By pretending in the existence of a plan that does not actually exist, Jennifer Burns, with the active assistance of the "New York Times", has handed the Trumpists an attractive fictional gift...
I don't know what Burns thinks she is doing. I do know that the "throat-clearing" that opens almost all of these op-eds "critical" of the Trump administration is rhetorically disastrous; it just has the effect of vitiating what follows. (This, by the way, is why I did not obey your injunction to read. the. whole. of what your friend and mentor Larry Summers wrote about Columbia.)
It is not your job to make your opponent's argument! Do not start out by doing so! And don't finish that way either, is my advice; but if you feel absolutely compelled to "forestall" your opponent's argument (which is not a thing that actually works), then bury it at the end. How many arguments supporting Trump start out with "well, the Democrats do have a point, but ..."? None! The reason is that Republican policies may be worse for America than your policies, but they are better at arguing them.
"But," you say, "I want to reach the intelligent and rational reader of good faith who will want to weigh both sides of the debate". Do you not perceive how self-refuting is this argument? There are no such readers! They are a figment of your imagination! It is impossible for a rational and intelligent American of good faith to support the current administration.
A final aside: it is particularly unfortunate that Burns chose as her sole argument against tariffs that few economists think they will work, given that she led with ‘Trump’s… tariffs… stumped economists'. If the economists are stumped, why should we care what they think?
With reason, many Americans are confused when economists with reputable credentials write in prestigious newspapers such as the NYT to "sanewash" Trump.
I appreciate you addressing the sanewashing of the orange idiot.
It is becoming so prevalent and stupid.
Trump just realized he can manipulate stock prices with a little tweet and be immune from market manipulation. What would a vile, greedy, sadistic, thug do with that insight?
I've been puzzled by the "no plan" take. The plan seems obvious enough. The admin is trying to bring manufacturing back to the US; this is what they say, anyway. And Trump thinks he's found a way to get rich(er) off the plan by negotiating bilateral deals with every one of the the US's trade partners, of course. I knew he was lying about how or why the good manufacturing jobs left in the first place. And expected with Trump it was more about his self-dealing corruption than really bringing back good paying manufacturing jobs but wasn't getting the point of insisting he had no plan. Basically: It's a bad plan, can't work, and so in that sense is no plan at all. Calling it a plan sanewashes it; retcon covering up its fundamental destructive and self-dealing aims. This helps, thanks.
Even if there were a plan, the effect is volatility. Volatility = Risk in options, VAR, basis trades, purchase orders, foreign capital flows, etc. At some point, the gale force volatility breaks something vital.
Why do you say "She knows as well as I do that...". Have you spoken to her about this, or is it just assumed that must be the case? I know when I watch political interviews, I think that way whenever a pol tries to hide a lie, but I don't know that they are lying, I just assume that the facts are obvious.
Jennifer Burns almost always lies. Her biography of Milton Friedman is a great example. Whether you wanna call it seriously exaggerations or damning omissions, she simply skates the truth every time she writes not every word she says is a lie, but all it takes is one piece of excrement in the punch bowl…..
To be fair, I'm not familiar with her more professional publications (in journals, etc.) Perhaps she is more honest there. But in the reviews and interviews regarding her popular books, she receives far too much professional courtesy, at best.
Your context and perspective are most appreciated when the integrity of ``all the news fit to print'' is wanting, to say the least. What is the appeal of obeying in advance? Are so few people aware of such folly? Why can't the Fourth Estate remember Orwell's dictum: ``To see what's in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle.''
Insanity or refusal to recognize that Trump has moved beyond mere sociopathic narcissism and authoritarianism, into full-blown Totalitarianism?
He’s hell-bent on destroying even the institutions like State and Roberts’s round-heeled SCOTUS. No lieutenants, just sycophants and nameless thugs dragging citizens off the street
A smart essay on Hannah Arendt:
“The totalitarian ruler must, at any price, prevent normalization from reaching the point where a new way of life could develop - one which might, after a time, lose its bastard qualities and take its place among the widely differing and profoundly contrasting ways of life of the nations of “The moment the revolutionary institutions became a national way of life... totalitarianism would lose its ‘total’ quality and become subject to the law of the nations, according to which each possesses a specific territory, people, and historical tradition which relates it to other nations — a plurality which ipso facto refutes every contention that any specific form of government is absolutely valid.”
I don't know what Burns thinks she is doing. I do know that the "throat-clearing" that opens almost all of these op-eds "critical" of the Trump administration is rhetorically disastrous; it just has the effect of vitiating what follows. (This, by the way, is why I did not obey your injunction to read. the. whole. of what your friend and mentor Larry Summers wrote about Columbia.)
It is not your job to make your opponent's argument! Do not start out by doing so! And don't finish that way either, is my advice; but if you feel absolutely compelled to "forestall" your opponent's argument (which is not a thing that actually works), then bury it at the end. How many arguments supporting Trump start out with "well, the Democrats do have a point, but ..."? None! The reason is that Republican policies may be worse for America than your policies, but they are better at arguing them.
"But," you say, "I want to reach the intelligent and rational reader of good faith who will want to weigh both sides of the debate". Do you not perceive how self-refuting is this argument? There are no such readers! They are a figment of your imagination! It is impossible for a rational and intelligent American of good faith to support the current administration.
A final aside: it is particularly unfortunate that Burns chose as her sole argument against tariffs that few economists think they will work, given that she led with ‘Trump’s… tariffs… stumped economists'. If the economists are stumped, why should we care what they think?
I have to live through the Mad King Donald's reign. I don't have to listen to nonsense suggesting he has a Plan. Thanks for this.
With reason, many Americans are confused when economists with reputable credentials write in prestigious newspapers such as the NYT to "sanewash" Trump.
Thank you Brad!
I appreciate you addressing the sanewashing of the orange idiot.
It is becoming so prevalent and stupid.
Trump just realized he can manipulate stock prices with a little tweet and be immune from market manipulation. What would a vile, greedy, sadistic, thug do with that insight?
I've been puzzled by the "no plan" take. The plan seems obvious enough. The admin is trying to bring manufacturing back to the US; this is what they say, anyway. And Trump thinks he's found a way to get rich(er) off the plan by negotiating bilateral deals with every one of the the US's trade partners, of course. I knew he was lying about how or why the good manufacturing jobs left in the first place. And expected with Trump it was more about his self-dealing corruption than really bringing back good paying manufacturing jobs but wasn't getting the point of insisting he had no plan. Basically: It's a bad plan, can't work, and so in that sense is no plan at all. Calling it a plan sanewashes it; retcon covering up its fundamental destructive and self-dealing aims. This helps, thanks.
"I have a cunning plan."
Even if there were a plan, the effect is volatility. Volatility = Risk in options, VAR, basis trades, purchase orders, foreign capital flows, etc. At some point, the gale force volatility breaks something vital.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Why do you say "She knows as well as I do that...". Have you spoken to her about this, or is it just assumed that must be the case? I know when I watch political interviews, I think that way whenever a pol tries to hide a lie, but I don't know that they are lying, I just assume that the facts are obvious.
Jennifer Burns almost always lies. Her biography of Milton Friedman is a great example. Whether you wanna call it seriously exaggerations or damning omissions, she simply skates the truth every time she writes not every word she says is a lie, but all it takes is one piece of excrement in the punch bowl…..
As she is a published historian, rather than a journalist, wouldn't her peers call her out?
To be fair, I'm not familiar with her more professional publications (in journals, etc.) Perhaps she is more honest there. But in the reviews and interviews regarding her popular books, she receives far too much professional courtesy, at best.
Your context and perspective are most appreciated when the integrity of ``all the news fit to print'' is wanting, to say the least. What is the appeal of obeying in advance? Are so few people aware of such folly? Why can't the Fourth Estate remember Orwell's dictum: ``To see what's in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle.''
Insanity or refusal to recognize that Trump has moved beyond mere sociopathic narcissism and authoritarianism, into full-blown Totalitarianism?
He’s hell-bent on destroying even the institutions like State and Roberts’s round-heeled SCOTUS. No lieutenants, just sycophants and nameless thugs dragging citizens off the street
A smart essay on Hannah Arendt:
“The totalitarian ruler must, at any price, prevent normalization from reaching the point where a new way of life could develop - one which might, after a time, lose its bastard qualities and take its place among the widely differing and profoundly contrasting ways of life of the nations of “The moment the revolutionary institutions became a national way of life... totalitarianism would lose its ‘total’ quality and become subject to the law of the nations, according to which each possesses a specific territory, people, and historical tradition which relates it to other nations — a plurality which ipso facto refutes every contention that any specific form of government is absolutely valid.”
https://medium.com/amor-mundi/the-theory-of-totalitarian-leadership-1af00db6873e