Monday, August 8, 2016

Greg Mankiw on Donald Trump

Harvard's Mankiw writes:
This morning, John Harwood of CNBC and the New York Times asked for my view of Donald Trump, which John then summarized on his Twitter feed.  Here is the full answer I gave him:
He will not be getting my vote.
I have Republican friends who think that things couldn't be worse than doubling down on Obama policies under Hillary Clinton. And, like them, I am no fan of the left's agenda of large government and high taxes. But they are wrong: Things could be worse. And I fear they would be under Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump has not laid out a coherent economic worldview, but one recurrent theme is hostility to a free and open system of international trade. From my perspective as an economics policy wonk, that by itself is disqualifying.
And then there are issues of temperament. I am not a psychologist, so I cannot figure out what Mr. Trump's personal demons are. But he does not show the admirable disposition that I saw in previous presidents and presidential candidates I have had the honor to work for.
I can't argue with his assessment.



  1. Of course you can't argue with his assessment. Mankiw is a globalist, crony trade tool. And you are a libertarian fool who cannot distinguish between a crony, corrupt, evil, powerlusted bitch hell bent on destroying any of our remaining liberties, and a sometimes incoherent, bombastic peacemaker who opposes crony trade deals, wants to prevent cultural degradation and save us from the invasion of america by third word hordes.

    The biggest problem with dogmatic libertarians is that they are not very creative or smart. They can recite their Mises and Hayek endlessly like gospel from rote memory, but cannot come up with an original idea on their own if their life depended on it, or build on the 50 year old libertarian/austrian theory, or apply it in any way, to current events in context. Interesting that only the high IQ libertarians like Rockwell, Woods and Raimondo are sympathetic to Trump.

    1. It is obvious, to me, that if Trump utters words that are recognizable as libertarian/Austrian economic ideas his campaign is dead in the water

      Don't be fooled by his "what you see is what you get" persona.

      If he is looking to make buckets of money he has chosen a silly way to do it.

      If he wants to be the most powerful man in the world he could do it more surely by remaining out of the limelight and bribing/forcing the political operatives to do his bidding.

      If he wants to be the most famous president ever he certainly would not risk losing an election that he is a shoo-in to win by simply adopting "normal" campaign tactics.

      Somebody is stupid. I thinking is that it is not TRump.

    2. Yet youve provided NO analysis as to why Austrians are wrong. Seems like youre a pussy.

    3. Mankiw is comparing the policy actions of the democratic party that we have all experienced to Trump's campaign speeches which are promises designed only to get him elected. A comparison of previous action to promises is a useless effort. Promises that will never be kept if he gets elected since he will then focus on enriching himself and his cronies just as the democrats do. There is nothing here to assess. There is no discernable difference between them except that Hillary's cronies will be different from Trumps cronies and the citizens will continue to get ripped off. Stop enabling these crooks. DON'T VOTE. The sooner we de-legitimize the political system the sooner we can get rid of institutionalized coercion and focus on the existing voluntary free market.

  2. I'm not sure I care if a president has a "coherent" economic worldview. In fact, is that even a positive? Perhaps incoherence leads to inaction, which leads to good things (unless your a crony). Additionally, RW, how does the left's economic worldview look relative to your own?

    And the idea that we should vote Clinton on grounds of temperament is patently absurd. Clinton tries her best to maintain this temperament publicly while Trump could care less. We also know Clinton's temperament behind the scenes is problematic. Additionally Clinton, despite the masquerade, HAS had public issues with temperament. And you conclude that Clinton wins on temperament hands down? Ridiculous.

    I'd vote for Trump for the sole reason that it will aid in reverting the SJW/PC (etc) trends. It will give those who've been bending over for these pathetic leaches the confidence to stand up to them. Trump, if only incrementally, will help to recover the loss of the old right.

    I honestly doubt either Clinton or Trump will affect the economy that much, if at all.

  3. And Clinton's coherent economics worldview is soooo mich better that the Communist Part uSA approves.
    With Trump there will be pushback. With Hilary, the body count.
    Wake up and smell the humus.

  4. I have misgivings about Trump, but I think he can learn on the job. I think Hillary is being drawn ever leftward by her keepers and is also likely seriously ill, both mentally and physically.

  5. M.Hfm, I didn't say "Austrians are wrong". I said low IQ libertardians like yourself are applying an old but valid theory incorrectly to current context. Austrian economics does not tell you to vote one way or another in an election. It's your small minds that think "Muh Austrian economics is the guide to the galaxy" types that I am referring to as being too low IQ to see the difference.

    1. "Austrian economics does not tell you to vote one way or another in an election. It's your small minds that think"

      Again, not an argument. Pussy.

  6. In 2008 and 2012, I contributed to Ron Paul's campaigns; I spent weekends walking and knocking on doors and waving signs in his behalf. In the end, I got to watch him fold like a three egg pudding. He never wanted to be president, just professor in chief. For a lot of reasons, I still admire him, but I wouldn't want to go to war with him.

    Trump on the other hand may be like a bull in a china closet, but I would want him to have my back in any kind of a fracas.

    1. " He never wanted to be president, just professor in chief." - I feel this way often. I was, as you, a big RP supporter in '08 and '12. I don't know that he has the mentality/demeanor to be Commander in Chief. America is yearning for a strong leader; maybe Trump doesn't have everything figured out just yet, but he's done well personally, and I believe he'll surround himself with smart people. I love his fierce stance against the Bush family and the ongoing assault on the Clintons.

    2. Ron Paul never had a chance. He was running for the pontificator in chief. To change a corrupt system or end it, you need a lot of tactical intelligence and energy. RP lacks either, no matter how admirable his purism is.