From a small northwestern observatory…

Finance and economics generally focused on real estate

…and the next thing…

leave a comment »

I’ve been critical of the current occupants of the White House, and particularly their apparent naivity about the economy.  One might falsely surmise from my criticism that I’m a raging lefty.  I would rejoinder that competence knows no political stripes.  That said, I would note this morning that an economist from two leading conservative think tanks also expresses skepticism over The Donald’s trade policies.

The conservative bona fides of the Club for Growth and the Heritage Foundation are beyond question.  The former bills itself as, “…the leading free-enterprise advocacy group in the nation,” while the latter is lead by former GOP Congressman and Tea Party stalwart Jim DeMint, from my former home state of South Carolina.   Stephen Moore, a Heritage economist and co-founder of the Club for Growth, appeared on CNN’s Party People podcast, and said, “On trade, I think he’s playing with fire here.”  He went on to say, “And I think the idea of a tariff against Mexico is a terrible idea.  I think it would hurt Mexico a lot, and I think it would hurt American consumers as well.  We don’t need a trade war with Mexico.”  He did, however, give a tentative pass to The Donald’s attitude toward China, noting  “I kind of approve of some of the things he’s doing on China.”

Full disclosure here — I don’t necessarily agree with Moore on every point he makes.  Moore invokes the legacy of Harry Truman, and says that Truman got off to a rocky start but learned the Presidency quickly.  I would beg to differ on the validity of Moore’s analogy.  Truman had held significant local office in Missouri, was an Army Reserve Colonel, and was late in his second term as a Senator when the nod for the VP job came along.  The Truman Committee in the Senate, during the war years, provided extraordinary oversight to the conduct of the war and investigated every aspect of government management during the several years he was chair. As such, Truman was probably the most prepared person to assume the presidency available at the time.  (Many would have preferred South Carolina’s Jimmy Byrnes, but Byrne’s record on segregation would have made him a tough sell.)

Any “rough start” to the Truman presidency had to be taken in the context of inheriting a 2-front war, an atomic bomb, the beginnings of the cold war, massive demobilization, turning the American economy from war production to consumption, open rebellion from two wings of his own party (the Dixiecrats under Thurmond and the Progressives under Wallace) and devastation around the world.  The Donald, on the other hand, has inherited a stable, growing economy, no inflation, low unemployment, and a loyal majority in both houses of congress.

Ahem….  If The Donald screws this one up, it’s all on him.

Written by johnkilpatrick

February 14, 2017 at 7:19 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: