Okay, that was not the actual Washington Post headline. Instead, the front page article was headlined “Trump thinks he’s saving trade. The rest of the world thinks he’s blowing it up.”
Yet again we have a newspaper telling us the innermost thoughts of a politician, in this case, Donald Trump. And yet again, I will assert that the Post has no idea what Trump actually thinks. Since his family businesses seem to be gaining from concessions at least from China, it is certainly as plausible that he “thinks” a trade war is a way to make himself and his family richer as opposed to a route to establishing greater justice for the United States in the world trading system. (The print edition of this piece had the much more reasonable headline, “Trump’s trade moves shake global trade system.”)
Okay, that was not the actual Washington Post headline. Instead, the front page article was headlined “Trump thinks he’s saving trade. The rest of the world thinks he’s blowing it up.”
Yet again we have a newspaper telling us the innermost thoughts of a politician, in this case, Donald Trump. And yet again, I will assert that the Post has no idea what Trump actually thinks. Since his family businesses seem to be gaining from concessions at least from China, it is certainly as plausible that he “thinks” a trade war is a way to make himself and his family richer as opposed to a route to establishing greater justice for the United States in the world trading system. (The print edition of this piece had the much more reasonable headline, “Trump’s trade moves shake global trade system.”)
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Around a decade ago, I was talking with a staffer of the Senate Commerce Committee about infrastructure. I gave a list of potential projects, including trains. He interrupted me and said that they don’t talk about trains there.
I asked if I was hearing him correctly. He explained that trains were a divisive issue among committee members, so there was an informal agreement that they simply wouldn’t bring them up. I wonder if there is the same situation with regards to the impact of currency values on trade at the Washington Post.
The Post had a major article reporting on how small farmers are facing serious problems in the economy today. The piece notes that low crop prices are making life very difficult for farmers. The focus is the potential for interest rate increases by the Federal Reserve Board to make their situation even worse. Since farmers are typically borrowers, if the rates they have to pay rises, many will find themselves unable to make ends meet.
It notes how high rates in the past have had a devastating impact on U.S. farms. In particular, the high interest rate policy pursued by the Fed under Paul Volcker puts hundreds of thousands of farmers out of business.
This is all very true, but there is another important dimension that is altogether missing. The value of the dollar has a very direct impact on farm prices.
There is a single world price of widely traded products like wheat and corn. If the dollar rises relative to the value of the currencies of US competitors, then the price of these products will typically fall in dollar terms. Since it doesn’t cost Argentina or Russia any more to produce wheat, they will be able to sell their farm products at lower prices, measured in dollars, even as they get the same price measured in their own currency.
A big part of the story of the hardship faced by farmers in the Volcker years was that the high dollar (largely caused by high interest rates) reduced the dollar price of wheat and other major farm products. Here’s the overall picture.
The relationship is not perfect (many other factors affect farm prices, and the overall value of the dollar may not be the same as the value against other commodity producers), but the sharp rise in the dollar from 1980 to 1985 is associated with a large decrease in the real price of wheat. The price of wheat partially recovered in the second half of the decade as the dollar fell sharply from 1985 to 1989. The run-up in the dollar in the late 1990s and early 2000s was also associated with a decline in the price of wheat. More recently, a rise in the dollar since 2015 has been associated with a sharp drop in the real price of wheat.
World demand, the efficiency of other producers, and other factors affect the price of wheat, but it is pretty much definitional that, other things equal, a higher-valued dollar means a lower dollar price of wheat and other farm commodities. It is very strange that this fact is not mentioned in the article.
Around a decade ago, I was talking with a staffer of the Senate Commerce Committee about infrastructure. I gave a list of potential projects, including trains. He interrupted me and said that they don’t talk about trains there.
I asked if I was hearing him correctly. He explained that trains were a divisive issue among committee members, so there was an informal agreement that they simply wouldn’t bring them up. I wonder if there is the same situation with regards to the impact of currency values on trade at the Washington Post.
The Post had a major article reporting on how small farmers are facing serious problems in the economy today. The piece notes that low crop prices are making life very difficult for farmers. The focus is the potential for interest rate increases by the Federal Reserve Board to make their situation even worse. Since farmers are typically borrowers, if the rates they have to pay rises, many will find themselves unable to make ends meet.
It notes how high rates in the past have had a devastating impact on U.S. farms. In particular, the high interest rate policy pursued by the Fed under Paul Volcker puts hundreds of thousands of farmers out of business.
This is all very true, but there is another important dimension that is altogether missing. The value of the dollar has a very direct impact on farm prices.
There is a single world price of widely traded products like wheat and corn. If the dollar rises relative to the value of the currencies of US competitors, then the price of these products will typically fall in dollar terms. Since it doesn’t cost Argentina or Russia any more to produce wheat, they will be able to sell their farm products at lower prices, measured in dollars, even as they get the same price measured in their own currency.
A big part of the story of the hardship faced by farmers in the Volcker years was that the high dollar (largely caused by high interest rates) reduced the dollar price of wheat and other major farm products. Here’s the overall picture.
The relationship is not perfect (many other factors affect farm prices, and the overall value of the dollar may not be the same as the value against other commodity producers), but the sharp rise in the dollar from 1980 to 1985 is associated with a large decrease in the real price of wheat. The price of wheat partially recovered in the second half of the decade as the dollar fell sharply from 1985 to 1989. The run-up in the dollar in the late 1990s and early 2000s was also associated with a decline in the price of wheat. More recently, a rise in the dollar since 2015 has been associated with a sharp drop in the real price of wheat.
World demand, the efficiency of other producers, and other factors affect the price of wheat, but it is pretty much definitional that, other things equal, a higher-valued dollar means a lower dollar price of wheat and other farm commodities. It is very strange that this fact is not mentioned in the article.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
There has been a repeated refrain in the media that Trump has been on the wrong track with China by worrying about our trade in manufactured goods. The argument is that he instead should be focused on China’s alleged taking of our intellectual property.
While most news coverage assumes this concern about China’s behavior makes sense, it’s worth asking if that is true. Specifically, what is the downside of China taking advantage of technologies developed in the United States without paying what our companies think they should?
The basic story in this analysis is that China gets the jump on the United States in producing a variety of goods and services. In other words, we will be able to get cheaper and/or better quality products than would be the case if we could keep China from “stealing” our intellectual property. (The reason for the quotes is that the boundaries of intellectual property are not well-defined. Unlike property in land and other physical objects, it is inherently non-exclusive. By England’s definition of intellectual property, the first steam mills in the United States also depended on theft.)
So if China doesn’t properly compensate us for our intellectual property (according to our definitions) then we will be able to get items like solar panels and electric cars much cheaper than would otherwise be the case. With solar panels, we lose some relatively good-paying jobs in manufacturing, but we are likely to get more jobs in the installation of the panels.
China is well ahead of the United States in the production of affordable electric cars. If they start exporting these cars to the United States should we be upset? There will be some loss of manufacturing jobs in the industry, but it’s entirely possible that they would end up building most of their cars here, just as many other foreign producers have.
Obviously, Elon Musk and Tesla would be big losers, but is there any reason we should care? Rising inequality is supposedly a big problem. Getting low-cost, high-tech items from China is both a gain for workers (lower prices raise real wages) and reduces inequality. What’s not to like?
There has been a repeated refrain in the media that Trump has been on the wrong track with China by worrying about our trade in manufactured goods. The argument is that he instead should be focused on China’s alleged taking of our intellectual property.
While most news coverage assumes this concern about China’s behavior makes sense, it’s worth asking if that is true. Specifically, what is the downside of China taking advantage of technologies developed in the United States without paying what our companies think they should?
The basic story in this analysis is that China gets the jump on the United States in producing a variety of goods and services. In other words, we will be able to get cheaper and/or better quality products than would be the case if we could keep China from “stealing” our intellectual property. (The reason for the quotes is that the boundaries of intellectual property are not well-defined. Unlike property in land and other physical objects, it is inherently non-exclusive. By England’s definition of intellectual property, the first steam mills in the United States also depended on theft.)
So if China doesn’t properly compensate us for our intellectual property (according to our definitions) then we will be able to get items like solar panels and electric cars much cheaper than would otherwise be the case. With solar panels, we lose some relatively good-paying jobs in manufacturing, but we are likely to get more jobs in the installation of the panels.
China is well ahead of the United States in the production of affordable electric cars. If they start exporting these cars to the United States should we be upset? There will be some loss of manufacturing jobs in the industry, but it’s entirely possible that they would end up building most of their cars here, just as many other foreign producers have.
Obviously, Elon Musk and Tesla would be big losers, but is there any reason we should care? Rising inequality is supposedly a big problem. Getting low-cost, high-tech items from China is both a gain for workers (lower prices raise real wages) and reduces inequality. What’s not to like?
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Folks may remember that the Republicans sold their tax plan, which centered on a big cut in corporate taxes, with the promise that it will lead to a flood of investment. This would mean higher productivity growth and therefore higher wages. Well, we aren’t really seeing much evidence of that increase to date, but that doesn’t stop the Trump White House from making the claims anyhow.
While noting that unemployment has continued the long downward path begun during the Obama years (just kidding), the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) takes full credit for the recent lows in the overall and black unemployment rates. It also touts the 9.2 percent growth in business fixed investment in the first quarter as evidence that companies are rushing to invest as a result of the tax cut.
This one doesn’t work for two reasons. First, if we were going to see anything like the investment boom promised in the selling of the tax cut we should be seeing growth two or three times this rate. Second, the pace of investment growth in the first quarter is not especially strong. The figure below shows the year over year change in non-residential fixed investment since 2000.
The 9.1 percent year over year growth in the first quarter of 2018 is respectable but hardly indicates any sort of boom. It is well below the growth we saw between the second quarter of 2010 and the second quarter of 2012, which averaged over 15 percent. And even much of the modest uptick that we have seen in the last year is due to oil and gas drilling. This has more to do with higher world energy prices (and the higher gas price we pay at the pump) than the Republican tax plan.
This is not the only boast in the piece that is not quite right. The CEA also takes credit for a boom in manufacturing employment, and especially employment in durable goods manufacturing.
“This uptick in current and future business investment may help explain the sharp rise in durable-goods employment that began with the President’s election but accelerated in November of last year, just before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed Congress (see figure).”
There has been an uptick in durable goods manufacturing employment in the last year or so, but nothing especially out of the ordinary. Here’s the picture if we look at hours worked.
Durable Goods Manufacturing: Index of Aggregate Weekly Hours (percent change, year-over-year)
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Here also we can see a respectable uptick in hours worked, although no better than what we saw between the middle of 2013 and the end of 2014 when a plunge in world oil prices led to a falloff of employment in energy-related industries. And of course, growth is much weaker than in 2011 and most of 2012.
One item that is worth noting that is not mentioned by the CEA is a sharp decline in the index for May of this year. The index of hours worked in durable goods manufacturing fell by 0.6 percent in the month. While the monthly data are erratic, this could be a sign of weakening demand. Employers often cut back hours before they cut back workers. The job growth in manufacturing is the weakest since last September, so perhaps we are seeing a falloff of growth in the sector.
Anyhow, we’ll have to see whether the pace of manufacturing job growth slows further, but it is clear we are not seeing anything like the boom promised by the promoters of the Republican tax cut.
Folks may remember that the Republicans sold their tax plan, which centered on a big cut in corporate taxes, with the promise that it will lead to a flood of investment. This would mean higher productivity growth and therefore higher wages. Well, we aren’t really seeing much evidence of that increase to date, but that doesn’t stop the Trump White House from making the claims anyhow.
While noting that unemployment has continued the long downward path begun during the Obama years (just kidding), the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) takes full credit for the recent lows in the overall and black unemployment rates. It also touts the 9.2 percent growth in business fixed investment in the first quarter as evidence that companies are rushing to invest as a result of the tax cut.
This one doesn’t work for two reasons. First, if we were going to see anything like the investment boom promised in the selling of the tax cut we should be seeing growth two or three times this rate. Second, the pace of investment growth in the first quarter is not especially strong. The figure below shows the year over year change in non-residential fixed investment since 2000.
The 9.1 percent year over year growth in the first quarter of 2018 is respectable but hardly indicates any sort of boom. It is well below the growth we saw between the second quarter of 2010 and the second quarter of 2012, which averaged over 15 percent. And even much of the modest uptick that we have seen in the last year is due to oil and gas drilling. This has more to do with higher world energy prices (and the higher gas price we pay at the pump) than the Republican tax plan.
This is not the only boast in the piece that is not quite right. The CEA also takes credit for a boom in manufacturing employment, and especially employment in durable goods manufacturing.
“This uptick in current and future business investment may help explain the sharp rise in durable-goods employment that began with the President’s election but accelerated in November of last year, just before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed Congress (see figure).”
There has been an uptick in durable goods manufacturing employment in the last year or so, but nothing especially out of the ordinary. Here’s the picture if we look at hours worked.
Durable Goods Manufacturing: Index of Aggregate Weekly Hours (percent change, year-over-year)
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Here also we can see a respectable uptick in hours worked, although no better than what we saw between the middle of 2013 and the end of 2014 when a plunge in world oil prices led to a falloff of employment in energy-related industries. And of course, growth is much weaker than in 2011 and most of 2012.
One item that is worth noting that is not mentioned by the CEA is a sharp decline in the index for May of this year. The index of hours worked in durable goods manufacturing fell by 0.6 percent in the month. While the monthly data are erratic, this could be a sign of weakening demand. Employers often cut back hours before they cut back workers. The job growth in manufacturing is the weakest since last September, so perhaps we are seeing a falloff of growth in the sector.
Anyhow, we’ll have to see whether the pace of manufacturing job growth slows further, but it is clear we are not seeing anything like the boom promised by the promoters of the Republican tax cut.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post reported on new research indicating that racial resentment is a major factor in the political support for cuts to TANF, food stamps, and other social welfare programs. While this is undoubtedly true, it is likely that widespread ignorance about the amount of money going to these programs is also a major factor.
Polls consistently show that people hugely overestimate the amount of money that the federal government is spending on various welfare programs. People routinely answer that they think these programs take up 30–50 percent of the budget. The actual figure would be in the neighborhood 3–10 percent, depending on how Medicaid is counted. While some of this exaggeration is attributable to racial bias, where people want to believe that their money is going to people of color, many liberals who support these programs also hugely exaggerate their size.
Part of the reason for the exaggeration is that the media routinely report spending in raw numbers that are absolutely meaningless to almost everyone who hears them. When the media report that we are spending $16.5 billion a year on TANF, that sounds like a huge amount of money to most people who hear it.
On the other hand, if the media cared about informing people, rather than stupid fraternity ritual reporting, it could tell people that we spend less than 0.4 percent of the budget on TANF. Unfortunately, reporters almost never put these huge numbers in any context where their audience will understand it, even though everyone acknowledges that no one can make any sense of $16.5 billion without context.
It is not easy to find effective ways to combat racial prejudice. It is easy to put big numbers in context. It is really sad that so many people who complain about racial prejudice are too damn lazy to take the few seconds needed to put big numbers in context.
The Washington Post reported on new research indicating that racial resentment is a major factor in the political support for cuts to TANF, food stamps, and other social welfare programs. While this is undoubtedly true, it is likely that widespread ignorance about the amount of money going to these programs is also a major factor.
Polls consistently show that people hugely overestimate the amount of money that the federal government is spending on various welfare programs. People routinely answer that they think these programs take up 30–50 percent of the budget. The actual figure would be in the neighborhood 3–10 percent, depending on how Medicaid is counted. While some of this exaggeration is attributable to racial bias, where people want to believe that their money is going to people of color, many liberals who support these programs also hugely exaggerate their size.
Part of the reason for the exaggeration is that the media routinely report spending in raw numbers that are absolutely meaningless to almost everyone who hears them. When the media report that we are spending $16.5 billion a year on TANF, that sounds like a huge amount of money to most people who hear it.
On the other hand, if the media cared about informing people, rather than stupid fraternity ritual reporting, it could tell people that we spend less than 0.4 percent of the budget on TANF. Unfortunately, reporters almost never put these huge numbers in any context where their audience will understand it, even though everyone acknowledges that no one can make any sense of $16.5 billion without context.
It is not easy to find effective ways to combat racial prejudice. It is easy to put big numbers in context. It is really sad that so many people who complain about racial prejudice are too damn lazy to take the few seconds needed to put big numbers in context.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
In an NYT Upshot piece, Neil Irwin outlined the risks that are posed to the US and world economy if Italy were to leave the euro. While the scenarios he sketches are plausible, there are two more positive scenarios worth considering.
First, it is possible that Italy is able to arrange an orderly withdrawal from the euro. In this scenario, there would presumably be some arrangement where the debt is partially written down, or there is some grace period on payments, which would amount to the same thing. This makes it easier for Italy to get through the transition period and possibly get back on a path to healthy growth.
While this seems unlikely, it is worth noting that German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble proposed such an arrangement to the Greek finance minister in the spring of 2015. It doesn’t seem inconceivable that they would adopt a similar view to Italy.
The other possibility is that Germany may give up its religious dogmatism on austerity and commit itself to running more expansionary policies. If Germany’s economy were to grow rapidly and to have a somewhat higher rate of inflation, its increased demand for imports could provide a substantial boost to Italy and other eurozone economies.
Of course, both of these prospects seem unlikely, but it is worth noting that there are some good outcomes that could result from a government in Italy that contemplates leaving the euro.
In an NYT Upshot piece, Neil Irwin outlined the risks that are posed to the US and world economy if Italy were to leave the euro. While the scenarios he sketches are plausible, there are two more positive scenarios worth considering.
First, it is possible that Italy is able to arrange an orderly withdrawal from the euro. In this scenario, there would presumably be some arrangement where the debt is partially written down, or there is some grace period on payments, which would amount to the same thing. This makes it easier for Italy to get through the transition period and possibly get back on a path to healthy growth.
While this seems unlikely, it is worth noting that German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble proposed such an arrangement to the Greek finance minister in the spring of 2015. It doesn’t seem inconceivable that they would adopt a similar view to Italy.
The other possibility is that Germany may give up its religious dogmatism on austerity and commit itself to running more expansionary policies. If Germany’s economy were to grow rapidly and to have a somewhat higher rate of inflation, its increased demand for imports could provide a substantial boost to Italy and other eurozone economies.
Of course, both of these prospects seem unlikely, but it is worth noting that there are some good outcomes that could result from a government in Italy that contemplates leaving the euro.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Every student who has taken an Econ 101 class knows how a 20 percent tariff leads to corruption. So, why is anyone in the world surprised that the patent monopoly the government gave to Purdue Pharma on OxyContin lead the company to ignore evidence that the drug was being misused?
Hey folks, people respond to incentives. If we give them a patent monopoly that allows them to sell a drug at a price that is several thousand percent above its free market price, then drug companies will try to push the drug as widely as possible. This means ignoring evidence that the drug might be less effective than claimed or even harmful.
Come on, every serious person must understand this fact. Is it really necessary to pretend we are surprised?
Every student who has taken an Econ 101 class knows how a 20 percent tariff leads to corruption. So, why is anyone in the world surprised that the patent monopoly the government gave to Purdue Pharma on OxyContin lead the company to ignore evidence that the drug was being misused?
Hey folks, people respond to incentives. If we give them a patent monopoly that allows them to sell a drug at a price that is several thousand percent above its free market price, then drug companies will try to push the drug as widely as possible. This means ignoring evidence that the drug might be less effective than claimed or even harmful.
Come on, every serious person must understand this fact. Is it really necessary to pretend we are surprised?
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
An NYT article discussing the possibility that Italy will leave the eurozone told readers that this decision would defy economic logic. It noted the various downsides for Italy of leaving the euro and then told readers:
“As demonstrated by the Brexit vote, which numerous analyses showed would not be good for Britain’s health, economic logic does not always prevail.”
It’s not at all clear that “economic logic” would dictate that Italy is better off in the euro than outside it. Italy’s economy has stagnated as a result of having little control over its fiscal, monetary, or exchange rate policy. It has consistently performed far worse than “experts” had projected. For example, in 2010 the IMF had projected that its per capita income would be 3.0 percent higher by 2015 (the last year of the projection) than it was in 2010.
Instead, its per capita income was more than 4.0 percent lower in 2015 than in 2010. This difference of 7 percentage points would be equivalent to $4,200 per person in the United States. Italy has still not recovered to its pre-crisis level of income.
The article also asserts that Italy would have trouble paying its euro-denominated debt if it were to leave the euro. While this is true, it is also likely that creditors would accept a partial write-down of the debt. If they are in a situation where they know that they can not recover the full value of their debt, it makes sense to accept a partial payment, which the country would be able to make.
Of course, the creditors may decide to be vindicated and demand full repayment as punishment to Italy for leaving the euro. As the article said, “economic logic does not always prevail.”
An NYT article discussing the possibility that Italy will leave the eurozone told readers that this decision would defy economic logic. It noted the various downsides for Italy of leaving the euro and then told readers:
“As demonstrated by the Brexit vote, which numerous analyses showed would not be good for Britain’s health, economic logic does not always prevail.”
It’s not at all clear that “economic logic” would dictate that Italy is better off in the euro than outside it. Italy’s economy has stagnated as a result of having little control over its fiscal, monetary, or exchange rate policy. It has consistently performed far worse than “experts” had projected. For example, in 2010 the IMF had projected that its per capita income would be 3.0 percent higher by 2015 (the last year of the projection) than it was in 2010.
Instead, its per capita income was more than 4.0 percent lower in 2015 than in 2010. This difference of 7 percentage points would be equivalent to $4,200 per person in the United States. Italy has still not recovered to its pre-crisis level of income.
The article also asserts that Italy would have trouble paying its euro-denominated debt if it were to leave the euro. While this is true, it is also likely that creditors would accept a partial write-down of the debt. If they are in a situation where they know that they can not recover the full value of their debt, it makes sense to accept a partial payment, which the country would be able to make.
Of course, the creditors may decide to be vindicated and demand full repayment as punishment to Italy for leaving the euro. As the article said, “economic logic does not always prevail.”
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
(Okay, that’s not exactly what he said.) If you were worried that the pharmaceutical companies were not taking enough of your money, the Republicans have the answer for you. They pushed through the “Right to Try Act,” which will allow people with a terminal illness easier access to drugs that the Federal Drug Administration has not determined to be effective.
While Thiessen sees this as a great thing in his Washington Post column, the obvious problem is that with the incentive provided by government-granted patent monopolies, drug companies will be lying more than ever about the effectiveness of their drugs. As fans of capitalism know, corporations are there to make a profit.
If a drug company can tell a patient dying of cancer that their drug can save them, they can look to charge hundreds of thousands or even millions for the drug. If a person or their family can pick up the tab, or they can get an insurer or the government to pay the bill, they will. (Yes, they can be sued for lying. Good luck with that one.)
Yeah, so what if it actually is ineffective? Wasn’t it worth getting people’s hopes up for nothing and draining their life’s savings?
Yes, Mr. Thiessen is right. Thank the Republicans.
(Okay, that’s not exactly what he said.) If you were worried that the pharmaceutical companies were not taking enough of your money, the Republicans have the answer for you. They pushed through the “Right to Try Act,” which will allow people with a terminal illness easier access to drugs that the Federal Drug Administration has not determined to be effective.
While Thiessen sees this as a great thing in his Washington Post column, the obvious problem is that with the incentive provided by government-granted patent monopolies, drug companies will be lying more than ever about the effectiveness of their drugs. As fans of capitalism know, corporations are there to make a profit.
If a drug company can tell a patient dying of cancer that their drug can save them, they can look to charge hundreds of thousands or even millions for the drug. If a person or their family can pick up the tab, or they can get an insurer or the government to pay the bill, they will. (Yes, they can be sued for lying. Good luck with that one.)
Yeah, so what if it actually is ineffective? Wasn’t it worth getting people’s hopes up for nothing and draining their life’s savings?
Yes, Mr. Thiessen is right. Thank the Republicans.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
It is absolutely bizarre how the media continually feel the need to tell us what politicians think. The Washington Post was on the job today in an article that discussed Donald Trump’s threat to impose 25 percent tariffs on imported cars for national security. The article told readers:
“The president holds an expansive view of national security, describing imported products like steel or passenger sedans as worrisome threats to the United States.”
Really? How does the Post know that the president even has a view on national security?
This is a person that shows virtually zero evidence of coherent thought on anything. For five years he ran around the country insisting that President Obama was born in Kenya. He claims that global warming is a hoax invented by China to destroy the US economy.
If the Post has any reason to believe that Trump has a coherent view on anything, it should share it with its readers. Otherwise, it should stop fabricating things. Or as Donald Trump would say “Fake News!”
It is absolutely bizarre how the media continually feel the need to tell us what politicians think. The Washington Post was on the job today in an article that discussed Donald Trump’s threat to impose 25 percent tariffs on imported cars for national security. The article told readers:
“The president holds an expansive view of national security, describing imported products like steel or passenger sedans as worrisome threats to the United States.”
Really? How does the Post know that the president even has a view on national security?
This is a person that shows virtually zero evidence of coherent thought on anything. For five years he ran around the country insisting that President Obama was born in Kenya. He claims that global warming is a hoax invented by China to destroy the US economy.
If the Post has any reason to believe that Trump has a coherent view on anything, it should share it with its readers. Otherwise, it should stop fabricating things. Or as Donald Trump would say “Fake News!”
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
