Will Trumpism Last?
Nov 13, 2016
I believe Trumpism has a future after Trump’s term in office. Even if Trump had lost the election, I would have still written that Trumpism would have continued.
There were two key reasons why Trump was successful: nationalism and authenticity.
What Trumpism Isn’t
First, what Trumpism isn’t. Notably absent from Trumpism are social issues. Trump did not campaign on hating homosexuals, restoring Biblical morality, family values, drug prohibition, etc. Even his lip service opposing abortion seemed nothing more than a forced shibboleth to give Evangelicals something to latch onto.On the other hand, during the convention Trump stated he was proud of openly gay Republicans and has appointed an openly gay billionaire to his transition advisory team. Social conservatives are on the wrong side of history, and the Republican Party will be stronger if they deemphasize those issues.
The True Value of Voting
Trump’s first day in office.
As we celebrate or mourn or shrug off today’s inauguration of Donald Trump, let us reflect on the election. I don’t mean the campaigning and the candidates, but rather the act of voting.
The question we must ask ourselves is which act is more meaningful: voting or farting.
Bastiat and the Dangers of Trumpism
Clinton was better on economics, which is rare for a Democrat. Yes, Clinton wanted to raise income taxes, but Trump also wants to raise taxes in the form of import tariffs. This brings us to the biggest danger of Trumpism: war due stemming from bad economic policy.
Ironically, war was also the biggest danger of a Clinton presidency, and I still maintain that she would have been the more dangerous of the two. Clinton’s foreign policy could best be summed up as “war is peace.” Trump lacks Clinton’s enthusiasm for bombing the Middle East and Russia.
The difference is:
- Clinton explicitly wanted to escalate existing wars and initiate new ones.
- Trump does not seem to want war, but he advocates policies that make war a more likely side effect.
How Evil Is Trump?
Is Donald J. Trump the most evil president to
take office? Many of his opponents would have you believe so. The
hysteria against trump is beyond any president in modern history, even
surpassing the anti-Obama reaction from the fringe right. There’s even a
dating website for helping Americans meet Canadians for romance so that they can flee to Canada and escape Trump’s evil dictatorship.
But let’s put this into perspective.
Has Trump expressed support for secretly infecting blacks with syphilis? If not then he’s less evil than countless bureaucrats working in federal health department who did just that for forty years and the presidents who created the evil system that enabled it.
Has he advocated genociding Mexicans and kicking them off their land
to make room for white Americans to colonize? If not then he is less
evil than the man celebrated on the Federal Reserve’s $20 bill, Andrew
Jackson.
But let’s put this into perspective.
Has Trump expressed support for secretly infecting blacks with syphilis? If not then he’s less evil than countless bureaucrats working in federal health department who did just that for forty years and the presidents who created the evil system that enabled it.
Genocidal maniac.
Argentina Already Tried Trumponomics
David Libertas
Try to think of a country that elected a populist president: someone
who wants to boost manufacturing jobs, insists that domestically-sold
products should be made domestically, and threatens to use tariffs to
shut off foreign competition. How would that work out?I am, of course, referring to President Cristina Kirchner of Argentina, not President Donald Trump.
It’s too soon for Trump to have implemented his economic plans, but we can see how Trumponomics will work by looking southwards to Argentina. It is a portent of the doom that awaits us.
In Defense of Ideology
There have been many statements recently to the effect that we should
not let “ideology” or “philosophy” stand in the way of solving our
economic problems. Indeed, the Obama administration (like the previous
Bush administration) is keen to persuade us to drop all this prejudice
and to go after each problem–banking, stimulus, and so forth–on its own
terms. We should examine each solution on its own merits.
President Obama’s inaugural address includes an apparent attack on ideology:
President Obama’s inaugural address includes an apparent attack on ideology:
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them–that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works….
Remembering David Rockefeller, the Economist
Mario Rizzo
David Rockefeller,
grandson of John D. Rockefeller, died recently at the age of 101. He
was known for many things. But perhaps the least known of his
accomplishments was his dissertation for which he was awarded a Ph.D. in
economics from the University of Chicago in 1940. This dissertation was
published by the University of Chicago Press as a book in 1941, titled Unused Resources and Economic Waste. Although the book is hard to find, I was able to secure a copy and read it. I include here the Preface from the book.Unused or Wasted
Risk can cause resources to go unused if demand turns out to be too low or costs too high.
The book is very heavily influenced by Frank H. Knight. This means that there is much subtlety, self-critical reflection and, above all, caution in the claims made. It also shows the less beneficial influence of Abba P. Lerner insofar as Rockefeller buys the market-socialist idea that under a form of socialism the attributes of pure competition might be approximated. Nevertheless, this idea is of quite minor importance in the book.
Deregulate to Speed Recovery from 'Creative Destruction' of Trade and Innovation
Deregulate to Speed Recovery from 'Creative Destruction' of Trade and Innovation
It is to creative destruction, a process first properly recognized by Joseph Schumpeter (whose 134th birthday it is today), that we owe much of human progress and wealth creation since the industrial revolution. Old ways of doing things are replaced by new ways that create more wealth for everyone. Oftentimes there is a social benefit as well, with creative destruction forcing radical social change. Computers, for instance, creatively destroyed the typing profession, freeing (overwhelmingly) educated women up to do more creative jobs and compete with men as equals in the workplace.
Economic Freedom in the U.S. Fell Last Year Due to Rising Regulatory and Tax Burdens
Economic Freedom in the U.S. Fell Last Year Due to Rising Regulatory and Tax Burdens
The United States recently slipped to its lowest level yet in world rankings of economic freedom compiled by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. As The Hill notes:
In the latest report, the U.S. ranks 17th
out of 180 countries with an economic freedom score of 75.1 out of 100.
Last year, the U.S. ranked number 11.
Hong Kong, Singapore, and New Zealand
topped the list, with respective scores of 89.8, 88.6, and 83.7. Other
countries that placed ahead of the U.S. included Canada, Taiwan, and
Britain, among others.
The Heritage report said countries with
scores between 80-100 are considered economically “free,” while
countries scores between 70-79.9 are considered “mostly free.”
Gates Foundation Should Credit Market Reforms for Poverty Reduction
Gates Foundation Should Credit Market Reforms for Poverty Reduction
Last week, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation released its annual letter, celebrating its investments in the developing world. Following their typical upbeat style, this year’s letter served as a thank-you note to their friend and fellow philanthropist, Warren Buffett. Buffett, who has donated a substantial portion of his fortune to the Foundation over the years, recently wrote a letter asking what humanitarian return there has been on his investment. The Gates Foundation provided this summary of its report back:
March 27 Is International Whisk(e)y Day!
March 27 Is International Whisk(e)y Day!
Cheers! It’s International Whisk(e)y Day! Not to be confused with World Whisky Day (May 20). What should you do to celebrate? Anything you like!
International Whisk(e)y Day doesn’t discriminate. It embraces those who prefer whiskey and those who prefer whisky! Meet up with friends and try something new, open that mysterious bottle you’ve been saving, introduce someone new to your favorite spirit. Raise a glass! But International Whisk(e)y Day is bigger than just a glass of whiskey, because we know, “there’s more to whiskey than what’s in the glass.”
This Week in Ridiculous Regulations
On to the data:
New Report: Federal Employee Union Subsidy Costs $162 million
Last Friday afternoon, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) released its biennial report, “Official Time Usage in the Federal Government—Fiscal Year 2014.”
The survey uses a flimsy methodology to calculate how much time federal employees spend performing union business instead of serving the taxpayer. In FY 2014, federal employees spent 3,468,170 hours on official time, at a total cost of $162,522,763.18—a $5 million dollar increase from FY 2012. Unfortunately, union official time undoubtedly costs more than the report suggests.
United Kingdom Invokes Article 50 to Leave the European Union
In a historic moment, British Prime Minister Theresa May today invoked Article 50
of the Treaty on European Union, which formally starts the process of
Britain leaving the bloc. Her Majesty’s Government has announced plans
to fold all of existing EU law into British law as part of the process,
to be included in the Great Repeal Bill, which will be published on Thursday.
The Great Repeal Bill will begin what may prove the greatest deregulatory endeavor undertaken by any modern government. Some 19,000 pieces of EU law will have to be translated into a form compatible with Britain being outside the EU, and then Parliament and government will have to work together to deliver the promise of freedom from bureaucracy that was an important part of many people’s decision to vote to leave the EU.
How they will do it remains to be seen, but last year Rory Broomfield of The Freedom Association and I suggested that a Royal Commission on Regulatory Reduction would be appropriate in our book, “Cutting the Gordian Knot.”
The Great Repeal Bill will begin what may prove the greatest deregulatory endeavor undertaken by any modern government. Some 19,000 pieces of EU law will have to be translated into a form compatible with Britain being outside the EU, and then Parliament and government will have to work together to deliver the promise of freedom from bureaucracy that was an important part of many people’s decision to vote to leave the EU.
How they will do it remains to be seen, but last year Rory Broomfield of The Freedom Association and I suggested that a Royal Commission on Regulatory Reduction would be appropriate in our book, “Cutting the Gordian Knot.”
The Improvisational Fed, and Unpredictable Regulations
Improvisation
can be a wonderful thing when performed by talented hands—Charlie
Parker, Miles Davis, and the like. The Federal Reserve, especially for
the past several weeks, has fancied itself an improvisational talent on
that level. But like most humans, Janet Yellen is no Charlie Parker.
They should consider a return to the Paul Volcker/early Alan Greenspan
adherence to a defined rule. But that isn’t the end of the story—any
substantive Fed reforms will fail unless they are coupled with a
thorough program of regulatory reform reaching through the entire
executive branch. This post will examine a few worthwhile Federal
Reserve reforms, then some regulatory reforms, most of which have
already passed the House.
The Case against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: FAQ
What is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)?
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a federal regulatory agency created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. The CFPB was set up as an independent agency that receives its funding from the Federal Reserve, not through Congress, and it enforces 19 federal consumer protection statutes. The CFPB’s jurisdiction includes banks, credit unions, securities firms, payday lenders, mortgage-servicing operations, foreclosure relief services, debt collectors, and other financial companies operating within the United States.
Mr. Robot and the Future of Money
•
Last week, the cult USA channel TV show Mr. Robot
showed once again why it is required viewing for anyone interested in
technology. In a conversation between E Corp CEO Phillip Price and a top
government official named Jack (a thinly-veiled Jack Lew?), he talked
about his plans to get official government backing for his virtual
currency, eCoin:
Jack (James Lloyd Reynolds) : “…it’s
unconstitutional, you can’t make your own currency. That is the Federal
Government’s job! We simply cannot let you make big loans in eCoin
that you would not make in dollars.”
Phillip Price (Michael Cristofer):
“Jack look at me. I am not the problem here. The problem here is hard
cash is fading rapidly. That’s just the way of the world right now. And
Bitcoin is spreading. And if Bitcoin takes over, we are all in a world
of hell! It is unregulated. It has already reached its transaction
volume maximum. And, it is partly controlled by Chinese miners.”
Jack: “You just accepted two trillion dollars from them!”
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Memo to the White House—if it matters, measure it
Memo to the White House—if it matters, measure it
The
Fraser Institute’s motto is that “if it matters, measure it.” Our motto
is a constant reminder of the importance of measuring the effect of
government policy interventions on people’s lives, and it guides our
work every day.
Of course, measuring complex social phenomena is much easier said than done. We recognize that some things are extremely difficult to measure, and that there are often disputes among well-intentioned and knowledgeable researchers about the best way to measure them.
Of course, measuring complex social phenomena is much easier said than done. We recognize that some things are extremely difficult to measure, and that there are often disputes among well-intentioned and knowledgeable researchers about the best way to measure them.
Growing government, increased regulation primary threats to economic freedom in Canada
Growing government, increased regulation primary threats to economic freedom in Canada
The U.S. entered the 2000s strong. In 2000, its economic freedom score was 8.65 out of 10 and it was the world’s second freest economy after Hong Kong. This was the peak of U.S. economic freedom. Decay set in under the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. By 2014, the most recent year of data, the U.S. score had fallen to 7.75 and its ranking to 16th. Over that time, it suffered a serious decline in “Size of Government” and worse declines in “Rule of Law and Property Rights” and “Freedom to Trade,” all essential elements of economic freedom.
Global free trade, an essential element of economic freedom, is under threat
Global free trade, an essential element of economic freedom, is under threat
Free trade is essential to economic freedom—individuals should have the right to buy from and sell to anyone anywhere. Yet, it’s under threat globally. Left-wing and right-wing populist movements in Europe and the United States denounce free trade while Asia’s Trans Pacific Partnership is on the ropes. It was once called the “gold standard” of trade agreements by Hillary Clinton who, under left and right populist pressure, then opposed it.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario