed during his first term."
I couldn't disagree more. The bitterness and unrest of Trump's first term never dissipated. Trumps fans have never stopped believing that the US is going to hell in a handbasket. Left wing comments on the Washington Post and New York Times assure me that Anti Trump forces feel the same. Some folks on the middle went back to ignoring it all for a while. But there is no bitterness and unrest to bring back. It's here, and it will be for the foreseeable future.
Sometimes, I try to show the inaccuracy of exaggerated liberal fears held by Washington Post commenters. My experience is that I have less than 10% success rate. A few respond positively to my comments, but most denounce me as an agent of disinformation.
I'm not sure about the logic of this.
I took a medication that proved corrosive to my stomach. I stopped the medication, but the symptoms have not cleared up yet.
Still, it strikes me as insane to suggest going back and taking that medication again.
The fact that corrosive effects are long lasting does not negate the truth that something is corrosive. So unless you are simply nitpicking the words "bring back" and would suggest Noah replace this with "renew the bitterness and unrest" I have to disagree.
I would also point out that the existence of bitter left and right wing comments does not prove the issue. The size of the group in the middle is the salient point. We need to grow the size of that group -- the people who are not bitter towards either half of our population. This goal has nothing in common with the stated goals of Donald Trump.
I am not sure why you introduced the metaphor of corrosive medicine.
In my view, Trump and his supporters have been feeding the country corrosive medicine since the day he left office. The custom is for ex-presidents to lead a quiet life in retirement, but Trump has been trying to maintain and increase his influence every single day with remarkable effectiveness.
If you read Noah frequently, you should know that he regularly portrays the 2010s as a unique era of bitterness and unrest. As he says, “Let's leave the 2010s in the past where they belong."
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/a-vote-for-trump-is-a-vote-for-chaos
I think few would agree with Noah that the bitterness and unrest of the 2010s did not continue quite obviously into the 2020s—the fact of Trumpism has gripped the nation since 2016 without meaningful interruption. I can see no good that could come out of embracing Noah's inaccurate characterization of recent history.
At the end of your comment, you suggest that we should work to grow the number of people who feel less bitter toward either side. I would suggest a more structured approach. I would work on helping Americans to understand the brilliance of federalism. Our country is a federation of 50 states rather than rather than a unitary nation with a single policy everywhere. We should be happy to allow California to live by a blue set of laws and customs, while we allow Idaho to live by a red set of laws and customs. A basic part of the problem is that left and right are trying to impose their preferences on the country as a unitary policy everywhere.
<I would suggest a more structured approach. I would work on helping Americans to understand the brilliance of federalism. Our country is a federation of 50 states rather than rather than a unitary nation with a single policy everywhere. We should be happy to allow California to live by a blue set of laws and customs, while we allow Idaho to live by a red set of laws and customs. A basic part of the problem is that left and right are trying to impose their preferences on the country as a unitary policy everywhere.>
The problem with that approach is that, at least to partisans on either side, these "preferences" are not merely policy decisions that you can agree to disagree about but rather fundamental and deeply-held values that can't be compromised on. Abortion, free trade, and open borders aren't just economic policy tools; they go to the heart of what kind of nation the United States (or any nation, really) wants to be and how our society/economy ought to work. People are more than happy to live and let live when it comes to petty preferences like dress codes or tax policy; not so much when it comes to free trade and immigration.
I agree. there's about 30% of the electorate at each extreme that wants "my way or the highway." That is why we need to revive the idea of federalism in the country. If we do not, there is no end in sight for our troubles. BTW, trade policy and immigration policy are clearly national interests by the Constitution to the national government. I do not think that abortion was entrusted by the constitution to the federal government. It should be a local issue.
From the perspective of labor and regulatory policy, federalism will be a disaster for progressive policy goals. The absence of any binding federal mandates on things like labor laws or minimum wages will mean that businesses will profit off of tax/labor arbitrage and cluster in pro-business states, thereby limiting the governmental capacity of state governments.
Also, one of the glories of this continent sized nation is that if you don't like the state you live in, you can pick up your sorry ass and move. If we homogenize the entire country, this glorious outlet will become unavailable for both left and right wingers.
These issues have long been adjudicated by the Supreme Court to be part of the national portfolio under the interstate commerce clause. I am not in favor of a massive return of powers to the states. I just object to the progressive preference for everything to be nationalized. Also, it will remain a fact that states compete among themselves to be viewed as “business friendly.” When a state like California adds regulations and taxes, they are increasing the likelihood that they will become less attractive to business. That's the tradeoff that they choose to make.
BTW, California possesses advantages that many other states will never have— great weather, beachfront, etc. I guess we have to legislate that all other states should have those too.
If Trump is not elected, there will be bitterness. It will be bad.
If Trump is elected, the bitterness will be worse
Agreed. I'd just add a level of complexity.
If Trump is not elected, his supporters" bitterness will be off the charts, and the libs will still be scared.
If Trump is elected, his supporters will know that they will have a dogfight implementing his policies, and the libs will be terrified.
Trump is too lazy to implement policy. He will pardon everyone he knows and work on his golf game.
There is truth to what you say, but it is unclear how much.
It’s also relevant to observe the sources of the bitterness and unrest. Crying “impeach” before inauguration, pushing Russian control fables for years, Lacey Act nonsense, stretched interpretation of the emoluments article, and more were pushed not only by a biased press but prominent, elected Democrats.
Unless you think the actions of the press and the parties were normal, you should conclude that hyperbolic accusations of treason don’t lead to confidence in government. The difference between the parties during Trump’s term was, in general until the very end, Republican leadership adhering to traditional norms, the nutty stuff coming from a few scattered idiots in the party. The Democratic leadership, from the start, promoted nonsense and lies. Today, I don’t see much to pick between them.
Recapitulating the history doesn’t mean that I have any solutions. I only hope, in the old cliche, that God continues to look over drunks, little children, and the United States of America.
Same old list. How about yelling “Lock her up,” throughout the 2016 campaign? Last time I heard, imprisonment > impeachment. Now, your poor mistreated ex president has quite a long list of the people that he would like to lock up.
Republican leadership adhering to traditional norms by running the government via acting appointees, announcing policy by tweet, having to convince the president to provide disaster relief to states that didn’t vote for him and avoid massacring protesters. Yes, very traditional.
Even if the Democrats have also done novel and bad things, just please stop acting like Republicans are perfect angels. It’s obviously, obviously false and just makes you look like a partisan hack.
There is certainly some comparison, but in general Trumpists seem to dislike non-Trumpist _voters_ whereas non-Trumpists dislike Trumpist _politicians_.
The amount of scorn that has been heaped on the unwashed multitudes by enlightened progressives is endless. It goes back in movies to the 1910s. Everyone knew that Hillary Clinton meant it when she called those people “a basket of deplorable.” The fact that Trump's voters know that they are looked down on and laughed at by the left wing is 90% of the force behind Trumpism in my opinion.
I would put it this way, Trump voters hate and the Coastals despise.
The biggest threat is to the rule of law that undermines all economic activity. If all law is reduced to personal favors (a scenario that is more likely than not), and there is loss of any predictability who would invest in such an environment?
If, indeed, Trump policies were to bring about serious new inflation, that would not really be a problem. After all, this would be the fault of internal enemies.
I've already voted for Harris for the same reason as I voted for Hillary or Biden - I think Trump is unfit for the highest office, so this analysis doesn't change anything for me. I do think it's worthwhile doing a retrospective based on previous campaigns and subsequent results during the Presidencies. What was the analysis for Obama's proposal in 2008 vs the actual results? Three more data points in 2012, 2016, 2020. What is the average deviation in terms of proposals vs actual outcomes? I can even make an theoretical argument that if Trump gets a trifecta, he may make unpopular cuts to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid to lower the deficits because he doesn't have to worry about his reelection anymore. I don't think people are voting based on policy in this election and the last two weeks are what Obama often referred to as the silly season in politics so any undecided at this time is not going to vote based on a detailed policy analysis.
My contention is that both will be bad Presidents, but for mostly differing reasons. Kamala will keep the current tariffs or add to them. So will Trump; his will be more robust. Tariffs have bad consequences. Both are bad on this subject.
Trump may well spend more on defense, and Kamala may or may not, but certainly not at the level Trump will. Trump wins this debate.
Both will do nothing about the looming SS Trust Fund deficit. Both will spend money till its coming out their ears. Deficits will remain and get worse. Both are bad on this subject.
As Trade? Harris is the clear winner. Trump may start a Trade war.
As for immigration, Trump has said we should vet for skills and education. Allow immigration that matches our needs. Give PHD’s green cards. That is all good. We will need both skilled and unskilled labor. We should expand the H1B program. I believe he’ll deport the criminals that are immigrants. The rest will have to have asylum hearings than deportation hearings. He will be severely limited in how many he can deport. Congress won’t provide the money without restrictions. Congress will not pay for immigration detention facilities to hold 11 million immigrants. There are only 1.2 million prisoners. We’re building enough to house 11 million. Trumps wins this issue.
Reducing regulations, including business-friendly deductions for cap ex spending. Same-year deductions for the purchase of equipment will stimulate spending. Trump wins this hands down.
So, I reject the wholesale rejection of Trump as a disaster for the economy. It is a mixed picture with each candidate having pluses and minuses. One is not better than the other.
Sticking purely to economics and the deficit (since that's what this post is about). Trump's proposals increase the debt by so much more than Harris'. Look at that Penn Wharton Budget Model. Trump's policy adds $4.6 trillion more to the debt than Harris's plan - and Harris' plan only adds $1.2 trillion to our debt in the first place. Trump's deficit would be nearly 6 times larger than Harris's. If Harris is spending money until it's coming out of her ears, Trump is spending money like it's coming out of his every oriface.
If you are concerned about the debt, the right solution is to vote for Harris and a Republican Senate. The Republicans are already favored to take the Senate anyway, and this would force compromise from Harris to limit spending.
There are many things I am concerned about. I am not a one issue voter. Besides, I am not voting for either. I am a double hater.
How do you feel about Trump saying he will use military forces inside the USA against political opponents?
First of all do not take my observations as support for Trump. I was simply illustrating that their relative positions on the economy have pluses and minuses and that Harris’s positions are not better. Trump's positions have some positives.
First, it would be illegal, and I suspect he would get a quick rebuke from the courts. Next is the question of our institutions. Would the Pentagon follow Trump's orders? Military officers are under no obligation to obey an illegal order. In fact, they have to ignore them.
For that to happen, you would need a breakdown in the country, which is so profound that I can only imagine worse things happening. I suspect Trump has some understanding of this. His handpicked General cannot magically make a Lt. in the Army disregard his oath. I suspect that the order would be ignored.
What do I think of him saying that? I think the same thing about it as the other 2371 other stupid sh*t he has said. I believe it is improper, inane, and bat sh*t crazy. Most real fascists wouldn’t telegraph their arrests of the opposition. They would be more intelligent than to announce it.
I think you are underestimating those checks on his power.
The courts are a much different place than 8 years ago. The military probably reflects the makeup of the USA, although hopefully not the officer core.
Regardless it seems like a bad plan to ignore what him and the party are saying, and hope that these institutions can stand up to him.
It seems like a much better plan is to vote for the person who didn't attempt a coup, and who doesn't advocate against democratic ideals...
Maybe after everyone else has tried and failed it'll be the bond vigilantes that'll finally topple Trump.
Well here in the UK the bond vigilantes toppled Liz Truss after a mere 49 days, but the US won't be quite as vulnerable since it possesses the current global reserve currency.
Much easier too in the UK’s parliamentary system for a governing party to get rid of someone like Truss quickly. I guess hypothetically the GOP’s congresspeople could always impeach and convict Trump.
Which raises a fun hypothetical - how bad would a Trump Crash (or Trumpcession) have to be for his own party to try and can him?
All depends of what Fox News--and the mini-FOX's--would say. Trump and the entire modern GOP only have standing by virtue of the RW mediasphere acting as full-time propaganda cheerleaders.
It wouldn't be so bad, really, if it weren't for the incessant lies. A GOP politician lies (e.g., immigrants eating pets); but FOX et al won't call them on it. Or FOX lies (e.g., an obscure grad school course is being taught in every public school in the country to race-shame whites), and GOP pols parrot said lie. Or they just parrot Russian- or Chinese-Intelligence disinformation.
Four years is not forever. Ukrainians have dealt with worse. The Global North will survive it. I do suspect that NatSec interests will be untouched. They too have had four years to prepare for this possibility.
Since I know Republicans will make the old supply-side argument that tax cuts increase growth and therefore "pay for themselves," could Democrats make some variation on it for Harris' expensive policy proposals, too, and maybe even with some validity?
A Child Tax Credit, as expensive as it would be, potentially frees up parents to afford to buy other stuff. And also to potentially stay in the labor force, since they can better afford childcare. This is potentially even more true for the EITC.
Perhaps the effect on increasing the too-low birthrate would be minimal, but "paying people to have children" is at least the most effective of the generally ineffective suite of policies tried, right? And that would somewhat offset the long-term East Asian-style expensive demographic decline we're experiencing.
As for Trump's proposals, he has taken up the long-standing American fiscal tradition that old people are more important than families with children, but, to some degree you could argue that his SS proposal might somewhat net out, too: a reduction in taxation on SS benefits for seniors allows a wide swath of people who aren't in their peak earning years to spend the money saved, giving a consumer demand boost to the wider economy. And it also enables them (and, indirectly, their children) to afford things like healthcare, eldercare, etc. As they die off, it also gives a stimulus to their children, who can spend the inflated inheritance on other stuff. I'd certainly take this over his proposed tax cuts for wealthy, prime-earning people.
So essentially your argument is that deficit spending is good even when the economy is hot?
“Republicans have generally been less fiscally responsible than Democrats over the past half century.”
Indeed, Saint Reagan’s first tax cut was so outrageous, it was followed by six increments of tax increases. And he was known as a tax-cutter?
Today, Trump played with the idea of eliminating all personal income taxes. This is someone suffering from dementia that senses he’s going to lose the election. He’s so demented, his campaign staff is canceling more public events with each passing day. It’s been three consecutive election cycle loses for the GOP (it must be an acquired taste), and Trump is about to suffer a fourth. “His people” at the RNC have no experience and are incompetent. They’re still trying to hire more canvassers with two weeks to go? As for Trump being a great businessman: if he’d taken his inheritance from his father and put it in an S&P 500 Index Fund, he’d be multiples richer.
So MMT folks would rejoice?
Where to begin. Right on with the recent writings.
So discouraging. 70 years of inadequate education, a lack of industrial policy leading to a thinned middle class and limited upward mobility, voracious billionaires thinking their success in one endeavor means they should impose their will on everyone and a morally bankrupt Republican party led by Trump.
The fact that there is even a need to compare and contrast Trump's policies with Harris's speaks volumes to the depth we've sunken to .
It rationalizes Trump's existence to even have a debate over policy.
If it walks, looks like and talks like a racist, impaired authoritarian, it's a racist impaired authoritarian.
It is past economics and politics. It is an existential moral imperative.
And you think the risk of additional debt is less with Harris? C’mon man.
It's almost like you didn't read the post... he literally compared the price of her policies to his...
If Harris wins it is likely at least the Senate will be in GOP hands. Her spending proposals would be DOA. Also probably her wanting to increase Corporate taxes is DOA so there won’t be much change vs current path. If Trump wins and has both houses the potential of a massive increase in the debt is high. Noah is correct. But we don’t know what the critical debt level vs GDP is to trigger a bond vigilante revolt.
A side note about deporting non-citizen immigrants: I live in an upper middle class neighborhood and stroll through rich neighborhoods occasionally. These people like to do major renovations, and I don't think they'll sit still for paying much more and having to wait much longer for non-immigrant workers. And they have the money (especially if they benefit from tax cuts) which means they will be listened to.
Trump also has what is essentially a fourth economic idea, which is to take over the Fed and run the nation’s banking system himself by choosing interest rates to his own satisfaction. Such political interference with the Fed would likely destroy the world’s confidence in the dollar and faith in our credit and could easily lead to economic disaster.