The View from Right Field

The Stock Market: Real or Addicted? – A Follow Up

This is a follow up on last Friday’s post, “Is the Stock Market for Real or Just Addicted to Low Interest Rates and Easy Money?”  In writing it, I realized I have been saying the same thing for years.  In looking back at my past posts on the economy, I found I even used the “Christiane F.” analogy, about the problems the stock market would have trying to kick its addiction to low interest rates, before. 

Which gets to the first point of this post: Maybe I’m wrong about the economy.  Maybe things have changed.  Maybe low interest rates are appropriate, and maybe the stock market is for real.  You would have lost a lot of money betting against the stock market over the last ten years.

The 2019 Political World - In Two Cartoons

The one on the left is from Tuesday's Financial Times.  The one on the right is from today's Wall Street Journal.

Foreign Policy in 2020: We Need a President Who Has Thought These Things Through.

While the world looks at the possibility/risk of war between the United States and Iran (understandably), let me suggest that I hope we have people thinking about Russia, China, and our future relations with them.  I doubt very much that President Trump is doing this or that he has asked anybody to do this.  However, perhaps people such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and/or National Security Adviser John Bolton are having it done at the staff level.

As for the Democratic candidates for President, maybe some of them are thinking about this, though it seems most of them are focusing on how to stand out among the twenty-some candidates running.  And in-depth foreign policy analysis isn’t the kind of issue that is going to separate you from the crowd.  (I don’t know how you tie foreign policy to “free” stuff, which seems to be what many of the Democrats are talking about.)  Still, hopefully some of them are actually thinking about this some – because it is important. 

Republican Versus Trumpian

Back in the middle of May, Janan Ganesh, a columnist for the Financial Times, said, per the headline of his column, “Trump needs more Trumpians in the White House.”  According to Mr. Ganesh:

“Between them, [national security advisor John] Bolton and [acting White House chief of staff Mick] Mulvaney stand for the kind of Republicanism that Mr Trump was meant to have slain in 2016. …

Mike Pompeo could be the secretary of state in a Republican government of yesteryear.  Treasury secretary Steven Munchin could have served any recent Grand Old Party president.  It is much harder to name members of this administration who are truly in President Trump’s distinct image.

Is an Attempt to Impeach President Trump Coming – And Who Will It Help?

I never thought I would sympathize with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and I still don’t.  But if ever I was going to sympathize with her, we are getting close to when it would happen.  Two people who might sympathize with her are a couple of her predecessors, John Boehner and Paul Ryan.  Messrs. Boehner and Ryan understand the problems that Ms. Pelosi is having with the impeachment wing of her party because of the problems they had with the right-wing crazies in their caucuses.  The members of the “Freedom Caucus” and others among the House Republicans seemed to have this theory that somehow it was better to hold out for 100%, and wind up with nothing, than to agree to accept 70%.

The impeachment wing of the Democratic caucus is causing Speaker Pelosi many of the same problems – and maybe even more because it appears to be bigger than the right-wing crazy group in the House Republicans.¹ 

President Trump Is So Bad Anything Is a Reason to Get Rid of Him – Or At Least Some People Think So

Democrats are upset that Attorney General William Barr has authorized an investigation into whether the law enforcement and intelligence communities had proper basis for investigating the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential campaign.  The main point they seem to make is that Donald Trump is so bad that, of course, there were proper grounds.  It’s sort of like the Robert Mueller investigation.  When it started out, the Democrats, et al, “knew” Mr. Mueller would find evidence that then-candidate Trump, or at least the Trump campaign, colluded with the Russians – because, after all, Donald Trump is bad, so how else could he have won.  When Mr. Mueller didn’t find evidence of collusion, they pretty much decided that Russian interference was the same thing as collusion in terms of justification for getting rid of President Trump.¹ 

They are also upset that Attorney General Barr has been given authority to declassify information in connection with this investigation.  Because they say he will do it, without regard to national security, in order to help President Trump.  Of course, many of these same people want to breach laws and ignore privacy concerns with respect to the redactions in the Mueller report (also here), so consistency doesn’t really seem to be a real issue here – other than “President Trump is bad” and nothing else matters.

Did the FBI “Spy” On the Trump Campaign – And Was It Justified?

Before Attorney General William Barr releases the redacted report from Special Counsel William Mueller on Thursday, let me comment on the furor he caused last week when he told a Senate committee that he was going to have the Justice Department investigate whether the “spying” by the Justice Department on the Trump campaign during the 2016 campaign was, in his words, “adequately predicated.”  Attorney General Barr said, “I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” and he said he wants to make sure there was a legitimate reason for it.

A number of Democrats went ballistic.  Even though Attorney General Barr merely said he was going to have the Justice Department investigate whether there was an adequate basis for the surveillance, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said “the chief law enforcement officer of our country is going off the rails.”  The head of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, said that Attorney General Barr’s comments struck “another destructive blow to our democratic institutions.”

Does this Really Disqualify Joe Biden?

Joe Biden is thinking about running for president.  In fact, he recently just about announced, apparently by mistake, that he is running for president.  But, as he has been getting ready to announce, he has been hit with a number of complaints from women about the somewhat weird things he has done in the past.  One woman, who I think was a Bernie Sanders supporter in 2016, said the former Vice President came up and smelled her hair and kissed her on the back of the head.  Other women have said similar things.  Clearly, former Vice President Biden hasn’t had a good understanding of personal space and the things you should and should not do.  But, so far, the complaints have been about things he did in public, things that were a little creepy and not what people do today, but that’s about it.

Still, it appears a fair number of people, in theory on his side of the political spectrum, think these things should disqualify Joe Biden from running for president. 

Is MMT the Answer to Our Problems?

The new big thing, well, one of the new big things, in the intersection of politics and economics is something called Modern Monetary Theory or MMT.  One of the big proponents of MMT is Stephanie Kelton, an economics professor at Stony Brook University.  This excerpt from Monday’s Wall Street Journal explains the idea:

“Ms. Kelton argues the government doesn’t need to worry so much about how much it borrows to pay for spending programs.  Unlike a household or business, it can never run out of money.  The government can always print money to pay for debts.  The constraint, according to MMT, isn’t the deficit, but whether the borrowing and spending spurs inflation and disrupts economic activity.

With inflation and interest rates now very low, the government has plenty of room to borrow and spend more, MMT advocates say.  The notion has gained traction among Democratic presidential hopefuls, helping to fuel ambitious policy proposals.

If 2016 Was the “Presidential Election from He**,” What Will 2020 Be?

Actually, the question may be “Isn’t 2020 That Way Already?”  It seems pretty clear that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee – if he decides to run, but back to that in a moment.  First, the Democrats.

The Democratic contest seems to be a race to see who can get as close as possible to Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, who would, based on publicity levels in the MSM, have the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination wrapped up by now if not for a group of old white men in Philadelphia in 1787 who set the minimum age for president at 35.¹  On the other hand, we wouldn’t have Ms. AOC to kick us around if those same old white men had set the same age, i.e., 30, for the House of Representatives as they did for the Senate.²