Now do you see the problem?
I’m certainly no Nostradamus, having incorrectly forecast both the 2016 and 2020 elections. But it seems to me that I have made a number of more general claims that are looking increasingly plausible:
1. I’ve consistently said that Biden is a senile old guy, not fit to be president. (I’ve said the same about Trump, but that’s neither here nor there.) Anyone still doubt me on Biden?
2. In late 2020, I told you that we’d have 12 years of Trump, and most of you thought I was crazy. Indeed most of our so-called expert pundits completely wrote him off after January 6th. I recall people saying there was no need to impeach him because he was so obviously discredited that his career was over. Where are these pundits today?
3. Unlike most Americans, I pay a lot of attention to politics in other countries. I noticed that as the nationalist right gains strength, their views on economics moved sharply to the left, away from free markets. I predicted that this would eventually happen to the GOP. And now we have Vance–the future face of the party. I said that billionaires supporting Trump were making a pact with the devil, and it would come back to haunt them. Most of those guys have no understanding of history, and don’t recall past examples of business leaders supporting authoritarian nationalists as a way of stopping the “Marxists”. How’d that turn out for business? Oh wait, I’m not allowed to play the Nazi card, only people like Vance are allowed to compare Trump to Hitler. Nevermind.
4. You right wingers babble on about “liberty”, but no one believes you. As soon as people like Vance sniff power, they want to use the awesome power of government to crush their opponents. Vance has actually praised the Biden administration’s economic policies. He’s an American Viktor Orban. Here’s Reason:
And he told The American Conservative in 2021 that his voters “hate the right people.”
Lovely.
I never thought I’d look back fondly on Pence, but at least he had the guts to certify the election. Vance is such a disgusting toady that he was willing to say that he would have refused to do so, in order to suck up to Trump. Vance has also said that Trump should disregard Supreme Court rulings. What could go wrong?
5. I’ve said that the Trump/Biden tariffs would not reduce our trade deficit nor would they provide a boost to domestic manufacturing, and they haven’t done either.
6. As far back as the late 2010s, I was saying that our fiscal policy was moving in an unsustainable direction. Even during Covid, most conventional economists were cheering for more fiscal stimulus. Now it’s almost universally viewed as a big mistake, and neither party has a plan to stabilize our public finances. Reckless fiscal policy and protectionism—sounds like Argentina.
7. For years, I’ve been saying that Russia, not China, is the biggest threat to world peace. After the Ukraine invasion, it’s pretty hard to argue I was wrong. No one is happier with the Vance pick than Vladimir Putin. (Vance doesn’t care about Ukraine, and views China as the bigger threat.)
8. A consensus of economists predicted a recession in 2023. I said recessions are unforecastable. I said don’t be fooled by the sharply higher interest rates, it doesn’t mean money is tight.
9. Yes, I did not predict the big inflation surge. That was a failure. But I said the FAIT policy should be symmetrical. The Fed opted for asymmetrical. How’d that work out?
10. I said the UK should not leave the EU. Now the British people have come around to this view, and the Conservative Party has been discredited.
11. I said that high housing prices (2006), high tech stock prices (2000), and high Bitcoin prices (2013) don’t indicate a bubble. Now people realize that supply restrictions are driving house prices, the dynamism of America’s high tech sector is driving tech stock prices, and cryptocurrencies are here to stay. That’s not to say there aren’t ups and downs—but ups and downs are part of an efficient market.
PS. That’s right. As far back as 2013, when Bitcoin had soared to $32, I was pushing back against claims that it was a bubble.
You’re welcome!
PPS. Vance is wrong about Trump voters:
Vance, author of best-selling memoir-turned-movie “Hillbilly Elegy,” said that Trump is a “cynical a**hole” who is “America’s Hitler” that only an “idiot” would vote to the highest office in the country.
Lots of smart people voted for Trump, indeed I know some. I’ve never, ever, ever said all Trump voters were stupid. Vance is such an elitist snob.
Tags:
16. July 2024 at 15:24
It is a toss up who is the larger threat to global liberty, peace and prosperity, Putin or Xi. They appear to be chums.
But surely China will eclipse Russia in nearly every way in coming years…and Beijing has become increasingly belligerent and illiberal for decades. Free speech is dead, even in Hong Kong.
Beijing claims the entire South China Sea as a lake, all of non-Han Tibet (which it is successfully colonizing) and parts of India, and, of course Taiwan.
None of what the globalists told us about China has worked out. It has not become more liberal, but rather increasingly oppressive while militarizing.
16. July 2024 at 15:57
Vance didn’t compare Trump to Adolf Hitler over eight years, nor did he accuse Trump of being a ‘threat to democracy.’ You continue to throw around terms like ‘right’ and ‘left’ without defining them.
Let me briefly explain.
The Republican Party in the United States, under someone like Mitt Romney is anti-capitalist, pro-big government, and against individual liberty. Romney doesn’t uphold the values of the framers, nor does he champion capitalism. There are many examples, but let’s just focus on one: his support for economic zones primarily benefits Bain Capital, allowing them to operate on an uneven playing field, resulting in a global domino effect, forcing mom and pop stores out of business. And it’s not just tax free production; in these economic zones, the state will even contribute to the capital.
When I speak of a unified oligarchy, this is what I mean. McConnell, through his wife’s ties, and Pelosi, through tuna interests, are more examples.
This isn’t capitalism.
Again, you talk about the Nazi’s. Nazi’s were only culturally right-wing. Economically, they were leftists. The only difference between Nazi Germany and Stalin’s regime is that Hitler permitted private ownership over the means of production, but controlled the production indirectly by controlling the means of investment, whereas Stalin controlled both the means of investment and the means of production.
Look around. Do you see consolidation similarities? State Street, Bain, BlackRock—all massively contribute to the World Economic Forum (WEF), which seeks more state-corporate partnerships, akin to Nazi Germany’s model.
You mention the ‘left’ without defining it. Which ‘left’ are you referencing? The neocon left? Those centralizing power with the Federal government, mirroring France’s ‘adroit adminsitrative’? Back in 1914, Albert Venn Dicey warned against this, seeing it as a threat to liberal principles and common law, coining the term ‘The rule of law.’ He believed framework bills were a threat to parliemantary soveriegnty (UK model).
Is your ideal left the Fabian Society, named after Quintus Fabius Maximus, known for delaying tactics in war, with the hope of achieving a broader agenda over time? (using people as a means to an end). Or is your ideal of the left the ideals of Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison, classical liberals who disagreed slightly, but who were predominately in favor of maximizing liberty? Today, only MAGA (formerly Tea Party) and RFK Jr. come close to these ideals.
If you want to discuss history, let’s do it right. Bring a coherent argument. Calling people Hitler or claiming billionaires support Hitler to combat Marxism isn’t reasoned discourse—it’s what poorly educated people resort to.
16. July 2024 at 16:27
I think one advantage Scott has in his analysis is his attention to and respect for zeitgeist. The global zeitgeist really has been one of primarily anti-incumbentism, but with a definite bias toward far-right candidates pushing what were once considered pro-union, left-wing protectionist views that were once ultimately judged to lead to stagnation.
I really thought Trump was highly likely to lose this election, because I just couldn’t imagine how he could attract more voters than he would motivate to oppose him. I didn’t count on the Democrats losing support among some non-college educated minority men. They’ve gained some support among educated white conservative-leaning women, but it seems that Trump has perhaps gained a bit of support on net. He didn’t need to gain much to win.
That said, these are very uncertain times and we seem to be in the middle of a political realignment that can make sampling of likely voters more difficult than in the past. However, I have the awful feeling that the zeitgeist is increasingly moving in Trump’s direction, and that is consistent with polls and prediction markets.
16. July 2024 at 17:40
The policies that Trump says he wants to enact will raise inflation and slow down the economy. And JD Vance is bad at elections. In 2022 Mike DeWine got something like 63% of the gubernatorial vote in Ohio, while Vance only got 53%, and Tim Ryan got 47%. Which goes to show that if anything, Vance turns off rustbelt voters, which would doom any Republican trying to win a presidential election. And I find it very hard to believe that he could hold onto the gains that Trump has made with black and Hispanic men. Vance simply isn’t macho enough. Of course, it is always possible that Democrats nominate someone in 2028 that gifts the presidency to any Republican candidate with enough sense not to get in the way. But Vance is a subpar politician; even if he won in 2028, it is hard to believe that he would actually be able to lead the party; how many people like Gaetz, Boebert or Greene would support him? Far too many conservatives would sense an opportunity to raise their own profile by giving him hell and trying to humiliate him.
16. July 2024 at 18:19
Ricardo,
Your tone is unhinged and unhelpful.
16. July 2024 at 18:48
From my understanding, I don’t think Trump is thrilled about Vance either. Trump initially asked RFK, but RFK declined. Rubio wasn’t an option because they both reside in Florida. Cruz and Rand Paul apparently declined. His options were limited. The governors of N and S. Dakota add almost nothing to the ticket, and gabbard is a riskier choice than vance. His lack of options is also due to the stigma of the left. When you falsely paint the narrative that someone is Hitler, very qualified people begin to decline for fear that MSM will label them hitler.
16. July 2024 at 19:27
Scott:
I’m grateful for your blog and your predictions. I’ve noticed, however, that Ricardo may not share my opinion.
16. July 2024 at 20:10
This is a new low for Ricardo.
16. July 2024 at 20:49
Scott, maybe not so related to the post, but I have a question.
In the past, you mentioned that central banks should not use interest rates as policy instrument, if I remember correctly.
If a central bank adopted policy to maintain stable path of NGDP growth as its policy objective, how should it achieve its goal, aside from setting interest rates?
I have lived in that kind of system since born, it is hard to imagine others.
16. July 2024 at 22:03
Weren’t you the one who said we’re becoming a banana republic because people are losing faith in the elites? Do you think it’s plausible that a former foster child from Appalachia and U.S. Marine veteran is part of the global elite. And if so, based on your previous comments, why wouldn’t you support him?
Furthermore, you asked if you were senile.
I, for one, think we should test that hypothesis. This should be relatively easy for a Ph.D in economics: The integral I equals the integral of x^3 divided by the quantity x^2 + 1 squared, with respect to x. Solve for the antiderivative I.
16. July 2024 at 23:51
Scott Sumner is right about one thing: The PBoC (and the Bank of Thailand) are curiously tight even when inflation is nearly absent in the two economies.
Xi has jibber-jabbered about making the yuan an international reserve currency, and so yuan deprecation is to be limited. That means a tighter monetary policy. So maybe Xi, not the PBoC, is calling the monetary policy shots.
I do not know what excuse the Bank of Thailand has.
17. July 2024 at 05:55
“For years, I’ve been saying that Russia, not China, is the biggest threat to world peace. After the Ukraine invasion, it’s pretty hard to argue I was wrong.”
I have to agree you were right, Sumner, and I was wrong. Regardless, the correct policy in regards to Ukraine is not the one that most pleases or displeases Vladimir Putin, but one that ends the war as quickly as possible. Enough Russian and Ukrainian blood has been spilt on it.
17. July 2024 at 07:07
Did you also say that liberals in the West should stop importing immigrants from the Third World without screening or control? Because that is the root of the rise of right-wing populism.
17. July 2024 at 07:09
Vance went to Yale, married a Yale lawyer who was a law clerk for Roberts and he works in private equity. If he were a Democrat he would be painted as an elite. Really, the term elite has lost meaning. It mostly means people on the right that they dont like.
Steve
PS- Racist DEI fags? I have never seen that particular combo in a rant.
Steve
17. July 2024 at 07:39
Does Brazil have lots of immigrants? If not, what explains Bolsonaro and his similarity to other right wing leaders?
17. July 2024 at 08:00
#3 — Econ as a force in politics is dead. The fact that our most famous modern economist touts his pregnant conscience over the prescriptions of actual econ knowledge is just the canary in the mine. The field has been totally undermined by people that care more about tribe than science. As one stares into the abyss of the average comment section on the internet, one thing becomes clear: econ education and knowledge is totally unable to overcome culture.
The GOP, through Trump, is reacting to the facts on the ground and is now seriously competing for the economically ignorant voters.
The rest of us must wander the desert.
17. July 2024 at 08:36
Chun, I would abolish IOR and simply use open market operations as the instrument.
JS, You said:
“Weren’t you the one who said we’re becoming a banana republic because people are losing faith in the elites?”
Did I say that? I don’t recall.
“Do you think it’s plausible that a former foster child from Appalachia and U.S. Marine veteran is part of the global elite.”
Yes.
Am I senile? Probably.
17. July 2024 at 09:27
@Michael Sandifer: It’s not really that complicated, Biden is now a very old man who is ludicrous for people to expect to be able to handle the job another 4 years. Trump meanwhile is Trump, an energetic, charismatic born entertainer and campaigner who now has an all time iconic photo to capture his appeal.
This election is over. Note how quick the calls for Biden to step down have evaporated after the shooting…they know it’s a sure loss, why would anyone credible who can wait for 2028 (Newsom, Whitmer, etc) bother? Harris might because she won’t be the nominee in 4 years, she has nothing to lose, but she won’t be beating Lucky McFistInTheAir either.
This is entirely on the selfishness and stupidity of Joe Biden, he has put the Dems in an awful position having to support and defend his obvious unfitness for the next term. He actually did an ok/so-so job in office, that’s not the point.
If he hadn’t decided he was the hero we needed and done the obvious thing, announcing last year he would retire after this term and pass the torch to a new generation, there would have been a Dem primary this year and Harris and Newsom and Whitmer and others would have competed and whoever won (probably Whitmer or Newsom) would now be strongly favored to beat Trump, even after the shooting. But no, Biden wants what he wants. Screw that selfish idiot, this is on him.
17. July 2024 at 10:40
Neoliberalism seems like a boomer fad. It was conservatively revolutionary when the boomer intellectuals were in university. The boomer generation is huge and dominated politics for forty years.
Postliberalism seems like the millennial fad. It was conservatively revolutionary when the gen y was in university to believe the neoliberal movement was corrupt. This started with the left’s flirtation with gaslighting through bush v gore but then it went to Iraq (no WMD) and the financial crisis / occupy movement. The millennial generation is huge.
The shift is coming. Gen X’s like Kamala have no place here. A lot of the losing political positions (e.g., trans-rights) were Gen X projects. Flash in a pan, the momentum isn’t there. The generation is too small.
JD Vance’s ascendance suggests we may go straight from boomer presidents to millennial presidents. It could be quite the swing from too old to be mentally competent to too young to be wise.
17. July 2024 at 10:48
re: “it doesn’t mean money is tight.” Money flows shows that it wasn’t, and the stock market is confirming it.
re: “abolish IOR” Couldn’t do that without reimposing legal reserves.
Just think – banks don’t lend deposits but IBDDs are remunerated. Unless you understand that all time deposits are derived from demand deposits you have no idea how money and central banking actually work.
17. July 2024 at 16:12
Viktor Orban is a free trader–Trump and Vance are protectionists. You are comparing apples with oranges.
18. July 2024 at 06:19
mskings,
I don’t think things are that simple. Trump has always been underwater in terms of approval rating, and the popular vote. He likely will remain that way. He is far from unbeatable. Even Biden beat him last time. A good candidate could beat him pretty readily. It is not impossible that Biden can win, because Trump is weak and there is more potential for crazy things to happen than usual.
Also, one can’t have it both ways with Biden. Either he’s too feeble and/or senile to run, or he’s qualified for office. If it’s the former, you can’t blame him for his decision making. If it’s the latter, then this should be a non-issue. I personally think he cannot communicate well enough to be a viable candidate anymore, at the very least.
Since it is an issue, I don’t think Biden is qualified to run for office again, so the onus is on the Democratic Party to remove him from the ticket. If you’re going to blame anyone for this situation, blame the Democratic Party as a whole. There needs to be a firm leadership structure above any candidates, including those on the Presidential ticket.
18. July 2024 at 08:25
Richard. I didn’t say they were identical on every single policy issue. Another difference is that Vance is probably not bigoted against the Roma.
18. July 2024 at 09:19
C-19 drove the banks out of the savings business, like 1966.
19. July 2024 at 12:37
Scott: You are as delusional as always. Russia is a greater danger than China? Russia has a population of 144 million, China 1.3 billion, Europe 300 million and the US 330 million. Russia Invaded the Ukraine? Did you start watching this situation when Biden told Johnson not to sign the agreement that Russia and Zelensky were ready to so do?
Most of your remaining usual adHominem attacks on Trump are not worth commenting on.
Are you as behind on the most recent Presidential developments as you were with the Ukraine. You have missed that both the press and the Democrat party are finally realizing after 3 and a half years Biden is demented, will lose the election and they will be out on their butts.
Your economics has not changed in years in the face of the disaster that free trade and open borders has brought on this country. Comparative advantage works only in a Classical Economics when every country, thanks to the invisible hand, is at full employment. China has 100’s of millions poor and unemployed. A fully employed wealthy country is insane to have open borders to cheap products from such countries.
BY the way, are you aware that comments are censored? Are you afraid that one of your snowflake fans will collapse emotionally if someone uses the wrong pronoun?
19. July 2024 at 12:39
Free trade is a major issue. Another difference is that Orban is probably not bigoted against the Chinese.
19. July 2024 at 15:21
Art, That’s a new low of nonsensical idiocy for you. Not sure why you even bother. You you think people are amused by your trolling?
Richard, Yes, China’s another difference.
21. July 2024 at 17:04
@Michael S:
Well it happened after all, Biden is out and almost surely Harris is in. Probably a better shot than Biden but still very much an underdog who is unlikely to win.
And no, this is almost entirely on Biden. He was the incumbent who insisted on running again. The last time the incumbent didn’t get the nomination was 1952, and before that 1856 and 1844. Him not doing the obvious thing screwed over the party and now they have a likely loss that would have been an easy win if they had had a truly open primary this year.
22. July 2024 at 08:47
“The last time the incumbent didn’t get the nomination was 1952”
Wait: 1908? 1928? 1968?
22. July 2024 at 09:10
@ssumner:
The last time they tried to get it…in all of those years the incumbent declined to run again.
Point being if the incumbent decides they want to run again they almost always are handed the nomination. Truman was the only one in the last 168 years to try and fail to get it.
I suspect Biden will be looked at similarly, a not too bright, decent man who was unpopular in office but will get better reviews over time.
22. July 2024 at 09:38
Actually, Truman pulled out in March 1952, about the same time as LBJ. The cases are very similar. Yes, Truman was unpopular, but so was LBJ.
22. July 2024 at 10:17
@ssumner:
Truman did compete in the New Hampshire primary and got killed, that’s when he dropped out. So he at least intended to run at first (Coolidge and LBJ and Roosevelt did not, all for different reasons). That’s why I lumped him in with Pierce and Tyler who also tried to get renominated.
Bottom line is Biden refusing to do the obvious thing and letting the Dems have a real primary doomed them and handed the White House back to Trump. I blame Biden himself, personally, more than the party.
22. July 2024 at 10:20
Here’s Wikipedia:
On March 12, McCarthy won 42 percent of the primary vote to Johnson’s 49 percent, an amazingly strong showing for such a challenger. Four days later, Senator Robert F. Kennedy of New York entered the race. Internal polling by Johnson’s campaign in Wisconsin, which was scheduled to hold the next primary, showed Johnson, who had not left the White House to campaign, trailing badly.[citation needed]
22. July 2024 at 10:51
@ssumner:
Thanks, I guess I had that wrong in my head. So 1968 was like 1952 then.
I stand by my belief that Biden screwed everyone over with his selfish decision to run again. I suppose today the Dems are more unified and deferential to each other than those times.
Heck as recently as 1980 a Dem incumbent had a strong primary challenger, but never since. Last one for the Reps was of course 1976.
In every one of these 20th century examples (1952, 1968, 1976, 1980) the incumbent party lost. Obviously there were other factors involved but an incumbent in a primary fight is not a great way to recapture the WH.