We are no longer a serious country(paulkrugman.substack.com)
paulkrugman.substack.com
We are no longer a serious country
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/we-are-no-longer-a-serious-country
112 comments
Secular cycles theory. The key is identifying that nothing is written in stone and leadership can reboot the cycle back to stability through sensible and appropriate major reforms, shortcutting without the chaotic, uncreative destruction or arbitrary accelerationist fantasies.
Any second now...
Bond markets are more important than stock markets, so it's understandable to be worried.
Wait until Trump gets rid of Powell and others and replace them with his lapdogs. That could happen next year. Why Wall Street is not going after Trump and his cronies is beyond me.
If Trump takes over the Fed, that will make the 1930s look like fun times.
If Trump takes over the Fed, that will make the 1930s look like fun times.
Trump has already yielded to the bond market twice in the last few months - is there really a reason for Wall Street to be worried?
This phenomenon has given rise to the hilariously named "Taco Trade" (https://www.ft.com/content/4d136adf-7e45-4ac8-937c-5151e3833...)
I type that in google then youtube autoplay immediately started a video about it. The future is here where the machine knows what you want before you... want it. Or without you wanting it? No one can tell anymore. Trust the process!
You are taking a very different fact from these circumstances then I would.
If he Trump tried once and was forced to backpedal, I'd say you're probably spot on. But considering he tried again quickly after shows, that he ain't gonna take a no. He's just gonna keep trying. At that point: yeah, I'd be worried.
But I'm not American, so I didn't particularly mind
If he Trump tried once and was forced to backpedal, I'd say you're probably spot on. But considering he tried again quickly after shows, that he ain't gonna take a no. He's just gonna keep trying. At that point: yeah, I'd be worried.
But I'm not American, so I didn't particularly mind
The divergence between interest rates and the dollar is historic and bodes ill for investors and company builders who historically have been able to rely on the relative stability of the US.
As a reminder, the Mary Meeker slides on AI reported that the US share of top companies in the public equity market went from ~50% in 1995 to ~85% recently.
Still, the signal from US debt might reflect only changes in a few dominant players (and we famously have adversaries investing in US debt -- Middle East, China, Russia). Also the big beautiful bill shows even Republicans want to spend now and pay later, so this might be unwinding the false expectation of austerity during the Republican trifecta. Both are transitory and neither really goes to seriousness.
The real question is whether we've lost seriousness by continuously moving upstream, into financial and information services and technologies. Our willingness to sell IP/infrastructure now rather than protect and control (milk) it over time reflects a generational lack of diligence. (Sorry - not trying to diminish exit strategies for interim investment tiers.)
As a reminder, the Mary Meeker slides on AI reported that the US share of top companies in the public equity market went from ~50% in 1995 to ~85% recently.
Still, the signal from US debt might reflect only changes in a few dominant players (and we famously have adversaries investing in US debt -- Middle East, China, Russia). Also the big beautiful bill shows even Republicans want to spend now and pay later, so this might be unwinding the false expectation of austerity during the Republican trifecta. Both are transitory and neither really goes to seriousness.
The real question is whether we've lost seriousness by continuously moving upstream, into financial and information services and technologies. Our willingness to sell IP/infrastructure now rather than protect and control (milk) it over time reflects a generational lack of diligence. (Sorry - not trying to diminish exit strategies for interim investment tiers.)
republicans wanna spend the way 'they want to' and cut every way the democrats want to spend, and just the opposite is true too (austerity only really matters when it's the other party with the control of the budget)
pair this with each district, state, and constitute company/nonprofit/whatever looking for a piece of the pie creates an utter mess of non-stop spending
pair this with each district, state, and constitute company/nonprofit/whatever looking for a piece of the pie creates an utter mess of non-stop spending
While the US did have a better image under a democrats president, honestly the overall image and general/technical leadership of the US has been sliding. China has gradually been eroding the position of the US in various markets...now they're just rapidly eroding it under trump haha (ironically/deliberately his position is to curb said erosion).
The US economy can do just fine with the 10Y at 5%. And, at today’s level of 4.359, it is lower than when Trump took office in January.
A giant share of America does not care. They don't care if spy drops 40% or if bonds default. They aren't bought into the system at all.
True. But a lot of rich people have to be, "Bad form, old boy. Can you let the tariff thing drop already? Why, I just lost several T this month alone."
Vote for republicans => get red state policies.
Trump won the popular vote. America is trying very hard to become one big red state.
Red states have had the worst outcomes for generations but they keep going back to republicans. The reasons escape me. The Civil War was basically southerners strongly preferring to use slaves instead of modernizing. Lots of them died for this. Make it make sense.
This dysfunction goes a lot deeper than any one administration. Maybe the rise of China will motivate them to get their act together.
Trump won the popular vote. America is trying very hard to become one big red state.
Red states have had the worst outcomes for generations but they keep going back to republicans. The reasons escape me. The Civil War was basically southerners strongly preferring to use slaves instead of modernizing. Lots of them died for this. Make it make sense.
This dysfunction goes a lot deeper than any one administration. Maybe the rise of China will motivate them to get their act together.
It's simply that blue states haven't been making a case that democrats know how to run things. I would seriously recommend reading Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson.
Sure, but in comparison, they're running laps around red states. Which have significantly higher levels of poverty and are overall just less developed. I mean, if you look at just about any metric from income to education, the disparities cannot be ignored.
And, it should be very clear why. When you, say, de-prioritize or are even actively hostile to public education then of course your education is going to suffer. Which, in turn, makes your economy suffer, because most people who are working are now uneducated and therefore poor. So you get a lot of brain drain.
There's some notable exceptions, like Texas. But, it's definitely a trend that red states just have worse outcomes across the board. It seems to me people in those states just don't care much, which... whatever. If they're fine with it then I guess it's fine.
And, it should be very clear why. When you, say, de-prioritize or are even actively hostile to public education then of course your education is going to suffer. Which, in turn, makes your economy suffer, because most people who are working are now uneducated and therefore poor. So you get a lot of brain drain.
There's some notable exceptions, like Texas. But, it's definitely a trend that red states just have worse outcomes across the board. It seems to me people in those states just don't care much, which... whatever. If they're fine with it then I guess it's fine.
> Make it make sense.
There's a great book called "The One Sentence Persuasion Course - 27 Words to Make the World Do Your Bidding", which I keep thinking about with respect to Trump and his ability to sway his voting bloc. The 27 words are:
"People will do anything for those who encourage their dreams, justify their failures, allay their fears, confirm their suspicions, and help them throw rocks at their enemies."
Trump ticks a lot of these boxes. He "confirms" their suspicions and justifies their failures when he says their problems are caused by immigration, China, and wokeism. He helps them throw rocks at their enemies every time he invents a new petty nickname for his political opponents ("Sleepy Joe" Biden, "Crooked Hillary" Clinton, "Kamabla" Harris, etc). He encourages their dreams with his "Make America Great Again" slogan and "allays their fears" with his "Only I can solve it" rhetoric. And they eat it up because, as misguided as he is, he speaks to them on an emotional level, not a logical one.
Trump's base is fundamentally fueled by grievance, and he knows it. When we stop bending over backwards to give them some noble rationale and start looking at their actions from this lens, it starts to make a lot more sense.
There's a great book called "The One Sentence Persuasion Course - 27 Words to Make the World Do Your Bidding", which I keep thinking about with respect to Trump and his ability to sway his voting bloc. The 27 words are:
"People will do anything for those who encourage their dreams, justify their failures, allay their fears, confirm their suspicions, and help them throw rocks at their enemies."
Trump ticks a lot of these boxes. He "confirms" their suspicions and justifies their failures when he says their problems are caused by immigration, China, and wokeism. He helps them throw rocks at their enemies every time he invents a new petty nickname for his political opponents ("Sleepy Joe" Biden, "Crooked Hillary" Clinton, "Kamabla" Harris, etc). He encourages their dreams with his "Make America Great Again" slogan and "allays their fears" with his "Only I can solve it" rhetoric. And they eat it up because, as misguided as he is, he speaks to them on an emotional level, not a logical one.
Trump's base is fundamentally fueled by grievance, and he knows it. When we stop bending over backwards to give them some noble rationale and start looking at their actions from this lens, it starts to make a lot more sense.
You can get the same picture from the other end: For each real position a politician takes on an issue they will lose everyone who disagrees. If you chose sides on a hundred topics in the most sensible way you will lose everyone.
So they have to be as vague as possible about everything until an audience gathered behind some specific topic, then it is required to lie so that they think you are one of them.
Beyond those basic requirements the competition is to encourage their dreams, justify their failures, allay their fears, confirm their suspicions, and help them throw rocks at their enemies
but it doesn't even matter anymore.
So they have to be as vague as possible about everything until an audience gathered behind some specific topic, then it is required to lie so that they think you are one of them.
Beyond those basic requirements the competition is to encourage their dreams, justify their failures, allay their fears, confirm their suspicions, and help them throw rocks at their enemies
but it doesn't even matter anymore.
I might be one of the few in my circle that feel their grievance is justified. It does still boggle my mind that they would rally around someone is who is in fact part of the problem.
Republican grievances have a lot of overlap with Democrat grievances, and even on the high-visibility topics where they don't, Republican grievances are still mostly based on real issues. It's many of their policies and ideologies that are immoral or un-American, not (most of) their grievances. You may feel like you're in the minority, but I actually think people generally believe this, but won't admit it without overwhelming caveats, because of aforementioned policies/ideologies.
Mind elaborating on why you feel its justified? Just curious.
If they're feeling like "the fix is in" and they no longer have a voice in the big decisions happening in this country — that there is a small club of elites that are calling the shots ... well, they may not be wrong.
If they're feeling overwhelmed by the pace of the change happening in our modern world/society, feeling as though they are being left behind — they're not the only ones.
If they're feeling as though the contract between the wealth-holders and the laborers has been getting worse and worse for the worker, they may be on to something.
Maybe they see the wealthy continuing to fail upward and are finding that just working hard and saving money seem to be less than treading water.
There's plenty of things to have grievances about.
And I think "left" and "right" might have common ground on these issues.
If they're feeling overwhelmed by the pace of the change happening in our modern world/society, feeling as though they are being left behind — they're not the only ones.
If they're feeling as though the contract between the wealth-holders and the laborers has been getting worse and worse for the worker, they may be on to something.
Maybe they see the wealthy continuing to fail upward and are finding that just working hard and saving money seem to be less than treading water.
There's plenty of things to have grievances about.
And I think "left" and "right" might have common ground on these issues.
The US right wing thinks very differently about inequality compared to progressives. They are more about opportunity than outcomes. They want free markets, individual responsibility, and are generally skeptical of govt programs aimed at redistributing wealth. They argue these can create dependency, distort markets, stifle economic growth, infringe on individual liberties and property rights etc.
In practice, this means tax cuts, deregulation, opposition to min wage increases, welfare reform, school vouchers, opposition to unions, healthcare cuts, project 2025, etc etc. They’ll reduce govt intervention and go all in on free markets.
They are wrong because the outcomes of this unrestricted free market approach are not so good, but nevertheless for now it’s impossible to find common ground with FDR-style progressives. Check back after the next depression.
Note: there’s also a strong racist/sexist/homophobic/etc streak that prevents most kinds of solidarity.
In practice, this means tax cuts, deregulation, opposition to min wage increases, welfare reform, school vouchers, opposition to unions, healthcare cuts, project 2025, etc etc. They’ll reduce govt intervention and go all in on free markets.
They are wrong because the outcomes of this unrestricted free market approach are not so good, but nevertheless for now it’s impossible to find common ground with FDR-style progressives. Check back after the next depression.
Note: there’s also a strong racist/sexist/homophobic/etc streak that prevents most kinds of solidarity.
Those grievances are justified, but they aren't grievances held by the right. If they actually feel these things, they sure aren't voting to change them, in fact quite the opposite. As you pointed out, they are rallying around people who openly are trying to make all those problems worse.
OP (toomanyrichies)'s comment makes much more sense. The right's grievances aren't against elites, the wealthy, the privileged, employers, or the pace of change. Their grievances are against less powerful outgroups who serve as scapegoats that can't fight back: Immigrants, minorities, gay and trans people, "woke" culture warriors, the poor, and so on. The government is seen as a tool for punching down and exacting cruelty onto these outgroups. That's what really motivates them.
I live in a "red" part of the country, surrounded by Trump flags. Ask them what good their team has done for their own lives, and if you get past the canned talking points that don't make sense, they'll admit their lives aren't really much better than they were in 2016. Ask them what they like about MAGA, and it will be all about the attacking and cruelty he's doing to their perceived enemies.
OP (toomanyrichies)'s comment makes much more sense. The right's grievances aren't against elites, the wealthy, the privileged, employers, or the pace of change. Their grievances are against less powerful outgroups who serve as scapegoats that can't fight back: Immigrants, minorities, gay and trans people, "woke" culture warriors, the poor, and so on. The government is seen as a tool for punching down and exacting cruelty onto these outgroups. That's what really motivates them.
I live in a "red" part of the country, surrounded by Trump flags. Ask them what good their team has done for their own lives, and if you get past the canned talking points that don't make sense, they'll admit their lives aren't really much better than they were in 2016. Ask them what they like about MAGA, and it will be all about the attacking and cruelty he's doing to their perceived enemies.
This is quite helpful and insightful, thanks. I just went down a rabbit hole about human psychology and scapegoating.
> If they actually feel these things, they sure aren't voting to change them, in fact quite the opposite.
+1. Just as we engineers say "The purpose of a system is what it does" [1], a corollary to that is "the intention of a vote is what it achieves". If red-state voters consistently vote against their own economic interests, then either one of two things is true:
- They must have other interests in mind (i.e. punching down on marginalized groups), or
- Their interest in economic self-preservation is outweighed by their belief in helping the rich get richer, possibly because they see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires"? [2]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/QuotesPorn/comments/jotijb/john_ste...
+1. Just as we engineers say "The purpose of a system is what it does" [1], a corollary to that is "the intention of a vote is what it achieves". If red-state voters consistently vote against their own economic interests, then either one of two things is true:
- They must have other interests in mind (i.e. punching down on marginalized groups), or
- Their interest in economic self-preservation is outweighed by their belief in helping the rich get richer, possibly because they see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires"? [2]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/QuotesPorn/comments/jotijb/john_ste...
Thanks. I tend to agree with your points.
Red state policies (or at least a subset) appear to be popular based on the most important form of voting - with one's feet
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-...
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-...
Not sure what Trump does could be called red state policies. There are elements of them, but it's mostly an endless chaos machine and he tries to personally profit or enjoy himself with it. But mostly profit.
The overlap is extensive. Abortion, immigration, racism/DEI/trans, tax cuts, deregulation, judicial appointments, fossil fuel production, skepticism towards green energy and climate change, prioritizing conservative Christian religious preferences, restructuring/downsizing the Federal Government etc etc. Most of what he does is currently and historically very popular in red states, with predictable outcomes. Corruption is non-partisan, but they definitely turn a blind eye to it.
jmclnx(6)
I think krugman is right that most capital still believes that things aren’t as bad as they sound and underneath all the noise surrounding the White House is a rational government.
But I also think there is a lot of money to be made playing Trumps game. If i as an investor just jumps on when he says jump and jumps off before the last fool, there is money to be made.
At least that’s my explanation as to why sudden declines in tariffs (or even just breaks) causes investor confidence to return.
But I also think there is a lot of money to be made playing Trumps game. If i as an investor just jumps on when he says jump and jumps off before the last fool, there is money to be made.
At least that’s my explanation as to why sudden declines in tariffs (or even just breaks) causes investor confidence to return.
Most capital believes the us economy is better than the alternatives.
Yet European share prices have rallied: clearly some capital disagrees with your sentence.
Disclosure: this foreign capitalist has caused a 5 figure blip by selling all US shares (the move aligned with my other personal goals).
Disclosure: this foreign capitalist has caused a 5 figure blip by selling all US shares (the move aligned with my other personal goals).
Agreed that policy changes whipsaw markets and that causes disinterest in the dollar, and agreed that could be real bad (TM) for America.
The rest of this essay just reads like griping and cherry picking though. Complaining about the name of the bill "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" is just dumb. Senators and Reps name bills all sorts of funny things aiming to be catchy or what have you, it's part of our process.
And, it seems much more likely that whipsawing serves the purpose of someone than that people in the whitehouse are "unserious". I'd rather see Mr. Krugman's estimable mind devoted to figuring out who is benefiting, how long they will benefit, and what that will do to others than to read him complaining about the name of a bill.
The rest of this essay just reads like griping and cherry picking though. Complaining about the name of the bill "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" is just dumb. Senators and Reps name bills all sorts of funny things aiming to be catchy or what have you, it's part of our process.
And, it seems much more likely that whipsawing serves the purpose of someone than that people in the whitehouse are "unserious". I'd rather see Mr. Krugman's estimable mind devoted to figuring out who is benefiting, how long they will benefit, and what that will do to others than to read him complaining about the name of a bill.
I think you're focusing too much on the analogies he used instead of the thesis -- everything is aligning to a leader who isn't respected outside of the USA, much like kim jong un. That if saber rattling is the future of the US, then divestment will only increase and won't easily return. And further, the benefactors of this transformation is whoever doesn't have to adhere to our saber rattling which will be as many other countries as possible.
No; he's failed to engage in the pathos part of convincing -- he's whistle calling to his liberal readership base by implying the administration is dumb -- he's not seriously engaged with where the country is at, at least in this short essay lite.
I agree with you that saber rattling is a major change in foreign policy for the US. There aren't a lot of stops between "reserve currency" and "former reserve currency". That said, there also aren't a lot of options globally.
I think the benefactors of the saber rattling might be a little closer to Pennsylvania avenue than you suggest, though.
I agree with you that saber rattling is a major change in foreign policy for the US. There aren't a lot of stops between "reserve currency" and "former reserve currency". That said, there also aren't a lot of options globally.
I think the benefactors of the saber rattling might be a little closer to Pennsylvania avenue than you suggest, though.
>implying the administration is dumb
Sorry, but that administration is dumb, period. Stop being politically correct.
Sorry, but that administration is dumb, period. Stop being politically correct.
Sorry, I'm not being politically correct. Can I ask how many of the administration's executive orders you've read? This admin moved extremely aggressively on a such a large number of fronts that there are complaints that there aren't enough lawyers available at DoJ to defend all the lawsuits against the government. Strip all the rhetoric and attempts to dunk on the orange guy away from whatever side media you like to consume and ask yourself not what the stated goals of the admin were, but if there is a coherent and likely set of goals they had, and if they've executed on them.
From day one in the office these guys executed hard. Hundreds of executive orders. And if you read those orders, often up to half of them is calling out all the ways exec orders from 2016 were mutated or ignored and specifically banning them. They are in no way the work of dumb people. Legally and practically aggressive people? Yes. People with policies you might dislike or hate? For sure. People who are masters at engaging media and outrage? Yes. People headlined by someone who really loves self-enrichment and get-out-of-jail free rulings? Definitely.
Calling them dumb is radically misunderstanding the real situation in the whitehouse and to the extent journalists are calling them out as dumb it's because they're following the ball laid out by the street magician; watch the hands. The ball is all the sturm and drang and drama, the hands are actual practical outcomes.
From day one in the office these guys executed hard. Hundreds of executive orders. And if you read those orders, often up to half of them is calling out all the ways exec orders from 2016 were mutated or ignored and specifically banning them. They are in no way the work of dumb people. Legally and practically aggressive people? Yes. People with policies you might dislike or hate? For sure. People who are masters at engaging media and outrage? Yes. People headlined by someone who really loves self-enrichment and get-out-of-jail free rulings? Definitely.
Calling them dumb is radically misunderstanding the real situation in the whitehouse and to the extent journalists are calling them out as dumb it's because they're following the ball laid out by the street magician; watch the hands. The ball is all the sturm and drang and drama, the hands are actual practical outcomes.
To add more points:
- Who is in charge of trade negociations?
- Who is in charge of Foreign Policy?
- Who is in charge of epidemic response? (See https://www.axios.com/2025/06/05/cdc-director-leadership-vac...)
There is nobody to execute hard the stupidly-worded EOs, which are not worth the paper they are printed on.
And lets not forget the time a journalist was added to a Signal chat about incoming air strikes. Was that another 5-D chess move in your opinion?
There is nobody to execute hard the stupidly-worded EOs, which are not worth the paper they are printed on.
And lets not forget the time a journalist was added to a Signal chat about incoming air strikes. Was that another 5-D chess move in your opinion?
On Signal -- the debrief there was truly hilarious; apparently Hegseth has an iPhone, that iPhone was using Apple's new and moderately shitty AI, the AI read an email (I think?) with two people's contact info in it, and offered to update the contact. Literally an Apple AI bug.
That said, I'm sympathetic to just clicking "update" on an ask like that from my iPhone. I don't think too hard about those if they pop up. Well, I didn't until I read the debrief. Geez Siri.
That said, I'm sympathetic to just clicking "update" on an ask like that from my iPhone. I don't think too hard about those if they pop up. Well, I didn't until I read the debrief. Geez Siri.
Incompetence.
If that story is true and not, you know, complete bullshit to cover that Walz is one of the "off-the-record" sources that are American politics'constant news mill feeders.
If that story is true and not, you know, complete bullshit to cover that Walz is one of the "off-the-record" sources that are American politics'constant news mill feeders.
My God, not only this administration is dumb, but you are too, and, in true Dunning-Krueger fashion, you think everyone but you is. Yes, I have read almost all the executive orders: they are challenged by "so many lawsuits there aren't enough lawyers at DoJ to defend" because they are stupidly written, are based on fantasies and aren't legally sound down to being patently unconstitutional. Nobody intelligent would have e.g. tried to revoque birthright through an executive order - a right protected by an amendment that has been confirmed again and again for more than a century; not only that, but the idea you could revoque a constitutional amendment by en E.O. wpuld that the same can be done for... The second amendment. Is that the can of worms this administration is trying to open?
These guys "executed hard" the whims of an incompetent, uneducated, psychopathic, certainly terminally senile President. Have you read Trump's speeches? Read, not listened to.
The only practical outcomes so far have been books banned from some Army libraries, websites changed, and posturing. What has been accomplished in practice? Very little: the tariffs are in Schrodinger's cat state, the expulsions are lagging far behind their targets, the Army is loosing soldiers and equipment (Hesgeth is only renaming things), the transportation secretary is more worried about biblical paintings than fixing air controllers shortages, etc. etc.
But yeah, tell me how those guys executed a "coherent" strategy wrt. foreign trade. What's the strategy again?
These guys "executed hard" the whims of an incompetent, uneducated, psychopathic, certainly terminally senile President. Have you read Trump's speeches? Read, not listened to.
The only practical outcomes so far have been books banned from some Army libraries, websites changed, and posturing. What has been accomplished in practice? Very little: the tariffs are in Schrodinger's cat state, the expulsions are lagging far behind their targets, the Army is loosing soldiers and equipment (Hesgeth is only renaming things), the transportation secretary is more worried about biblical paintings than fixing air controllers shortages, etc. etc.
But yeah, tell me how those guys executed a "coherent" strategy wrt. foreign trade. What's the strategy again?
> The only practical outcomes so far have been books banned from some Army libraries, websites changed, and posturing
And countless abuses by police and ICE against immigrants with legal status and court orders protecting them. Being unconstitutional or otherwise impractical doesn’t stop the abuses. While EOs might be challenged, so will have the abuse instances. The goal is not to pass everything, but to overwhelm the defenses of their targets.
And countless abuses by police and ICE against immigrants with legal status and court orders protecting them. Being unconstitutional or otherwise impractical doesn’t stop the abuses. While EOs might be challenged, so will have the abuse instances. The goal is not to pass everything, but to overwhelm the defenses of their targets.
First thing to say is I distinguish Trump's personal goals from those of the people in his administration. I propose Trump's primary strategy/goal in the trade conversation is simple: create massive stock market volatility on a known schedule. It's super simple, it creates billions of dollars in value for allies and insiders, and it's dirt cheap to implement - just sort of talk a little to a news network, and voila, bob's your new billionaire uncle.
Internal admin policy wonk (Or Project 2025 insiders?) type strategy there seems to be to reset and expand the tools the State department has to work with -- it's been a long time since the US could credibly threaten war, for instance. That just doesn't sit right with some hawks.
Canadians took semi-seriously 51st state talks, enough that there are boycotts of American goods in Canada. Denmark took fairly seriously Greenland. Both of these took all of a day or two of talking to the media to get done, and in Canada at least will be grist for the mill in trade deals - having a crazy like a fox type throwing around random threats gives State some leeway.
Note that I'm not in any way condoning this strategy or saying it's perfectly (or well) executed, a good idea, or even that some or many people at the State Department like this strategy. But if you can get over blind rage on policy differences, a convicted rapist president, accepting gifts well in excess of the mandated $25 maximum, and on and on, and look at what they're saying and doing, I do think there's some coherence and execution in there.
Read those leaked signal chats -- that group is on the same page: They think the US is overpaying allies / getting a raw deal, and they want to set a clear message that they intend to change that. I think they got the message across.
Internal admin policy wonk (Or Project 2025 insiders?) type strategy there seems to be to reset and expand the tools the State department has to work with -- it's been a long time since the US could credibly threaten war, for instance. That just doesn't sit right with some hawks.
Canadians took semi-seriously 51st state talks, enough that there are boycotts of American goods in Canada. Denmark took fairly seriously Greenland. Both of these took all of a day or two of talking to the media to get done, and in Canada at least will be grist for the mill in trade deals - having a crazy like a fox type throwing around random threats gives State some leeway.
Note that I'm not in any way condoning this strategy or saying it's perfectly (or well) executed, a good idea, or even that some or many people at the State Department like this strategy. But if you can get over blind rage on policy differences, a convicted rapist president, accepting gifts well in excess of the mandated $25 maximum, and on and on, and look at what they're saying and doing, I do think there's some coherence and execution in there.
Read those leaked signal chats -- that group is on the same page: They think the US is overpaying allies / getting a raw deal, and they want to set a clear message that they intend to change that. I think they got the message across.
>> Complaining about the name of the bill "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" is just dumb. Senators and Reps name bills all sorts of funny things aiming to be catchy or what have you, it's part of our process.
Senators and reps and bills all sorts of funny things aiming to be catchy by creating a succinct acronym. [1]. This cultural practice is sometimes called ‘backronym’. Trying to tie ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ as an example of that practice is ‘sane-washing’; ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ is a dumb person’s idea of a backronym [2]. Dissecting the bill name is not just complaining for complaining’s sake; it’s just another in the long list of examples of Trump doesn’t understand what he’s doing and his enablers are not serious people by going along with
[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/news/8710-lawmakers-turn-to-cat...
[2] Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man etc
Senators and reps and bills all sorts of funny things aiming to be catchy by creating a succinct acronym. [1]. This cultural practice is sometimes called ‘backronym’. Trying to tie ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ as an example of that practice is ‘sane-washing’; ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ is a dumb person’s idea of a backronym [2]. Dissecting the bill name is not just complaining for complaining’s sake; it’s just another in the long list of examples of Trump doesn’t understand what he’s doing and his enablers are not serious people by going along with
[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/news/8710-lawmakers-turn-to-cat...
[2] Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man etc
Every time I read the name of that fucking bill, I feel like I’m having a stroke.
OK, I hear you that OBBBA is a bad backronym. So bad it's not a backronym. But it's catchy; Trump is a master of catchy soundbites. I submit to you: we're talking about it by name on HN, when we could be discussing mechanistic interpretation theory, which IMO is much more interesting. In fact, I submit that it's the last bill I really registered the name of since the Affordable Care Act. Which was (checks notes) 15 years ago, shortly after Teddy Kennedy died.(!)
Look at Trump's career. Look at his skill set. Look at what he's doing in the white house. He's a lot of things but he's not bad at getting what he values; he is in fact perhaps the most successful American ever in those terms. If you care about America it is incredibly short sighted to think he's dumb. He's extremely effective, just not at the things that a) you might want him to be b) we hope a President will be c) he says he's doing to the media.
Look at Trump's career. Look at his skill set. Look at what he's doing in the white house. He's a lot of things but he's not bad at getting what he values; he is in fact perhaps the most successful American ever in those terms. If you care about America it is incredibly short sighted to think he's dumb. He's extremely effective, just not at the things that a) you might want him to be b) we hope a President will be c) he says he's doing to the media.
It’s catchy in the same way “Mexicans will pay for the wall”, “China will eat the tariffs”, “Lock her up” is catchy; all catchy slogans but also nonsense. And, to bring it back to Krugman, Trump’s enablers let it slide because they are not serious people.
>> He's a lot of things but he's not bad at getting what he values; he is in fact perhaps the most successful American ever in those terms.
Nonsense. He’s bankrupted casinos. He lost his first reelection bid. He started on third base and ended up back at first.
>> If you care about America it is incredibly short sighted to think he's dumb.
He IS that dumb. He really doesn’t understand how tariffs/trade balance works. But his enablers have let him run riot. Biden was old. Reagan had mental issues. But their teams had firm hands on the steering wheel. That’s a serious country with some checks and balances. Trump admin is trying to revoke all that
>> He's a lot of things but he's not bad at getting what he values; he is in fact perhaps the most successful American ever in those terms.
Nonsense. He’s bankrupted casinos. He lost his first reelection bid. He started on third base and ended up back at first.
>> If you care about America it is incredibly short sighted to think he's dumb.
He IS that dumb. He really doesn’t understand how tariffs/trade balance works. But his enablers have let him run riot. Biden was old. Reagan had mental issues. But their teams had firm hands on the steering wheel. That’s a serious country with some checks and balances. Trump admin is trying to revoke all that
Agreed on the slogans. I think you may have misunderstood me: I think he values locking in some (actual) billions, playing golf, being on TV and securing his jailfree future post-office. He's out-Reaganed Reagan - a C list reality TV star that somehow levered into being one of the most powerful people in the world.
In what sense can "NY developer nepo baby" be third base while "guy with the nuclear codes, billions of dollars of graft and personal guarantees from the Supreme Court" be first base? I truly don't understand that thinking.
In what sense can "NY developer nepo baby" be third base while "guy with the nuclear codes, billions of dollars of graft and personal guarantees from the Supreme Court" be first base? I truly don't understand that thinking.
Something about titles (and tone?) like this bother me — absolutist in time as well as in geography. It's maybe a subtlety that doesn't matter but I see it a lot lately and it's part of a pattern that I see as lazy and obscuring underlying issues.
Things are bad right now, but making stereotyped statements like this, as if the entire country just flipped a permanent switch after Trump was elected and it will be like this forever doesn't do anyone any favors. It doesn't explain what's happening, what happened before Trump was elected, what happened after Trump was elected, it doesn't point to any solutions — it just sweeps all of these issues under the rug and implicitly or explicitly attributes things to some sudden catastrophic change in Americans, like an asteroid the size of North America just collectively hit everyone on the head on Jan 20th.
Absolutist statements have always been around — there's plenty of examples during the pandemic, the online tech boom of the 90s and 2000s, and so forth — and it seems to be happening again. But this time to me it seems irresponsible not just for being so extreme, but also because it shirks away from any attempt to solve any problems. I don't expect Krugman to solve problems all the time — he's allowed to despair — but I at least expect him to have some courage and proactivity in his overall stance toward the situation.
Things are bad right now, but making stereotyped statements like this, as if the entire country just flipped a permanent switch after Trump was elected and it will be like this forever doesn't do anyone any favors. It doesn't explain what's happening, what happened before Trump was elected, what happened after Trump was elected, it doesn't point to any solutions — it just sweeps all of these issues under the rug and implicitly or explicitly attributes things to some sudden catastrophic change in Americans, like an asteroid the size of North America just collectively hit everyone on the head on Jan 20th.
Absolutist statements have always been around — there's plenty of examples during the pandemic, the online tech boom of the 90s and 2000s, and so forth — and it seems to be happening again. But this time to me it seems irresponsible not just for being so extreme, but also because it shirks away from any attempt to solve any problems. I don't expect Krugman to solve problems all the time — he's allowed to despair — but I at least expect him to have some courage and proactivity in his overall stance toward the situation.
To be honest,from what I've heard, trump has been saying all these things before elections and america voted it.
From an outsider (non American),I am not sure.. but I have been looking more into american scandals due to trump and due to Michael Moore documentary.
And I have come to only one conclusion, I feel like you guys aren't picking the people who are better for the job but rather whose worse. The shift is so real. And I don't trust democrats too much either. But they are better than republicans at the moment.
If you guys are even in the position that you can literally get a guy elected as president that can effectively erode trust on america as a whole,you need to rethink elections. How can I trust america if there is even a 1% chance of such happening again (more than 1% for sure)
Trust shouldn't be played with. It's a hard thing to get
The only guy I have genuine trust is Bernie sanders. But he's too old but that to me feels like the only hope in America. I truly like how Bernie sanders is kind of like the north pole in my short understanding of american politics and has always been saying the things that I personally resonate with too.
I kind of wish,I had a Bernie sanders in my own country tbh. The guys a true gem.
From an outsider (non American),I am not sure.. but I have been looking more into american scandals due to trump and due to Michael Moore documentary.
And I have come to only one conclusion, I feel like you guys aren't picking the people who are better for the job but rather whose worse. The shift is so real. And I don't trust democrats too much either. But they are better than republicans at the moment.
If you guys are even in the position that you can literally get a guy elected as president that can effectively erode trust on america as a whole,you need to rethink elections. How can I trust america if there is even a 1% chance of such happening again (more than 1% for sure)
Trust shouldn't be played with. It's a hard thing to get
The only guy I have genuine trust is Bernie sanders. But he's too old but that to me feels like the only hope in America. I truly like how Bernie sanders is kind of like the north pole in my short understanding of american politics and has always been saying the things that I personally resonate with too.
I kind of wish,I had a Bernie sanders in my own country tbh. The guys a true gem.
Careful friend. All I did was plot the same data over longer time ( https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1JqXv ) and I was downvoted.
I'm not sure how to balance Dr. Krugman with the empirical evidence:
"US Army Hits Annual Recruitment Goals 4 Months Early" => https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/us/us-army-hits-annua...
"US Army Hits Annual Recruitment Goals 4 Months Early" => https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/us/us-army-hits-annua...
> Two of Trump’s cabinet members were able to beard him in the Oval Office while Peter Navarro, responsible for the original tariffs
Is this some meaning of beard I am so far unfamiliar with? The only meaning that jumps to mind is the facial hair, and when I looked up in the dictionary I was reminded me of the LGBT meaning, but neither of them fit here.
Is this some meaning of beard I am so far unfamiliar with? The only meaning that jumps to mind is the facial hair, and when I looked up in the dictionary I was reminded me of the LGBT meaning, but neither of them fit here.
I believe the expression is "beard the lion in his den".
Thanks! I’m a native speaker (US) and was unfamiliar with this idiom. Cambridge dictionary does list this definition of beard:
> to face, meet, or deal with an unpleasant or frightening person in a brave or determined way
> to face, meet, or deal with an unpleasant or frightening person in a brave or determined way
It's a little old fashioned. Many sayings have a naval origin, a bunch of others have a biblical origin.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2017...
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2017...
Seeing Krugman call out Trump specifically while starting the graph half way through the Biden Administration... gave me sort of a Climate Change vibe. Sure they are in 'lockstep' as presented recently, but is this a new normal or outlier? What is he 'hiding' to imply these are lockstep values?
I chose a start date half way through the last Obama Administration (2014) and scaled to 100 relative to values on that date. I didn't match Krugman's relative scales but plotted it again ( https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1JqXv ) ... you can see the trends in the graph across two Trump presidencies a bit of Obama and all of Biden and it paints a different overall picture. A lot of wild variance is hidden.
I chose a start date half way through the last Obama Administration (2014) and scaled to 100 relative to values on that date. I didn't match Krugman's relative scales but plotted it again ( https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1JqXv ) ... you can see the trends in the graph across two Trump presidencies a bit of Obama and all of Biden and it paints a different overall picture. A lot of wild variance is hidden.
>gave me sort of a Climate Change vibe.
You mean the thing that was right from the beginning, that is happening right now and that is even worse than the forecast?
You mean the thing that was right from the beginning, that is happening right now and that is even worse than the forecast?
You should go back and read the climate change commentary from the 90s, which had costal cities already underwater due to melting polar ice caps. It's nowhere near as bad as most people were told it would be.
When was that ever the scientific consensus? I was there in the 90s, thank you, I am old enough for that. The real affirmation is that "Coastal cities underwater" is a "risk" for roughly a dozen of them by "the end of this century". You are strawmaning it.
Did Krugman post the FT graph verbatim or did he post a different graph? He mentions in the article that the FT graph looked cherry picked.
> Actually, the chart was a bit too neat: When I set out to reproduce it, I found that the FT chose a time period during which the relationship looked especially clear.
> Actually, the chart was a bit too neat: When I set out to reproduce it, I found that the FT chose a time period during which the relationship looked especially clear.
Reading this, I'm struck with a familiar feeling. I wonder if other dem-leaning readers can identify. I remember the old joke about how economists have successfully predicted five of the last three recessions. Now it's more intense and political. I feel like there's so much doomsaying amongst those who aren't wired to support Trump. Like they/we are successfully predicting 57 of the last 14 emergencies. Here, Krugman points out some real financial data that might be concerning, but then also devotes equal time to the freaking name of the bill, which, come on. Completely irrelevant to understanding what is really going on. And, I know that that is part of the point/strategy, that some of this branding is trolling to distract people. But where is the actual sober analysis that is better able to tell the difference between the 14 emergencies that are real and the 43 that aren't? That's the familiar feeling; just the sense that I don't really know what is going on, and there are fewer and fewer resources that allow me to make sense of it.
People complaining about the name baffle me; the name of the bill is irrelevant, only the legal effect matters.
I’ve been doing a lot of independent research myself since finding useful, non-partisan sources is a huge issue anymore. I’ve found LLMs to be very useful in helping[1] me navigate these areas so I can learn enough to make my own determinations.
For what it’s worth my opinion is that this country is in a very bad position that could very well lead to massive world wide economic problems in the future. When and how that manifests is impossible to say; there are a lot of possibilities but I’m expecting the next decade will show us the path we’re on and what that looks like. The tariffs are having an effect (which is to be expected) but it didn’t start there nor does it end there.
I think one of the biggest problems we face as a nation is that the citizens do not understand what’s going on and end up parroting what someone else said without really understanding it, usually filling in the gaps of their knowledge from their own world view rather than reality. I don’t mean this as a denigration as most people have families and jobs and do not have enough time to know enough to have well-informed opinions about everything, myself included. However, it is leading to absurdities like screeds about the name of the bill.
[1] I don’t trust the LLM of course. I’m not asking it if X is happening or if Y is a problem. More of a way to guide me to finding good primary resources.
I’ve been doing a lot of independent research myself since finding useful, non-partisan sources is a huge issue anymore. I’ve found LLMs to be very useful in helping[1] me navigate these areas so I can learn enough to make my own determinations.
For what it’s worth my opinion is that this country is in a very bad position that could very well lead to massive world wide economic problems in the future. When and how that manifests is impossible to say; there are a lot of possibilities but I’m expecting the next decade will show us the path we’re on and what that looks like. The tariffs are having an effect (which is to be expected) but it didn’t start there nor does it end there.
I think one of the biggest problems we face as a nation is that the citizens do not understand what’s going on and end up parroting what someone else said without really understanding it, usually filling in the gaps of their knowledge from their own world view rather than reality. I don’t mean this as a denigration as most people have families and jobs and do not have enough time to know enough to have well-informed opinions about everything, myself included. However, it is leading to absurdities like screeds about the name of the bill.
[1] I don’t trust the LLM of course. I’m not asking it if X is happening or if Y is a problem. More of a way to guide me to finding good primary resources.
Yes, USA is not. But not because of just Trump. The process started a while ago, when USA elites decided that they’re “exceptional”, and started to promote so called “rules based order”, with the only rule that reads like “USA may do whatever they want to do, and you have to obey our orders, or you’ll be punished”.
Diplomacy is dead in USA. These days nobody sane in the world believes anything coming out of White House, not even a paper, and Trump is just a current facade for the same elites that nobody trusts.
Diplomacy is dead in USA. These days nobody sane in the world believes anything coming out of White House, not even a paper, and Trump is just a current facade for the same elites that nobody trusts.
The "rules based order" period worked a lot better than the period that included WWI and WWII.
USA may do whatever they want to do, and you have to obey our orders, or you’ll be punished
It's our fault for being the only ones to take defense spending seriously? We just reopened the shipping lanes clogged by the Houthis, which literally the entire world profited from. That could have been done by anyone else but wasn't, because they happily benefit from US interventionism but then pretend to hate it too. You can't have it both ways.
It's our fault for being the only ones to take defense spending seriously? We just reopened the shipping lanes clogged by the Houthis, which literally the entire world profited from. That could have been done by anyone else but wasn't, because they happily benefit from US interventionism but then pretend to hate it too. You can't have it both ways.
The US maintaining order (and providing foreign aid) is a form of soft power which this administration doesn't seem to value (or maybe even understand). It also benefits US corporations and their interests' abroad.
Fairly clear we wouldn't have allowed anyone else to do that.
Tariffs grant an extremely significant diplomatic lever for both affairs and world peace.
This raises the question if one should blame Trump or the previous administrations politics which created Trump.
Only in the sense that you could blame anybody in part for anything if you travel through enough indirection. E.g. if I call you cunt for no reason because I'm drunk, and you say I should be more polite and maybe you sound a little annoying when you say it, and in response I stab you, you could say that you're partially at fault for what happened.
No, it really doesn't.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Paul Krugman is more political operative than economist at this point. I would be more interested in lower profile economists.
What different does it make, what matters is what the text says.
Because if your primary function is being a political operative, your credibility has been compromised when you address subjects that you tie to politics. Which he clearly does within the article that you say is the only thing that matters. I would agree. But I think you’re missing my point.
[deleted]
Well, the change of sign in the correlation looks to have happened in a very narrow time window, so… sour grapes from Krugman?
- How Venezuela went from the richest country in South America to a disaster area.[1]
- Decline of Argentina.[2]
- Decline of Portugal.[3] Portugal used to be a world power. Yes, Portugal.
- Decline of Roman Empire.[4]
This is a real worry. The US is on that path.
[1] https://www.history.com/articles/venezuela-chavez-maduro-cri...
[2] https://worldhistoryjournal.com/2025/04/02/history-argentina...
[3] https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/cross-gold-brazilian-treasure...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empi...