3 ms·

Agreed that policy changes whipsaw markets and that causes disinterest in the dollar, and agreed that could be real bad (TM) for America. The rest of this essa

Agreed that policy changes whipsaw markets and that causes disinterest in the dollar, and agreed that could be real bad (TM) for America. The rest of this essay just reads like griping and cherry picking though. Complaining about the name of the bill "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" is just dumb. Senators and Reps name bills all sorts of funny things aiming to be catchy or what have you, it's part of our process. And, it seems much more likely that whipsawing serves the purpose of someone than that people in the whitehouse are "unserious". I'd rather see Mr. Krugman's estimable mind devoted to figuring out who is benefiting, how long they will benefit, and what that will do to others than to read him complaining about the name of a bill.

therobot24 1y ago
I think you're focusing too much on the analogies he used instead of the thesis -- everything is aligning to a leader who isn't respected outside of the USA, much like kim jong un. That if saber rattling is the future of the US, then divestment will only increase and won't easily return. And further, the benefactors of this transformation is whoever doesn't have to adhere to our saber rattling which will be as many other countries as possible.
- vessenes 1y ago
  No; he's failed to engage in the pathos part of convincing -- he's whistle calling to his liberal readership base by implying the administration is dumb -- he's not seriously engaged with where the country is at, at least in this short essay lite. I agree with you that saber rattling is a major change in foreign policy for the US. There aren't a lot of stops between "reserve currency" and "former reserve currency". That said, there also aren't a lot of options globally. I think the benefactors of the saber rattling might be a little closer to Pennsylvania avenue than you suggest, though.
  - aredox 1y ago
    >implying the administration is dumb Sorry, but that administration is dumb, period. Stop being politically correct.
    - vessenes 1y ago
      Sorry, I'm not being politically correct. Can I ask how many of the administration's executive orders you've read? This admin moved extremely aggressively on a such a large number of fronts that there are complaints that there aren't enough lawyers available at DoJ to defend all the lawsuits against the government. Strip all the rhetoric and attempts to dunk on the orange guy away from whatever side media you like to consume and ask yourself not what the stated goals of the admin were, but if there is a coherent and likely set of goals they had, and if they've executed on them. From day one in the office these guys executed hard. Hundreds of executive orders. And if you read those orders, often up to half of them is calling out all the ways exec orders from 2016 were mutated or ignored and specifically banning them. They are in no way the work of dumb people. Legally and practically aggressive people? Yes. People with policies you might dislike or hate? For sure. People who are masters at engaging media and outrage? Yes. People headlined by someone who really loves self-enrichment and get-out-of-jail free rulings? Definitely. Calling them dumb is radically misunderstanding the real situation in the whitehouse and to the extent journalists are calling them out as dumb it's because they're following the ball laid out by the street magician; watch the hands. The ball is all the sturm and drang and drama, the hands are actual practical outcomes.
      - aredox 1y ago
        My God, not only this administration is dumb, but you are too, and, in true Dunning-Krueger fashion, you think everyone but you is. Yes, I have read almost all the executive orders: they are challenged by "so many lawsuits there aren't enough lawyers at DoJ to defend" because they are stupidly written, are based on fantasies and aren't legally sound down to being patently unconstitutional. Nobody intelligent would have e.g. tried to revoque birthright through an executive order - a right protected by an amendment that has been confirmed again and again for more than a century; not only that, but the idea you could revoque a constitutional amendment by en E.O. wpuld that the same can be done for... The second amendment. Is that the can of worms this administration is trying to open? These guys "executed hard" the whims of an incompetent, uneducated, psychopathic, certainly terminally senile President. Have you read Trump's speeches? Read, not listened to. The only practical outcomes so far have been books banned from some Army libraries, websites changed, and posturing. What has been accomplished in practice? Very little: the tariffs are in Schrodinger's cat state, the expulsions are lagging far behind their targets, the Army is loosing soldiers and equipment (Hesgeth is only renaming things), the transportation secretary is more worried about biblical paintings than fixing air controllers shortages, etc. etc. But yeah, tell me how those guys executed a "coherent" strategy wrt. foreign trade. What's the strategy again?
canuckintime 1y ago
>> Complaining about the name of the bill "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" is just dumb. Senators and Reps name bills all sorts of funny things aiming to be catchy or what have you, it's part of our process. Senators and reps and bills all sorts of funny things aiming to be catchy by creating a succinct acronym. [1]. This cultural practice is sometimes called ‘backronym’. Trying to tie ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ as an example of that practice is ‘sane-washing’; ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ is a dumb person’s idea of a backronym [2]. Dissecting the bill name is not just complaining for complaining’s sake; it’s just another in the long list of examples of Trump doesn’t understand what he’s doing and his enablers are not serious people by going along with [1] https://thehill.com/homenews/news/8710-lawmakers-turn-to-catchy-names-for-bills/ https://thehill.com/homenews/news/8710-lawmakers-turn-to-cat... [2] Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man etc
- archagon 1y ago
  Every time I read the name of that fucking bill, I feel like I’m having a stroke.
- vessenes 1y ago
  OK, I hear you that OBBBA is a bad backronym. So bad it's not a backronym. But it's catchy; Trump is a master of catchy soundbites. I submit to you: we're talking about it by name on HN, when we could be discussing mechanistic interpretation theory, which IMO is much more interesting. In fact, I submit that it's the last bill I really registered the name of since the Affordable Care Act. Which was (checks notes) 15 years ago, shortly after Teddy Kennedy died.(!) Look at Trump's career. Look at his skill set. Look at what he's doing in the white house. He's a lot of things but he's not bad at getting what he values; he is in fact perhaps the most successful American ever in those terms. If you care about America it is incredibly short sighted to think he's dumb. He's extremely effective, just not at the things that a) you might want him to be b) we hope a President will be c) he says he's doing to the media.
  - canuckintime 1y ago
    It’s catchy in the same way “Mexicans will pay for the wall”, “China will eat the tariffs”, “Lock her up” is catchy; all catchy slogans but also nonsense. And, to bring it back to Krugman, Trump’s enablers let it slide because they are not serious people. >> He's a lot of things but he's not bad at getting what he values; he is in fact perhaps the most successful American ever in those terms. Nonsense. He’s bankrupted casinos. He lost his first reelection bid. He started on third base and ended up back at first. >> If you care about America it is incredibly short sighted to think he's dumb. He IS that dumb. He really doesn’t understand how tariffs/trade balance works. But his enablers have let him run riot. Biden was old. Reagan had mental issues. But their teams had firm hands on the steering wheel. That’s a serious country with some checks and balances. Trump admin is trying to revoke all that

therobot24 1y ago

I think you're focusing too much on the analogies he used instead of the thesis -- everything is aligning to a leader who isn't respected outside of the USA, much like kim jong un. That if saber rattling is the future of the US, then divestment will only increase and won't easily return. And further, the benefactors of this transformation is whoever doesn't have to adhere to our saber rattling which will be as many other countries as possible.

vessenes 1y ago
No; he's failed to engage in the pathos part of convincing -- he's whistle calling to his liberal readership base by implying the administration is dumb -- he's not seriously engaged with where the country is at, at least in this short essay lite. I agree with you that saber rattling is a major change in foreign policy for the US. There aren't a lot of stops between "reserve currency" and "former reserve currency". That said, there also aren't a lot of options globally. I think the benefactors of the saber rattling might be a little closer to Pennsylvania avenue than you suggest, though.
- aredox 1y ago
  >implying the administration is dumb Sorry, but that administration is dumb, period. Stop being politically correct.
  - vessenes 1y ago
    Sorry, I'm not being politically correct. Can I ask how many of the administration's executive orders you've read? This admin moved extremely aggressively on a such a large number of fronts that there are complaints that there aren't enough lawyers available at DoJ to defend all the lawsuits against the government. Strip all the rhetoric and attempts to dunk on the orange guy away from whatever side media you like to consume and ask yourself not what the stated goals of the admin were, but if there is a coherent and likely set of goals they had, and if they've executed on them. From day one in the office these guys executed hard. Hundreds of executive orders. And if you read those orders, often up to half of them is calling out all the ways exec orders from 2016 were mutated or ignored and specifically banning them. They are in no way the work of dumb people. Legally and practically aggressive people? Yes. People with policies you might dislike or hate? For sure. People who are masters at engaging media and outrage? Yes. People headlined by someone who really loves self-enrichment and get-out-of-jail free rulings? Definitely. Calling them dumb is radically misunderstanding the real situation in the whitehouse and to the extent journalists are calling them out as dumb it's because they're following the ball laid out by the street magician; watch the hands. The ball is all the sturm and drang and drama, the hands are actual practical outcomes.
    - aredox 1y ago
      My God, not only this administration is dumb, but you are too, and, in true Dunning-Krueger fashion, you think everyone but you is. Yes, I have read almost all the executive orders: they are challenged by "so many lawsuits there aren't enough lawyers at DoJ to defend" because they are stupidly written, are based on fantasies and aren't legally sound down to being patently unconstitutional. Nobody intelligent would have e.g. tried to revoque birthright through an executive order - a right protected by an amendment that has been confirmed again and again for more than a century; not only that, but the idea you could revoque a constitutional amendment by en E.O. wpuld that the same can be done for... The second amendment. Is that the can of worms this administration is trying to open? These guys "executed hard" the whims of an incompetent, uneducated, psychopathic, certainly terminally senile President. Have you read Trump's speeches? Read, not listened to. The only practical outcomes so far have been books banned from some Army libraries, websites changed, and posturing. What has been accomplished in practice? Very little: the tariffs are in Schrodinger's cat state, the expulsions are lagging far behind their targets, the Army is loosing soldiers and equipment (Hesgeth is only renaming things), the transportation secretary is more worried about biblical paintings than fixing air controllers shortages, etc. etc. But yeah, tell me how those guys executed a "coherent" strategy wrt. foreign trade. What's the strategy again?

canuckintime 1y ago

>> Complaining about the name of the bill "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" is just dumb. Senators and Reps name bills all sorts of funny things aiming to be catchy or what have you, it's part of our process. Senators and reps and bills all sorts of funny things aiming to be catchy by creating a succinct acronym. [1]. This cultural practice is sometimes called ‘backronym’. Trying to tie ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ as an example of that practice is ‘sane-washing’; ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ is a dumb person’s idea of a backronym [2]. Dissecting the bill name is not just complaining for complaining’s sake; it’s just another in the long list of examples of Trump doesn’t understand what he’s doing and his enablers are not serious people by going along with [1] https://thehill.com/homenews/news/8710-lawmakers-turn-to-catchy-names-for-bills/ https://thehill.com/homenews/news/8710-lawmakers-turn-to-cat... [2] Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man etc

archagon 1y ago
Every time I read the name of that fucking bill, I feel like I’m having a stroke.
vessenes 1y ago
OK, I hear you that OBBBA is a bad backronym. So bad it's not a backronym. But it's catchy; Trump is a master of catchy soundbites. I submit to you: we're talking about it by name on HN, when we could be discussing mechanistic interpretation theory, which IMO is much more interesting. In fact, I submit that it's the last bill I really registered the name of since the Affordable Care Act. Which was (checks notes) 15 years ago, shortly after Teddy Kennedy died.(!) Look at Trump's career. Look at his skill set. Look at what he's doing in the white house. He's a lot of things but he's not bad at getting what he values; he is in fact perhaps the most successful American ever in those terms. If you care about America it is incredibly short sighted to think he's dumb. He's extremely effective, just not at the things that a) you might want him to be b) we hope a President will be c) he says he's doing to the media.
- canuckintime 1y ago
  It’s catchy in the same way “Mexicans will pay for the wall”, “China will eat the tariffs”, “Lock her up” is catchy; all catchy slogans but also nonsense. And, to bring it back to Krugman, Trump’s enablers let it slide because they are not serious people. >> He's a lot of things but he's not bad at getting what he values; he is in fact perhaps the most successful American ever in those terms. Nonsense. He’s bankrupted casinos. He lost his first reelection bid. He started on third base and ended up back at first. >> If you care about America it is incredibly short sighted to think he's dumb. He IS that dumb. He really doesn’t understand how tariffs/trade balance works. But his enablers have let him run riot. Biden was old. Reagan had mental issues. But their teams had firm hands on the steering wheel. That’s a serious country with some checks and balances. Trump admin is trying to revoke all that