Tariffs on Mexico and Canada are bad news... destruction of the federal civil service is almost fatal news. If Trump has his way, we will not have a functioning federal government, and no one around him has the skills to rebuild one.
Those who are fired (many in an illegal manner) must sue immediately. I'm not sure anyone else has standing to b bring a suit.
You’re absolutely right about the destruction of the civil service. It’s weird how Noah is so reluctant to criticize Musk even while Musk presides over that destruction. And even while Musk cosplays as a Nazi.
if your threshold of evidence for identifying a Nazi is "threw Jews into the gas chamber" and not just their own words and gestures, I'm sorry to disappoint you.
The ideal scenario is to have targeted reforms in the federal government but since the Democrats do not believe in that and Democratic Presidents are more interested in legislation vs execution, we ended up with a bull in a china shop scenario. Ultimately, this is a result of complexity in the government and voters feeling that they don’t have any level of control over policies, regardless of which party is in power.
I spent many years as a federal civil servant. In my experience, we were the same sort of people as my wife dealt with in the primate sector. The biggest difference was that incompetence and insubordination often had consequences in the private sector and rarely in the federal service.
Feds have a host of perfectly reasonable sounding protections. Intense retraining if incompetent. Formal grievance procedures. An EEO system process that covers virtually everyone other than white males under forty, and even them in some cases. And unions closely tied to the Democratic Party.
My main concern about Trump’s approach isn’t his position that those who implement policies can be fired if they ignore or oppose implementation; no one voted for any of those people. It is that the worst of the employees will opt to stay, while the best take the buyout. But the federal civil service needs fixing. I don’t think Trump is the ideal agent for that purpose, but he’s what we have.
Civil service needs reforming, but I don’t think it’s so bad that any change will be for the better. From how it’s going so far, this change seems decidedly for the worse
I'm not sure why people persist in proposing "legal" action. Why do you think this administration will pay any attention to losing a court case. They can spread out appeals for years, and ultimately some government employee has to do or not do something, and if Trump doesn't like it, they'll be fired. The law is moot.
A federal court can enjoin firing until the issue is resolved. It can mandate that that the Trump Administration is proving that it is following correct procedure in firing career civil servants. In other words, it can put the Trump administration in the position of having to prove it is following the law until the court case is resolved.
This has already happened on the issues of impoundment and birthright citizenship.
My darker suspicion is that this has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with psychology. Trump feels stronger than he ever has. He's a bully, and he thinks he can bully Canada into collapse, thus getting them begging to be the 51st state as a means of eliminating the tariffs.
I don't think it will work, but given how dumb all the other explanations are, I think it's the most plausible.
"Never assume malice, when ignorance will suffice."
Trump is a TV personality who became famous pretending to be a successful businessman. If it wasn't for the fact that his daddy gave him *half a billion dollars* to play with, he'd be a nobody. He's an idiot who's got some skill as a showman.
He’s going to do some real damage now though, isn’t he?
Think of some names from history who you could describe as ‘idiots with some skills as a showman’. Given the right tools, they can inflict immense damage and suffering.
I’m sure that’s the driver for the ideologues behind the scenes - Bannon, Stephen Miller, etc.
But for Trump it’s even more basic. He is driven by having his mug on TV, his name in the national conversation, and having the media and other crowds turn up day after day to listen to him. It’s why he will continue to have rallies. He is addicted to attention, and has a rat instinct for how to get it.
On the Quebec license plate it says "je me souviens" which translates to "i will remember". This will be, explicitly or not, the motto of all the allied countries he has chosen to bully. Great damage has already occurred.
I would argue that this will be the motto of the entire world. Those that are bullied for sure. But those who could be bullied will shy away from the US. And everyone now knows that a good faith legal agreement like the USMCA is not worth the paper it’s written on. At the end of the day trust is the thing and it’s now broken.
And it was all made possible by FOX News and RW media. Which hide behind their 1st Amendment rights to spew an endless stream of made-up nonsense and deliberate lies. That conservative voters implicitly believe. And then vote on.
I've no problem with *opinion* going crazy partisan. Because it's just opinion. But when blatant mis-/dis-information is peddled nonstop as *news*, that even our current President believes to be true, then we're in deep shit.
And until/unless consumer prices begin to skyrocket, his voter base simply won't give a damn. Or they'll even applaud him for how much he's upsetting Democrats right now, because that's the angle FOX News is currently covering.
But the Conservative business elite types who read the Wall Street Journal more than they watch FOX, understand very well how badly his idiocy is harming both the economy and the efficiency of the civil service. As Trump's policies start to kill their profits, they'll be screaming bloody murder.
The big question is whether Trump will course correct on tariffs when the shit hits the fan.
This is a real mistake from Trump: if you want to both entrench an autocracy and put in unpopular tariffs, you should secure control of the state and crush the opposition *first*.
If your biggest, highest-profile action is one that makes everyone mad at you and rallies opposition while that’s still easy to do, you fucked up.
And a business class who will forgive any amount of economic inefficiency to hold onto their gains from the 2017 "Tax Cuts for the Rich and Deficits Act."
I think this prob hits different business class differently - l imagine the new Trump's friend tech sector will be hit less as it depends less on import of materials while manufacturing sector and retails would suffer a lot.
I imagine tech type will care less but wall street folks, I think they prob care to an extent
If you are not already a subscriber, may I invite you to subscribe (for free) to my substack, "Radical Centrist?" file:///C:/Users/Thomas/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_filelist.xml
I write mainly about US monetary policy, US fiscal policy, trade/industrial policy, and climate change policy.
I have my opinions about which US political party is least bad and they are not hard to figure out, but I try to keep my analysis of the issues non-partisan.
Keynes said, “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
Many PCs come from Mexico, so that part will hurt the tech sector, and 10% on China will hurt other hardware imports. If Trump actually goes through with the crazy threats to target semiconductor imports , that will be insanely bad.
Trump is talking about fentanyl more as a distraction from the likely unemployment and higher prices due to his tariffs. Despite some alluring examples, Canadian fentanyl is small compared to, for example, gun smuggling into Canada from the use. To the contrary, Trump simply believes, as he has stated many times, that tariffs are good. He has repeatedly stated that tariffs will improve the US’s fiscal position or even coerce Canada, by “economic force,” to accede to the US as a state. So, also as he has said, there are no concessions Canada can make to convince him to remove the tariffs.
Factually, Canada is less that 1% of the fentanyl and illegal border crossings. To your point, we have a huge illegal gun smuggling problem with guns coming in from the US. And the trade deficit he sites is products only. Canada has a significant trade deficit with the US in terms of services and products, and our oil is sold to the US at a significant discount to world prices. So who’s subsidizing who if we follow his line of thinking to its logical conclusion.
The immigration and fentanyl claims are bullshit, he just used them so that he can call this an emergency which allows him to put on the tariffs. Congress has had many chances to put limits on emergency powers but was too weak or stupid to do it.
Fentanyl is actually a legal pharmaceutical used to control pain for cancer and surgery, it’s just controlled by the FDA as to who can prescribe and supply it.
George's idea would require descheduling fentanyl which raises significant public health concerns. Oregon’s Measure 110 decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs (including opioids). While this is not the same as descheduling, the negative impacts on visible drug use, positive impact on overdoses (positive in numbers only) are sufficient to dismiss the idea, in my neighborhood at least. But it is a valid economic argument in the Pigouvian sense. Reality >> economic arguments.
As a Canadian it seems to me these tariffs will push us to do more business with the rest of the world rather than the US going forward. That means China, for the most part. Which is strange because it felt to me that as recently as a couple months ago that China was a shared enemy of Canada and the US. I guess we’ll see how that turns out in 6m.
Eggs are a red herring now, already being disingenuously used by Klobuchar and others as being the tariff’s fault, when it is a supply chain issue caused by the culling of chickens because of H5N1 bird flu outbreaks in Georgia and California. You will notice that while vegetables are on the import charts in the article, eggs are not.
I don’t expect the tariffs to affect eggs (but maybe they will in some indirect way, I’m not sure). My comment was more aimed at the voters who gave Trump the slight edge in the election because they believed he would actually bring down the prices of groceries, mainly eggs and bacon. In my opinion, the opposition should be loudly and repeatedly pointing at the price of eggs to show it is not going down. If it’s due to factors beyond the president’s control, that’s too bad for him. Inflation during Biden’s term was also a global phenomenon beyond his control but it cost Kamala the election.
The negative effect of Trump's tariffs on the integrated North American auto industry will be huge. The Cato institute has an interesting description and analysis. Much of the trade is in parts and components, some of which cross borders several times. Will they be taxed each time? I would like to be at the border on Tuesday to see all the customs officials assessing the cargo of all the trucks and trains trying to cross. It will probably shut down entire borders. This will close plants here and give Tesla and China a gargantuan advantage over the others more dispersed on this continent. The auto industry (and Democrats) should be howling for blood.
That's what's stunning: in this tariff regime, they will be taxed each time.
Several of the biggest parts manufacturers are Canadian and Mexican, and the biggest automakers use them in practically all their models.
This weirdly advantages cars made overseas, who face a much smaller tariff (except China), and only face it once, rather than up to half a dozen times.
Trump’s a loose cannon and worse than I thought. A severe price to pay for getting rid of the excesses in the Democratic Party.
No idea what he’s thinking about next with regard to these tariffs or those elsewhere. Or what it means for bonds and stocks and the health of the economy. Frankly it can’t be good.
Next up are taxes and the budget. God knows what comes up there. And what it does to our already too large budget deficit. My optimism about DOGE rationalizing a leaky Federal government is also fast fading—we’ll see.
Frankly the only things that will bring him to his senses are interest rates shooting higher and the stock market getting crushed. Monday will be interesting. If not then, the budget and tax negotiations could be D day. We’ll see…the markets may simply shrug it off.
I'm guessing you must not have been an adult in 2016. That's forgivable. I hope you've learned a lesson about paying attention to recent history when forming political opinions.
I really find a statement like "my optimism about DOGE" flabbergasting. Are there any historical examples of "give wealthy oligarchs power over the public purse" that aren't just baldly corrupt?
The Federal Government is enormously bloated, mostly in regulations but also in departments and, to a lesser extent, personnel. It needs much more serious creative destruction than the democrats would ever get near. Any organization needs to be pruned, reformed, reimagined regularly and the dems will never do this.
DOGE is as close as we've come to dealing with it. It's unlikely to work, because Elon and repubs don't know what they're doing, but the optimistic view is that they'll take a hatchet and the democrats will be able to rebuild by, not kidding here, being unburdened by what has been.
That said, none of that is near worth the damage Trump is doing, and was obviously going to do, on economic policy and otherwise.
> The Federal Government is enormously bloated, mostly in regulations but also in departments and, to a lesser extent, personnel.
Ok, sure.
> DOGE is as close as we've come to dealing with it.
No it isn't. It's a corrupt power grab. That it seems to have successfully duped a bunch of otherwise intelligent-seeming people like those commenting here is a real bummer.
You’re not trying to understand what we’re saying.
I agree it’s a corrupt power grab. But there’s an optimistic take that it could lead to some creative destruction that dems can then fix into something better than the antiquated, bloated systems we have now.
Do you work in or near federal government? It’s a mess, partially because dems generally protect it rather than try to improve it.
I do understand what you're saying. Do you understand that what I'm saying is that your optimistic take was painfully naive prior to the administration taking power and is clearly wrong now that they have?
There’s no room for nativity in what I’m saying. “Bad people destroy thing that’s not working, gives opportunity to build something better after they’re gone.” This is a plausible outcome.
What about this is naive? It’s not only not been proven false, it’s basically unfalsifiable in the short term. That’s a better argument against it!
Lots. Look up "Dollar Men" for examples from WWII.
Bringing in experienced people from private enterprise to increase production and efficiency as the economy is reshaped has several precedents.
I think Trump's economic policies are hot garbage, and endanger the national security of the US and its allies. But slimming a civil service is among the hardest things to do, and one of the more effective ways is to use wrecking balls rather than scalpels. Scalpels get turned away. Musk lacks enough experience in government that he can't wield a scalpel. If he lasts, which is doubtful, he's going to be a wrecking ball, but one that can competently manage a re-org. Trump's other cronies, on the other hand, will likely work in gutting the civil service so much at cross-purposes to DOGE that it's going to be a lovely mess, which they will all try to lie about and cover up.
The problem is though: in the course of swinging this wrecking ball, he’s breaking basically every applicable law. If he slims down the civil service at the cost of showing everyone that law is optional, that’s not a good trade.
It’s worse for basically everyone in every way — you don’t want to live in the sort of country where powerful people don’t have to follow the law.
The problem is not that an agency is breaking the law - that happens pretty regularly, and courts sort it out. The problem is that courts can be too slow or ineffective or both. In this particular case, the courts themselves and their efficacy could be undermined.
Having lived in Russia in the '90s, I see more differences than similarities. So you haven't convinced me. Besides, the analogy is too vague, the oligarchs and their methods were actually quite varied.
If you believe that Biden didn’t wildly overspent on everything, except border enforcement; then maybe you weren’t an adult in 2020. DOGE won’t eliminate all or most of the crazy spending and regulations, but it has resulted in some reductions in both, so there is reason for optimism.
I don't recall opining on that question about Burns’s spending either way.
DOGE hasn't “resulted in” anything. As far as I can tell, everything it has done thus far is illegal and almost certain to be reversed by courts.
If you want to make a dent in government spending, there is no magical shortcut that cuts out Congress. Congress controls the purse. Thinking this is going to change solely through executive action is naive wishful thinking.
$4 billion dollars a day in spending reductions so far, according to the boss on X as well as end of remote work DEI departments and buyout offers on bureaucrats are all reasons for optimism.
Let's see what he does with the budget. "Severe price to pay for getting rid of the excesses in the Democratic Party." Agreed, but there's no political candidate I've ever agreed with 100%. the Democrats were running us off a cultural cliff. let us hope Trump doesn't run us off an economic one.
The biggest problem I see here is the rapidity. It's one of the qualities I really like about him in other settings (Columbia, Venezuela), but uncertainty is death for business, something he ought to know. If you really believe tariffs are good, announce that they'll be phased in over the last 12 months, not in 12 hours.
He’s only good at show business, and doesn’t understand economics let alone how businesses work, that’s why he is about to ruin the economy with tariffs. He won’t stop until his ratings go down, and let’s hope they do soon.
If and when interest rates do shoot higher, the question is whether he accepts that, tries to fix it the right way, or tries to suborn the Federal Reserve.
Politicizing the Fed would be a real break-the-glass moment; I’d start wondering about whether there’s hyperinflation coming.
Please take the bigotry to X where it belongs. You'll find plenty of sympathetic haters there to commiserate with about how other people's gender expression is ruining your life.
Both Democrats and Republicans have their own monoculture which they would like to impose on all 50 states. I'm not thrilled with either party. Democrats can tolerate anyone but a Republican.
Democrats are apparently guilty of both being intolerant of Republicans by some and being too friendly with Republicans (Cheney's, Kinzinger, John Giles, etc) by others.
I think you have come up with a formulation that makes for better political rhetoric than description of the true situation.
Some people, including a fair number of Democrats, believe that blue America includes a lot of intolerance for groups of Americans unlike themselves.
Some people, including much of the progressive wing, believe that Democrats are too friendly with the Liz Cheney/Kinzinger sort of Republicans.
There's not much overlap between these two groups of critics. Rather, this is a pretty good start to describing the division between centrist Democrats and progressives.
Sorry, but no. The transqueer movement, fully backed by the Democrats in office, has resulted in the mutilation and sterilization of tens of thousands of kids, mostly gay and austistic. They're the ones whose lives were ruined, not mine. I'm totally fine.
Yeah, but as the Tavistock Gender study showing o such positive results and the refusal of Johanna Olson-Kennedy to release her study which also showed no such results show, this is not scientifically proven in any way.
I think the medical community has overstepped somewhat, but not extremely so. I don't need to defend Kenny here (he can do that himself.) There are no conclusive studies on happiness, including the one you point out.
Most professional medical bodies (not a great standard but enough to validate Kenny's presumption) currently find that gender-affirming approaches can be beneficial for many transgender youth, even as they call for better and bigger research trials.
An argument from ignorance isn't sufficient given the clear medical cases and the increased prevalence of suicide in these cohorts (if not happiness in those affirmed - unhappiness in the unaffirmed is documented.)
I have personal feelings, more inline with your sentiments than I will admit, but I have deep respect for those who attempt to craft public policy that protects the prospects and rights of others. I would urge you to do extend the same respect.
"Most professional medical bodies" is US only. In Europe, several countries with not-for-profit (this is key!) health-care systems have conducted systematic reviews of the evidence, and all have found that it is too weak to base treatment on. Most have moved to severely restrict sex-trait modification drugs and surgeries for minors.
The "professional medical bodies" in the US are essentially unions advocating only for the best interests of their members, which are to make more money and to not get sued for malpractice. They are not scientific organizations. They have NOT called for "better and bigger research trials". Instead they have suppressed the results of those that have been done. WPATH commissioned an evidence review from Johns Hopkins, then refused to release the results, and enjoined JHU from doing so (because WPATH had paid for it, they had the legal power to do so). The US AAP said over a year ago that they would conduct their own evidence review, but have made no move to do so. There is no question whatsoever what an honest review would reveal: there have been many already, and they have all come to the same conclusion.
If there's one problem in the United States more pressing than any other, it's surely that small socially-hated minorities have too easy a time accessing highly controversial medical care.
Curses! If only the US medical system weren't so ruthlessly and unrelentingly efficient!
You're completely off on the facts here. I encourage you to read up on this. I'll grant that some trans people regret their transitions, but that doesn't invalidate the rights of the majority to make their own choices. Parents need to be informed, and we should fully assess the upcoming NIH study—along with others—to shape the best policies for preserving the health and prospects of all Americans.
These are deeply personal decisions that deserve privacy and respect, not simplistic talking points. Don't fall for Shrier's simplistic presentation.
I'm more than willing to vet this here if you like.
Many LGB people reject being force-teamed with TQ, lesbians in particular, who are finding their spaces invaded by men claiming to be women who love women. One such LGB organzition is LGB Alliance USA:
"We advocate for the prioritization of sex-based rights over gender ideology. Without sex-based protections or the acknowledgment of sex as a material reality, we cannot protect same-sex orientation."
Tariffs on Mexico and Canada are bad news... destruction of the federal civil service is almost fatal news. If Trump has his way, we will not have a functioning federal government, and no one around him has the skills to rebuild one.
Those who are fired (many in an illegal manner) must sue immediately. I'm not sure anyone else has standing to b bring a suit.
You’re absolutely right about the destruction of the civil service. It’s weird how Noah is so reluctant to criticize Musk even while Musk presides over that destruction. And even while Musk cosplays as a Nazi.
South African born Musk is the best argument for the idea that immigration is ruining our country
agree, except for "cosplays"
Do you have evidence that Elon Musk sees the world through a prism of a no-holds-barred life-and-death struggle between races?
(That AFAIK is what defines a "Nazi".)
yes read his comments that he made to Germany's neo-Nazi AfD party:
https://www.npr.org/2025/01/27/nx-s1-5276084/elon-musk-german-far-right-afd-holocaust
if your threshold of evidence for identifying a Nazi is "threw Jews into the gas chamber" and not just their own words and gestures, I'm sorry to disappoint you.
Honestly, don’t even engage with that troll. He knows. Everyone knows. He’s not asking that question in good faith.
OK that certainly makes him at least an apologist for Nazism, which is certainly bad enough.
True. Nothing playful about.
The ideal scenario is to have targeted reforms in the federal government but since the Democrats do not believe in that and Democratic Presidents are more interested in legislation vs execution, we ended up with a bull in a china shop scenario. Ultimately, this is a result of complexity in the government and voters feeling that they don’t have any level of control over policies, regardless of which party is in power.
I spent many years as a federal civil servant. In my experience, we were the same sort of people as my wife dealt with in the primate sector. The biggest difference was that incompetence and insubordination often had consequences in the private sector and rarely in the federal service.
Feds have a host of perfectly reasonable sounding protections. Intense retraining if incompetent. Formal grievance procedures. An EEO system process that covers virtually everyone other than white males under forty, and even them in some cases. And unions closely tied to the Democratic Party.
My main concern about Trump’s approach isn’t his position that those who implement policies can be fired if they ignore or oppose implementation; no one voted for any of those people. It is that the worst of the employees will opt to stay, while the best take the buyout. But the federal civil service needs fixing. I don’t think Trump is the ideal agent for that purpose, but he’s what we have.
Civil service needs reforming, but I don’t think it’s so bad that any change will be for the better. From how it’s going so far, this change seems decidedly for the worse
It took me a moment to figure out what your wife was doing in the primate sector. 😛
I'm not sure why people persist in proposing "legal" action. Why do you think this administration will pay any attention to losing a court case. They can spread out appeals for years, and ultimately some government employee has to do or not do something, and if Trump doesn't like it, they'll be fired. The law is moot.
A federal court can enjoin firing until the issue is resolved. It can mandate that that the Trump Administration is proving that it is following correct procedure in firing career civil servants. In other words, it can put the Trump administration in the position of having to prove it is following the law until the court case is resolved.
This has already happened on the issues of impoundment and birthright citizenship.
My darker suspicion is that this has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with psychology. Trump feels stronger than he ever has. He's a bully, and he thinks he can bully Canada into collapse, thus getting them begging to be the 51st state as a means of eliminating the tariffs.
I don't think it will work, but given how dumb all the other explanations are, I think it's the most plausible.
Of course it’s nothing to do with economics.
Trump is not trying to be ‘President’, insofar as the office is meant to do good by American citizens.
None of his decisions are based on a policy rationale. It’s all chaos, to generate attention. Look at his Cabinet picks.
"Never assume malice, when ignorance will suffice."
Trump is a TV personality who became famous pretending to be a successful businessman. If it wasn't for the fact that his daddy gave him *half a billion dollars* to play with, he'd be a nobody. He's an idiot who's got some skill as a showman.
He’s going to do some real damage now though, isn’t he?
Think of some names from history who you could describe as ‘idiots with some skills as a showman’. Given the right tools, they can inflict immense damage and suffering.
Pero people keep thinking he is a useful idiot
The chaos is to make people yearn for a "stable genius" to come and rescue them. That's how authoritarians seize power. That's the policy rationale.
I’m sure that’s the driver for the ideologues behind the scenes - Bannon, Stephen Miller, etc.
But for Trump it’s even more basic. He is driven by having his mug on TV, his name in the national conversation, and having the media and other crowds turn up day after day to listen to him. It’s why he will continue to have rallies. He is addicted to attention, and has a rat instinct for how to get it.
On the Quebec license plate it says "je me souviens" which translates to "i will remember". This will be, explicitly or not, the motto of all the allied countries he has chosen to bully. Great damage has already occurred.
I would argue that this will be the motto of the entire world. Those that are bullied for sure. But those who could be bullied will shy away from the US. And everyone now knows that a good faith legal agreement like the USMCA is not worth the paper it’s written on. At the end of the day trust is the thing and it’s now broken.
And it was all made possible by FOX News and RW media. Which hide behind their 1st Amendment rights to spew an endless stream of made-up nonsense and deliberate lies. That conservative voters implicitly believe. And then vote on.
I've no problem with *opinion* going crazy partisan. Because it's just opinion. But when blatant mis-/dis-information is peddled nonstop as *news*, that even our current President believes to be true, then we're in deep shit.
Isn't it lovely to have an idiot for president? Taxing inputs used by American manufacturers?
And until/unless consumer prices begin to skyrocket, his voter base simply won't give a damn. Or they'll even applaud him for how much he's upsetting Democrats right now, because that's the angle FOX News is currently covering.
But the Conservative business elite types who read the Wall Street Journal more than they watch FOX, understand very well how badly his idiocy is harming both the economy and the efficiency of the civil service. As Trump's policies start to kill their profits, they'll be screaming bloody murder.
The big question is whether Trump will course correct on tariffs when the shit hits the fan.
This is a real mistake from Trump: if you want to both entrench an autocracy and put in unpopular tariffs, you should secure control of the state and crush the opposition *first*.
If your biggest, highest-profile action is one that makes everyone mad at you and rallies opposition while that’s still easy to do, you fucked up.
And a business class who will forgive any amount of economic inefficiency to hold onto their gains from the 2017 "Tax Cuts for the Rich and Deficits Act."
I think this prob hits different business class differently - l imagine the new Trump's friend tech sector will be hit less as it depends less on import of materials while manufacturing sector and retails would suffer a lot.
I imagine tech type will care less but wall street folks, I think they prob care to an extent
:)
Hi
If you are not already a subscriber, may I invite you to subscribe (for free) to my substack, "Radical Centrist?" file:///C:/Users/Thomas/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_filelist.xml
I write mainly about US monetary policy, US fiscal policy, trade/industrial policy, and climate change policy.
I have my opinions about which US political party is least bad and they are not hard to figure out, but I try to keep my analysis of the issues non-partisan.
Keynes said, “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
I want to be that scribbler.
Thanks
Many PCs come from Mexico, so that part will hurt the tech sector, and 10% on China will hurt other hardware imports. If Trump actually goes through with the crazy threats to target semiconductor imports , that will be insanely bad.
Trump is talking about fentanyl more as a distraction from the likely unemployment and higher prices due to his tariffs. Despite some alluring examples, Canadian fentanyl is small compared to, for example, gun smuggling into Canada from the use. To the contrary, Trump simply believes, as he has stated many times, that tariffs are good. He has repeatedly stated that tariffs will improve the US’s fiscal position or even coerce Canada, by “economic force,” to accede to the US as a state. So, also as he has said, there are no concessions Canada can make to convince him to remove the tariffs.
I believe the only way he can do these without congress is to claim a national security issue. Thus fentanyl…
Factually, Canada is less that 1% of the fentanyl and illegal border crossings. To your point, we have a huge illegal gun smuggling problem with guns coming in from the US. And the trade deficit he sites is products only. Canada has a significant trade deficit with the US in terms of services and products, and our oil is sold to the US at a significant discount to world prices. So who’s subsidizing who if we follow his line of thinking to its logical conclusion.
The immigration and fentanyl claims are bullshit, he just used them so that he can call this an emergency which allows him to put on the tariffs. Congress has had many chances to put limits on emergency powers but was too weak or stupid to do it.
How about a targeted tariff on Fentanyl? This would protect the American fentanyl industry, create jobs etc
Make Fentanyl Great Again ! MFGA!
Finally, someone who makes sense! And it should be "MAFGA": "Make American fentanyl great again!"
MAFGA!
Except you can't (by definition) tariff imports of contraband (or more generally, tax any kind of criminal activity).
Fentanyl is actually a legal pharmaceutical used to control pain for cancer and surgery, it’s just controlled by the FDA as to who can prescribe and supply it.
George/Buzen,
George's idea would require descheduling fentanyl which raises significant public health concerns. Oregon’s Measure 110 decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs (including opioids). While this is not the same as descheduling, the negative impacts on visible drug use, positive impact on overdoses (positive in numbers only) are sufficient to dismiss the idea, in my neighborhood at least. But it is a valid economic argument in the Pigouvian sense. Reality >> economic arguments.
Tim
As a Canadian it seems to me these tariffs will push us to do more business with the rest of the world rather than the US going forward. That means China, for the most part. Which is strange because it felt to me that as recently as a couple months ago that China was a shared enemy of Canada and the US. I guess we’ll see how that turns out in 6m.
Unfortunately with natural gas, and especially Quebecois hydroelectric power, other countries are much harder to export to.
Are groceries cheaper yet?
Noah should keep a running tracker of grocery prices, especially eggs and bacon, throughout the Trump presidency
Eggs are a red herring now, already being disingenuously used by Klobuchar and others as being the tariff’s fault, when it is a supply chain issue caused by the culling of chickens because of H5N1 bird flu outbreaks in Georgia and California. You will notice that while vegetables are on the import charts in the article, eggs are not.
I don’t expect the tariffs to affect eggs (but maybe they will in some indirect way, I’m not sure). My comment was more aimed at the voters who gave Trump the slight edge in the election because they believed he would actually bring down the prices of groceries, mainly eggs and bacon. In my opinion, the opposition should be loudly and repeatedly pointing at the price of eggs to show it is not going down. If it’s due to factors beyond the president’s control, that’s too bad for him. Inflation during Biden’s term was also a global phenomenon beyond his control but it cost Kamala the election.
The negative effect of Trump's tariffs on the integrated North American auto industry will be huge. The Cato institute has an interesting description and analysis. Much of the trade is in parts and components, some of which cross borders several times. Will they be taxed each time? I would like to be at the border on Tuesday to see all the customs officials assessing the cargo of all the trucks and trains trying to cross. It will probably shut down entire borders. This will close plants here and give Tesla and China a gargantuan advantage over the others more dispersed on this continent. The auto industry (and Democrats) should be howling for blood.
That's what's stunning: in this tariff regime, they will be taxed each time.
Several of the biggest parts manufacturers are Canadian and Mexican, and the biggest automakers use them in practically all their models.
This weirdly advantages cars made overseas, who face a much smaller tariff (except China), and only face it once, rather than up to half a dozen times.
Trump’s a loose cannon and worse than I thought. A severe price to pay for getting rid of the excesses in the Democratic Party.
No idea what he’s thinking about next with regard to these tariffs or those elsewhere. Or what it means for bonds and stocks and the health of the economy. Frankly it can’t be good.
Next up are taxes and the budget. God knows what comes up there. And what it does to our already too large budget deficit. My optimism about DOGE rationalizing a leaky Federal government is also fast fading—we’ll see.
Frankly the only things that will bring him to his senses are interest rates shooting higher and the stock market getting crushed. Monday will be interesting. If not then, the budget and tax negotiations could be D day. We’ll see…the markets may simply shrug it off.
Ha. You were had.
I'm guessing you must not have been an adult in 2016. That's forgivable. I hope you've learned a lesson about paying attention to recent history when forming political opinions.
I really find a statement like "my optimism about DOGE" flabbergasting. Are there any historical examples of "give wealthy oligarchs power over the public purse" that aren't just baldly corrupt?
The Federal Government is enormously bloated, mostly in regulations but also in departments and, to a lesser extent, personnel. It needs much more serious creative destruction than the democrats would ever get near. Any organization needs to be pruned, reformed, reimagined regularly and the dems will never do this.
DOGE is as close as we've come to dealing with it. It's unlikely to work, because Elon and repubs don't know what they're doing, but the optimistic view is that they'll take a hatchet and the democrats will be able to rebuild by, not kidding here, being unburdened by what has been.
That said, none of that is near worth the damage Trump is doing, and was obviously going to do, on economic policy and otherwise.
> The Federal Government is enormously bloated, mostly in regulations but also in departments and, to a lesser extent, personnel.
Ok, sure.
> DOGE is as close as we've come to dealing with it.
No it isn't. It's a corrupt power grab. That it seems to have successfully duped a bunch of otherwise intelligent-seeming people like those commenting here is a real bummer.
You’re not trying to understand what we’re saying.
I agree it’s a corrupt power grab. But there’s an optimistic take that it could lead to some creative destruction that dems can then fix into something better than the antiquated, bloated systems we have now.
Do you work in or near federal government? It’s a mess, partially because dems generally protect it rather than try to improve it.
I do understand what you're saying. Do you understand that what I'm saying is that your optimistic take was painfully naive prior to the administration taking power and is clearly wrong now that they have?
There’s no room for nativity in what I’m saying. “Bad people destroy thing that’s not working, gives opportunity to build something better after they’re gone.” This is a plausible outcome.
What about this is naive? It’s not only not been proven false, it’s basically unfalsifiable in the short term. That’s a better argument against it!
Lots. Look up "Dollar Men" for examples from WWII.
Bringing in experienced people from private enterprise to increase production and efficiency as the economy is reshaped has several precedents.
I think Trump's economic policies are hot garbage, and endanger the national security of the US and its allies. But slimming a civil service is among the hardest things to do, and one of the more effective ways is to use wrecking balls rather than scalpels. Scalpels get turned away. Musk lacks enough experience in government that he can't wield a scalpel. If he lasts, which is doubtful, he's going to be a wrecking ball, but one that can competently manage a re-org. Trump's other cronies, on the other hand, will likely work in gutting the civil service so much at cross-purposes to DOGE that it's going to be a lovely mess, which they will all try to lie about and cover up.
The problem is though: in the course of swinging this wrecking ball, he’s breaking basically every applicable law. If he slims down the civil service at the cost of showing everyone that law is optional, that’s not a good trade.
It’s worse for basically everyone in every way — you don’t want to live in the sort of country where powerful people don’t have to follow the law.
The problem is not that an agency is breaking the law - that happens pretty regularly, and courts sort it out. The problem is that courts can be too slow or ineffective or both. In this particular case, the courts themselves and their efficacy could be undermined.
This is a poor analogy. This is not who Musk is. The current kleptocracy has nothing in common with what you're describing.
I didn't describe who Musk is, but the level of finesse with which he will will be able to operate (little), if he is able to at all.
What analogy for his intensions or results would you find more appropriate?
The post-Soviet oligarchs, of course. This is clearly the model this administration is explicitly following.
Having lived in Russia in the '90s, I see more differences than similarities. So you haven't convinced me. Besides, the analogy is too vague, the oligarchs and their methods were actually quite varied.
What is Musk going to do? And how will he do it?
If you believe that Biden didn’t wildly overspent on everything, except border enforcement; then maybe you weren’t an adult in 2020. DOGE won’t eliminate all or most of the crazy spending and regulations, but it has resulted in some reductions in both, so there is reason for optimism.
TRUMP WAS PRESIDENT IN 2020, am I taking crazy pills?
You may have missed a dose; as the previous one was in 2016, presidential elections are held every four years.
I don't recall opining on that question about Burns’s spending either way.
DOGE hasn't “resulted in” anything. As far as I can tell, everything it has done thus far is illegal and almost certain to be reversed by courts.
If you want to make a dent in government spending, there is no magical shortcut that cuts out Congress. Congress controls the purse. Thinking this is going to change solely through executive action is naive wishful thinking.
Why did you have any optimism about DOGE in the first place?
$4 billion dollars a day in spending reductions so far, according to the boss on X as well as end of remote work DEI departments and buyout offers on bureaucrats are all reasons for optimism.
The 4 billion dollars is what Musk needs to say to justify what he's doing and the source he is using for much he is saving?...himself
According to the boss? What exactly is he the boss of, and what evidence has he provided of these $4 billion /day spending reductions?
Let's see what he does with the budget. "Severe price to pay for getting rid of the excesses in the Democratic Party." Agreed, but there's no political candidate I've ever agreed with 100%. the Democrats were running us off a cultural cliff. let us hope Trump doesn't run us off an economic one.
The biggest problem I see here is the rapidity. It's one of the qualities I really like about him in other settings (Columbia, Venezuela), but uncertainty is death for business, something he ought to know. If you really believe tariffs are good, announce that they'll be phased in over the last 12 months, not in 12 hours.
> but uncertainty is death for business, something he ought to know
Why?
A lot of peoples' comments here seem to buy into this whole "he's a smart businessman" thing, which has always been total and obvious sham.
You seem pretty sharp. You really can't tell the difference between a successful businessman and a person who used to play one on reality TV?
He’s only good at show business, and doesn’t understand economics let alone how businesses work, that’s why he is about to ruin the economy with tariffs. He won’t stop until his ratings go down, and let’s hope they do soon.
Unfortunately his ratings seem to have a fairly high floor, which was not low enough for him to stop playing to that crowd last time.
If and when interest rates do shoot higher, the question is whether he accepts that, tries to fix it the right way, or tries to suborn the Federal Reserve.
Politicizing the Fed would be a real break-the-glass moment; I’d start wondering about whether there’s hyperinflation coming.
If only the Democrats hadn't been completely captured by the transqueer cult, more of us could have voted for them, like we always did before.
Oh well.
Haim performs Fleetwood Mac's "Oh Well" live at T in the Park, 2014, BBC video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VikyxJoBF2k
Please take the bigotry to X where it belongs. You'll find plenty of sympathetic haters there to commiserate with about how other people's gender expression is ruining your life.
Both Democrats and Republicans have their own monoculture which they would like to impose on all 50 states. I'm not thrilled with either party. Democrats can tolerate anyone but a Republican.
Democrats are apparently guilty of both being intolerant of Republicans by some and being too friendly with Republicans (Cheney's, Kinzinger, John Giles, etc) by others.
I think you have come up with a formulation that makes for better political rhetoric than description of the true situation.
Some people, including a fair number of Democrats, believe that blue America includes a lot of intolerance for groups of Americans unlike themselves.
Some people, including much of the progressive wing, believe that Democrats are too friendly with the Liz Cheney/Kinzinger sort of Republicans.
There's not much overlap between these two groups of critics. Rather, this is a pretty good start to describing the division between centrist Democrats and progressives.
Please, find help. You desperately need some perspective!
Sorry, but no. The transqueer movement, fully backed by the Democrats in office, has resulted in the mutilation and sterilization of tens of thousands of kids, mostly gay and austistic. They're the ones whose lives were ruined, not mine. I'm totally fine.
"a handful of transqueer individuals had surgery, so I had to vote for a fascist to take down the U.S. Government"
Changing “kids” to “individuals” and not voting for Harris with “voting for a fascist” kinda negates your argument.
You’re a long way from fine.
Take some time away from the Internet.
Go outside
I think most of these kids are happier than they would be without these interventions.
Yeah, but as the Tavistock Gender study showing o such positive results and the refusal of Johanna Olson-Kennedy to release her study which also showed no such results show, this is not scientifically proven in any way.
Buzen,
I think the medical community has overstepped somewhat, but not extremely so. I don't need to defend Kenny here (he can do that himself.) There are no conclusive studies on happiness, including the one you point out.
Most professional medical bodies (not a great standard but enough to validate Kenny's presumption) currently find that gender-affirming approaches can be beneficial for many transgender youth, even as they call for better and bigger research trials.
An argument from ignorance isn't sufficient given the clear medical cases and the increased prevalence of suicide in these cohorts (if not happiness in those affirmed - unhappiness in the unaffirmed is documented.)
I have personal feelings, more inline with your sentiments than I will admit, but I have deep respect for those who attempt to craft public policy that protects the prospects and rights of others. I would urge you to do extend the same respect.
Tim
"Most professional medical bodies" is US only. In Europe, several countries with not-for-profit (this is key!) health-care systems have conducted systematic reviews of the evidence, and all have found that it is too weak to base treatment on. Most have moved to severely restrict sex-trait modification drugs and surgeries for minors.
The "professional medical bodies" in the US are essentially unions advocating only for the best interests of their members, which are to make more money and to not get sued for malpractice. They are not scientific organizations. They have NOT called for "better and bigger research trials". Instead they have suppressed the results of those that have been done. WPATH commissioned an evidence review from Johns Hopkins, then refused to release the results, and enjoined JHU from doing so (because WPATH had paid for it, they had the legal power to do so). The US AAP said over a year ago that they would conduct their own evidence review, but have made no move to do so. There is no question whatsoever what an honest review would reveal: there have been many already, and they have all come to the same conclusion.
If there's one problem in the United States more pressing than any other, it's surely that small socially-hated minorities have too easy a time accessing highly controversial medical care.
Curses! If only the US medical system weren't so ruthlessly and unrelentingly efficient!
Mark,
You're completely off on the facts here. I encourage you to read up on this. I'll grant that some trans people regret their transitions, but that doesn't invalidate the rights of the majority to make their own choices. Parents need to be informed, and we should fully assess the upcoming NIH study—along with others—to shape the best policies for preserving the health and prospects of all Americans.
These are deeply personal decisions that deserve privacy and respect, not simplistic talking points. Don't fall for Shrier's simplistic presentation.
I'm more than willing to vet this here if you like.
Tim
https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/
https://adc.bmj.com/content/archdischild/early/2025/01/24/archdischild-2024-327909.full.pdf
https://adc.bmj.com/content/archdischild/early/2025/01/24/archdischild-2024-327921.full.pdf
Gordon Guyatt, one of the authors of those last two papers, is one of the key proponents of the practice of evidence-based medicine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Guyatt
Mark, you're completely wrong with regards to post-transitioning surgery regret. It's only 1%, vastly lower than any other kind of elective surgery: https://www.americanjournalofsurgery.com/article/S0002-9610(24)00238-1/abstract
I think you are letting your distaste of LGBTQ cloud your judgement.
That's for adults, and even then the methodology is questionable. There is no comparable study for children:
"The Detransition Rate Is Unknown"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02623-5
Your attempt at psychoanalysis of me is noted.
Many LGB people reject being force-teamed with TQ, lesbians in particular, who are finding their spaces invaded by men claiming to be women who love women. One such LGB organzition is LGB Alliance USA:
"We advocate for the prioritization of sex-based rights over gender ideology. Without sex-based protections or the acknowledgment of sex as a material reality, we cannot protect same-sex orientation."
https://lgbausa.org/about