Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
Stocks are lower this morning on Ukraine / Russia fears. Bonds and MBS are up.
Housing starts fell to 1.311 million units in October, according to the Census Bureau. This is down 4% on a year-over-year basis. Building permits fell 7.7% on a YOY basis to 1.534 million units.
Homebuilder confidence improved in November as political uncertainty abated. “With the elections now in the rearview mirror, builders are expressing increasing confidence that Republicans gaining all the levers of power in Washington will result in significant regulatory relief for the industry that will lead to the construction of more homes and apartments,” said NAHB Chairman Carl Harris, a custom home builder from Wichita, Kan. “This is reflected in a huge jump in builder sales expectations over the next six months.”
“While builder confidence is improving, the industry still faces many headwinds such as an ongoing shortage of labor and buildable lots along with elevated building material prices,” said NAHB Chief Economist Robert Dietz. “Moreover, while the stock market cheered the election result, the bond market has concerns, as indicated by a rise for long-term interest rates. There is also policy uncertainty in front of the business sector and housing market as the executive branch changes hands.”
Nomura is out with a call saying that the Fed will not cut rates at the December FOMC meeting. Their argument is that the election of Trump will be inflationary due to tariffs, which will prevent the Fed from easing further. The bank sees the Fed skipping the December meeting and then cutting in May and June of 2025 by 25 basis points. After that, they see the Fed holding rates there.
FWIW, I doubt the Fed is letting policy speculation drive its decision-making. Inflation continues to fall towards the Fed’s 2% target, and policy remains restrictive.
Filed under: Economy |
All Things in Moderation 
Lol
https://archive.is/0uEtd
LikeLike
Another interesting read on antitrust law.
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/on-the-democratic-partys-cult-of
LikeLike
With Spirit going bankrupt, I am not sure what the government accomplished blocking the merger with Jetblue.
LikeLike
I don’t feel they accomplished anything, nor do I understand why they would have considered such a merger a monopoly requiring government intervention. Nor do I see the public interest in blocking the merger. I would 100% see the public interest in blocking, say, a merger between Google and Meta, but between JetBlue and Spirit?
Sure monopolies can be bad but I don’t have any confidence in the government to be good stewards of the public interest there. I’m not sure they have sufficient competence to make rational decisions about mergers or what companies need to be broken up.
LikeLike
He seems to blanket attribute behaviors to learned helplessness that are better explained by either disinterest and/or conflicting interests of different parties and agencies pursuing their own goals and responding to their own incentives.
LikeLike
This one’s going to sting a bit Mark.
https://redstate.com/jeffc/2024/11/20/lindsey-graham-defends-matt-gaetz-attacks-lynch-mob-amid-sexual-misconduct-allegations-n2182250
LikeLike
Well, that’s interesting. I gotta admit I am puzzled by the Gaetz attack vector. They just can’t help themselves? I don’t believe for a second they believe in the sanctity of the DoJ and I also don’t think they would believe Gaetz to be anything near the most competent person to deconstruct the DoJ. So are they just wanting to give Trump a black eye and don’t care if the next nominee would actually be much better functionally at reforming the DoJ?
Not saying the Gaetz might not have some native genius for the task, only I don’t believe anyone attacking him thinks anything would happen except the DoJ chews him up and spits him out. So he’d actually be a great person to send into the teeth of the monster. Next person Trump nominates might potentially be much more competent (as even they might assess things). So curious what their game is.
LikeLike
My God, every word of this article was pure poetry.
https://archive.is/RvVU7
The butthurt is exquisite.
LikeLike
Yup. And so much concern that Trump keeps walking around the mines in the mine field. All these “checks on executive power” that Trump “is doing an end run around” are in fact to the tools of the bureaucracy by which the noble patriotic resistance intended to sabotage him, and they are mad that he’s not just walking into the traps. And of course Biden and Harris signed everything right away and worked with the traditional agencies—because they were friendlies, and would act to support and protect them, where all they intend to do with Trump is hobble him and he knows it.
I love the bellyaching about ethics in a world where Obama and Nancy Pelosi and all sorts of paragons of moral virtue on the Democrat side are inexplicably super wealthy now, and are all just amazing stock pickers. Not even a passing nod to the weaponization of the DoJ to go after Trump.
Still better than the latest Remnant podcast with Kevin Williamson talking to some NYT reporter, talking about how hate got Trump elected. Hate hate hate hate hate.
NeverTrumpers still don’t get it.
LikeLike
Gaetz withdraws
LikeLike
I have no idea what their plan was here, having him resign from the House then only last a couple of days as the AG nominee.
LikeLike
He was elected to the NEXT Congress so he only gave up a couple of do nothing weeks.
LikeLike
He was elected to the NEXT Congress so he didn’t really give up anything.
Just looked like he was serious about getting the job.
LikeLike
That would be true if he gets sworn in.
LikeLike
Mark:
He was elected to the NEXT Congress so he didn’t really give up anything.
His resignation letter explicitly said that he would not take the oath of office in the new Congress. I suppose it is possible he could renege on that.
LikeLike
I imagine he doesn’t intend to, and may be hoping for (rightly or wrong) a position in the Trump administration that does not require confirmation.
LikeLike
jnc:
I have no idea what their plan was here, having him resign from the House then only last a couple of days as the AG nominee.
Agree. It is all very strange. Maybe he gets appointed by Desantis to take Rubio’s Senate seat?
LikeLike
This seems like a real possibility. Might even be a kind of loyalty test for Desantis to make sure he’s on the Trump train. “Here’s a problematic guy, make him senator. Thanks!”
LikeLike
That would be a middle finger to the establishment.
LikeLike
Interesting read. If you wait long enough, underage relationships become romantic.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/story/cormac-mccarthy-secret-muse-exclusive
Cormac McCarthy wrote No Country For Old Men.
LikeLike
This story about Matt Gaetz is absolutely fucking nuts!
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1859748387291107797.html
LikeLike
That is crazy.
LikeLike
And probably true. I’d love for Seymour Hersh to do a piece on it.
LikeLike
The government is insane. The FBI is and remains a cesspool. I do not doubt for a second that the author is correct, and the “wearing a wire” bit for Don Gaetz was about collecting evidence with which to essentially frame Matt Gaetz. I would not be surprised to learn that the FBI actually prosecutes more fake crime that it manufactures itself than real crime at this point.
The author does not emphasize but it seems to me if the authorities did indeed discover evidence of every kind of crime on Greenbergs phone, then it only makes sense that if Gaetz and Greenberg were criminaling buddies there would be all sorts of evidence of him and Greenberg planning to have sex with minors and do the sex trafficking. Since no such evidence had been leaked or even referred to, clearly there was not.
The other thing is Greenberg is clearly a pathological liar and sociopathic narcissist, if the story as is is true. If so, no one in a responsible government would have taken any of his accusations remotely seriously. Looking at you, Bill Barr. Fucking Bill Barr.
LikeLike
“If so, no one in a responsible government would have taken any of his accusations remotely seriously.”
Well, except for the fact that I do believe that Gaetz hooked up with the woman in question, so that part was true.
But as noted, it’s hard to prove a crime if the woman had an official State of Florida drivers license saying she wasn’t a minor.
LikeLike
Well that part may be true, but based on what they knew about the person making the accusation at the outset, I don’t think you take such a non-credible persons accusations that serious unless you’ve got motivations beyond the pursuit of justice.
LikeLike
Reminds me of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zola_(film)
https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/zola-tells-all-the-real-story-behind-the-greatest-stripper-saga-ever-tweeted-73048/
Gaetz really ought to shop the film rights.
LikeLike
Rob Reiner says that MAGA scum have already wrecked Bluesky.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/rob-reiner-says-maga-scum-have-already-wrecked-bluesky/ar-AA1uvShn?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=c8ff1dfe70ca4fcbbaedea23fd78afe6&ei=44
Man, they just can’t win for losing.
LikeLike
FWIW, the very few times I go to Twitter, it seems to be a deep blue space, at least that is what my feed is.
Lots of Jo from Jerz, Brooklyn Dad Defiant, the Krassensteins, etc.
LikeLike
Interestingly, it appears that it is basically half-and-half now, consistent with the overall electorate. Where as before Musk bought it it was like 70/30 lefty. I wish I had the reference for that, don’t even remember what podcast I heard it on. Maybe Tim Pool? In any case BlueSky seems to have a real pedo problem, which results in a lot of screenshots of pro-pedo stuff that can be screenshotted and shared around with the implication “this is where all the lefties are running to”.
Apparently Twitter was also a very popular place for pro-pedo and child pornography before Musk bought it. I’m beginning to think that Jack Dorsey really likes social media that’s open to Minor Attracted Persons.
LikeLike
I found this humorous:
“The long term solutions are daunting. Democrats need to re-adopt the 50 state strategy. And most importantly, a competitive information distribution system must be built to combat the massive disinformation currently being fed to the American people.”
Democrats have the mainstream media, Hollywood, Madison Avenue, K-12 education, academia and social media moderators.
The blindness is simply amazing.
LikeLike
And this is a broadly shared sentiment on the left. I’ve heard it from Democrats and lefties on a variety of podcasts, YouTube videos, and read it in various articles. They assert the lack the “huge billion dollar right-wing media infrastructure” or “the giant right-wing megaphone” and so are able to blast misinformation to mind-numb robots and blot out the truth of the
MarxistDemocrat utopia that just around the corner if only you give them complete control over everything.You hear people on the right complain about censorship on places that, you know, actually censor the right in various ways, but you rarely hear them suggest that the right has no way to combat the left’s domination of the MSM. They freely admit that through X, YouTube, 4Chan and other smaller venues (Gab, Truth Social, podcasts) that folks on the right often get more eyeballs on a YouTube video than MSNBC gets on their biggest shows.
Another thing that seems self-evidently wrong is that they complain that they “don’t have a Joe Rogan” or a “Tim Pool”, both of whom were far more to the left than right in the past, and they drove them away. Soon they will be complaining that they don’t have a network like The Young Turks because Ana Kasparian and Cenk Yogurt are no longer passing their purity tests.
And the reality is that if Tim Walz or Kamala Harris had wanted to do Joe Rogan, he would have had them on and they could have made their case. Same with Tim Pool. I expect other conservatives with a ton of alternative eyeballs, like Ben Shapiro, would have been willing to interview Kamala Harris or give their surrogates a platform. The only price of admission would be having answers to tough questions. So that they say “they don’t have a Joe Rogan” is really saying “we don’t have anybody with the audience we need to reach”. Which is the real problem for them politically, I think. And they aren’t in a hurry to address it.
I thought in 2020 that Biden didn’t win, Trump lost. I thought in 2022, the Democrats did not successfully fight off the promised Red Wave, the GOP blew it. Even now, I don’t think the Democrats won the senate in AZ, I thing the GOP lost it–and not just because Kari Lake was a problematic candidate, but because the GOP would do nothing to help her campaign. Even knowing that apologetics for a problematic candidate can make a big difference in a state that’s trending red.
Point being, I think the Democrats have a difficult and continuing problem with audience. I think this was as true in 2020 as it was in 2016 or 2024, and just as true in 2022. They did not have victories, Republicans insisted on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Which they can certainly continue to do. Plenty of that was done in Republican congressional races in 2024.
And when they complain about not having a Joe Rogan or Tim Pool or any popular YouTube or Twitter conservative pundit, they are complaining that they don’t have an audience (see: Air America). The difference between now and the Air America days is they couldn’t make their own Rush Limbaugh not just because they couldn’t put up someone half so entertaining, but Rush was serving an audience served literally nowhere else. The left and the Democrats controlled the MSM and they had a huge audience.
This is not the case any more. Even though they still control the MSM and Hollywood, they are finding it harder and harder to make the audience consume their output. And until they can put forth avatars, and politicians, who come across as authentic, honest, and sincere, I think it’s just going to get worse. In the world of AI and deepfakes and astroturfing and other actual misinformation, being able to convey authenticity as a news anchor or a politician is going to become increasingly important, IMO. And the Democrats and the left are not positioned to do that. And until they find a little humility about their position, I expect they will continue to believe that living within their own preferred fictional narrative and smelling their own farts is their birthright, and being humble and honest is for chumps and losers.
That said, it will definitely be possible for Republicans to lose elections and for the right to lose ground in the culture. But I think the left is only capable at this time of winning by the other team defaulting.
LikeLike
The left thinks that if they don’t control 100% of something, the other guy controls it.
Like the housewife who thinks a speck of dust on the table means the house if filthy.
LikeLike
And if they control 100% of something, it’s neutral somehow. So doesn’t count as being on their side or an asset to them. So ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR all calling Trump literally Hitler, that’s just neutral. Fellating the Harris campaign with hagiographic coverage I have never seen the likes of was just, you know, neutral, regular, just reporting the facts kind of stuff. The complete hostility towards J.D. Vance and Trump in interviews versus the softballs they tossed Harris and Walz was just neutral, of course a completely objective independent journalist would be hostile and ask “gotcha” questions to Vance while asking Kamala “how hard is it to be so wonderful and perfect?”
They amazingly don’t see that as biased, or somehow being on the side of the Democrats or the left. I don’t have any trouble telling Fox and OAN and the Daily Wire lean right; why is it they cannot see that ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN and MSNBC all, by comparison, lean to the left? I understand that the Washington Times has a bit of a right leaning bias, so again: they cannot see that with WaPo, NYT, and the vast majority of papers–include USA Today–in the country?
LikeLike
As Jonah Goldberg has mentioned, one of the most infuriating intellectual tics of the left is their belief that they are not ideological.
LikeLike
Rachel Maddow Takes Pay-Cut
https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/rachel-maddow-takes-pay-cut-with-msnbc-s-future-in-jeopardy/ar-AA1uweTX?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=43f7dcec4a7448dd82bdcea03a7ef15f&ei=437
Next, Whoopie Goldberg. I’m betting for sure. Joy Reid, Sonny Hostin–I think you’re cushy gigs are all in jeopardy. Good luck with your Patreons.
There’s no way these folks have been producing the revenue to justify their outrageous salaries. And there’s certainly no way they are going to do it moving forward. I don’t think they have any idea how many center-lefties were watching them, and generally on their side, primarily because they thought it was the majority position, that all smart people thought this way, etc., etc. The “we’re the experts” curtain has been pulled back and there’s just an old angry lady surrounded by cats with an honorary PhD in expertology behind that curtain, working the knobs and levers while warning people of the dangers of “doing their own research”.
LikeLike
Ralph Fiennes says Trump’s Remarkable Gift helped him win the U.S. election. Which is true, up to a point.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ralph-fiennes-says-trump-s-remarkable-gift-helped-him-win-us-election/ar-AA1uyaPz?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=db2483991bcf4a94dc8fb0ac35ff0df7&ei=994
A: what politician does not pick scapegoats? The Democrats have been using white men, straight people, and are now picking on black and hispanic men with wild abandon. And they are directly blaming them as a complete identity group.
B: The Trump campaign’s complaints about illegal immigrants were much more confined, focused on illegal immigrants and active criminals, and I don’t think ever blamed the entire state of voter’s lives on immigrants. Biden and Harris, yes, but whole groups of people based on identity, no.
C: But more to the point, and this is a problem even reasonable sounding Englishmen on the left have, is that they cannot imagine a scenario where anybody who disagrees with them isn’t doing it because they hate a minority. There are reasons beyond xenophobia to control your border, to control immigration, to prosecute crimes of illegal aliens differently, to deport known non-citizen criminals, to not make public taxpayer money available to non-citizens, to not spend taxpayer money to house non-citizens, etc. I love legal immigrants.
While this orientation from Democrats and the press and leftwing pundits is not as tiresome and likely doesn’t seem as shallow to many on the left, or left-of-center, as I think it should–it’s clearly not resonating with a lot of them, especially in Gen Z. Especially among Gen Z males. I feel like explaining all positions you do not agree with as being motivated by racism, sexism, istophobia and bigotry is losing it’s saliency.
I don’t feel like the general public is ready for my argument that there are very serious racists in our country and the west generally, that this racism is systemic and destructive, and that it’s almost entirely on the left.
LikeLike
It’s been my experience that a large segment of the left do not believe in good faith disagreement.
LikeLike
A very small slice. Vanishingly small. I have good faith disagreements with both my mother and my daughters (who all voted for Harris, probably my wife, too). And it’s fine.
But so many on the left simply don’t believe in good faith disagreement. Either you obey, or you’re the enemy. Because somehow they are experts about literally every opinion they have.
That said, I’ve been listening to a podcast called a Braver Way. It has “red and blues” getting together to talk to each other in good faith. I noted that, in order for this good faith discussion to take place, there are basically two prerequisites that speak to the problem:
A: The tone of the podcast is notably one of an “NPR conversation”. Everybody is in a safe space, an inherently left-leaning concept. It’s not like a debate at a Toastmasters.
B: The primary concern of both reds and blues was about the emotional states of Democrats. Blues were all “how can I maintain my relationships with my red parents when they voted for this terrible person” and reds were “my children are so angry at me that I voted for Trump, how do I start to heal these wounds?”
Which gets to a fundamental problem, to me. You cannot have a civil conversation with people on the left, writ broadly. Meaning, you have to conceded to their tone, their language rules, and that they and their concerns always be the topic of discussion. So reds and blues can talk and have good faith disagreements in some cases, but the center of gravity in both style and substance has to be in the blue column.
Which reminds of the problem we had in trying to have left and right talk in a civil manner here. I will admit sometimes anybody can try to make their point in a way that sounds reasonable to them, yet like an attack to the other. It’s kind of hard not to do that when debating, and sometimes I could see where QB or Scott were definitely not walking on eggshells to avoid hurt feelings, primarily because the same lack of consideration had already been shown them. But ultimately it’s hard to have civil, good faith discussions with the left because the orthodox leftist position attracts people who simply don’t want to do that. They are right. End of story. You are wrong. End of story. And they also tend to get much more offended by people having a differing opinion. They take the fact you disagree with them on taxes, entitlements, or abortion as an active insult, as if you had just called them a stupid f**king c*nt. Which conveniently sets things up so you cannot ever make an argument they could cogitate upon in good faith.
LikeLike
Good points all! One thing I notice as well is there is often disagreement as to what constitutes a debate. Most on the left consider a debate to be, from my perspective, an argument between left and far left. Whereas when conversing with someone on the right, the position is thought to be so far out of the mainstream as to not be worthy of discussion. Now, I know I conflated ‘debate’ and ‘argument”, so don’t go all ‘first principles’ on me. But it’s also true that there is struggle over the concept of debate even when it’s left on far left. Having watched enough on DKos devolve into “why do you want people to die”, dissent isn’t particularly tolerated. I don’t know if that’s true on the right as I do not see those type’s of arguments devolve. It could be I just don’t get around enough and am missing it.
LikeLike
I’ve seen arguments between right and far right and there is a sample of shallow, non-serious people with a superficial notion of being conservative, or who wear being “alt right” as an aesthetic, that will devolve, but most all of the other people on the right stop talking to them. You’re not going to see that kind of devolution in debates between people on the right who are serious about their ideology. I can’t think of an example of an Alan Lichtman saying daring to disagree with him was blasphemy on the right. Most disagreements I hear or see on the right are actually debates, earnest discussions, references to “in my experience” or “in my opinion”, points buttressed with facts or links or anecdotes, rather than defended with “you just want brown people to die!” kinds of arguments.
Which may just be evidence of the state of play. I remember having discussions with people on the right when I was very young, and there was some of that. But Reagan was president and it was morning in America so probably no patience to deal with people insufficiently Reaganite at the time.
LikeLike
Just like that fascist, Justin Trudeau.
https://www.newsweek.com/justin-trudeau-admits-immigration-mistakes-canada-changes-policy-1988094
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/first-reading-trudeau-slamming-immigration-questions-timeline
LikeLike
Cenk Yogurt is a big lefty and definitely has some TDS, but unlike a lot of them he’s not a complete moron. He’s always been such a far lefty generally . . . and hates Trump as much as Bill Kristol but honestly makes more sense now than Bill Kristol . . . Anyway, I wonder where he goes from here. It’s interesting to me that he showed up on Triggernometry.
A sort of “speaking of good faith conversations between right and left”.
He’s not afraid of expressing criticisms of the Democrats and the left and going on right-leaning venues to do it, and do it without abandoning all of his previous beliefs and values.
The NeverTrumpers from 2016 could have learned a lot from this guy.
LikeLike
He believes Tim Walz could have potentially have won a national election, for president, I think. So not completely un-moronic. But I still give him credit for getting out there and talking to people who don’t agree with him.
LikeLike
Part of the DC freakout that NoVA was referring to is probably this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/11/21/rfk-physician-payments/
LikeLike
Fascinated about the argument that blames the code as if it exists independently of the absolutely massive amount of lobbying done by the AMA, hospital groups, GPO’s, wholesalers, L-Tacs, ect., to influence what gets reimbursed and by how much. Hell, treatment algorithems are designed around it because the specialty societies and academia are heavily involved in the grift. People often blame pharmaceuticals for the high cost of medicine, even though it only constitutes about 10% of overall healthcare spending, what drug companies spend on lobbying is chump change to everybody else’s!
LikeLike
As an example, I just got into a discussion about the benefits of letting the pedos post on Bluesky and then constantly tying all the lefties than just ran over to Bluesky to the swamp of pedos they’ve gone to. I suggested the right-wing media, so to speak, should make those people own the folks saying there’s no difference between LGBQT+ and MAPs. Repeatedly shame Bluesky as a home of pedophiles. He disagreed, saying the site should just be taken down. Because people won’t learn, and all it does is normalize the behavior. I disagreed that MAPs were that easy to normalize.
And we just disagreed, and done. Nobody said the other was trying to support pedos or kill children or anything. A disagreement. Simple.
LikeLike
It seems a lot of what passes for debate nowadays is signaling various allegiances and damning heretics. I guess it happens on the right with discussions on who’s true MAGA and who isn’t. That’s why I appreciate the spectacle because in the end, the house always wins. But, it’s like the lottery – fun to dream but then they announce the numbers and you have to go to work on Monday.
LikeLike
I honestly don’t know if this thread is true, that it could be true speaks to the complexity of human beings.
Humans are not 2 dimensional entities and our motivations are incredibly complex and often unknown even to ourselves. I forget this a lot and this thread is a great reminder of that.
LikeLike
When I first go there I didn’t realize the point was about suits and it took a little sorting to get there, but when I did I was engrossed. While I care nothing about a dispute over speech credits in the Whitehouse, a bitter feud over appropriate business dress is gripping.
LikeLike
Crazy how much better Twitter/X posters are about doing real background research vs the MSM.
Also, threadreader version:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1860456733086482858.html
LikeLike
The last time more than 100000 fed jobs were cut and more than 100000 pages of regs were dumped was in the Clinton Admin and that was also the last time the USA had a balanced budget. So it is about time for DOGE. Best thing on Trump’s agenda to my way of thinking.
LikeLike
I concur. I’m not confident they can pull it off but I hope so. I do like the idea of disclosing how many Federal employees are remote “working”, what capacity federal buildings are at vs. cost, what money is getting spent on in the various agencies, etc. I’ve heard requiring employees show up in-person full-time might spur a lot of early retirements— so that might take care a lot of those surplus employees.
I don’t believe we’ll get a balanced budget. But I think it will at least be less imbalanced than it otherwise would have been.
LikeLike
Love the thought but the bureaucracy is in control now, there are too many vested interests even among the most conservative elected officials. Not one thin dime will be cut nor will the rate of growth be slowed.
Also, there was no balanced budget under Clinton as SS contributions rolled into the general funds, leaving IOU’s.
LikeLike
I think the rate can be slowed. Not that it’s guaranteed but I think it can be done. Also think that some of the money can be diverted towards things that are better for the country and the economy, so can be a more useful deployment of resources, even if it’s not a cut in expenditures. But yeah I don’t see a balanced budget in our future. Unless there’s a complete economic collapse.
LikeLike
The Horror:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/11/24/news-quitting-shutting-off/
LikeLike
I suspect that is true, but I also suspect there is some cognitive dissonance from being firmly embedded in the left’s bubble and some subconscious inking that the gospel being preached is false doctrine. There are a lot of people who have believed the narrative from the mainstream media was basically true, and while I don’t imagine many of them had a Road to Damascus moment, I expect a lot of them have a visceral sense that the quality of information from the media is in truth very low. So their desire to consume the bubble narrative is reduced, though they may wish it to be true. Or they just need enough time to forget how wrong the MSM was and then they’ll come back.
LikeLike
JFC!
https://archive.is/yool2
Fuck it, YOLO!
LikeLike
I don’t think they fully realize who they are dealing with here.
LikeLike
Interesting:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/25/opinion/republicans-freak-out-over-trumps-choice-for-labor-secretary.html
LikeLike
If working class men are the new base of your party, you have to change your approach to organized labor.
LikeLike
Well, her past advocacy doesn’t seem to make her a good fit, but again I won’t be sure Trump is making a bad decision until there’s real evidence.
He’ll need to walk a fine line to keep labor happy but also avoid alienating right-to-workers. I don’t mind reaching out to labor but allowing unions to enforce membership and automatically deduct dues is not going to go down well with the MAGA crowd.
LikeLike
This:
https://hollymathnerd.substack.com/p/the-obvious-thing-almost-everyone
LikeLike
Doublethink in action
LikeLike
From hell’s heart, I stabs at thee! For hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee!
https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1861167060354494925
LikeLike
https://x.com/tedcruz/status/1861167399908606291
I need to watch this show.
LikeLike
Pretty impressive use of appeals process.
Also, was not able, ever, to predict the next words in this headline.
LikeLike
What is a “marriage error”?
LikeLike
I’m still hung up on “pretending to be gay”. How does one go about proving it to the court’s satisfaction?
LikeLike
I imagine that’s kind of like an insurance company or any company hiring a PI to follow around someone getting a payoff on a workman’s comp claim that requires that they be crippled in some way, and you get video of them dancing and lifting heavy objects and so on, and take that to court. Probably followed him around, had some pictures of him making out with a chick, found some chicks he had been hitting on, found a social media profile that had him as a single male looking for the right lady . . . Anyone things pretending to be gay is a good legal strategy is probably not going to be great at covering their heterosexual tracks.
LikeLike
All: What do you think about–and what do we know specifically–about tariffs? Sort of a “how have they been used, have they been calibrated specifically to trading partners tariffs, have all modes ever recommended or discussed actually been tried so that we have actual data”, etc?
I’ve been listening to the Commentary podcast and John Podhoretz has said tariffs don’t work about fifty times. And with varying levels of emphasis, like “we all know tariffs never work” to “and there’s no way tariffs can ever work, they always fail, we have 200 years of historical data proving beyond a shadow of a doubt tariffs never work, they are always inflationary” etc.
I mean, it’s getting to a “me doth thinks thou protests too much” bit here. Can there not be a golden mean for tariffs as conservatives generally agree there is for taxes? Are there not strategies that can make tariffs a net positive, like making them the average of average of the tariffs the other country has on the same category of products (by your definition), so you could essentially give the country a list of products they could lower or eliminate their tariffs on and you would do likewise?
What I’m getting to is once a pundit has said for the 200th time “tariffs always fail, never work, no good very bad” I think some of those words can be used for some examples, so one might consider those failed tariffs and decide if the tariff might have been on the wrong product, might have been implemented incorrectly, might have been far too high, might have not been flexible enough for market changes, or the aspects cited to exemplify the “failure” may have been impacted by other factors, or not really related to the tariff in a significant way.
I see no reason to take a free trade posture to those who don’t take the same posture with us. And I can also see reserving the right to use tariffs against countries that actively work against the US. I also see tariffs as a way of justify developing a trade relationship with hostile powers, or expanding it. I don’t know how much trade we do with Russia but why not trade with them and part of the trade agreement includes each side raising revenues with tariffs?
LikeLike
To me, in a competitive world, you need to protect certain industries so that they can ramp up if necessary. It makes them uncompetitive, but that is the price to be paid for domestic security. Also, I’ve come to believe that a country’s citizenry deserve a level of protection from cheaper foreign labor (or cheap illegal alien labor) and that adds to the uncompetitiveness. I don’t see any way around that though. In macro people act rationally but individually we don’t.
LikeLike
First, the tariffs kick in if Mexico / Canada don’t do anything about the border. The left / media is ignoring that.
Second, we used to fund the government before the income tax with tariffs. Of course the government was smaller then, but…
In terms of economics, tariffs create deadweight losses, which means that the after the benefits (tax revenue, consumer surplus, producer surplus) are redistributed, there is still a net economic loss.
So, if we are defining “tariffs don’t work” as “tariffs create deadweight losses” then yes, that is true. If there is an industrial policy objective or an externality we are trying to fix, then the question is more complex.
LikeLike
Are there any like “named case studies” I could Google? A particular tariff that has a story to it that’s an example of why tariffs = bad?
LikeLike
Not sure. It has been a basic fundamental economic theory for a long time.
LikeLike
The named case study would be Adam Smith: Wealth of Nations.
That’s where the economic theory of comparative advantage started.
LikeLike
“’I’ve been listening to the Commentary podcast and John Podhoretz has said tariffs don’t work about fifty times. And with varying levels of emphasis, like “we all know tariffs never work” to “and there’s no way tariffs can ever work, they always fail, we have 200 years of historical data proving beyond a shadow of a doubt tariffs never work, they are always inflationary” etc.” etc.”
It depends on what the goal is. The US manufacturing base was developed via tariffs. See Alexander Hamilton. If the goal was maximum economic efficiency, then it would have been better to have bought everything manufactured from Great Britain after the Revolutionary War and kept the US as an agrarian society. But that was determined not to be in the national interest.
Tariffs, like a lot of government economy policy, are about picking winners and losers. Trump is proposing a different set of winners and losers than under recent policy.
I also believe he’s using this as a negotiating posture to cut both trade and immigration deals. He has credibility here that other administrations have lacked because he’s perceived as being willing to walk away if he doesn’t get what he wants.
Now the point about tariffs being inflationary is probably accurate. All things being equal (that wonderful economics qualification), tariffs will probably increase inflation.
LikeLike
Noted economist Jimmy Kimmel has thoughts:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/27/arts/television/jimmy-kimmel-trump-tariffs.html
LikeLike
Another factor in the current mindset on tariffs is the association of the Smoot-Hawley Act with the Great Depression.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act
That was a major cause in the shift in economic thinking and political popularity of tariffs. The GATT agreement as part of the creation of post World War II institutions to try and prevent a return of the pre-war economic conditions reflected the new consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_and_Trade
LikeLike
Thanks. I need to read Wealth of Nations. Been on the list for like 35 years at this point.
LikeLike
Gotta say, I’m liking Shoe On Head. If the Dem’s would listen to folks like her, the party would likely be more honest about their fiscal leftism but would also be more likely to win . . . at least until their policies tanked the economy.
LikeLike
lol
LikeLike
That’s perfect.
LikeLike