Support Our Journalism

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless

Politics National News World Economy Lifestyle Store

Paul Krugman

Treasury Chief Bessent's Sleazy Smear Of Federal Reserve

Donald Trump did learn something during his 1^st term. He learned never to hire anyone who shows the least shred of integrity. You won’t find anyone like Gary Cohn or General Milley in Trump’s second administration. Now he knows to only hire people who are corrupt, bigoted, dishonest, or all three.

And Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, clearly satisfies Trump II’s requirements. His recent attacks on the Federal Reserve, part of Trump’s campaign to destroy the Fed’s independence, are vile, underhanded and sleazy. In a better world they would lead to his immediate removal as Treasury secretary.

But before I do a full dissection on Bessent, I want to talk for a minute about someone else: E.J. Antoni, the Heritage Foundation economist Trump plans to install as head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

You may recall that Trump fired Erika McEntarfer, the highly respected former BLS head, because he didn’t like the July jobs numbers, which he baselessly claimed were rigged. Since then the numbers have only gotten worse. When Trump chose Antoni as her successor, there were widespread and entirely valid complaints that Antoni was manifestly unqualified for the job.

Yet what we didn’t know was that Antoni has an interesting history on social media. Last week, building on reporting by Wired, CNN reported that

President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics operated a since-deleted Twitter account that featured sexually degrading attacks on Kamala Harris, derogatory remarks about gay people, conspiracy theories, and crude insults aimed at critics of President Donald Trump.

What’s truly remarkable is that despite this report, betting markets give Antoni a roughly even chance of being confirmed.

Bessent, by contrast, was greeted with accolades when Trump announced his nomination as Treasury Secretary. Having been a somewhat successful money manager, and at one point having managed funds for George Soros, he was treated as the “adult in the room” who would be a safe steward of the financial markets and insulate them from Trump’s axe-swinging tactics. It helped that Bessent looked and performed with suave confidence in front of the cameras.

But now the mask has fallen as we can clearly see Bessent for what he is. Bessent’s recent smear campaign against the Fed shows that he is truly vile, like the rest of the Trump crew, despite the Wall Street polish.

Specifically, last week Bessent published an article titled “The Fed’s ‘Gain of Function’ Monetary Policy” in the Wall Street Journal. Here is how it begins:

As we saw during the Covid pandemic, lab-created experiments can wreak havoc when they escape their confines. Once released, they can’t easily be put back. The “extraordinary” monetary-policy tools unleashed after the 2008 financial crisis have similarly transformed the Federal Reserve’s policy regime, with unpredictable consequences.

The vileness is right there in the headline and the first sentence. It’s immaterial whether you believe that Covid was caused by a lab leak or by natural viral infection from animals. The point is that Bessent began his article by pandering to the conspiracy-theory right by taking a contentious proposition popular in those parts, presenting it as if it were established fact, and then — in a complete non sequitur — associating that theory with his criticism of the Federal Reserve.

Yes, the Fed took extraordinary measures after the financial crisis. It was, after all, responding to the worst economic slump since the Great Depression — a slump that persisted even after emergency policies had ended the initial period of financial free fall. In an attempt to boost the economy the Fed engaged in “quantitative easing” — buying large quantities of long-term U.S. government debt and debt backed by the U.S. government. This was a departure from its usual practice, in which it only buys short-term Treasuries. But it was clearly in pursuit of the Fed’s mission, which is to promote both price stability and full employment.

Bessent, however, would have you believe that the Fed’s attempt to do its job was a dangerous experiment inflicted on the country by power-mad officials, and which had dire consequences. And while some critics did predict dire consequences at the time, they were soon proved to be completely and embarrassingly wrong.

Why did the Fed engage in quantitative easing following the financial crisis?

The bursting of the housing bubble and the financial crisis in 2008 sent the U.S. economy into a deep slump followed by a sluggish recovery. Here’s one measure, the employed share of prime-working-age adults. The shaded area shows the official period of recession, but employment remained severely depressed even after the recession was formally over.

When the economy is depressed, the Fed normally cuts the Fed funds rate, the short-term rate that it controls, by buying short-term Treasuries and injecting liquidity into the banking system. And that’s what it did when America went into recession

But during this episode this strategy ran into limits, because there’s a “zero lower bound” on interest rates. That is, there is a limit to how far the Fed can reduce short-term rates because rates can’t go below zero: investors won’t buy Treasuries with negative yields and will instead just hold cash. The recession caused by the financial crisis was so deep that the Fed hit the zero lower bound in late 2008 and stayed there for years. The graph above shows that, from 2009 to 2016, the Fed funds rate was stuck at virtually zero.

Unfortunately, zero wasn’t low enough to restore anything close to full employment. So what were policymakers supposed to do, as the economy languished?

One answer would have been fiscal stimulus. But due to a combination of timidity and Republican opposition (along with cries about the size of the federal deficit!) the 2009 Obama stimulus was grossly inadequate — which I warned about at the time. Passage by Congress of another round of stimulus was clearly impossible. Given this reality, I guess the Fed could have thrown up its hands and simply accepted the prospect of years of mass unemployment.

Instead, however, it tried to do its job by expanding its toolbox, buying assets whose interest rates weren’t zero. Critics, overwhelmingly from the political right, harshly criticized the Fed. A widely circulated open letter to Ben Bernanke, the Fed chair, warned that asset purchases “risk currency debasement and inflation.” Among those signing the letter was Kevin Hassett, now Trump’s chief economist and possibly the next Fed chair.

But the inflation never came. Here’s the Fed’s preferred measure of underlying inflation since 2010

Inflation ran consistently below the Fed’s target rate of 2 percent until the post-Covid inflation spike, almost a dozen years after quantitative easing began.

So how does Bessent deal with the fact that the critics of quantitative easing were proved completely, decisively wrong? By pretending that the evils they wrongly predicted actually came to pass. Younger and less affluent households, he writes, were “hit hardest by inflation.” What inflation? Inflation didn’t spike until 2021-2022, and that was caused by Covid-induced supply bottlenecks. Bessent is clearly trying to rewrite history to smear the Fed.

There’s much, much more -- some of it positively Orwellian – in Bessent’s WSJ article. For example, Bessent claims that Fed policy “creates the perception that monetary policy is being used to accommodate fiscal needs,” which is pretty rich given that Bessent’s own boss has specifically demanded that the Fed cut rates to reduce the budget deficit.

Last but not least, Bessent claims that the Fed has jeopardized its credibility. Actually, as I’ve noted, the remarkable stability of long-run inflation expectations in the face of post-Covid turmoil shows that the Fed retains enormous credibility with the public.

Finally, this hit piece by Bessent shows why he is so valuable to Trump. In my opinion, unlike virtually all other Trump cabinet members, Bessent isn’t a fool. He’s highly intelligent and well-versed in his area of operation. He understands financial markets. Hence the fact that he willingly smears the Fed by invoking conspiracy-laden tropes and re-writing facts is a window into his character, showing that he isn’t, and never was, worthy of Americans’ trust.

Maybe we should be thankful that he is no longer in the running for Fed Chair.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former professor at MIT and Princeton who now teaches at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. From 2000 to 2024, he wrote a column for The New York Times. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Paul Krugman

We Are All Lisa Cook: Trump's Weaponized Government Endangers Everyone

Donald Trump is threatening to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, over allegations that she made false claims on mortgage applications before she went to the Fed.

I am not going to lead with a discussion of what Cook may or may not have done. That would be playing Trump’s game. Clearly, he’s just looking for a pretext to fire someone who isn’t a loyalist — and who happens, surprise, to be a black woman. If you write about politics and imagine that Trump cares about mortgage fraud — or for that matter believe anything Trump officials say about the affair without independent confirmation — you should find a different profession. Maybe you should go into agricultural field work, to help offset the labor shortages created by Trump’s deportations.

The real story here isn’t about Cook, or mortgages. It’s about the way the Trump administration is weaponizing government against political opponents, critics, or anyone it finds inconvenient.

You should think about the attack on Cook in the same context as mortgage fraud accusations made against California Senator Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Or you should look at the attacks on Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, over the cost of renovations at the Fed’s headquarters. Or the still mysterious raid on the house of John Bolton, who at one time was Trump’s national security adviser.

The message here clearly isn’t “Don’t commit fraud,” which would be laughable coming from Donald Trump, of all people. Nor, despite what some commentators have said, is it all about revenge — although Trump is, indeed, a remarkably vindictive person. But mainly it’s about intimidation: “If you get in our way we will ruin your life.”

As with individuals, so with institutions. Universities are being threatened with loss of research grants unless they take orders from the White House. Law firms are being threatened with loss of access unless they do pro-bono work on behalf of the administration. Corporations are being threatened with punitive tariffs unless they support administration policies — and, in the case of Intel, hand over part ownership of the company.

This newsletter usually focuses on economics, and I could go on at length about the ways rule by intimidation will hurt the economy. There’s a whole economics literature devoted to the costs when an economy is dominated by “rent-seeking” — when business success depends on political connections rather than producing things people want. I’ve been writing a series of primers on stagflation. One of the way things could go very badly wrong would be politicization of the Federal Reserve, with monetary policy dictated by Trump’s whims, and it would be even worse if Fed policy is driven by officials’ fear of what will happen if they don’t follow Trump’s orders.

It's also important to realize that the Fed does more than set interest rates. It’s also an important regulator of the financial system, a job that will be deeply compromised if Fed governors can be bullied by personal threats.

But there’s much more at stake here than the economy. What we’re witnessing is the authoritarian playbook in action. Tyrannies don’t always get their way by establishing a secret police force that arrests people at will — although we’re getting that too. Much of their power comes not from overt violence but from their ability to threaten people’s careers and livelihoods, up to and including trumped-up accusations of criminal behavior.

Which brings me, finally, to the accusations against Lisa Cook. According to Bill Pulte, the ultra-MAGA director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Cook applied for mortgages on two properties, claiming both as her primary residence. This isn’t allowed, because banks offer more favorable mortgage terms on your primary residence than on investment properties.

Borrowers do sometimes commit deliberate fraud, claiming multiple properties as their primary residence when they always intended to rent them out. For example, Ken Paxton, Texas’s Attorney General, claimed three houses as his primary residence, renting out two of them, and has also rented out at least two properties that he listed as vacation homes. Somehow, however, Pulte hasn’t highlighted his case, let alone threatened him with a 30-year prison sentence.

The truth is that even when clear mortgage fraud has taken place, it almost always leads to an out-of-court settlement, with fees paid to the lender, rather than a criminal case. In 2024, only 38 people in America were sentenced for mortgage fraud. No, I’m not missing some zeroes.

So did Cook say something false on her mortgage applications? Pulte says so, but I’d wait for verification. Also, false statements on mortgage applications are only a crime if they’re made knowingly, which is a high bar. And nothing at all about this story is relevant to Cook’s role at the Federal Reserve. If the administration thinks it has enough evidence to bring charges, it should bring charges, not demand that she quit her job.

The important thing to understand is that we are all Lisa Cook. You may imagine that your legal and financial history is so blameless that there’s no way MAGA can come after you. If you believe that, you’re living in a fantasy world. Criticize them or get in their way, and you will become a target.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

The Limits Of AI: That Expensive And Power-Hungry Tech 'Miracle'

This is a post about AI, whose proponents are downright messianic in describing it as the technology of the future. Maybe. But much of their advocacy seems to ignore some mundane limits to AI’s growth — limits I’ll try to illustrate by talking about a technology of the past.

I was probably 9 or 10 when my father took me to a Horn & Hardart automat. For those too young to remember — who I hope are a large fraction of my readers — these were establishments in which a variety of sandwiches and other foods were displayed behind glass doors. You would serve yourself by putting coins into a slot, which would unlock the door and let you extract your egg salad sandwich or whatever.

At the time (and at my age) it seemed wonderfully futuristic: Food service without people! In reality, of course, automats weren’t automated; each required a substantial staff to operate the kitchen and keep refilling those glass-doored compartments. And because automats weren’t all they pretended to be, they were eventually driven out of business by the rise of fast food.

Many applications of information technology are, like the automats of yore, less miraculous than they seem. True, the user experience makes you feel as if you’ve transcended the material world. You click a button on Amazon’s web site and a day or two later the item you wanted magically appears on your porch. But behind that hands-free experience lie a million-strong workforce and a huge physical footprint of distribution centers and delivery vehicles.

And the disconnect between the trans-material feel of the consumer experience and the physical realities that deliver that experience is especially severe for the hot technology of the moment, AI. We’re constantly arguing about whether AI is a bubble, whether it can really live up to the hype. We don’t talk enough about AI’s massive use of physical resources, especially but not only electricity.

And we certainly don’t talk enough about (a) how U.S. electricity pricing effectively subsidizes AI and (b) the extent to which limitations on generating capacity may nonetheless severely limit the technology’s growth.

How much generating capacity are we talking about? The Department of Energy estimates that data centers already consumed 4.4 percent of U.S. electricity in 2023, and expects that to grow to as much as 12 percent by 2028:

AI isn’t the only source of rising electricity demand from data centers. There are other drivers including, alas, crypto — which still has no legitimate use case, but now has powerful political backing. But Goldman Sachs believes that AI will account for a large fraction of rising data center demand:

With Sam Altman of OpenAI promising to spend “trillions” on data centers in the near future — and sneering at economists who, he imagines, are wringing their hands — I wouldn’t be surprised to see demand come in at the high end of the Department of Energy’s projections. True, the AI bubble might burst before that happens, with potentially ugly consequences for the wider economy. But that’s a subject for another post.

So suppose that AI really does consume vast quantities of electricity over the next few years. Where are all those kilowatt-hours supposed to come from?

America is, of course, adding generating capacity as you read this, and can accelerate that expansion if it chooses to. But there are two big obstacles to any attempt to keep up with the demand from AI.

The first is that in recent years growth in U.S. generating capacity has become increasingly dependent on growth in renewable energy. According to S&P Global, almost 90 percent of the generating capacity added in the first 8 months of 2024 came from solar and wind:

Why is this a problem? Because Donald Trump and his minions have a deep, irrational hatred for renewable energy. Not only have they eliminated many of the green energy subsidies introduced by the Biden administration, they have been actively trying to block solar and wind projects.

So even as Trump promises to make America dominant in AI, he’s undermining a different cutting-edge technology — renewable energy — that is crucial to AI’s growth.

Suppose that electric utilities manage somehow to get around Trump’s anti-technology roadblocks and build the extra generating capacity. Who will pay for all that spending? The answer, given the way we regulate these utilities — and as natural monopolies, they must be regulated — is that the cost of adding capacity to power data centers is passed on to ordinary customers who have nothing to do with AI. This is already happening: Over the past 6 months retail electricity prices have risen at a 9 percent annual rate, four times as fast as overall consumer prices.

Last week the watchdog for PJM Interconnection LLC, the nation’s largest grid, declared that this must stop, that it “recommends that large data centers be required to bring their own generation.”

Indeed, requiring that the AI industry take responsibility for the costs it imposes makes a lot of sense. It would by no means end progress in AI. As the website Tech Policy notes, there are many AI applications in which smaller, more focused models can perform almost as well as the bloated, all-in-one models currently dominating the field, while consuming far less energy. Until now there has been no incentive to take energy consumption into account, but there’s every reason to believe that we could achieve huge efficiency gains at very low cost.

But will we do the sensible thing? It’s obvious that any attempt to make AI more energy-efficient would lead to howls from tech bros who believe that they embody humanity’s future — and these bros have bought themselves a lot of political power.

So I don’t know how this will play out. I do know that your future electricity bills depend on the answer.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Political Economy Of Hackdom: Why Authoritarians Promote Incompetents

On August 1 Donald Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics after a weak jobs report, claiming — without a shred of evidence — that the numbers had been rigged to damage him politically. On Thursday he held a White House briefing, together with economist Stephen Moore, in an attempt to convince the media and the public that the economy is actually doing great. The photo above is a scene from that briefing.

What’s wrong with this picture?

First, look at the chart. The second line claims that it shows “medium income” — a term unknown to economics. Clearly it was supposed to say median income.

OK, speling misteaks hapen. But not, usually, in charts prepared for a presentation by the President of the United States.

Beyond that, Jared Bernstein, who has looked at the data Moore presented in that chart and others, says that the numbers appear to be all wrong. Which is no surprise given the source.

For the big problem with the picture above isn’t the embarrassing misspelling of “median,” or even the factual errors. It’s the fact that Trump gave a presentation about the state of the economy along with Stephen Moore — who may be the last person on the planet you’d trust to tell you the economic truth.

I don’t mean that Moore is extremely right-wing, although of course he is. I don’t even mean that he’s a dishonest hack, although again of course he is. I mean that even among dishonest right-wing hacks Moore stands out for his pathological inability to get numbers and facts right.

And the fact that Moore was the right’s go-to guy on economics even before Trump tells you a lot about the people who now rule America.

Before I get there: Some readers may think I’m being hyperbolic when I say that Moore’s problem with facts is pathological. But read this report from the Columbia Journalism Review:

Why one editor won't run any more op-eds by the Heritage Foundation's top economist

You see, the Kansas City Star had reprinted a Moore column, originally written for Investors Business Daily, that cited a bunch of employment statistics as part of an attack on, well, me. One of the paper’s regular columnists happened to notice that some of Moore’s numbers looked wrong; when she checked them out it turned out that all of his numbers were wrong, in many cases bafflingly so.

Incidentally, Moore cited these bad numbers to support the “Kansas experiment,” then-governor Sam Brownback’s attempt to create an economic miracle by cutting taxes. The experiment was a disastrous failure:

Moore’s jobs debacle wasn’t an isolated incident. For example, in 2015 he published an op-ed attacking Obamacare in which not a single alleged fact was true. I’m not going to waste my time going through Moore’s collected writings, but it seems safe to assume that his bizarre inability to get any facts right, culminating in Thursday’s Oval Office debacle, has been consistent.

What’s Moore’s problem? I don’t know and I don’t care. The interesting question is why someone so incompetent — apparently he can’t even copy numbers correctly — has consistently failed upward. Trump even tried to put him on the Federal Reserve Board in 2019, and might have succeeded if Moore hadn’t also turned out to be a grotesque misogynist and a deadbeat dad who had been held in contempt for failure to pay child support.

Looking at the trajectory of Moore’s career, it’s hard to escape the impression that the political movement with which he is aligned — MAGA at this point, but his rise predates Trump — sees his surreal incompetence not as a liability but as an asset. After all, you never know when a competent economist, especially one with a good professional reputation, might balk at being asked to say ridiculous things.

I speculated about this briefly some years ago, but thought it was an original insight — and worried whether I myself was over the top. But it turns out that it was all in Hannah Arendt. In her classic book The Origins of Totalitarianism, she explained why totalitarians — I know, Trump isn’t a full-on dictator, yet, but he’s clearly a wannabe — promote the incompetent:

Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.

Arendt also explained, in advance, the Trump administration’s extraordinary hostility to research, the extraordinary speed with which it is destroying America’s scientific base:

The consistent persecution of every higher form of intellectual activity by the new mass leaders springs from more than their natural resentment against everything they cannot understand. Total domination does not allow for free initiative in any field of life.

Which brings me back to that Trump/Moore event. Why am I spending time on a farcical show that surely did nothing to help Trump’s cratering polling on the economy?

The answer is that Trump/Moore was a symptom of a deep sickness in our body politic. And I have no idea when or how we’ll recover.

PS: Now this is flattering: Last night Donald Trump called me a “Deranged BUM.” Gonna add it to my profile.

Every Accusation Is A Confession: Trump's Paranoid Style Of Economics

In economist-speak, last Friday’s jobs report brought the “hard data” into line with the “soft data.” Before Friday, anecdotal evidence and independent surveys generally pointed to an economy facing major headwinds as a result of erratic policy, but official employment numbers still said that growth was solid.

On Friday, however, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported weak job growth in July and, more important, revised down its estimates for May and June. The official numbers now show a slowing economy — not a recession, at least yet, but a marked slowdown. Here’s the three-month moving average of job growth:

Most economists found this report entirely credible. The BLS has a sterling reputation for careful, objective analysis, and as I said, Friday’s report brought the official estimates into line with other evidence. What about those revisions? As Jared Berstein explained in a Substack post yesterday, revisions are normal. Without getting too deep into the weeds, the BLS wants to be timely, so it issues preliminary reports based on incomplete data, then routinely revises them as more data come in. Revisions tend to be especially large around turning points; what we saw Friday is exactly what we’d expect if the economy is in fact experiencing a significant slowdown, which would show up more strongly in revised data than in the initial reports.

But Donald Trump screamed “conspiracy” and fired the head of the BLS, because of course he did:

I don’t want to spend much time debunking Trump’s claim that there was a conspiracy to make the job numbers look bad. Suffice it to say that rigging the job numbers would be a complicated process, requiring the cooperation of many people, and we’d almost surely have whistleblowers telling us that it was happening. In fact, we will know that it’s happening when, as seems highly likely, Trump’s people politicize the BLS.

And as I said, independent indicators also point to a job slowdown. For example, Automatic Data Processing, which does many companies’ payrolls, produces independent estimates of private employment. People I know who follow these things closely consider ADP’s numbers noisy and less reliable than BLS, but if BLS were rigging the numbers to hide the glories of the Trump economy, we’d expect to see that hidden Trump boom in the ADP estimates. We don’t:

So Trump’s claim that disappointing economic numbers are fake news disseminated by radical leftists is ugly nonsense. But it was also predictable. Claiming that economic data you don’t like is fraud perpetrated by a deep state conspiracy has been standard practice on the right for a long time, going back to the “inflation truthers” of the Obama years.

Here's the story: U.S. unemployment soared in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. To mitigate the slump, the Obama administration enacted a fiscal stimulus program, while the Federal Reserve engaged in “quantitative easing” — roughly speaking, printing a lot of money.

Many on the right went wild, insisting that these moves would lead to runaway inflation, even hyperinflation. More or less Keynesian economists like me, however, dismissed these warnings. Our models said that in a depressed economy with high unemployment expansionary fiscal and monetary policy would not be inflationary — in fact, I warned that the Obama stimulus was much too small.

The Keynesians were right. Here, for example, is a comparison of the “monetary base” — bank reserves plus currency in circulation — with consumer prices in the aftermath of the financial crisis:

The big inflation Obama critics predicted just didn’t happen.

But rather than admit that they had been wrong and rethink their economic models, many on the right insisted that runaway inflation actually was happening, but that government statisticians were hiding the ugly truth. For a while many right-wingers were eagerly citing quack analysts — sort of the economics equivalent of anti-vaxxers or climate deniers — to support outlandish claims about inflation. And I’m talking about influential voices, not obscure fringe figures. For example, in 2010 the historian Niall Ferguson, whom many still consider an important public intellectual, insisted that the official numbers were wrong and “double-digit inflation is back.” As far as I know, he has never owned up to his mistake.

By the way, this isn’t a case of “everybody does it.” When inflation temporarily surged under Joe Biden, I’m not aware of any Democratic-leaning economist, inside or outside the administration, who denied the reality of the inflation numbers, let alone attributed them to a political conspiracy. The paranoid style in American economics is very much a right-wing thing.

And because on today’s right every accusation is a confession, I predicted even before Trump took office that his administration would do what he falsely accused Democrats of doing, and begin manipulating economic data.

However, even I didn’t expect Trump to react to the very first bad jobs number of his administration by summarily firing the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nor did I expect Trump officials to be so blatant about their intention of politicizing the statistical agency.

But that’s what they’re doing. It took just hours for Trump’s chief economist to endorse his conspiracy theories and declare the administration’s intention to replace BLS staff with political loyalists. On CNBC Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, said that

All over the U.S. government, there have been people who have been resisting Trump everywhere they can

and declared that

To make sure that the data are as transparent and as reliable as possible, we’re going to get highly qualified people in there that have a fresh start and a fresh set of eyes on the problem

I assume that I’m not the only economist already looking for alternative data sources that we can use to figure out what’s happening behind the façade of the Potemkin economy Trump will surely try to create.

The thing is, Trump’s refusal to accept bad economic news and his likely attempt to corrupt official data probably won’t fool many people. But he is, of course, surrounded by people who will tell him what he wants to hear, so he may succeed in fooling himself. And this means that when the economy starts to have serious problems, Trump won’t even admit that bad things are happening, let alone make a serious effort to fix those problems.

Fake Deal: How The European Union Made A (Fossil) Fool Of Trump

Like many U.S. institutions, the European Union has abysmally failed the Trump test. The EU is an economic superpower and could have retaliated effectively against Trump’s illegal tariffs — illegal under both U.S. and international law. Instead, Europe did nothing and even made some apparent concessions.

But notice my wording: apparent concessions. The optics of the Trump-EU deal were humiliating, and optics matter. If you examine the substance, however, it starts to look as if Europe played Trump for a fool. Specifically, a fossil fool.

The EU made two sort-of pledges to Trump. First, that it would invest $600 billion in the United States. Second, that it would buy $750 billion worth of U.S. energy, mainly oil and gas, over the next three years. The first promise was empty, while the second was nonsense.

About those investments: European governments aren’t like China, which can tell companies where to put their money. And the European Commission, which made the trade deal, isn’t even a government — it can negotiate tariffs but otherwise has little power. On Sunday Politico spoke with Commission officials, who effectively confirmed that the investment pledge was meaningless:

[S]peaking Monday, two senior European Commission officials clarified that money would come exclusively from private European companies, with public investment contributing nothing.
“It is not something that the EU as a public authority can guarantee. It is something which is based on the intentions of the private companies,” said one of the senior Commission officials. The Commission has not said it will introduce any incentives to ensure the private sector meets that $600 billion target, nor given a precise timeframe for the investment.

So what the EU actually promised on investment was nothing, Nichts, rien.

The pledge to increase U.S. energy exports was a lot more specific and gave a timeframe. But it’s not going to happen. In fact, it’s going to not happen on three levels.

First, the European Commission, which can’t tell the private sector where to invest, is equally unable to tell the private sector where to buy oil and gas. How would that even work?

Second, the promised level of EU imports is probably physically impossible. Shipping liquefied natural gas (LNG), in particular, requires specialized infrastructure at both ends. On the US side, LNG terminals are already operating at capacity, while Europe’s LNG facilities are “stretched to their limits.” The EU just promised to vastly increase energy imports from America over the next three years, but it’s doubtful whether Europe could build any of the infrastructure needed before the end of that period, even with a crash investment program.

And why would anyone undertake such an investment program in a continent that is rapidly shifting toward renewable energy? As one energy analyst told the Financial Times:

European gas demand is soft and energy prices are falling. In any case, it is private companies not states that contract for energy imports. Like it or not, in Europe the windmills are winning.

Emphasis added because as everyone knows, Trump has a blind, irrational hatred for wind power.

Finally, even if Europe somehow managed to overcome the legal and physical obstacles to buying a lot more fossil fuels from America, both oil and LNG are fungible commodities traded on global markets. This means that any increase in purchases from Europe would reroute U.S. exports rather than increasing them: We’d sell more to Europe but less to, say, Japan and China.

So a big increase in U.S. energy exports driven by demand from Europe is not going to happen. But how will Europe explain its failure to follow through?

It might not have to. Back during Trump’s first term, China promised to buy a lot of U.S. agricultural goods but never did. As far as I know, Trump never made an issue of it. He got to announce a big deal, then lost interest.

And if the issue does come up, if there’s one thing officials at the European Commission are really good at — maybe better than anyone else on earth — it’s bureaucratic delay and obfuscation. Maybe at some point big, strong European men with tears in their eyes will meet with Trump and say, “Sir, we have a temporary hangup over clause #14159 of the 1986 Single European Act. But we’ll get it cleared up any day now.”

Bottom line: Whatever Trump may think, Europe is not going to provide a big boost to U.S. fossil fuel production. He won’t like that, if anyone tells him. But the rest of us should be glad. As I’ve written before, renewables are clearly the energy technology of the future. Trump and his allies are Luddites, trying to stand in the way of progress and keep us burning fossil fuels. Their “burn, baby, burn” obsession is very bad for America and the world. But at least we can be reasonably sure that Europe won’t help, um, fuel that obsession.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Real Men Burn Stuff! Trump's Stupid War On Renewable Energy

“We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters.” That famous 2011 quip from the venture capitalist Peter Thiel still resonates, even though Thiel himself has become a deeply malignant force in American politics. I’ll write soon about the madness of the Trumpist tech bros, but for today let me focus on Thiel’s original insight — that everyone, venture capitalists included, had come to focus far too much on digital technology, neglecting the possibilities of breakthroughs in technologies that deal with the physical world.

Yet here’s the irony: In the years since Thiel’s lament we have, in fact, seen revolutionary progress in one fundamental physical-world technology, energy production. Yet the people Thiel and his buddies helped put in power are doing all they can to reverse that progress and send America back into the energy Dark Ages.

Most critiques of the One Big Beautiful Bill have focused on the way it explodes the budget deficit while imposing immense hardship on lower-income Americans. Yet energy policy is also an important component of the OBBB, which basically tries to roll back the rise of solar and wind power — sources that have accounted for more than half the worldwide increase in electricity generation since 2015.

To understand how self-destructive that effort is, you need to know three things about the economics of renewable energy.

First, there are powerful environmental reasons to favor renewables over fossil fuels where possible. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the most important, because climate change is an existential threat. But even aside from climate concerns, the air pollution created by burning fossil fuels takes a major toll on health and productivity, which solar and wind don’t.

Second, a transition to renewables, which might have seemed like pie-in-the-sky, hippy-dippy stuff a generation ago, is now not just feasible but the only sensible energy strategy. Here’s a chart showing estimates of the levelized cost of electricity generation (LCOE), adjusted for inflation, for a variety of renewable energy technologies, compared with the costs of power from fossil fuels. I’m aware that LCOE is an imperfect measure, but the results are still astonishing:

We’re talking in particular about a 90 percent decline in the real cost of power from solar panels and a 70 percent decline in the cost of wind power. This isn’t just progress, it’s a revolution.

And — my third point — the revolution isn’t over. Some technological leaps involve one big idea, which takes time to implement but is basically a once-and-done deal — which seems to be the case, to take an example I’ve studied, for freight containerization. Progress in renewable energy, however, has involved a continual process of “learning by doing,” in which efficiency keeps rising and costs falling as the industry expands. This is exactly the kind of situation in which government subsidies — like the clean-energy tax credits instituted by the Biden administration — can accelerate progress and boost overall economic growth.

But the OBBB killed those tax credits. And the Trump administration has been taking executive action to stall renewable development, for example, by halting federal approvals for wind farms. In general, MAGA clearly wants to move us back to burning gas, oil and above all coal. Why?

Campaign contributions no doubt play a role. Fossil fuel industries donate almost exclusively to Republicans. But renewables are also big business these days, and especially in red states. Texas, in particular, is by far the nation’s largest producer of wind power and gets a larger share of its electricity from renewables than any other state. Why would the G.O.P. want to demolish a key pillar of economic success in its biggest source of electoral votes?

Honestly, I think this is a case where the usual logic of money-driven policy is trumped (Trumped?) by irrational, psychological — you might even say psychosexual — issues.

We know that Trump himself has a weird thing against wind power, insisting that wind turbines massacre birds and kill whales. This appears to stem from the refusal of the Scottish government to cancel an offshore wind farm he thought ruined the view from one of his golf courses.

But it’s not just Trump. There is, it turns out, a strong link between the manosphere — the online movement promoting “masculinity,” misogyny and opposition to feminism — and anti-environmentalism. For example, in 2023 Jordan Peterson convened a high-profile conference to declare that concerns about climate change are a “conspiracy run by narcissistic poseurs.”

If you think about it, this makes sense — not intellectually but emotionally. Don’t concern about the environment and advocacy of “clean energy” sound kind of, well, feminine? Real men burn stuff and don’t worry if the process is dirty.

And manosphere-type attitudes are clearly widespread in MAGA. One of the main arguments Trump officials and supporters have made for tariffs is that they will bring back “manly” jobs in manufacturing. (They won’t, but that’s another story.) The same notion underlies the doomed attempt to revive the coal industry.

But here’s the thing: MAGA and the manosphere may hate clean energy, but they won’t be able to stop the rise of renewables. All they can do, possibly, is stop the rise of renewables in the United States. Other nations, China in particular, are making huge investments in wind and solar power, because they understand what Trump and his allies refuse to acknowledge — that this is the only way forward.

So while MAGA’s attempt to strangle clean energy will increase the risks of global climate catastrophe, it will also increase the risks of U.S. economic stagnation, forcing our nation to remain wedded to obsolete energy technologies while other countries march into the future.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Republicans Beware! Medicaid Is Not A Soft Target

Does anyone remember the 1995 government shutdown and why it happened? Basically Newt Gingrich, fresh off a big Republican victory in the midterm election, was trying to force Bill Clinton to make big cuts in Medicare. He failed, in large part because Medicare was and is an immensely popular program.

A decade later, George W. Bush tried to privatize Social Security. But he, too, failed, because Social Security is also immensely popular.

But the Republican quest to rip up as much of the social safety net as possible never ends. And for the past 15 years or so that has meant steering clear, for now, of Medicare and Social Security, which are middle-class programs, and going after Medicaid instead. If the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — which is, incredibly, the legislation’s actual name — goes into effect, Medicaid will be cut by around a trillion dollars over the next decade. (As of this morning, the fate of that bill remains uncertain.)

What is Medicaid? Like Medicare, it’s government-provided health insurance. But unlike Medicare, it’s “means-tested”: your income has to fall below a certain level before you’re eligible. This makes Medicaid a program for the poor or near-poor — and that, for many on the right, suggests a political opportunity.

Ostensibly, the right attacks Medicaid because it costs too much. I mean, it’s a government program, which means that it must be riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse, right? And surely there must be millions of lazy people getting health care through Medicaid who should be getting up off their couches and going to work.

The reality is that none of this is true.

No doubt there’s waste and fraud in Medicaid, as there is in any system created and run by human beings. But overall Medicaid provides essential health care relatively cheaply. Once you adjust for the generally poor health of the average Medicaid recipient — chronic illness can make you poor! — Medicaid appears to have significantly lower costs than private insurance:

Actually, in some ways Medicaid resembles the health care systems of other advanced countries, which are much cheaper than U.S. health care (while achieving equally good results) largely because they’re more cost-conscious, willing to bargain hard with drug companies, say no to expensive procedures of dubious medical benefit, and so on.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of Medicaid recipients either are working or can’t work — they’re disabled or need to stay home to care for others:

Oh, and one thing we know from repeated experience is that adding work requirements to Medicaid does not, in fact, lead to more people working.

I don’t know how many of the right-wingers clamoring for drastic Medicaid cuts believe the stories they tell about waste and lazy Americans who won’t get a job. My guess, though, is that they don’t care whether these stories are true. They’re going after Medicaid because they see it as a soft target — a program that helps lower-income Americans, and who cares about them? Medicaid’s beneficiaries, they imagine, are the new welfare queens driving Cadillacs.

But a funny thing has happened to public opinion about Medicaid. The share of Americans covered by the program has increased a lot over the past 15 years:

And the fact that so many Americans now receive Medicaid means that many people have either benefited from the program or know people who have. And as a result the program has become remarkably popular:

83 percent favorability — 74 percent among Republicans! — is incredibly high. In fact, Medicaid appears to have slightly higher favorability than apple pie.

What this suggests is that Republicans who consider Medicaid a soft target, a program that only benefits inner-city rats, are going to be shocked by the blowback if they do manage to eviscerate this key piece of American health care.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former professor at MIT and Princeton who now teaches at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. From 2000 to 2024, he wrote a column for The New York Times.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Trump Policies Poised To Devastate His Voters In Rural America

Everyone is talking, understandably, about Iran. But the rest of Donald Trump’s policy agenda continues to goose-step on. Radical changes in social spending, immigration policy, and tariffs — changes that will hurt tens of millions of Americans — are either about to start or are already happening.

And one point I haven’t seen emphasized much is that while the human damage from these policies will be very widespread, it will be especially severe in rural areas and small towns — the very areas that overwhelmingly supported Trump in 2024.

The first thing you need to understand is that while rural Americans like to think of themselves as self-reliant, the fact is that poorer, more rural states are in effect heavily subsidized by richer states like Massachusetts and New Jersey.

This reality makes it inevitable that the standard conservative fiscal agenda — tax cuts for the rich, benefit cuts for the poor and middle class — hurts the heartland more than it hurts major metropolitan areas. But MAGA’s Reverse Robin Hoodism goes far beyond the standard conservative agenda, in ways that will be especially devastating to rural areas and small towns.

First, consider the shape of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. (I think it’s important to call it by its ludicrous official name, as a reminder of the extent to which Republican members of Congress have become North Korea-style sycophants.) The final details haven’t been settled, and there’s still an outside chance that the whole thing falls apart. But it’s almost certain that there will be savage cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, programs that disproportionately help Trump-supporting rural areas.

Let’s talk about Medicaid first, a program that is far more important than most affluent Americans tend to realize. Almost 40 percent of children are covered by Medicaid, with some of the highest percentages in deep red states like Alabama and Mississippi. Medicaid pays for 42 percent of births in America. And more to my point, Medicaid covers a higher fraction of the population in rural than in urban counties. So deep cuts in the program will hit Trump-supporting regions especially hard.

The same is true for OBBB’s deep cuts to food stamps.

The damage will be magnified by Republican plans to cut Medicaid spending by adding work requirements. We know from repeated experience that such requirements don’t actually lead to significant increases in employment. What they do instead is block access to health care by creating bureaucratic hurdles for beneficiaries — hurdles that rural Americans, often burdened by limited formal education and inadequate internet access, find especially hard to overcome.

Furthermore, rural America has long had a problem of hospital closures: It’s hard for hospitals to stay in business given both low population density and limited ability of patients to pay. The Beautiful Bill will accelerate this trend, so that even rural residents who can afford care may very well find it geographically out of reach.

In addition, federal health spending, both Medicaid and Medicare, is disproportionately important in supporting rural and left-behind local economies. For example, the economy of West Virginia no longer rests on coal mining, which employs very few people these days. It would be more accurate to say that the foundation of West Virginia’s economy is federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid. That is, in deep red West Virginia, Medicare and Medicaid are directly and indirectly a major source of income.

Then there are Trump’s immigration policies. American agriculture relies heavily on hired workers — and around two thirds of these hired workers are immigrants. A majority of these foreign-born workers are undocumented:

Moreover, even if you a legal resident or even a native-born citizen, do you really feel safe if ICE thinks you look like an illegal immigrant? Not surprisingly, there are reports of widespread ICE raids on farms and of workers refusing to work out of fear of arrest and deportation.

Can immigrant workers be replaced with native-born workers, or even with legal immigrants? No. All indications are that few native-born Americans would be willing to do these jobs unless they were paid much higher wages. Under the Biden administration the U.S. introduced a program offering grants to farmers who bring in foreign workers legally — but the Trump administration has frozen funding for that program, including money that had already been promised, leaving farmers on the hook for many thousands of dollars.

So Trump’s anti-immigrant policies are inflicting will be a major blow to U.S. agriculture — to family farms that employ immigrant workers and are being left high and dry, to food processing and local retail. Like Medicaid, immigrant farm labor directly and indirectly supports many rural jobs for the native-born.

Finally, there’s the trade war. In case you haven’t noticed, Trump hasn’t yet delivered a single one of the 90 trade deals he promised to negotiate by July 8. China has already retaliated, and others will follow. And U.S. agriculture is highly dependent on exports:

Nor can you argue that farmers will make up for lost exports by producing goods we currently import, since we mainly import the farm products we can’t produce here. That’s a point that seems to be lost on Trump’s Commerce Secretary. Recently Howard Lutnick clashed with Rep. Madeline Dean over the impact of tariffs on prices of food items including bananas. “If you build in America … there will be no tariff,” Lutnick argued. “We cannot build bananas in America,” she replied, somehow managing to avoid saying “Duh.”

While many are now realizing that Trump’s policies will produce social and economic disaster, relatively few understand that the disaster will fall disproportionately on rural Trump voters. But of course it will. For the purveyor of Trump bibles and Trump meme coins, screwing the little guy has always been his personal style of grift. It remains to be seen if rural Trump supporters will awaken from their naivete.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Lies, Damned Lies, And Mass Deportations

Donald Trump returned to power apparently convinced that America is being overrun with violent immigrant criminals. So all he had to do was order ICE to start rounding up these evildoers and kick them out.

However, tracking down undocumented immigrants who are also criminals has turned out to be a slow affair, because the great majority of immigrants — like the great majority of people in general — are law-abiding. In fact, the available evidence suggests that undocumented aliens are less likely to commit crimes than native born Americans. Things move a little faster if ICE ignores due process and just sends people it imagines might be criminals to overseas prisons. But this means sending people who may well be innocent — and legal residents — to horrifying gulags. And while such things don’t bother Trump or his top aide Stephen Miller, they do in fact bother many Americans.

Yet Miller, by all accounts, has been deeply frustrated at the slow pace of deportations. So the administration began just rounding up people who look to them like illegal immigrants. Again, the abandonment of due process and rule of law clearly didn’t bother them.

But the loss of an important part of the labor force bothered business interests. And so last week Trump suddenly announced that he wouldn’t be going after immigrant workers in agriculture and the hospitality industry, who are “very good, long time workers.”

What this meant, I guess, was that the dragnets will be limited to industries that employ large numbers of undocumented immigrants, but in which these immigrants are not a crucial part of the work force.

So I wondered how long it would take Trump to realize that there are no such industries. I mean, wait until he learned about who does the hard, dangerous work in the construction industry.

Sure enough, it only took a couple of days for the administration to reverse its policy of exempting farms and restaurants from immigrant raids. Anti-immigrant hardliners realized, even if Trump didn’t, that going easy on immigrants who are crucial to the economy would in effect mean abandoning the whole idea of mass deportation.

As often, it’s useful if disturbing to read what Trump says, unfiltered by media sanewashing.

Notice that Trump is still going on about “our crime ridden and deadly Inner Cities,” oblivious to the reality that homicides in major cities have plunged — in New York, where immigrants make up 37 percent of the population, murders were 83 percent lower in 2024 than in 1990, and have continued to fall rapidly this year. Note also that Trump has gone full Replacement Theory, claiming that Democrats are deliberately bringing in illegal aliens to “expand their voter base” (undocumented immigrants can’t vote.)

But in the context of Trump’s temporary move on farm and hospitality workers, the line that struck me was the one about how immigrants were “robbing good paying Jobs and Benefits from Hardworking American Citizens.” Which “good paying Jobs and Benefits” did he have in mind? Agricultural field work? Scrubbing toilets? Installing drywall?

Incidentally, not only do undocumented immigrants often do the most physically demanding and unsafe work, they are often deliberately misclassified as independent contractors, which means that they “do not have access to health insurance, medical leave, workers’ compensation insurance coverage, and safe workplace protections.”

The point is that in general undocumented immigrants don’t take good jobs away from native-born Americans. By and large they take jobs the native-born don’t want or would only take at much higher wages. This means that immigrants are complements, not substitutes, for native workers. They increase, not reduce, native-born wages. And mass deportation, if it really gets going, will be an economic as well as a human catastrophe.

Which doesn’t mean that it won’t happen. TACO doesn’t necessarily mean that Trump chickens out from bad policies. Sometimes it means chickening out from good, or in any case less bad, policies. In this case he has chickened out in the face of MAGA hardliners, retreating from a policy change that would have limited the damage from anti-immigrant fanaticism.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Now We Know What Trump's 'American Carnage' Rant Was About

Does anyone remember “American carnage”? In his 2017 inaugural address Donald Trump portrayed a collapsing society, emphasizing in particular the “crime and gangs and drugs” destroying America’s cities.

It was a peculiar and disturbing speech, in part because it bore no relationship to reality. Then as now, America had many problems. But runaway urban crime wasn’t one of them. In fact, Trump chose to proclaim urban carnage after a remarkable generation-long run of plunging crime in our major cities. New York, for example, had only 335 murders in 2016, down from 2,262 in 1990.

So what was that about?

At the time, I thought it was mostly about sadism. Trump clearly loves punishing people, so he was eager to portray a nation full of people who needed punishing. And it remains true, as Adam Serwer pointed out back in 2018, that for Trump and many of his supporters cruelty is a goal in itself, that they rejoice in the suffering of those they hate and fear.

But the events unfolding in Los Angeles as you read this and, I fear, the events likely to unfold across much of America soon, quite possibly this weekend, suggest that the motivations of Trump and his cronies go deeper than mere (mere!) sadism. They want to use false claims of chaos to justify a power grab that, if successful, would mark the end of the American experiment.

As I assume everyone knows by now, on Friday heavily armed — and masked — ICE agents began raiding workplaces in and around Los Angeles, seeking to arrest people they claimed were illegal immigrants. Crowds quickly gathered to protest. After all, ICE wasn’t rounding up members of violent gangs. It was scooping up ordinary people doing ordinary jobs, many of whom had friends and relatives in the neighborhood.

The protests were relatively peaceful, although there were some scuffles, objects thrown and vandalism. Los Angeles has experienced real riots in the past. This didn’t even come close. But ICE and some other law enforcement personnel responded with heavy application of force — not lethal weapons, at least not yet, but lots of tear gas, rubber bullets, and so on.

Until ICE moved in Los Angeles was, in fact, remarkably peaceful. Like other major American cities, LA experienced a significant but not huge crime wave in the aftermath of Covid but has since seen that wave more than completely recede:

Los Angeles right now is probably as safe as it has ever been.

But if you read Trump, which you should to get past the sanewashing, the City of Angels sounds like a scene from Fallout:

And Noem has called LA a “city of criminals.”

As a New Yorker, I’m accustomed to seeing my quite livable city portrayed as a hellscape. Still, there are 13 million people living in Greater Los Angeles who can testify that it has not, in fact, been invaded and occupied, let alone taken over by insurrectionist mobs.

Oh, and let’s not forget that an actual insurrectionist mob tried to overturn the 2020 election — and Trump has pardoned its members.

But no matter. Trump wanted an excuse to mobilize the National Guard, even though the governor of California not only didn’t request it, but has sued Trump to demand that he rescind the order.

When did a president last federalize the Guard against a governor’s wishes? Sixty years ago, when Lyndon Johnson mobilized the Alabama National Guard against the wishes of George Wallace, so that the Guard could protect civil rights marchers.

I’m still seeing some news analyses portraying what’s happening as a confrontation over immigration. And there are definitely people in the administration, led by Stephen Miller, who simply hate immigrants — legal or not, it doesn’t much matter. White South Africans seem to be the only exception.

But this looks bigger even than a play by an administration that has been finding, to its horror, that mass deportation is a lot harder than it sounds — especially if you make any effort at all to follow due process.

What it looks like is an attempt to create confrontations that can be used to impose something that, for practical purposes, amounts to martial law.

And if that’s what it’s really about, what’s happening in Los Angeles is just the beginning.

Most immediately, what is going to happen this Saturday? The government is going to hold a costly military parade in Washington, even though we aren’t celebrating any recent victories I’m aware of. This is the kind of thing one expects to see in Red Square, not the capital of a democracy. And guess what: the parade will also fall on Donald Trump’s birthday.

Many pro-democracy groups have teamed up to organize protests against the parade. There will be “No Kings Day” demonstrations all across the country. I don’t know whether there will be any violent incidents. But I’m quite sure that Trump and his allies will claim that violent incidents are happening and seek excuses to use force against the protestors.

So it’s important to understand what is happening here. Trump isn’t reacting to any real threat of disorder in California. And while anti-immigrant bigotry is certainly an important factor, it’s not the whole story.

No, this is all about finding excuses to use force against Trump’s critics and opponents and justify an anti-democratic power grab.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Musk Is Right, But He Too Is 'A Disgusting Abomination'

On Tuesday, after Elon Musk blasted out the screed below, a friend texted me: “I guess the worm has turned. Oh, wait, I guess that’s RFK.” Indeed. We don’t know exactly what set off this tweet and the series of whines that followed, but it may have been the ketamine talking.

Anyway, Musk happens to be right: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act — its actual name! — is indeed a disgusting abomination. But this is one of those cases where it takes one to know one. Few men have done as much damage out of sheer arrogance, ignorance and pettiness as Elon Musk. He has thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of deaths on his hands.

And even his parting blast is destructive, demonstrating that he has learned nothing from his abject failure as a policymaker. The OBBBA is terrible, but not at all for the reasons Musk claims.

There have been a number of articles about Musk’s departure that portray him as a “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” type, a well-intentioned naif thwarted by special interests. Gag me with a Cybertruck.

What actually happened was that a zillionaire who knew nothing about government marched in claiming that he could cut $2 trillion from the $6 trillion federal budget by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. This was obvious nonsense, but Musk has never showed any signs of being willing either to admit his mistakes or learn from them. The wild claims just kept coming, like his insistence that millions of dead people were getting Social Security.

Claims about budget savings by DOGE — the Musk-run not-actually-a-government department that has been running wild since Donald Trump took office — have rapidly shrunk over time. Still, DOGE has continued to put out “walls of receipts” purporting to document some of its achievements. Again and again, investigators going through these reports have found them full of ludicrous errors — the same canceled contract listed three times, an $8 million saving reported as $8 billion, and more.

Seriously, would any of Musk’s tech-bro friends have invested in a venture run by someone with such a record of making extravagant but completely unfilled promises, then following up with false claims of success?

Meanwhile, the Muskenjugend, the extremely young and utterly unqualified acolytes DOGE parachuted into government agencies, disrupted the federal government’s operations. In some cases they summarily fired crucial workers without making any effort to understand their jobs, while encouraging many others to take early retirement. Those workers who remained have found themselves devoting a lot of time and effort to justifying their existence rather than doing their jobs. And although it’s hard to quantify, the DOGE presumption that government workers are worthless unless proven otherwise must have done large damage to morale and efficiency. In the end, DOGE has almost surely increased the budget deficit.

The one area where DOGE really has managed to make big cuts is foreign aid, a very small part of the budget but one it has virtually shut down. The savings have been tiny, but the human impacts immense — as I said, thousands have died as a result of Musk’s actions, and many more will die in the future.

Aside from the special hostility Musk and co. seem to have toward helping the world’s poor, the big driver behind Musk’s whole role in Washington seems to have been the belief that the federal government is a bloated bureaucracy that wastes vast amounts of money. Yet Musk kept not being able to find all that waste. This is despite the fact that he had months to dig up the wasted billions, along with unprecedented, almost surely illegal, access to government data.

A better man might have said to himself, “Hmm. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe the federal government is actually a pretty well-functioning organization, with many workers trying to do their jobs well.”

But Musk isn’t that kind of man. In denouncing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, he calls it a “pork-filled Congressional spending bill.” Hey, Elon, where’s the beef pork? You’ve spent months trying to find it, with basically zero success. And the reason this bill will explode the deficit is that savage cuts to Medicaid and food stamps aren’t enough to offset huge tax cuts for the rich.

Um, what cost savings? And what personal risks are we talking about?

In the end, Musk’s legacy will be a damaged federal government that has lost many of its best people and will have a hard time replacing them. Oh, and a lot of dead children.

In a just world Elon Musk wouldn’t be heading back to run Tesla. He would, instead, be retreating to a remote monastery somewhere, to spend the rest of his life in poverty and penance.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Crypto Is A Criminal Enterprise That Now Controls Our Government

I spent my very early years in Utica, New York. I was too young to know anything about the city’s reputation — I left when I was 8 — but I would later learn that it was known at the time as “Crime City,” because it was reportedly controlled by the Mob.

Stories of towns infiltrated by organized crime or ruled by blatantly corrupt politicians used to be fairly common. These days you hear tales of blatant personal corruption at the local level less often.

But who could have imagined raw corruption determining policy for the United States as a whole?

Unless there’s a sudden outbreak of conscience and rationality on Capitol Hill, Congress is about to pass, with (alas) wide bipartisan support, the GENIUS Act, which will legitimize and normalize “stablecoins” — cryptocurrency tokens that, unlike the original tokens such as Bitcoin and its imitators, are supposed to be protected against wild fluctuations in their purchasing power, because they’re backed by conventional assets like Treasury bills.

I’ll talk in a minute about why encouraging stablecoins is such a bad idea. But first let’s talk about crypto in general.

Crypto’s early enthusiasts may well have been idealists, imagining that they could create something that was better and safer than traditional money. But as the years have gone by — Bitcoin was introduced in 2009! — crypto keeps failing to find legitimate uses. There is, to a first approximation, nothing you can legally buy with crypto assets except other crypto assets.

The journalist Zeke Faux, who wrote “Number Go Up,” a portrait of the crypto industry, went around the world both studying cryptocurrencies and trying, when he could, to use them. In the end, he wrote, “Traveling around the world investigating crypto had given me a new appreciation for my Visa card.”

So why do ordinary people keep buying crypto? Part of the answer is intense marketing; as I mentioned in a recent post, my Venmo app (which is actually useful) is constantly trying to sell me crypto. But the most compelling explanation why people buy crypto is that there is a clear affinity between the psychology of buying crypto and the psychology of gambling. Retail crypto looks, in particular, a lot like the “numbers racket,” which siphoned millions of dollars from generations of working-class Americans until it was largely supplanted by state lotteries.

The numbers racket was illegal, but flourished anyway because the criminal organizations paid off police and politicians.

But they were pikers by today’s standards. According to Public Citizen, crypto companies accounted for almost half of all corporate spending during the 2024 election. Donald Trump and his family have made billions off the $Trump and $Melania “meme coins,” but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that other politicians have also been the beneficiaries of crypto largesse.

And what the crypto industry wants out of today’s politicians, above all, is legislation that gives a veneer of legitimacy to stablecoins like Tether.

What is a stablecoin? It’s a digital token like Bitcoin — that is, an asset that “belongs” to whoever has the secret numerical key that unlocks it. But unlike Bitcoin, whose value in dollars fluctuates wildly day to day, a stablecoin is supposed to retain a fixed value in dollars. The stablecoin issuer maintains that stability by standing ready to buy its tokens back, holding reserves of conventional assets like Treasury bills for that purpose.

One way to think about this is that stablecoin issuers are like banks back in the days before the Civil War, when gold and silver coins were the only official forms of money. Many banks issued paper currency, which they promised to redeem for gold and silver coins on demand. Similarly, stablecoin firms issue tokens that they promise to redeem for dollars.

Antebellum banks that issued their own notes served a useful function, because the federal government wasn’t yet issuing its own paper currency. So bank notes played an important role in ordinary, legitimate commerce. For example, the $10 “Dixie” notes issued by the Citizens Bank of Louisiana (they were printed in French on one side) circulated widely across the lower Mississippi. Yet some of these early, unregulated banks were “wildcat banks”: banks that were specifically set up to defraud anyone foolish enough to accept their bank notes as payment.

So like antebellum bank notes, which were privately issued currencies supported by the claim that they were backed by gold and silver, stablecoins are privately issued tokens supported by the claim that they are backed by dollars. Unlike antebellum bank notes, however, stablecoins don’t serve any clearly useful function. They can’t be used to make ordinary purchases, and there’s nothing you can do with them that can’t be done more cheaply and more easily with debit cards, Venmo, Zelle, wire transfers etc. That is, why not just use dollars instead of tokens that are supposedly backed by dollars?

The answer to that question is that the ownership and disposition of stablecoins, unlike the ownership and distribution of bank deposits, is anonymous. This is a highly valuable feature for those who want to engage in money laundering, extortion, purchase of illegal drugs, and so on. In other words, the only economic reason for stablecoins is to facilitate criminal activity.

Do the politicians backing the GENIUS Act not understand this? Some of them probably do. As for the rest, well, it’s difficult to get someone to understand something when their campaign contributions and, in some cases, their personal wealth depends on their not understanding it.

But wait, there’s more. As I’ve already explained, stablecoin issuers are teched-up versions of antebellum banks, which were for the most part unregulated and, when they failed, provided no safety net for people who placed their money in their care (or accepted their notes.) As a result of this lack of regulation, the antebellum banking system repeatedly experienced “panics” — mass runs on banks perceived as risky.

Today, however, the federal government is deeply involved in banking, for very good reasons. After the devastating bank runs of the 1930s, in particular, officials realized that they needed to guarantee the value of deposits via the FDIC, while at the same time requiring banks to limit the kinds of risks they take. The goal was to limit the risk of financial crisis. While we did have a nasty crisis in 2008, that mostly involved “shadow banks” that evaded precautionary regulation. And stablecoins are, among other things, a new kind of shadow bank.

Recognizing that they could suffer the equivalent of self-fulfilling bank runs, the biggest stablecoin issuers are trying to reassure holders of their solvency by accumulating large reserves of U.S. government debt. But the flip side of this is that a run on stablecoins could turn into a run on U.S. government debt! That is, if the owners of stablecoins were to rush to convert their holdings into dollars, this would force stablecoin issuers into a fire sale of U.S. Treasury bills, driving up interest rates.

The fundamental point is that the growth and legitimation of stablecoins poses new risks to overall financial stability — all in the name of making it easier for criminals to do their business.

It's an amazing, depressing story, one that many readers may find hard to accept. But the truth is that when it comes to crypto (and other issues, but I’ll talk about them another day), Washington has become Utica on the Potomac: A town that, if not entirely controlled by the digital Mob, has at least been largely bought and paid for.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

How Trump Will Make The Tariff Shock Worse

In the fall of 1979, as I was just beginning my teaching career at MIT, I went to an economics conference in Vermont. I made the trip in a state of high anxiety — not because I was worried about my presentation, but because I was driving. And it wasn’t at all clear whether I’d be able to find gas for the return trip.

For those were the days of fuel shortages and gas lines, with drivers sometimes waiting hours for the opportunity to refill their tanks.

What happened in 1979 was that the United States faced an inflationary shock: soaring oil prices in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution. That was a bad thing for American consumers. But the experience was made much worse by botched policy. Rather than simply accept higher prices at the pump, the U.S. government imposed a gasoline price ceiling. And as often happens when the government tries to control prices, the result was shortages and a lot of disruption.

Obligatory disclaimer: Price controls, or more generally government pressure on companies to keep prices down, aren’t always a bad thing. Back in 1962, when John F. Kennedy pressured the steel industry to roll back a coordinated price increase, his actions made sense: Steel companies weren’t responding to higher costs, they were collaborating to take advantage of monopoly power.

But trying to simply order businesses not to pass on a genuine cost shock is asking for trouble. Which brings us, as most things seem to these days, to Donald Trump.

Right now U.S. business is facing a large cost shock created by Trump himself. Even after the partial climbdown last weekend, the average U.S. tariff rate stands at 17.8 percent, up 15 points from its pre-Trump level. Since imports of goods are more than 11 percent of GDP, that’s a big shock to consumer prices. And no, foreigners won’t pay the tariffs.

Now, an inflationary hit this size is a bad thing. Still, it could be a one-time event, something the economy absorbs before moving on. But for that to happen we’d need an intelligent, responsible policy response.

Hehehe.

What we’re actually going to get are the three Ds: denial, dirigisme and deception.

Denial: Trump has, of course, repeatedly insisted that there is no inflation in America, pronouncing reports of rising prices “fake news.” What’s new is that Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary — who was, you may remember, supposed to be the adult in the room — has gotten into the act. On Meet the Press Sunday, Bessent dismissed inflation concerns by asserting that

Gasoline prices have collapsed under President Trump … that is a direct tax cut for consumers.

Now, in general presidents deserve neither credit nor blame for fluctuations in gasoline prices, which mainly reflect the global price of crude oil. But that aside, what the heck is Bessent talking about? Here’s what has been happening to gas prices:

Source: Gasbuddy.com

I do not think that word “collapsed” means what he thinks it means.

So is Bessent just lying? Or has he joined Trump in his epistemic bubble, where reality is what he wants it to be? I’m not sure which is worse.

Dirigisme: Originally a term from postwar France, it refers to an economy that remains mostly in private hands but in which the government sometimes tries to tell companies what to do. It remains unclear to this day how well dirigisme actually worked or even how much it was real as opposed to officials getting in front of an economic parade that was happening anyway and pretending that they were leading it. What’s true is that dirigisme may not do too much harm when practiced by sophisticated, well-informed technocrats.

What won’t be harmless is when dirigisme is practiced by a president who takes time off from declaring that Taylor Swift is “no longer hot” to issue demands like this: Now, Walmart, while profitable, can’t actually afford to EAT THE TARIFFS. (Weren’t the Chinese supposed to do that?) So what will Walmart and other companies do if Trump’s tariffs are way up but they’re afraid to risk Trump’s ire by increasing prices?

Hello, empty shelves.

Finally, deception: What will happen when the tariffs start showing up in official measures of inflation, which will happen soon? Erica Groshen, former head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is worried. In a recent briefing paper she warned that changes in personnel policy

could lead to the politicization of the federal statistical workforce … for example, Bureau of Labor Statistics’ leaders could be fired for releasing or planning to release jobs or inflation statistics unfavorable to the President’s policy agenda.

So when inflation rises, the Trump administration could simply bully the statistical agencies into claiming that it never happened. You may say that they couldn’t or wouldn’t do such a thing. But so far people downplaying what Trump and co might do have been wrong every time, while the often-mocked alarmists have been consistently right.

The bottom line is that the direct economic consequences of Trump’s tariffs will surely be bad, but his unwillingness to accept the reality of those consequences will probably make them considerably worse.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Drill Baby Drill? How 'MAGA Brain' May Kill US Energy Independence

Does anyone remember “Drill, baby, drill?” What with all the tumult over Donald Trump’s disastrous trade war, many have forgotten that energy production played a big role in his second inaugural address. He claimed that we were facing a “national energy emergency,” and that he would bring prices down and make America rich by releasing the “liquid gold under our feet.”

There was, in fact, no energy emergency. One thing you always find Trump and MAGA in general doing is assuming that the real world must look the way their prejudices say it should look. Squishy liberals who believe in rule of law were in charge last year, so America must have been in the grip of a terrifying crime wave — even though the homicide rate in 2024 was close to a 65-year low:

Source: Jeff Asher

Similarly, the Biden administration was full of woke environmentalists who believe in the global warming hoax, so they must have crippled energy production — even though America in the Biden years was, for the first time in generations, producing more energy than it consumed:

When I wrote about this at the time, I suggested that Trump was suffering from "MAGA brain,"

the belief that the only way you can get results is by being tough and nasty, avoiding anything that might be considered woke. Thus, to achieve energy independence, we must put aside worries about pollution and climate change while blocking clean energy.

So administrations that care about climate change and the environment in general must be crippling the energy sector. Biden may have presided over record oil production and growing energy exports, but we’ll just say that we have an energy emergency anyway.

You can probably guess what’s coming next. There appears to be a real chance that America will lose its newly reacquired energy independence. And if it does, we know who will be responsible: Trump himself.

To see why, we need to look at the factors responsible for America’s return to energy self-sufficiency.

One of these is fracking — extracting oil and gas embedded in shale by fracturing that shale with high-pressure liquids. Yes, there are serious environmental issues involved both in the fracking process and in the fact that more fossil fuel production adds to greenhouse gas emissions. But while the Biden administration took climate change seriously, that didn’t stop oil and gas production from rising on its watch.

The other factor was the incredible rise of renewable energy. Not that long ago wind and solar power were widely seen as silly, hippy-dippy conceits. Now they’re major contributors to energy supply:

Data source: US Energy Information Administration

In the case of shale, it’s all about prices. Drilling new shale wells is expensive. In fact, Trump’s vision of drastically lower oil prices never made any sense, because any large drop in oil prices would make new shale wells unprofitable. And since production from any given shale well drops quickly over time, anything that caused new drilling to fall substantially would quickly translate into declining oil production.

How low would prices have to go to shrink the U.S. oil industry? Recently the Dallas Fed did a survey which suggested that drilling in many major fields would stop if the price per barrel fell below the low 60s:

And that was before Trump’s tariffs raised costs, so the critical price is probably higher now. And guess what: oil prices right now are at a level where we can expect production to fall. Here are oil futures:

Why did oil get cheap? Look at the sudden drop on April 2, a.k.a. Liberation Day, when Trump first announced extreme tariffs. It’s obvious that oil prices are down thanks to pessimism about the global economy, which in turn is tied to Trump’s trade war. And by the way, that war is by no means over. A new analysis by the Yale Budget Lab finds that the damaging effects of Trump’s tariffs are only modestly mitigated by his surrender to China.

And as for renewables: Trump hates them, wind power in particular. He offers crazy justifications for that hatred — did you hear about his claim that offshore wind farms kill whales? — but it’s pretty clear that he has been nursing an irrational grudge ever since he was unable to stop a Scottish wind farm that he thought ruined the view from a golf course he owns.

Oh, and I’m pretty sure that MAGA types in general dislike renewable energy because they don’t consider it manly.

So what will be the economy-boosting effects of drill, baby, drill? Nil, baby, nil.

Reprinted with permission from Paul Krugman Substack.

Tariffs, Jobs And Why You Should Care About Poverty In Bangladesh

I’ve returned from Europe to the United States. Miraculously, my flight to Newark landed on time. So this seems like a good day to write about … Bangladesh. I’ll explain shortly.

First, a note on the current state of the trade war. Many people, including many small investors, still believe and/or hope either that Donald Trump will soon negotiate many trade deals or that he will claim he has, declare victory, and back off his massive tariff hike. They’re deluding themselves.

Consider what we’ve learned about Trump as the negative fallout from his tariffs has started to become obvious.

First, he’s invincibly ignorant. The collapse of imports from China has businesses terrified and warning both of soaring consumer prices and of looming shortages. But Trump says it’s all good:

We were losing hundreds of billions of dollars with China. Now we’re essentially not doing business with China. Therefore, we’re saving hundreds of billions of dollars. Very simple.

Hey, remember those empty shelves during Covid? Americans were doing great! Think of all the money they saved by not buying toilet paper, because there was none to be had. Very simple.

Second, when he’s in a hole, he just keeps digging. His talk about making Canada the 51^st state had a decisive effect in Canada’s recent election, hugely bolstering anti-Trump forces. But yesterday, meeting with Prime Minster Mark Carney, who kept his office thanks to this backlash, Trump kept pushing the idea.

Carney remained polite — he is, after all, Canadian — but his facial expressions during the meeting were something to behold.

The best bet, then, is that the trade war will proceed, even intensify. There will be some winners, at least in terms of global influence, including China, which gains from America’s loss of credibility, and the European Union, which unlike Trump’s America can be trusted to honor its agreements. The United States will be a big loser, both politically and economically.

But the biggest losers will be poor countries that have become less poor largely thanks to exports and are about to see their hopes of progress dashed.

Possibly the most hated article I’ve ever written was a 1997 piece for Slate titled “In Praise of Cheap Labor,” which was mainly aimed at left-wing critics of globalization. I argued that much as the sight of low-paid workers producing cheap goods for rich countries may — and should — disturb us, labor-intensive exports are often poor countries’ best hope of progress.

This argument has only become stronger over time. The New York Times recently had a very good article on Bangladesh, which 50 years ago was the poster child for warnings about mass famine driven by overpopulation. Instead, the South Asian nation became, not a banana republic, but a pajama republic, one of the world’s leading clothing exporters. It’s still a poor country, with wages and working conditions that are appalling by advanced-country standards. But as the chart at the top of this post shows, Bangladesh is about four times as rich as it was in the 1980s, when its exports began rising.

But now the country faces the possibility of economic catastrophe, made in America. Trump’s “Liberation Day” trade plan would have imposed a 37 percent tariff on imports from Bangladesh. That plan is temporarily on hold, but it seems all too possible that it or something as bad or worse will come back.

OK, I know that most Americans don’t care about Bangladeshi living standards. They should, even on selfish grounds: condemning 170 million people to deeper poverty would be a threat to global stability. But here’s the thing: Throwing up barriers to Bangladeshi exports doesn’t involve a tradeoff, helping American workers at others’ expense. It’s pure loss, hurting both nations.

Why? Because making imported clothing more expensive here won’t create U.S. jobs. Apparel production, still largely carried out by people hunched over sewing machines, is just too labor-intensive to be economically feasible in the United States, no matter how high the tariffs.

Trump’s people don’t seem to get that. True, Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary, famously claimed that tariffs could indeed create jobs in labor-intensive activities, although he didn’t use clothing as an example:

The armies of millions of people- well, remember, the army of millions and millions of human beings screwing in little- little screws to make iPhones, that kind of thing is going to come to America.

Um, no it isn’t, and shouldn’t.

Taxes on imported clothing will, however, raise Americans’ cost of living. The poor and the working class, who are more likely to buy inexpensive imported clothing, will be hurt worst. But hey, Trump says that children don’t need multiple dolls; why do their parents need multiple pairs of underwear?

Not incidentally, Greg Sargent looked into what it would actually take to manufacture dolls in the United States. Even if it could be done, it would produce only a handful of jobs — and the jobs would be terrible and pay badly.

The point is that Trump and his team have done something remarkable: They have started a trade war that is bad both for Americans and for countries that sell to us. But Trump is unlikely to change course. The economic punishment will continue until morale improves.

Reprinted with permission from Paul Krugman.

Ignore Trump's Distractions -- This Is His Economy Now

Many people have complained about New York Times headlines, with reason. All too often an equivocating, sanewashing headline belies the excellent reporting that follows. But yesterday the Times got it right about the first-quarter decline in GDP: “Trump boasts about the economy, but says weak data is Biden’s problem.”

There will be much more of this as the data get worse, which they will. (I’m going to keep treating “data” as plural unless it refers to a Starfleet commander.) In fact, I worry a lot about Trump putting pressure on the statistical agencies to report better numbers. He has already said that reports of rising prices are “fake news”.

For now, however, it’s important to be clear that the bad news is all on Trump’s head, and we mustn’t let him get away with claiming otherwise.

It’s true that most of the time presidents have much less impact on the economy than many people believe. It’s also true that a president’s policies usually don’t have large economic effects in the first few months of their administration.

But Trump’s policies have been so extreme that they are already making the economy visibly worse. In particular, expectations of high tariffs began distorting business decisions even before the tariffs went into effect. If you look at the GDP numbers released yesterday, you see a huge surge in imports coupled with a large surge in inventories. Both of these clearly reflected businesses “front-running” expected tariffs, racing to buy as much from China in particular as they could before the tariffs went into effect.

And the effects of Trump’s policies will become even clearer, and even worse, over the next few months. Those insanely high tariffs on China have led to a collapse in shipments from China to the United States, which will soon be reflected in soaring prices and, probably empty shelves.

We’re also already seeing signs of Trump’s policies causing broad economic weakness:

Trump himself seems to be aware that he’s causing major supply-chain disruptions.

“You know, somebody said, ‘Oh, the shelves are going to be open,’” Mr. Trump said. “Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, you know? And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.”

OK, having Trump come out as a critic of consumerism and proponent of the higher, spiritual side of life wasn’t on my bingo card.

What I and everyone else did expect was that when the economy turned bad, Trump would refuse to accept responsibility and blame his predecessor. And right on cue, that’s what is happening.

So this is a good time to remember that Trump actually inherited a very good economy, one that was outperforming all its peers. From The Economist, last October:

When Trump moved into the White House, America had historically low unemployment and inflation only slightly above the Federal Reserve’s (arbitrary) target of 2 percent. Look at the “misery index,” the sum of inflation and unemployment — a crude but usually pretty good measure of how the economy is doing. As of January that index was quite low by historical standards:

Were there deep underlying problems, reasons to believe that the appearance of prosperity was somehow misleading? No. I’ll probably write at some point about claims by Trump’s minions that the Biden economy was somehow bad despite low unemployment and inflation combined with rising real wages. But for now let me just say that none of these claims stands up to even casual scrutiny.

In short, pay no attention to Trump’s excuses. The U.S. economy was in good shape when he came in. If everything is going to hell — which it is — he has nobody but himself to blame.

Reprinted with permission from Paul Krugman.

        About The National Memo
    
The National Memo is a political newsletter and website that combines the spirit of investigative journalism with new technology and ideas. We cover campaigns, elections, the White House, Congress, and the world with a fresh outlook. Our own journalism — as well as our selections of the smartest stories available every day — reflects a clear and strong perspective, without the kind of propaganda, ultra-partisanship and overwrought ideology that burden so much of our political discourse.
TAGS

Created By

RebelMouse

About Masthead Terms of Service Privacy Statement Advertise Contact

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless

Sign up for our Daily Newsletter and never miss a story.

Why one editor won't run any more op-eds by the Heritage Foundation's top economist

About The National Memo