Many of these vanished voters will show up. Kathleen's 2024 numbers reflect a still incomplete count. For 2024 she's just summing counted votes and there are still around 5 million to go in California. Trump and Harris both round to a million higher today (11/10) than when she composed her table.
I scanned a few states where the counts were complete or nearly so: vote totals were higher than 2020 in battleground states, lower in non-competitive states. We'll see if that observation holds up.
On the Fed side, I fully agree, but had a question. You write that "inflation went on longer than necessary". Do you think/agree that 1) inflation also went higher than it would have been with swifter action, and 2) that interest rates had to rise more than they would have if the Fed had acted sooner? Or am I wrong on these?
Howdy - came here via Scott A. A couple of quick thoughts... the TCJA that you deride did a ton of good for small businesses (don't forget that 2/3 of jobs come from there*) and their supporters are lobbying hard for its renewal. I'm not sure that even the GOP fully gets that, nor fully understands startups and how to help them. (My research is about entrepreneur development and I've been developing the consensus on policy.) Idiotic ideas about taxing unrealized cap gains don't inspire confidence either ;) Anyway, to help new & small biz, you've got to listen to them not the self-appointed experts (even me!) and it's hard to see the D's listening closely to the deplorables.
OTOH, I love your raising the issue of a VAT! If Trump decided that a VAT is the way to go, I'd think his devotees would go along. Has anyone actually assessed the actual pros and cons of a VAT? If not, you should do a lit review article - you would get cited like crazy!
You should not take my opinion as being worth too much. I'm an economist not a lawyer. But I think the 16th removes any restriction on the Federal Government's ability to levy taxes.
OK -- I'll take that -- and ask a straight-up question:
--- just how is "any" President legally; capable of directly effecting any deficit or directly reducing any price of any commodity in the US?
The answer is -- he or she can't.
"Armchair quarterbacking" is not something you normally do -- as you're pretty straight-up with your positions:
So I'm going to ask another question:
Do you ever take into consideration any external conditions - such as the World being scared "crapless" (and I cleaned that up) over even the idea - let alone the fact:
--- that Nazi Dictator Trump will be "handed the keys" to everything that the US contains - knowing full well - as publicly stated -- that he intends to destroy both the US and the US Constitution - as it's "elected" Dictator -- because "he has said so".
The fact is; that if President Biden "sticks to tradition" - instead of sticking to the "Oath of Office" he took - "...to protect and defend the US from enemies 'from without and within' ":
--- the US will never again exist as it has for the last 248 years.
Also -- no other World Government - which is an integral part of today's intertwined Economics:
--- will ever accept the "Word" of any future US Government" - if Trump is allowed into Office:
--- if there ever will be a second chance - as no "other US exists":
--- to pull this US's '...ass out of the fire it has created for itself...' ".
Here is the "legal" basis for my question -- and I didn't go to Law School - jus the "experience school of common sense and being able to read the Law - as it is written.
Trump declared himself to be a "Dictator on Day 1 -- before the election.
Self-declaring as a Dictator, by legal definition:
--- invalidates that person from running for any Government Office because, again by definition:
--- being a Dictator declares - that the declare-ey:
--- intending to bring harm to the Country that person owes allegiance to as a citizen of that Country:
--- is guilty of committing Treason against that Country.
That's the Law.
Also -- "changing the type" of Country, i.e., changing the US from a Republic to a Dictatorship:
--- was not on any ballot that I got or have eve received; nor anyone else has received:
because even printing it would be an act of Treason.
It has been understood; for the 248 years; that as the US has existed as a Republic:
--- any person casting a ballot in any election -- has at least the moral obligation to be "informed" of the person running for office - so that the voter can make "an informed decision".
Every person that either voted for Trump, or "sat this on out" -- did so - knowing "what Trump is", i.e., a Fascist Nazi by definition:
--- which is diametrically against everything this Country is, and was formed to be.
Every person that either voted for Trump, or "sat this one out" - either directly knowing that Trump was a self-declared Dictator or not:
--- made the conscientious decision to either mark they're ballot as they did - or "abstain" (having the same political effect):
--- voting to place a known Fascist Nazi Dictator into power.
This is also an intentional, conscientious, act of Treason against the Country that the voter owes allegiance to.
Simply stated: legally -- Donald Trump legally invalidated himself against legally running for any Government office -- by Law -- and any person that placed a vote for him -- committed a conscientious act of Treason in this election.
So where does that put any economic argument?
Sure would like to have your thoughts on this one.
All my economic objections in no way invalidate my non-economic objections. But being an economist does not help me know how Trump should have been prosecuted for his attempt at staying in power after the lost the election or the classified documents or whether badmouthing NATO is good policy. So I don't write about those things.
Last I heard, there are 10-11 million more ballots to count all over the country.
California is taking mailed ballots through Friday. We don’t even have winners for many House races, and those usually don’t require a complete count,
Many of these vanished voters will show up. Kathleen's 2024 numbers reflect a still incomplete count. For 2024 she's just summing counted votes and there are still around 5 million to go in California. Trump and Harris both round to a million higher today (11/10) than when she composed her table.
I scanned a few states where the counts were complete or nearly so: vote totals were higher than 2020 in battleground states, lower in non-competitive states. We'll see if that observation holds up.
Fantastic post.
On the Fed side, I fully agree, but had a question. You write that "inflation went on longer than necessary". Do you think/agree that 1) inflation also went higher than it would have been with swifter action, and 2) that interest rates had to rise more than they would have if the Fed had acted sooner? Or am I wrong on these?
Yes.
Hi Thomas -- it's called "taking a stand" -- you know - doing the moral thing.
It is part of being a person first - and then an economist -- because it's called "a position".
The way comments are formatted I don't understand the antecedent of "it."
Howdy - came here via Scott A. A couple of quick thoughts... the TCJA that you deride did a ton of good for small businesses (don't forget that 2/3 of jobs come from there*) and their supporters are lobbying hard for its renewal. I'm not sure that even the GOP fully gets that, nor fully understands startups and how to help them. (My research is about entrepreneur development and I've been developing the consensus on policy.) Idiotic ideas about taxing unrealized cap gains don't inspire confidence either ;) Anyway, to help new & small biz, you've got to listen to them not the self-appointed experts (even me!) and it's hard to see the D's listening closely to the deplorables.
OTOH, I love your raising the issue of a VAT! If Trump decided that a VAT is the way to go, I'd think his devotees would go along. Has anyone actually assessed the actual pros and cons of a VAT? If not, you should do a lit review article - you would get cited like crazy!
Thanks, Thomas!
* many more stats like this, if you're interested
I am all for reducing business taxes. Except for administrative reasons, I'd reduce them to zero.
Me do a review article? That's real work! :)
Dose the US Congress have the authority to enact a VAT? Or would that require a Constitutional amendment?
You should not take my opinion as being worth too much. I'm an economist not a lawyer. But I think the 16th removes any restriction on the Federal Government's ability to levy taxes.
Hi Thomas - you write that you are an Economist.
OK -- I'll take that -- and ask a straight-up question:
--- just how is "any" President legally; capable of directly effecting any deficit or directly reducing any price of any commodity in the US?
The answer is -- he or she can't.
"Armchair quarterbacking" is not something you normally do -- as you're pretty straight-up with your positions:
So I'm going to ask another question:
Do you ever take into consideration any external conditions - such as the World being scared "crapless" (and I cleaned that up) over even the idea - let alone the fact:
--- that Nazi Dictator Trump will be "handed the keys" to everything that the US contains - knowing full well - as publicly stated -- that he intends to destroy both the US and the US Constitution - as it's "elected" Dictator -- because "he has said so".
The fact is; that if President Biden "sticks to tradition" - instead of sticking to the "Oath of Office" he took - "...to protect and defend the US from enemies 'from without and within' ":
--- the US will never again exist as it has for the last 248 years.
Also -- no other World Government - which is an integral part of today's intertwined Economics:
--- will ever accept the "Word" of any future US Government" - if Trump is allowed into Office:
--- if there ever will be a second chance - as no "other US exists":
--- to pull this US's '...ass out of the fire it has created for itself...' ".
Here is the "legal" basis for my question -- and I didn't go to Law School - jus the "experience school of common sense and being able to read the Law - as it is written.
Trump declared himself to be a "Dictator on Day 1 -- before the election.
Self-declaring as a Dictator, by legal definition:
--- invalidates that person from running for any Government Office because, again by definition:
--- being a Dictator declares - that the declare-ey:
--- intending to bring harm to the Country that person owes allegiance to as a citizen of that Country:
--- is guilty of committing Treason against that Country.
That's the Law.
Also -- "changing the type" of Country, i.e., changing the US from a Republic to a Dictatorship:
--- was not on any ballot that I got or have eve received; nor anyone else has received:
because even printing it would be an act of Treason.
It has been understood; for the 248 years; that as the US has existed as a Republic:
--- any person casting a ballot in any election -- has at least the moral obligation to be "informed" of the person running for office - so that the voter can make "an informed decision".
Every person that either voted for Trump, or "sat this on out" -- did so - knowing "what Trump is", i.e., a Fascist Nazi by definition:
--- which is diametrically against everything this Country is, and was formed to be.
Every person that either voted for Trump, or "sat this one out" - either directly knowing that Trump was a self-declared Dictator or not:
--- made the conscientious decision to either mark they're ballot as they did - or "abstain" (having the same political effect):
--- voting to place a known Fascist Nazi Dictator into power.
This is also an intentional, conscientious, act of Treason against the Country that the voter owes allegiance to.
Simply stated: legally -- Donald Trump legally invalidated himself against legally running for any Government office -- by Law -- and any person that placed a vote for him -- committed a conscientious act of Treason in this election.
So where does that put any economic argument?
Sure would like to have your thoughts on this one.
All my economic objections in no way invalidate my non-economic objections. But being an economist does not help me know how Trump should have been prosecuted for his attempt at staying in power after the lost the election or the classified documents or whether badmouthing NATO is good policy. So I don't write about those things.
When I talk about a president affecting a macroeconomic outcome I mean by legally constitutional ways, mainly proposing a law that Congress enacts.