Keynes was disparaged by the experts of his time not because they thought he was wrong, but because they knew he was right.
Side note- why does Spell (in)Correct keep insisting on changing the words you intend. It kept turning "Keynes" into "Keyless" despite my repeated attempts to override it?
That's why I turned off "auto-correct". I still use spellcheck to >highlight< what I key without actually changing it, just in case, but it's usually wrong, so I'll right click and select "add to dictionary".
Our politicians seem to have lost the skill of listening to multiple sources of expertise and then apply critical thought before opening their mouths. As I think back over recent memory we’ve drifted from Keynes to Reaganomics to Bidenomics to Trumpian Grievance economics.
Sadly, if my spellcheck changed it to Keyless, I probably would not catch it since I am dyslexic. I do not mind if people point out my misspellings, missing words, or incorrect use of punctuation. I really can't see it, so all who correct me are appreciated.
More importantly, Keynes was right, and so right that it is all straightforward and perfectly logical, as well. So, not even complicated.
Saying Trump's actions have a "plan" is sane washing. And tariffs don't raise prices? What happened to clothes washers when Trump was president and a tariff was put in place. The price went up. $200. Dryers were not tariffed but since they are usually sold in matching sets, manufacturers raised the price of dryers. When the tariff disappeared, the price only went down $70 on washing machines. Yes, China and perhaps other countries have wrecked the system since admission to the WTO. However, the previous administrations plan of targeted tariffs with an emphasis on employment and high-tech and transition to EVS was working quite well. How ironic that the red states that got billions of dollars of subsidies to build battery plants all voted for Trump. Let's see how they're feeling in a couple of months. By the way, Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler got everyone a car they could afford.. it's not just the economics
Mussolini did not make the trains run on time. Here's what ChatGPT had to say about that (I know ChatGPT is not completely reliable, but this is consistent with what I've read in the past, before AI):
Ah, the ol' *"Mussolini made the trains run on time"*—one of history’s more persistent myths.
### The short answer:
**Not really.**
### The longer answer:
This claim was part of Fascist propaganda. Mussolini and his regime *claimed* to have revolutionized Italy's infrastructure and made things more efficient, like the railways. But when historians dug into the records, they found that:
- **Italian trains were already improving** before Mussolini came to power in 1922.
- **Many trains still ran late** under Mussolini, and there were frequent issues with service quality.
- The regime **focused on appearances**—cleaning up stations, repainting trains, and punishing workers who allowed delays—but that didn’t necessarily translate to actual efficiency.
- Foreigners visiting Italy often **believed** the propaganda, and the myth took root outside the country too.
So it’s less a testament to Fascist efficiency and more of a case study in **effective spin**.
The point was for whatever "good" Mussolini did, acknowledging the "good" only led credibility to his Fascist Government. Therefore, validating any "good" Trump act (which surely only happens by a lack of Trump oversight) validates his other acts.
While shuttling back and forth between Munich and Verona in September 2023, it was reversed. The Italian trains were efficient and on-time, whereas the German system was ailing.
I am wondering if the goal for trump is debt peonage or debt bondage via crypto currency. As red states begin to lose their jobs, institutions fail from self sabotage, and currency becomes weak, the federal government would subsidize billionaires (picking winners and losers), to create manufacturing jobs and housing in red and purple states which pay in crypto currency. Thus preventing a maga rebellion from job loss, and moving them into debt bandage to the company store - owning their soul to the company store.
I loved watching this. A lot of it I did not know about these guys. I watched in youtube a few days ago.
I also loved the glee of two people who got each other's inside jokes and fascination of the era and the man.
I plan on reading the book, so I can learn more.
The only thing that got my antenna up was the possible interpretation regarding the saying about "models work until they don't."
I know people use that phrase a lot, including Krugman. However, it is kind of like the phrase "printing money" in that it can be a bit too general and misleading for those who do not have a full background on what it is really meant to imply. Maybe I am wrong below, so if you disagree, let me know.
What I mean is this, I have a background in business and economics from courses I took pre-Reagan. Thus, no post-Reagan nonsense and myth making about economics, for me. In fact, Reagan's statements were the source of daily jokes from my professors, including in my business and economics classes, because it was all so nonsensical. However, what Reagan did and said often did not match, either.
After Reagan, there were too many in the GOP who admired him who were trying to force their square pegs of ideology into the round holes of reality and thus have been busy whittling away at facts and inserting nonsense to try to force a fit.
To me, economics seems rather straightforward and that means largely Keynesian, and I do not see that any of this has been proven wrong, at least based on what I was taught in my textbooks. I have not studied the man himself or all that he proposed. So I can learn a lot from this book.
In fact, none of it even seems complicated based on my background.
The GOP's post-Reagan square pegs being forced into round holes is a complicated puzzle, however, and also unnecessary.
It seems that those conservatives who admired Reagan have, after he left office, tried to make nonsense assumptions about economic cause and effect regarding his presidency and spun it all to justify tax cuts at the top and "trickle down" and that would require a lot of illogical assumptions to be made and a lot of whitling.
This has given rise to even more and more nonsense over many decades, with constant patches because it doesn't work, as well the creation of an entire news network and radio shows to promote this nonsense in order to create an unchallenged format to justify things like tax cuts at the top where in order to keep the myth going, they have told their base not to trust experts or the entire outside world or facts or any other sources of news - like what a cult leader might do to keep their followers from being deprogramed.
It is like a cult of nonsense that is now partly responsible for Trump being given free reign to destroy our economy with his tariffs and to then assume that we will rebuild from some sort of a magical "trickle down" of more tax cuts (which the GOP are now rushing to complete) when only demand can inspire business growth or rebuilding, and tariffs decimate demand - SO NO - WILL NOT HAPPEN - no Phoenix will rise from Trump's unnecessary pile of ashes (all else remaining the same with no other intervention)
My other background is in science and research for biological psychology and old computer language programming, as well, like "if then go to..." or basic symbolic logic.
So, back to my antenna comment...
Any functioning economic model or science research experiment with a result that can be replicated assumes that "all else" remains the same other than what is being manipulated and studied as to its impact on the change. "If then, and only then, go to."
In the 1970s it was mentioned in this discussion that inflation continued to rise with unemployment.
However, this observation should not invalidate the relationship between unemployment and inflation, because not all else remained constant. When "all else" remains constant there is a relationship.
If you have outside pressure on prices, like oil price increases in the 1970s (that also caused a lot of other impacts) or tariffs today, you can have stagflation and high unemployment and still see prices rise.
Many ( especially the Chicago School ) economists tried to discredit Keynes essentially by saying the traditional ( Phillips Curve) approach to the unemployment/ inflation tradeoff
didn’t hold any longer because stagflation of the 70’s made both worse at the same time .
My view was that the original tradeoff data came in an earlier era with less trade and the trade off
could be explained by demand factors . In the 70’s there was a significant supply side shock
due to oil embargoes. Indeed,
both unemployment and inflation rose at the same time - BUT it didn’t
necessarily invalidate the Phillips Curve - ( or Keynes for that matter)
because instead of moving along
a downward sloping Phillips Curve
- the whole curve shifted upward and to the right .
I’ll bet Pk would agree-
BTW - I used PK’s textbooks in some of my introductory economics classes.
Well, it sounds like you are far more experienced than I am.
I get the gist in a general sense.
I think I probably had the same textbooks as PK did since he might have been too young to have written mine even though he graduated before me. My biggest gap is grasping trade concepts so I am learning a lot here from his explanations.
This is my thinking on the 1970s and also regarding healthcare and wages.
Price is determined by supply and demand and also "choice." I wrote about this in the comments in a NYT article pre-ACA during this debate and prior to the article in Time magazine, so it has been on my mind for awhile.
It is "assumed" that buyers and sellers will be "free to choose" to buy or sell or seek alternatives when discussing the relationship between demand and supply and price.
However, items of necessity impact one's choice to buy and sell, and thus price, as well.
Thus, choice inhibiting factors also need to be accounted for and or remain the same (controlled) in order for a model or experiment to work and be replicated.
In the 1970s people needed to be close to work due to gas prices and large population areas had begun to run out of land. Housing skyrocketed. Boomers also came of age in very large numbers and were graduating college and starting families (demand pressures).
So, yes population Boomers added to demand, as well.
They needed to be near work due to transportation costs and of course oil also factors into the cost of everything else, as well.
Some things are not as mobile, like the workforce, thus there is nothing to set a floor for wages if people are so poor as to not be able to seek out other employment and choice can break down there as well (so I am not a laissez-faire capitalist since capitalism needs guiderails).
Choice also factors into healthcare as one will not want to choose a dollar store option for cancer so there is no other "choice" to control prices since I do not consider death a real "choice" one makes.
Thus, one outside variable will always be choice. Can one choose not to buy a necessity or not to sell one's labor if they can't afford to move and are starving?
In the 1970s transportation costs factored a great deal into choice compressing people into areas, etc. Then of course the price of oil factors into the cost of all else, as well.
One needs a place to live and must buy food, but the rising prices may cause a slowdown in employment and also also production, as well, due to less demand for some things and the price of parts....etc.
" due to oil embargoes", agree, had nothing to do with Keynes. course the greedy will chastise anyone who even hints at impeding their greed with any sort of government intervention. not fair how Keynes is dragged through the mud, only to be hosed off and presented at every unfettered greed caused downturn. smh.
I agree completely-this has been my analytical narrative since the 1970's. What Conservatives push under the rug is that Reagan solved stagflation by an expansionary fiscal stimulus (Keynesian) coordinated with Volker's Monetary shock. Stockman was taken behind the woodshed for pointing this out at the time. VP Cheney asserted in 2004 or so that Reagan proved that "Deficits Don't Matter", our first policy chief that revealed he was a Modern Monetary Theory man. I guess we share the fact that we are research scientists familiar with all the ways we can fool ourselves, but are curioius about the Dismal Science. Write on!!
Zach Carter’s book was terrific, and I really enjoyed this conversation. I would enjoy a follow-up focusing on and assessing the lines of thought relating to Keynes’s Economic Consequences of the Peace and particularly delving into the Versailles Treaty and the consequences of the extreme reparations, then following on to assessment of the Marshall Plan and its impact after WWII. Zach Carter alludes to some contemporary reassessment of Keynes’s theories vis-a-vis WWI. I have just finished reading VERTIGO: The Rise and Fall of Weimar Germany, by Harald Jähner, and this book would seem to bear out quite strongly that Keynes was right, people would not stand for it and would revolt. It would be terrific to hear from you both on this.
Paul, I really love your work here, better than the NYTs. Especially the longer form interviews--you are terrific at bringing top notch economists to the people.
Aren't the tariffs a reworking of the right -wing fantasy of replacing income and wealth taxes with consumption taxes?
Yes, it's insane. No, it doesn't add up. But I feel pretty sure they see a trade war as a global imposition of consumption taxes and a good way to devalue the dollar.
Trump's tariff “operation" (the largest peacetime tax hike in U.S. history) & Musk's DOGE with surgery by chainsaw will not kill the "patient", but will bring on recession or worse...economic pandemic, panic, depression on a scale that most of us have never experienced.
Trumpian malevolence & malignant stupidity will tank the economy. It’s what Republicans do.
Even worse than tariffs & reckless undermining of US national security & the US economy, which only 6 months ago was "the envy of the world" according to the Wall Street Journal, is the attack on public health...MAGA's unprecedented assault on scientific truth & demand for subservient confirmation of misinformation and lies has adversely impacted public health in our nation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im9vHZwsZ04
The primeval force underlying every Republican and Trump initiative is the fear that somebody, somewhere, has figured out a better grift than they have.
Reminds that Rose Wilder Lane, whose mom wrote Little House on the Prairie, was part of the project to silence Keynes. In my short trip to Vietnam in 1967 I thought I recognized her at the Tan Son Nhat International Airport. Nope she was there in 1965.
If Keynes were alive today, he’d urge major redistribution via a Green New Deal because if we don’t, “then in the short run, we’re all dead.”
Keynes was disparaged by the experts of his time not because they thought he was wrong, but because they knew he was right.
Side note- why does Spell (in)Correct keep insisting on changing the words you intend. It kept turning "Keynes" into "Keyless" despite my repeated attempts to override it?
spell check is the opposite of artificial intelligence. turn it off. this advice applies to everyone.
That's why I turned off "auto-correct". I still use spellcheck to >highlight< what I key without actually changing it, just in case, but it's usually wrong, so I'll right click and select "add to dictionary".
Our politicians seem to have lost the skill of listening to multiple sources of expertise and then apply critical thought before opening their mouths. As I think back over recent memory we’ve drifted from Keynes to Reaganomics to Bidenomics to Trumpian Grievance economics.
Sadly, if my spellcheck changed it to Keyless, I probably would not catch it since I am dyslexic. I do not mind if people point out my misspellings, missing words, or incorrect use of punctuation. I really can't see it, so all who correct me are appreciated.
More importantly, Keynes was right, and so right that it is all straightforward and perfectly logical, as well. So, not even complicated.
That’s AI talking. Doesn’t sound like you (or me) want a f-ing app deciding what you say.
Switch auto correct off and blissfully retake control of your expressions. 👍
I seem to have trained mine to spell Keynes correctly.
It works about as well as DOGE.
Saying Trump's actions have a "plan" is sane washing. And tariffs don't raise prices? What happened to clothes washers when Trump was president and a tariff was put in place. The price went up. $200. Dryers were not tariffed but since they are usually sold in matching sets, manufacturers raised the price of dryers. When the tariff disappeared, the price only went down $70 on washing machines. Yes, China and perhaps other countries have wrecked the system since admission to the WTO. However, the previous administrations plan of targeted tariffs with an emphasis on employment and high-tech and transition to EVS was working quite well. How ironic that the red states that got billions of dollars of subsidies to build battery plants all voted for Trump. Let's see how they're feeling in a couple of months. By the way, Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler got everyone a car they could afford.. it's not just the economics
Mussolini did not make the trains run on time. Here's what ChatGPT had to say about that (I know ChatGPT is not completely reliable, but this is consistent with what I've read in the past, before AI):
Ah, the ol' *"Mussolini made the trains run on time"*—one of history’s more persistent myths.
### The short answer:
**Not really.**
### The longer answer:
This claim was part of Fascist propaganda. Mussolini and his regime *claimed* to have revolutionized Italy's infrastructure and made things more efficient, like the railways. But when historians dug into the records, they found that:
- **Italian trains were already improving** before Mussolini came to power in 1922.
- **Many trains still ran late** under Mussolini, and there were frequent issues with service quality.
- The regime **focused on appearances**—cleaning up stations, repainting trains, and punishing workers who allowed delays—but that didn’t necessarily translate to actual efficiency.
- Foreigners visiting Italy often **believed** the propaganda, and the myth took root outside the country too.
So it’s less a testament to Fascist efficiency and more of a case study in **effective spin**.
Mussolini made the trains run on time by making it illegal to report that the trains were not running on time.
Seems to've been his approach to a lot of things.
I can think of another with that approach, too.
The point was for whatever "good" Mussolini did, acknowledging the "good" only led credibility to his Fascist Government. Therefore, validating any "good" Trump act (which surely only happens by a lack of Trump oversight) validates his other acts.
While shuttling back and forth between Munich and Verona in September 2023, it was reversed. The Italian trains were efficient and on-time, whereas the German system was ailing.
I am wondering if the goal for trump is debt peonage or debt bondage via crypto currency. As red states begin to lose their jobs, institutions fail from self sabotage, and currency becomes weak, the federal government would subsidize billionaires (picking winners and losers), to create manufacturing jobs and housing in red and purple states which pay in crypto currency. Thus preventing a maga rebellion from job loss, and moving them into debt bandage to the company store - owning their soul to the company store.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jesspiper/p/i-know-exactly-what-they-are-doing?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=552j5l. Here is some evidence happening now in Missouri. I have relatives who live there. Take this story as a warning.
A plausible scenario, and all managed by AI to forclose any palace revolts. I'm reminded of the Major Major Major Major character in Catch-22.
I loved watching this. A lot of it I did not know about these guys. I watched in youtube a few days ago.
I also loved the glee of two people who got each other's inside jokes and fascination of the era and the man.
I plan on reading the book, so I can learn more.
The only thing that got my antenna up was the possible interpretation regarding the saying about "models work until they don't."
I know people use that phrase a lot, including Krugman. However, it is kind of like the phrase "printing money" in that it can be a bit too general and misleading for those who do not have a full background on what it is really meant to imply. Maybe I am wrong below, so if you disagree, let me know.
What I mean is this, I have a background in business and economics from courses I took pre-Reagan. Thus, no post-Reagan nonsense and myth making about economics, for me. In fact, Reagan's statements were the source of daily jokes from my professors, including in my business and economics classes, because it was all so nonsensical. However, what Reagan did and said often did not match, either.
After Reagan, there were too many in the GOP who admired him who were trying to force their square pegs of ideology into the round holes of reality and thus have been busy whittling away at facts and inserting nonsense to try to force a fit.
To me, economics seems rather straightforward and that means largely Keynesian, and I do not see that any of this has been proven wrong, at least based on what I was taught in my textbooks. I have not studied the man himself or all that he proposed. So I can learn a lot from this book.
In fact, none of it even seems complicated based on my background.
The GOP's post-Reagan square pegs being forced into round holes is a complicated puzzle, however, and also unnecessary.
It seems that those conservatives who admired Reagan have, after he left office, tried to make nonsense assumptions about economic cause and effect regarding his presidency and spun it all to justify tax cuts at the top and "trickle down" and that would require a lot of illogical assumptions to be made and a lot of whitling.
This has given rise to even more and more nonsense over many decades, with constant patches because it doesn't work, as well the creation of an entire news network and radio shows to promote this nonsense in order to create an unchallenged format to justify things like tax cuts at the top where in order to keep the myth going, they have told their base not to trust experts or the entire outside world or facts or any other sources of news - like what a cult leader might do to keep their followers from being deprogramed.
It is like a cult of nonsense that is now partly responsible for Trump being given free reign to destroy our economy with his tariffs and to then assume that we will rebuild from some sort of a magical "trickle down" of more tax cuts (which the GOP are now rushing to complete) when only demand can inspire business growth or rebuilding, and tariffs decimate demand - SO NO - WILL NOT HAPPEN - no Phoenix will rise from Trump's unnecessary pile of ashes (all else remaining the same with no other intervention)
My other background is in science and research for biological psychology and old computer language programming, as well, like "if then go to..." or basic symbolic logic.
So, back to my antenna comment...
Any functioning economic model or science research experiment with a result that can be replicated assumes that "all else" remains the same other than what is being manipulated and studied as to its impact on the change. "If then, and only then, go to."
In the 1970s it was mentioned in this discussion that inflation continued to rise with unemployment.
However, this observation should not invalidate the relationship between unemployment and inflation, because not all else remained constant. When "all else" remains constant there is a relationship.
If you have outside pressure on prices, like oil price increases in the 1970s (that also caused a lot of other impacts) or tariffs today, you can have stagflation and high unemployment and still see prices rise.
If I got this wrong let me know.
Many ( especially the Chicago School ) economists tried to discredit Keynes essentially by saying the traditional ( Phillips Curve) approach to the unemployment/ inflation tradeoff
didn’t hold any longer because stagflation of the 70’s made both worse at the same time .
My view was that the original tradeoff data came in an earlier era with less trade and the trade off
could be explained by demand factors . In the 70’s there was a significant supply side shock
due to oil embargoes. Indeed,
both unemployment and inflation rose at the same time - BUT it didn’t
necessarily invalidate the Phillips Curve - ( or Keynes for that matter)
because instead of moving along
a downward sloping Phillips Curve
- the whole curve shifted upward and to the right .
I’ll bet Pk would agree-
BTW - I used PK’s textbooks in some of my introductory economics classes.
Well, it sounds like you are far more experienced than I am.
I get the gist in a general sense.
I think I probably had the same textbooks as PK did since he might have been too young to have written mine even though he graduated before me. My biggest gap is grasping trade concepts so I am learning a lot here from his explanations.
This is my thinking on the 1970s and also regarding healthcare and wages.
Price is determined by supply and demand and also "choice." I wrote about this in the comments in a NYT article pre-ACA during this debate and prior to the article in Time magazine, so it has been on my mind for awhile.
It is "assumed" that buyers and sellers will be "free to choose" to buy or sell or seek alternatives when discussing the relationship between demand and supply and price.
However, items of necessity impact one's choice to buy and sell, and thus price, as well.
Thus, choice inhibiting factors also need to be accounted for and or remain the same (controlled) in order for a model or experiment to work and be replicated.
In the 1970s people needed to be close to work due to gas prices and large population areas had begun to run out of land. Housing skyrocketed. Boomers also came of age in very large numbers and were graduating college and starting families (demand pressures).
So, yes population Boomers added to demand, as well.
They needed to be near work due to transportation costs and of course oil also factors into the cost of everything else, as well.
Some things are not as mobile, like the workforce, thus there is nothing to set a floor for wages if people are so poor as to not be able to seek out other employment and choice can break down there as well (so I am not a laissez-faire capitalist since capitalism needs guiderails).
Choice also factors into healthcare as one will not want to choose a dollar store option for cancer so there is no other "choice" to control prices since I do not consider death a real "choice" one makes.
Thus, one outside variable will always be choice. Can one choose not to buy a necessity or not to sell one's labor if they can't afford to move and are starving?
In the 1970s transportation costs factored a great deal into choice compressing people into areas, etc. Then of course the price of oil factors into the cost of all else, as well.
One needs a place to live and must buy food, but the rising prices may cause a slowdown in employment and also also production, as well, due to less demand for some things and the price of parts....etc.
Just my thoughts and perspective.
" due to oil embargoes", agree, had nothing to do with Keynes. course the greedy will chastise anyone who even hints at impeding their greed with any sort of government intervention. not fair how Keynes is dragged through the mud, only to be hosed off and presented at every unfettered greed caused downturn. smh.
I agree completely-this has been my analytical narrative since the 1970's. What Conservatives push under the rug is that Reagan solved stagflation by an expansionary fiscal stimulus (Keynesian) coordinated with Volker's Monetary shock. Stockman was taken behind the woodshed for pointing this out at the time. VP Cheney asserted in 2004 or so that Reagan proved that "Deficits Don't Matter", our first policy chief that revealed he was a Modern Monetary Theory man. I guess we share the fact that we are research scientists familiar with all the ways we can fool ourselves, but are curioius about the Dismal Science. Write on!!
I agree. Thanks!
Transcript?
I watched on youtube a few days ago. So far I am only going party deaf in one ear. It was clear there for me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F-MQHUSS2U
Mr. Krugman: why is no one talking about the likelihood of Putin influence on Trump’s tariff policy? Wouldn’t this resulting chaos be to P’s benefit??
Zach Carter’s book was terrific, and I really enjoyed this conversation. I would enjoy a follow-up focusing on and assessing the lines of thought relating to Keynes’s Economic Consequences of the Peace and particularly delving into the Versailles Treaty and the consequences of the extreme reparations, then following on to assessment of the Marshall Plan and its impact after WWII. Zach Carter alludes to some contemporary reassessment of Keynes’s theories vis-a-vis WWI. I have just finished reading VERTIGO: The Rise and Fall of Weimar Germany, by Harald Jähner, and this book would seem to bear out quite strongly that Keynes was right, people would not stand for it and would revolt. It would be terrific to hear from you both on this.
Great interview. Thanks for sharing.
Paul, I really love your work here, better than the NYTs. Especially the longer form interviews--you are terrific at bringing top notch economists to the people.
Carter's book is indeed terrific.
Professor Krugman,
Aren't the tariffs a reworking of the right -wing fantasy of replacing income and wealth taxes with consumption taxes?
Yes, it's insane. No, it doesn't add up. But I feel pretty sure they see a trade war as a global imposition of consumption taxes and a good way to devalue the dollar.
What a gentle but invigorating conversation.
Peace through economic interdependence is a noble desire that is always ultimately dashed by militarism.
Say no to Trump's gulag; say yes to the rule of law.
According to Trumpians, if you're sent to Trump's gulag, no ("Marxist") judge can order your return;
war is peace, ignorance strength, tax increases are cuts, layoffs & cratering markets are a “positive reaction”...
Get Up, Stand Up: The Ink's Fight Songs playlist: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/5UzSm2hIu0CgK21f3KZ7en?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Resistance Revival Chorus:
https://open.spotify.com/track/0lYykZNNBNE33o5izvZFrG?flow_ctx=d0484467-493d-44d5-80f3-5e21c620d182%3A1743878618
Trump's tariff “operation" (the largest peacetime tax hike in U.S. history) & Musk's DOGE with surgery by chainsaw will not kill the "patient", but will bring on recession or worse...economic pandemic, panic, depression on a scale that most of us have never experienced.
Trumpian malevolence & malignant stupidity will tank the economy. It’s what Republicans do.
Even worse than tariffs & reckless undermining of US national security & the US economy, which only 6 months ago was "the envy of the world" according to the Wall Street Journal, is the attack on public health...MAGA's unprecedented assault on scientific truth & demand for subservient confirmation of misinformation and lies has adversely impacted public health in our nation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im9vHZwsZ04
The primeval force underlying every Republican and Trump initiative is the fear that somebody, somewhere, has figured out a better grift than they have.
Reminds that Rose Wilder Lane, whose mom wrote Little House on the Prairie, was part of the project to silence Keynes. In my short trip to Vietnam in 1967 I thought I recognized her at the Tan Son Nhat International Airport. Nope she was there in 1965.