Trump calls his fans “crazy”
After Trump called for defaulting on US Treasury bonds, I suggested that the idea was crazy. But the Trumpistas in the comment section dutifully fell in line, seriously asserting that Trump’s plan made a lot of sense. Now the joke’s on them, as yesterday Trump called the idea “crazy”?
Donald Trump on Monday said it was “crazy” to think he would try to negotiate his way out of full repayment of government bonds — despite what he suggested last week
It is a crazy idea, as I indicated. And I think we can all agree that people advocating crazy ideas should not be elected president. And of course Trump did advocate this crazy idea.
If you hate Trump, there is no need to be discouraged by his apparent move toward sanity on the national debt. That’s because for every move toward sanity, there is an equal and opposite move toward insanity. Call it the Trump Law of the Conservation of Insanity. Now he advocates buying back the debt. And how will he do that? By issuing more debt!
Trump started out his answer by claiming that he never intended to offer creditors an actual haircut, but instead to have the government purchase a large amount of debt in the event of a crash in US debt prices. But whether that would work is questionable, as the government would need to somehow finance that debt purchase with other debt, as noted by The New York Times’ Binyamin Appelbaum.
And if that didn’t do the job, Trump said we could always adopt the Zimbabwe solution:
But then Trump made an interesting point: One of the ways in which government debt is very different from privately held debt is that governments that control their own currencies, such as the US government and the US dollar, have the power to print money at will.
The Federal Reserve, through its open-market operations of buying and selling US Treasury debt, has the ability to increase the overall monetary base — it can print money. Indeed, through programs like quantitative easing, it has done so somewhat extensively during the past several years.
Printing money to relieve the national debt, however, would probably be disastrous. It would most likely precipitate a huge amount of inflation, causing prices to rise very quickly and wreaking havoc on the economy.
(Notice that I still do blog on monetary issues.) So if you are a Trump hater like me, there is no need to worry about him “moving toward sanity” as the election approaches. For each recantation, there will be a new outrage. And each time his supporters will look ever sillier, as their own leader calls them “crazy”.
PS. Meanwhile “libertarian” Peter Thiel is supporting the most un-libertarian candidate imaginable.
PPS. And Ron Paul is supporting Ron Unz in the California Senate race. Here are some of Unz’s “libertarian” views, from his campaign platform:
Economics Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz has describes America as having a government “Of the One Percent, By the One Percent, and For the One Percent,” and I agree with him.
We need to return to having a government run for the interests of the American people rather than owned and controlled by financial manipulators.
As a U.S. Senator I would oppose future bailouts and support Bernie Sander’s call for a Tobin Tax on financial transactions to reduce Wall Street speculation.
And here’s more:
Minimum wage laws are far easier to enforce than immigration laws, and very stiff penalties for repeated violations, even including prison sentences, would ensure almost total compliance.
Once the magnetic lure of American jobs disappears, traditional immigration enforcement measures will become much more effective and future illegal immigration will be reduced to very low levels.
By sharply reducing legal immigration and enormously reducing future illegal immigration, the economic prospects and quality of life for most existing Americans will be greatly improved, including for both legal and illegal immigrants currently living here.
So the first and most important step in solving our immigration problems is a large hike in the national minimum wage.
That’s right, opposition to even legal immigration is now a “libertarian” position. Minimum wage laws kills jobs? Yes they do, and that’s why we need them!! And notice he wants a “large” hike; gotta be sure to kill lots of jobs. And here’s another libertarian idea; let’s make college “free”:
I recently organized a slate of candidates, headlined by Ralph Nader, to run for the Harvard Board of Overseers on a platform demanding that Harvard immediately abolish college tuition. If we are successful in achieving this goal, then other very wealthy elite universities such as Yale, Princeton, and Stanford would probably soon follow. Once our most elite national colleges have eliminated tuition, there will be enormous political pressure on the much larger number of public colleges and universities to focus as strongly as possible on reducing their tuition.
We wouldn’t want future Harvard grads to actually have to repay college loans. That would be cruel. It’s not just Trump, the entire Republican Party seems to be going insane. Joe Stiglitz and Ralph Nader are the new GOP heroes. If Trump wins, there will be many more Ron Unz’s in the future.
Tags:
10. May 2016 at 07:32
“Meanwhile “libertarian” Peter Thiel is supporting the most un-libertarian candidate imaginable.”
-Chris Christie? Marco Rubio?
10. May 2016 at 07:33
Gus Hall?
10. May 2016 at 07:38
Unz is as much a libertarian as one that supports wage subsidies and a central bank. He takes inspiration from both sides of the political spectrum, and has done so for a long time.
10. May 2016 at 07:46
“And here’s another libertarian idea; let’s make college “free””
-For the elite universities, that means financed by their investment operations. And Unz doesn’t want it to be mandatory.
10. May 2016 at 08:05
Scott, you Americans are so lucky that you have only a crazy presidential candidate. South Korea already has a crazy president who has been contemplating the idea to bail out troubling shipbuilding companies by printing money. Be happy.
10. May 2016 at 08:05
Oh, and Rodrigo Duterte won the Philippine presidential election.
10. May 2016 at 08:10
Scott, it’s not just the GOP. Both parties and the country have moved leftward on culture and economics. I think the nomination of Trump signals that conservatism, or economic liberty if you will, will wander in the desert for years. The economic consensus of Reagan/Clinton will have to be preserved by modern equivalent of Dark Age Irish monks or what Albert Jay Nock called “the Remnant.”
10. May 2016 at 08:10
Nice.. I’m sure the parents of the kid at Phillips will be quite relieved that they won’t be having to pay for the families black sheep to go to Brown. Now they can get on with their stay at Singita in peace.
10. May 2016 at 08:17
I don’t think Unz is or has ever been a libertarian. He’s a paleocon and hence is not a small gov’t conservative. You can see him making economically illiterate arguments against the proposition to “Let Anyone Take Any Job Anywhere” in his Intelligence Squared debate with Bryan Caplan, a debate he won handily apparently.
10. May 2016 at 08:52
So it seems to turn out again that Trump never said what you asserted he said. Also: Peter Thiel seems to be really cool. He loves to think out of the box – and not running with the flock.
10. May 2016 at 09:07
Am I the only idiot that thinks the Fed purchased a few hundred billion in debt during the QE’s….and now some are pretending that it is impossible to do such a thing again?
PS I am not defending doing it or saying it is a good idea just puzzled by the reactions I am witnessing.
also greenspan : http://www.cnbc.com/id/44051683
also I clearly remember some similar things out of Bernanke.
10. May 2016 at 09:08
ps I have no love for Trump.
10. May 2016 at 09:11
Scott, I loved your reprinting of the “news” reports of Napoleon’s progress through France after his escape from Elba. Were you aware of some of his “fan art?”
I think you’ll like this one:
http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2016/05/trumpy-620×733.jpg
Here’s another one:
http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2016/05/TRUMP-LIVES-620×605-620×605.jpg
Several more in this article:
http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/05/09/5-ways-trump-supporters-like-cult-followers/
10. May 2016 at 10:33
I think what Trump is trying to say is that he found ‘This one Weid Trick to Pay off the National Debt that Bond Owners HATE!’
Hey, it works for pop up ads, why not presidential campaigns?
And I think it’s been clear for a while that the GOP is becoming a populist party. Welfare statists have won the propaganda war, and the gop is going with the wind. It looked, for a moment, like there was a rising libertarian wing in the party, but I guess too good to be true.
10. May 2016 at 10:38
much truth there Mark…but I think Greenspan was talking about this “one weird trick to pay off national debt” years ago.http://www.cnbc.com/id/44051683
10. May 2016 at 11:47
It’s all about the Tubmans.
Also, many politicians are irresponsible. Trump is, dare is say it, credibly irresponsible. While I’m not sure that is a good thing, it is something certain quarters have been asking for.
🙂
10. May 2016 at 12:44
Do bondholders really expect that America pays back its debt some day? In which world is this going to happen? The debt is just being rolled over again and again while the debt as a percentage of GDP is rising. Does the following graph look sustainable to you? It looks pretty risky to me.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Federal_Debt_Held_by_the_Public_1790-2013.png
So why are the rates still so low? Might this have been to do with the fact that money was too tight and that expectations about inflations are still low and that the American bonds market is so big and dominating that a substitute is very hard to come by.
I also think Scott Sumner is a secret admirer of Trump. He just can not out himself like Peter Thiel did because he is a professor – his colleagues and students would diss him so much. So he show his deep affection for Trump by making one blog entry after another about him.
10. May 2016 at 12:48
@Tom Brown
The first one is pretty good. Trump just landed in France. Let’s see if he makes it to Paris.
10. May 2016 at 13:06
Harding, Yes, I know that you are very fond of candidates who joke about how they wished they could have participated in the rape of a nun.
He’s your type.
Chun, Yes, it could be worse.
Anthony, The Dems have moved left on culture? Care to explain?
Danny, I was being sarcastic.
Christian, You said:
“So it seems to turn out again that Trump never said what you asserted he said.”
Do you actually not know how to read? Just read the exact quote–of course he said it. Why did he change his mind? Because unlike you, there are hundreds of pundits who can read, and told Trump what an idiot he was. So he changed his mind, just as he’s changed his mind on immigration and every other issue. He’s a weathervane.
You know things are bad when the Trumpistas don’t even know how to read. Maybe I’ll have to just stop answering comments, there’s no point if people can’t understand the English language.
I do agree that Thiel is a cool guy. I once met him in person.
Christian, You said:
“Do bondholders really expect that America pays back its debt some day?”
They certainly expect T-bonds to be repaid, obviously. If they did not then yields would soar. Check out yields on Greek debt. That doesn’t mean the entire national debt will go to zero–it won’t. But it will be serviced, why wouldn’t it?
10. May 2016 at 13:29
“Yes, I know that you are very fond of candidates who joke about how they wished they could have participated in the rape of a nun.
He’s your type.”
-That’s an unfair accusation, Sumner. I say, give him a chance, he how he does, if he messes up, get rid of him.
10. May 2016 at 13:40
“That’s right, opposition to even legal immigration is now a ‘libertarian’ position.”
Sumner, libertarians have _always_ been divided on immigration as well as freedom to discriminate, and you know this. You are being daft and manipulative to feign ignorance to this.
Milton Friedman is a libertarian icon who was famously critical of immigration.
Even in your econ blog circle, Arnold Kling has articulated libertarian arguments against immigration and stressed that immigration is primarily not an economic issue. Garett Jones has stressed many immigration skepticisms. David Henderson has been reserved as well (my favorite Henderson quote on immigration, “the does makes the poison”).
Another famous “paleo-libertarian”, Ilana Mercer, has written beautifully articulate, logical, libertarian arguments against immigration as well as the reasonable libertarian case _for_ Trump. She’s been a consistent Trump supporter since the beginning.
“Meanwhile ‘libertarian’ Peter Thiel is supporting the most un-libertarian candidate imaginable.”
Thiel is absolutely a devout libertarian, he is just not “your” interpretation libertarian. He’s a major donor to https://www.numbersusa.com immigration restriction.
10. May 2016 at 15:50
Interesting.
Before the Fed conducted QE, there were predictions of runaway inflation. But in fact the Fed bought more than $3 trillion in US Treasuries, and we are still below inflation target (a too-low target no less).
In Japan, it is said the Bank of Japan will run out of JGBs to buy before they reach their inflation target.
In this particular case, I think candidate Trump is raising a very viable prospect, that of reducing the national debt through QE. I am disappointed that Scott Sumner seems to dismiss this particular idea out of hand.
Monetizing national debt seems to work, and has obviously worked to date. There may be limits to this approach.
10. May 2016 at 16:06
@Massimo: “Milton Friedman is a libertarian icon who was famously critical of immigration.”
No, he wasn’t. He was famous for saying that immigration was incompatible with the welfare state. His desire was to end the welfare state, not immigration. In fact, he frequently praised illegal immigration because it gave us and the immigrants many of the benefits of immigration without the costs of providing them welfare payments.
10. May 2016 at 16:22
I have views similar to Friedman -it’s not the immigrant labor that’s the problem, but the social/political aspects.
10. May 2016 at 16:42
Sorry Scott, but you’re actually a classical liberal. People like the Rons own the libertarian label, certainly in America, and have done for a while now.
10. May 2016 at 17:14
Harding, You said:
“That’s an unfair accusation, Sumner.”
Oh really? Didn’t you say you liked him? Then why is it unfair to point out the sort of man you like.
Massimo, You’ll have to explain to me how Trump appeals to libertarians. Is it his fondness for higher government spending? Or is it his protectionism? How about his views on eminent domain? Or maybe his views on libel laws? His religious bigotry? His statement that he’d stop Ford from investing in Mexico? Defaulting on the public debt?
Sorry, but I’m having trouble seeing the libertarian side of Trump. Does he favor legalizing drugs? Prostitution? Abortion? Organ sales? Is there anything you can point to?
Ben, You said:
“I am disappointed that Scott Sumner seems to dismiss this particular idea out of hand.”
Maybe because it’s an idiotic idea. QE does not reduce the national debt, unless you are willing to contemplate hyperinflation–which is basically repudiating the debt.
Saturos, You’ve been misinformed. In America, libertarianism is groups like Cato, Reason, The Institute for Justice, and candidates like Gary Johnson. Ron Unz and his idea to raise the minimum wage really high to destroy as many jobs as possible is most certainly not “libertarian” in the American context. And raising taxes on finance and providing more subsidies to public universities are not libertarian positions.
Perhaps libertarians are split on immigration, but the libertarian position is obviously open borders. If some libertarians disagree that’s fine. I split from libertarians on some issues, so I’m not saying someone opposed to open borders can’t be libertarian, but if you look at the entire range of Unz’s ideas, he’s clearly not a libertarian.
10. May 2016 at 17:18
but the libertarian position is obviously open borders.
Which is why the wags call libertarianism ‘applied autism’.
10. May 2016 at 18:15
I didn’t say I liked him; I suggested Filipinos try him out. Seems they’re doing just that.
“Is there anything you can point to?”
-He’s far more open to the opening of Cuba than Ted Cruz. He also supports tax cuts for the middle class and corporations, which are very libertarian. He also supports medical marijuana, allowing Iran to buy American-made products, and a Fed audit. He also opposes gun control, net neutrality, various environmental regulations, Obamacare, and wind (but not corn) subsidies.
“Cato, Reason, The Institute for Justice, and candidates like Gary Johnson”
-Reason? Yes. Cato? To some extent. I don’t know what the Institute for Justice is. Justin Amash is the closest thing to a libertarian in the House, and Rand Paul in the Senate. Johnson supports Nazi wedding cakes, so he’s not a true libertarian.
“Maybe because it’s an idiotic idea. QE does not reduce the national debt, unless you are willing to contemplate hyperinflation–which is basically repudiating the debt.”
-Paying off the national debt via QE wouldn’t even lead to triple-digit inflation, much less hyperinflation.
And I’m not sure where Unz says to increase government subsidies going to colleges. He is a big advocate of cutting administrative costs.
10. May 2016 at 18:34
You got your open borders. Reagan gave amnesty. The GOP did nothing on illegal immigration for decades. Another Amnesty was supported by the Sumner wing of the GOP until Trump. You brought in 55.3 million of Hispanics, not even counting other minorities. You got everything you ever wanted.
You want to know why the Reagan coalition isn’t around anymore? Romney got the same % of whites as Reagan when he was winning landslides, and he couldn’t beat Obama. You imported people who were destined to vote against you no matter how much you caved into their interests and how many amnesties you granted. Have you ever gotten over 50% of that electorate, no matter who you field or what you do?
Go look at arch pro-immigration zealot Mark Zuckberg’s own electoral tool. Put those minority counters all the way to 20 year highs. You still lose the election. An election Reagan won in a landslide.
http://www.fwd.us/gopfuture
Hispanics want socialism. They voted for it back in their home countries, and they vote for it here. Go look at a poll of their views. How do you expect to win them over with libertarian economics?
What else would you expect from them? They lack the IQ to obtain a first world living standard through their own productivity. So they will have to vote it to themselves. It’s inevitable.
If you don’t like what is happening to the GOP, remember that YOU CAUSED IT. You imported the vote banks that destroyed the Reagan coalition. You imported the people that will make up the next generation of SJW radicals, welfare sponges, and petty criminals. Worse, knowing what your actions would result in, you would do it all over again. Knowing that open borders leads to the destruction of all other libertarian values you would do it all over again anyway. Your a religious fanatic.
10. May 2016 at 18:52
“You want to know why the Reagan coalition isn’t around anymore? Romney got the same % of whites as Reagan when he was winning landslides, and he couldn’t beat Obama.”
-I’ve determined this has nothing to do with the immigrant vote (except in Nevada, New Mexico, and maybe Colorado) and everything to do with the interstate polarization of the native-born White vote. Contrary to leftist mythology, due to minority concentration in certain electorally unimportant states and solidly Democratic urban areas, native-born White people are destined to enjoy far greater political power than their sheer numbers would indicate and the Mexican vote remains totally unimportant in Presidential elections (it potentially could have been very important in 2000 and 2004, but wasn’t).
https://goo.gl/x5ex87
Remember, Reagan won Vermont. Vermont.
“You still lose the election. An election Reagan won in a landslide.”
-Exactly. All because of the regional polarization of the White vote.
10. May 2016 at 18:58
@sumner
“Perhaps libertarians are split on immigration, but the libertarian position is obviously open borders.”
Are you trying to be snarky and cute? I’m arguing that many libertarians do not support open borders.
I’m citing two ultra-hardcore, serious, well written, libertarians, who express my viewpoint better than I do:
Hanns-Herman Hoppe: “Open Borders? It’s a highly destructive anti-libertarian notion, says Hans-Hermann Hoppe.”
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/hans-hermann-hoppe/open-borders-2/
Ilana Mercer
http://barelyablog.com/do-immigration-laws-violate-libertarian-axiom/
http://barelyablog.com/like-the-left-left-libertarians-weaponize-the-nativist-pejorative/
“Is it his fondness for higher government spending? Or is it his protectionism? How about his views on eminent domain? Or maybe his views on libel laws? His statement that he’d stop Ford from investing in Mexico?”
I dislike Trump on these issues. If I could pick a president by issue, I’d vote against Trump here. Free trade is good, blaming China for our economic problems is wrong. Stopping Ford from investing in Mexico is wrong.
“His religious bigotry?”
Obama is wildly bigoted against white Confederate supporters. You are bigoted against 1950’s southern white culture. Large numbers of Muslims are broadly bigoted against Jews and Christians and ethnic Euro whites. Some bigotry in return is absolutely reasonable.
Libertarians believe in the freedom to discriminate or the freedom to be bigoted. Even
“legalizing drugs? Prostitution? Abortion? Organ sales? Is there anything you can point to?”
Eh. These are mere details.
Immigration is the big one for libertarians.
@Mark Barbieri,
“No, he wasn’t. He was famous for saying that immigration was incompatible with the welfare state.”
Sure, Milton Friedman would support an open border Gulf State style guest worker program where citizenship and its benefits were completely closed off to newcomers. Even Mercer and Hanns-Herman Hoppe would support that.
10. May 2016 at 19:00
-This is all true, of course.
“You imported the vote banks that destroyed the Reagan coalition.”
-Except they didn’t. The exodus of unmarried Whites from the GOP into the Berniebro camp destroyed the Reagan coalition. Romney couldn’t fix that. Cruz can’t fix that. Trump can fix that, because of his message of Making America Great Again.
10. May 2016 at 19:11
It was the Black vote that won Obama re-election. Had Blacks been evenly split between Republican and Democrat, there was no way Obama could have won. I haven’t seen any conservatives seriously arguing the GOP should try to appeal to Blacks. And there actually are some Blacks at Trump rallies. Remember that Black pro-Trump guy who punched some protesters in Arizona? Trump is the most appealing Republican Presidential candidate to Blacks, partly because of his fame among rappers, partly because deindustrialization has hit Blacks hardest. And Trump, being wise, concentrated his ire on the electorally unimportant Mexicans, and made sure to get the endorsement of Black Republican Ben Carson and at no point offend any Blacks. He has, in his words, “a great relationship with the Blacks”. Thus, his genius.
10. May 2016 at 19:36
The unhinged comments section shows how far Trump has wasted people’s brains already. No matter how demented the proposal – as soon as Trump utters it, someone, somewhere, will find some merit to it. And since he utters propositions right and left apparently at random, pretty much everything seems justifiable, with no rhyme or reason or need for consistency. If nothing else, it’s because it’s “open minded”. Too bad that with minds that open, the brains have long fallen out.
10. May 2016 at 19:46
Scott, you should just make up stuff and attribute it to Trump. See who falls for it. There could be fun there: [satire on] Did you know Trump openly called for restrictions on gerbil ownership because gerbil imports unfairly enrich African countries? That Trump has called for a reassessment of tire thread regulations because they oppress low income Americans? That Trump called for the abolition of international money transfers out of the US because they obviously drain the US of its rightfully earned money? [satire off]
10. May 2016 at 20:25
“Scott, you should just make up stuff and attribute it to Trump.”
-This already happens.
And I see nothing unhinged about this comments section, except for maybe asdf’s erroneous suggestion that it was the Mexicans that cost the GOP the 2012 election.
10. May 2016 at 20:33
Also, like Trump, Rodrigo Duterte is a notorious philanderer, a friend of the homosexuals, and is very much a lapsed church member. The parallels only get better and better.
10. May 2016 at 20:41
E. Harding,
Yes and no. You’re right that Hispanic voting is centered in many states that aren’t battlegrounds, like Texas and California, but diversity is still a big deal, especially in swing states. However, if voting were restricted to just whites Romney would have gotten 470 electoral votes. Your note is relevant if the GOP wants to win any elections in the near future (by focusing out get out the vote and winning rust belt whites).
Your correct that the African American vote is big in battlegrounds like Ohio, but Reagan couldn’t get more handful of them, barely different then Trump will do. Black votes have been a non-starter for the GOP since the 1960s. And the next generation of blacks polls a lot more radical then middle aged blacks today. Not a lot of blacks seem into libertarian economics.
It’s also pretty obvious the interests of blacks and hispanics don’t line up great. Besides the usual racial animosity, they are all competing at the lower end of the labor pool. It seems unclear to me how open borders helps one win the black vote.
Your right about family trends affecting electoral politics. Fact is there are still enough married white families that the GOP would be winning if there was no diversity.
10. May 2016 at 21:08
@mbka
“The unhinged comments section shows how far Trump has wasted people’s brains already. No matter how demented the proposal – as soon as Trump utters it, someone, somewhere, will find some merit to it.”
Every terrible idea has its supporters, but you don’t normally hear about them or consider them seriously if they aren’t being advocated by a lead presidential candidate.
Some ideas that were being written off as demented and ignored, really did deserve a push and the dominant mindset needed a swift kick in the rear. Specifically, the issue of bigotry/race/immigration. Look at how horrified Sumner is at bigotry against Muslims, but how comfortable he is with bigotry against Confederate sympathizers. Or even Obama’s main rhetorical drive has been to frame the story of America as one of white male villainy and oppression and non-white immigrant female victimhood, rebellion, and liberation. Even the choice of Harriet Tubman for the upcoming $20 is clearly chosen as a culture war symbol of white male villainy and non-white female victimhood and rebellious liberation. This is group shame and bigotry and it’s unwarranted.
I suspect if you read my above paragraph, you’ve written me off as an unhinged brain-rot Trumpista nut job. If so, people like you need a push to consider those ideas more seriously and at the very least give them enough attention to debate them.
10. May 2016 at 21:15
“Your correct that the African American vote is big in battlegrounds like Ohio, but Reagan couldn’t get more handful of them, barely different then Trump will do.”
-True. But Trump is way less straight-laced than Reagan, and has a longer history of association with prominent Black figures.
“Not a lot of blacks seem into libertarian economics.”
-True, but how about Trumpian protectionism?
“Fact is there are still enough married white families that the GOP would be winning if there was no diversity.”
-True. So far, the most important diversity for the electoral map is Blacks. Virtually all Blacks support the first Black POTUS. And Black turnout in 2012 was higher than in 2008. Thus, Romney’s loss in Ohio. Simple ethnic politics. Same with Al Smith.
“It seems unclear to me how open borders helps one win the black vote.”
-Same here.
10. May 2016 at 21:34
“And if that didn’t do the job, Trump said we could always adopt the Zimbabwe solution.”
Helloooo!!! Sumner, that solution is just another day at the office for market monetarists.
How else do you think the Fed would keep aggregate spending rising year after year? By the Fed monetizing Treasury debt, or what is commonly called OMOs. You say “Zimbabwe solution” as if there is a difference between what you advocate and what Trump advocates.
Talk about failing to self-reflect!
10. May 2016 at 21:36
Massimo,
don’t you think it’s a very different thing to disagree with a political direction (say, confederate sympathizers) vs. disagreeing with the very existence of an ethnic group, or religion? They’re not even in the same category. It’s not bigotry to politically disagree. But it is heinous to mock people with disabilities, or to tarnish all Mexicans as rapists. I just honestly, truly, don’t understand how you can believe that this is the same thing.
And frankly. With all other dollar bills dedicated to the founding fathers, including slave _owners_ (!) – is it really too much to ask for to have ONE dollar bill dedicated to African Americans? To people who are among the earliest immigrants to the U.S., involuntary immigrants, victims, people whose exploitation benefited everyone else? People who were forced into it, yet also built the U.S. into what it is now? And you present this dollar bill issue as outrageous persecution of the white male? Does it get any more absurd? Yes, dollar bills ought to have black people on it, native Americans, and some of the Mexicans who used to own Texas and California. That, and a founding father or two. All of the above are part of the history of the U.S.
And about “giving the alternative a chance”. From what I’ve seen in Europe, when the populist right wins province governments (they so far haven’t won anything nationally), you get exactly what could have been predicted. Mismanagement due to gross incompetence, epic corruption, and a poisoning of civil society with political interference. No, not the stuff you are already whining about in the US _as if_ that was bad. I mean, really bad. I mean, governors calling university deans that they can’t invite this or that speaker to a conference “because the governor doesn’t like this person”. That kind of thing.
11. May 2016 at 02:52
Mossimo,
Comments like yours are simply bigoted. I don’t care if it offends you and your klan.
Confederate sympathizers? How stupid are these people? And how anti-American? The fact is, we’ve been far too tolerant of such looney traitors.
The civil war’s long over. Time to grow up.
11. May 2016 at 04:22
No, Trump said it would be crazy to think he would try to default on the debt. That is different from calling his fans crazy for thinking defaulting on the debt would be a good idea.
“It is a crazy idea, as I indicated.”
Indicated but you did not explain.
You’re throwing around the words insane and crazy without even bothering to explain how it would be insane or crazy.
Inability to think clearly on this? Not a part of your models?
11. May 2016 at 04:26
Kocherlakota: “The Fed Made the Poor Poorer”
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-11/the-fed-made-the-poor-poorer
11. May 2016 at 04:35
Hey Scott,
I’ve always been inclined to a Ricardian equivalence view of taxes/deficits. I remember reading this column from Friedman in college:
http://0055d26.netsolhost.com/friedman/pdfs/wsj/WSJ.04.26.1984.pdf
Now, some might say that nobody really thinks in Ricardian equivalence terms. Not true. I do. I look at our $19 trillion federal debt and hold a liability of about $250,000 on my personal balance sheet, the pro rata share of debt for my family of four. I’m pretty sure this is straight up rational.
Now, this can be discharged by taxes or printing money. Either way, I pay, directly or via reduced purchasing power on existing assets. Trump’s idea of a wealth tax would, in my case, discharge this liability (along with a corresponding chunk of assets). It would shrink my balance sheet, but not really affect how I think of my net worth.
Virtually no politicians understand monetary economics and many dangerously misunderstand it. Trump is of course all over the place here as elsewhere, but he seems to be groping toward a “concrete steppes” version of market monetarism, or Ricardian equivalence anyway.
11. May 2016 at 04:39
Not to beat a dead horse, but…
Scott Sumner:
“Ben, You said:
“I am disappointed that Scott Sumner seems to dismiss this particular idea (QE reduction of the national debt) out of hand.”
Scoot Sumner: “Maybe because it’s an idiotic idea. QE does not reduce the national debt, unless you are willing to contemplate hyperinflation–which is basically repudiating the debt.”
–30–
I dunno, we must be speaking past each other.
David Beckworth has indicated he thinks the Fed should indicate it will keep its balance sheet forever. In other the monetary expansion is permanent, and the debt was monetized.
That is what has happened so far (the Fed has kept is balance sheet), and we have no hyperinflation, and fact we barely have any inflation at all.
Japan even more so.
Adair Turner has written some interesting stuff about this. I cover over at Marcus Nunes.
11. May 2016 at 04:44
@Travis,
Great link. Kocherlakota is a treasure.
Is the prevalent view of the Fed cosseting the rich over the past several years mere stupidity or demagoguery? Either way, I know Sumner hates both of those things.
11. May 2016 at 04:48
“Yes, dollar bills ought to have black people on it, native Americans, and some of the Mexicans who used to own Texas and California. That, and a founding father or two. All of the above are part of the history of the U.S.’
I say we go with what every person in the world sees as American. Mickey Mouse on the $10 and Ronald McDonald on the $20. Who can be against that?
“You’re throwing around the words insane and crazy without even bothering to explain how it would be insane or crazy.”
Why explain? It’s like having to explain to someone why they should duck if someone throws a bag of shit at their head.
11. May 2016 at 05:01
@Scott Freelander
The fact is, we’ve been far too tolerant of such looney traitors.
The civil war’s long over. Time to grow up.
You write this directly after one another. How ironic.
You give good self-advice but you forget to take it.
11. May 2016 at 05:17
“I look at our $19 trillion federal debt and hold a liability of about $250,000 on my personal balance sheet, the pro rata share of debt for my family of four.”
Brian,
If you are going to ding yourself for the liability, shouldn’t you be crediting yourself for things like mineral rights, offshore oil holdings, real estate holdings?
Would you look at your balance sheet and carry your home debt but leave off the home?
11. May 2016 at 05:30
@Dervis, I wouldn’t. I think of those things as in the nature of an endowment that was unencumbered when I was born and shouldn’t be mortgaged now. I didn’t build that.
But I was a participant in an economy with a government that spent $15 trillion more than they collected in taxes over the past 15 years. The money can’t be unspent. I, along with every other taxpayer during this period (notably, baby boomers) is responsible for that profligacy and should reflect it in their net worth.
11. May 2016 at 05:36
@Derivs, oops. My first paragraph was referring to the value of assets held by the government. Stuff like buildings, infrastructure, etc, yeah those are legitimate balance sheet assets. National forests, etc. are endowments.
If you told me the $15 trillion in deficits this century was spent on investments that would produce benefits down the road, it would be more justifiable. But stuff like infrastructure spending at this point is mostly maintenance, not investment.
Every generation in this country has bequeathed a richer nation than it inherited. Until this one.
11. May 2016 at 06:27
Ben Cole,
I think you are being logically sound here. I don’t understand the difference between what Trump is advocating in layman’s terms “we can always buy the debt back”….and what Greenspan, Summer, Bernanke, Yellen have moved toward over the last 20 years which has resulted in the Fed buying 3 trillion dollars in gov issued debt.
Sure Trump is not a PHD economist so he doesn’t describe it clinically(or some would say as deceptively) as a Federal Reserve governor….but still it seems Summer is talking past Ben Cole here.
11. May 2016 at 06:34
The NYT piles on ‘crazy’ Trump’s ‘insane’ wealth tax idea:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/opinion/to-reduce-inequality-tax-wealth-not-income.html?_r=1
11. May 2016 at 06:38
“Stuff like buildings, infrastructure, etc, yeah those are legitimate balance sheet assets. National forests, etc. are endowments.”
..and in Natural Forests their are cut and grow, and fish respawning, and electrical generation, lest us not forget the Trumps face on Rushmore coins the Treasury will soon be able to sell at hefty profit!!!… what I am trying to point out is that it ain’t that easy to calculate what the actual acceptable debt can/should be but only looking at it in terms of ONLY vs GDP CAN NOT be correct.
“Every generation in this country has bequeathed a richer nation than it inherited. Until this one.”
I don’t know what is wrong with me because to me the U.S. looks like a highly polished Diamond compared to the rest of the world. Life seems easier than ever but yet people seem more focused on the what the other guy has more than ever before. I actually wonder if Marx had it backwards believing that Capitalism’s failures would bring a Socialist revolution. Instead when I look at the collegiate level Bernie phenomenon I wonder if it is Capitalism’s success at providing so much that makes people focus so much on fairness and minimizing the distribution at the wings, and forget about how we got to have so much stuff at the median.
11. May 2016 at 07:15
@Dervis, Regardless of how either of use think of the “stock of national assets” it is undeniable that we are $15 trillion worse off in terms of public finance than we were 15 years ago. Anyone who made money during this period should be holding something back for accrued but unpaid taxes. Anything else is a middle finger to the next generation.
I agree with your last paragraph. Rather than focus on their own manifold blessings, people can’t help but get their nose out of joint about what some other guy got. This is not an attractive trait of our species, and one that I would rather see discouraged than stoked. The stoking is what gives us Trump and Sanders.
11. May 2016 at 07:48
@ Donald Trump
Clearly you have kidnapped Scott Sumner’s mind, and are holding it against its will. I demand that you release it immediately!
What’s that you say: It is actually functioning freely over at Econlib? My mistake, my apologies!
11. May 2016 at 08:07
Benjamin Cole
Indeed, I don’t think what is going on is monetization.
The Federal Reserve acquired mid-to-long term debt yielding 2.5% in exchange for (essentially) reserves now yielding 0.5%. It’s taken on quite a bit of duration risk, and making a pretty penny on it (something like 100G$/year). From that point of view, this really isn’t monetization. The Fed simply offered short-term debt (reserves) in exchange for long-term treasury and mortgage-backed securities.
11. May 2016 at 08:09
Sumner should volunteer to be Trumps adviser….if Trump had merely made a small modification to his QE program proposal then it would be 100% of what Sumner has been blogging about for most of the decade.
Trump..”we can always print money to buy back the debt up until the nominal GDP hits a predetermined path, prefereable 6% growth.”
so when Trump leaves off the NGDP part he is crazy?! but when you have the NGDP part he is the best monetary economist currently working? pretty workable fix there Scott….you gotta get in contact with his team.
11. May 2016 at 08:17
@Ben, LK,
Good comments. I thought the reason we haven’t seen much inflation is because the Fed did NOT need to print a bunch of money to finance QE. Rather, providing above market IOR provided all the voluntary reserves they needed for such purchases (and then some). So, LK, I agree with you that the Fed has been long interest rates the past few years. Private actors like banks didn’t want to be long interest rates because they remember how they got crushed when rates rose in the 1970s and early 1980s (S&L crisis.) So far, the Fed has made a bundle on this trade.
11. May 2016 at 08:37
Gabe, Brian, LK—
Remember, when the Fed bought $3 trillion in Treasuries it placed $3 trillion in reserves into the commercial bank accounts of the primary dealers, but it also resulted in fresh new digitized of $3 trillion being placed in the hands of those who sold the treasury bonds.
11. May 2016 at 08:44
Scott:
“Anthony, The Dems have moved left on culture? Care to explain?”
Here’s what I wrote:
” Both parties and the country have moved leftward on culture and economics.”
I didn’t single out the Dems at all, so I’m not sure why you did in your question. I certainly don’t think anybody’s gotten MORE conservative on cultural issues.
11. May 2016 at 10:23
Ben, Brian, Gabe
What would it take to expunge the Federal deficit using profits from the Fed?
First, let’s suppose the Fed got rid of IOR. Say that it went in an got the average yield on its gvnt/agency bond portfolio to 3% by going really long (i.e. it takes on a bunch of risk). You’d need something like an 18T$ balance sheet. Basically, the Fed would have to buy 1T$ per month for a year. More than ten times QE3. That would be a very big chunk of Treasuries and Agency debt.
Second, say that it imposes negative IOR and that it ensures that there is no funny business (same negative rates on vault cash, etc.). -1%. Then, the balance sheet needs to be 14T$, if most of the injected money goes to reserves (which it would probably would not, but you get the point). The Fed would have to buy 750G$ per month for a year. Still an amazing number.
BTW, I’m not arguing that the Fed should try this. But it sort of gives an idea of what would be involved if the government wanted Fed OMO to pay for the deficit. Mind you, the strong NGDP growth entailed by such OMOs/deep negative rates would probably also drastically reduce the deficit (more labor, less welfare). Also, people would probably be taking on mortgages and student debt like crazy.
11. May 2016 at 10:40
@mbka
“don’t you think it’s a very different thing to disagree with a political direction (say, confederate sympathizers) vs. disagreeing with the very existence of an ethnic group, or religion?”
The difference is an optical artifact. Politicians want to buy favor from some groups and sell land/money/favors from other groups. That’s it. This is a completely legitimate genuine point and not just a snarky retort.
“is it really too much to ask for to have ONE dollar bill dedicated to African Americans?”
It’s totally reasonable to feature a black American. Especially a black inventor, architect, doctor, or other non-contentious, non-divisive choice. To choose someone that represents white guilt, white villainy, black violent rebellion, and a bloody war that killed many innocent American civilians is a terrible divisive choice. The story of US slavery should be told and should be remembered, but it’s being hyped beyond that and exploited for modern political and culture war value.
My wife is black, btw. She agrees that Harriet Tubman is a divisive choice, that will stir white guilt and resentment, and it’s a bad idea. She’s quick to point out that it’s absolutely white people driving that kind of action, not regular black people.
“Yes, dollar bills ought to have black people on it, native Americans, and some of the Mexicans who used to own Texas and California.”
We absolutely celebrate the Mexicans who fought for Texas independence such as Davy Crockett, Stephen Austin, and Sam Houston. I would love if those Texas Mexicans were featured on currency.
“That, and a founding father or two. All of the above are part of the history of the U.S.”
The United States was basically founded as an ethnically white nation and spent most of its history as such. Sure, there were Mexicans like Crockett and Houston, but they were ethnically white Mexicans.
@Scott Freelander,
“Comments like yours are simply bigoted. I don’t care if it offends you and your klan.”
You don’t care if you offend, insult, exclude, me and people like me. That’s hateful bigotry. I’m not claiming to be free of bias or opinion which is all ultimately bigotry, I’m claiming to be reasonable, logical, peaceful, and fair about the bias, opinion, and bigotry that I have.
11. May 2016 at 11:38
LK Beland,
My goal is not to convince anyone to do that plan. My goal is just to understand how a group of people that support NGDPLT can seemingly be legitimately horrified when others argue that we “print money to pay off debt”…when asked to explain to the masses what he would do?
11. May 2016 at 13:00
Gabe
“My goal is just to understand how a group of people that support NGDPLT can seemingly be legitimately horrified when others argue that we “print money to pay off debt”…when asked to explain to the masses what he would do?”
Because NGDPLTers want nominal stability to be the Fed’s main priority. Not monetizing the debt, which would most likely bring nominal instability.
11. May 2016 at 13:05
Harding, You said:
“Johnson supports Nazi wedding cakes, so he’s not a true libertarian.”
Thank God for the internet! You never see that sort of sentence in the lamestream media.
Monetizing the debt would boost the price level more than 10 fold.
OK, Trump has a few libertarian ideas.
asdf, Bush actually did OK among Hispanics (albeit not a majority), it was when the GOP turned against immigrants (2006) that they started losing presidential elections.
Everyone, I’ve always been opposed to having any actual human being on money, and would prefer symbolic figures, as in the old days. I did a post on that once, showing the beautiful educational notes from the late 1800s. Our money today is ugly, especially coins. But yes, if you insist on real people, diversity is a good idea.
Ben, What happens if you buy up debt equal to 70% of GDP, and market interest rates rise to 2%, and you stop paying IOR. Please tell me what happens.
LK, That’s right.
Anthony, Sorry, my mistake. I misread you.
11. May 2016 at 13:18
is it really too much to ask for to have ONE dollar bill dedicated to African Americans?
Yes it is. The portraits on the currency have been there since 1928 and those on the coin since 1946. They’re not there for the purpose of patronage distribution, but to honor people who have been consequential in the life of the nation. The only dubious choice would be Andrew Jackson, who’s more of an icon of a particular frontier type than anything else. If you replace him, though, you must properly replace him with someone who’s a peer to the others, noting that we are already missing someone of consequence (James Madison). Whatever her virtues, Harriet Tubman is not a peer of these others. It’s just patronage for clamoring Democratic constituency groups. You wait a few years and put Gen. Eisenhower on the 20 if it feels right, and put a double-portrait of Jefferson and Madison on the 2.
11. May 2016 at 13:23
Kudlow and Moore…..
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-tax-plan-revisions-223064
“Economists revising Trump’s plan could make more people pay taxes”
11. May 2016 at 13:26
“Johnson supports Nazi wedding cakes, so he’s not a true libertarian.” Thank God for the internet! You never see that sort of sentence in the lamestream media.
Johnson’s a true libertarian in the contemporary sense. The thing is, Hayek is dead, Gottfried Dietze is dead, and Richard Epstein is old. The quality of libertarian we produce in this country is decaying along with the quality of everything else. Freedom of contract and association are salient issues and ‘libertarians’ are too concerned with status considerations to defend them. Instead, they whine about the drug laws and barbers’ licenses, give you look-squirrel diversions with titles like ‘Markets in Everything’, and promote OPEN BORDERS. What are they worth?
11. May 2016 at 13:30
Mismanagement due to gross incompetence, epic corruption, and a poisoning of civil society with political interference.
Sounds like Angela Merkel.
11. May 2016 at 13:47
“Monetizing the debt would boost the price level more than 10 fold.”
-Money velocity tends to fall with each bout of QE, so I doubt it.
“it was when the GOP turned against immigrants”
-Or, maybe, it was when the good times in Las Vegas ended.
“Thank God for the internet! You never see that sort of sentence in the lamestream media.”
-It’s true. And, yes, that’s why it’s called the lamestream media.
11. May 2016 at 13:47
Art Deco’s Pope (the kosher Pope):
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-hides-the-cross.htm
11. May 2016 at 14:49
@E. Harding
“Gary Johnson supports Nazi wedding cakes”
Thank you so much for pointing to that story. I did not know that Gary is thinking this way. I never thought he would support the idea that it should be legal to force a baker to bake something. What in the world is he thinking?! How in the world is this libertarian?! I’m really speechless.
11. May 2016 at 15:10
@ssumner
Just read the exact quote–
Unfortunately the exact quote is not in your post. Even though it contains like 12 links. But I know how the pundits and you usually treat Trump. And I know that Trump uses phrasings that leave a lot of room for interpretation. And you guys nearly always interpret him in the worst way imaginable (and even beyond that) – excluding all the other interpretations. It starts right in your post title where you wrote “Trump says his fans are crazy”. I just can’t take this kind of intentional and malicious misinterpretations seriously. I’m sorry.
@Art
Sounds like Angela Merkel.
Gross incompetence, yes. Poisoning of civil society with political interference, yes. But corruption? Probably not. I wish she were corrupt because then you could actually bribe her to do the right thing. Unfortunately people like Merkel are rarely corrupt. That’s one reason why they are so disastrous.
11. May 2016 at 15:31
@Art
We wouldn’t want future Harvard grads to actually have to repay college loans.
Like always it might be helpful to observe what happens in other countries with no college tuition. I only got some information about Germany and Switzerland. College in those countries is free. So you might expect for example that students would prefer college over
non-college vocational education in those countries. But the opposite is true.
I have no problem that future academics have to pay parts of their excellent education. I support this idea. I think some kind of tuition is helpful as long as its not too high. I think the tuition in the US is borderline high. The whole education sector should be deregulated then prices might fall.
11. May 2016 at 16:19
What happens if you buy up debt equal to 70% of GDP, and market interest rates rise to 2%, and you stop paying IOR. Please tell me what happens.–Scott Sumner
Answer: I am not sure. But banks do not lend out unless they are very confident of being repaid. They are profit-seekers, risk averse. That is why the bulk of lending today in America is on property.
I am not sure what you mean by market interest rates “rising” to 2%, since we are about there now on 10-year Treasuries. Mortgage rates of course a little higher. The Fed has purchased $3 trillion in Treasuries and inflation is nowhere in sight.
11. May 2016 at 16:24
LK Beland:
“Because NGDPLTers want nominal stability to be the Fed’s main priority. Not monetizing the debt, which would most likely bring nominal instability.”
But NGDPLT is itself debt monetization. That is what the Fed does when it targets prices, interest rates, you name it.
11. May 2016 at 16:54
“Sorry, but I’m having trouble seeing the libertarian side of Trump. … Is there anything you can point to?”
The choice of Kudlow and Moore. Those are right-wing libertarian economists. Trump hasn’t flip flopped and chosen far left economist types.
To a large extent, Trump is a master manipulator, he plays both sides of all the issues, he avoids giving out policy details that voters don’t even pay attention to, he workshops his rhetoric at rallies to find what resonates, he tries to let voters see what they want to see.
How is that less libertarian that Hillary Clinton? In the primary, sure, the competition had much more principled libertarians than Trump? But Clinton? As Bobby Jindal said, a unprincipled Republican is better than a devoutly principled far left Democrat.
11. May 2016 at 16:57
Harding, You said:
“Money velocity tends to fall with each bout of QE, so I doubt it.”
That has no bearing on my claim. See the question I asked Ben.
Ben, I mean T-bill yields rising to 2%.
11. May 2016 at 18:04
The Fed monetizing the entire debt would increase the M2 money stock by 150%. Yes, if interest rates rise, the NGDP increase would be greater than that, but 3 trillion dollars worth of QE had only had a mild effect on NGDP. I don’t see why 3 trillion dollars of QE gets us below-target inflation, while 19 trillion leads to hyperinflation.
11. May 2016 at 19:03
Scott,
Trump flip-flopped on the minimum wage yet again. From his Twitter feed:
“Goofy Elizabeth Warren lied when she says I want to abolish the Federal Minimum Wage. See media—asking for increase!”
11. May 2016 at 19:20
An increase in what? Trump is consistent in his inconsistency:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/144197811771/about-those-trump-policy-details
11. May 2016 at 19:22
An increase in what? Trump is very much consistent in his inconsistency:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/144197811771/about-those-trump-policy-details
11. May 2016 at 23:39
Reuters says Trump drawed even:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN0Y2119
11. May 2016 at 23:49
@E. Harding
I don’t see why 3 trillion dollars of QE gets us below-target inflation, while 19 trillion leads to hyperinflation.
I noticed this kind of reasoning by Sumner on other occasion, too. Scott seems to know two types of modes only: Below-target inflation and hyperinflation.
At least when he talks about persons he detests. Then you’ll get the most malicious misinterpretation possible.
When he talks about people he likes though (like Kocherlakota) then you’ll suddenly get a very optimistic interpretation of their phrasings. Except when Kocherlakota talks about Trump of course. Then he goes back to the old game again.
12. May 2016 at 03:38
If monetizing the total debt would lead to M2 rising 150%, it would still not be anywhere near as large an increase as what the Fed did since 2008:
http://marketshadows.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/monetary-base-25-years-big-chart.png
All that occurred with debt monetization as well as who knows what monetization that is not published.
If this was not “crazy” because “the money stock is not a credible indicator of the stance of monetary policy” (credible is a word which by the way he never defined), then why all of a sudden would….debt monetization be crazy?
Debt monetization is not crazy, and debt monetization is crazy. Depends on who advocates for it. Sumner is a political tool of the left.
12. May 2016 at 04:46
Called it!
Trump knows no ideology. If he sees a potential way, he takes it. He’s aware of monetization and he’s going to use this power.
(Partial) Monetization hits atleast 3 of his targets.
– Lowering the federal debt
– Lowering the attractiveness of foreign goods ( if foreign CB’s don’t react, his tariff promise solved in another way )
– Improved economic prospects due to higher NGDP (If foreign CB’s react to his monetization by printing more of their own , even more so)
Honestly, Scott, aren’t the downsides of inflation worse than the downsides of recession? And do you consider that Trump won’t listen when his economic advisers tell him to stop money printing ?
12. May 2016 at 04:48
Errata in comment
Honestly, Scott, **are** the downsides of inflation worse than the downsides of recession?
12. May 2016 at 10:09
Harding, You said:
“I don’t see why 3 trillion dollars of QE gets us below-target inflation, while 19 trillion leads to hyperinflation.”
You will see in a few hours, when my new Econlog post goes up.
Scott, No! Not another flip flop?
Christian, Trump called for defaulting on the debt. Deal with it.
Prakash, You said:
“Honestly, Scott, aren’t the downsides of inflation worse than the downsides of recession? And do you consider that Trump won’t listen when his economic advisers tell him to stop money printing ?”
That’s a false trade-off, and Trump has nothing to do with monetary policy–he’s irrelevant.
13. May 2016 at 06:04
@ssumner
Ok, go into Zuckerberg’s little calculator and set the Hispanic vote to the % Bush got. Do you win the election? No.
After Bush barely squeaked by in two elections importing more people that, even at multi-decade highs, have never cracked 50% GOP was bad for election math.
That’s a quick math lesson for you. You need over 50% to win an election. Romney already said he doesn’t want to votes of 47%, and he’s also working hard to get that number over 50% by importing more welfare cases. Do you people have any plans to win any elections?
You must know this. This is really simple math. It’s obvious. In my very post I addressed the varying degrees of Hispanic % during the Bush years. Why ignore that? Why peddle such obvious talking point nonsense?
You guys have been saying Hispanics were natural conservatives for year. Where is the evidence? Is the Rio Grande some baptismal where people come out on the other side quoting Thomas Jefferson?
Nobody dependent on welfare is going to vote to abolish their own welfare. How are you planning to win Hispanics with the libertarian platform?
13. May 2016 at 19:00
asdf, You said:
“You guys have been saying Hispanics were natural conservatives for year.”
Who are “you guys”? Where did I say that? If not, why do you claim I said that?
You said:
“Nobody dependent on welfare is going to vote to abolish their own welfare. How are you planning to win Hispanics with the libertarian platform?”
So Hispanics are dependent on welfare? That’s funny, I thought most of them worked? Who does all the jobs that Americans won’t do?
You said:
“How are you planning to win Hispanics with the libertarian platform?”
Libertarians can’t get more than 1% of the white vote, so why would you think they’d win Hispanics. In any case, I don’t plan to run for office, so I’m not trying to “win” anyone.
You said:
“Is the Rio Grande some baptismal where people come out on the other side quoting Thomas Jefferson?”
Jefferson was a slaveowner, not a “libertarian”.
14. May 2016 at 00:58
@asdf
It’s not totally hopeless. For example:
Trump leads Hillary by ten points among Hispanic voters, according to a new general election match-up poll released Friday.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/13/new-poll-trump-leading-hillary-with-hispanic-voters/
And according to another source (Reuters) Trump drew even already amongst all voters.
14. May 2016 at 08:24
Christian, it really is totally hopeless. That poll is an outlier, and I expect Trump to get ~25% of the Hispanic vote.
15. May 2016 at 10:16
Christian the fine print of that poll is that while supposedly Trump leads by 10 points among Latinos he trails by 2 overall.
There’s a reason Gravis means ‘garbage’ in Spanish according to the political scientists.