Facing the New World Financial Order

American Public Debt and Chinese Private Debt--Problems for Trump's Vision

A Nationalist Approach to Economic Policy

Trump's Carrier Deal

Ad Hoc Capitalism

I've blogged about this previously, but Larry Summers makes a more complete and troubling case about the potential impact of the pressure exerted on Carrier to keep jobs in Indiana. Think about it this way: some workers in Indiana (we don't yet know for sure how many) get to keep their jobs. People who buy the products produced in that factory pay more than they would if the products were produced cheaper in Mexico. How is this fundamentally different from taxing all of us to provide education and/or relocation assistance to the workers who would have lost their jobs? Now Carrier is exposed to lower cost producers outside the US, who could take market share away and cause the workers in Indiana to lose their jobs anyway. Of course, we could impose tariffs on those producers, which would make Carrier competitive again. Then other countries might impose tariffs on American goods, making us less competitive in markets outside the US... A vicious pattern that does no one good. Either we are a market economy based on known rules or we risk devolving into crony capitalism like Russia or China. Forget the cheerleaders lauding Trump's action. This was a bad decision.

Also see:

The Carrier Deal and the Peso.

The Conservative View Re Trump's Business Ethics Problem

From the Washington Examiner--not so different from the view on the left.

A Real Blind Trust for Trump's Fortune

George Bush's Ethics Lawyer on Trump the President and Trump the Businessman

Trump's Business Empire Isn't Just an Ethical Disaster

Here are the Graphics:

Trump Conflicts of Interest

Americans Like the Provisions of Obamacare

They've just been brainwashed to not like Obamacare.

What Republicans Should Know About the ACA

Is There a Pattern Here We Should Be Worried About?

"The first thing you need to understand here is that Republican talk 
of “repeal and replace” has always been a fraud. The G.O.P. has 
spent six years claiming that it will come up with a replacement 
for Obamacare any day now; the reason it hasn’t delivered is that 
it can’t.

Obamacare looks the way it does because it has to: You can’t cover 
Americans with pre-existing conditions without requiring healthy 
people to sign up, and you can’t do that without subsidies to make 
insurance affordable.

Any replacement will either look a lot like Obamacare, or take 
insurance away from millions who desperately need it.

What the choice of Mr. Price suggests is that the Trump administration
is, in fact, ready to see millions lose insurance. And many of those 
losers will be Trump supporters."

Seduced and Betrayed

Waiting for Trump

From Project Syndicate: "That is why we must not fool ourselves about Trump, or permit efforts to normalize his administration – whether by his allies, his weakened domestic opponents, or a pliant press – to go unchallenged. As Palacio puts it, “clinging to optimism – the belief that things will end well – is pointless.” Damage will be done – at home and abroad – by Trump’s election, because damage already has been done. “Instead,” Palacio says, “we must find grounds for hope – the belief that things will eventually make sense.” And “the only way to do that is to be honest with ourselves and take a sober look at what we can and must do to ensure the most that can be achieved.”

Waiting for Trump

Atlas Didn't Shrug

We don't need no stinking capitalism.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Are We Being Wrong-Headed About Industrial Policy?

Picking losers isn't great industrial policy.

What is the nature of the problem we are addressing? I saw three articles today that relate to this issue. One related declining manufacturing in specific areas to increased white male mortality, arguing that increased unemployment was the direct cause of increased mortality rates among white males. ( one wonders about the causation/correclation issue with this study.) A second proposed a slightly different and perhaps sounder explanation for increased white male mortality (See here.). The Third reviewed the changes in manufacturing output relative to employment (See here.).

The point is that trying to prop up stagnant or declining industries may not solve the decline of manufacturing employment. Those jobs didn't leave for other countries--for the most part they just left--and the majority of them aren't coming back no matter how hard any politician jawbones.

We need to support smart, new industries and deal directly with the problems created by sectoral and technological change. Help people--not companies.

Recognizing Economic Geography

A New Map for America