Donald Trump doesn’t know any of this. All he knows is that he sees the word “strong” and that must be good.
I know there’s been a concerted effort by our wealthy media class (including your former employer) to get us to forget that Trump is fully addled and was pretty stupid before that, but we’re about to be reminded of that in so many ways.
If Trump comes to know anything about all this, it will be how to blackmail businesses into bribing him not to raise tariffs on their imports. He has always been clever at enriching himself, even while declaring bankruptcy.
"Art of The Deal" redux, only these "deals" will be straight-up extortion, with those corporations willing to pay for tariff "exemptions" having a clear path to tRump's bank account...win-win, as they say.
I did my Undergraduate and graduate studies at UCLA in the 1960s with a big emphasis on micro economics. I then went to work in Corporate America where I worked in corporate staff at a number of the largest corporations in the country. Finally, I ended up as a corporate strategy consultant at PWC where I was chief economist of its strategy practice. So I had an opportunity to observe first hand the transition in corporate management that has taken place over the last 50 years. You mention the Reagan tax cut with out touching on the nature and impact of that cut. The top marginal tax rate from 1917 until Reagan was 70% -95% with the exception of the late 1920s. These high marginal tax rates in effect put a limit on how much money senior executives could remove from the company that they controlled. The tax rates in effect dampened if not completely solved the agency problem. Executives had lots of perks, large corporate staffs, and prided themselves in being the leaders of large commercial empires. In the companies I worked for and the companies I consulted with senior management almost always had life time careers within the company. Executive pensions were closely tied to corporate stock ownership as were many employee pensions (this was pre ERISA). As a result long term growth and corporate strategy was of central importance to the top executives. After the tax cuts when marginal rates dropped to ~35% executives very quickly began to realize that getting as much money out of the company as quickly as possible was the name of the game. In the late 80s and early 90s the hottest consulting projects were head count reduction and off-shoring as well as executive pay advisory.. Short term earnings became the prime focus of the C-suite with strategy being relegated to lower level executives who had an interest in five years out. Executives became hired professionals often with no experience in the industry, but were experts at cost cutting and the shrink to greatness strategy. With the computer revolution of the 90s the tech companies quickly learned that they could sell anything to corporate America if it promised to reduce labor costs,; a strategic objective that is now deeply ingrained in high tech culture. In economics, too much macro focus often often blinds one to the policy impact of changing behavioral incentives. The US has the oligarch dominated, suffering middle class, because that is the outcome that macro policy changes have incentivized.
"These high marginal tax rates in effect put a limit on how much money senior executives could remove from the company that they controlled. "
I have been waiting for a statement like this to understand how CEOs went from earning 10 times the workers' wage in the 1960s to more than 300 times it now. Thank you for this.
Your observations are seldom written about today and, IMO, are the keys to understanding the cultural shifts that occurred under Friedman’s neoliberal theories starting with Bork and Reagan. I studied at UCLA and USC during the same time periods and experienced first hand the conditions and changes in the business communities that you have described so eloquently. Your exposition is much more succinct than mine has been thus far. Thank you.
Most of today’s narratives start with Reagan, and none that I have read consider the environment changes from the 60’s and 70’s to the 1980’s to the present. Any reference to the environmental changes during this inflection period are obscured in all encompassing comparisons of “New Deal” vs. “Neoliberalism” “rules” and resultant economic impacts. The result is that the general public is intentionally or unintentionally prevented from seeing or having any understanding about where the US economy is and where it needs to go to restore long term planning and stability. The secondary result is that “corporate profit maximization for the shareholders” is now inculcated into the mindset of all Americans to the point that a majority of them believe it’s the real thing. Hence, they have elected a person who appears to be on their side in a fight to reduce monopolistic price gouging but is in reality merely looking to maximize his and Corporate America’s abilities to pick the public’s pockets without restraint.
Please continue with your brilliant insights. Maybe others will follow your lead.
Good observations. Yes, these corporate tax cuts are indeed what are enriching and empowering these oligarchs while fundamentally weakening the US economy and impoverishing the bottom 50%.
Thanks for your comment. Over my Silicon Valley career I've seen the dramatic change too. It used to be filled with many people who genuinely cared about creating things and creating value over the long term. But that is completely gone now. Even the geeky technical guys have evolved into those who are often the first to lie and deceive in order to conform to social expectations. Not only sad, but quite dangerous.
Yeah, executives used to get untaxed perks and the sorts of things you could write off on your taxes was much bigger. The effective tax rates were much lower than the bracket rates would imply, but being a good corporate steward was still much more rewarding than it is today, as those perks were dependent on keeping the company healthy and the executive in the job for the long haul. Interesting analysis that seems to explain much!
If Prof. Krugman’s predictions are correct - and even if they aren’t - one thing is a stone-cold mortal lock, if you’re a betting person: The median American in terms of income or household net worth (take your pick) who has gained no ground for 45 years will continue to gain no ground on the uber wealthy, or even on the upper middle class (now a misnomer because there no longer is a middle class).
How will they process this further backsliding under their hero tRump? Another former President has the answer:
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”
Whatever happens Trump will advertise it as the best economy ever (maybe through in some red meat by deporting some immigrants and then claiming how gang crime is down (where it never was in the first place) or such stunts) and that will be enough for idiots who voted for him.
>>Whatever happens Trump will advertise it as the best economy ever...and that will be enough for idiots who voted for him.<<
Something like 90% of the electorate won't even contemplate voting for "the other" party these days: we're a country with a lot fewer swing voters than once upon a time. So yeah, the vast bulk of "the idiots who voted for Trump" won't be persuaded otherwise, no matter what national conditions are like. But fortunately Democrats don't need to convert many of *them* to make a comeback in the midterms (or in 2028). What they need is to claw back most of the (modest number of) *persuadable* voters, including the substantial number of Biden-Trump voters. I have a feeling a spike in unemployment (perhaps a weak version of what we saw in 1982) will be enough to convince the majority of persuadable Trump voters that they made a mistake this year.
For the record I absolutely am not rooting on a recession. But I fear Trump's fiscal policies will result in exactly that. And it's better to have silver linings than not have them.
Adding more insult to the manufacturing industry was the fact that big companies, like GE, started offshoring manufacturing. It was more profitable to set up shell companies and become an in unregulated bank than to make a product and provide parts & service.
I thought if we’d had social media back then he wouldn’t have been elected a second time, but now Trump again - so I guess it’s not so much access to information as it is the ability to process it.
Based on conversations I had with my unionized blue collar tradesmen coworkers in the mid 1980s, nothing rational will convince them to vote for a Democrat. When I asked why, considering Reagan had just busted the air traffic controllers union and oversaw the severe recession that decimated our local economy for 10 years, they said he was entertaining and gave them permission to speak they way they wanted. If you’re wondering what they meant by speaking, every day on the job was a cacophony of racist, sexist and homphobic slurs. Alas, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
To be honest I think it's more about sexism than racism: I'm reminded of Nick Rafter's observation that his "dudebro" friends during the noughties (who were progressive Democrats) would almost certainly be MAGA Republicans today.
Chasing Medicare fraud costs money, hurts the wrong kind of people, and prrops up a failing Communist program that saps our preciius bodily fluids. 3 strikes and yer out.
Wow, I was expecting to continue enjoying your thinking on economics and many other topics but not getting an education on music I missed. I'm a retired int. economics practitioner and an unretired aficionado of bluegrass and the banjo and much other acoustic music that expands the mind. Thank you for turning me on to Hayde Bluegrass Orchestra and the Lone Bellow. I will not pass up the listen at the foot of your articles going forward
If trump implements his mass deportations and tariffs, well it won't be great. Can't wait to see what happens to the price of groceries when you deport the field hands.
Let's just hope Trump and the GOP don't undo the Dem + Biden industrial legacy: CHIPS, IRA, and Infrastructure. Otherwise, the Chinese will clean our clocks when they feel bold enough to take Taiwan. Drone warfare is the future; something that the Dems get, but the GOP won't.
Excellent newsletter and I wholeheartedly agree. Not only are we headed into a large trade deficit economy; but a “meme” stock economy, based on irrational exuberance on CRACK! Not to mention, unattainable expectations, and an arrogant prick; running the country into oblivion!
The consumer confidence index is in the stratosphere, and the chickens will eventually come home to roost! Who wants to bet that Inauguration week will be the biggest stock gains in US history for any president? The plutocrats are pulling out all the stops for the anointed one, who is being led on a short leash!…:)
This is as always a fascinating piece. How will the new administration's policies impact the dollar and the U.S. trade deficit? The parallel to the 80s is intriguing as the Dollar still plays a key role within the international monetary system (even more dominant now). Back in 1984, in an FT article, Soros referred to the mechanism emphasized in the blog as the "Imperial Circle". He wrote: "The recovery, combined with a high exchange rate, tends to increase imports and augments the trade deficit. Moreover, a high trade deficit combined with a high exchange rate moderates inflation. The U.S. enjoys the best of all possible worlds: strong economic growth, low inflation, and a budget deficit financed with an influx of foreign goods and foreign capital. Soros (1984): I shall call this benign circle the “ Imperial Circle.”
Now the way the USDollar works within the International Monetary system is different and if anything the U.S. economy is less manufacturing-oriented, and relatively less exposed to the world economy so possibly the effects of the dollar are stronger for foreign economies. (in a recent paper we frame this within what we call the the Dollar's Imperial Circle 2.0. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41308-023-00235-6). There are different ways to think about trade deficits too. In the Global Financial Resource Curse (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20211792) we discuss how economic integration and trade deficit (for the U.S.) economy can be harmful in terms of medium-run growth performance (https://gianlucabenigno.substack.com/p/the-global-financial-resource-curse?r=nm3g).
Do I get his point: that if we increase tariffs demand for imports should fall and shouldn’t that reduce the offer of dollars só our exchange rate increases. This would make the dollar stronger and make our exports weaker thus negating the effect on tariffs?
That is correct. He suggests that if I interpret him correctly, we might see a repetition of the 80s. Fiscal policies combined with tariffs might lead to a stronger dollar that would lead to higher trade deficits (by hurting exports), the opposite of what tariffs aim at. I think that it might not be the case as the US economy is different from the 80s in terms of its exposure to foreign development and how the dollar harms exports. I think this effect is less relevant now and also there might be other aspects that are relevant in assessing the role of tariffs on the U.S. economy.
If you study Narcissistic Personality Disorder you can get an easy understanding of the logic behind Trump's economic policy. One of the hallmarks of narcissism is to see the world as winners/losers, that everything is a zero-sum game. Which of course is a false narrative as most things in the world exist on a spectrum. And as the Great Kruggy explains, that's how trump sees deficits; in Trump’s mind countries win when they sell more than they buy, and nobody is going to convince him otherwise. Again, another hallmark of narcissism is that they believe they are always right by the simple fact they said it. Anything else must be wrong.
If I were going into college right now I'd be majoring in economics. It's a very exciting time for economists as natural tests are going to pop up everywhere. Exciting in the sense that as a surfer (I am a surfer, just not pro), I still get that feeling of excitement when a 15' wave comes at me, I know it is going to drag me ruthlessly across the reef and leave me clinging on to life, but it's still exciting as all shite.
“But, but, Muskaswamy say that they can greatly reduce the deficit by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Strange to say, however, almost no independent economists believe them. That DOGE won’t hunt.”
Why am I laughing when I should be crying? Thank you, Krugman Unbound, for that and all else, including, once again, a brilliant musical coda, even if not about the balance of payments:
Yet another example of how Reagan, held up by most Republicans as the golden age of respectable conservatism, contributed to the very ills he is credited with fixing and how Trump will do the same.
Donald Trump doesn’t know any of this. All he knows is that he sees the word “strong” and that must be good.
I know there’s been a concerted effort by our wealthy media class (including your former employer) to get us to forget that Trump is fully addled and was pretty stupid before that, but we’re about to be reminded of that in so many ways.
If Trump comes to know anything about all this, it will be how to blackmail businesses into bribing him not to raise tariffs on their imports. He has always been clever at enriching himself, even while declaring bankruptcy.
"Art of The Deal" redux, only these "deals" will be straight-up extortion, with those corporations willing to pay for tariff "exemptions" having a clear path to tRump's bank account...win-win, as they say.
I did my Undergraduate and graduate studies at UCLA in the 1960s with a big emphasis on micro economics. I then went to work in Corporate America where I worked in corporate staff at a number of the largest corporations in the country. Finally, I ended up as a corporate strategy consultant at PWC where I was chief economist of its strategy practice. So I had an opportunity to observe first hand the transition in corporate management that has taken place over the last 50 years. You mention the Reagan tax cut with out touching on the nature and impact of that cut. The top marginal tax rate from 1917 until Reagan was 70% -95% with the exception of the late 1920s. These high marginal tax rates in effect put a limit on how much money senior executives could remove from the company that they controlled. The tax rates in effect dampened if not completely solved the agency problem. Executives had lots of perks, large corporate staffs, and prided themselves in being the leaders of large commercial empires. In the companies I worked for and the companies I consulted with senior management almost always had life time careers within the company. Executive pensions were closely tied to corporate stock ownership as were many employee pensions (this was pre ERISA). As a result long term growth and corporate strategy was of central importance to the top executives. After the tax cuts when marginal rates dropped to ~35% executives very quickly began to realize that getting as much money out of the company as quickly as possible was the name of the game. In the late 80s and early 90s the hottest consulting projects were head count reduction and off-shoring as well as executive pay advisory.. Short term earnings became the prime focus of the C-suite with strategy being relegated to lower level executives who had an interest in five years out. Executives became hired professionals often with no experience in the industry, but were experts at cost cutting and the shrink to greatness strategy. With the computer revolution of the 90s the tech companies quickly learned that they could sell anything to corporate America if it promised to reduce labor costs,; a strategic objective that is now deeply ingrained in high tech culture. In economics, too much macro focus often often blinds one to the policy impact of changing behavioral incentives. The US has the oligarch dominated, suffering middle class, because that is the outcome that macro policy changes have incentivized.
"These high marginal tax rates in effect put a limit on how much money senior executives could remove from the company that they controlled. "
I have been waiting for a statement like this to understand how CEOs went from earning 10 times the workers' wage in the 1960s to more than 300 times it now. Thank you for this.
Your observations are seldom written about today and, IMO, are the keys to understanding the cultural shifts that occurred under Friedman’s neoliberal theories starting with Bork and Reagan. I studied at UCLA and USC during the same time periods and experienced first hand the conditions and changes in the business communities that you have described so eloquently. Your exposition is much more succinct than mine has been thus far. Thank you.
Most of today’s narratives start with Reagan, and none that I have read consider the environment changes from the 60’s and 70’s to the 1980’s to the present. Any reference to the environmental changes during this inflection period are obscured in all encompassing comparisons of “New Deal” vs. “Neoliberalism” “rules” and resultant economic impacts. The result is that the general public is intentionally or unintentionally prevented from seeing or having any understanding about where the US economy is and where it needs to go to restore long term planning and stability. The secondary result is that “corporate profit maximization for the shareholders” is now inculcated into the mindset of all Americans to the point that a majority of them believe it’s the real thing. Hence, they have elected a person who appears to be on their side in a fight to reduce monopolistic price gouging but is in reality merely looking to maximize his and Corporate America’s abilities to pick the public’s pockets without restraint.
Please continue with your brilliant insights. Maybe others will follow your lead.
The amount of damage caused by Bork is staggering.
What Avila just wrote is as insightful as anything the Great Kruggy writes, for sure.
Good observations. Yes, these corporate tax cuts are indeed what are enriching and empowering these oligarchs while fundamentally weakening the US economy and impoverishing the bottom 50%.
Thanks for your comment. Over my Silicon Valley career I've seen the dramatic change too. It used to be filled with many people who genuinely cared about creating things and creating value over the long term. But that is completely gone now. Even the geeky technical guys have evolved into those who are often the first to lie and deceive in order to conform to social expectations. Not only sad, but quite dangerous.
Yeah, executives used to get untaxed perks and the sorts of things you could write off on your taxes was much bigger. The effective tax rates were much lower than the bracket rates would imply, but being a good corporate steward was still much more rewarding than it is today, as those perks were dependent on keeping the company healthy and the executive in the job for the long haul. Interesting analysis that seems to explain much!
the "america" maga yearns for existed because of the tax rates cause and effect described by Robert... not the tax cuts championed by drumpf...
I completely agree. As a accounting professional, I saw this happen, and does not get mentioned, as you indicate. Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
If Prof. Krugman’s predictions are correct - and even if they aren’t - one thing is a stone-cold mortal lock, if you’re a betting person: The median American in terms of income or household net worth (take your pick) who has gained no ground for 45 years will continue to gain no ground on the uber wealthy, or even on the upper middle class (now a misnomer because there no longer is a middle class).
How will they process this further backsliding under their hero tRump? Another former President has the answer:
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”
- Lyndon B. Johnson
Johnson's quote explains much of why Trump got reelected.
It does - I find myself hauling it out frequently when someone asks me to describe MAGAts' motivations.
Whatever happens Trump will advertise it as the best economy ever (maybe through in some red meat by deporting some immigrants and then claiming how gang crime is down (where it never was in the first place) or such stunts) and that will be enough for idiots who voted for him.
All that matter are the optics, the PR, the salesmanship. Hard economic facts, data sets and graphs? Too WOKE.
actually he demeans and ignores any real knowledge then hands it off to his son in law or the idiot sons to grift for him...
>>Whatever happens Trump will advertise it as the best economy ever...and that will be enough for idiots who voted for him.<<
Something like 90% of the electorate won't even contemplate voting for "the other" party these days: we're a country with a lot fewer swing voters than once upon a time. So yeah, the vast bulk of "the idiots who voted for Trump" won't be persuaded otherwise, no matter what national conditions are like. But fortunately Democrats don't need to convert many of *them* to make a comeback in the midterms (or in 2028). What they need is to claw back most of the (modest number of) *persuadable* voters, including the substantial number of Biden-Trump voters. I have a feeling a spike in unemployment (perhaps a weak version of what we saw in 1982) will be enough to convince the majority of persuadable Trump voters that they made a mistake this year.
For the record I absolutely am not rooting on a recession. But I fear Trump's fiscal policies will result in exactly that. And it's better to have silver linings than not have them.
And he will doctor as many governmental statistics reports as he can to show the numbers are getting better.
No, he won’t. He’ll DOGE them into non-existence.
“These are the best sparrows on the finest curtain rods roasting over the brightest campfires under the most commodious bridges!”
"They told me, with manly tears in their eyes..."
Adding more insult to the manufacturing industry was the fact that big companies, like GE, started offshoring manufacturing. It was more profitable to set up shell companies and become an in unregulated bank than to make a product and provide parts & service.
Holes in the image of Saint Reagan.
I thought if we’d had social media back then he wouldn’t have been elected a second time, but now Trump again - so I guess it’s not so much access to information as it is the ability to process it.
Sigh.
Based on conversations I had with my unionized blue collar tradesmen coworkers in the mid 1980s, nothing rational will convince them to vote for a Democrat. When I asked why, considering Reagan had just busted the air traffic controllers union and oversaw the severe recession that decimated our local economy for 10 years, they said he was entertaining and gave them permission to speak they way they wanted. If you’re wondering what they meant by speaking, every day on the job was a cacophony of racist, sexist and homphobic slurs. Alas, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
To be honest I think it's more about sexism than racism: I'm reminded of Nick Rafter's observation that his "dudebro" friends during the noughties (who were progressive Democrats) would almost certainly be MAGA Republicans today.
https://open.substack.com/pub/nickrafter/p/heres-a-wild-though-epsiode-6-men
Willingness to process, also too.
“That DOGE won’t hunt” is comedy gold… for an Econ presentation. And I’ll allow it.
"This DOGE won't hunt" is a good one.
I how they can figure out how to do something more about Medicare fraud, and other fraudulent American pastimes.
If I recall, Trump pardoned a couple of big-time Medicare fraudsters. That certainly sends a message.
And one of their leading senaotors Rick Scott is a convicted fraudster
Nb. Senator Rick Scott was one such fraudster. So goes Florida
Chasing Medicare fraud costs money, hurts the wrong kind of people, and prrops up a failing Communist program that saps our preciius bodily fluids. 3 strikes and yer out.
Wow, I was expecting to continue enjoying your thinking on economics and many other topics but not getting an education on music I missed. I'm a retired int. economics practitioner and an unretired aficionado of bluegrass and the banjo and much other acoustic music that expands the mind. Thank you for turning me on to Hayde Bluegrass Orchestra and the Lone Bellow. I will not pass up the listen at the foot of your articles going forward
If trump implements his mass deportations and tariffs, well it won't be great. Can't wait to see what happens to the price of groceries when you deport the field hands.
Trump won’t care. He’ll blame it on Biden. Just watch - everything bad that’s going to happen will always be Biden’s fault.
Well, Biden's or Obama's or Pelosi's. Or maybe Hunter Biden's... But yeah, a Dem's...
Let's just hope Trump and the GOP don't undo the Dem + Biden industrial legacy: CHIPS, IRA, and Infrastructure. Otherwise, the Chinese will clean our clocks when they feel bold enough to take Taiwan. Drone warfare is the future; something that the Dems get, but the GOP won't.
Excellent newsletter and I wholeheartedly agree. Not only are we headed into a large trade deficit economy; but a “meme” stock economy, based on irrational exuberance on CRACK! Not to mention, unattainable expectations, and an arrogant prick; running the country into oblivion!
The consumer confidence index is in the stratosphere, and the chickens will eventually come home to roost! Who wants to bet that Inauguration week will be the biggest stock gains in US history for any president? The plutocrats are pulling out all the stops for the anointed one, who is being led on a short leash!…:)
This is as always a fascinating piece. How will the new administration's policies impact the dollar and the U.S. trade deficit? The parallel to the 80s is intriguing as the Dollar still plays a key role within the international monetary system (even more dominant now). Back in 1984, in an FT article, Soros referred to the mechanism emphasized in the blog as the "Imperial Circle". He wrote: "The recovery, combined with a high exchange rate, tends to increase imports and augments the trade deficit. Moreover, a high trade deficit combined with a high exchange rate moderates inflation. The U.S. enjoys the best of all possible worlds: strong economic growth, low inflation, and a budget deficit financed with an influx of foreign goods and foreign capital. Soros (1984): I shall call this benign circle the “ Imperial Circle.”
Now the way the USDollar works within the International Monetary system is different and if anything the U.S. economy is less manufacturing-oriented, and relatively less exposed to the world economy so possibly the effects of the dollar are stronger for foreign economies. (in a recent paper we frame this within what we call the the Dollar's Imperial Circle 2.0. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41308-023-00235-6). There are different ways to think about trade deficits too. In the Global Financial Resource Curse (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20211792) we discuss how economic integration and trade deficit (for the U.S.) economy can be harmful in terms of medium-run growth performance (https://gianlucabenigno.substack.com/p/the-global-financial-resource-curse?r=nm3g).
Do I get his point: that if we increase tariffs demand for imports should fall and shouldn’t that reduce the offer of dollars só our exchange rate increases. This would make the dollar stronger and make our exports weaker thus negating the effect on tariffs?
That is correct. He suggests that if I interpret him correctly, we might see a repetition of the 80s. Fiscal policies combined with tariffs might lead to a stronger dollar that would lead to higher trade deficits (by hurting exports), the opposite of what tariffs aim at. I think that it might not be the case as the US economy is different from the 80s in terms of its exposure to foreign development and how the dollar harms exports. I think this effect is less relevant now and also there might be other aspects that are relevant in assessing the role of tariffs on the U.S. economy.
Thank you (grazie)
If you study Narcissistic Personality Disorder you can get an easy understanding of the logic behind Trump's economic policy. One of the hallmarks of narcissism is to see the world as winners/losers, that everything is a zero-sum game. Which of course is a false narrative as most things in the world exist on a spectrum. And as the Great Kruggy explains, that's how trump sees deficits; in Trump’s mind countries win when they sell more than they buy, and nobody is going to convince him otherwise. Again, another hallmark of narcissism is that they believe they are always right by the simple fact they said it. Anything else must be wrong.
If I were going into college right now I'd be majoring in economics. It's a very exciting time for economists as natural tests are going to pop up everywhere. Exciting in the sense that as a surfer (I am a surfer, just not pro), I still get that feeling of excitement when a 15' wave comes at me, I know it is going to drag me ruthlessly across the reef and leave me clinging on to life, but it's still exciting as all shite.
“But, but, Muskaswamy say that they can greatly reduce the deficit by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Strange to say, however, almost no independent economists believe them. That DOGE won’t hunt.”
Why am I laughing when I should be crying? Thank you, Krugman Unbound, for that and all else, including, once again, a brilliant musical coda, even if not about the balance of payments:
How could you rob me blind
When I thought I was a navigator
I thought I could read the signs
Yet another example of how Reagan, held up by most Republicans as the golden age of respectable conservatism, contributed to the very ills he is credited with fixing and how Trump will do the same.