485 Comments
User's avatar
Steve Brier's avatar

Agree 💯 but please don't compare Trumpites with Luddites. Luddities were hard working English weavers who opposed the imposition of machines by their rich overlords. It does a disservice to them to link them in any way with Trump and his miserable ilk.

Expand full comment
Vijaya Venkatesan's avatar

I was going to say much the same! For shame, Professor Krugman: the Luddites weren't against 'progress': what they objected to was the displacement of skilled workers by machines operated by much less skilled workers in dire factory conditions at a period during the Napoleonic Wars when the economic landscape for the working class Briton was extremely harsh and unemployment high.

Expand full comment
Gjay15's avatar

Yes as Ann Landers would say twenty lashes with a wet noodle.

Expand full comment
NSAlito's avatar

We old!

Expand full comment
Gjay15's avatar

Heh. Yep

Expand full comment
C. Killion's avatar

Kinda like what AI could make happen?

Expand full comment
Paulo Cesar Ferraro's avatar

Yes, conditions at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution were difficult, but that doesn't change the fact that the Industrial Revolution and automation are the reason why the vast majority of Americans and Britons aren't poor by historical standards. Almost everyone was extremely poor by present-day standards before the Industrial Revolution, and almost everyone in the US and UK today is rich compared to the past.

Expand full comment
MojoMan's avatar

Where did Krugman mention Luddites in this article?

Expand full comment
Bigd54's avatar

He mentions Luddites in the last paragraph.

Expand full comment
Theodora30's avatar

At some point you need to just go with the more modern meaning of words especially one that has such a clear meaning to millions of people.

Expand full comment
Vijaya Venkatesan's avatar

Sure, Theodora. But it doesn't hurt to know that the original Luddites were skilled, industrious and not irrationally nor blindly opposed to new technology- no part of which applies to the Tangerine Man.

Expand full comment
NR's avatar

I would just say, "living in the past " v "Luddites."

Expand full comment
William Hilliker's avatar

Not even in the past. Living in their own imaginary world.

Expand full comment
Dan Boss's avatar

Anti-rational imaginary world.

Expand full comment
Frau Katze's avatar

Trump and MAGA don’t believe in global warming. I’d call them stupid not “living in the past.”

The oil & coal companies launched a big campaign to discredit the theory of global warming.

I think they finally stopped but the damage was done.

Expand full comment
Don Matheson's avatar

The threat of being primaried still hangs over any Republican who votes or speaks to address climate change hence, they never do. Crime against humanity

Expand full comment
Mapledurham's avatar

Maybe ‘Jurassic’ would be a better term, or just ‘dinosaur’. It would be fitting for ‘Drill Baby Drill’ MAGA, whose lifestyle seems predicated on burning up the fossilised remains of prehistoric life (in massive vehicles of the kind for which there will be absolutely no market in Europe, however much Trump thinks otherwise)… while bizarrely denying prehistory itself.

Expand full comment
DeRegan's avatar

Imbecile?

Or imbecilic ?

Expand full comment
NSAlito's avatar

"Luddities were hard working English weavers who opposed the imposition of machines...."

----

For the most part, mechanical automation pretty much always replaces "hard working" people (or oxen or horses). I'm looking forward to AI replacing the replacers: Overpaid C-suite corporate officers seem to have a very simple behavior-set that can easily be replicated by some of the simpler rule-following software. Imagine what great →shareholder value← such a replacement would provide!

Expand full comment
William Lustig's avatar

What you say is actually true. Indexed funds often out-perform actively managed funds.

Expand full comment
Benjamin Merembeck's avatar

The way to deal with displacements from AI and automation is to tax the robots. Those funds should then be used to subsidize currently underpaid service occupations.

Expand full comment
NSAlito's avatar
3dEdited

If you tax robots, there won't be any robots, just "productivity-enhancing devices" that are designed to work in environments unsafe for humans.

People will be hired to feed big dogs. Period.

Dark factories are here (well, China):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YiaDXGQk7k

Expand full comment
Eric's avatar

What if AI turns out to be even more efficient at that kind of behavior?

Expand full comment
NSAlito's avatar

Much of the millions of dollars of "executive compensation" that are saved could be required to go to human charities.

Expand full comment
D Witham's avatar

Important point. Interesting that the term evolved into such a pejorative word

Expand full comment
Paulo Cesar Ferraro's avatar

Well, the historical Luddites were proven wrong. Automation is the key to prosperity, and is the reason why most Americans and Britons don't live in subsistence farms anymore.

Expand full comment
Carleton Palmer's avatar

That is so good! You nailed it (as did the "Gorgeous Georgians").

Expand full comment
NSAlito's avatar

MOVIE RECOMMENDATION: "The Man in the White Suit" (1951)

An altruistic chemist (Alec Guinness) invents a fabric which resists wear and stain as a boon to humanity, but big business and labor realize it must be suppressed for economic reasons.

Expand full comment
Mapledurham's avatar

I second this recommendation: we watched it a few weeks back (on Vimeo, I think) and it was great fun. Of course, with the young Alec Guinness in it, it was bound to be.

Expand full comment
Matt Rudow's avatar

I’ve tried to stop using “Luddite” as a pejorative for this reason. For a while I switched to “troglodyte,” but then again what did prehistoric cave dwellers ever do to me to deserve the comparison?

Expand full comment
MojoMan's avatar

OK, somehow I passed on the Luddite reference. I agree not the best case usage of Trumpites and newer technologies for energy. I feel that this love affair they have with oil is because they get billions and billions in campaign support. Hell, they are for anything that can pay massive grift.

Expand full comment
Keith Crossley's avatar

Thanks for getting here first with a correction. Being from the West Riding of Yorkshire I'm a bit triggered this usage :-)

Expand full comment
Dr Hugh D Campbell's avatar

Hi Steve

I don’t believe Paul was directly referring to the original Luddites. The OED (I’m retired, but a subscriber) gives two related definitions for the noun ‘Luddite’:

“1.a. 1811–

A member of an organized band of English mechanics and their friends, who (1811–16) set themselves to destroy manufacturing machinery in the midlands and north of England.

1.b. 1954–

transferred. One who opposes the introduction of new technology, esp. into a place of work”

Many words acquire new and sometimes even drastically different meanings over time. In this case, it seems clear that Paul was simply employing the more recent (but commonplace) meaning of ‘Luddite.’

Expand full comment
Doug S.'s avatar

Comparing Trump to rocks is an insult to rocks.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsultToRocks

Expand full comment
Allison Hom's avatar

I was thinking this too. There is a very excellent 99% Invisible podcast about the story!

Expand full comment
Paulo Cesar Ferraro's avatar

The Luddites were also wrong. The fact is that the Industrial Revolution and automation are the cause of almost all prosperity in the world today; they are the reason why the vast majority of people in the US or the UK are not living on subsistence farms.

Expand full comment
Mary Jo Schuermann's avatar

Thank you, from a weaver and Luddite admirer.

Expand full comment
Paul's avatar

Just like Trump to announce something with sound and fury and signify nothing. As long as he can thump his chest about the “Big beautiful deal” with Europe, his base will go along with the ruse. The Europeans know how to con a conman.

Expand full comment
Douglas's avatar

You are correct Paul, but it shall rile me when NewsNation, NEWSMAX, and FOX laud the Orange Kings 'accomplishment'. Most people just hear the headline and swallow it.....the details are NEVER divulged by the right wing media (unless it favors them)

Expand full comment
chris lemon's avatar

Its not a Right Wing Media anymore. MAGA is a cult. Fox news, et al, are cult propaganda outlets. Trump is a whole lot closer to Mao than to Nixon. Trump has kicked off his "Great Leap Backwards" and "Cultural Devolution" and his media tools will explain, as the US burns down, that everything's great.

Expand full comment
Frau Katze's avatar

Great Leap Backward! Cultural Devolution! Excellent.

Expand full comment
chris lemon's avatar

Good names for Punk songs.

Expand full comment
Frau Katze's avatar

Or even a band name.

Expand full comment
Jenn Borgesen's avatar

Not well enough it seems ... they should have held him over the rail and win more for themselves ... not that I wish any more self inflicted punishment on us, the U.S.

We're already seeing how it is cheaper for Canada and Mexico chocolate makers are benefiting from his 'artful dealing', with US chocolatiers considering a move to Canada to remain profitable. And now Japanese car makers also have an edge over US again thanks to disastrous deals.

Expand full comment
Chenda's avatar

German cars should be cheaper than American made cars, thanks to the 25% Canada-Mexico tariffs vs the 15% EU ones. So there's that.

Expand full comment
Erin's avatar

Not to mention the enormous aluminum and steel tariffs which will make building cars in the US more expensive while cars built in the EU and Japan will not have to eat that higher input cost.

Expand full comment
Lance Khrome's avatar

Cost of maintenance of Beemers and Mercs far, far exceed that of Asian or NA-produced vehicles, so hardly a "gain" for German motors.

Expand full comment
LeonTrotsky's avatar

The point was that the foreign manufacturers are better positioned in the US market today than they were before.

Expand full comment
Lance Khrome's avatar

Same point holds, any pricing differential is offset by maintenance costs vis-à-vis the domestic or Asian competition...and those costs are very consequential to ownership.

Expand full comment
LeonTrotsky's avatar

We're talking about the EU-US deal, not costs of ownership due to maintenance, and how it effects trade in the auto industry.

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

Actually, they should've arrested him and hauled his fat orange @$$ to the ICC to face charges of crimes against humanity.

Expand full comment
Jenn Borgesen's avatar

Makes you wonder what Ross Perot would think of the current sucking sound of tariffs!

Expand full comment
John Gregory's avatar

except that the US is not a party to the ICC convention so the ICC would have no jurisdiction over Trump. Alas...

Expand full comment
Winston Smith London Oceania's avatar

In that case they should just shoot him. Put him out of our misery.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

*Insert "I'll allow it" meme.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

The thing about treaties is that they can be signed any old time.

When US courts have rendered themselves the "court jesters" of justice by foolish rulings we will be looking for places capable of doing what we no longer can.

The ICC is tailor made for this. (Netanyahu and tRump can have adjoining cells!) And does it matter if it takes 20 years to produce results? Dead (of old age) is dead (by Pierpoint's rope!).

Do you really care if the Orange Menace serves what's left of his so called "life" in Leavenworth or Spandau?

Expand full comment
LeonTrotsky's avatar

and war crimes and genocide by aiding and abetting Israel.

Expand full comment
Frau Katze's avatar

So much winning!

Expand full comment
Julesverne's avatar

they can’t. They have to feed the beast because the beast can abandon ukraine before the EU can do much without US cooperation

Expand full comment
David Levy's avatar

But what about the 15% tariffs and why did the EU agree? Seems like a lose-lose proposition for everyone, including European employment and US consumers. I can understand on a theoretical basis about a desire to make US products more competitive and perhaps protection from cheap labor and bad environmental and labor practices in Mexico and Asia could help. But why do we need protection from Europe? They offer their workers competitive wages and have strong labor and environmental protections. Maybe we should be looking at the quality of American products rather than just price in trying to make them competitive. Europeans don’t want big American gas guzzlers. They want the electric vehicles that Trump refuses to support, and making European cars more expensive for Americans isn’t going to help anyone.

Expand full comment
Michael Wolkowitz's avatar

The TACO effect is not a thing of the past. Wait until some of his pals start hearing what their 2026 Mercedes and BMWs will be costing. They can afford the tariffs by using a fraction of their tax cuts - but the richer they are the cheaper they can be.

Expand full comment
LeonTrotsky's avatar

"But what about the 15% tariffs and why did the EU agree?"

You didn't read the article.

Expand full comment
Mark's avatar

I did read the article several times over.

There is NOTHING in the article about the 15% tariff.

I am interested in the answer as well as the tariffs may be the only aspect of the talks implemented if Dr. Krugman is correct in his observations about the 600 Billion investment and 750 Billion in energy purchase the next three years.

Stay in Mexico.

Expand full comment
Boogie's avatar

nice Mabeth quote, by the way, congrats on your article!

Expand full comment
Stuart's avatar

Sort of like the second half of "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels."

Expand full comment
Joy Reynolds's avatar

"his base will go along"

You got that right! Yesterday I commented on a Facebook video from Brian Tyler Cohen about the Scotland trip and got into several arguments with tRump supporters saying it was a working trip, with a phenomenal deal made, and the economy is getting stronger everyday, and on and on with all his lies verbatim. I explained tariffs several times, but they still insist it's paid by the other country. I don't think they were bots either, since there were time lags and misspellings.

Expand full comment
LeonTrotsky's avatar

tRump has never worked a day in his life. His base of modern-day medieval peasants will follow pedo Don off a cliff and take the US with them.

Expand full comment
chris lemon's avatar

The US already went off the cliff. Right now they're doing the Wiley Coyote hovering in midair while trying not to look down thing. Buy the end of the year, its going to be a high speed dive toward the ground.

Expand full comment
Frau Katze's avatar

He’s fooled his base. They think it’s wonderful. That’s all that really matters to him.

Expand full comment
Linda McCaughey's avatar

They do, thank the gods.

Expand full comment
xaxnar's avatar

None of this matters to Trump and his reality show presidency. All that matters to him is things like The NY Times running headlines that proclaim Trump is winning on trade. Style over substance every time.

Expand full comment
Chenda's avatar
3dEdited

I saw the Ross-Brett duo at the NYT have been peddling out this Trump-is-winning nonsense this morning. But paradoxically this might work to the rest of the world's advantage, who can appease Trump with empty promises whilst building real trade agreements with each other.

Expand full comment
Terence Beney's avatar

Seems like the ruse is fooling the opinion columnists too, shocker 😁

Expand full comment
Mark's avatar

I refuse to read anything Bret Stephens writes as he is Gaza Genocide denier / apologist.

Ross Douthat is a white Christian nationalist in my opinion and stopped reading him years ago.

They are opinion columnists so whatever.

Ana Swanson however is of a different category, her NY Times bio states - I cover trade and international economics for The New York Times. I’m based in Washington, D.C.

So I was distressed to see her article yesterday headlined - Trump Is Winning His Trade War. What Will That Mean for the Economy?

Is The NY Times no longer to be trusted on these subjects ? Their analysis and Dr. Krugman’s seems orthogonal.

I guess time will tell but for now I will trust Dr. Krugman since he had the Nobel prize.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

The NYT sold us out when they gave Tangerini thousands of dollars in free advertising, with barely a mention of his well-known bad behavior, in his first term campaign.

https://contrarian.substack.com/p/departing-the-new-york-times?

Expand full comment
Federico's avatar

Is THIS what the free nations are doing

Expand full comment
Chenda's avatar

Yes

Expand full comment
Beatrice N Henrioulle's avatar

You bet!

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

Douchehat and Brettbug are scum, who think it will not affect them if they sell the rest of us out.

Expand full comment
Beryl's avatar

I don't think I would call it Style. More like stupid shows his mental ability for bragging rights. There is, then, nothing to brag about here.

Expand full comment
Gordon Reynolds's avatar

Indeed. He’s all splash and dash. I’d say he probably got exactly what he was after, headlines.

Expand full comment
Michael Happy's avatar

Up next to own President Pennywise: Canada.

We have oil and hydroelectric energy, which we export south at discount prices.

America needs both.

We have leverage.

Suck it, Herr Drumpf.

Expand full comment
Jenn Borgesen's avatar

Snort ... President Pennywise!

Expand full comment
Doug Tarnopol's avatar

“Maybe at some point big, strong European men with tears in their eyes will meet with Trump and say, ‘Sir, we have a temporary hangup over clause #14159 of the 1986 Single European Act. But we’ll get it cleared up any day now.’”

Nicely done!

Expand full comment
matclone's avatar

I'm praying for the day when several big, strong men, with tears in their eyes, will thank President Trump for his service--notwithstanding his painful bone spurs--and take him away to a better place.

Expand full comment
Mark's avatar

He is in the best place he is ever going to be in this life and the next one.

He, the Supreme Court and the Congress have no intention of taking any action whatsoever to have him leave the White House JAN 2029. None.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

Sounds like defenestration!

Expand full comment
LeonTrotsky's avatar

It sounds plausible, but tRump always plans an act for his base of medieval peasants, rather than follow a sensible script. His typical reply is infantile, playing victim and then turning to tough guy, issuing threats. It's all about theatre for this pedo, con man, and felon.

Expand full comment
John Lee's avatar

Is that the only clause with which they have an issue?

Expand full comment
DJ's avatar

It's actually clause 14159, paragraph C, section 2, subsection IV, but they thought it better to keep it simple for President Simpleton.

Expand full comment
Gordon Berry's avatar

and subsection LXIVV...

Expand full comment
Al Keim's avatar

LXIX?

Expand full comment
Gordon Berry's avatar

We should use Arabic numbers!

Expand full comment
Al Keim's avatar

There's a Muslim ban on.

Expand full comment
Chenda's avatar

So did the EU really fail, or did they just play Trump to their advantage? Notably, it's pledge to buy more American weaponry - the one thing governments do control - did not come with a specific figure. Europe can afford to look weak in a way the CCP can not, which gives it a strange advantage. Europe should continue to strengthen it's trade agreements with other nations and improve it's internal market, the latter of which I suspect offers huge opportunities for growth.

Expand full comment
Stephen Schiff's avatar

Another meaningless concession as Merz had already agreed to buy Patriot missiles for Ukraine.

Expand full comment
Nowaytofixthis's avatar

Is there even a written text of this agreement? And if there is, will it ever be ratified by congress and the European parliament so that it becomes law? I don't think so. As Paul has pointed out numerous times, real trade agreements take many years of negotiation to sort out all the details. Trump has no interest in that. All that counts is the announcement.

Expand full comment
LeonTrotsky's avatar

Whatever is signed won't last with this con man. He'll tear it up, issuing new threats. We're wasting our time "working" with this felon. It's best that countries form new alliances and treat the USA as a rogue state.

Expand full comment
Al Keim's avatar

This appears to be the sound of one hand clapping.

Expand full comment
Anthony O Neill's avatar

Thanks Paul for the Noel Harrison musical coda: wonderful!

Alas, the world is very strange, very bad, and very nasty just now. Trump is a dinosaur, enjoying time in the sun and upending the rules according to his whim and desire. At least Noel Harrison’s voice adds a little sweetness to the prospect we are all facing.

Expand full comment
LHS's avatar

I've been waiting for him to use "Windmills of your mind" as the musical coda. 😄

Expand full comment
Turgut Tuten's avatar

Speaking of nasty, I would like a psychologist to explain why Trump would call the mayor of London out of nowhere nasty during a press conference.

Expand full comment
George Patterson's avatar

Because he's not white.

Expand full comment
Turgut Tuten's avatar

I am sure that is one factor. Non-white, Muslim and lefty. But I would think that a politician would make such negative comments consciously (even reading from a script) to cater to racial biases. In his case it appears uncontrolled, sort of like Tourette syndrome

Expand full comment
Vijaya Venkatesan's avatar

He's long had a thing, since his first term, about Sadiq Khan our Mayor.

Expand full comment
Another Dave's avatar

Also worth mentioning that Europe is building more nuclear reactors.

Expand full comment
Margaret Reis's avatar

That is worrisome!

Expand full comment
Cissna, Ken's avatar

As tge saying goes, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Or…every form of power production and use comes with problems.

Nuclear—very clean, low emissions, but no one knows what to do with the dangerous waste for 10,000 years.

Expand full comment
Dr Hugh D Campbell's avatar

Nuclear is also very expensive, especially if costs over the full lifecycle including decommissioning are included (as they should be). In Australia, we are going with renewables (mainly solar and wind), with firming via large-scale batteries and pumped hydro.

Expand full comment
Another Dave's avatar

Had a professor that called it the “NFL Principle” - No Free Lunch, you can’t get something for nothing.

Expand full comment
Max Cunningham's avatar

Why?

Expand full comment
Margaret Reis's avatar

I live near TMI!

Expand full comment
Tom Blees's avatar

So you'll soon benefit from the taxes generated by the reopening of the power plant there. Lucky you!

Expand full comment
Margaret Reis's avatar

I'm 85 so I won't care if it implodes.

Expand full comment
Al Keim's avatar

Ha ha, this an economics forum:-)

Expand full comment
chris lemon's avatar

They'll soon be building more nuclear weapons too, lots more. Trump's strategic blunders just let the genie of nuclear proliferation out of the bottle. Trump will soon be gone, but the genie is not going back in the bottle.

Expand full comment
JDinTX's avatar

I was disappointed at what seemed the capitulation to the bully. Then I thought, well, maybe they are just trying to survive, like so many of us. Stuck with a demon for several years, best to survive rather than obstruct a nuclear nut. After all, America did this, the rest of us have to deal with it too. I hope you are right. But my worry is that chump is just the spokesmodel for puppeteers that are not likely to forget much. He is on a publicity/revenge tour but the next stage is being set.

Expand full comment
Beatrice N Henrioulle's avatar

There is that risk. But I doubt the US electorate will agree to let this fly after the Orange Imbecile's performance. It is up to you USians now to dismantle the sinister Project 2025 by voting capable, humanist representatives to wash away this scourge. You can only be better off!

Expand full comment
JDinTX's avatar

Those in charge listen to money, not voters. Their goal from way back. Normal opposition assumes politics as usual. That ship sailed long ago…

Expand full comment
Beatrice N Henrioulle's avatar

:) Go storm the Capitols then? We have guillotines for sale (-15% !!)

Expand full comment
Al Keim's avatar

Are we watching the banderillas preparing the raging bull?

Expand full comment
BJB's avatar

the "deal" also needs to be ratified by the EU states and possibly EU parliament. w Germany and France already expressing doubts, that seems unlikely. Just like w Japan deal, the Diet has to approve, and governing party just lost the election. plus they already walked back the BS claim of 600 billion invested in return for 10% of profits nonsense.

Expand full comment
Thomas Patrick McGrane's avatar

If the E.U. does invest in American companies, Trump sold out America rather than bringing back American owned companies which started all this. All Trump had to do to bring back American factories was to increase the fraudulently presented 2017 15% Foreign Profits Tax well above the 2017 21% national corporate tax rate. Instead, he's taxing us all in what looks like international conspiracies for nations to create new revenues for their respective nations with national Tariff sales taxes.

Expand full comment
Erin's avatar

The problem is he's literally too stupid to understand any of that. He thinks that international trade is like going to Walmart. The US is a store and we're "setting prices" by putting tariffs on things, but he can never and will never understand that the exporters do not pay those costs. For now importers are eating some, but not all, of the costs. Once it becomes clear that 15% is the new baseline tariff, expect all imported goods to rise by at least 10% in price, and domestic goods likely to lag only slightly behind as those companies harvest the windfall profits like they did during COVID.

Expand full comment
MojoMan's avatar

Erin, I would expect that once fixed the US importer will exceed the Tariffs by 3 to 5% to handle all the lost income due to bureaucratic processes and so by Christmas I would expect virtually everything consumers wasn’t to increase in price by 15% to 20%, Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

Expand full comment
George Patterson's avatar

This has already happened with domestically produced steel.

Expand full comment
Bob Palmer's avatar

Thanks for calling tariffs 'sales taxes' because functionally that is what 'tariffs' are.

Expand full comment
Keith Hughes's avatar

PLEASE STOP CALLING THEM ‘DEALS’

Dr. Krugman,

You, Mr. Trump, and news outlets keep calling these agreements ‘deals’ and I beg you to stop. Since The Art of the Deal Mr. Trump has used that word to indicate a great win for himself. You have clearly debunked that notion for the EU ‘deal’ but I believe parroting the word ‘deal’ – even in a piece that shows how bad they are - feeds into the perception of many that these agreements are good for America. Let’s please stop using the D word.

Expand full comment
Debbe Kelley's avatar

I hate this language too. It’s a “deal” even in Gaza where we have a genocide going on. What happened to the “agreements” of past professionals who worked on international affairs? I know there are few, if any, left in this administration.

Expand full comment
Suzanne White's avatar

Krugman strikes again with his intellectual clarity and the wit of the chosen musical coda!

Expand full comment
Krispy's avatar

With djt’s fave windmills! I love it

Expand full comment
Janet Persons's avatar

Most apropos musical coda

Expand full comment
Jeff's avatar

You gotta love the turtleneck.

Expand full comment
Robertp123's avatar

A liar deserves to be lied to. Bravo!

Expand full comment