Please don’t blame EC101 for this fiasco
I warned people that Trump was not even smart enough to pick competent advisors. Fortunately, Trump’s rather lazy and thus doesn’t have time to find 4000 people as foolish as he is; he needs to farm out some of the White House staffing choices to people like Pence. So a few good ones will slip through. But where Trump does get involved he has awful instincts. John Bolton was just named the number two guy at the State Department, as Trump continues to flesh out his Dr. Strangelove foreign policy team.
Consider Trump’s choice of Wilbur Ross to head Commerce (and also lead Trump’s trade policy). Here’s what Ross said back in August, in a letter to the WSJ:
Your editorial “Trump on the Economy” (Aug. 9) suggests that Donald Trump is wrong to be worried about imports because such increases are associated with a strong economy. It’s Econ 101 that GDP equals the sum of domestic economic activity plus “net exports,” i.e., exports minus imports. Therefore, when we run massive and chronic trade deficits, it weakens our economy.
I’m almost willing to cut him some slack on the claim that trade deficits weaken the economy. That’s obviously wrong, but I suppose lots of non-economists believe that to be true. But it’s far worse than that. He also claims this is true because of the national income accounting identity, and then even more ridiculously that “EC101” teaches this to be true. Even most “practical men” who have contempt for the views of economists on trade at least know what those views are. What’s the point of even having public universities if our top policymakers are this ignorant of the most basic ideas being taught to freshman? Especially if they claim freshman economics provides support for their ignorant views.
Trump’s policy mix has often been compared to Reagan’s, as both involved a bigger budget deficit and a stronger dollar. Reagan also had quotas on autos and steel. The Trump people don’t seem to understand that this mix also results in a larger trade deficit. God knows what they’ll do when they find this out. Will they lash out at foreign countries?
We have a president of almost breathtaking stupidity. A day after he tells us that he knows far more than the CIA about Russian cyber-warfare, we are informed that he plans to dispense with the traditional daily intelligence briefings that all presidents get. His explanation is that he is “smart” and doesn’t need any briefing from experts. Perhaps he is afraid they might disturb his carefully cultivated view that the world is full of conspiracies against Donald Trump and his friend Vladimir Putin. It looks like we’ve elected as President someone who combines:
1. Complete ignorance on policy issues
2. Supreme confidence that he so smart he doesn’t need good advice
What could go wrong?
PS. Here’s what Greg Mankiw had to say:
Their analysis of trade deficits, starting on page 18, boils down to the following: We know that GDP=C+I+G+NX. NX is negative (the trade deficit). Therefore, if we somehow renegotiate trade deals and make NX rise to zero, GDP goes up! They calculate this will bring in $1.74 trillion in tax revenue over a decade.
But of course you can’t model an economy just using the national income accounts identity. Even a freshman at the end of ec 10 knows that trade deficits go hand in hand with capital inflows.
Mankiw is referring to a paper by Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross, which makes one absurd claim after another. Paul Krugman also trashes their work, so this is not one of those left/right splits within economics. For people not well versed in economics, Trump’s choice at Commerce would be like putting a believer in the Ptolemaic planetary system in charge of NASA.
HT: Ramesh Punnuru
Tags:
13. December 2016 at 06:51
No, Bolton was not just named #2 at state. And Bolton has largely the same views as Pence.
13. December 2016 at 06:53
Human centipede fall into valley?
13. December 2016 at 06:55
Speaking of left-right splits in econ…
https://twitter.com/AlanMCole/status/808353220439535616
13. December 2016 at 06:57
Yes, Trump’s views on econ are BS. But Clinton knew less than Trump. Only Cruz and Paul could come close to sounding like free traders.
13. December 2016 at 07:31
Scott,
on Trump’s “approach” to Russia and China it looks like this to me: Trump has a serious grudge against China and wants to create pain for China. He doesn’t care about Russia much either way. Maybe because he only hates countries that trade a lot with the US, such as China, or Mexico. Who knows. But bottom line, in order to keep hating on China he needs to keep his back free in relations with Russia. And this is what is going on right now.
13. December 2016 at 07:32
You’re substantively correct, but Wilbur Ross is 79. He would have taken econ 101 at Yale in the mid/late 1950s. Entirely possible he got taught you can just fiddle with the accounting identity.
13. December 2016 at 07:44
I pointed out Ross’s comments to others as soon as I saw it. Must admit I thought it was funny. But he runs the Department of Crony Capitalism,I mean Commerce, so he is perfect. The Commerce Department is irrelevant. You are getting lazy if he is the best you can do on how bad Trumps cabinet is. Lazy, in that it is easy to show he does not understand economics. Its harder to show why some of his other picks are outside the norms of qualified people. Ross is 78. Dont lose too much sleep.
13. December 2016 at 07:52
Face palm…
What’s next, Rick Perry proposes to solve the global energy conundrum with a perpetual motion machine… which Trumps supports because he once saw plans for such a machine somewhere on the interweb.
13. December 2016 at 08:05
mbka, Yes, Trump doesn’t seem to know which countries to worry about. He’s more afraid of imports than he is of military aggression.
Plucky, Best Case: Trump’s pick is just 60 years out of date as to what is taught in schools.
Michael, Commerce is usually a meaningless pick. But reports are that Trump aims to give Commerce control over international trade. That is worrisome.
Student, He’ll probably pick Perry for EPA.
13. December 2016 at 08:20
Scott, Perry has already been named to lead that third one… I just can’t recall… Sorry. Oops.. Oh yeah Energy.
13. December 2016 at 08:21
Let’s hope he stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.
13. December 2016 at 08:38
A politician says something stupid about trade? Stop the presses! Oh, but wait a minute, the people who write about this stuff for the press are just as stupid.
I am not defending Trump or Ross. Scott’s right that what they say about trade deficits is wrong, just as Reagan was wrong. I comment only to point out that this kind of stuff has been going on for centuries. Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” in 1776 was largely about refuting mercantilism, which is what this is.
Scott, you are going overboard with your TDS. So far, Trump’s appointments have mostly been pretty mainstream conservative Republicans. Most of what he’s said and done that is wrong is also wrong with mainstream Republicans. I will grant that he’s a bit worse than most Republicans on trade and immigration, but he is not, unfortunately, much, much worse, because Republicans in general are pretty bad on immigration, and Democrats are even worse than Republican on trade.
What you might ask yourself is why potential output and productivity growth have been so slow. These are supply side phenomena, not demand side problems that can be cured by better monetary policy. Nor are they affected very much by trade. What Trump appears to be doing to rein in the EPA and the Justice and Energy Department regulators could be very positive. Overall, the market’s judgement, which you seem to trust in most matters, is that Trump is going to be much better for the economy than Clinton would have been.
Scott, if Trump were really making a major war more likely, how would you expect the stock and bond markets to react?
13. December 2016 at 08:39
As a liberal, I’ve long wanted to get rid of the Department of Commerce, among other departments, but never has it seemed a better idea. The executive branch should surely shrink.
13. December 2016 at 08:51
Jeff,
The Dow Jones average soared during US involvement in World War 2. The Fed tends to be more accommodative during major wars, meaning fiscal stimulus can work. I would be cautious in interpreting market reactions regarding the increased provability of war.
Your comments about Trump’s cabinet nominations and non-cabinet picks are equally misguided. Trump has chosen an extremely pro-Russian National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, along with a Deputy Secretary of State who’s a Russia apologist and anti-Obama conspiracy theorist on the Russian hacking question. Additionally, Flynn and Bolton have a screw loose.
13. December 2016 at 08:57
We have a president of almost breathtaking stupidity.
How many members of the Bentley ‘University’ faculty have run a business with 22,000 employees?
13. December 2016 at 09:04
As a liberal, I’ve long wanted to get rid of the Department of Commerce, among other departments, but never has it seemed a better idea. The executive branch should surely shrink.
It’s a collection of disparate agencies that at least two Presidents (Johnson, Carter) attempted to redistribute to other departments. They were both blocked by members of Congress who love ’em their fiefdoms. There actually isn’t much troublesome about the component parts per se (bar a modest bit of patronage sluicing – on a much smaller scale than you see in most departments).
The trouble with the federal government concerns more the scope than the scale of federal activities. Members of Congress do not maintain a clear sense of the distinction between the federal realm and that more properly devolved or left to philanthropy, so you get an ant-heap of discretionary grant programs the issue of which are meant to be put on campaign brochures &c.
13. December 2016 at 09:24
Jeff, When you use the stock market as your barometer of success, does that also apply to Obama, who presided over one of the best stock markets in American history? I have consistently said that while I think Trump is more likely than Hillary to get us into a war, the odds of a nuclear war under either are quite small. Something with a 1% chance is not going to affect stock prices, but may be something we should worry about if the costs are large enough (and they are.)
I’ve said numerous times that stocks may be discounting some tax reform and deregulation, and that’s great. When I say that I get commenters asking me why I’ve changed my tune on Trump. When did I ever say Trump would not do any deregulation?
I don’t see Ross as a typical choice. Yes, many appointees are bad on trade, but most don’t co-author long articles that spout complete nonsense. He seems more like a true believer. I hope I’m wrong. (His coauthor is certainly a true believer.) Trump’s already shot down TPP, which goes against decades of bipartisan policy in America. So no, I don’t believe he’s normal on trade.
You say he’s picking good people, but I don’t see it. A few choices like education and transportation are fine, but most of the key choices have been somewhere between bad and horrible.
Previous presidents always have some people who actually know some economics, like Larry Summers or Greg Mankiw. Are you seeing any of those here? I don’t, although I’ll reserve judgement on Mnuchin.
Is it normal for Presidents to publicly say the CIA is ridiculous and that they are much better informed on Russian espionage? Is it normal for a President to say he’s so smart he doesn’t need security briefings? You say I suffer from TDS, but I’m not the only one. If you talk to policy experts from both parties they mostly agree (privately) that Trump is a buffoon. Maybe we are all wrong, but it’s not just me.
I would encourage you to watch the video I link to about “traditional daily intelligence briefings”. Unlike me, the speaker is unfailingly polite. But listen closely to what he says, and just imagine how he talks about Trump in private.
Scott, Agree about getting rid of Commerce, but if I recall correctly the stock market did not soar during WWII. You might check that. It certainly soared under Obama.
Art, Trump’s certainly bankrupted far more companies than I have, I’ll give you that. In any case, being a TV star doesn’t mean you are smart on policy issues. I couldn’t care less if he’s a good chess player; when I say dumb I mean dumb on policy. I accept that he’s a talent conman, otherwise he never would have been elected.
13. December 2016 at 10:15
I took AP Econ. The misuse of the accounting identity regarding GDP & trade is standard material…
13. December 2016 at 11:09
But it IS econ 101 that
GDP = C + I + G + X – M
And if we could reduce M while holding the other levels constant then GDP must rise.
But you can’t just manipulate one lever and expect the rest to remain unchanged. The problem is that there are too many people who have taken econ 101 and don’t really understand it, but use their superficial knowledge to say things that are “obvious” yet obviously wrong.
A high level of net imports suggests that demand exceeds the local economies ability to produce the goods that satisfy domestic demand. In which case we are looking at the wrong thing. The question shouldn’t be why are imports high and how can we bring them down. The question should be, what can we do to bring output up to meet the demand.
13. December 2016 at 11:16
James, Have you considered asking for a refund?
Doug, You asked:
“The question should be, what can we do to bring output up to meet the demand.”
And the answer is simple, the Fed’s job is to assure macroeconomic equilibrium. Right now they think we need to raise interest rates (and hence “worsen” the trade deficit) in order to stabilize the economy. Otherwise, in their view, we will overheat.
13. December 2016 at 11:28
Art, Trump’s certainly bankrupted far more companies than I have, I’ll give you that. In any case, being a TV star doesn’t mean you are smart on policy issues. I couldn’t care less if he’s a good chess player; when I say dumb I mean dumb on policy. I accept that he’s a talent conman, otherwise he never would have been elected.
None of this answers my question. Which is no surprise.
13. December 2016 at 11:29
Another way to look at net exports.
Net exports equal foreign investment flows.
In imbalance in our goods flows indicates that the US is an attractive place to invest. Growth is relatively strong (compared to the other developed economies) interest rates are high, return expectations are higher, or return / risk is more attractive. Those tend to be good things for an economy.
13. December 2016 at 11:29
Scott, you know I did not say the stock market is a barometer of success. What I said (and in other contexts you have said the same thing) is that market prices reflect the expectations of the people active in those markets. If the people putting their money on the line thought Trump was going to be worse for the economy that Clinton, the markets would be down since the election, not up.
Obama is a different story. Unlike Trump’s victory, Obama’s election was not a surprise. He was leading in the polls leading up to the election, and most people thought he was going to win. So while Obama’s win on Election Day did resolve a minor amount of uncertainty, for the most part his victory had already been incorporated into market prices. There was almost no market reaction. But between April 30, 2008 and November 1, 2008, the stock market fell by over a third while the odds of an Obama victory were rising.
I don’t understand why you are so excited about the choice of Commerce Secretary. Most political experts think that the heads of State, Defense and Justice are more important. And for regulatory concerns, the heads of EPA, Treasury and Energy also matter more than Commerce. So let’s look at some of Trump’s picks.
Mattis is nothing if not competent and experienced. Tillerson has the support of James Baker, Robert Gates and Condi Rice, none of whom are fools. Perry may flop at Energy, but he has been a successful Governor of an oil state, so I wouldn’t write him off just yet. I don’t expect I will much like what Jeff Sessions does as Attorney General, but he’s certainly no lightweight. The EPA, unfortunately, needs someone like Scott Pruitt to clean house. Both of the people who have been reported as potential FDA picks are pretty good. Like you, I don’t know much about the Treasury pick. I also like the Nikki Haley choice, seeing it as grooming a future party leader.
You might also consider some of the people Trump didn’t pick. Gingrich, Giuliani and Christie are all known for big egos, and none of them were picked. Romney is smart and about as humble as politicians get, but he really made himself unemployable in a Trump administration with his vigorous attacks on Trump during the primaries. You do have consider how your supporters are going to feel about who you reward if you want continued loyalty.
As for TPP, what little I’ve read about it indicates that it is more about protecting domestic intellectual property holders than it is about free trade. I readily admit that I don’t know how true that is. But an agreement favored by the big media and pharmaceutical companies is likely to be anti-competitive because that’s how they roll.
Briefings are overrated. If I were in Trump’s position, I would want concise written summaries rather than someone droning through a PowerPoint presentation. Most meetings I’ve been in with more than 3 attendees were a waste of time.
I discount Washington whispers because I am old enough to remember how they talked about Reagan. Trump certainly sounded like a buffoon during the primaries, and you know my vote was more anti-Clinton than it was pro-Trump. But since the election Trump has done pretty well. Personnel is policy in DC, especially when the President himself is not a policy wonk.
You may think I’ve gone over the edge in Trump support, but I haven’t, really. Trump is our President for the next 4 years, let’s give him a chance. Time enough for criticism when he’s actually done a few things in office.
13. December 2016 at 11:52
Scott,
The Dow Jones Industrial Average started soaring in the second half of 1942. Before that it’d been sinking. Perhaps part of that was increasing expectations of victory? But, there were a tremendous number of American deaths and injuries after that.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/stock-market
13. December 2016 at 12:01
Jeff, First of all, thanks for a thoughtful comment, after all the idiots that have been defending Trump over here. You said:
“I don’t understand why you are so excited about the choice of Commerce Secretary.”
I’m not excited at all, why do you think I am? I do this posts in this style because they are fun to write.
You misunderstood my comments on Obama, I was not referring to the market response to his election, I was referring to the huge stock run-up during his 8 year presidency. My point is that Trump supporters would never claim that that huge stock price run-up represented a vote of confidence in Obama’s economic policy (nor should they.) OK, then why does the recent stock price run-up represent a vote of confidence in Trump’s economic policies? You can’t have it both ways. And in saying this, I am in no way discounting the fact that stocks may have been helped by rumors that Trump would deregulate and do tax reform, I’m simply urging people to be cautious. We don’t know what Trump will do. I hope that if there is enough pushback on his crazier policies, maybe he won’t do them. It would be great if I were wrong, and he backed off from this crazy protectionism. I’m not predicting, just warning—which is my job, isn’t it?
Would you prefer the blogosphere just ignored all these nutty statements by Trump officials, and left them with the impression that protectionism was perfectly fine?
Tillerson is “friends” with Putin. Are you comfortable with that fact? I’m not. What kind of person would be “friends” with Putin? I’m not saying everyone has to be like Jimmy Carter, but do human rights no longer matter at all? Look at what Putin is doing to Syria—those are real people he’s murdering.
You said:
“You might also consider some of the people Trump didn’t pick. Gingrich, Giuliani and Christie are all known for big egos, and none of them were picked. Romney is smart and about as humble as politicians get, but he really made himself unemployable in a Trump administration with his vigorous attacks on Trump during the primaries. You do have consider how your supporters are going to feel about who you reward if you want continued loyalty.”
Completely agree about those three. You are correct, they are Trump-like jerks. Good for Trump. Romney may have been unemployable as you say, but Trump’s very public attempt to get Romney to kiss his ring, knowing he had no thought of hiring him, doesn’t reflect well on Trump. It’s a Putin-type public humiliation of a rival. Of course Romney can be blamed for being naive enough to think he had a chance.
I am also old enough to remember Reagan, and Trump is about as far from Reagan as it is possible to be. Reagan had a keen interest in public policy, and was a classy individual. Yes, both are viewed as dummies, but I see more differences than similarities.
I agree that meetings can be a waste of time, but Trump does like to read. If he doesn’t get this in a face to face, I doubt he’ll get it anywhere.
I have a post at Econlog today praising Trump’s comments on the F-35. If he does good public policies, I will praise them. I have made up my mind that Trump is a despicable person, but have a completely open mind on how he’ll do as president. It’s possible he’ll do lots of good things. Right now it’s a complete mystery, no one has any idea what he’ll do, I doubt even he does.
TPP has a few downsides, such as excessive IP protection, but those mostly hurt other countries. And the gain to places like Vietnam from freer trade massively outweighs the cost of those unfortunate regulations. You pointed to stocks, I bet the stock market would soar if Trump endorsed TPP today.
13. December 2016 at 12:02
The market not only reacted to the Trump victory, but also to the GOP congressional and Senate victory. I.e. the (quasi-)end of the Washington gridlock.
13. December 2016 at 12:06
Another Freak-Out-We-Are-All-Going-to-Die-Trump-Derangement-Syndrome post.
I have to admit that I’m starting to love them.
Just don’t get a heart attack, Scott.
The mandatory “I’m not excited, I’m all chill, why would you think otherwise?!” is yet missing though. I’m sure it will appear any minute now.
Time enough for criticism when he’s actually done a few things in office.
No, no, no, Jeff. Ain’t nobody got time for that.
13. December 2016 at 12:10
Scott, There was lots of inflation during WWII (some repressed by price controls). I think it’s fair to say stocks did not do particularly well.
Christian, Given your extremely low reading comprehension, I’m not surprised that you can’t see how much fun I’m having with these posts. Still confused about the difference between a phone call and a change in the one China policy? Don’t feel bad, you aren’t the only commenter who struggles with reading comprehension.
13. December 2016 at 12:47
Scott,
Good point and chances are you’re much more familiar with that data, to say nothing of being better able to analyze it, than I am. Yes, of course the stock market price rises may have been largely nominal.
13. December 2016 at 13:37
Tillerson getting a medal from Putin:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzlYrXNUkAAzc1X.jpg
13. December 2016 at 13:39
Scott, hazard to guess how many Rubles a loaf of bread will cost in the US at the end of Trump’s 1st term? 200? 300?
Also, how long before Alaska is back in Russian hands?
13. December 2016 at 14:35
Ah yes, reasoning from accounting identities and GDP composition aggregates.
Such as; explaining how the Hartz reforms in Germany led to the Euro crisis–no, really, that’s the claim. (You’ll love this one Scott.)
http://tomjconley.blogspot.com.au/2016/12/pettis-on-european-crisis.html
13. December 2016 at 15:52
I warned people that Trump was not even smart enough to pick competent advisors.
Here’s hoping you and your co-blogger…
… don’t meet in a hallway anytime soon.
BTW, have you considered taking up your other co-blogger’s recommendation of placing “Scott Alexander bets” about what Trump will actually do, in place of indulging all the exuberant fantasies about evil he is?
Brain science says that quantifying things invokes a numeracy that calms the amygdala and counters derangement syndromes of all kinds, together with the accompanying compulsion to insult. And as Bryan says, “Why get angry when you can profit?”
I do this posts in this style because they are fun to write …Given your extremely low reading comprehension, I’m not surprised that you can’t see how much fun I’m having with these posts.
Yes, derangement syndromes and insults are huge fun to indulge. But beware, they are addicting. Look what happened to Krugman. In 2001 he said he was going to indulge himself only until the Democrats got elected again, but how long has it been and how far has he come? … Or, more so, DeLong. In the first days of his blog he proclaimed he started it to get away from and above all the snark and insults on usenet, and he attracted a good first set of readers with that (not at all unlike you have over the years, until now). He’d actually respond “touché” to those who scored a fair point against to him back then, I got a few of those myself even privately by email … but look at him now. He’s never getting that monkey off his back.
Beware, few who embrace derangement syndrome ever go back. It’s really not so good to have a brain on politics.
(I now pre-empt any critical response from any quarter by noting that I simply enjoy commenting like this, let’s all have enough reading comprehension to appreciate my having fun!)
13. December 2016 at 16:06
Why is everyone saying Tillerson is friends with Putin? Isn’t that like saying John Kerry and Valerie Jarrett are friends with Rouhani? Or that Obama was friends with Castro?
Rubio is a hardline hawk. He doesn’t want the US to have a working relationship with any of Cuba, Iran, or Russia. That doesn’t mean he’s accurate to say that having a business relationship is equivalent to a friendship. Rubio’s position should be defended on the merits, not based on character aspersions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/12/13/what-is-the-russian-order-of-friendship-and-why-does-trumps-pick-for-secretary-of-state-have-one/
13. December 2016 at 16:09
I agree with the EC101 comment. The last Republican businessman president was Herbert Hoover, right? Macro fallacy is the Achilles Heel of business people.
Maybe universities should start by requiring EC101 as a core requirement instead of SJW Studies. Which is more important for informed civic participation?
13. December 2016 at 16:14
Trump may be a loonie, but he is correct in his assessment of the CIA. The 17 National Security intelligence agencies we have will always come to the most alarming assessment possible. The director of the CIA told President George Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that conclusion was a “slam dunk.”
The FBI says they do not know who hacked the DNC.
As long as the topic is Russia, I wonder if Rex Tillerson may be a good choice. With Tillerson, Trump sends a signal the US is becoming more business-oriented. Certainly US intervention and even occupation in foreign nations has been fantastically expensive and probably counterproductive. Let us hope Tillerson sees a better path.
13. December 2016 at 16:22
Art Deco, are you sure Trump has 22,000 employees? A real estate developer is not the direct employer of the employees of general contractor. So start at potentially zero employees in construction, add some for hospitality staff at some locations, janitorial and building maintenance, marketing. Seems impossible to get to 22,000.
13. December 2016 at 16:25
Jim, You said:
“BTW, have you considered taking up your other co-blogger’s recommendation of placing “Scott Alexander bets” about what Trump will actually do, in place of indulging all the exuberant fantasies about evil he is?”
No, because I have no idea what he will do. And why do my critics have such exuberant fantasies about how evil Hillary is?
But thanks for at least commenting in the right spirit, I wish I had more commenters like you.
Steve, You said:
“Why is everyone saying Tillerson is friends with Putin?”
Because he says Putin is his friend?
13. December 2016 at 16:38
“Trump’s choice at Commerce would be like putting a believer in the Ptolemaic planetary system in charge of NASA.”
Please, Scott, try not to give him any ideas.
13. December 2016 at 18:03
Art Deco, are you sure Trump has 22,000 employees?
That assessment is from PrivCo.
13. December 2016 at 18:17
You might also consider some of the people Trump didn’t pick. Gingrich, Giuliani and Christie are all known for big egos, and none of them were picked.
Gingrich has no background as an administrator. There’s a time bomb which may explode under Christie re Bridgegate. The most appropriate positions for Giuliani would be Attorney-General or Homeland Security, and he had other people tapped for them.
13. December 2016 at 18:21
Love your posts, don’t necessarily agree, but I like the lengths you go to explaining your position. Now a bit of seriousness. TDS to me seems a bit like rabid animals, and could be described as such. A structure might be, D (drooling), S (slobberying), LF (light foam, (just around the edges, you know)), F (a full lip to lip bubbling), FF (that lovely dripping, washing machine flowing over, wild eyed sensation). Of course, the range could be equally applied to TSS (Trump Support Syndrome). Thank you.
13. December 2016 at 18:51
“Even most ‘practical men’ who have contempt for the views of economists on trade at least know what those views are.” “Most”? I think that’s a wild overstatement!
“What’s the point of even having public universities . . . .” A very good question!
Why am I commenting on one of your TDS posts? Another good question!
13. December 2016 at 19:05
Sumner is spreading fake news. He writes:
I am no Trump fan, but even at know that this is not what Trump actually said. Sumner you’re getting your news from propaganda outfits.
First, he never said he knows more than the CIA.
Second, the CIA has not in fact communicated that the Russian government had anything to do with the DNC leak. This narrative was started by the Democrats, and it was planned back in 2015.
Third, what Trump actually said is that he only wants to be briefed when there is a CHANGE in the intelligence, and that he is smart enough not to be told the same thing every day. It is not that he doesn’t want any intelligence briefs at all, but that he doesn’t want to have the same thing told to him every day.
Don’t believe me? Watch the interview with Wallace for yourself.
I feel dirty for even depending Trump on this. Sumner often complains people misattributing ideas and positions to him. Yet here he is doing the exact same thing. What a hypocrite.
13. December 2016 at 19:39
Jim…, You said:
“BTW, have you considered taking up your other co-blogger’s recommendation of placing “Scott Alexander bets” about what Trump will actually do, in place of indulging all the exuberant fantasies about evil he is?” ,”
No, because I have no idea what he will do.
Oh, methinks Bryan might take that as a cop out. If you have no idea that he might do anything bad, why all the criticism?
And why do my critics have such exuberant fantasies about how evil Hillary is?
Oh, we all know *she’s* evil.
But thanks for at least commenting in the right spirit, I wish I had more commenters like you.
Thanks, but there’s always the chance my next will change your mind.
13. December 2016 at 20:05
As one who did not vote for Trump (nor for Hillary, as Moscow-on-the-Hudson’s Board of Elections apparently reads “Independent” as “Nazi who must be disenfranchised”, so I will never know if I would have voted for her or Johnson) I will coolly be a bit numerate about a few popular myths of the moment:
1) Trump did not win, Hillary lost. (As difficult as this is for sufferers of both the Trump Hero and Trump Evil Derangement Syndromes to admit. )
Trump drew a smaller percentage of eligible voters (27.2%) than did both McCain (28.1%) and Romney (27.4%). Adjusted for the growing number of voters, he drew 2.2 million fewer votes than McCain (who was running against both the shadow of Dubya and the start of the Great Recession) and a half-million fewer than Romney.
Does anybody see the start of any great new social movement, against trade or anything else, in that? Any great success at all?
But Hillary drew a much smaller percentage (28.4%) than did Obama in 2008 (32.6%) and in 2012 (29.6%) – an adjusted 9.7 million votes and 2.8 million votes fewer.
That’s why she lost, millions of Democrats who voted for Obama decided not to vote for her. That simple. A fact especially felt in the swing states.
2) Hillary was a dreadful candidate — the second-worst candidate by “unfavorables” in polling history. These comments don’t play well with multiple links, so I’ll just mention e.g. a recent Huffpo article quoting Carville and Stephanopolous talking about how Hillary has been a focus-group-proven vote-repellent since Bill’s first term. Do remember how she and the Clinton Machine should have stomped Obama in 2008, when he was totally nobody, but instead got stomped by him. Think how she couldn’t shake even a 70-year-old socialist this time — then Google up the ‘Republican oppo book’ on Bernie. Using that, Trump would have won 53 or 54 states against him. But Hillary couldn’t use any of it because she was so weak she couldn’t afford to offend any of his supporters.
Here’s left-side analysis giving the book on Hillary six months before the election, rather presciently:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/05/the-democrats-are-making-a-suicidal-mistake
Yes, she told a lot of pretty bad lies too. (But then FDR told worse. Politicians tell many lies. Imagine!)
My son (an econ major) called me (from Texas!) before the election to say that he was going to vote for Hillary, but in his mind the Dems nominating her was profoundly anti-democratic. Yes, the Repub circus ran heats of candidates, 20-odd, through its early debates — but that democratic process ended up producing the one of them who was actually best a getting votes. In stark contrast, the Clinton-Obama machine enforced the delivery of the nomination unto Hillary (*no* other Democrat wanted to be President??) a candidate *nobody* actually liked. What did they think would happen? Well, they *assumed* she’d win because … how *stupid* would people have to be to vote for Trump?!? Which gets to…
3) Trump clearly won the smarter, *best*-informed voters.
http://www.pleeps.org/2016/11/14/would-clinton-have-defeated-trump-in-an-epistocracy/
Which may lead some to ponder: What is the worth of the well-informed on election day after all? Amid the rather small percentage of eligible voters who bother to vote in spite of all the billions of dollars and endless demagoguery expended on motivating them to do so? But that’s another discussion.
13. December 2016 at 20:34
‘I was referring to the huge stock run-up during his 8 year presidency.’
I can’t believe Scott Sumner is spouting this nonsense. The ‘stock run-up’ was simply the rebound from the deep sell off of 2008. IIRC, the Dow was above 14,000 back in 2007, then dropped to 7,000 during the recession.
The recovery was slow as molasses.
13. December 2016 at 21:08
Scott,
Ross is being hired to run the Commerce Department not the Econ Department.
And…. last time I checked… Yale College and Harvard Business School were not public universities.
13. December 2016 at 21:20
Steve – George W Bush has a Harvard MBA and was in the oil business for about 15 years before running for governor of TX (he was also part of the Texas Rangers baseball ownership group). He was pretty mediocre, largely because he was still an alcoholic for much of that time. George HW Bush was also in the oil business for about 15 years before starting his political career and was quite successful. Obviously both came from political backgrounds and got their start with a bit of nepotism, but both had quite a lot of business executive experience despite their main identity being ‘political’.
13. December 2016 at 21:40
Jim, You asked:
“Oh, methinks Bryan might take that as a cop out. If you have no idea that he might do anything bad, why all the criticism?”
An answer will be provided tomorrow.
Patrick, Check out the EMH. There’s no such thing as “rebounds”. Stocks did great under Obama, after doing horribly under Bush.
dtoh, You said:
“And…. last time I checked… Yale College and Harvard Business School were not public universities.”
I think you missed the point. My point was why do we consider it important that people “know stuff” We fund public universities so that people will “know stuff”. So I ask you, why is it important for people to become educated?
And why keep making excuses from idiots like Ross? Why such low expectations? If it were a Democratic President, would you make one excuse after another? Why not just admit they are idiots, and defend Trump on some other ground, like taxes or regulation? There really is a legitimate chance that Trump might do something useful in those two areas.
I don’t understand people who defend Trump on everything, and I don’t understand people who criticize Trump on everything. Why not judge each issue on its merits?
13. December 2016 at 22:36
Scott,
The guy has an undergrad from Yale, and MBA from Harvard, a successful career at Rothschild’s, and then has run a successful buyout business. He can’t be a dummy much less an idiot. Seems like a pretty typical pick for a Commerce Secretary.
And… the only people who remember the national account identities (much less really understand them) are macro professors and dilettantes like me.
If it were up to me, I’d make public schools start teaching econ in middle school and I would cut almost all government funding and loans for colleges and universities.
14. December 2016 at 00:24
At what point will you consider leaving the United States? I mean it’s all very well to say you intend to stay and fight for your country, but in your case most of the fighting is done online anyway.
14. December 2016 at 05:36
‘Patrick, Check out the EMH. There’s no such thing as “rebounds”.’
The derangement is so complete that you now don’t even understand the EMH?
14. December 2016 at 06:04
dtoh, You said:
“He can’t be a dummy much less an idiot. Seems like a pretty typical pick for a Commerce Secretary.”
As I said 100 times before, when I say people like Trump and Ross are idiots, I am referring to their policy views, nothing else. They are policymakers, doesn’t it make sense to judge them on their policy views, not how good they are at bridge or chess? Read the Roos Navarro policy paper, if you don’t believe me. This is not normal. Summer sand Mankiw didn’t put out stuff like that when they were in government.
Saturos, Why would I leave the US over a policy disagreement? I don’t even know what Trump is going to do, and politics plays only a trivial role in my real life.
Patrick, As I said to dtoh, when you resort to that sort of answer, I’ll draw the reasonable conclusion. You are out of ideas.
It’s actually kind of funny seeing me give calm reasonable answers to people like Patrick and dtoh, have them respond hysterically, and then accuse me of derangement.
14. December 2016 at 06:54
He was pretty mediocre, largely because he was still an alcoholic for much of that time.
He was never an alcoholic, just someone who drank too much. He quit drinking in 1986, before he was ever managing partner of the Texas Rangers and when Arbusto was still in business.
14. December 2016 at 06:58
As I said 100 times before, when I say people like Trump and Ross are idiots, I am referring to their policy views, nothing else.
You cannot take responsibility for one thing you say (or, if you’re on the level here, for being a bad writer).
It’s not that difficult in your commentary to critique something someone says (in Ross’s case, a passage in an Op-Ed piece he might well have assigned to an assistant) and critiquing their faculties. (While we’re at it, you’ve wasted a great deal of verbiage in an attempt to pretend that Trump’s businesses are some sort of mirage).
14. December 2016 at 08:30
“Don’t you guys get it? My increasingly panicked and reactive style of writing is *strategy*?”
14. December 2016 at 13:00
‘Patrick, As I said to dtoh, when you resort to that sort of answer, I’ll draw the reasonable conclusion. You are out of ideas.’
As we both know, there is a difference between there being stock market crashes and rebounds and the ability to predict them accurately enough to profit from them.
15. December 2016 at 07:40
Patrick, You may know that, I do not.