Here's a headline in the New York Times today:
This highlights a problem either with journalists or with economists. I can safely say that economists aren't "skeptical" of Trump's tariff blather. They think it's straight up bullshit.
So is the problem that economists are too polite to say so when a Times reporter calls? Or that the Times reporter feels an obligation to tone down what they say in order not to seem anti-Trump?
The truth is pretty simple:
- Tariffs don't "tend" to be borne by US businesses and households. They just are. They're collected by the customs service from American importers.
- Tariffs would not "likely" generate less than the trillions of dollars Trump promises. They wouldn't, period. On net, they might even generate negative revenue.
- Retaliatory tariffs wouldn't "probably" do little to affect the dollar's role as a reserve currency. They would almost certainly make the dollar less attractive. The whole idea of using harsh tariffs to protect the dollar is "a bit nuts," says Brad Setser.
- "Most economists" don't say that Trump's tariffs would increase inflation. They all do.
I understand the obligations reporters are under to appear evenhanded. Language has to be restrained. Everything has to be sourced. You can't just state things on your own authority.
And yet, an ordinary person who managed to plow through the entire Times piece would probably come out of it thinking that tariffs are kind of complicated and it's not really clear if Trump is right or not. This is simply not correct.
We still haven't figured out how to cover someone who lies and blusters the way Trump does. When he says that tariffs on China are paid by China, he's either lying or he's a moron. That's it. Those are the choices. But you can't say that in the New York Times.
The New York Times blows.
I thought maybe after Biden bowed out they would get better. You know, do some penance for driving the "HER EMAILS" story in 2016. But no, they are doing their best to let TFG "both sides" himself back to power
Damn straight.
I was curious to see if the Washington Post did any better. In the news article (four days ago) that I found, here is some of what Trump said:
Economic Club of New York, where a panelist asked him what legislation he would prioritize to reduce the cost of child care.
After saying he “would do that” and calling it a “very important issue,” Trump pivoted to pitching “taxing foreign nations at levels they’re not used to — but they’ll get used to very quickly.” Trump has long discussed slapping tariffs of at least 10 percent on imports, raising concerns of a trade war if he returns to the White House.
The Republican presidential nominee suggested in New York that the revenue from such tariffs would somehow be so large that the cost of child care would no longer be a concern for the United States.
And I could find no refutation of Trump's lies in the rest of the article. I can see no other explanation than that whoever calls the shots at the Post wants Trump to win.
"he's either lying or he's a moron"
Correction - both could be true. And probably are.
These big media companies are really not in business to provide a reasonable source of news. That would be a coincidence if it came out that way. They are in business to make the maximum amount of revenue, which usually means advertising revenue, which usually is roughly proportional to clicks on links. We are not speaking of Edward Murrow or Walter Cronkite here. (Side note: MAGA implies that there was a time when America was great and it is not now. I'll wager two dollars that none of these "patriots" actually would welcome a return to the days of Murrow and Cronkite...)
Yesterday on BlueSky Andy Pearlman had an excellent sentence: "Unclear if Trump was lying, ignorant or delusional, but it was one of the three."
Shorter reply to any Trump statement: Put a LID on it, Don.
I would increase that to two of the three. He lies so often that it almost goes without saying that he is lying at any given moment in time.
That should be "...one OR MORE of the three." Probably, all three apply.
And another weird thing is that making the dollar less attractive would also, if I understand economics properly, increase the debt. We would owe more money because it would be worth less.
Weird is the operative word!
They can, they just refuse to do so. This is their attempt to equalize Trump with everyone else. It's dishonest and does nothing to inform the public. They're too concerned with facing unwarranted criticism from Trump and his cult.
There is a real-life precedent. Why isn't anyone discussing the effects of the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 and the Great Depression that followed?
Because nobody is interested in a real discussion, because it doesn't get clicks (media) or it bores the voters (politicians).
Or the Japanese expansionist wars that followed, since they needed either free trade or a giant empire in order to maintain their economy. Start taking away free trade and suddenly invading your neighbors looks like a good option.
This does frustrate Econ major me just a bit. No discussion of the well known short, medium and long term effects of high tariffs covered in Econ 101. Or of how much that stuff they buy at Walmart (none here but I did live where it was the only place in town to buy a lot of things, or the place to buy a lot of stuff cheap - I'm no purist or elitist that way) would cost if it was all made in a relatively high wage country like the US. You know, comparative advantage and all that.
The Times does have one good article on Trump's age and mental capacity on the front page today (finally!), but equivocating on how tariffs work is an egregious case of journalistic malpractice.
It's fair to not take sides on whether tariffs are good or bad policy in a campaign story. But failing to correct Trump on his misinformed ideas about economics is cowardly and disgraceful. If there's any value that journalism can offer the public, telling them that Candidate X is wrong when he's wrong should be a priority.
Investopedia explains tariffs clearly:
What's so hard about that? Or why couldn't the Times find an economist to provide a quote? Was Paul Krugman not available?
In 2000, in the days before the election, he wrote:
A perfect critique of where his employer is today.
the press is doing their damnedest to normalize the traitorous lying sack of shit
what would trump have to do to for any media outlet to call him 'the disgraced former president'?
nbc is comfortable doing this:
Rudy Giuliani, the disgraced former mayor of New York who tried to overturn former President Donald Trump's election loss
why be squeamish with trump?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/rudy-giuliani-disbarred-new-york-spreading-donald-trumps-2020-election-rcna159972
What would he have to do? He'd have to lose. While there's still a chance he might win the election, they're scared to tell it like it is.
Yes he is a lying moron.
Remember the wall that was going to paid for by Mexico.
Remember that to replace the ACA, he claimed to have had a much better plan that cost less. And it would be so easy to do?
Everything he says is total bull shit. He has no plans to end the war in Ukraine. He has no plans to end the war in Gaza. He has no plans to fix inflation (which is mostly fixed), except for this absurd tariff BS, and another $5T of tax cuts for the wealthy.
The only way that this deranged orange creature is tied in the polls with an actual functioning human, is that this country is filled with fucking morons.
"Remember the wall that was going to paid for by Mexico."
This is moronic, and the other poinst you made to, but they got him elected as president. That shows that he is not a moron, but he knows how to use moronic ideas.
To think that somebody that succeeded to become a president is a a moron is frankly infantile, and actually helps Trump, because it makes him look less dangerous than he actually is.
anyone that thinks using bleach or shining UV on your internal organs will cure covid is a moron
Anybody that thinks that Trump actually believed that bleach or UV cure covid is stupid. He never cared about a cure for covid.
He said it because he had an argument with the scientists and he wanted to to show them who is the boss and humiliate them, by intentionally saying idiotic things.
Yes, Trump actually believed that, the same way the he actually believes that humans are like batteries and that exercising drains that energy and once you run out you can't have more.
There are a ton of patently stupid things he truly believes because he is a truly stupid person.
If you really believe that he actually believes all these things, based solely on the fact he said them, then you are genuinely stupid.
You cannot assume he believes anything he says, ever.
Half the stuff he has said to belive he has been saying them since long before he entered politics, or when there was no incentive to say it. If you are not aware of that you are genuinely stupid or misinformed.
"Half the stuff he has said to belive he has been saying them since long before he entered politics"
So what?
He (obviously) lied a lot before entering politics.
As to the incentives, you need to show the lack of incentives. You should note that just dragging attention to himself is a strong incentive for Trump, and it is the explanation in many cases.
And yes, he also believe many stupid things, but that is true for all of us, specially in domains which we don't care about.
You believe stupid things on subjects you don't care about? lol. Why? And why assume everyone does?
"You believe stupid things on subjects you don't care about? lol. Why?"
1. Because I am not god and I don't believe I am.
2. Because I see other people expressing stupid ideas about matters they didn't think about all the time, and I don't believe I am an exception.
"You cannot assume he believes anything he says, ever."
So then why do you assume he DOES NOT believe them? None of us can read his mind (thank god) but when it comes to judging Trump, all we have to go on are the stupid things he's said and the stupid things he's done. Occam's razor says that he is probably stupid.
To believe otherwise would require a person to twist those stupid things into some sort of opposite, like a clever ruse to fool people into thinking he's stupid when he's really not.
I've seen no evidence to support that view.
"So then why do you assume he DOES NOT believe them?"
I am looking at his actual actions.
Very interesting you didn't think about it. I am sure you are not stupid enough to not consider people actions when judging them in other situations, but in the case of Trump you somehow forgot it.
People! Why do you keep feeding this obvious troll? It might be different if it was making reasonable points, but instead it’s just calling you’stupid.’ Move on.
Yes. Downvotes lacking here as well as upvotes.
Did you watch the press conference? I did. He did believe it. He was making asinine suggestions while the experts around him went along with his stupidity. This is what happens when a person in power is a moron and the people around him are to afraid to correct him in public or private for that matter.
"Did you watch the press conference? "
He was talking, and if you think you can judge what Trump believes by simply listening to him, so you are really limited.
It is the same mistake that many of his supporters do: they listen to him, have the gut feeling that is "right", and trust this gut feeling (like you trust yours). They and you ignore the fact that he is a life-long fraudster who lives on bamboozling people.
Being smart is not a requirement to getting elected President. All the evidence points to Trump being a giant moron, what allows him to succeed despite being a complete moron is that so are the majority of his supporters.
Nobody claims he is smart. But he is also not a moron.
Being a moron isn't useful to be able bamboozle other morons. Many other people tried to bamboozle them, and you need to find better ways of doing it. He is skilled at this.
The only thing needed to bamboozle morons is to have no morals. It is like taking things from a child. All it takes is being willing to do it. That is why he has succeeded were others failed.
Your analogy is broken.
Other people "don't succeed to take things from a child" because they don't try to do that. Hence "succeding in taking something from a child" doesn't show you have more skill than others.
Many people try to bamboozle the morons, and they don't succeed as Trump does. That shows he is skilled at this.
How much skill or intelligence do you think is involved in bamboozling a moron? It's quite easy. Even a man like Trump can do it. All you have to do is lie with conviction. And lie often. I guess you can consider it a skill, but hardly indicative of an intelligent mind at work. The fact that he often contradicts one lie with the next proves he's not smart enough to be consistent with his lies.
".. but hardly indicative of an intelligent mind at work. "
I am not claiming he has "an inteligent mind at work". I am claiming he is not a moron. He is a skilled bamboozler.
Yes, when I actually pay attention (like last night) my judgement is that unfortunately he isn't suffering from dementia like his father did (he lived to 93 though) or anything like many claim about him.
He may have slowed down a bit like most people do at his age if they get there, but he's just more and more of the con man he always was. He's just doing more of what he has always been rewarded for like any animal would.
No, it proves he has no morals. ""succeeding taking something from a child" doesn't show you have more skill than others" The same goes for bamboozling morons. It's more of a lack of morals than any skill.
This and your previous reply ignore the fact that many other people try to bamboozle the tens of millions that he does, and he does it better than all of them together.
the comaprison to what other people do when they try to do the same is the key to my argument.
"many other people try to bamboozle the tens of millions that he does, and he does it better than all of them together."
For one, a lot of them are not getting bamboozled, they fully aware of what they are getting. And whether willingly or bamboozled, he gets those people because he has zero ethics and morals.
For example, when for decades Republicans were worrying about how to appeal to racists with dog-wisthles because they were scared of coming out as full blown racists, Trump didn't give a fuck and flat out said the racist things with no shame. He has no shame about hawking gold sneakers, or bibles, or NFTs or whatever.
That's how he convinces people even though he is a moron. His skill is simply being shameless and not caring about pretending to be honest. No other politician has shown the same willingness to do that.
Okay, that's quite enough. Fuck off back to where you came from, you stupid, stupid little troll.
That is part of it. But he has an animal cunning for sensing people's weaknesses. He's 78 with dementia now, but the belittling, bullying names stuck because he was good at sensing people.'s weaknesses.
The fact that Trump got elected as president simply proves that half the voting population is prepared to vote for a moron.
Well, almost 3 million people short of that anyway. Thanks again, stupid archaic Electoral College.
Anyone that becomes president has to have some skill sets, even if it's not being smart. George W. Bush grew up in politics and was very skilled at staying on message.
Trump knows where his applause lines are.
"Lying or a Moron" The NYT news reporters apparently can't say that, but plenty of the NYT Opinion columnists certainly have no hesitation in doing so. Paul Krugman, Peter Coy, David French, etc. etc. And the news folks are happy to quote others who say it.
I'm betting on "Moron", by the way. He loves to lie, but I see no evidence that Trump understands any basic economics.
As an aside, if DJT starts going on about the price of bacon in tonight's debate, I hope someone asks him "When was the last time you went shopping in a grocery store?" I bet the true answer is "never."
As I wrote above, it is infantile to think somebody that succeeded to become a president is a moron.
He doesn't understand economics because he doesn't care about it. He cares about bamboozling people, and he did succeed to bamboozle most American to trust him on economics.
https://www.newsweek.com/despite-struggles-trump-still-leading-harris-economy-immigration-1949441
he does care about economics, but dunning–kruger makes him believe everyone else is wrong and he's a genius
that makes him a moron
See George W Bush as another example of a complete moron becoming President.
He doesn't understand economics because he's a moron. You may think he doesn't care about it, but even if that were true it's besides the point. Trump is a genuinely stupid person. A.K.A a moron. You don't necessarily have to be smart to bamboozle someone. Speaking with confidence goes further than you think. Add to this the fact that many of his die hard supporters are more ignorant and stupid than he is it's no wonder he's been able to bamboozle so many of them. The rest of his supporters know he's stupid and just don't care. Having said that, being stupid doesn't mean he's not dangerous. If he was more intelligent he'd be that more dangerous.
Show. Your. Homework. Argument by assertion seems to be the only argument you have almost every time. Now put your money where your fat mouth is.
Which assertion I made in the post you replied to that you think is not either obvious or supported by evidence?
The ones you made in the post I replied to ... dumbass. What the hell is wrong with you?
I number them:
1) As I wrote above, it is infantile to think somebody that succeeded to become a president is a moron.
---- That is obvious to any sane person.
2) He doesn't understand economics because he doesn't care about it.
---- That is obvious to any sane person.
3) He cares about bamboozling people,
---- That is obvious to any sane person.
4) and he did succeed to bamboozle most American to trust him on economics.
---- I gave a link for this one.
Try again. Which one you think is not obvious or the link is wrong?
One more time: All of them ... dumbass. I specifically told you to show your support for each of those assertions. Show. Your. Homework.
In case you still don't get the point, you don't get to make unsupported flat assertions and insist on everyone accepting those assertions as fact.
Now behave like a grownup and show your goddamn work.
I am not insisting on anyone accepting them as fact. But I do expect people that do not agree with me to be able to express coherent position rather than "everything you say is wrong".
That is obviousy beyond your capabilities. I give up.
Translation: I have no intention of showing my work because I haven't any, so I'll just declare victory and exit.
Another argument by assertion, BTW:
People who you disagree with have expressed coherent opinions, you fucking moron. Oh, one last thing here's a partial list of former members of the Trump administration who say he's an idiot.
Now get the Hell out here, you fucking troll. And don't come back.
The creature you are engaging is one of the most obnoxious trolls on this site. Just don't feed it.
It tries to purge people from the site by abusing them until they stop posting - a rather loathsome individual.
Sorry but no wonder you think Trump isn't a moron, You seem to be an even bigger one than him.
These have to be the most idiotic answers I've seen around here, and that is saying something when you consider some of the usual trolls we get.
"1) As I wrote above, it is infantile to think somebody that succeeded to become a president is a moron.
---- That is obvious to any sane person."
Getting elected is purely a popularity contest. Fricking animals, dead people, and non existing people have been elect to office. The majority of the population will always vote for the same party they always vote regardless of the candidate. This should be obvious to anyone who isn't a big fucking moron.
"2) He doesn't understand economics because he doesn't care about it.
---- That is obvious to any sane person."
List a single topic he understands well, were you can say he actually knows what he is talking about. There is none because be is a moron. Interest in a topic has nothing to do with it. You can have zero interest in something and still be able to understand the topic. Or you could be the most interested in something and still never being able to understand it.
"3) He cares about bamboozling people,
---- That is obvious to any sane person."
He cares about getting attention and money. Most of his supporters aren't getting conned, they are happy participants. By definition getting bamboozled requires the person not being aware of what they are getting.
"4) and he did succeed to bamboozle most American to trust him on economics.
---- I gave a link for this one."
Most Americans don't trust him to run a lemonade stand, and the majority of his followers don't follow him because of how good or bad they think he is with economics, they follow him because he acknowledges and approves of their bigotry. They like him because he hates the same people they do, and he tells them it is ok to act on that hate.
This both-sides reporting has been making our world worse for 40 years if not longer. This is nothing new.
I'm all for fair and fact-based reporting, and understand and support being careful with your wording. But the NYT, and the press writ large, has always taken it way, way too far.
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell's going to have a field day with this. He spent 15 minutes last night on a rampage at the NYT's political reporters for not grasping the fact that Trump thinks THE FOREIGN COUNTRIES PAY THE TARIFF. And this article BY AN ECONOMICS REPORTER completely ignores that fact, too.
MEOOOOOW !! The convicted felon lies & cheats, that's what he does...all he knows how to do. Kitties know
"...thinking that tariffs are kind of complicated and it's not really clear if Trump is right or not."
Something something. --Hannah Arendt
It's easy to imagine Kamala Harris in a Starfleet uniform.
But try imagining Trump in a Starfleet uniform --it's physically impossible!
The best you can get is an obviously fake AI-generated image.
If Trump is in that episode at all he's definitively the villain.
I can imagine him as a fat Ferengi Like in the 2 part episode Unification.
No, no, no! Ferengi may come to mind because they are well known and greedy. But Drumpf is a Pakled! He's right from central casting, to use one of his favorite methods of choosing subordinates. From Memory Alpha: "The Pakleds were a species known for their limited intelligence and simplistic way of life. ... Pakled society was highly stratified, with a clear hierarchy based on strength and ability to acquire technology. ... Despite their lack of intelligence, the Pakleds were highly skilled in acquiring technology, often through theft or bartering with other species. They were known to ambush passing ships, using their own ships as bait to lure unsuspecting travelers into their trap." He's perfect.
!
A Pakled who aspires to being a Ferengi but doesn't have the lobes for it, thinks the Borg and the Dominian are his pals and has a cult of converted Binars who were too dumb to keep up and think it's him or suicide.
Harry Mudd's little brother by another mother.
You insult the Family of Mudd sir!
Absolutely not. I met Harry Mudd when Mudd's Women was originally broadcast in 1966 and again the next year in I, Mudd. Sure he was a villain, and was willing to do some horrible things (like destroy the Enterprise or leave its crew in permanent bondage to some androids) to further his own ends. But ol' Harry was nonetheless a charming rogue with the gift of gab. No one has ever, ever called Drumpf charming. And the only oratorical gift he has is spittle flecked gibberish.
That's why I specified another mother. Harcourt is the middle son of a lovable rogue. Donald is the younger and the fifth son of a rogue who'd succumbed to alcoholism and bad judgement a decade earlier, which is about a decade after Harry was born.
Lovable rogues tend to age badly.
I get the feeling sometimes that reporters cannot believe Trump is as stupid and ignorant as he seems. I mean he was president for four years! Maybe the problem is them - maybe Trump is really the smart one and the reporters are too dumb to see it. So they hedge their bets and avoid making declarative statements, to avoid being made to look fools in future.
Also, of course, they want to keep that sweet, sweet "access" which is the lifeblood of insider journalism, so they don't want to make MAGA Central seriously hostile.
Would present-day tariff skeptics oppose Henry Clay's American System of the 19th century? Would they prefer a largely agrarian economy where the majority of manufactured goods came from Britain?
Also, re "tariffs on China are paid by China". They would be "paid" by reducing business with China, and maybe that's a good thing.
I'm sure that "reducing business with China" is a surefire way to deal with the problem of inflation that you've been bitching about for years now, and wouldn't lead at all to American retailers either sourcing cheap shit from Some Other Poor Country That Isn't China and/or arranging to buy all their stuff from a shell company created in some other country that buys the stuff from China, puts a new label on it, maybe does some small additional "processing" to it and then claims it really was manufactured Not In China to avoid the tariff.
Can we get smarter trolls on here, please?
Dude. The orange man wants tariffs. Therefore tariffs are bad.
Does it matter that many countries (including the US & China) have historically sought to develop manufacturing expertise and move up the value chain by protecting their domestic markets?
Does it matter that US manufacturing is hollowing out, to an extent that is becoming a national security issue?
Does it matter that support for tariffs was traditionally a democratic position?
No. The orange man wants tariffs. Therefore tariffs are bad.
Everyone be sure to play this presidential debate drinking game tonight: take a drink whenever Trump demonstrates specific, accurate knowledge of an issue. Any issue.
There are lots of debate drinking games - this is the one for people who have to get up and go to work tomorrow.
To the NYT, the fact that Peter Navarro exists is enough for them to say "most", even though most economists (including one of their premier columnists) think he's a fucking crackpot.
If memory serves, Navarro and possibly Trump himself have conceded in unguarded moments that yes, "bringing the jobs back" will increase domestic prices for a while. What they haven't discussed, to my knowledge, are the consequences, as American manufactured goods become increasingly uncompetitive with the rest of the world, which will continue to import goods from China.
That's why I expect a second Trump administration would exert great pressure on allies and friendly nations to impose their own tariffs, causing a global trade war and Great Depression ver.2.
Who knew Trump was a secret progressive looking to redistribute wealth by destroying it.
Here's a hypothetical headline similiar to the one in the NYT. "Trump says moon is made of cheese, astrophysicists are skeptical."
FFS. Wrong spot again. I hate this blog format.
Ditto. x1000
"as American manufactured goods become increasingly uncompetitive with the rest of the world, which will continue to import goods from China."
Presumably you mean the American economy becoming uncompetitive with the economies of the rest of the world? Why would that follow?
Our principal exports are services, high-value capital goods, and oil. How is a tariff on imported consumer goods going to make our exports uncompetitive.
"Tariffs don't "tend" to be borne by US businesses and households. They just are. They're collected by the customs service from American importers."
This is not correct. It doesn't matter who pays the tariff, the cost is borne by both parties to the transaction. In some cases mostly by the exporter, in other cases mostly by the importer. Just like shipping or any other cost.
The claim that the burden of tariffs is borne mostly by consumers is an empirical finding. Yes, in theory, suppliers could cut their prices to remain competitive, but the fact is that little of this is actually observed. A summary here: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/who-really-pays-tariffs/
Reporters always refuse to accurately report future likely consequences, because those things haven't actually happened yet. In their minds, the fact that tariffs have always caused inflation and job losses doesn't prove it will for sure happen in the future. No one knows the future!
This is why the NYT downplayed both Hitler and the Holodomyr back when they were happening. It's why they downplay Trump's risks to Democracy. It's why they never accurately report that huge tax cuts will signigicantly raise the deficit. Those are all guesses about the future, so all you can do is offer up some opinions, and all opinions are equal.
I disagree. It's not that "we" haven't figured out how to cover him. It's that the media wants to sell media to as wide an audience as possible so it bends over backwards to accommodate a false equivalence that doesn't exist outside of politics.
Their self-interested delusion is that their duty is to give consumers the information to let them come to their own conclusions.
They'll call out a murderer for being a murderer unless it's politically-tinged, in which case they'll find both sides to present.
How tariffs affect us depends on how things come into the country. If goods become more expensive, more of those goods will be purchased and shipped through sites like Temu, Shein, and AliExpress, bypassing tariffs. This will drive more global companies to set up shop to take advantage of this backdoor.
Will Congress shut that backdoor? IDK. But I'm certain that if Trump tariffs went into effect, this is how many consumer-related businesses would work around it.
Trump: "I have concepts of a plan."
You know it's too bad the NY Times doesn't have anyone on their payroll who has a Nobel Prize in economics and won it for his work on international trade theory because they could have asked him about Trump's ideas.
The NYT standard of "objectivity" is that all they need to do is report what politicians say, it isn't their job to, say, ask an economist if those things make any sense. It is journalistic malpractice, but that's the way the NYT rolls.
I'll take both "Door A" AND "Door B", because Trump is most assuredly both "lying" AND "a moron".
That's all true and I oppose Trump's tariffs. However, tariffs are in part imposed on the foreign seller since they are a burden to them. The products they sell to the US suddenly are more expensive which makes them less attractive to Americans.
If you owned a US company and sold products to France, and suddenly France put a 20% tariff on all your products, you sure wouldn't be happy.
This whole feeding frenzy is bizarre. The same arguments applicable to tariffs are also applicable to minimum wages and government regulations.
"We still haven't figured out how to cover someone who lies and blusters the way Trump does. "
We haven't figured it out because we don't want to figure it out (cf Upton Sinclair)