i admire your fluency. i think the accent is pretty good!
ha! revenue means we can cut, lack of revenue means we need more cuts!
(just conjectural revenue then, to be able to claim “affordability” of a tax cut?)
yeah. much of the revenue would go to make whole disadvantaged elements of the Trump coalition even without recession-related transfers.
trying to make 10 year estimates requires conjectures like “do industries physically relocate to the US? which? what does that do to the allocation of labor? what is labor bargaining power like in this brave new world?” i don’t think it’s a plausible exercise. the uncertainty cone is too wide.
i think net of the expenses they occasion, zero to negative. recessions / depressions occasion ramp-ups of spending and transfers, and reduce imports. 1/
in gross terms? i’d have to actually review the numbers in detail. if the “static” answer would be 600B as they’ve said, than 300B, exports cut in half, might be too ambitious as a dynamic estimate, once higher prices and an economic downturn reinforce one another. /fin
i think people underappreciate the degree to which this is revenue motivated. i think they've persuaded themselves they can ramp up tariffs and smother what they hate most, the income tax. they think things will reëquilibrate after a bit of turbulence, and then tax cuts will make everything amazing.
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
it's such a politically savvy play — now that you feel poorer, the prices of everything will blow up!
not only does it have the lowest tariff rates, but the penguins aren't unionized.
you gotta understand. if they hadn’ta cut a deal, they’d have had no shot at a piece of this. from @ddayen.bsky.social prospect.org/economy/2025...
Text: But countries are not alone in the boxes; corporations and industry sectors are as well. The phalanxes of lawyers and lobbyists who try to ease sanctions through their contacts at the highest levels of power now have a new target. Companies have been lawyering up for months in anticipation, while enlisting friendly politicians for the task. The White House has fielded hundreds of letters from businesses pleading their case. And it's already working.
it is quite radical. and it does not in fact follow.
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
they go around it to access information they are forbidden, not because the services are substantially worse the US providers. 1/
i would hope the EU would not choose China or Russia's heavy-handed censorship. EU citizens could still access what they want. But by moving official and financial activity to EU firms, they could put their thumb on the scale of European network effects. 2/
neither China nor Russia have had a hard time replacing these services with alternatives their publics are broadly happy with, except for the censorship of some content they'd wish to access. i don't see why the EU couldn't do the same, without the oppressive censorship regime.
So, is the EU finally going to get serious about replacing US search/social/AI with their own, regulable, firms?
only three removals and we've a relatively sane caretaker. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...
United States presidential line of succession - Wikipedia
Link Preview: United States presidential line of succession - Wikipedia