An awful lot of people are now beginning to speak to where we ARE. Not where we were...or even where we're going. And that's - ultimately - a good thing.
Only in 2024 am I hearing the conversations that many - in mainstream media (Hi Paul Krugman!) - seem to purport are far behind us.
The recurring rise to insurance costs. The pesky inflation of utility bills. The "sudden" eye-popping number tied to rather ordinary sack of fast food from the drive-thru.
A BIG piece of the active electorate (folks who actually engage>vote) were simply able to defer the emotive impacts of inflation until...now(ish). That might be inconvenient for the "everything is great" crowd, but it's the truth. The angst, consternation, concern, and resultant truncation of spending are taking roost NOW.
The liberal perception that the New York Times isn't sufficiently anti-Trump is astounding to me. I find it so boringly, moralistically anti-Trump that I've mostly switched to the Financial Times. NYT foreign policy coverage almost always has for its implicit subject: "is X the Trump of Y"?
I don't see how these people can read the NYT and miss the deep disgust everybody in the organization (conservative columnists included) feels for Trump. The liberal critics don't even want the NYT to run effective propaganda, just more repetitive warnings about "democracy in peril" that won't convince anybody who isn't already convinced.
If you dig into the reader comments that the Times publishes online, you get the impression their subscriber base feels "the organization" is not reflecting sufficient disgust for Trump.
They want every article that mentions trump to say "Donald Trump, who is the most disgusting person in history and the biggest threat to democracy the US has ever faced" and think by not doing that, the NY Times is helping Trump.
Ugh. I do wish be would move off of his “everything is just great” with the economy messaging. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people don’t see it that way. And, selling a “it would be way worse if the other guy” argument isn’t really compelling.
I agree. He’s just in a pickle. He needs to continue trying to walk that fine line of touting the good economic fundamentals and that we are making progress while *simultaneously* empathizing with voters for whom high prices have really been tough.
This just highlights what a strategic mistake increasing tariffs on EVs, solar panels, etc was. It takes "Trump is going to raise your prices 10%" kinda off the table if he wants to continue to pretend tariffs don't raise prices.
Setting aside the policy merits, I'm not that concerned about the political effects of the EV tariffs. The main effect of the EV tariffs is that they keep out Chinese EVs that might otherwise drive prices down -- but American consumers have no experience with Chinese EVs and likely don't notice that Biden's policy is raising their price.
My bigger concern with the Biden administration on trade is allowing GSP (and other programs) to languish in expiration for 3+ years. It's been a massive gift to Chinese factories, even with the newer tariffs.
And then on top of it, CBP has been engaged in one of the largest efforts to re-classify MASSIVE amounts of goods (both finished goods and "inputs") to new HTS codes...thus ratcheting up their duty rates. For an awful lot of companies who've endeavored to move/keep their supply chain out of China...it's a vicious double-whammy.
Hi Josh, How do you think Biden is going to perform in the debates ? I have not heard him on the podcasts so I am wondering if he can last the debates without appearing senile. Biden campaign agreed to the debates so I don’t have to worry?
An awful lot of people are now beginning to speak to where we ARE. Not where we were...or even where we're going. And that's - ultimately - a good thing.
Only in 2024 am I hearing the conversations that many - in mainstream media (Hi Paul Krugman!) - seem to purport are far behind us.
The recurring rise to insurance costs. The pesky inflation of utility bills. The "sudden" eye-popping number tied to rather ordinary sack of fast food from the drive-thru.
A BIG piece of the active electorate (folks who actually engage>vote) were simply able to defer the emotive impacts of inflation until...now(ish). That might be inconvenient for the "everything is great" crowd, but it's the truth. The angst, consternation, concern, and resultant truncation of spending are taking roost NOW.
The liberal perception that the New York Times isn't sufficiently anti-Trump is astounding to me. I find it so boringly, moralistically anti-Trump that I've mostly switched to the Financial Times. NYT foreign policy coverage almost always has for its implicit subject: "is X the Trump of Y"?
I don't see how these people can read the NYT and miss the deep disgust everybody in the organization (conservative columnists included) feels for Trump. The liberal critics don't even want the NYT to run effective propaganda, just more repetitive warnings about "democracy in peril" that won't convince anybody who isn't already convinced.
If you dig into the reader comments that the Times publishes online, you get the impression their subscriber base feels "the organization" is not reflecting sufficient disgust for Trump.
They want every article that mentions trump to say "Donald Trump, who is the most disgusting person in history and the biggest threat to democracy the US has ever faced" and think by not doing that, the NY Times is helping Trump.
Ugh. I do wish be would move off of his “everything is just great” with the economy messaging. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people don’t see it that way. And, selling a “it would be way worse if the other guy” argument isn’t really compelling.
I agree. He’s just in a pickle. He needs to continue trying to walk that fine line of touting the good economic fundamentals and that we are making progress while *simultaneously* empathizing with voters for whom high prices have really been tough.
This just highlights what a strategic mistake increasing tariffs on EVs, solar panels, etc was. It takes "Trump is going to raise your prices 10%" kinda off the table if he wants to continue to pretend tariffs don't raise prices.
Setting aside the policy merits, I'm not that concerned about the political effects of the EV tariffs. The main effect of the EV tariffs is that they keep out Chinese EVs that might otherwise drive prices down -- but American consumers have no experience with Chinese EVs and likely don't notice that Biden's policy is raising their price.
No Chinese EVs are currently sold in the US, so it will have exactly 0 impact on prices. It's a *strategic* move to keep Chinese EVs out of the US.
Tariffs were raised on more than just EVs
Ok, but tariffs on products that are not even sold in the US can't raise prices. I'm responding to a specific claim you made.
The specific claim that listed more than just EVs?
Do you think consumers will really notice tariffs raised on solar panels?
It's less about consumers noticing than making it more difficult to attack Trump on his plan to raise tariffs.
Yeah. Not as broad based, but it takes the steam out of that attack.
My bigger concern with the Biden administration on trade is allowing GSP (and other programs) to languish in expiration for 3+ years. It's been a massive gift to Chinese factories, even with the newer tariffs.
And then on top of it, CBP has been engaged in one of the largest efforts to re-classify MASSIVE amounts of goods (both finished goods and "inputs") to new HTS codes...thus ratcheting up their duty rates. For an awful lot of companies who've endeavored to move/keep their supply chain out of China...it's a vicious double-whammy.
Hi Josh, How do you think Biden is going to perform in the debates ? I have not heard him on the podcasts so I am wondering if he can last the debates without appearing senile. Biden campaign agreed to the debates so I don’t have to worry?