Falling In Line

The most dismaying part of today’s public policy dysfunction is the willingness of people who know or should know what they’re saying, which isn’t true, to shape views to align with their group’s views rather than look at the actual data. Just this past week, two well-known sources of information said things unsupported by any facts. If you believed them, it could cause harm.

On his Fox business show, Larry Kudlow and the panel laughed at a Wall Street Journal article showing professionals selling while the public buys. With the market rallying, their clear implication was that the public is smarter than the professionals and buying now is a better bet than selling.

This assessment flies in the face of experience. One of the universal signs of a market top is widespread bullishness, especially among smaller investors. Small investors don’t have the information that the pros have access to. Who else is left to buy to increase prices when the public is all in? Basing your market outlook on the supposed stupidity of professionals and the bullish actions of the public hasn’t worked out well in the past.

I don’t know what will happen. If the tariffs stay high, it’s hard to see a solid future. However, if Trump makes a few inconsequential deals, like the one with the U.K., and then calls most of the tariffs off, it would surely improve the outlook. At this point, no one knows what Trump will do. I don’t think Trump knows.

Having served in both the Reagan and Trump administrations, Kudlow has a unique position. He knows the adverse effects of high tariffs well, so it’s baffling that he’s taken a bullish position with high tariffs still in effect. Implying that the pros do less well at market turns than the public to justify his pro-Trump position is out of place.

Continue reading

Homeless

Seven Years ago, I started the series on the “Future Party.” The two-party system had increasingly become captive to its most extreme elements, and the situation becomes more divisive daily. During this time, we’ve experienced a mishandled pandemic, the most significant inflation in four decades, conflicts threatening a new Cold War, if not a hot one, and an upheaval in the world’s trading system.

Both parties contributed to these situations while ignoring the sword of Damocles hanging over the nation, our out-of-control debt problem. At the same time, we’re dividing in ways we haven’t seen before. We receive information from different sources, resulting in an inability to discuss the day’s issues. Each side presents its own “facts.” Where people on the left or the right enjoyed Johnny Carson or Jay Leno, those watching Stephen Colbert would never watch Gutfeld!, and visa versa.

The division has even spread to those we choose to associate with. Some won’t even consider dating anyone with different views. Whatever happened to understanding the other person’s position sufficiently to come to a compromise?

What has caused the widening gulf between Americans? One answer is too much Democracy. By that, I mean too many elections. As I pointed out in the Future Party series, national presidential elections get our attention and participation. Off-year elections and primaries have much lower turnouts. They appeal to partisans and those most directly affected. Government employees will turn out because local elections hit their wallets, but others can’t always devote the time.

Continue reading

Bad Books

We’re at a point where it is impossible to comment on the present administration’s policies. Trump’s pledge to end both the Ukraine and Gaza wars quickly has dissolved into continued bloodshed, with only a few hostages returned and some prisoners exchanged. The administration apparently may move away from peace efforts. We must wait for information on what the administration is up to now.

There are three ways our tariff policy could go. First, Trump could come to his senses and reverse most of these taxes. The loss of trust in the U.S. will remain, but it mayn’t get worse.

On the other hand, if Trump truly wants us to produce everything within our borders, he has to raise the walls so high that nothing comes in from abroad. Of course, if nothing comes in, we take in no revenue—just higher prices and less choice.  

The third outcome may be an expanded version of Trump’s first-term approach: imposing tariffs and negotiating a patchwork of cut-outs and individual deals with countries, industries, and companies.

If I had to bet, I’d go with the last option. An endless procession of supplicants competing for favor is a narcissist’s dream. Of course, granting favors to those best appealing to his vanity would be a mercantilist economy on steroids—cronyism rules. Will this work better now than in the past?

While waiting for the fog to clear, it’s a good time to deal with the sudden spate of books and articles on Biden’s cognitive decline by people who were aware of it or should’ve been aware the former president wasn’t on top of his game.

Continue reading

These Bubbles Need to Be Popped

Prompted by my belief that radical elements in each increasingly control the two established parties, I posted the series on the “Future Party.” (It is Available on this site.) I worried this situation would lead to wild policy swings whenever we change presidents. Unfortunately, this has been the case from Obama to Trump. Bolstered by initial control of both houses of Congress, each president pursued policies opposite their immediate predecessor.

One only has to look at our border migrant policies. Trump tightened Obama’s, only to find Biden reversed course on his first day. Trump’s return reversed Biden on his first day. This whiplash is also evident in foreign, domestic, and economic policies.

In the past, people could count on continuity. Businesses could commit to multi-year plans. Friends and allies knew they could count on us instead of watching their backs. If there were problems, we could hash things out before radical change.

That’s all in the past. Where the far ends of each party differ, they are often direct opposites. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party backs its climate change convictions with billions of dollars for windmills, solar, and electric vehicles (EVs), which are anathema to the Republican right. They look to oil and gas to continue to power the world. To that end, they’ve encouraged vast liquefied Gas Terminals. This situation leaves anyone with significant power needs with a damned if you do, damned if you don’t headache.

Now, Donald Trump has escalated this uncertainty. He has reversed Biden’s energy policies and added supply chain anxiety with constantly changing tariff policies.

Continue reading

Allow People To Interact

All the noise about the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) lopping off unneeded chunks of the Federal Government and the horrified response by the big government-favoring progressive left got me thinking about what the purpose of Government is in the modern world and how we can match it to those goals.

My take on the question will shock and horrify others, but hear me out. The purpose of modern Government is to provide the structure for free and open markets to thrive. These markets are another way of saying people can freely and safely interact.

Markets are the best way to allocate resources to better the human condition. Nothing, including the various forms of socialism, mercantilism, feudalism, or tribalism, has lifted humanity more than free and open markets. If you don’t accept this, I urge you to read “Super Abundance.” As the structures necessary for markets to thrive expanded, humanity’s living standards have dramatically improved, even as its numbers have grown.

The reasons for market superiority aren’t hard to find. Billions of people using the latest information will arrive at better decisions and make them quicker than the relatively few elites in Government. In the information age, this advantage only grows.

Markets are the most democratic form of choice. People vote for their preferences. These are hard choices because their money is involved rather than theoretical. We are all human, so markets make mistakes momentarily but self-correct as new information enters the continuous exchange. We invest funds to receive a proper return. If the profit potential leaves, so do we.

Continue reading