"I feel that you can only believe that deodorant doesn't contribute to quality of life if you haven't tried Tom's of Maine"
Is this because Tom's of Maine is really awesome deodorant that contributes greatly to your quality of life, or because it's lousy deodorant that makes you realize how good other brands are by comparison?
The only thing worse than the deodorant is the toothpaste, and probably only because of where you have to apply it, given its "flavor." The only *deodorant* that might be worse is that ridiculous "crystal" paperweight thing. (Thank you for this -- there's something enormously satisfying in venting disproportionate anger over extremely trivial things that everyone can agree on. Let's do this more.)
Oh. Unions. It’s amazing Biden can even walk with all the union hands up his ass. Not that I’m against unions. But let’s be honest. Most manufacturing unions have the economic knowledge of Peter Navarro. They have a very “fuck you, where’s mine?” attitude.
I like the tariff argument. I’ll add “yeah the chance of a paper cut getting infected are very low. But I will still put a bandaid on it because it hurts when something bumps it.”
This whole concept of a trade deficit is so stupid. I personally have a trade deficit with target by the last two presidents standard.
Sadly the Democrats understand basic economics as well as trump (this is the zoning party too!).
A wise economist once said about tariffs. And I’ll paraphrase:
When there is a war. The first thing you will try to do os block off trade to the opposing country. Why? Because you know that trade is good for that country. You can do this through sanctions or by blockade. Tariffs is a country doing this to themselves when they are not, in fact, at war.
I mean sort of but democrats have always basically been a subsidized arm of labor. Which is fine but they kind of pretend they're not. Either way that's why we have tariffs. It's not like democrats actually think they're a good idea, but their union backers do. So they do them. Groups of people organized over labor are in control of trade policy. That's nuts. They don't know anything about trade policy, they're unions. But the democrats will bend over backwards. To be fair republicans are courting them even harder since they've discovered that they don't have to actually be small government or free market people anymore. Regardless of who's ass they have their hand up I don't think they should have a say in national politics. They should stay in their lane, negotiate their extra 8 weeks of vacation and whatever other things they have left to organize over since the government has pretty much stepped in to do their jobs for them in most cases, and let the boring nerds handle the business of economics.
Glad you enjoyed it, and the move has already happened! I'm in LA, putting avocados on literally everything and turning my nose up at cola that isn't "natural".
Nice takedown of Navarro. However I think you're giving Trump too much credit if you think he's misinterpreting a term in an equation.
Remember, this is the guy whose understanding of economics is so awful that he thought a surge in the stock market accounted for part of the federal debt "in a sense", suggested that we should "refinance" our federal debt when interest rates dropped (as if it were a traditional bank loan rather than financed through Treasury bonds), and thought that refusing to trade with a country if you didn't get your way constituted "winning" a trade war. Not to mention the fact that he proclaimed trade wars are "easy to win", after jettisoning a trade deal that would have put him in a tremendous position of strength in a trade war with China, and *before* ... checks notes ... engaging in a trade war with China. Oh, and there was the time when our generals were trying to explain the strategic importance of our missile defense systems in South Korea, and he kept fixating on the money spent and our *trade deficit* with South Korea ... ok this getting to be a rant.
Suffice it to say, Trump is the reductio ad absurdum that disproves this somewhat recent-ish Republican notion that being a businessman serves as a good qualification for being president. Especially in Trump's case. Setting aside notions of how being the head of a private family business more closely resembles being an emporer than a president, Trump was at least expected to be strong on the economy. And the fact is, claiming that being a competent businessman implies that you know how to be a good steward of the economy is a bit like saying you're qualified to be a veterinarian because you own a cat. And Trump isn't even a terribly competent businessman.
«This is not a magic bullet that would end inflation. Of course, magic doesn’t exist, so neither do magic bullets, thus all change is incremental, and therefore to oppose something because it's “not a magic bullet” is to establish grounds for opposing the entire concept of progress.»
Jeff, thanks for bringing what we lost in late night political comedy to Substack. The only difference is that when I laugh reading your pieces on the NY subway (instead of watching on my couch at home) people think I’m that NY’er who is about to crack 🤪
"If he does, that will represent a partial extraction of the national penis from our own zipper..."
Best image ever. It hurt me and I'm female. Also a great explanation. But I'm not sure off-loading our low-paying, polluting, culture-destroying jobs to developing countries is always a net positive for them.
Well targeted tariffs can be helpful on the rare occasions when they are actually well targeted and effective in modifying the behavior of the country targeted. However, when one targets one’s own foot before pulling the trigger it invariably results in shooting yourself in the foot and a distinct limp. It is hard to imagine a more incompetent economist or trade advisor than Peter Navarro. Until you pair him with the most moronic individual to ever sit behind the resolute desk ... Ta Da, the very definitionof the blind leading the blind and resulting in the U.S. economy now tring to walk with a distinct limp.
It's pretty basic economics that tariffs rarely have the effect desired by those who enact them. We hapless consumers and peons are the ones whose lives get more expensive because of them.................
Awesome column. I'm learning stuff, and your sense of humor helps a LOT. That said, I tried Tom's of Maine and it was an abysmal failure for me. YMMV but I use old-fashioned aluminum-based cake deodorant and my quality of life is vastly improved by it (as is the quality of life of everyone who is compelled to spend time near me.
This is not a strong argument against tariffs, more like a "I'm just saying..." bit.
After all this inflation and tariffs, I got sneakers from Walmart for $13 like 3 weeks ago. They're light, and just meant for walking and casual stufff. But I've ended up at the gym by accident while wearing, really afraid they are going to break on the treadmill. Break under my Usain Bolt like powerful running. But they've held up, twice for like a total of 30 minutes.
I'm just saying... I moved in March and purchased a TV for the first time since like 1992. This one was like $150 and streams shit from Mars or whatever, is 32" (I am a reluctant TV owner) and I can pick it up with one finger practically. The old one was $299, 19 inches, and probably weighed 50 pounds and had that huge depth.
Great column!
"I feel that you can only believe that deodorant doesn't contribute to quality of life if you haven't tried Tom's of Maine"
Is this because Tom's of Maine is really awesome deodorant that contributes greatly to your quality of life, or because it's lousy deodorant that makes you realize how good other brands are by comparison?
I feel like if you had tried Tom's of Maine, you wouldn't be asking this question. It's the latter.
"All natural! No chemicals! No side effects! No effects at all!"
The only thing worse than the deodorant is the toothpaste, and probably only because of where you have to apply it, given its "flavor." The only *deodorant* that might be worse is that ridiculous "crystal" paperweight thing. (Thank you for this -- there's something enormously satisfying in venting disproportionate anger over extremely trivial things that everyone can agree on. Let's do this more.)
I just came on here to say this was my favorite zinger in the essay.
It’s terrible!
Oh. Unions. It’s amazing Biden can even walk with all the union hands up his ass. Not that I’m against unions. But let’s be honest. Most manufacturing unions have the economic knowledge of Peter Navarro. They have a very “fuck you, where’s mine?” attitude.
I like the tariff argument. I’ll add “yeah the chance of a paper cut getting infected are very low. But I will still put a bandaid on it because it hurts when something bumps it.”
This whole concept of a trade deficit is so stupid. I personally have a trade deficit with target by the last two presidents standard.
Sadly the Democrats understand basic economics as well as trump (this is the zoning party too!).
A wise economist once said about tariffs. And I’ll paraphrase:
When there is a war. The first thing you will try to do os block off trade to the opposing country. Why? Because you know that trade is good for that country. You can do this through sanctions or by blockade. Tariffs is a country doing this to themselves when they are not, in fact, at war.
There's a certain amount of pandering to unions because blue-collar workers are fleeing the Democratic party and he's trying to hold them in.
I mean sort of but democrats have always basically been a subsidized arm of labor. Which is fine but they kind of pretend they're not. Either way that's why we have tariffs. It's not like democrats actually think they're a good idea, but their union backers do. So they do them. Groups of people organized over labor are in control of trade policy. That's nuts. They don't know anything about trade policy, they're unions. But the democrats will bend over backwards. To be fair republicans are courting them even harder since they've discovered that they don't have to actually be small government or free market people anymore. Regardless of who's ass they have their hand up I don't think they should have a say in national politics. They should stay in their lane, negotiate their extra 8 weeks of vacation and whatever other things they have left to organize over since the government has pretty much stepped in to do their jobs for them in most cases, and let the boring nerds handle the business of economics.
I truly appreciated the description of where TFG’s economist got his degree in economics.
Wonderful stuff, Jeff.
Are you packed up for the move yet?
Glad you enjoyed it, and the move has already happened! I'm in LA, putting avocados on literally everything and turning my nose up at cola that isn't "natural".
Welcome to LA! I'm sure I'll see you around, just like folks in movies about New York City are always bumping into each other.
Nice takedown of Navarro. However I think you're giving Trump too much credit if you think he's misinterpreting a term in an equation.
Remember, this is the guy whose understanding of economics is so awful that he thought a surge in the stock market accounted for part of the federal debt "in a sense", suggested that we should "refinance" our federal debt when interest rates dropped (as if it were a traditional bank loan rather than financed through Treasury bonds), and thought that refusing to trade with a country if you didn't get your way constituted "winning" a trade war. Not to mention the fact that he proclaimed trade wars are "easy to win", after jettisoning a trade deal that would have put him in a tremendous position of strength in a trade war with China, and *before* ... checks notes ... engaging in a trade war with China. Oh, and there was the time when our generals were trying to explain the strategic importance of our missile defense systems in South Korea, and he kept fixating on the money spent and our *trade deficit* with South Korea ... ok this getting to be a rant.
Suffice it to say, Trump is the reductio ad absurdum that disproves this somewhat recent-ish Republican notion that being a businessman serves as a good qualification for being president. Especially in Trump's case. Setting aside notions of how being the head of a private family business more closely resembles being an emporer than a president, Trump was at least expected to be strong on the economy. And the fact is, claiming that being a competent businessman implies that you know how to be a good steward of the economy is a bit like saying you're qualified to be a veterinarian because you own a cat. And Trump isn't even a terribly competent businessman.
«This is not a magic bullet that would end inflation. Of course, magic doesn’t exist, so neither do magic bullets, thus all change is incremental, and therefore to oppose something because it's “not a magic bullet” is to establish grounds for opposing the entire concept of progress.»
I mean just *chef's kiss*
One of us! One of us!!
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07BDBZ55L?psc=1&ref_=cm_sw_r_cp_ud_dp_MXA3GJYWD42JTDXHAXJR
Jeff, thanks for bringing what we lost in late night political comedy to Substack. The only difference is that when I laugh reading your pieces on the NY subway (instead of watching on my couch at home) people think I’m that NY’er who is about to crack 🤪
"If he does, that will represent a partial extraction of the national penis from our own zipper..."
Best image ever. It hurt me and I'm female. Also a great explanation. But I'm not sure off-loading our low-paying, polluting, culture-destroying jobs to developing countries is always a net positive for them.
Glad you enjoyed the piece! And people in other countries keep taking these jobs, so they must deem them better than the alternative.
Well targeted tariffs can be helpful on the rare occasions when they are actually well targeted and effective in modifying the behavior of the country targeted. However, when one targets one’s own foot before pulling the trigger it invariably results in shooting yourself in the foot and a distinct limp. It is hard to imagine a more incompetent economist or trade advisor than Peter Navarro. Until you pair him with the most moronic individual to ever sit behind the resolute desk ... Ta Da, the very definitionof the blind leading the blind and resulting in the U.S. economy now tring to walk with a distinct limp.
It's pretty basic economics that tariffs rarely have the effect desired by those who enact them. We hapless consumers and peons are the ones whose lives get more expensive because of them.................
Awesome column. I'm learning stuff, and your sense of humor helps a LOT. That said, I tried Tom's of Maine and it was an abysmal failure for me. YMMV but I use old-fashioned aluminum-based cake deodorant and my quality of life is vastly improved by it (as is the quality of life of everyone who is compelled to spend time near me.
This is a very narrow view of the purposes of tariffs.
This is not a strong argument against tariffs, more like a "I'm just saying..." bit.
After all this inflation and tariffs, I got sneakers from Walmart for $13 like 3 weeks ago. They're light, and just meant for walking and casual stufff. But I've ended up at the gym by accident while wearing, really afraid they are going to break on the treadmill. Break under my Usain Bolt like powerful running. But they've held up, twice for like a total of 30 minutes.
I'm just saying... I moved in March and purchased a TV for the first time since like 1992. This one was like $150 and streams shit from Mars or whatever, is 32" (I am a reluctant TV owner) and I can pick it up with one finger practically. The old one was $299, 19 inches, and probably weighed 50 pounds and had that huge depth.
I'm just saying, things be cheap. And useful.
A laugh a sentence! But so true.
: > }