Oil tankers were attacked in the Gulf of Oman. This is just over a month since the previous attacks in the Persian Gulf. Houthi rebels in Yemen, a client project of Iran, attacked oil wells and pipelines and an airport in Saudi Arabia.
The Mullahs of Iran are trying to raise the price of oil, to create a better market for their black market oil that they are trying to sell around President Trump’s sanctions.
Are they biting off more than they can chew? I saw that Prime Minister Abe of Japan happened to be in Tehran at the time of the attack, and tried to say some soothing but warning things about escalations. One of the bombed ships is Japanese.
The Iranians are saying “it ain’t us,” but everyone knows it is them. They are saying that America bombed the ships in order to blame Iran for the provocation. Only the most virulent America-haters are going with the Iranian version, which means it is making the rounds on social media at three times the speed of truth.
The problem with Iran is that their theocracy puts the most ardent Mullahs in positions of power. Those guys believe their scriptures, and have internalized some prophecies that are specific to Shia Islam. They would like nothing better than to trigger the Final War that will bring about the sequence of events prophesied for the end of the world.
As a believer in sacred writings myself, I see their conviction as an admirable trait. Too bad they have determined to follow the wrong sacred writings. But I can understand them in a way that the pundits of Washington cannot. I relate to their conviction.
There is a limited number of ways to deal with Iran. Diplomacy is bound to fail unless it accompanies a strategy that addresses their religious ideas.
First, convince them that now is not the time for that eagerly-sought Final War. That a war at this time would not be the eschatological end-times war, but a war that would bring the wrath of the West down on their heads and only set their cause back by a century or three. They would need to be convinced that the war that would come would be far more deadly and destructive than the wars they have observed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Alternatively, bring down the regime of the Mullahs, and install some other government that does not give primary place to religious ideologues.
Third, and best, would be a conversion; a wave of Iranian people coming to Christ and rejecting the religion of false peace, peacefully replacing their own government with something good.
Any approach that simply expects more of the same; applying economic sanctions and occasionally setting their nuclear weapon ambitions back a little bit, is a bad approach. Eventually they will succeed.
I do not expect that they will succeed in triggering the wars that will bring about the End of Time. I do expect that could succeed in triggering a major war, with millions of people displaced and killed.
China has been attacking the U.S.A. ever since the days of Richard Nixon, in many ways subtle and not subtle. But their attacks have grown more devious, more corrupting, and are preparing them for assaults on America that will be devastating when they are unleashed.
Yes, they have been spying and stealing technical secrets, violating copyrights, trademarks and the plain language of contracts for decades. But the current state of affairs calls for a confrontation, and I am glad to see President Trump bring a confrontation that is clever and likely to succeed.
I am not prepared to debate the trade issues in the tariffs dispute. What has me concerned at the moment is the leverage China is gaining over our internet. It appears that evil Google is preparing to act as an agent of China to destroy America.
I think that if things keep going the way they are, China will position themselves to be able to kill American internet and cellphone communications, while disabling large portions of basic utilities such as electric power transmission and landline phone communications.
I will put links in a comment. The first item is testimony this week by FCC Chair Ajit Pai, regarding the threat posed by Huawei if they could get embedded into our cellphone services:
“What I will say,” Pai told [Sen. James] Lankford, “is I believe that certain Chinese suppliers, such as Huawei, do indeed present a threat to the United States, either on their own or because of Chinese domestic law. For example, China’s national intelligence law explicitly requires any individual or entity subject to that law to comply with requests to intelligence services.” He said that poses a problem for 5G networks deployed in one country that could be managed by software that is resident in another country.
The second item is a column at American Greatness by Brandon J. Weichert:
“A greater synthesis between the national security sector, the business community, academia, and the political leadership of the United States is needed if we truly and effectively want to prevent American tech firms from building the weapons of tomorrow for China to use against us today.”
Barak Obama has more faith in the American economy than I do. This faith is shared by all the announced Democrat candidates for the 2020 nomination. They have greater faith in the American economy than President Trump or Andrew Klavan or Steven Mnuchin. It may seem counterintuitive to say that the Anti-American Party has greater faith in the American economy than conservative patriots, but there it is.
I saw an interview of Amy Klobuchar over the weekend that illustrates the point. She refused to grant any credit to President Trump for the economic boom that has brought us record-low unemployment and strong GDP growth. She insisted that the policies of Team Obama were what brought about our strong economy. She implied that President Trump was just a lucky chump who inherited an improving economy from President Obama.
Leftists seem to be lazy thinkers. There are supposedly highly intelligent Leftists who are just as clueless about simple economics as the low-information Leftists that support the Anti-American Party at the ballot box. Rather than work out logical consequences and practical results of policy decisions, they are content to support policies that sound appealing. They support policies that make themselves feel good.
And feeling good fuels the economy. Of course; Keynes himself said so. In 2009 they all felt wonderful because they had elected Obama the Light-Bearer, and they figured all America felt wonderful on this account. The natural result would be a raising of “animal spirits” which would boost the economy out of the ditch and put us all on the road to utopia.
They knew that historic American recessions lasted about a year and took a couple of years to recover. They had every expectation that the American economy would do what the American economy had always done. There was no need to worry about the details; the big picture looked great, felt great; life was going to be fabulous in the Age of Obama, because Obama was fabulous. How could the animal spirits not respond to the fabulousness of Obama?
With that sort of unthinking confidence in the underlying strength of the American economy, they did not need to care about Team Obama regulatory strangulation or uncompetitive tax structure, or the credit crunch. None of that was going to matter, because the American economy is such a powerhouse.
That is what I mean when I say they have greater faith. They have the sort of faith that primitives put in witchdoctors. Which is what I heard from Ms. Klobuchar. When prompted with a question about faith in President Trump’s economic policies, including the Republican tax cut and rollback of regulations, she cut the questioner off to say that she has ‘faith in American businesses who continue to expand and grow in the great economic climate created by President Obama’ [my paraphrase]. Of course she does. “American businesses” is a talisman; it is an incantation to say, and then magically good economic things happen. Isn’t that how it works for President Trump? It does not matter who is in power or what economic policies are implemented; just say the magic words and economic prosperity happens.
They have greater faith in the American economy. When we start talking about marginal tax rates, the costs of government-imposed recordkeeping on matters unrelated to business, competitiveness, efficiencies, marketplace dynamics, debt and other stuff, they are too lazy to listen. They do not address these sorts of questions, and simply talk past them rather than responding to them.
There will be no debate. The good economic news will not result in any credit for President Trump or for the Republicans.
2020 will be a turnout election. We must motivate the low-information voters on our side to keep the barbarians at bay.
I am watching this video of two former employees of Theranos. Theranos is the company that was going to automate 100s of blood tests from a drop of blood. It was a great company excepting for the fact they lied, put people’s health at risk, and lost about 900 million of investors’ money.
The video is long but the first part is enough to see some of what these at the time recent college graduates went through. Tyler Shultz is the grandson of George Shultz, the Secretary of State that didn’t lose in 2016.
It impresses me when people have the moral courage to speak up. They get a lot of flak but in the end are vindicated.
With operations in over 200 countries and territories, Alibaba is the world’s largest retailer and e-commerce company, one of the largest Internet and AI companies, one of the biggest venture capital firms, and one of the biggest investment corporations in the world. The company hosts the largest B2B (Alibaba.com), C2C (Taobao), and B2C (Tmall) marketplaces in the world. Its online sales and profits surpassed all US retailers (including Walmart, Amazon and eBay) combined since 2015. It has been expanding into the media industry, with revenues rising by triple percentage points year on year.
The robots, which can lift up to 500 kg, pick up densely packed bins and bring them to human pickers who place the products in boxes for shipment to customers. The robots are controlled over Wi-Fi. They say that after the 60 robots were placed into service, throughput in the warehouse has been tripled and human labour reduced by 70%.
Amazon has been running a robotics challenge to try to eliminate the human pickers. This is a video summarising the 2017 challenge in Nagoya, Japan.
Here is a video from the MIT team from the 2017 competition.
Remember when President O said that his very weak economic recovery was “the new normal.” He said that the sort of economic recovery we had historically experienced after a recession was no longer possible.
He was full of stuff. He was reading Leftist economics and drinking his team’s Kool-aid.
Hillary campaigned on a continuation of Obama policy.
D.J. Trump campaigned on an “America first” platform, unconcerned about the unfortunate history of that phrase. His key slogan was “Make America Great Again,” which he pledged to do by rolling back regulations, ending anti-business policies, promoting jobs and deals, and cutting taxes. He ran a pro-America, pro-business campaign, a breath of fresh air after eight years of our first Anti-American President.
Business confidence began to rise on the morning after the election of 2016, and is still rising. Consumer confidence is catching up, despite an amazing level of fearmongering by Leftist mass media.
And the numbers are continuing to support President Trump. I saw the jobs report for January, and happened to click on an article at CNN Business, titled “Hiring Boomed in January.” Here is a line that caught my attention:
The continued hot pace of job growth is evidence that people who may have been sidelined by the Great Recession more than a decade ago are still coming off the sidelines. Labor force participation grew slightly, to its highest level since 2013.
We are still digging out of the hole we fell into in 2008. Team Obama had simply been digging it deeper. We are only now recovering.
We are about to face a new flood of economic refugees. We need border security as soon as we can get it. President Trump needs to mobilize Army and National Guard resources to aid Border Patrol and ICE to stem the anticipated flow.
Remember what a disaster it was for Europe when four million Syrians fled their homes? Perhaps our situation is not nearly so dire, but the United Nations is predicting two million people will flee Venezuela this year. That is a lot of refugees. Many will go to Brazil or other parts of South America. Columbia is the obvious first choice for many Venezuelans, but Columbia is already flooded with one and a quarter million Venezuelan refugees. Three million people have left Venezuela in the past two years. Venezuelans are going to be headed for America.
We have observed before about the disaster unfolding in Venezuela. An oil-rich country that is strapped for cash, and, in the face of declining world oil prices, their production is down by nearly a third from levels of production of just a few years ago. That is because Nicolas Maduro has put the military in charge of Petroleos de Venezuela, or PDVSA, the state-run oil company that stole oil patch assets from oil companies two decades ago under Hugo Chavez. By not paying adequate salaries to oil industry technicians, they lost trained people, who were some of the first to flee. Now they are trying to run a vertically-integrated monopoly without enough trained workers to keep the equipment operating.
And, despite this marvelous lesson playing out in our own hemisphere, half of America now prefers socialism to capitalism.
What does it take to get video of food riots in Venezuela onto American news shows? Media silence is keeping this story from providing the object lesson we desperately need.
The rising numbers of Venezuelan refugees is the talk of all of Latin America. It is time to push it into the national conversation in the U.S.A.
I got this in my email from a friend. I, of course, had to fact-check it. Four of the items in the email didn’t pass muster, but those that did I thought some of you might, just might be interested to know.
Amidst rioting which continues to spread across France, and has become much more a sign of general dissatisfaction than a specific protest over fuel taxes, French President Emmanuel Macron made a nationwide televised address today. Here is a version with English translation from France 24 English.
He spoke for thirteen minutes, which I can summarise as “blah, blah, blah”.
He’s going to raise the minimum wage (that’s sure to help!), encourage employers to pay year-end bonuses which will not be taxed, make overtime tax free, and—wait for it—ask large enterprises and and the wealthy to “contribute”. And he wants to “discuss” immigration and identity.
I’m sure the gliets jaunes will be immediately mollified and go home to watch football.
This has become a familiar problem in politics. At the moment that any news item comes along, media hacks want to be able to report on what reactions and consequences will result from the item. Politicians become immediately anxious to influence any outcomes in a direction favorable to them. Pundits have to have something clever or ponderous to say about everything. And, if it is international, all eyes are on the President to see how he will respond.
No; I am not about to talk about President Trump. I am thinking about President George Herbert Walker Bush. The memorial chatter in observance of his death has got me irked. He is rightfully being remembered as the great statesman who presided over the collapse of the Soviet Union. But he was called “gracious” and “statesman” and “reserved” in ways to deliberately contrast with President Trump, in hopes of making President Trump look bad by comparison. That was a very different time with very different circumstances. Current motives for lauding President G.H.W. Bush are transparent.
Now there is a spate of “he was actually horrible” reaction pieces. Here is an example of the c**p I mean:
Especially compared with current occupant of the Oval Office, George H. W. Bush was a dignified figure who served his country steadfastly in war and peace. He represented a center-right, internationalist strain of Republicanism that barely exists today. But it doesn’t make sense to canonize him.
I remember the G.H.W. Bush Administration days. I recall all the histrionics over the open discontent coming from behind the Iron Curtain, which was building because Mikhail Gorbachev was holding steady on his course of “Glasnost,” which was translated as “Openness.” I also recall mass media giving voice to lots of chatterers who were urging President Bush to “do something!” These were counterposed with chatterers expressing high anxiety about things going badly wrong if he did the wrong something. There was a huge debate raging over just what America should do to take advantage of the situation.
President G.H.W.B. was the right man for this circumstance. He was a cold warrior, well-acquainted with all the players, including China. He was well known by most world leaders. Nobody thought he would act rashly, and he was circumspect. In this case, by “circumspect” I do not mean to say that he was risk-averse, but, rather that he exhibited a pattern of careful and well-informed decisionmaking: “a careful consideration of all circumstances and a desire to avoid mistakes and bad consequences.”
There was a great storm of confusion and loud voices urging all sorts of action, and all sorts of fearmongering about what America might do to exploit the situation. President G.H.W.B. started calling heads of state, beginning with Gorbachev and proceeding all the way down the roster. This was something he had been doing all through 1989, since the unrest in the Eastern Bloc presaged the unrest in Russia. I recall some Important People predicting that, just as Luis XIV’s reforms let the pressure off just enough for the French cauldron to boil over in 1789, so Russia would explode in a massive bloodletting, and that the unrest would be a great opportunity for America to exploit.
Bush was calling to reassure everyone that America would not act rashly nor aggressively, and, if assistance was wanted, would help the Russian people to back away from generations of Communist rule, and that he looked forward to embracing his Russian friends as free partners on the world stage. The central message was that President G.H.W. Bush intended to donothing, and allow the Russians and their client Soviet partners readjust their internal affairs without American meddling. This had been his consistent message to Gorbachev all through 1989.
You are probably familiar with several aphorisms to the effect of, ‘when things are going in a good direction, don’t get in the way.’ But that is really hard do; to refrain from acting when there is a daily clamor for you to act.
President Bush was faulted for inaction, called a “dumb lucky bystander,” trashed daily in the press. He was even called “a wimp;” which is a stunning description of a man who earned the Distinguished Flying Cross while piloting 58 torpedo bomber missions from the deck of an aircraft carrier.
You have to remember that this was back in the days of Leftist mass media hegemony. There were only the three alphabet networks, Public Broadcasting, and a brand-new little-known phenomenon, a cable channel dedicated to full time news broadcasting. CNN was new and was just one of 100 cable channels competing for attention in the relatively new world of cable. The only conservative publications were Commentary and National Review, both with miniscule circulation then as now. The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal was the only widespread source of conservative thought in America. The New York Times and the Washington Post dominated the national conversation, much more back then than now.
There was little in the way of talk radio. Rush Limbaugh had started in 1988 with 56 stations, the year after the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, and was barely on over 100 stations at the time. (Otherwise, talk radio was mostly local, interviewing local commissioners and municipal department heads, or discussing health issues with a local doctor, or national shows that talked about music and Hollywood celebrities.) The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine allowed the major media organizations to quit maintaining a balance of “liberal” (Leftist) commentary and conservative commentary.
So media was a Leftist project, but most Americans did not recognize just how far left it had become. This allowed President Bush to be slandered daily with little in the way of countervailing defense. There were still a hundred or so conservative daily papers in those days, but they were overwhelmed by the flood of Leftist ink and Leftist broadcasting.
President G.H.W. Bush had his defenders, including the most stalwart Bob Dole. But on the national scene, he was holding steady, reassuring the world most evenings by telephone to encourage everyone to simply let the Soviet system collapse without meddling, and not to worry about all the fearmongering from the press. When the Berlin Wall fell, there was a new round of fearmongering about American meddling, which kept G.H.W.B busy soothing political anxieties around the globe in early-early morning or very late-night phone calls.
By the time of the 1992 campaign, the Soviet Union had collapsed, with total casualties less than a hundred, not millions. Boris Yeltsin had been leading the new Russian Federation for a year, and the whole subject was considered “old news” as far as American mass media was concerned.
Saddam Hussein miscalculated badly. He mistook American inaction during a clear moment of opportunity to be an indication of American weakness and of President Bush’s personal weakness. He invaded Kuwait, which he had wanted for a very very long time. His minions treated Kuwaitis badly. News of atrocities, and refugees, slipped out of Kuwait.
The ruling family of Kuwait had an important personal friend in George H.W. Bush; they had had warm acquaintances for many years. He told Saddam Hussein to leave Kuwait or else. Then, to back up his threat, he requested that the Pentagon get to work in earnest on war plans.
But the situation was complicated by the fact that there was no Soviet counterbalance to American power, and the Europeans were going nuts about American cowboys swaggering around the world and breaking things. There was all sorts of Congressional carping about how G.H.W. Bush would lead us into a disaster. So, President Bush decided to act as the leader of a group, and then patiently pulled together a coalition. Several (seemingly) important international members decided to play coy, and so President Bush agreed not to invade Iraq, but instead to go only so far as was needed to liberate Kuwait.
He kept his promise. Even though it was clear to everyone that what would be best would be to move on in to Baghdad, President Bush kept his promise.
There were some really interesting economic changes in the 1980s. The one we best remember is the Reagan tax cut. But there was a stock market crash in 1987, and a slo-mo disaster among savings&loans that began with a high profile bankruptcy in 1985, then progressed through a number of bankruptcies until Charles Keating’s Lincoln Savings went bankrupt in 1989. The deregulation of savings&loans under Carter ended with new regulations in 1990. That was accompanied in a budget deal in which the Democrats had forced President Bush to accept a deal that modestly raised taxes, famously breaking his “no new taxes” pledge from the 1988 campaign. The American economy stalled into a mild recession in 1990.
President G.H.W. Bush huddled with his economic team, and decided that the fundamentals of the American economy were sound and that things were sorting out smoothly. He decided that the best approach was to donothing and let the power of American enterprise work things out.
Of course, mass media was full of chattering about how awful the Bush economy was and how out of touch Bush was because he was spending all his time palling around with his international friends.
The campaign began in earnest in the fall of 1991, with America still technically in recession, but with signs of recovery all around. Democratic candidates all agreed that America needed a huge jobs bill to “put America back to work.” The most robust counterpoint to that was from Ross Perot, who was spending his own millions to put the budget deficit and the national debt into the national conversation.
The campaign of 1992 was really ugly if you were paying attention. Pat Buchanan ran a strong primary challenge in which he decried the national debt, trying to leverage some of Ross Perot’s work.
Bill Clinton emerged soon as the favorite Democrat. He had southern charm, a boyish grin, and spoke about being a “New Democrat.” His wife was a career lawyer lady popular among the Planned Parenthood wing. He could carry all those Southern conservative Democrats along with all the Leftist coastal Democrats and the rust belt union states. The pundit class agreed that he had what it would take to unseat an incumbent.
What nobody except Rush Limbaugh was talking about was that mass media was working as an extension of the Democrat campaign.
Media talking heads started saying that Bush was so focused on international events that he did not care about domestic affairs. Their spin was that his energetic and careful restraint on the international front caused him to neglect domestic issues. The recession was blamed on Bush, and the actual causes were ignored. Democrats raised the hue and cry, and mass media amplified it.
They also reinforced it through dishonest reporting on the economy. They reported every bit of economic news, maintaining a careful accounting. But that is not how Americans learn news. Bad economic news was reported, and good economic news was reported. Then the bad news was repeated, while the good news was shelved. Bad news got talked about, and good news did not get talked about. Reporters asked questions at news conferences about bad news, but not about good news. Chattering shows dwelt on bad news and ignored good news. Editorials focused on bad news and not good news. If much of the American economy is dependent on “consumer confidence,” then the whole economy resisted recovery because consumer confidence was killed by constant media focus on bad economic news.
James Carville famously observed that Clinton’s main message was “it’s the economy, stupid.” This sound bite leveraged the mass media narrative in a way that was condescending and arrogant, which was what made Carville such a good hatchet man.
At every opportunity, at the Convention and all through the fall campaigning, G.H.W. Bush kept saying that all the indicators were that the economy had bottomed out in the early spring of 1992, and that the American economy was robust, things were building up, and that the best thing to do about the economy was to donothing.
He was ridiculed. He was mocked and and scoffed. He was called “out of touch.” He was called an out-of-touch elitist who never did his own grocery shopping. In an effort to address that, he went grocery shopping, which turned out disastrous when it became clear that he had never seen a checkout scanner in use. He was widely mocked for that, although grocery scanners had only come into widespread use in the past five years. The optics were bad.
And he was too genteel to call out the reporters who rode Air Force One for their poor and unfair journalism. They continued to carry bad economic news to boost Bill Clinton.
And in the third ring of this circus H. Ross Perot stole enough votes away to throw the election.
Clinton Economy ?
George H. W. Bush lost in 1992 and Bill Clinton became president. He had his massive jobs program introduced and passed in the House. It was spiked by Bob Dole in the Senate. Dole killed it so dead that it never was mentioned after that.
Mostly it was forgotten because it was not needed. Other economy-boosting measures introduced by Democrats also died. What happened was that the Fed kept interest rates low, and that was all that was needed for the American economy to recover. It was more than a recovery. It was a booming economy.
So, what Bill Clinton actually did for the economy was to donothing, because Bob Dole prevented him from doing the stupid stuff he had promised while campaigning. He even won reelection in 1996 on the basis of his wonderful economic performance.
Bill Clinton and the Democrat-Media Complex are still taking bows for the wonderful economy of the 1990s. Nobody ever observes that it was G.H.W. Bush’s (and Bob Dole’s and Ronald Reagan’s) economy and economic policy that initiated it and provided room for American ingenuity to flourish.
In the July reports on the first half of 1993 a report came out that said that the economy was great, all indicators were up, and things looked really rosy.
What went unreported was a little paragraph in which it was noted that the bottom of the recession had been reached in March of the previous year.
What G.H.W.B. had been saying about the economy was exactly true. But Americans were never told that.
I listened to the audio version of this interview while running errands this afternoon. As usual, Thomas Sowell demonstrates his clear as light thinking about topics as diverse as his journey from Marxism to libertarian conservatism, the disastrous impact of minimum wage laws and welfare on youth, both in the U.S. and worldwide, and the damage being done by affirmative action to bright minority students mis-matched with the élite educational institutions to which they are admitted.
OK, the last post about standards drifted way off topic, or so it seemed to some. I tried to get a screen grab of an interview with the owner as seen on FOX News. Since I could not get a direct link to the clip, I grabbed it and reduced it in size to post. Unfortunately the video clip is still too large, even after I reduced the resolution by 50%, so here is the audio from the clip. The video just included stock footage that many have seen before. The point is that he took the effort to exceed standards, deeper pilings, special windows and accepting the fact that the first floor would be swept away.
TKC 1101, you were right. You have been consistently correct on the American economy. I have enjoyed your anecdotal approach to the underlying economy, the bottom-up view that told us that President Trump was on the right track to put America back to work and make America great again. The gang of smart people at BallDiamondBall are similarly vindicated.
You are going to enjoy this article, even though you have to go to National Review to read it. Deroy Murdoch has a great article up, titled “Obama Didn’t Build That.” D. Murdoch uses a few good illustrations to completely dismantle Obama’s efforts to take credit for the Trump economy.
Murdoch’s illustrations come from a White House press conference that was held on September 10. Sarah H. Sanders hosted while Kevin Hassett spoke. K. Hassett is the Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. I will provide links in the comments.
The Trump economy rocks.
I had a good laugh listening to NPR’s “Marketplace” coverage of the stock market highs. They tried to look past all those bright thick silver linings to find little patches of dark cloud that they could focus on. Other NPR shows have been very similar for many months. They try so earnestly to let us know that most of the news is bad if you just know where to look. They have to look really hard, and they can generally find some metrics that are not much different than they were under Obamanomics. I enjoy the transparency of their frustration. But “Marketplace” had me howling as they explained that other markets are down while ours is up, tried to brush it off, and then admitted that they are perplexed that, considering the international trade war, global investors are betting on Trump and America.
Here is an excerpt from the Politico, who seem to be cheering for a “Blue Wave” in November:
Hassett denied his appearance was prompted by a Friday speech in which Obama said, “When you hear how great the economy’s doing right now, let’s just remember when this recovery started.” The current economic expansion began in mid-2009, six months into Obama’s first term.
Trump replied shortly afterward at an appearance in Fargo, N.D.: “He was trying to take credit for this incredible thing that’s happening. … It wasn’t him.”
The dispute goes to the heart of Trump’s arguments this fall. Facing ugly projections for a GOP rout, the president is trying to persuade voters to stick with Republicans by arguing they’ve delivered an economic turnaround. But many major gauges on economic growth and job growth were just as strong during parts of the Obama years, even without Trump‘s deregulation and deficit-boosting tax cuts.
“One of the hypotheses that’s been floating around,” Hassett said in the briefing, “is that the strong economy that we’re seeing is just a continuation of recent trends.” But “economic historians will 100 percent accept the fact that there was an inflection at the election of Donald Trump, and that a whole bunch of data items started heading north.”
TKC 1101 has been bringing us an occasional cheery message from his experiences as a business consultant. He anticipated the trend, spotted early signs, and has kept us posted with updates. I really enjoy those posts. Thank you for the encouragement.
My own experience is in a sector that lags the general economy. The vibe has been positive for months, and it is beginning to show up in terms of real work.