Trump is a complete ignoramus on trade. He believes with most politicians that trade should serve workers not consumers. But wealth is created by consumers with workers following the signals of consumers through markets.
Trade supports wealth creation. Tariffs reduce trade and wealth creation. That is why the stock market is declining as wealth is now scheduled to decline with Trump tariffs. Trump’s base will turn against him as he persists in reducing wealth and welfare. A tragedy as he had garnered widespread support from ethnic groups that traditionally supported the DEMOS. They will return to their protected traditional shell. Very sad.
Useful article. New technology is what is needed for decarbonization. I have about 1000 articles on such technologies but I am not sure which are worth pursuing. Safe nuclear appears to be the winner at present. The demands for power for AI are leading the tech industry in that direction.
"It desperately needs a stronger manifestation in practical politics and, at the moment, that means a big new Democratic party faction that rejects the economic populism of the Elizabeth Warren-AOC-Bernie Sanders wing, foreswears “everything bagel”² approaches to public goods, embraces pluralism rather than the grievance politics of right and left, and welcomes former Republicans and independents as allies.".
Good luck with that. I live in a blue state that still can't figure out why they lost the last election.
They need a national leader who can slap sense into them, while also being so compelling in tearing the GOP a new one, that they can't help but want to follow him/her.
Well, when your article is predominantly being applauded by climate science deniers, libertarians (libertarianism being simply a philosophical fig-leaf for adolescent boys who refuse to grow up) and Trump apologists, it might be time for a return visit to the good old drawing board...
Nuclear is much more expensive than solar and wind, including battery backup. That's why there have been almost no new nuclear projects for decades, other than those built and financed by Russia and China. Even now, despite almost daily announcements about future nuclear there haven't AFAIK been any final investment decisions, let alone construction starts, in OECD countries since Hinkley C in 2017 (another disaster)>
If you ignore the benefits of decarbonization for the rest of the world, you end up running coal and gas-fired electricity longer and delaying the shift to electric vehicles. And you run the risk of being hit with (entirely justified) tariffs on your exports from countries that are doing their beit.
Nuclear is expensive ONLY because of excessive and idiotic regulation based on the LNT principle. As history shows --and countries like South Korea -- nuclear could be built at 10% of current costs in the USA.
The only benefit to decarbonization is a reduction in air particulates. But that is not a problem in wealthy nations. In others, it can be dealt with by better technology. Overall, more CO2 is a benefit. More plant fertilization, fewer deaths from cold, more usable land available, etc. You know, all the things never mentioned by most of the media.
Thank you for your sane and thoughtful response to the political dilemma of the day. As a liberal libertarian I appreciate it and am saving your piece to read more than once.
BTW, on a lighter note, I love your A.I. illustrations. I frequently use an A.I. app to create images that incorporate all of my Wordle guesses. Some are bizarre!
Great effort toward inculcating progress thinking, a noble goal. I am curious, though, whether you think the loss of manufacturing jobs actually did crush the lives of entire U.S. communities or if you're more in line with the thinking if Kevin Williamson that the stupid yokels left idle in the rust belt failed to save themselves. I remember thinking back in the days of Bill Clinton, when he was defending NAFTA, that he was quite honest to tell us that American jobs would be lost--but we would retrain. I don't remember that happening. Did it? Knowing how people are, I believe Williamson is largely correct in his dismissiveness but also that it's kind of mean to expect people in their fifties with chronic health issues to uproot their lives for the benefit of strangers when few if any expectations were placed on international trade agreements to follow through on that promise. How does "abundance" thinking relate to that, the human lag? Does it care? Or is the trendline more important than the particulars of human reality on the ground.
I like Ritchie Torres. But you are assuming that the Social Justice Warriors either leave or get expelled from the Democratic Party if you think someone like him could become a party leader.
As a long term libertarian, I part ways with you here. Would you really prefer Kamala Harris and the continued slide into progressive authoritarianism? Trump's policy on tariffs is bad but we have yet to see how it works out. It is entirely possible that the result is negotiated lower tariffs by everyone (maybe not China!).
DOGE is wonderful but I'm unhappily pessimist about how much it can accomplish without congressional backing. This is the first time in decades -- perhaps EVER -- that anyone has shown a serious interest in cutting back government power and funding. (Yes, while maintaining and increasing power in some ways. It is not black and white.)
Trump is unprincipled and doesn't understand markets. But he is still better than what we would have been subjected to. That you seem not to even have an inkling of that possibility is disappointing.
I like Matthew McConaughey for the "charismatic representative". Sound bites go viral to the moon, the autistic-seeming contenders in the primary are cut to ribbons a la Trump in 2016, and in the general election, he's free from the usual baggage and can triangulate. But the typical Democrat recoils from this..."WE don't do THAT". So another winnable election is flushed down the toilet.
As bad as Trump is, he has done some good in opening people's eyes to how corrupt spending is, even if he's an idiot for vowing to not touch Social Security or Medicare, and even if DOGE is exaggerating how much waste and corruption they find.
I think wokism, DEI, CRT, transgender worship, and just about everything else summed up by the ludicrous "Queers for Palestine" has done more lasting damage than anything Trump is capable of. Tariffs can be rolled back easier than rooting out DEI. Biden doubled down on Trump's first tariffs. And while I support open borders, I don't support open boarders, and detest the way Biden practically begged so many freeloaders in, and flew in refugees who didn't really want to be here and don't really like the Bill of Rights; another example of Queers for Palestine thinking.
That's the key for me. Woodrow Wilson did lasting damage. Biden and the wokies did lasting damage, and Harris would have done more. Trump's damage is a lot more easily reversed and temporary, and if he overplays this hand and doesn't restore "normalcy" by the end of summer, I think his damage, while still temporary, will stick in voters' craw and there's a real chance of flipping Congress, and that could lead to a third Trump impeachment with possibly the most honest impeachment of any. Where that leaves JD Vance in 2028, I don't know, but I think he's more capable of honesty than Trump, and there's not a single Democrat contender I can say the same for, not after the way they all covered up four years of a fading Biden.
Woodrow Wilson injected Progressivism into the Democrat Party, and that is still with us. Biden was the "moderate" who shifted the party totally to the Woodrow Wilson progressivism and away from any liberalism. Now,it is a vast wasteland of ideas. It i s run by Soros and his son Alex. Soros may have been at one time a liberal but no longer. Progressivism and liberalism are absolutely not the same. People need to stop using them interchangeably. It produces a vast intellectual "goo" that goes nowhere and just sells articles.
You had me until note 2.
Please publicize anything that gets organized in London.
Trump is a complete ignoramus on trade. He believes with most politicians that trade should serve workers not consumers. But wealth is created by consumers with workers following the signals of consumers through markets.
Trade supports wealth creation. Tariffs reduce trade and wealth creation. That is why the stock market is declining as wealth is now scheduled to decline with Trump tariffs. Trump’s base will turn against him as he persists in reducing wealth and welfare. A tragedy as he had garnered widespread support from ethnic groups that traditionally supported the DEMOS. They will return to their protected traditional shell. Very sad.
Useful article. New technology is what is needed for decarbonization. I have about 1000 articles on such technologies but I am not sure which are worth pursuing. Safe nuclear appears to be the winner at present. The demands for power for AI are leading the tech industry in that direction.
"Safe nuclear" includes using thorium, right?
"It desperately needs a stronger manifestation in practical politics and, at the moment, that means a big new Democratic party faction that rejects the economic populism of the Elizabeth Warren-AOC-Bernie Sanders wing, foreswears “everything bagel”² approaches to public goods, embraces pluralism rather than the grievance politics of right and left, and welcomes former Republicans and independents as allies.".
Good luck with that. I live in a blue state that still can't figure out why they lost the last election.
They need a national leader who can slap sense into them, while also being so compelling in tearing the GOP a new one, that they can't help but want to follow him/her.
And Gavin Newsom is most definitely not that person.
Well, when your article is predominantly being applauded by climate science deniers, libertarians (libertarianism being simply a philosophical fig-leaf for adolescent boys who refuse to grow up) and Trump apologists, it might be time for a return visit to the good old drawing board...
Nuclear is much more expensive than solar and wind, including battery backup. That's why there have been almost no new nuclear projects for decades, other than those built and financed by Russia and China. Even now, despite almost daily announcements about future nuclear there haven't AFAIK been any final investment decisions, let alone construction starts, in OECD countries since Hinkley C in 2017 (another disaster)>
If you ignore the benefits of decarbonization for the rest of the world, you end up running coal and gas-fired electricity longer and delaying the shift to electric vehicles. And you run the risk of being hit with (entirely justified) tariffs on your exports from countries that are doing their beit.
Nuclear is expensive ONLY because of excessive and idiotic regulation based on the LNT principle. As history shows --and countries like South Korea -- nuclear could be built at 10% of current costs in the USA.
The only benefit to decarbonization is a reduction in air particulates. But that is not a problem in wealthy nations. In others, it can be dealt with by better technology. Overall, more CO2 is a benefit. More plant fertilization, fewer deaths from cold, more usable land available, etc. You know, all the things never mentioned by most of the media.
Climate science denialism, nuclear boosterism and Trumpism fit together neatly
Thank you for your sane and thoughtful response to the political dilemma of the day. As a liberal libertarian I appreciate it and am saving your piece to read more than once.
BTW, on a lighter note, I love your A.I. illustrations. I frequently use an A.I. app to create images that incorporate all of my Wordle guesses. Some are bizarre!
Great effort toward inculcating progress thinking, a noble goal. I am curious, though, whether you think the loss of manufacturing jobs actually did crush the lives of entire U.S. communities or if you're more in line with the thinking if Kevin Williamson that the stupid yokels left idle in the rust belt failed to save themselves. I remember thinking back in the days of Bill Clinton, when he was defending NAFTA, that he was quite honest to tell us that American jobs would be lost--but we would retrain. I don't remember that happening. Did it? Knowing how people are, I believe Williamson is largely correct in his dismissiveness but also that it's kind of mean to expect people in their fifties with chronic health issues to uproot their lives for the benefit of strangers when few if any expectations were placed on international trade agreements to follow through on that promise. How does "abundance" thinking relate to that, the human lag? Does it care? Or is the trendline more important than the particulars of human reality on the ground.
I like Ritchie Torres. But you are assuming that the Social Justice Warriors either leave or get expelled from the Democratic Party if you think someone like him could become a party leader.
The SJW's aren't the majority of the party, unless you're defining that term very generously.
As a long term libertarian, I part ways with you here. Would you really prefer Kamala Harris and the continued slide into progressive authoritarianism? Trump's policy on tariffs is bad but we have yet to see how it works out. It is entirely possible that the result is negotiated lower tariffs by everyone (maybe not China!).
DOGE is wonderful but I'm unhappily pessimist about how much it can accomplish without congressional backing. This is the first time in decades -- perhaps EVER -- that anyone has shown a serious interest in cutting back government power and funding. (Yes, while maintaining and increasing power in some ways. It is not black and white.)
Trump is unprincipled and doesn't understand markets. But he is still better than what we would have been subjected to. That you seem not to even have an inkling of that possibility is disappointing.
My take/expansion of Josh's take on K-T
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/energy-abundance
I like Matthew McConaughey for the "charismatic representative". Sound bites go viral to the moon, the autistic-seeming contenders in the primary are cut to ribbons a la Trump in 2016, and in the general election, he's free from the usual baggage and can triangulate. But the typical Democrat recoils from this..."WE don't do THAT". So another winnable election is flushed down the toilet.
As bad as Trump is, he has done some good in opening people's eyes to how corrupt spending is, even if he's an idiot for vowing to not touch Social Security or Medicare, and even if DOGE is exaggerating how much waste and corruption they find.
I think wokism, DEI, CRT, transgender worship, and just about everything else summed up by the ludicrous "Queers for Palestine" has done more lasting damage than anything Trump is capable of. Tariffs can be rolled back easier than rooting out DEI. Biden doubled down on Trump's first tariffs. And while I support open borders, I don't support open boarders, and detest the way Biden practically begged so many freeloaders in, and flew in refugees who didn't really want to be here and don't really like the Bill of Rights; another example of Queers for Palestine thinking.
That's the key for me. Woodrow Wilson did lasting damage. Biden and the wokies did lasting damage, and Harris would have done more. Trump's damage is a lot more easily reversed and temporary, and if he overplays this hand and doesn't restore "normalcy" by the end of summer, I think his damage, while still temporary, will stick in voters' craw and there's a real chance of flipping Congress, and that could lead to a third Trump impeachment with possibly the most honest impeachment of any. Where that leaves JD Vance in 2028, I don't know, but I think he's more capable of honesty than Trump, and there's not a single Democrat contender I can say the same for, not after the way they all covered up four years of a fading Biden.
Woodrow Wilson injected Progressivism into the Democrat Party, and that is still with us. Biden was the "moderate" who shifted the party totally to the Woodrow Wilson progressivism and away from any liberalism. Now,it is a vast wasteland of ideas. It i s run by Soros and his son Alex. Soros may have been at one time a liberal but no longer. Progressivism and liberalism are absolutely not the same. People need to stop using them interchangeably. It produces a vast intellectual "goo" that goes nowhere and just sells articles.