His policies would crush the winners:
Like Google and Facebook, Amazon is under attack by European antitrust regulators. If Trump were really the economic nationalist he plays on TV, he would be defending these U.S. stars. But in his picture of the economy, these companies simply don’t count, perhaps because they weren’t around during his 1980s business heyday. Trump is neither pro-market nor pro-business, the usual Republican choices. He’s just pro-Trump.
He’s oblivious to most U.S. success stories. On just about any list of excellence — the most admired companies, the most valuable brands, the world’s supply-chain leaders — U.S. enterprises dominate. Nike has even surpassed long-time champion Louis Vuitton as the world’s most valuable apparel brand, a triumph for American culture as well as a U.S. business. The chemists coming up with new products at 3M or Procter & Gamble are no more important to Trump than the FedEx and UPS drivers delivering packages, the longshoremen offloading cargo at the ports of Long Beach and Charleston, the animators creating new films for Pixar, or the buyers finding bargains for T.J. Maxx. Whether you work for a U.S. company or a foreign company with U.S. operations, if you’re a successful player in a global supply chain, you simply don’t exist to him.
This is a candidate who promised to bring big steel back to Pittsburgh without considering why it disappeared. In Trump’s version of the economy, the only threat to established industries comes from diabolical foreigners and stupid U.S. trade negotiators. (Never mind that Chinese steelmakers already face nearly 500 percent punitive tariffs for corrosion-resistant products, with more tariffs for other types of steel potentially on the way.) He can’t imagine disruption that comes from changing demand or better ideas.
He’s an economic ignoramus, or a demagogue, or both.
But one possible good outcome; could he cause “progressives” to rethink big government?
Having watched the rise of Trumpism — and, now, having seen the beginning of violence in its name — who out there is having second thoughts as to the wisdom of imbuing our central state with massive power? Have progressives joined conservatives in worrying aloud about the wholesale abuse of power?
That’s a serious, not a rhetorical, question. I would genuinely love to know how many “liberals” have begun to suspect that there are some pretty meaningful downsides to the consolidation of state authority. I’d like to know how many of my ideological opponents saying with a smirk that “it couldn’t happen here” have begun to wonder if it could. I’d like to know how many fervent critics of the Second Amendment have caught themselves wondering whether the right to keep and bear arms isn’t a welcome safety valve after all.
Furthermore, I’d like to know if the everything-is-better-in-Europe brigade is still yearning for a parliamentary system that would allow the elected leader to push through his agenda pretty much unchecked; if “gridlock” is still seen as a devastating flaw in the system; if the Senate is still such an irritant; and if the considerable power that the states retain is still resented as before. Certainly, there are many on the left who are mistrustful of government and many on the right who are happy to indulge its metastasis. But as a rule, progressives favor harsher intrusion into our civil society than do their political opposites. Are they still as sure that this is shrewd?
Unfortunately, I’m not sure they’re really capable of thinking those sorts of things through.
[Update a while later]
“Even within the private sector, Trump’s background does not extend to the sorts of decision-making situations that would confront, say, the chief executive officer of a large, well-established corporation. Instead, Trump’s career, apart from his flings at presidential campaigning, has almost exclusively been about deal-making aimed at personal enrichment and enhancing recognition of the Trump brand name. Against the backdrop of U.S. history and past U.S. presidents, Trump’s personal qualifications are breathtakingly narrow and shallow, and his endeavors inwardly oriented.”
You don’t say.
Pretty shoddy piece (Bloomberg usually does better, check the link on the forth word quoted above, LOL)
the longshoremen offloading cargo at the ports of Long Beach
Is that what they’re doing nowadays? Well, that’s news anyway.
While Trump’s rhetoric denigrates the achievements of U.S. companies and their millions of employees, his specific proposals are worse.
Pro tip: you need to coalesce around “He has no specific proposals” or “His specific proposals are terrible.” Constantly switching between the two just makes you look desperate.
Start with the candidate’s pettiest proposal: his not-so-veiled threat to unleash antitrust regulators against Amazon to punish CEO Jeff Bezos, who owns for The Washington Post, for the newspaper’s negative coverage of his campaign.
From the link:
“This (Washington Post) is owned as a toy by Jeff Bezos, who controls Amazon. Amazon is getting away with murder tax-wise. He’s using the Washington Post for power so that the politicians in Washington don’t tax Amazon like they should be taxed,” Trump said.
Yeah Virginia, the average American voter is going to be up-in-arms over that for sure (eye roll).
To serve his personal agenda, Trump would rewrite U.S. antitrust doctrine. Forget protecting consumers from cartels; he would instead protect businesses from competition. And he would side with foreign governments against an American winner.
Excuse me for a moment, need to locate my eye-balls. I mean really? This passes for anything other that completely over-the-top croaking? How the hell did your editor approve this with no mention of denigration of the handicapped?
Complete blather.
Trump has a lot of money, how much we don’t know but certainly enough to sue someone. There have been many many “documentaries” made about Trump and he hasn’t sued any of the producers.
Maybe if he is President he will do something but he has power now and isn’t using it.
Hillary also has lots of money and sued some movie producers. She took it all the way to the Supreme Court. The fallout from her suit caused massive social turmoil with our friends to the left leading to attacks against the first amendment at all levels of government, riots from party paid and organized protesters, and the IRS going after groups on the Democrats enemies list.
I’d like to know how many fervent critics of the Second Amendment have caught themselves wondering whether the right to keep and bear arms isn’t a welcome safety valve after all.
Absolutely none of them.
Now you know.
No charge.
I’m not sure they’re really capable of thinking those sorts of things through.
I am. They’re not. Exhibit One: Bernie Sanders.
Curt, there was an interesting discussion on that general issue on the Instapundit blog within the past few days. Maybe you saw it. It linked to an article in which the writer posed the question (I’m paraphrasing from memory here), “With the rise of Trump, will the Left re-think its commitment to Omnipotent Government?”
My response: “Not bloody likely.” I’m old enough to remember the election and then re-election of Richard Nixon; Reagan, ditto. Each time Democrats I knew, including one who was active mid-level in the McGovern campaign, woefully prophesied a fascist dictatorship in America. This, from people whose collective political wet-dream was an unrestrained State; people who, in fact, opposed Reagan because we wanted to LIMIT the power of the State. (Being “liberals,” they weren’t keen on either logical consistency or facts.) They were also gung-ho on strict control if not outright gun confiscation. As William Buckley wrote during the Nixon years (again another paraphrase from memory), “Surely if we are facing the prospect of a fascist disctatorship we should increase rather than restrict the traffic in private firearms. I for one want to have a well-stocked armory when the storm-trooper comes knocking on my door.”
Slightly off topics, but the references to Nike as a great American company didn’t resonate with me. I’ve programmed parts of Nike’s Memphis facility. The company is basically a distribution center for Asian-made shoes linked to a massive sports advertising wing. If you see a “Made in the USA” it’s probably on a box of golf balls, not a piece of apparel.
It’s an odd duck where very low-paid foreign workers make products that are distributed here by low-paid US workers who are managed by well-paid former college athletes, while top professional athletes are paid millions a year to endorse the brand. Somewhere in it all there’s bound to be a building full of shoe designers, but they’re surely outnumbered by all the advertising and marketing majors.
What I find interesting is that the companies that actually make their own footwear, like Rockport, aren’t very good at distribution because their management hierarchy favors skill at making footwear, so their distribution people are the red-headed step-children of the company. The companies that are really conduits for foreign-made shoes, like Thom McAnn, have their marketing and distribution systems down pat because that’s their core business.
Amazon would be a good illustration of the general rule. Their model isn’t based on making anything, but on being the best at marketing, selling, and shipping whatever other people make.
So when he says “Nike has even surpassed long-time champion Louis Vuitton as the world’s most valuable apparel brand, a triumph for American culture as well as a U.S. business” it leaves me flat. Is it a triumph of American culture and business for a marketing/distribution firm to drive US shoe plants out of business in favor of cheaper Asian manufacturing?
She, not “he.”
It is when you’re grasping at straws because you’re suffering from TDS and you don’t want anyone to know.
Or when you think it’s OK to phone one in.
“Trump’s personal qualifications are breathtakingly narrow and shallow, and his endeavors inwardly oriented”
And this is different from the present occupant of the White House how, exactly?
For that matter, how is it different from Shrillery? At least Trump has worked, built companies, and knows what it’s like to meet a payroll every week (by earning the money, not by stealing it from the taxpayers).
Remember, the perfect is the enemy of the good. I’m not thrilled with a President Trump, but a President Shrillery is downright terrifying.
Like Google and Facebook, Amazon is under attack by European antitrust regulators.
There are a lot of people unhappy with the conduct of these companies, especially Google. It isn’t even a partisan issue. A broad spectrum of Americans from all sides of politics are unhappy with the new robber barons.
who out there is having second thoughts as to the wisdom of imbuing our central state with massive power?
No. Democrats will riot in the street and assault people in wheelchairs until their candidates are elected and they expect their politicians to abuse non-Democrats the same way with the government.
Trump’s career, apart from his flings at presidential campaigning, has almost exclusively been about deal-making aimed at personal enrichment
I am confused, is he or isn’t he qualified for President? People can’t say he isn’t qualified and then say his skill set is uniquely suited to be a politician at the highest level.
I thought the qualification to be President was being 35 and everything else was just racism?
Bringing up Obama’s Kenyan Muslim ancestry is racist.
Bringing up Trump’s German ancestry is very important.
[Trump] would instead protect businesses from competition [by allowing antitrust.]
What???
He should be more like Reagan.
Having watched the rise of Trumpism — and, now, having seen the beginning of violence in its name
You mean it was Trump supporters who were waving Mexican flags, and throwing rocks and bottles at the police?