Under blogger eyes
I’m noticing that a lot of people don’t understand what I’m trying to do with this blog (Econlog they get). Generally, I don’t like to analyze my own behavior, but in this case I’m going to have to make an exception.
The first thing you need to understand is that I’m superstitious about one thing. I feel like horrible things won’t happen if everyone expects them to happen. In late 2008, I was very frustrated over the fact that almost no one was talking about monetary policy, whereas I thought monetary policy was both far off course, and also the key to the Great Recession. Even worse, I felt like I was mute—I had no voice in the conversation.
Eventually I started a blog, and wrote hundreds of histrionic over-the-top posts about how utterly brain dead Fed policy was in late 2008. I mocked the September 2008 meeting, where they refused to cut interest rates. I mocked the October 2008 decision to institute IOR. I mocked Fed people who suggested that fiscal stimulus would help, at a time the Fed was not doing all it could. And most of all, I relentless mocked the utter stupidity of allowing NGDP growth to plunge from positive 5% to negative 3%. I became a proud member of a group known as “monetary cranks.”
My superstitious mind led me to believe that if everyone began paying attention to monetary policy, and particularly if everyone started paying attention to NGDP growth, then we would not repeat the mistake of 2008. And it worked in the US—so far. Now of course that doesn’t mean I had anything to do with it; I suspect if I had never been born things would have played out roughly the same way. After all, lots of other market monetarists and even NKs were making some of the very same arguments. But maybe I had a tiny role in reviving interest in the importance of monetary policy, and NGDP more specifically. And that’s good enough for me. (And they did make the same mistake again in Europe (in 2011), where MM and NK ideas are less often discussed.)
I have the same sort of superstition about Trump. I feel like if I write one absurd over-the-top post after another pointing out how utterly insane his views are on everything from the trade deficit to our One China policy, I can play a small role in making certain ideas seem disreputable. I want to make it so that people are embarrassed, or feel a sense of shame, when they claim that trade deficits reduce GDP. Or when they claim we should not lift a finger to prevent Russia from invading a foreign country, but should risk WWIII to prevent China from invading China.
Sometimes commenters ask me if I’m willing to bet on my predictions, or they ask why I am being so over the top in my criticism. That misses the point entirely. I’m doing these posts precisely in the hope that I’m wrong. In fact (and here’s the superstitious part) I’m doing these posts in the hope that they cause the predictions to be wrong. (Of course I mean these posts, and similar pieces by 100s of other pundits.)
They say that a watched pot never boils. I feel like if the entire world of punditry were to focus like a laser on the utter stupidity of people like Ross and Navarro, then it would make their jobs a bit harder. That spotlight might chasten them slightly. Maybe a reporter will ask Ross if “He really believes EC101 teaches us that trade deficits reduce growth, because ya know, all the authors of those textbooks say it teaches exactly the opposite.” Or “What grade did you get in your EC101 course, and how long ago was it.” I want the idea that trade deficits reduce GDP to become as toxic, as laughable, as disreputable, as the idea that the Fed should stand idly by as NGDP falls by 3%.
This is all superstition, so I don’t expect anyone to see things the way I do. All I can do is tell you that I find that when society as a whole focuses really hard on the utter stupidity of doing something, we actually almost never do that specific stupid thing. We do lots of other stupid things, which we never saw coming, but not the one we obsessed about. Or at least that’s how it seems to me. (It also seems like I’m always in the slowest line at grocery stores.)
That doesn’t mean this is all an act on my part, I really believe that the views of Trump and his henchmen are borderline insane. But I have no idea what Trump will actually do, because over the course of my life I rarely observe governments doing things that are widely viewed as obviously insane. What about late 2008? Yes, I viewed that period as obviously insane, but the profession as a whole certainly did not–so that doesn’t violate my generalization.
Every time a respected economist says, “Maybe the anti–globalization people have a point” or “Maybe China trade really did decimate our working class”, it makes a Trump disaster more likely. It weakens the intellectual wall of resistance to insane protectionist policies, by making them seem slightly less insane. “Well even economists don’t agree . . . “. We need a wall of strong opposition to the Trump program, or we risk a repeat of late 2008, with a global trade war replacing a global monetary policy failure. That’s not my prediction of what will happen, but rather my prediction of what will happen if we fail to create the right zeitgeist.
I appreciate those who worry about my sanity, but my writing style actually has nothing to do with my mood. I’m not like Paul Krugman; I don’t lose sleep over Hillary not winning. Indeed I would have found a Hillary presidency to be dismal. This is a freak show, but a damn entertaining one. Most of my real passion is focused on my book project, or the film I saw last night (2 episodes of a Polish TV show from 1988, called Dekalog—magnificent) or how Giannis Antetokounmpo and Russell Westbrook are doing. That’s “real life” for me, not politics. I really do think the Trump phenomenon is an appalling freak show; but deep down I don’t think any of it will really happen—again, a watched pot never boils.
Of course there’s Germany in 1933 . . . no don’t go there. . . .
So the hysterical posts will continue until the morale in the comment section improves.
PS. You may wonder about my earlier snobby claims that I don’t watch TV. I saw the 1988 Polish TV show at the movie theatre.
PPS. Some of you people who are attempting to be trolls—you are so far behind where the discussion is, you really ought to do something else with your time. There’s no shame in not being smart enough to follow the discussion. But if you do insist on continuing to click on this blog, I’m going to keep cashing the advertising checks.
PPPS. I probably won’t respond to any comments here, as I’m smart enough to know that my superstition is not intellectually defensible—so why bother trying to defend it?
PPPPS. One commenter asked why I don’t leave the country. What other country allows me to watch Polish TV shows one night, and NBA League pass games the next? America will be fine; presidents have very little power. R.E.M. put it best.
PPPPPS. Off topic, but have you noticed that the moment we get a Republican president the pundits are full of discussion of “monetary offset”? I may have lots of faults, but I do the exact same analysis regardless of who’s in office.
Tags:
14. December 2016 at 07:10
Scott, can you recommend a resource on what influence Trump will have over the Fed? After reading Ramesh Ponnuru’s peace, I’m wondering. Are there major positions that are open now or opening up soon?
14. December 2016 at 07:51
Dekalog is monumental. I have only seen about half of the episodes. Each was breathtaking and sobering. It’s the rare case of a movie or show where no matter how hard or depressing the subject, you have to watch the whole thing through. You want to.
14. December 2016 at 08:02
Dr. Sumner said: “Or when they claim we should not lift a finger to prevent Russia from invading a foreign country, but should risk WWIII to prevent China from invading China.”
For most of my life Ukraine was part of Russia and Taiwan was not part of the PROC. So, I would would think claiming that we should pretend the democratically elected head of a state of 23 million people doesn’t exist and we should risk WWIII to keep Russia from invading Russia (instead of working with Russia to keep nuclear material from all the former Soviet Republics form getting into the wrong hands) is more likely the shameful act.
14. December 2016 at 08:16
Capt. J Parker
“For most of my life Ukraine was part of Russia and Taiwan was not part of the PROC”.
The Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, not of Russia, unless you are very, very old. Ukrainian nationalism started early 19th Century. There should be nothing sacred about the existence of nations or borders, but to change them should follow a lawful process.
“instead of working with Russia to keep nuclear material from all the former Soviet Republics form getting into the wrong hands”
The Ukraine did the laudable thing in the 90s and agreed to hand over its nukes to Russia in exchange for guarantees of its statehood. And look what happens if you trust the Russians will respect such treaties and you have no more nukes.
14. December 2016 at 08:49
“Or when they claim we should not lift a finger to prevent Russia from invading a foreign country, but should risk WWIII to prevent China from invading China.”
-See J. Parker’s comment. The Cold War history is actually existent with the winner country of Taiwan and the U.S. There is no such history (at all) with the loser country of Ukraine and the U.S.
In any case, nobody claims that.
“I really believe that the views of Trump and his henchmen are borderline insane.”
-I do not remember you criticizing the views of the 1920s Republicans with anything like the same vigor in your book. Trump’s views are quite similar in many ways to the views of those Republicans.
14. December 2016 at 08:55
“So the hysterical posts will continue until the morale in the comment section improves.”
LOL.
14. December 2016 at 09:06
This is turning into my favorite blog.
14. December 2016 at 09:22
So long story short,
Spread fake news, have repeated conniptions, insult your readers (I lol’d at the “the trolls are so far behind” comment…the truth is of course exactly the opposite), all so that the truth and reader morale improve.
Notice the heads I win tails you lose deceit: “I WANT to be wrong”.
In other words, no matter what happens, Sumner will be right. He will either be right about being right, or right about being wrong.
If anyone will be right, it will be the libertarians, not Sumner.
14. December 2016 at 09:47
The Ukraine did the laudable thing in the 90s and agreed to hand over its nukes to Russia in exchange for guarantees of its statehood.
A very stupid move indeed. It reminds me of Chamberlain in 1938. Or Obama in 2015 with Iran. They should have known better.
14. December 2016 at 10:27
You talk of insanity and yet you waited for the chance of it showing up in a theatre to see The Dekalog? It’s been out for years! Yeesh.
14. December 2016 at 10:57
@mbka
I think some Taiwanese might view an agreement among third parties that annexes them to the PROC as lawfully suspect. I also think that some Russians might view the Ukraine European Union Association Agreement the makes reference to Ukraine eventually becoming part of the EU’s security umbrella (i.e. Nato) as a negative reflection on the trustworthiness of the Kiev government.
My reference to nuclear materials refers to all the former Soviet republics and all nuclear capability not just Ukraine and existing warheads. Existing warheads formerly in Ukraine are probably already secure (although, how will we know if we insist on being at swords points with Moscow?) but, refinement capability, technical information and partially processed materials may still be a problem. This is a big reason to have better vs worse relations with Moscow.
I think even experts would disagree on the proper US response to infringement of the sovereignty of either Ukraine or Taiwan that best serves all US interests. I suspect you and I are in more or less agreement that there is room for disagreement here. Unless I totally misread him, Dr. Sumner seems to believe otherwise.
14. December 2016 at 13:06
“I feel like if I write one absurd over-the-top post after another pointing out how utterly insane his views are on everything from the trade deficit to our One China policy, I can play a small role in making certain ideas seem disreputable. ”
Since most people thought the notion of Trump getting elected was improbable and insane in the first place, the only way this works is if you have established some credibility as having predicted Trump, or at least predicting the Trump rally in markets that started the day after his election.
Otherwise it’s just the same old apocalyptic rhetoric everyone else is writing, to which people have become desensitized. And also, which has proven to be false. If you keep predicting that the world will end, eventually you might be right. But mostly people think: Why should we believe people who got it so wrong in the first place?
Regardless of how you personally feel about the trade deficit, and China, the majority of voters on both sides feel its hurting them, and voted to close it.
You should view Trump’s “plans” as the opening of a negotiation: “We are going to do X unless you come up with an alternative.”
There will be two camps: Camp A will offer less bad alternatives to accomplish the same goal; Camp B will be “can’t be done” naysayers hoping to say I told you so in 8 years. Except having been so wrong about Trump’s election and the Trump rally, they really did not tell us so at all. So it wont matter, any more than the lady who has been predicting the end of the world for 8 years.
Most people will eventually come around to camp A. Kicking, screaming, and hollering, maybe.
14. December 2016 at 13:14
I almost think I know what you mean.
I could swear I have heard Trump say how much he believes we will get more foreign investment if and when he lowers the corporate tax rate. Of course, he does not link that to trade deficits. Plus he wants jobs jobs jobs (which I assume is consistent with any number of trade policies). I also think it has to be possible that one can create better trade deals than we have or worse trade deals than we have. Trump is always yakking about getting better deals. These may or may not impact whether we get them or not—nor how “better” should be defined. He does seem to harp on trade deficits like a crazy person.
But is it possible to have a lower trade deficit, but due to the structure of the “deals” have a better growth economy? Given the complexity of our economy, the answer has to be yes. The one thing he can do to guarantee bad outcomes is to raise tariffs—but the Senate won’t let him (prediction).
I cannot say it does not matter what Trump says. But for similar crazy reasons you outlined above as to why you write the way you write and what you write about, I choose to superstitiously “believe” we will be better off in economic and social terms in four years (no counterfactuals allowed). I think his personality permits it—even requires it—–by listening to others. He likes people—he continues to say how gracious etc the Obama’s have been. I think he can be fooled by people because he wants to like them. But I think there are so many other people around him, he will be steered safely like a Mack Truck.
He is not a racist or a sexist—that’s right he is not a sexist—a bit crude perhaps. I bet he will get more minority votes is 2020 than 2016. He is not a Manchurian candidate. He is most certainly strange—but I like his strangeness—-so far. But my eyes are open
My prediction record is as good as anyone’s–i.e.random. For example, I was POSITIVE Obama would not withdraw troops from Iraq—because no president in our history ever willfully turned a won war into chaos on purpose. But I was wrong. I did get pretty much else right on what he did.
I am FAR more worried about the Fed. I know NOTHING about Monetary policy, for all practical purposes—-but I think I know when I being fed (ha) a line of crap. I have no idea why Yellen cannot get inflation to 2% but she is now hot to trot to raise rates faster because the stock market went up. (Or is it because she believes the political fantasy of 10 year Trillion dollar infrastructure program will create inflation?).
The Fed screwed the pooch in 2008 as did Paulson. I hope our man in the tower can do better
14. December 2016 at 15:05
Good post, Scott. It helps me understand the method to your Trump madness.
And as long as you stick to economics, you have been laudably consistent and much better than most of your fellows at banging out the lessons (which usually amounts to “yeah, this idea doesn’t make sense because…”) that economics brings to wider policy discussions.
Keep up the good work.
14. December 2016 at 15:47
Sumner hedging his bets, in clever economist-speak: “My superstitious mind led me to believe that if everyone began paying attention to monetary policy, and particularly if everyone started paying attention to NGDP growth, then we would not repeat the mistake of 2008. ” – actually, it’s called the Lucas Critique, and is mainstream macro.
14. December 2016 at 18:12
It’s bad. We all need to start there, and be honest with ourselves, and admit it. What comes from now none of us can say, but the failure of process that has just happened is massive, and if not now (but maybe now), it is on its own more than enough to destroy everything we know.
Screw the trolls. Screw the idiots. They were always a side show. What happens now is we see if America, as crafted by men some 200 plus years dead, can face this challenge. It’s an open question. Thank you to you for trying to fight on the side of the light, whatever comes of it.
14. December 2016 at 18:45
Scott,
I think what you’re trying to say is:
No, it is not OK.
And it is very important to keep on saying that.
15. December 2016 at 04:39
Nice pick with Giannis, but Russ’s game has little appeal to me. Nylon Calculus shows that nearly all his rebounding improvement has come from grabbing more uncontested rebounds (3.1 more per game). The idea that this is worth it to shave a second off fast breaks seems like weak sauce in the long run.
http://fansided.com/2016/12/05/nylon-calculus-westbrook-triple-doubles/
Russ ought to put more effort into finishing. His %’s from 0-3 & 3-10 ft are pathetic (.579, .192). Lillard (.636, .356) and Chris Paul (.640, .567) embarrass him.
At least Harden’s offensive game is slick (defensively, they’re a wash).
Btw, doesn’t the incentive structure for bottom half playoff teams stink? There needs to be a draft pick bonus for knocking off a higher seed or something to make the fans (and franchise players) care.
15. December 2016 at 05:42
I really believe that the views of Trump and his henchmen are borderline insane.
Trump, Bannon, Tillerson, Mnuchin, and Ross are all men who have capably superintended businesses. They’re not insane even in a metaphoric sense. They may be wrong on particular policy questions (generalists commonly are). They may not share your convictions on normative questions (which is good as far as most of us are concerned). You have a great deal of difficulty appreciating and assessing the world around you with any degree of precision.
15. December 2016 at 05:49
The Fed screwed the pooch in 2008 as did Paulson.
Neither the Fed nor Paulson gave the world Countrywide, the AIG Financial Products Unit, Washington Mutual, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Wachovia, or Citigroup.
15. December 2016 at 06:00
Ukraine isn’t part of Russia and Taiwan isn’t part of China, the diplomatic fictions people adhere to notwithstanding. There isn’t much point in China conquering Taiwan except to flex it’s muscles, and an inclination on the part of a very large country with a very large economy to undertake otherwise pointless displays actually should concern us.
Russia’s harassed Ukraine in an effort to get it back in the corral, which has had the effect of costing Russia most of the popular constituency they had in the Ukraine as recently as 3 years ago. There’s something resembling reasons-of-state in Russian actions, even if they’re a wrong way Corrigan. Attempting to conquer a country with 30% of your population and about 10% of your domestic product and hold that country having conquered it requires something akin to a general mobilization, and Russian military expenditure is currently running at about 4% of domestic product. (Please note the effort Russia had to expend to hold on to Chechenya, which ia 1/30th of the Ukraine’s population). Somehow I don’t think a war of conquest contra the Ukraine is in the offing.
15. December 2016 at 07:39
J Mann, I expect Trump to have very little influence over monetary policy. He might be able to influence banking regulation.
Captain Parker, During your entire life there has been only one China. The official position of both Taiwan and Beijing is that there is a single China, but they disagree as to which government is legitimate. A region of a single country has no right to secede without the consent of the central government.
The fact that Ukraine was a part of Russia is irrelevant. The became an internationally recognized country in the early 1990s, and Russia has not right to invade an independent country.
mbka, Very good reply on the Ukraine.
dwb, You said:
“Regardless of how you personally feel about the trade deficit, and China, the majority of voters on both sides feel its hurting them, and voted to close it.”
It’s hard to believe there are people this clueless.
Trump says he believes in freer trade than Obama. That’s who people (didn’t) vote for. (More people voted for Hillary.)
Michael, You said:
“He is not a racist or a sexist—that’s right he is not a sexist—a bit crude perhaps.”
I stopped reading right there.
Ray, The Lucas Critique? Thanks for putting a smile on my face. A blind monkey throwing darts usually misses the target.
AL, Thanks.
mbka, I’m pushing back against people who want to normalize Trump.
John, Westbrook is totally carrying a mediocre OKC team. I’m not saying he can do it all season, but he’s done it so far. Harden’s also playing very well. But Westbrook is 10 times more fun to watch, which is the whole point.
Art, Then why does Taiwan’s constitution say that it’s part of China?
15. December 2016 at 07:50
Every time a respected economist says, “Maybe the anti–globalization people have a point” or “Maybe China trade really did decimate our working class”, it makes a Trump disaster more likely. It weakens the intellectual wall of resistance to insane protectionist policies, by making them seem slightly less insane. “Well even economists don’t agree . . . “. We need a wall of strong opposition to the Trump program, or we risk a repeat of late 2008, with a global trade war replacing a global monetary policy failure. That’s not my prediction of what will happen, but rather my prediction of what will happen if we fail to create the right zeitgeist.
How shamefully and obviously counterproductive and a world view you have, Sumner.
1. Acting like a typical arrogant, emotional, frothing lunatic about politics, academic isn’t going to strengthen any “intellectual wall of resistance” against. Rather, it will do the opposite, because thoughtful people in the middle will simply come to ignore you. You will erode your credibility, and by doing so, you will erode the credibility of the positions you support.
2.It’s the height of irony that you’re consciously deciding to act like a nutty extremist due to the outcome of this election. This election was lost by Clinton because she took, basically, the same position you are taking now. If she’d made minimal effort to appeal to the set of folks she needed, she’d have won.
3. This underscores the historical truth that extremism and arrogance breed extremism and arrogance. I’m an economist, and as such, I understand and agree with the pure economics you post. But economic reality isn’t the only reality. Social and political realities and concerns are legitimate even if they aren’t economically intelligible. If you push one reality as the “only” reality and consider everything else illegitimate, you will create conflict and backlash that will endanger the progress of the reality you care about.
15. December 2016 at 10:08
Art, Then why does Taiwan’s constitution say that it’s part of China?
Because it’s more trouble than it’s worth to tell the truth in certain circumstances. You’ve been married how long?
15. December 2016 at 10:09
A region of a single country has no right to secede without the consent of the central government.””
-Sez a guy living in Massachusetts
15. December 2016 at 12:19
Your views on secession don’t seem very compatible with your professed libertarianism.
15. December 2016 at 12:42
MikeDC, You said:
“It’s the height of irony that you’re consciously deciding to act like a nutty extremist due to the outcome of this election. This election was lost by Clinton because she took, basically, the same position you are taking now.”
Take a deep breath. Free trade is the respectable view, not the “extremist view”. Trump is the extremist here, proposing insane policies like 45% tariffs on China, or accusing them of being currency manipulators, or suggesting we renegotiate Nafta. And my views are not “due to the outcome of this election”, as they were exactly the same during the campaign. Or didn’t you notice?
Hillary campaigned against TPP, so your second point is just laughable.
Here’s a list of economic issues where I agree with Hillary:
1. Umm . . .
2. Well . . .
You really need to get in touch with reality.
Harding, Yes, I recall that Massachusetts soldiers killed thousands of southerners over the issue of secession. Of course you would have been on the pro-slavery side back then, so I’m not surprised you favor unrestricted secession.
Stalin, I have no trouble with secession, as long as it’s done lawfully. When done illegally, it’s a recipe for war. And I really, really, really don’t like war. I would think all good libertarians would oppose war.
15. December 2016 at 12:51
A region of a single country has no right to secede without the consent of the central government.
The Mainland government has ruled Taiwan for all of four (4) years since 1895. Taiwan isn’t an ancient piece of Chinese territory. It wasn’t ruled by the Mainland until the Manchu Dynasty in the early modern period. Britain’s not hankering to rule Cork and Limerick, Spain’s not hoping to reconquer Cuba, and I doubt V. Putin has designs on Poland or that Sweden wants Pomerania.
15. December 2016 at 12:55
Stalin, I have no trouble with secession, as long as it’s done lawfully. When done illegally,
“Illegally”? Taiwan wasn’t conquered ‘legally’ in the first instance. It wasn’t taken from the Manchus legally either. It wasn’t taken from the Japanese legally. It ended up a functionally sovereign entity because the Nationalist army was able to hold it when it could not hold the rest of China. Do I need to point out that Mao did not conquer the rest of China with a bunch of lawyers?
15. December 2016 at 12:56
I would think all good libertarians would oppose war.
Sensible people oppose unjust or imprudent war. The anti-war strand of libertarianism has little to do with considerations of either.
15. December 2016 at 14:03
Well, Scott, since virtually all central governments would regard any secession attempt as “illegal”, you’re essentially endorsing the permanence of existing or prevailing political arrangements. Like I said, not very libertarian.
15. December 2016 at 19:06
Art, As usual, everything you say it totally irrelevant. The southwestern US wasn’t taken from Mexico legally, but that doesn’t give California the right to secede without the consent of the other states. Many of the borders in Europe were established unjustly via war, but the Europeans sensibly decided to let the current borders stand, and not allow countries to fight to regain ground lost in past wars. Just because things were done one way in the past, does not mean we can’t make progress by trying to resolve our disputes peacefully today.
Stalin, You said:
“Well, Scott, since virtually all central governments would regard any secession attempt as “illegal”, you’re essentially endorsing the permanence of existing or prevailing political arrangements. Like I said, not very libertarian.”
I guess you are not old enough to recall Czechoslovakia. I think the world would be a better place without wars like the recent war for secession in Sri Lanka, but that’s just me—maybe you have a different value system. Is there ever justification for violent secession? Or course, if the oppression of the minority is bad enough, but that doesn’t fit Taiwan at all, to say the least. Or most other cases.
You said:
“I personally have no interest in the Taiwan vs China issue, but I suspect your Chinese wife is coloring your thoughts on this.”
People complain that I am mean to commenters. But seriously, when I get comments like this how can anyone seriously expect me to hold back? You know nothing about me or my wife, much less where I get my ideas from, but that doesn’t stop you from illustrating your ignorance with stupid remarks.
Why do you think my wife would influence my views on China? If my wife were an Italian-American would you say she probably influenced my views on Berlusconi? I’m guessing not. So what makes being a Chinese-American different from being an Italian-American? Let me guess—Chinese people are not the sort of “real Americans” that Trump voters have in mind. Same reason that Japanese-Americans were put in concentration camps during WWII while German-Americans were not. Their loyalties are suspect.
15. December 2016 at 21:09
Westbrook is 10 times more fun to watch
Depends what you like, I guess. I prefer ruthless efficiency (CP3, KD).
Btw, check out Harden’s cross-court passes. I find them mesmerizing. (Starts from 2:00.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypc5tNE3QkY&t=138s
15. December 2016 at 21:55
John, I should watch some Houston games—I forgot they had Dekker, who I liked in college. He should thrive in that system.
Harden is certainly great, although I wonder if he isn’t worse than Westbrook on defense? (At least from my eye test.) Houston’s set-up this year fits the modern NBA much better than OKC. I think if you switch players, Westbrook would also be doing very well in Houston. I like watching Westbrook because he’s the most explosive athlete I’ve ever seen (although maybe the younger Jordan was his equal.)
I’ve been following Giannis since his rookie year, and he’s only just turned 22, but is already close to being a top 10 player.
16. December 2016 at 04:47
LOL Scott, deleting comments?
16. December 2016 at 06:28
Wait, I thought you asked me to delete your comments?
16. December 2016 at 06:30
I do not see how Taiwan does not have a legitimate case for secession under any Western system of political philosophy. China is a non-democratic regime known the world over for its massive human rights abuses. That alone would justify right to revolution as well as right to secession, and that’s leaving aside that Taiwan has governed itself for over 70 years, which is more than enough to claim a separate national identity.
Whether the US should risk WWIII over that is an entirely different story, but the chances of WWIII erupting over that issue are substantially less than WWIII erupting in Eastern Europe over violently opposing Russian expansion. Russia still has 10,000+ nuclear weapons. China does not.
That’s leaving aside the question of whether China even has the ability to conquer and pacify Taiwan.
Ukraine’s claim to Crimea is that Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine in the 50s and the drunken idiot “legitimized” it in the late 1990s. It’s also an autonomous state and was recognized as such. Probably wasn’t even legal under the joke that was Soviet “law” at the time.
That doesn’t mean the Russians should have steamrolled in with tanks, but the idea of Crimea as supreme Ukrainean territory….ehh…really not going to fly.
16. December 2016 at 09:06
Why would I ask you to delete my comments?
16. December 2016 at 11:45
Art, As usual, everything you say it totally irrelevant.
No, you’re having a problem understanding a simple point. There is no such thing as ‘international law’, because there is no one to define, adjudicate, and enforce that ‘law’. There is merely ‘international convention’. China does not have a ‘legal’ claim to Taiwan because no authority holding the island could ever state such a claim on any grounds. China certainly cannot make a claim on grounds analogous to adverse possession because it hasn’t possessed Taiwan for 117 of the last 121 years and there was no change of governing authority in 1949 on the island, only on the Mainland.
The southwestern US wasn’t taken from Mexico legally, but that doesn’t give California the right to secede without the consent of the other states.
Mexico’s ‘possession’ of the Southwest wasn’t ‘legal’ either. It was a diplomatic convention. In 1821, the fiction of Spanish sovereignty was replaced with the fiction of Mexican sovereignty, which came to an end in 1848. The territory in question had a notable dearth of one commodity: living and breathing Mexicans. The sum population of peninsulares, criollos, meztizos, and mission Indians in Texas in 1836 was about 3,000. There were 10,000 anglophone settlers. You had a few thousand around Santa Fe in that time period. IIRC, the analogous population in California ca. 1840 was about 10,000.
When you say it’s ‘illegal’ for California to secede unilaterally, you’re talking American constitutional law folded, spindled, and mutilated through historical practice and appellate case law. None of that matters in international relations. Were China to seize Taiwan, it would tell us that we need to look at our environment differently, and plan accordingly.
16. December 2016 at 11:50
Or course, if the oppression of the minority is bad enough, but that doesn’t fit Taiwan at all, to say the least. Or most other cases.
Again, Taiwan hasn’t been governed from Peking for 121 years, bar the period just after the end of the war (when China as a whole was in a chaotic state).
A student of the history of Maoist China offered an estimate of 17 million excess deaths over the period running from 1949 to 1966. That seems bad enough.
16. December 2016 at 12:19
So what makes being a Chinese-American different from being an Italian-American?
The Italian’s family likely arrived about 60 or 70 years earlier and has no opinions whatsoever about politics in Italy. If they’re like the Italians among my friends and relations, they have no astringent opinions about anything abstract from daily life.
16. December 2016 at 13:25
“Yes, I recall that Massachusetts soldiers killed thousands of southerners over the issue of secession.”
-I was referring to Lexington and Concord.
“Same reason that Japanese-Americans were put in concentration camps during WWII while German-Americans were not. Their loyalties are suspect.”
-Your historical ignorance is astounding:
http://takimag.com/article/the_nazi_kid_from_brooklyn_david_cole/print
16. December 2016 at 18:09
LOL at Scott deleting my comments on secession and the American revolution.
BTW Harding, he already deleted a similar link I posted about internment of German-Americans.
16. December 2016 at 19:51
Giannis is the sickest, most criminally underhyped rising star in the league. If he adds a 3-pt shot, he’ll be frightening. I can’t think of any player who has his unique collection of abilities (e.g. rim-protection + swoop-out-of-nowhere steals + playmaking).
Agree about Russ’s athleticism, but it’s also a cause for frustration. While not as bad as he used to be, he still sometimes careens though the lane at 90 MPH with way too much momentum and no angle to finish. The most athletic guy in the league should not be shooting .450 on twos. (It’s an unfair comparison, of course, but Jordan was efficient from the start, and by 28 he had developed the best footwork and smoothest finishing moves in the league.)
One thing I will say in Russ’s defense: Before Adams & Kanter, he never really had any reliable big men for the PnR (Perkins in particular was a black hole). His development into an elite PG would have been much quicker with better personnel.
Don’t get me wrong, he’s still a top 5 player. It’s just his decision-making that sometimes makes me pull my hair out (e.g. crunch time stretches where he’d let loose with several transition mid-range pull-up Js w/o even letting Durant get a touch for a series of possessions). He’s improved a lot, but he’s also 28, which makes me question whether he’ll ever develop the superstar 6th sense. (For some reason, flawed near-greatness bugs me more than anything.)
Re: defense–the consensus seems to be that this season Harden has upgraded from “abysmal” to “bad,” while Russ has slightly regressed to “mediocre.” I’ll grant Russ the edge, but neither guy is a legit 2-way player. (Fwiw, ESPN’s Def Real +/- tells the same story, although defensive stats are still an analytical black hole.)
http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM
16. December 2016 at 22:55
Keep on truckin’, Scott. We need you!
17. December 2016 at 06:00
John, Good comment, I entirely agree.
Giannis is still getting better, and I’m pretty sure he’ll develop a 3 point shot when he puts his mind to it. He shot over 30% from 3 as a rookie, but then the coach told him to focus on other shots. His free throw shooting is good enough to convince me he can shoot the three. The Bucks lucked into a great young tandem of forwards (Parker is also improving fast)—too bad it’s a brain dead organization. (Although I prefer to think of Giannis as “point center”, a position he will play at crunch time.)
Thanks Larry.
17. December 2016 at 06:02
Harding, We were colonies back then, not a part of Britain, so it was not about secession. I was talking about breaking up countries, not decolonialization. The Civil War is the correct analogy for Taiwan.
17. December 2016 at 08:03
LOL Scott, semantics and word games. Why am I not the least bit surprised!