Sure enough, no one has bothered to even mention Donald Trump's loony proposal to punish banks by capping credit card interest rates at 10%. I found a grand total of two items in the news this morning: a MarketWatch piece saying nobody is taking it seriously and a short criticism in National Review.
By contrast, Kamala Harris's comparatively moderate price gouging proposal, often couched as "price controls," absolutely blanketed the discourse last month. The criticism of her attack on the free market was almost unanimous and went on for weeks.
But Trump's attack on the free market? Crickets. Funny how this works, isn't it?
Oh Kevin, we've long known that the media reporting on the economy is always about vibes and feels, and the narrative was set decades ago. Why waste time wondering about it?
Such things don't generate themselves - journos are lazy, generally innumerate, and time pressed - the Democrats should work the refs as the expression goes and and treat this as some immaculate theoretical excercise.
Even people who support Harris spent a lot of time attacking her "price controls." (E.g., Noah Smith)
Many people? So many people.
They are distracted by Trump’s giant Canadian faucet that he will presumably force open to make it pour water to LA from British Columbia.
https://youtu.be/EAALquBIa8I?si=G5tP_wTtVJqCkqnH
😂😂😂
I have a (former) friend who sent out a longer excerpt from that "news conference" to a big text thread bragging about how it shows how in command of complex issues Trump is in a very big contrast to Harris. Just gobsmackingly clueless.
Your (former) friend is not very bright, because Trump is just a walking pile of what an idiot thinks a smart person sounds like.
He's also a non-wealthy person's idea of what a wealth person is like.
Among other things, it sounds like he thinks that because north is up and south is down on a map, the water will automatically flow south from Canada to Los Angeles by gravity, or something. (It's a common misconception -- you know, among 8-year-olds.)
And that gigantic spigot, that's quite a thing. Geez, what an idiot. How does he even get his pants on?
He probably has someone to do it for him.
"It's not a lie, if you believe it"
For what it's worth, DJT is below $15 and still falling(?). Rest of stock market is up--I'm afraid to look at P/E's.
An intraday low of $13.86!
It's currently at $14.00. 😁
They give him the respect of a serious candidate but treat him as if he's not. He's rarely receives push back for whatever nonsense he puts out. This is the continuing failure of the MSM to inform the public.
+1
Good call.
Surely Kamala just needs to do more media interviews and put out more detailed policy papers to get fairer coverage of her and her opponent’s economic plans. Surely.
What is it about Trump that he gets such a pass on everything? People just looking for any excuse to vote for him.
Why does nobody take Trump seriously? It's a good question. Is it because he's a bullshitter and everybody knows not to waste time on what a bullshitter says?
That's a good rule of thumb for an annoying neighbor. But maybe not for a guy who's within the margin of error of being elected president in about six weeks.
Even though he's a bullshitter who says inane things every day, isn't it reasonable to expect some of his promises will be actions he takes if he wins power? Capping credit card interest rates won't be a priority. Mass deportation probably will be.
There's a blueprint in Project 2025 that hasn't gotten nearly enough attention. It's a right-wing fantasy that would be a bad-enough movie script but there's a pretty decent chance he'll at least attempt to make it happen. It's terrifying.
Keep on eye on how they treat the legal immigrants of Springfield. If you live in a blue state, or within shooting range of nonwhite people, your town may be next.
"Why does nobody take Trump seriously? It's a good question." Indeed it is, but another good question is why people are willing to vote for someone they don't take seriously.
Because a lot of people don't take voting seriously. They don't take elections seriously, or the country seriously, or anything that happens to other people seriously. This is a defining feature of the people of MAGA.
They really don't care, and if you do take voting and all the rest seriously, the joke's on you.
David French:
Lovely people for the lovely times we live in.
I wish I could argue that French is wrong but I think he's on to something.
... isn't it reasonable to expect some of his promises will be actions he takes if he wins power?
Only the ones that conform to his KNOWN attitudes, which are known because of his actions and because they are themes to which he keeps returning. He WILL cut taxes for rich people because HE is rich and is almost single-mindedly self-centered when it comes to using governmental power to enrich himself. He WILL use the power of the Federal government to go after those he perceives as enemies -- in ways that would make Nixon blush -- because he is pathologically vindictive. And he WILL pursue -- and/or encourage his minions to pursue -- policies that victimize non-White people because he is a bone-deep racist.
All these things, by the way, are why his cult adores him and takes him "seriously not literally," AND why his Good
GermanRepublican supporters wrinkle their Very Fine Noses at his crudeness but support him anyway. THEY know that the words that occasionally come out of his mouth are truly just hot air. But SOME of them reflect deeper attitudes, and it's THOSE that tell us what he would do if (FSM forbid!) he were ever given power again.Why is his proposal looney?
There was a federal proposal in the 1990s to cap credit card interest rates at 14%.
Many states have usury laws. May states restrict or prohibit payday lending, or cap the fees that such lenders can charge.
10% is not usury. It would be lower than CC interest rate have been for at least 30 years (typically 12% to 16%, on average, except when inflation spiked in 2022).
If he actually won, don't hold your breath waiting for 10%. His banker friends would make sure he'd never speak of it again.
If a proposal has 0% of passing, that would be one reason it's looney.
"10% is not usury." Not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that. That's the proposal, not the current rate.
Anyway, there is a role for the feds to oversee bank rates and ensure consumers are not getting screwed. Details on limits may be a fair discussion, though generally letting markets set rates is best.
Still, Trump's number is almost certainly a spur-of-the-moment whim, not a serious proposal.
It's not "looney," but it is deeply unserious.
A) If it did happen, banks would respond in ways that many people would dislike. In order to maintain profitability they would limit credit access, raise fees for retailers, and cut credit card perks.
B) Because of the likely repercussions, it will never happen. Too many constituencies would fight it.
Yes, many states cap interest rates. And when they do, things like payday lending disappear from those states. You have to decide if cutting off credit is worth rate cap. It is easy to make that argument for payday lending, especially since there are better ways to get credit for former payday loan borrowers. We don't have better options for the people with poor credit who would lose access to credit cards.
With respect to your first point--and assuming I feel any sympathy for banks facing a reduction in profits, which I do not--what you are describing is a transfer of costs from people who carry a balance to people who do not carry a balance.
As the people who do not carry a balance are typically wealthier, I don't care. The societal harm arising from an underclass trapped in debt is far greater than the societal harm arising from a few percentage points in transaction fees. Milking the poor to reduce transaction fees and support rewards programs is analogous to using lottery revenue to compensate for lower state income or property taxes.
"But Trump's attack on the free market? Crickets. Funny how this works, isn't it?"
Not funny. There will be a price to pay for not taking Trump literally or even seriously. Not perhaps at the hands of the 78 year old buffoon, but at the hands of one of many wannabe Trumps.
Trump is currently in loser mode. He is making promises that are popular and sound good but he has no intent of following up on. If kids could vote he would be proposing free candy and ice cream in school. It is best, I think, to ignore this. If you try to respond more people will hear it and think it sounds like a good idea. None of his money people think for even a minute that he will give this a second thought after he wins, so they will ignore it. Democratic voters will wonder why Democrats don’t support it.
This is why a second debate with him would be a mistake. Look at all the traction that Haitian pet eating shit got. Most people hadn’t even heard about it until Trump spouted it off during the debate. While it helped Harris at the time, making Trump look looney, I think a lot more people now know what he is talking about and believe it is happening. If he talks about no tax on SS and capping credit card interest he might get people wanting to vote for him. Like a kid wanting free ice cream.
The Wall Street Journal takes out the garbage.
Trump Floats Long-Shot Proposal for 10% Cap on Credit-Card Rates
https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-floats-longshot-proposal-for-10-cap-on-credit-card-rates-087a3817
"The American Bankers Association said the Trump cap 'would result in the loss of credit for the very consumers who need it the most.' It said those borrowers would be forced to use riskier alternatives, including payday lenders and loan sharks. "
Literally noone cares about the 'free market'. It is always just a phrase that's used to defend or attack policy preferences.
Does that help the good people I promote? Then by definition it is FREEMARKET!
Does that help the lowly peons that I despise? How dare you corrupt the FREEMARKET!
The WSJ is in a jam because they must promote Trump and they must promote the banking industry.
Hiding the real facts with a blizzard of chaff has been with us for a long, long time. The only thing that changes is the terminology; these days it's phrased as 'Flood the zone with shit', as unsavory character so charmingly put it.
The Right, Conservatives, Trump supporters, say they want to send America back to a better time. If you consider all those tax reductions, but increases in tariffs, that would be very early times in America, when we were much smaller and weaker -- just the way Putin would prefer us.
Wait, no food imports? Are they insane? Coffee, chocolate, bananas, cinnamon, etc. What are we colonists or something?
The “Russia Russia Russia” meme may be tiring, but it's still there, looming over Trump and the entire Republican Party. Most recent news about Russian propaganda influencing Republicans keeps it alive. It's not worth talking about in the campaign, though.
Harris is doing well, and has to keep driving toward the 270+ electoral win. The WORLD is counting on her.
Come on, Kevin. If Elizabeth Warren had made that identical proposal you'd be praising her to the skies and bashing the banks' response as piggish. But because it came from Trump...
There's a difference. One side would have every intention of trying to accomplish this policy. While the other is a pathological liar who would say anything to anyone and most certainly do nothing to accomplish the policy should he win.
Well, then, if he's a pathological liar who will do nothing to accomplish the policy, why worry about its effects on banking or anything else?
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. —Voltaire"
I find the quotes at the top of the page very informative and entertaining. Unfortunately, sometimes too on point for our current circumstances.