A masterclass in self-destruction as Bessent, Lutnick, Greer, Hassett, Vought, Miran, Navarro, Miller, and all the other grifters try to retcon the chaos-monkey social-media posts of Trump into a...
That would be true if we were subject to the rule of law, but we all know full well that the current Supreme Court rulings only apply to presidents who belong to a party whose name begins with an "R". Perhaps the Democrats need to change their name to Remocrats or something.
I have a little more sympathy for courts than Our Host. A judiciary that is willing to attribute bad faith to the government is a judiciary willing to assert supremacy over the government. It is a judiciary that is willing to stage a coup. This might be necessary at revolutionary times like these, but alas!, few judges have a revolutionary demeanor. And they probably should not, at least in ordinary times.
It's not that courts can't scent governmental bad faith, and can sometimes thwart it. But the preferred judicial mode is indirect and procedural.
I'd have more sympathy for the Justices if they didn't arbitrarily intervene with bad faith orders (Shadow Docket) and rulings (presidential immunity) when they don't need to impute bad faith to the government, they just need to stay silent. It's not that they are reluctant to impute bad faith, it's that they are desperately eager to impute good faith where none exists.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm talking about real judges, not the Sinister Six. This includes conservatives. There are many normie Federalist judges on the bench who believe in careful reading, precedent, and procedure, even though they have very different policy preferences than the rest of us.
"And two Supreme Court justices are terrified that if they get Trump mad he will move against them and start a fight that they would lose." Could you provide more detail on this?
I read Roberts as trying to accomplish the basic autocratic ends but being subtler. He is responsible for the key decisions on Presidents who the Court choses having immunity and all powers, but is trying to preserve a facade of constitutionalism. I think Barrett is a follower, again trying to maintain the appearance of humanity. The others of the Septic Six don't give a crap.
"To the extent that Trump’s tariff policies succeed in raising household savings, they risk recession by weakening consumption spending."
That, a simple negative, non-sectoral demand woud be the easiest problem to solve with monetary instruments. A case where the 1-1-1 model is adequate for determining the response.
The trickier one is the tariffs are large enough and sectoral specific enough (They look that way to me; what does the Fed think?) to require relative price changes that can only happen with enough average inflation. Same qualitative response, but harder to explain to newspaper “economists.”
***
“To the extent that Trump’s tariff policies succeed in reducing investment in America, they make economic growth slower and us poorer.”
It is hard to say what “tariffs” will or can do w/o specifying the monetary equilibrium response. Even if the response succeeds in maintaining full employment of resources, the reduction in desire to invest will be more than swamped, I’d guess, by the reductio of net saving coming out of the rising deficits in the One Budget Busting Bill.
MMMMM???? The concept of a plan that future Democrat presidents can act a kings presupposes there will be future fair and equal elections.
That would be true if we were subject to the rule of law, but we all know full well that the current Supreme Court rulings only apply to presidents who belong to a party whose name begins with an "R". Perhaps the Democrats need to change their name to Remocrats or something.
I have a little more sympathy for courts than Our Host. A judiciary that is willing to attribute bad faith to the government is a judiciary willing to assert supremacy over the government. It is a judiciary that is willing to stage a coup. This might be necessary at revolutionary times like these, but alas!, few judges have a revolutionary demeanor. And they probably should not, at least in ordinary times.
It's not that courts can't scent governmental bad faith, and can sometimes thwart it. But the preferred judicial mode is indirect and procedural.
I'd have more sympathy for the Justices if they didn't arbitrarily intervene with bad faith orders (Shadow Docket) and rulings (presidential immunity) when they don't need to impute bad faith to the government, they just need to stay silent. It's not that they are reluctant to impute bad faith, it's that they are desperately eager to impute good faith where none exists.
As some have said, what Police, Army and Jails does the Subprime Court control???
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm talking about real judges, not the Sinister Six. This includes conservatives. There are many normie Federalist judges on the bench who believe in careful reading, precedent, and procedure, even though they have very different policy preferences than the rest of us.
We had our judicial coup by the Gang of Five back in 2000.
"And two Supreme Court justices are terrified that if they get Trump mad he will move against them and start a fight that they would lose." Could you provide more detail on this?
That is how I read Roberts and Barrett right now. What do you think is going on? - B.
I read Roberts as trying to accomplish the basic autocratic ends but being subtler. He is responsible for the key decisions on Presidents who the Court choses having immunity and all powers, but is trying to preserve a facade of constitutionalism. I think Barrett is a follower, again trying to maintain the appearance of humanity. The others of the Septic Six don't give a crap.
"To the extent that Trump’s tariff policies succeed in raising household savings, they risk recession by weakening consumption spending."
That, a simple negative, non-sectoral demand woud be the easiest problem to solve with monetary instruments. A case where the 1-1-1 model is adequate for determining the response.
The trickier one is the tariffs are large enough and sectoral specific enough (They look that way to me; what does the Fed think?) to require relative price changes that can only happen with enough average inflation. Same qualitative response, but harder to explain to newspaper “economists.”
***
“To the extent that Trump’s tariff policies succeed in reducing investment in America, they make economic growth slower and us poorer.”
It is hard to say what “tariffs” will or can do w/o specifying the monetary equilibrium response. Even if the response succeeds in maintaining full employment of resources, the reduction in desire to invest will be more than swamped, I’d guess, by the reductio of net saving coming out of the rising deficits in the One Budget Busting Bill.