Random links
[I’ve received complaints that I don’t do enough posts on monetary policy. I have a long one over at Econlog with zero comments, while my moronic Trump posts get dozens of comments.]
1. Here’s Janan Ganesh:
Because, in Britain, someone who is nationalist in general will be anti-EU in particular, the Anglo-American intelligentsia tends to assume the same of Europeans. In fact, millions are able to decouple the two things.
Brexit helped. If Nato owes its second life to Russia, the EU is forever in Britain’s debt. Its great adventure of 2016 has gone badly enough to discourage the rest of Europe from even entertaining the same idea. Apart from its co-authorship of the single market in the 1980s, Brexit stands out as the UK’s kindest service to the European project. (Both happened under the Tories, which will gall that party to a degree that no landslide election defeat ever could.) What a parting gift. And how true, on such different levels, when Brussels says: “You shouldn’t have.”
2. Here’s Ross Douthat:
I wrote about this in the context of Biden’s “save democracy, vote Democrat” rhetoric before the 2022 midterms, but clearly the point merits new elaboration. Time and again, from 2016 to the present, the Democratic Party has treated Trumpism not as a “civic emergency” but as a political opportunity, a golden chance to win over moderate and right-leaning voters with the language of anti-authoritarianism while avoiding substantive concessions to these voters and actually moving farther to the left.
3. American software is eating the world:
By March 2008 America had entered recession and its financial crisis was under way. The country’s stocks accounted for less than 40% of the world’s total stockmarket capitalisation.
Fast-forward to today and things look rather different. America’s share of the world’s stockmarket capitalisation has climbed pretty consistently over the past decade and a half, and sharply this year. It now stands at 61%. That is astonishing dominance for a country which accounts for just over a quarter of global GDP.
4. Many people seem to think Trump is the same guy as in 2020, or 2016. I think this is related to the famous example of the frog in the pot, not realizing that the water is getting hotter and hotter. The Economist points out that there was a time when even Republicans like Trump condemned the Jan. 6 insurrectionists. Now, Trump is campaigning on the theme that they were actually heroes. He calls them warriors:
To call them warriors is not simply to insist their cause was just and that they were somehow tricked into entering the Capitol with the guns, bats, knives and other weapons that Mr Trump once maintained they did not have; it is not just to ignore or minimise the violence that day, which resulted in five deaths; it is not even to shift the blame for that violence to others, whether police officers (some 140 of whom were assaulted), or Ms Pelosi (whom the rioters were hunting, and who can be seen on video from that day urging Mr Trump’s acting secretary of defence to dispatch troops to the Capitol). It is instead to praise the people who attacked the Capitol precisely—definitionally—for their capacity to wage war. That is to move the understanding of what happened on January 6th, at least for Mr Trump’s supporters, onto new and even darker ground.
There was a moment, back in the mists of 2021, when just about everyone in the mainstream of American politics recoiled in shock from the mayhem of January 6th. They agreed that attacking the Capitol was wrong, and that Mr Trump, to some degree, was responsible. Even Mr Trump said so,
The Trump of 2020 was considerably more authoritarian than the Trump of 2016. And the Trump of 2024 is considerably more authoritarian than the Trump of 2020. Deep down, Trump hasn’t changed. Instead, he’s realized that America has changed. In 2024, it’s OK to run for president celebrating violent insurrectionists who tried to overturn an election.
5. If you haven’t been keeping up with developments in solar power, you might wish to check out a new essay in The Economist. It seems that solar energy prices are plunging so low that entirely new possibilities are opening up:
It is possible that batteries might move electricity in space as well as time. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates that there are 2.6tw of generation and storage capacity queuing up for grid connections in America—enough to double the country’s installed generating capacity. This queue contains a full terawatt of solar power. SunTrain, in which Dr Carlson’s firm, Planetary Technologies, is an investor, sees this as a market for batteries with wheels.
The company plans to use solar farms in places that have little to recommend them other than a railway line nearby as filling stations at which to charge heavy but cheap batteries built into goods wagons. A 100-car train similar to the ones that currently carry coal east from Wisconsin could deliver 3 gigawatt-hours to users. Dr Carlson describes a utility-boss’s jaw hitting the floor when he proposed that, instead of a multi-decade planning battle to build a high-voltage transmission line, SunTrain could meet the utility’s power-import needs with a couple of trains a day.
6. It’s a mistake too focus too heavily on US politics, as you may miss the bigger picture:
When the Alternative for Germany (AfD, from its German initials) was launched in 2013, it was a pro-business, classically liberal party created by German intellectuals opposed to the single European currency. Hans-Olaf Henkel, a free-market enthusiast and former boss of the bdi, the main German industry association, was a founding member.
Then, in the space of a few years, the afd turned into an anti-immigrant, populist party toying with Dexit—Germany’s exit from the EU. Mr Henkel quit in 2015. German bosses turned their backs. Despite being generally reluctant to voice political opinions, many came out strongly against the afd ahead of the election to the European Parliament on June 9th.
Remember when Tea Party was sort of libertarian?
7. More evidence that the War on Drugs was a catastrophic mistake:
Some fear that super-strength commercial pot is fuelling mental-health breakdowns. But the evidence for this is thin. An extensive study published last year in the journal Psychological Medicine found that people who live in states where weed is legal consume more than their identical-twin siblings in states where it is not. But they are no more likely to suffer mental, physical, relationship or financial problems. Another study looked at health-insurance data to see whether states with legal cannabis saw more claims for psychosis. The authors found no relationship.
BTW, Brian Albrecht has an interest post on the opioid epidemic.
8. Worried about abuse of power? Consider the following:
Nowadays the deployment of troops and suspension of liberties on American soil by the federal government is hard to imagine. Yet if a tyrannical president wished to do so, he would have the power to send in the troops under the Insurrection Act. This law, dating from 1807, gives the president the authority to deploy the army or the navy in the case of a domestic uprising or where federal law is being ignored. The act states that this can be done when lawful, without defining when that means. “It’s a loaded gun for any president. There are practically no constraints,” says Jack Goldsmith, a former attorney-general and current scholar of presidential power who is part of an effort to reform the act.
But have no fear, the Supreme Court will certainly not allow any president to be above the law.
9. Some are claiming that after previously deciding not to deflect bullets away from JFK and Bobby Kennedy, God did decide to deflect a bullet away from Trump’s head. Because I am not religious, I’ll refrain from offering an opinion on this hypothesis. But I will say that it reminds me a bit of an old Onion headline:
.
Tags:
19. July 2024 at 17:12
I happen to be an immigrant myself. But I do not combine with other immigrants from my home country or region to create mayhem on city streets or attempt to change the culture and politics of the nation in which I now reside. Indeed, I think I have an obligation to fit in and conform.
If I did so militate against my hosts, that is set about to alter the nation to which I immigrated, through combination with other immigrants from my home country or region, I would expect justifiable anti-immigrant sentiments to emerge.
If such a large number of immigrants arrived in my host nation as to drive down wages, or pressured already overstressed housing markets, I would also expect anti-immigrant sentiments.
On the other hand, if I was a member of a domestic elite that benefited from lower wages and higher residential rents, I would accuse the anti-immigrants of being racist or nationalist.
I would also indicate that the belief in rule of law does not apply to immigration.
19. July 2024 at 17:31
They’re not “anti-immigrant”.
Not once has the ADF ever said they were “anti-immigrant” You claim to know what’s going on around the world, but apparently you don’t. Read more, watch T.v. less.
You’re consuming too much propaganda.
The ADF is not opposed to immigration, they are opposed to mass immigration being forced upon them. Nobody voted for a small community of 125 to be replaced with 275 migrants overnight. If you held a referendum, 90% of the country would vote against it, both right and left.
And while Leeds is not Germany — just look at Leeds. Leeds has been burning for three days (literally); the people their are calling for sharia law, and death to non muslims. It looks like Pakistan. That’s not cultural “enrichment” rather it’s the death of western civilization and enlightenment values more broadly.
They don’t assimilate.
Furthermore, the people on Jan 6th were heroes. Not because they trespassed, which everyone condemns, including Trump, but precisely because radical thugs like you — instead of charging them with trespassing and sending them home to their wives and husbands and children and granchildren — instead, decided to turn it into a political propaganda festival, with hand-picked committees that witheld evidence, and MSM belting out words like “treason” and “terrorists” 24/7.
Former army veternas are not “terrorists”. Unarmed people trespassing are not terrorists. Political protests (even wild ones) are not terrorists. Standing outside a judges house belting profanities, while sick, and nasty, and vile, and everything you’d expect from a Sumner radical, still doesn’t meet the bar of terrorism.
Many of them are still in prison, despite not be convicted of a crime. Some of them were beaten while in jail. One of them lost an eye.
They’re warriors because of their mistreatment, not because of their trespassing misdemeanor.
19. July 2024 at 18:36
AfD not ADF, Sara.
I just wonder why Sumner doesn’t have the same vitriol towards hard-right china. If Ireland, Germany, France, U.S., U.K, are all hard-right because the people living there want sensible immigration policies, one wonders how to describe China who doesn’t allow any immigration. Are they super hard right? What’s after hard right? Why aren’t you calling for open borders and multiculturalism in China or Iran?
Those who believe in this fictious hard-right can be divided into two camps. 1) Useful idiots. 2) Globalist marxists who don’t actually believe that Marine Le Pen, Orban or the AfD are hard-right, but think it’s politically expedient to label them as such. They even label RFK jr hard right. The washington post wrote that he was anti-vaxx which is untrue and that his border policy was hard-right. The person who wrote that, btw, was just indicted for being an unregistered foreign agent.
Everything I know about Sumner leads me to the conclusion that he’s in the second camp. He’s not a marxist, but he truly believes in the globalist agenda. He wants a version of Schwab’s stakeholderism, which is like modern feudalism, and he’ll do anything or say anything to achieve his goal. He wants a world without borders, the destruction of all religions, family values, and a global top-down government run by elites. In his mind, this imposition is necessary to achieve his multicultural utopia.
19. July 2024 at 19:07
#5- I follow renewables including batteries pretty closely. Solid state lithium batteries are just starting to hit the market. Yoshino is the first company I think of offhand. If you look at energy density vs weight their first generation battery weighs and 1/4 to 1/2 less than conventional Li batteries for equal amount of power stored. Commercial solar cells just passed 24% in efficiency and research cells have recorded well over 40%.
https://www.nrel.gov/pv/cell-efficiency.html
Steve
19. July 2024 at 22:16
4: Power doesn’t tell us the true nature of the man; the man tells us the true nature of the power—David Runciman
If these are the times, then this must be the man—Marvell on Cromwell
20. July 2024 at 00:40
When I started readin the bit about moving electricity around by putting batteries on trains, I first thought that stupid and doesn’t make any engineering sense.
I was very delighted to learn a few sentences later that this is actually a regulatory arbitrage, and that makes perfect sense.
20. July 2024 at 00:43
The Jan 6 folk were heroes, at least as bit as any other we call hero today in America as it’s a pretty low bar, cops shooting unarmed kids in the back are heroes for example as are mentally ill women using men’s bathrooms. Today on the news a teenager was hailed a hero for returning an EMPTY wallet.
That said, and I don’t like it, but I’m going to call it on Trump reneging on his Jan 6th pardon commitment. He might do a couple token but my guess is 99% of them don’t get a pardon nor a commute once he’s president.
20. July 2024 at 04:15
Edward, why don’t you just read what Scott writes to figure out what he wants?
Scott is pretty transparently pretty close to your run-of-the-mill libertarian economist.
Sure, go ahead and accuse him of being a cosmopolitan globalist. He’ll most likely agree.
But calling him a fan of top down government? Please show some more effort in your trolling.
20. July 2024 at 05:27
Prof. Sumner,
Point:
https://www.liberalcurrents.com/he-will-try/
Counterpoint:
https://jabberwocking.com/a-realistic-look-at-a-second-trump-term/
Note: while their forecasts seem to differ wildly, both writers are highly highly intelligent.
20. July 2024 at 05:50
“Because I am not religious”
Big mistake, Sumner.
IMO the close miss to Trump’s head is strong evidence for God’s existence.
20. July 2024 at 06:26
“IMO the close miss to Trump’s head is strong evidence for God’s existence.”
I guess he hated former fire chief and father to two, Corey Comperatore.
20. July 2024 at 07:19
Re Douthat: Democracy will surely end! This is an existential crisis! If only we can raise the odds from 1 in 5 to 2 and 5, all will be well! (Think deck chairs/Titanic).
AOC, Warren, and Brown should propose a one-time coalition candidate: Liz Cheney (with Adam Kinzinger as running mate). I could see that getting to 3 (and possibly 4) chances in 5. Can you imagine that debate?
20. July 2024 at 07:50
Travis, Gurri said:
“Moreover, if he wins we may find in hindsight that defeating him in 2020 only to reelect him in 2024 was the worst possible sequence of events. ”
I said this 4 years ago. Pundits are finally catching up to me.
20. July 2024 at 10:00
“I guess he hated former fire chief and father to two, Corey Comperatore.”
That God allows a lot of evil in the world should be blatantly obvious. That should not contradict the idea the close miss to Trump’s head is strong evidence for God’s existence.
20. July 2024 at 10:08
“That God allows a lot of evil in the world should be blatantly obvious. That should not contradict the idea the close miss to Trump’s head is strong evidence for God’s existence.”
Silly logic. People “almost” die every day. And why is Trump special as opposed to the millions of those in war (or not) who have been shot but not killed? Or do you just chalk everything up to god’s existence? +1 gullible.
20. July 2024 at 11:05
Prof. Sumner,
OF COURSE I admire your forecasting ability.
But who probably has a better forecast for the future: Gurri or Drum?
20. July 2024 at 20:00
Scott, you migth want to check my math but here’s what I get:
US EIA says:
Coal:
1.14 lbs / kWh
which equals:
1.754 mWh / ton
A standard US coal gondola carries 122 tons, and coal ships, like the batteries, in 100 car unit trains. Thus for coal:
1.754 mWh / ton
122 ton / car
100 car / train
21.4 gWh / train
So he needs 7 battery trains for every coal train he takes off the tracks.
While there are other benefits to the batteries(presumably they can plug in anywhere with virtually no additional infrastructure), rail traffic is already pushing the limits of capacity on US freight railroads, especially in the east. The railroads are expanding double and triple track but rail that supports heavy loads is very expensive.
A few years back, fruit growers out west got dumped by the BNSF because their system was maxed and oil shippers were willing to pay more than the fruit growers. So perhaps Dr Carlson should think less about advertised rates and more about how much transport cost his company can bear when the capacity will go to the highest bidder.
The moral of the story is that the smart thing to do is get rid of the idiots that are blocking the transmission line and streamline EIS to ensure they don’t come back. EG: Vote Trump.
20. July 2024 at 20:07
EIA coal energy data:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=667&t=8
Bethgon fact sheet:
https://freightcaramerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Gondola-Car_Coal-Car_BethGon-II_Product-Sheet.pdf
No doubt battery tech will improve in future years. This came out closer than I thought it would. But 7x is still a big hill to climb and the obvious choice is still to eradicate most of the regulation controlling the transmission line.
21. July 2024 at 04:53
Here is some monetary food for thought:
(1) The Wicksell Question: You’ve argued that Keynes’ general theory makes sense as an essentially gold standard model. These days economists seem to be neo-Wicksellian rather than neo-Keynesian: the difference between the “natural” and actual real rate of interest plays a key role in standard models. But Wicksell’s interest and prices was published in 1898, during the heyday of the gold standard. Yet his model seems inconsistent with the Gold Standard, because price levels get pinned down by convertibility (at some stipulated nominal price) and the real price of gold as determined by market forces under such a monetary regime. This leaves no room for banks setting interest rates at levels different from the natural rate for long periods of time: surely convertibility will kick in and incentivize an end to such a policy. Wicksellian theory seems to apply better to an inconvertible currency.
(2) The discount rate question: Many argue that central banks influence the price level and the economy through setting some nominal interest rate. Often, this is the discount rate. Under the Gold Standard, this could only affect prices to the extent that changes in the discount rate affected the global demand for gold. Under fiat money, it seems to be more powerful. However, expansions of the money supply at the discount window are only temporary, as the loans are usually of a short duration. The logic of Krugman’s liquidity trap paper suggests that these temporary expansions of the money supply should have little impact on the price level. The exception may be if changes in discount rates act as a signal for other parts of policy. What do you think (beyond saying that interest rates aren’t monetary policy)?
21. July 2024 at 05:05
So, if Trump would have dispatched troops to the capital Jan 6th (as requested by Pelosi) that would have been the correct noble decision, or authoritarianism enabled by the 1807 Insurrection Act?
21. July 2024 at 07:04
AJN, You said:
“Wicksellian theory seems to apply better to an inconvertible currency.”
Very good observation.
2. At least in the US, the discount rate has not been an important policy tool, partly for the reason you suggest–temporary injections have little effect. Permanent increases in the monetary base have come from open market purchases, which were the main tool before IOR, and remain a significant tool.
Prior to 2008. the Fed did enough permanent OMOs to move the fed funds rate to the level that they expected to create the appropriate amount of aggregate demand.
Scott, Even Trump’s aides begged him to send in the National Guard. He refused because he favored the insurrection. He said Pence was getting what he deserved. A sick, evil man.
21. July 2024 at 07:05
Travis, I’m not sure, but Drum is probably a bit closer.
21. July 2024 at 11:10
“Travis, I’m not sure, but Drum is probably a bit closer.”
I’d argue for this view. Gurri’s piece to me relates the Douthat quote in item #2, “…the Democratic Party has treated Trumpism not as a “civic emergency” but as a political opportunity.” A corollary of this is that maximizing the Trump threat can be useful.
E.g. he writes:
“Of course, the legal community was nearly united in its assumption that Trump’s immunity claim had no basis in law at all, and the Supreme Court surprised them. Who knows how they will surprise us when Trump inevitably challenges the result of an election on some equally invented grounds.”
Gurri cites one judgement favorable to Trump and then says “who knows” but omits to mention that all of Trump’s 2020 election challenges were comprehensively rejected, with the Trump-appointed or R-appointed judges showing no less enthusiasm for this task than the D-appointed judges.
21. July 2024 at 11:51
Drum says something I agree with here, that also relates closely to the Douthat quote:
“There’s even an upside: If Trump wins, maybe it will give Democrats some time sit back and think seriously about why so many people refuse to vote for them even when the alternative is Donald Trump.”
Trumpistas like to forget or choose not to know that Trump is very, very poor at getting people to vote for him (or not vote against him) because Trump’s their boy, they’re in the cult.
Progressives like to forget or choose not to know it either, because what does that say about Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden?
(Also there’s the same thing you see in sports, where any team that wins a title is perceived as achieving a certain level of greatness, whereas any team that doesn’t win is not, regardless of obvious differences in the quality of opposition faced).
21. July 2024 at 15:39
Fortunately, there is a better chance Trump loses now that Biden has dropped out. Trump is a very weak candidate and Republicans have underperformed in elections since he took over the party. If the Democrats are smart, they can make the race about Trump, who is effectively an incumbent in many ways. Trump scares most voters, though not nearly as many as I’d like. T
Unfortunately, the Democrats often aren’t smart, so this could be a nail-biter and is still a very losable race. If they run an aggressive campaign, hitting Trump on abortion/IVF/birth control, statements about cutting Social Security while giving the rich tax cuts, and telling the truth about his crazy and stupid economic ideas, they have a good chance.
They should talk a lot about his statements in the White House and since about what I would frame as “destroying the value of the dollar”, as part of his desire to have competitive currency devaluation to try to boost exports.
21. July 2024 at 22:11
@Michael S:
The betting markets which are hardly perfect but pretty helpful have had Trump with much greater odds than Biden, or Harris, for a long time. There was no change in the Trump odds today. Trump is not a ‘very weak candidate’ this election.
You forget he only lost in 2020 because of Covid, he cruises to reelection if that never happened.
21. July 2024 at 22:35
Scott,
the far right is really just combining the things that appeal most to humans by instinct: tribalism is represented by nationalism, and the desire for economic safety is represented by socialism. So all these far right parties are just populist, and populism is fascism – light. Yes I also remember the Tea Party in the US started out as anti tax and limited government. Similarly, say, the Mises Institute is supposed to be classical liberal minded. And writers like Moldbug initially sold their shtick as libertarian inspired. But all of these eventually end up morphing into crypto authoritarian with egalitarian undertones. In other words, nationalistic authoritarian socialism.
Classical liberalism just isn’t a popular sentiment. It’s a niche and elite thing. Everyone else wants bread and games under a strong leader.
22. July 2024 at 00:31
msgkings,
I acknowledge that the polls and betting markets still have Trump as the favorite, but he is in fact a very weak candidate. He doesn’t poll above 47%, even when his opponent is judged to be too feeble to hold office by 3/4 of voters. The Republicans have underperformed in every election since 2016. His chosen candidates have not faired well in general elections, and he’s pushed many educated voters out of the party.
To say he’s anything other than weak, just because he’s barely leading a weak opponent or two would be to abuse the English language.
22. July 2024 at 05:53
mbka:
You said “Classical liberalism just isn’t a popular sentiment. It’s a niche and elite thing. Everyone else wants bread and games under a strong leader.”
I think that only true when costs can be hidden or the people who bear undue pain can be suppressed or fooled. The people of the city of Rome liked bread and circuses because the cost was borne by those elsewhere in the empire, including by slaves. People today like the bread of entitlements because we’ve managed to fob the costs off on the next generations using deficit spending.
22. July 2024 at 07:54
@Michael S:
“Barely leading”? His numbers vs the exact same person (Biden) were much stronger, including in every swing state, in July 2024 vs July 2020. Unless Harris produces a lasting bounce he will win again. And she is not a good candidate at all.
Very much hoping to be wrong here but doesn’t feel that way. Biden really screwed the Democrats not passing the torch like he obviously should have late last year, then a truly open primary would have produced a nominee that would be strongly favored right now to beat Trump
22. July 2024 at 08:30
mskings,
The numbers were close in most of the swing states, despite Biden being the worst candidate on a ballot since Mondale, at least. Harris starts underwater in approval, but Trump has always been underwater.
I don’t understand how you can consider a candidate to be strong when more people disapprove of him than approve, he can’t poll above 47%, and even against an unpopular incumbent with a foot in the grave, he barely led.
Obama was a strong candidate. He won the popular vote. Trump is not strong. Harris doesn’t have to overperform by much to win this race.
22. July 2024 at 08:45
anon/portly, Yeah, the only sensible argument for Trump is that it might force the Dems to come to their senses.
But how likely is that?
Michael, It seems unlikely that “the issues” will play any role in this election. rather it will be:
1. How much do you hate Trump?
2. How angry are you about inflation and immigration?
Both inflation and illegal immigration are almost back down to Trump administration levels, it’s more about anger at what happened.
mbka, There’s definitely some truth to that, but public opinion is always a slippery concept. The public is actually more libertarian than the elites on issues like right to die and pot legalization. Taxes are tricky—what is the populist view of taxes? I recall a referendum on completely abolishing the state income tax that got about 48% of the vote in Massachusetts. That means it would have probably passed in most states.
I’m not saying you are wrong, just that public opinion can be hard to pin down on complex fiscal issues.
And recall that Switzerland is the regime that most closely reflects its public’s views on fiscal issues.
msgkings, Yes, I agree that Trump will win, despite being a very unpopular candidate. Here’s why his popularity is misleading. In the past, candidates often failed to get votes from those who had a positive opinion of them. Mitt Romney and John McCain were well liked, for instance. Trump will get almost 100% of the votes of those who respect him, and he’ll win by picking up enough votes from those who don’t.
22. July 2024 at 08:58
Scott,
Hopefully, we’ll get a test of our competing predictions. If so, it means Harris or whomever the Democratic nominee is really takes it to Trump. While Democrats tend to overestimate the value of issues, particuarly as they understand and frame them, there are issues voters care about. One is abortion and reproductive freedom in general. Another is the economy. Yet another is character, when it amounts to crminality.
When the Democrats take their cases to voters against Trumpism in general elections they tend to win. Yes, facing Trump himself maybe different, but it remains to be seen. It is interesting that Biden was underperforming Senate candidates in many states.
There are many, many reasons for Trump to worry, but Harris is the underdog right now and will have to overperform to win. I hope we can run someone else at the top, but otherwise I’ll have to hope Harris can run a decent campaign for a few months.
22. July 2024 at 11:47
“You forget he only lost in 2020 because of Covid, he cruises to reelection if that never happened.”
Ths could be true, but what is the evidence for this?
It’s fun to look at Gallup’s “candidate favorable” net ratings over time, which 1956 to now(missing 3 elections, apparently). For one thing I think they relate to Scott Sumner’s ideas of changes in American society over time, as the numbers clearly decline over time:
Ike 56 +72
LBJ 64 +68
JFK 60 +66
Carter 76 +65
Nixon 60 +63
Ford 76 +58
Nixon 68 +57
Nixon 72 +55
…….
Kerry 04 +17
McGovern 72 +14
Romney 12 +12
Biden 20 +11
Goldwater 64 -4
Trump 20 -4
Clinton 16 -5
Trump 16 -25
https://news.gallup.com/poll/322292/candidate-favorable-ratings-2016-low.aspx
Note that the numbers for Trump (+47 and -51 for net -4) and Biden (+54 and -43 for +11) shown above are not the final pre-election numbers as they appear to be for the others; the article is from October 2020 and these numbers are described as “Sept 30 – Oct 15.”
For 2020 to 2024 their most recent article appears to be this one, from last January:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/548138/american-presidential-candidates-2024-election-favorable-ratings.aspx
This doesn’t show the unfavorable number, just the favorable number, but for both Biden and Trump it was +41 or +42 in both July of 23 and December of 23. That jibes pretty well with 538’s numbers, which show the “favorable” number for both Biden and Trump bouncing around in the 38 – 44 range (I.e. both net negative in double figures).
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/joe-biden/
22. July 2024 at 13:00
“The anticipation of three rate cuts by the end of the year is anticipation of slower Nominal GDP growth (inflation + real growth and +5.4% yoy at the end of Q1). In the best case scenario, NGDP growth falls back to 4.5% and all or at least most of the drop comes from the inflation part of that equation. A 4.5% Fed funds rate and NGDP growth of 4.5% (real growth of 2.5%, inflation of 2%) is the equilibrium the Fed is looking for. Is that possible? I think it is but I also think that any equilibrium would be short lived because lower rates would likely raise future NGDP growth.” – Joe Calhoun
22. July 2024 at 13:36
For what it’s worth, I don’t see how Harris can survive as the nominee considering her role in the cover up of Biden’s cognitive decline. Her competitors simply need to bring out Special Counsel Hur’s report to show that she must have known about Biden’s cognitive decline for years. She was already a weak candidate. She will be quickly consumed by the accusations of being involved in a multi-year coverup.
22. July 2024 at 13:58
Carl, It seems like American politics is not your forte:
1. No one cares about Biden’s cognitive decline any longer.
2. Even if they did care, almost no one would blame Harris for covering it up.
3. Even if they did blame her for covering it up, it wouldn’t swing the election. Trump’s been in far more serious scandals, and it doesn’t affect his support at all.
Harris will be the nominee. I doubt she’ll even have any competitors.
In America, the only time VPs get blamed for anything is the rare occasion they do the right thing. Standing up for democracy cost Pence his career. Doing the wrong thing actually helps candidates. This is a banana republic, not some serious country like Canada or Denmark.
22. July 2024 at 14:30
Scott:
I’m not sure you’re right about points 1 and 3. This scandal has already ended Biden’s candidacy. Scandals affect Trump differently than they affect normal people. Remember the effect that Comey’s announcement had on Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Regarding point 2, I think it wouldn’t matter if Harris were a strong candidate, but I think it will consume her because she’s a weak candidate. She has little to recommend her beyond Biden’s endorsement and he’s certifiably senile now.
Considering I was wrong 4 years ago when I challenged your contention that Trump would be the Republican candidate this year, and the fact that my theory will be easily falsifiable in a couple of weeks if the Democrats make her the candidate, I will, however, not argue the point further.
22. July 2024 at 17:45
Carl,
hiding costs and deficit spending is standard operating procedure of any state, always has been and yes, as far back as the Romans. The Romans are a good example because in spite or all their late empire’s dysfunctions it took Rome a very, very long time to fall in a way visible for all. There’s a lot of ruin in a country…. Size and power cover up a lot of dysfunction in America too. Smaller and less powerful countries could not afford the amount of dysfunction common in the US.
Scott,
I wish I shared your optimism. Switzerland is an encouraging example, yes, but even the Swiss have a double-faced economy, one part internationally competitive corporations like Nestle, and another part highly protected and subsidized traditional sectors like their agriculture. As a general trend I suspect all democracies eventually descend into populism. I wonder how this can be prevented systemically. How to create that cozy appeal of the tribe in a society that should still be open and individualistic. Because the coziness of tribalism is what drove, say, the Germans to die for the Nazis in religious fervor. Missing coziness seems to be a key component of civilization’s discontents, with a nod to Freud, and too Kristol’s Two Cheers for Capitalism.
22. July 2024 at 17:59
mbdk,
To help prevent the rise of such populist candidates in the US, perhaps the two political parties should make the candidate nomination processes less democratic. At the very least, there should be rules that can prevent people like Trump from hijacking one of the parties. Trump has long been a criminal and fraud, and that alone should have prevented him from even running for office as a Republican.
The US government is designed to intentionally limit democracy. This was done explicitly to try to prevent people like Trump from gaining public office.
22. July 2024 at 19:23
Michael,
agree and it’s a sad fact that most people don’t get the idea that there is a fundamental conflict between democracy and freedom. There is such a thing as illiberal democracies and autocratic government does not necessarily mean that one can’t have high levels of individual freedom. The problem is of course that autocracy usually degenerates real fast into the more common illiberal, violent and corrupt kind. But your point stands that in order to preserve freedom, democracy needs limits, which is why in the US there is the bill of rights for example. The trick is to balance things out just right.
That Trump should not be allowed to run, simply based on his criminal conviction, is a complete no brainer to me and I can’t understand why that is not so.
22. July 2024 at 21:42
I have a long [monetary post] at Econlog with zero comments, while my moronic Trump posts get dozens of comments.
Write more about China. A two-fer: Include what China’s elite think about Trump. Here’s a speech by Zheng Yongnian, political scientist and reputedly a top public intellectual, text translated at Sinification, or one can listen to it being read. Tidbits:
22. July 2024 at 21:54
mbka, I don’t agree with this:
“there is a fundamental conflict between democracy and freedom.”
What is true is that democracy doesn’t always deliver freedom. But neither does non-democracy. There’s no fundamental conflict, just better and worse outcomes, depending on the situation. On average, democracy gives you more freedom than non-democracy. Nazi Germany and Switzerland are an almost perfect example of why I prefer democracy over dictatorships.
I’d also say that there’s no fundamental conflict between democracy and a bill of rights. The US has both. If voters don’t want a bill of rights, they can elect politicians who delete it, just as voters elected politicians that banned alcohol through the Constitution back in 1920.
23. July 2024 at 06:22
“Carl, It seems like American politics is not your forte:”
Me, I’d say “basic logic” is not Carl’s forte. Carl implicitly claims to know everything there is to know about Biden’s “cognitive decline,” yet also claims there was a “cover up.”
Anyway, why not just offer Carl a bet and take some of his money, if he’s willing to push his faux stupidity into that territory?
23. July 2024 at 07:38
anon/portly:
I’m not sure how to take your accusation that I have “faux stupidity.” Are you accusing me of pretending to be stupid? If so, thanks, I guess.
As to whether Biden was in cognitive decline for a while, I refer you to Special Counsel Hur’s report (https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/special-counsel-faculties-biden-analysis-1.7109811)
Here’s Kamala on Hur’s report:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/09/biden-hur-special-counsel-harris-00140744
Now, since you’re apparently an expert logician, what is the logical inference to draw from those two quotes in light of the fact that the Democratic Party just pushed Biden out of the race for being in too obvious cognitive decline during the debate?
23. July 2024 at 08:59
@Carl:
‘Cognitive decline’ is just fancy words for getting old. Biden is too old to serve another 4 years. He was fine for the 3 1/2 he served, every but as with it as Reagan in his 2nd term. The last 6 months he will be fine as well, as nothing really happens this part of a term.
The debate wasn’t the uncovering of a plot, it was just a badly timed senior moment that made it clear to everyone what should have been clear a year ago, that Biden should not run again. No plot, no cover-up, just a wake up call, and the Dems reacted correctly.
Biden screwed us all by not backing out last year, so the Dems could have had a normal primary and likely either Newsom or Whitmer would be the nominee now and be strongly favored to beat Trump.
He should take one for the team and atone by resigning from office, so President Harris could get some incumbency advantages in her campaign, takes away a big advantage for Trump, then it’s President Harris vs President Trump. And when voters see things not fall apart she gets some ‘that wasn’t so bad, I’ll vote for this over more of the orange clown again’ votes.
He probably won’t do it because he’s a selfish prick, but he should.
23. July 2024 at 10:01
msgkings:
Are you saying that Hur should have just taken one for the team when Kamala questioned his integrity for stating the truth? And it wasn’t just the last six months. Hur reported that the decline was evident as early as 2017.
And I was going gentle on Biden by using the term “cognitive decline”. He’s got dementia. I have watched dementia tests be administered to elderly relatives who failed it while seeming more lucid than Biden.
23. July 2024 at 17:51
Scott,
agree you worded this better. Democracy itself is not in direct conflict with freedom. Rather, the two are largely orthogonal to each other. The sentiment that I tried to express is skepticism that democracy automatically helps freedom. Look at it this way: Democracy is majority rule (exact system to achieve this doesn’t matter). Majorities tend to oppress minorities and democracies have delivered some pretty awful oppression of minorities. Bills of rights can help until, as you note, they are changed, often democratically. To note that the Nazis were put in place democratically, power they then used to abolish rights.
Now I completely agree with you that I prefer living under democratic systems. I trust them more than autocracies. But democracies have their own systemic issues and have a tendency to self destruct. The US and Switzerland are shining counter examples for the longest time periods. The rest of world has a history of oscillating in and out of democracy, or their democratic past is too short to assess with confidence.
24. July 2024 at 08:49
mbka, You said:
“To note that the Nazis were put in place democratically”
I don’t entirely agree with this. Germany had a parliamentary system, and the Nazi vote was never large enough to take power without some shady backroom dealing (33% in the final free election). Hindenberg defeated Hitler by a wide margin in German’s last presidential election. But the more important point is that Hitler understood that he could never achieve his aims under democracy, which is why it’s so important to fight to preserve democracy.
Here’s Wikipedia:
Federal elections were held in Germany on 6 November 1932.[1] The Nazi Party saw its vote share fall by four percentage points, while there were slight increases for the Communist Party of Germany and the national conservative German National People’s Party. The results were a great disappointment for the Nazis, who lost 34 seats and again failed to form a coalition government in the Reichstag. The elections were the last free and fair elections before the Nazis seized power the following year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1932_German_federal_election
24. July 2024 at 17:30
Scott,
point taken and I am aware that the Nazis did not achieve an outright majority of the popular or proportional vote. Still: they did not seize power in a military coup, and the kind of vote share they received is typical for many parties in Europe that end up governing due to the finer points of electoral systems. Would the voter have voted for death camps? Almost certainly not. But they did vote in a large-ish plurality, at about what France’s RN got these days, for a party that had their notorious SA killer gangs roving the streets even before the election.
And I completely agree with your last point, that because of the above, because left to its own devices it is quite vulnerable, democracy needs constant support and maintenance.
24. July 2024 at 18:40
“To note that the Nazis were put in place democratically”
I don’t entirely agree with this. Germany had a parliamentary system, and the Nazi vote was … 33% in the final free election
The Nazis were elected *constitutionally* — as were Lincoln (39% of the vote) and four other US presidents who actually lost the popular vote to their opponents. Nothing ‘democratic’ about that! But we always call them ‘democratically elected’. The Nazis actually made it a major campaign point that they sought power via legitimate elections while their opponent Socialists & Communists advocated revolution (which they did). It worked, picking up the scared middle class vote to get them to #1 in the polls.
Germany had a parliamentary system, and the Nazi vote was never large enough to take power without some shady backroom dealing.
The context missing here is that the parliamentary system had already totally broken down. Both the right and left parties were refusing to participate in the Reichstag. Hitler didn’t come to power and just start ruling by decree. The chancellors before him ruled by decree, as allowed by the constitution, since to have the government not collapse what else was possible? So … Hindenberg needed to name a chancellor. The leader of the #1 party in the election, right? Nope!
Somebody had to be chancellor. See historian Richard Evans’s great books about the Third Reich and lectures available on YouTube. (My memory is comments here allow only one link, so sorry.) About the totalitarian regimes that arose in Europe post-WWI Evans observed: They were hugely popular with the masses and *remained so* until they were destroyed. All who believe in the intrinsic good heart of democratic masses should ponder that. (Even after Germany lost the war, was in ruins and occupied, a majority of surveyed Germans reported still supporting Nazism, along the lines of ‘good idea, poorly executed’.)
24. July 2024 at 19:55
mbka, Agreed, but note that RN “lost” the recent election. Again, I’m not saying you are wrong, it’s just that I would not characterize the Nazis coming to power as a clearcut case of “democracy” in action. It’s a grey area. That’s all.
Jim, You said:
“The context missing here is that the parliamentary system had already totally broken down.”
Then we agree, we simply disagree as to how to characterize the situation. I’d call Germany in 1932 a quasi-democracy.
“Even after Germany lost the war, was in ruins and occupied, a majority of surveyed Germans reported still supporting Nazism, along the lines of ‘good idea, poorly executed’.)”
This is utter nonsense.
25. July 2024 at 16:26
Prayer and unanswered prayers are one of the most misunderstood things about Christianity. I blame Protestants sadly. Their theology is atrocious. It’s a dumbs man’s theology.