Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Chas_P]

And now for some good news:

 

That is absolutely wonderful. Now if we can only get California to pay reparations for slavery we can all live happily forever after.

[kenberg]

That is absolutely wonderful. Now if we can only get California to pay reparations for slavery we can all live happily forever after.

 

I have a challenge for you.

 

I'll start with myself. I read some conservative columnists, George Will is one example, Michael Gerson is another I used to read William Buckley. I have never heard or read Rush Limbaugh in my life. Same with Sean Hannity.

 

Both Will and Gerson are hoping for the end of Trumpism. But that is not why I read them, I read both of them while Trump was still doing reality tv. And I never watched the show. Not a political choice, I saw the ads and it sounded awful.

 

I think most people in the wc have a fair idea of my general outlook. I believe the government has a strong role to play in making lives better. This sometimes involves bossing people around, such as requiring parents to send their children to school, but I mostly favor letting people make their own choices about lifestyle.

 

I thought of you while reading the Gerson column today. I don't know where you fall on the spectrum. I hope for a Republican Party that I can sometimes agree with even if I often respectively disagree. What we have now doesn't fit that description.

 

I assume you are not a fan of the guy who wants Jan 6 to be thought of as just a group of tourists, but I am hoping for more. I hope that many Republicans agree with Gerson and Will that the sooner the Trump supporters are gone from power the better off we will all be. Would you care to say where you are on this spectrum?

[y66]

From Maybe Joe Manchin Knows Exactly What He’s Doing by Ezra Klein at NYT

 

Let me start with something you don’t often hear from liberals these days: A few words of praise for Joe Manchin.

 

By the standards of the age, Manchin is a political magician. West Virginia, the state he represents as a Democrat in the Senate, has a 35.5-point lean toward the Republican Party, according to FiveThirtyEight. To put that into context, there is only one Republican in the Senate representing a state that’s even mildly bluish, and that’s Susan Collins, from Maine, which has a four-point Democratic bias.

 

Put simply, Manchin shouldn’t exist. And Democrats cannot take him for granted. Their Senate majority, and thus the whole of their legislative agenda, hinges on his ability to win elections anyone else would lose. None of that makes Manchin’s every decision laudable, or even wise, but it demands recognition. He has honed instincts worth respecting. And now, in the 50-50 Senate that teeters on his vote, he is the most powerful legislator of our age.

 

The question obsessing Washington, then, is simple: What does Manchin want? And Manchin, in statement after statement, has offered a clear answer: bipartisanship.

 

This is the core of Manchinism. All of the stances he takes that frustrate Democrats right now — his defense of the filibuster, his opposition to the For the People Act, his insistence on endless negotiations with Republicans on infrastructure — run downstream of his belief in bipartisanship. “The time has come to end these political games, and to usher a new era of bipartisanship where we find common ground on the major policy debates facing our nation,” he wrote in The Washington Post. This is maddening to his colleagues who want to judge legislation on the merits. But Manchin has been clear about his goal.

 

What has not been clear is his strategy. At his worst, Manchin prizes the aesthetic of bipartisanship over its actual pursuit. In those moments, he becomes a defender of the status quo and, paradoxically, an enabler of Republican partisanship. But over the past 24 hours, a plausible path has emerged through which Manchin could build a more cooperative and deliberative Senate. It’s narrow, but it’s there.

 

Part of the strategy relies on changing the rules. Manchin has said, over and over again, that he will not eliminate or weaken the filibuster. I wish he’d reconsider, but he won’t. The possibility remains, however, that he will strengthen the filibuster.

 

Historically, the filibuster was a way for committed groups of senators to force debate, for as long as they wanted, on issues of unusual importance to them. Modern filibusters betray that legacy. They do not require debate, they do not require the intense physical commitment of the minority and they do not encourage the long, dramatic deliberations that focus the American public on issues of consequence.

 

It’s possible to imagine a set of reforms that would restore something more like the filibuster of yore and rebuild the deliberative capacities of the Senate. This would begin with a variation on the congressional scholar Norm Ornstein’s idea to shift the burden of the filibuster: Instead of demanding 60 votes to end debate, require 40 (or 41) to continue it.

 

That would return the filibuster to something more like we imagine it to be: Impassioned minorities could hold the floor with theatrical speeches, shining public attention on their arguments, but the majority could end debate if the minority relented. To sustain this kind of filibuster would be grueling, which is as it should be. The filibuster is an extraordinary measure, and it should require extraordinary commitment to deploy.

 

The majority, for its part, would have to carefully weigh the consequences of proceeding with partisan legislation: They would gamble weeks or months of Senate time if they chose to face down a filibuster, with no guarantee of passage on the other end. A reform like this would demand more from both the majority and the minority and ignite the kinds of lengthy, public debates that the Senate was once known for.

 

In leaked audio published by The Intercept on Wednesday, Manchin appeared to favor exactly this kind of change. “I think, basically, it should be 41 people have to force the issue versus the 60 that we need in the affirmative,” he said.

 

In addition to changing the rules, Manchin could embrace his role as a broker of legislative compromise. His leverage is immense, and he could use it to force Republicans as well as Democrats to the table. But on voting rights, at least, Manchin hasn’t been wielding his power symmetrically.

 

“The truth, I would argue, is that voting and election reform that is done in a partisan manner will all but ensure partisan divisions continue to deepen,” Manchin wrote in The Charleston Gazette-Mail this month.

 

In suggesting that he would oppose any voting reform that was not bipartisan, Manchin offered Republicans a veto over the legislation rather than a choice between partisan and bipartisan bills. He was not asking of them what he was asking of his colleagues, or even of himself.

 

But on Wednesday, news broke that Manchin’s position was shifting. He is circulating a compromise voting rights memo that he believes could serve as the basis for a bipartisan bill. It eliminates much of what Democrats wanted, like the more ambitious campaign finance reforms, but it bans partisan gerrymandering, restores key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, makes Election Day a public holiday and puts in place automatic voter registration. It also includes some Republican priorities, like mandating that voters show certain forms of identification.

 

But the question Manchin faces isn’t whether there’s a voting rights bill he can support. It’s whether he’s willing to force Republicans to accept it. As the hinge vote, Manchin could offer both sides a choice: a bipartisan bill designed by Manchin (and whatever allies he chooses) or the outcome on voting rights they fear most — for Democrats, that would be nothing, and for Republicans, that would be everything.

 

If Democrats refuse to support his bill or offer something reasonable in return, Manchin could join with Republicans to kill it. If Republicans refuse to support it or offer something reasonable in return, he could join with Democrats to pass the original For the People Act, or something more like it.

 

Core to this strategy is Manchin admitting something he often pretends not to see: It is not in the Republican Party’s interest to cooperate with Democrats on major legislation. Republicans would prefer to pass nothing and watch Joe Biden’s presidency fail. This is not my supposition or slander. This is their own testimony.

 

“Mitch McConnell’s come under a lot of criticism for saying at one point he wanted to make sure that Barack Obama was a one-term president,” Senator John Barrasso, a member of the Republicans’ Senate leadership team, said. “I want to make Joe Biden a one-half-term president.”

 

Just as Manchin believes he needs to force Democrats to agree to compromise bills, so too does he need to force Republicans to agree to those bills. Bipartisanship needs to go both ways. If Manchin allows Republicans to kill any bill they do not choose to support, he will be strengthening their incentives for partisanship.

 

I said, at the top of this column, that Manchin is a political magician. So far he’s mostly been an escape artist, wriggling free of the partisan gravity that governs almost all other Senate elections. But if he could turn the filibuster into a rule that actually encouraged debate and deliberation and pass a bill that made automatic voter registration and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act the law of the land (and partisan gerrymandering a thing of the past), that would truly be his greatest trick.

[kenberg]

From Maybe Joe Manchin Knows Exactly What He’s Doing by Ezra Klein at NYT

 

 

 

My early civics education argued that majority rule sometimes must be restrained by minority wishes. The majority can force me, although it took a constitutional amendment, to pay income tax. The majority can insist that I send my children to school, or perhaps find an approved alternative. The majority cannot tell me that I must go to church. And to look at a current issue, I am pretty sure that when I was growing up the majority could tell me that I must get various vaccinations.

 

 

I thought of the filibuster as a way that a minority could deal with an overbearing majority. I guess Manchin sees this as having some merit. I can see his point, but some sense of responsibility is needed for this to work out. Klein hopes that Manchin is saying "Hey guys, let's actually try to work together on programs with broad support rather than something that passes on a 51 to 50 party-line vote." And then he hopes that this will happen. An obvious problem with the 51-50 approach is that after the next election, the 51-50 vote may go the other way. And then after another two years, switch back again. Not a good way to run a country.

 

Politics has always been rough and tumble but what we have today is worse than rough and tumble, it is partisanship carried to the point of dysfunctional. Can this be fixed? There are some very powerful people standing in the way.

[awm]

The problem is that the senate already protects minority (small state) rights by construction as well as preventing quick changes of control by having six year terms and staggered elections. In the current highly polarized environment it’s almost impossible for Democrats to ever get sixty senators, and Republicans aren’t going to pass a law banning their own voter suppression tactics!

 

Even so, if the filibuster required that the minority actually be present to hold the floor and argue against the bill they’re trying to stop, Manchin might have a point on preserving it. But the current filibuster doesn’t even require the minority to be in town — it’s just a “sixty votes for everything” rule which is pretty dumb. Hopefully when no Republicans get on board for Manchin’s “voting rights compromise” he will agree to at least require a talking filibuster.

[hrothgar]

The founders were actually quite explicit in opposing super majority requirements for passing legislation.

 

The following is useful reading on the subject

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/231040419.pdf

 

The "tradition" that Machin and Sinema are protecting is roughly 40 years old (and historically has been a tool used by racist Southerners)

[Chas_P]

I have a challenge for you.I assume you are not a fan of the guy who wants Jan 6 to be thought of as just a group of tourists, but I am hoping for more. I hope that many Republicans agree with Gerson and Will that the sooner the Trump supporters are gone from power the better off we will all be. Would you care to say where you are on this spectrum?

As previously (many times) stated, I am not a "Trump supporter". I am a common-sense supporter. I could go on, but I won't. It's a complete waste of time in this forum (but I'm 83 years old and still, hopefully, have some time to waste). I respect your views; you are the only one on here whose views I do respect even though they often differ from mine. But you seem to have a grasp on "pursuit of happiness"; most of the others only seem interested in "pursuit of power". It doesn't really bother me; I've not only pursued happiness; I've caught it. I hope you have too. Best wishes to you and Becky.

 

Your friend,

Charles

[y66]

https://www.ft.com/content/f029ba6a-2b4c-45c0-b423-74089d953173

 

From Europe’s point of view, Joe Biden’s one-week visit could hardly have gone better. Having spent four years being pilloried by Donald Trump — for low Nato defence spending, trade surpluses, freeriding on US generosity and behaving like a “geopolitical foe” — Europe was craving Biden’s diplomatic balm.

 

The 46th US president did not disappoint. America’s friendship was “rock solid”, Biden said; Europe’s security was America’s “sacred obligation”. In addition to strategic reassurance, Biden also lifted punitive US tariffs on Europe and called off the long-running Boeing-Airbus subsidy dispute.

 

The relief among European officials was visible. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, referred to America’s president as “Dear Joe” — an endearment it would be hard to imagine being used for many of Biden’s predecessors, not just Trump. “Biden’s language and tone was everything Europeans wished for,” says Jeremy Shapiro, research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

 

Long-running differences remain — not least over Europe’s low defence spending. But the larger purpose behind Biden’s trip, which began with the G7 gathering in an occasionally drizzly Cornwall and wrapped up with the Vladimir Putin summit in Geneva, had more to do with the Indo-Pacific than the Atlantic.

 

Prior to Biden’s first overseas presidential foray, there was speculation about where his strategic priority lay. Was it the contest between democracy and autocracy, managing the new era of great power competition, reasserting US-led multilateralism or forging coalitions to tackle the pandemic and global warming? The answer is “all of the above”.

 

But Biden’s trip conveyed what matters most. His overriding preoccupation is China. Biden’s much-hyped Summit of Democracy, which received rote citation from the G7, has been put off until next year. No venue was specified. By contrast, the China challenge appeared three times in the G7 communiqué and was for the first time cited by Nato — an alliance supposedly about defending the north Atlantic.

 

US President Joe Biden reassured Europe’s leaders that security was America’s ‘sacred obligation’ © Patrick Semansky/AP

“Biden’s basic message to his European friends was: ‘Don’t worry guys, I’ve got your back. Now let me go and do my real business in the Indo-Pacific’,” says Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House, the London-based think-tank. “The language on China was careful. But it threaded through everything.”

 

More

[kenberg]

As previously (many times) stated, I am not a "Trump supporter". I am a common-sense supporter. I could go on, but I won't. It's a complete waste of time in this forum (but I'm 83 years old and still, hopefully, have some time to waste). I respect your views; you are the only one on here whose views I do respect even though they often differ from mine. But you seem to have a grasp on "pursuit of happiness"; most of the others only seem interested in "pursuit of power". It doesn't really bother me; I've not only pursued happiness; I've caught it. I hope you have too. Best wishes to you and Becky.

 

Your friend,

Charles

 

Thanks, and best wishes to you as well.

 

Becky is well and my two daughters are coming around for Father's Day tomorrow so I expect to take a 24 hour break from advising the world. Who knows, maybe even longer. Or maybe shorter, some things are on my mind. One day at a time.

 

Ken

[johnu]

As previously (many times) stated, I am not a "Trump supporter".

 

I guess that is technically correct. You are a Trump stooge who blindly supports the twice impeached, one term Individual-1, Manchurian President, Grifter in Chief.

[kenberg]

The problem is that the senate already protects minority (small state) rights by construction as well as preventing quick changes of control by having six year terms and staggered elections. In the current highly polarized environment it's almost impossible for Democrats to ever get sixty senators, and Republicans aren't going to pass a law banning their own voter suppression tactics!

 

Even so, if the filibuster required that the minority actually be present to hold the floor and argue against the bill they're trying to stop, Manchin might have a point on preserving it. But the current filibuster doesn't even require the minority to be in town — it's just a "sixty votes for everything" rule which is pretty dumb. Hopefully when no Republicans get on board for Manchin's "voting rights compromise" he will agree to at least require a talking filibuster.

 

Right. There are problems. Definitely. I re-read the Klein article that I was commenting on. Klein also recognizes that there are problems.

 

Part of the article;

 

What has not been clear is his strategy. At his worst, Manchin prizes the aesthetic of bipartisanship over its actual pursuit. In those moments, he becomes a defender of the status quo and, paradoxically, an enabler of Republican partisanship. But over the past 24 hours, a plausible path has emerged through which Manchin could build a more cooperative and deliberative Senate. It's narrow, but it's there.

 

Part of the strategy relies on changing the rules. Manchin has said, over and over again, that he will not eliminate or weaken the filibuster. I wish he'd reconsider, but he won't. The possibility remains, however, that he will strengthen the filibuster.

 

Historically, the filibuster was a way for committed groups of senators to force debate, for as long as they wanted, on issues of unusual importance to them. Modern filibusters betray that legacy. They do not require debate, they do not require the intense physical commitment of the minority and they do not encourage the long, dramatic deliberations that focus the American public on issues of consequence.

 

It's possible to imagine a set of reforms that would restore something more like the filibuster of yore and rebuild the deliberative capacities of the Senate. This would begin with a variation on the congressional scholar Norm Ornstein's idea to shift the burden of the filibuster: Instead of demanding 60 votes to end debate, require 40 (or 41) to continue it.

 

 

OK, we must try not to be naive. But we need something. Some change. It's ridiculous that we cannot have a commission to look into how Jan 6 happened and appalling that the division is on party lines. Getting vaccine and wearing masks breaks dow along party lines. This is nuts.

I see Klein as saying that maybe, well sure maybe not, but maybe, just maybe, Manchin can do something about this. Not solve it, not in any complete sense, but maybe make a little progress. This is what I am agreeing with.

Your reply came before Richard's and I decided to just copy your comment, but much of this is also for Richard. And I note in particular "restore something more like the filibuster of yore ". Thanks R for the reference, I will at least browse it. But if we go back maybe 60 years instead of 40, and instead of to the 1780s, I think the filibuster was the "filibuster of yore". And yes, I know it was used by the south to support racist structures. I am not suggesting that we return to that.

Mostly I worry that we have reached a stage of dysfunction. I don't expect a miracle, but if, as perhaps might happen, Manchin can bring maybe a dozen or so Republicans to support something of substance then I say hooray.

[Winstonm]

I doubt whether 11 Republican Senators will ever vote yes and risk the voting wrath of the hard right. They may want to - but can they or will they need to pull a Flake?

[kenberg]

I doubt whether 11 Republican Senators will ever vote yes and risk the voting wrath of the hard right. They may want to - but can they or will they need to pull a Flake?

 

To quote:

 

They call you Lady Luck

But there is room for doubt

 

 

But then Luck was a lady for that night

 

And while on this side subject, I recently read that Damon Runyon and Bat Masterson were friends and that Sky was modeled on Bat. Loosely modeled, I think.

 

Anyway, we can hope.Or

 

You might forget your manners

You might refuse to stay

And so the best that I can do is pray.

 

We need some help!

 

 

ok, it's a song of optimism.

[Winstonm]

To quote:

 

They call you Lady Luck

But there is room for doubt

 

 

But then Luck was a lady for that night

 

And while on this side subject, I recently read that Damon Runyon and Bat Masterson were friends and that Sky was modeled on Bat. Loosely modeled, I think.

 

Anyway, we can hope.Or

 

You might forget your manners

You might refuse to stay

And so the best that I can do is pray.

 

We need some help!

 

 

ok, it's a song of optimism.

 

I've got a horse right here

His name is Paul Revere

 

And there are also songs for suckers.

 

Can do, can do

This guy says the horse can do

[Chas_P]

I guess that is technically correct. You are a Trump stooge who blindly supports the twice impeached, one term Individual-1, Manchurian President, Grifter in Chief.

Just out of sheer curiosity, what do you hope to be when you grow up Johnboy?

[hrothgar]

Just out of sheer curiosity, what do you hope to be when you grow up Johnboy?

 

In my case, dancing on your grave....

[pilowsky]

I don't watch TV any more.

If I want a laugh I watch a bit of Fox news.

The best comedy is delivered with a straight face.

Here is a particularly stupid example where a Fox "news" commentator explains why it sucks to live in Denmark.

This is a direct transcript - some of it is incoherent rambling which is why not all of it makes any sense, but you get the gist.

00:02

 

You know what Shakespeare said there's something rotten in Denmark. Denmark too folks (compares it with Venezuela) because Denmark's freebies while (incoherent) anything for free let's talk about this because we're talking about a tax rate, a federal tax rate of 56% in other words everyone in Denmark is working for the government and this doesn't even include the 25% value-added tax VAT everything else there costs (00:28) 25% more or gosh. I mean, take a look at cars they have a 180% tax on cars you pay more in taxes than you do on the actual car and no. Work this is a real problem because they're heavily in debt but as of 2013 only three of the country's 98 municipalities actually had more than half the population working (this includes babies and senior citizens).

 

 

00:53

 

And having gotten to school schools free universities free that's lovely they have a program there it's supposed to take you five years but you see not only is school free, they actually pay you basically $990 a month to go to school not bad, eh, well, you know what happens then nobody graduates from school, they just stay in school longer and longer and longer.

 

 

01:15

 

I mean, what's supposed to take you five years is taking everyone six plus years. Because that's the reality of socialism as one person who studied Denmark said nowadays all the kids graduating from school in Denmark, they want to start cupcake cafes (laughs like there's no tomorrow) nothing wrong with cupcakes. I think Magnolia here in New York it's pretty successful but in other words, nobody's incentivized to do anything because they're not gonna be rewarded.

 

 

01:42

 

Denmark like Venezuela has strict people of their opportunities is that the direction that we want to go in. Bernie Sanders likes it this woman from Queens likes it and a lot of young Democrats are now looking at these two as their future.

 

If you want a good laugh google Regan Denmark.

 

It's a little dated but in light of the events that followed, even more apposite.

 

 

[Chas_P]

In my case, dancing on your grave....

Hopefully you'll be grown up by then. But I have my doubts.

[pilowsky]

Hopefully you'll be grown up by then. But I have my doubts.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

"Give Me A Child Until He Is 7 And I Will Show You The Man.” - Aristotle.

In the academic world, people are wrong most of the time.

It's expected. That's how new things are discovered.

In the 'real world', the opposite is true. Everyone is right. All of the time. Nobody changes their mind.

Intelligence isn't how much you know (or how fast your fingers are with Google), it's your preparedness to change your mind in the face of new information.

[y66]

I never expected the supply-chain issues to be more than transitory, or the Fed to be irresponsible. But if you were worried about either possibility, this past week should have reassured you. Runaway inflation isn't coming.

 

Thread:

[y66]

https://zacharydcarter.substack.com/p/milton-friedman

 

I’ve written the cover story for the July-August issue of The New Republic. In keeping with conventions of magazine journalism that I have never fully understood, this means that the piece is available now. The story is a long look at the life and legacy of Milton Friedman, one of the most influential intellectuals of the 20th century whose ideas, I believe, have finally run out of political steam.

 

It’s a long feature. I encourage everyone to read the whole thing and won’t attempt to summarize every theme of the piece here. But I do want to highlight one particular point: the secret to Friedman’s success in the world of ideas was his ability to influence American liberals — his political adversaries — rather than his conservative allies.

 

Friedman avoided the label “conservative” throughout his life, but there is no doubt about the direction of his political inclinations. He advised Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign and was a friend of both President Ronald Reagan and National Review Editor William F. Buckley.

 

But though he became very popular with conservative intellectuals, on many key issues, rank-and-file conservative voters simply didn’t buy what Friedman was selling. The most striking case in point is on race. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Friedman argued that a free market economy liberated from every possible stricture of government oversight would serve as an effective way to root out racism from American society. Racism was irrational, he argued, so racist policies would put the companies that practiced them at a competitive disadvantage. When consumers favored products offered by more open-minded enterprises, bigotry and violence would fade from society.

 

Not many people today believe this sort of thing. But not many conservatives believed it back in the 1960s, either. Goldwater supporters didn’t back him because they expected him to wage a more rigorous crusade for racial justice than President Lyndon B. Johnson — they pulled the lever for Goldwater because they thought he would uphold the Jim Crow social order.

 

The most important audience for Friedman’s work wasn’t the conservative movement in which he became a star, but liberal readers. By persuading a good chunk of his political opponents that he shared their values and social goals, Friedman built support for a policy program that ultimately undermined those very liberal objectives.

 

Democrats never followed Friedman all the way to laissez-faire fanaticism, but they did adopt much of his economic worldview, believing it could be adapted to the party’s broader social agenda. The ring of power did not have to be destroyed, but could be harnessed for progressive purposes. And so President Joe Biden’s call to “change the paradigm” on economic policy is a very significant development. Biden may or may be able to enact the ambitious economic overhaul he has proposed — at the moment, his political inclinations on Senate procedure are really holding him back — but he and other party leaders are at least thinking clearly about economic ideas for the first time in decades.

 

TNR will be hosting a live zoom event on Tuesday, June 29 at 7:00 p.m. EST to discuss the decline of Friedmanism and the rise of a new economic paradigm. I’ll be joined by Felicia Wong of the Roosevelt Institute and Osita Nwanevu and Jason Linkins from TNR. You can register here.

Friedman’s major theoretical contribution to economics—the belief that prices rose or fell depending on the money supply—simply fell apart during the crash of 2008. “Whether people openly admit it or not, his monetary views are no longer included in serious analysis and forecasting,” said Skanda Amarnath, research director at Employ America, a think tank focused on economic policy. “The Fed’s balance sheet swelled enormously during and after the financial crisis, and it did not matter a lick for inflation. There was a huge role for fiscal policy that Friedman just ignored.”

 

And few serious economists today accept Friedman’s hard divide between economic fact and political reality. “Friedman developed a fantasy land of theory that ignored the way economic power can be used to capture elements of the political system to generate additional economic gains for those at the top,” said the New School’s Hamilton.

 

This vicious cycle has been degrading American democracy for decades. Joe Biden is the first president to desecrate not only the tenets of Friedman’s economic ideas, but the anti-democratic implications of his entire philosophy. He is also the first Democratic president since the 1960s who has formulated and publicly endorsed a coherent defense of American government as an expression of democratic energy. It is a powerful vision that enjoys the support of a large majority of American citizens. He has nothing to fear but Friedman himself.

[kenberg]

 

 

Carter quotes Larry Summers, giving a link

 

 

 

 

Not so long ago, we were all Keynesians. ("I am a Keynesian," Richard Nixon famously said in 1971.) Equally, any honest Democrat will admit that we are now all Friedmanites. Mr. Friedman, who died last week at 94, never held elected office but he has had more influence on economic policy as it is practiced around the world today than any other modern figure.

 

I grew up in a family of progressive economists, and Milton Friedman was a devil figure. But over time, as I studied economics myself and as the world evolved, I came to have grudging respect and then great admiration for him and for his ideas. No contemporary economist anywhere on the political spectrum combined Mr. Friedman's commitment to clarity of thought and argument, to scientifically examining evidence and to identifying policies that will make societies function better.

 

 

I remember reading that column at the time. It was, as Summers notes, just after Friedman died.

 

 

Economics is complicated. Anything involving humans is complicated. Physics is difficult but in a different way. Einstein worked out relativity theory, but if you want to study the path of a golf ball Newton is still fine. And you certainly don't need quantum mechanics But with economics there is an all or nothing nature. Keynes or Friedman, choose one. Or maybe, now, choose neither. But who? Or I guess that should be "But whom".

[y66]

People who are struggling need to plan, and to plan they need to understand.

More info re: child tax credit: https://www.whitehouse.gov/child-tax-credit/

[johnu]

 

Wild conspiracy theories coming out of the Trump White House was common practice for four years, but details are emerging from emails sent by Donald Trump’s chief of staff to the Department of Justice that put one of them in a whole new light. In the latest episode of The Point, CNN’s Chris Cillizza unpacks Italygate, a conspiracy theory that Italian satellites influenced the 2020 election.

 

On today's Rachel Maddow show, she gave the story behind the story.

 

The person behind this ridiculous fantasy is a Trump grifter named Michele Ballarin, aka Michele Golden, aka Michele Roosevelt Edwards. She held a press conference in Iceland 2 years ago announcing that she was restarting WOW airline which had gone bankrupt 8 years previously, and would be starting flights in a month. Nothing ever happened. Icelandic news sent a TV crew to the US to interview her and met her at a palatial estate that she said she had recently bought. There were questions whether she actually lived there and the Washington Post did some investigating. Turns out the owner had recently died and his widow said the house was for sale and she had no idea who this grifter staying in her house actually was. How did Michele get access to the house which was for sale? More investigation revealed that Michele was also a real estate agent who would be able to gain entry to the house to show to potential buyers.

 

In March 2021, Michele (too many last names to count) said she had shares in Icelandair and announced that a merger could be in the future. Icelandair rejected Michele's offer to buy because they said there was no money behind the offer.

 

With that kind of background, the only question I have is why Michele isn't on the Trump Organization board of directors, or VP of Grifting???

[pilowsky]

 

In March 2021, Michele (too many last names to count) said she had shares in Icelandair and announced that a merger could be in the future. Icelandair rejected Michele's off to buy because they said there was no money behind the offer.

 

With that kind of background, the only question I have is why Michele isn't on the Trump Organization board of directors, or VP of Grifting???

 

Suggesting the oxymoron: 'Trump payroll'.