I don't think Smith's disagreement with you is difficult to identify at all. In the closing, you assert that "The new conservatives are articulating a better case for markets and offering a more effective role for economics than the preachers of a singularly unappealing and empirically unsupportable faith." But that "case" is just a series of abstract goals--better jobs, more stable communities, etc.--without any real (or more importantly, *realistic*) plan for achieving them, which is essentially a mirror image of your own criticism that neoliberals merely "promise [markets] will work."
So back to Smith, his fundamental thesis appears to be that whatever merit the specific criticisms you and others might level at economics as a discipline, you've failed to offer an actionable alternative framework. And insofar as you continue to provide intellectual cover to Trumpist trade policies that even you tacitly concede are destructive, that critique obviously has merit.
I think that was far from Noah Smith's best piece, but in the comments he actually summarize his real issues with your work, which I don't think you have ever responded to (or at least I'm not aware of your response). Have copied Noah's comment below.
And I wish you would respond. I have been referring friends who are interested in the "steel man" case for tariffs to your work, but I have been saying that you are interesting and worth reading but ultimately wrong. Noah's comment below is a good summary of why I think that's true.
What makes your work interesting is that I think you are correct that the huge drop in employment in the manufacturing sector has dealt a blow to many American communities and that we need to be paying more attention to that. That said, in a world of increasing automation (which is only going to increase with AI), I think that drop was inevitable regardless of our trade policy.
So I think we need to be focused on ways to increase "social solidarity" (to use Noah's term below) that are about making sure people have fulfilling lives no matter what type of work they do.
"Cass has failed to address the fundamental question of *what we will get* from distorting the market in order to promote on-shoring. Advocates of targeted industrial policy (like myself) HAVE answered that question: We will get national security and technological leadership relative to China. But Oren simply assumes that A) tariffs will lead to on-shoring of manufacturing, and that B) this will somehow improve the non-economic parts of human life, like community and social trust.
I don't think there's good evidence for either of those propositions. I wrote about the first one here:
As for community-building, I still don't even understand how Oren and the MAGA folks think tariffs are supposed to build social solidarity in America. It sounds like magical thinking. I wrote about that here:
National security + technological leadership shouldn’t be the only goals of interventionist industrial policy. Community flourishing through more high-quality jobs should be priority #1. That requires broader interventions which hopefully create better agglomerations in the long run.
blake: Are there examples or evidence that suggests that interventionist industrial policy can lead high quality jobs and community flourishing in developed economies? I get that there are plenty of example where it has helped low income countries climb the economic ladder, but are there good examples/evidence where it has been effective in high income countries?
Tons! My favorite historical example is from Abraham Lincoln. He almost doubled tariffs from 20% to ~40% in order to protect labor, and he established a national banking + currency system in order to reign in the chaos caused by laissez faire wildcat banking. His legacy was frequently invoked whenever the US's global tariffs came under pressure from importers. It was all done for pro-labor / pro-national welfare reasons.
While contemporary examples abound (Taiwan and TSMC, Singapore's economic development board, Denmark and wind turbines) I will admit that it can be hard to isolate where benefits are limited to particular communities / industries, and which benefits go nation-wide. Agglomeration and innovation spillovers are a big factor here (e.g. how Chinese manufacturers take skills from lower-value manufacturing like batteries + phones and apply them to higher-value manufacturing like EVs and drones). The general pattern is clear though — sovereigns either invest heavily in industries whose success will help them achieve policy goals, or insulate them from foreign competition through trade policy, or both.
IMO this is the crux of the tariff v. targeted subsidy debate, and people are right to push on it — see e.g. when Ezra Klein had Oren on his podcast. I happen to believe that the broader you go, the more agglomeration effects you get and the more innovation you get in areas you wouldn't have thought to target. But at the margin where your targeted industrial policy interventions approach, say, China-scale, I'd say they're probably about as good as global tariffs.
1/ Noah’s article was hastily-written, ad hominem, and really uncharitable. I wish he’d re-write it.
2/ Your burden is higher, and will be held to a more rigorous standard as long as your views appear to provide intellectual cover for sloppy public policy.
3/ In philosophy of science it is widely accepted that there are differences in kind (not just degree) between physics + chemistry and the biological + social sciences. The latter irreducibly involve normative concepts that do not appear in the physical sciences. Those like Oren who want to sharpen this debate would do well to read up on the literature here or invite some philosophers of economics on to podcasts.
Keep up the good work, and I’m sorry that you have to deal with such bogus criticism, but such is your mantel.
Great essay. Scanning the comments, it's kind of incredible to me that we are still having any conversation at all as to whether economics is or is not like physics. The study of economics has greater overlap with social sciences and behavioral studies (both collective and individual) than it ever had with physical sciences that are built around hard determinism. All of us, including Oren's detractors, should rejoice that the new media is loosening the grip that gatekeeping institutions have held over public discourse in this subject. Keep stirring the pot folks.
Among Oren's messages, the one that resonates most with me is his assertion that comparative advantage as such is not prima facie applicable to our trade with China. It certainly seems like the net effect of our current approach is that China sends western countries depreciating assets in a net exchange wherein the west transfers appreciating assets to China. Even setting aside the savage distributional effects on regions and communities, international slave labor concerns and environmental destruction, I can't think of a single reason why this trade arrangement should be sustainable and why it is not worthy of serious debate. It seems quite likely to me that our China trade policy might make history as the worst foreign policy decision of my lifetime and it's a very good and healthy development that Oren et al are publicly challenging it's core shibboleths. May the best arguments win.
Really nice takedown of Noah Smith's snarky, facile attack on you, Oren Cass. After I read it I almost replied in your defense but then decided to just keep reading Noah's voluminous output (is he using AI?) until I could get a really good read on where he is coming from. I was surprised to learn, for example, that his idea of community in America going forward is based on digital relationships, not personal relationships between neighbors and fellow towns folk (I'm a small town guy after all).
So if economics is not a science, what is it? I think of it as an art and a logic, goal of which is the discovery of good policy, defined as policy that tends to increase the general welfare of this and future generations in the polity to which it is addressed.
Thus a good economist is an artist of sorts, armed not only with the standard textbook logic of supply and demand, the laws of diminishing returns, etc., but with extensive knowledge both of economic history and the history of economics—plus a lot of practical experience in the real world. No wonder great economist are so rare, many times rarer than great physicists.
But the real point here is that because the whole purpose of economics is the discovery of good policy, the true name of the discipline is. or ought to be, political economy, as it was in its formative years. We need to get back to that.
[BTW, an additional reason, not mentioned, for why economics is not a science is the problem of measurement. See, for example, Morgenstern's "On the Accuracy of Economic Observations." When guys like Smith start reporting error bars in the data they cite, I will start taking their arguments more seriously. ]
Anyway, great rebutal of Smith, Oren Cass. You did a good job.
Sometimes I don't think you go far enough. First, there is NO truly free market under the sun outside of black markets or emergent new industries. Every state has its thumb on the scales on every industry under government purview. Call them standards, minimum requirements, codes, non-tariff trade barriers, etc. there are always constraints. Second, everyone focuses on comparative advantage and economies of scale at the macro level, but no one discusses portfolio management theory at this level. Which is more stable: 1970s Seattle that had a huge comparative advantage in avionics and airplane manufacturing or current Seattle that has IT (Microsoft, Amazon), retail (Costco), food & beverage (Starbucks), and some airplane manufacturing? In terms of the original question, it's one of semantics really. There are components of the field of economics that are science, others that are dependent on political and social structures, still others that are instrumental, and still others that are based on morals, precepts, first principles and desired goals and outcomes. People (hedgehogs) can be correct in their narrow definitions, but should also respect people (foxes) that see a bigger forest.
Superb! Might have also added a humorous spin on “Why is this night different than all other nights,” but that might have gone too far…perhaps in the narcissistic Twitterheaddom and its like, indicating that in the electronic media frenzied cacaphony, it is not different…after all, as the Bard-dess wails, “Haters gonna hate.”
Well that was fun to read! When Oren is not trying to defend the indefensible (Trump) he is rhetorically formidable. Free market fundamentalists are wrong about the infallibility of "the market". In part because the definition of optimum or most efficient is very narrow and divorced from actual well-being of people. Economics is a social science that tries to exclude all but a narrow set of behaviors so it's easier to describe mathematical relations. But underlying those behaviors are entire cultures, the rules of which allow and shape the behaviors economists like to model. Those models are dependent on factors they don't begin to address in a scientific way. To be fair, that is a gargantuan task that has only been addressed in science fiction. Economic discussions are largely rhetorical with some reliance on measured experience, mathematically described or not isn't super relevant. Logic and experience form the most powerful arguments for policy in service to the aims of the author. And that's sort of the crux of the disagreement. What are the aims of any particular economic policy?
Oren claims to be promoting policy to elevate the material well-being of working class Americans. As much of it is progressive economic policy I agree with much of it. Oren faces two different and serious challenges in his prescriptions. One is his insistence on framing his policies as "conservative". That is a big stretch. Partly even being clear on what a conservative is. As an economic progressive I can have a productive conversation with a Burkean conservative. But the infiltration of Libertarian poison into the identification of Conservative makes reasoning impossible with That as conservative. Corey Robin's Reactionary Mind as a companion To Russel Kirk's The Conservative Mind both show "conservative" as inconsistently defined at best. So why does Oren insist on framing it that way? It is suspicious, in part because it's counterproductive politically. It is another approach to splitting support for progressive economic policy which includes many conservative populist voters. Voters may becoming aware that they want similar (progressive) economic policy even if they want different social policy. Two parties claiming that economic policy is another way to divide support for it.
Oren's other really insurmountable problem is Trump/Vought/Bannon and MAGA as the vehicle for his policy vision. The whole constitutional lawbreaking and unitary executive theory deep state conspiracy aspects of MAGA theorists completely undermines whatever sensible notions they might espouse. An argument can be made for the good a benevolent dictator could accomplish. Americans don't want a dictator. And Trump has made it incandescently clear he is not benevolent if he's even sane. Oren latched onto the fact that Trump likes tariffs as a sign he will implement a whole agenda for American workers. Tariffs targeted to support nascent or revitalized industry make sense. There is next to zero evidence that is what Trump/Vought/MAGA is doing. So he's put himself in the position of defending tariffs when Trump's use of them has been incoherent and at odds with re-industrialization since there is no industrial policy other than undoing Biden's actual industrial policy.
I hope Oren abandons the Trump vehicle. (Loyalist clown car). It cannot succeed in helping the working class. I doubt it wants to. Instead he should task his rhetorical skill to uniting voters behind economic policy as the first and most important policy. When/if that happens we can see which party accommodates voters most effectively. Could be one that doesn't yet exist.
We'll soon know the outcome of DonOrenomics. Is Don really the taco man, or does he have the courage of his convictions? To date, whenever he touches the stove, he seems to waver. But the taco moniker is with us to say I feel. Ironically it is a creation of Wall Street, and represents an actual investing strategery. One might call it a new form of buy the dip:) The MAGA establishment is in full bloom however, as the leader of the new right implements MAGA's vision. Too bad Oren has no thoughts on the new right policies Don doesn't chicken out on: rule of law, alienating the allies we need if we're serious about confronting China, rampant political corruption, drastic research cuts, hollowing out the civil service, driving away the best and brightest from around the globe, political violence. Might these mundane items matter to a successful economy? Mainstream economists seem to think so, they often opine on them. But for Oren, it's all about elites arguing with fellow elites over arcane economic policy, while the real action is elsewhere. Makes me wonder if he's concerned Don might revoke AC's tax-exempt status like he has others? Good luck America.
"....driving away the best and brightest from around the globe..." People who have obviously never heard of the Thousand Talents Program really can't be allowed to have an opinion.
I have not but for the first time in my life I have actually had conversations with immigrants (naturalized, green card etc) about leaving and returning home. Likely just talk but shows declining appeal. Brain drain is big problem for many European and South American countries. We don’t need that here. Also for the first time my European wife has had to endure a few “go home you are ruining our country” comments. Leave probably not but maybe stop coming.
Oh I've heard. If you're concerned, I'm sure you'd agree we should gather allies for a confrontation, rather than drive them away? That's assuming of course that you agree that scale matters in great power conflict. Meanwhile, any thoughts on the meme coin scam?
After reading much of what Richard Hanania has written on various things I am confident in my assessment that he is what the kids today call a shitposter which is what people with a few more years under their belt recognize as someone who thinks they are very clever when actually they are just an asshole.
Similarly, I listen to John Podhoretz and his Commentary crew daily and I think when it comes to economics his views are much like his views on Judaism. It was written down in books many years ago and therefore it is unquestionably true and if you question him he will loudly say mean things about you on X and on his podcast. Similar to Hanania, but perhaps to a lesser degree (most of the time), Podhoretz is also an asshole.
You're right, of course, economics is not a science, subject to physical laws, it's more a tool. A tool for the provisioning people and communities. And as such it can be wielded like a club, a weapon, a scalpel, a tool of extraction, or like a tool to bring people together.
And your Hayek remark does get at the kernel of the market fundamentalist fraud: "Hayek can be right that markets are complex systems about which people have incomplete knowledge and it can also be the case that policies to constrain market forces generate positive outcomes." To pretend this is not the case is disconnected from reality and anti-historical precisely in the way your free market critics are calling you anti-economic .
What I don't get is how you could imagine any of your economic populist ideas about how markets can work could possibly support Trump's trade war, which is stupid and vindictive and obviously economically depressive, or DOGE's and Project 2025's sabotage of government services, or the power of the government to provide essential services and positive restraints markets. Or even the anti-DEI idiocy, again, obviously economically depressive? None of this throws even a bone to workers or the economic well-being of families or saves the environment or even adds incrementally to a sustainable economy.
Market fundamentalism, supported by many well-meaning technocrats, is a popular myth and destructive fraud, but your conservative values make less of a case for how markets can work and, actually, a stronger case for protecting markets from tyrants and billionaire monopolists.
Polanyi writes: "By the fourth quarter of the nineteenth century, world commodity prices were the central reality in the lives of millions of Continental peasants; the repercussions of the London money market were daily noted by businessmen all over the world; and governments discussed plans for the future in the light of the situation on the world capital markets." In the great transformation the repercussions are felt everywhere, the Trump tariffs are felt everywhere, many countries are only joining the proletariat and are not necessarily getting richer but more unhappy.
I don't think Smith's disagreement with you is difficult to identify at all. In the closing, you assert that "The new conservatives are articulating a better case for markets and offering a more effective role for economics than the preachers of a singularly unappealing and empirically unsupportable faith." But that "case" is just a series of abstract goals--better jobs, more stable communities, etc.--without any real (or more importantly, *realistic*) plan for achieving them, which is essentially a mirror image of your own criticism that neoliberals merely "promise [markets] will work."
So back to Smith, his fundamental thesis appears to be that whatever merit the specific criticisms you and others might level at economics as a discipline, you've failed to offer an actionable alternative framework. And insofar as you continue to provide intellectual cover to Trumpist trade policies that even you tacitly concede are destructive, that critique obviously has merit.
I think that was far from Noah Smith's best piece, but in the comments he actually summarize his real issues with your work, which I don't think you have ever responded to (or at least I'm not aware of your response). Have copied Noah's comment below.
And I wish you would respond. I have been referring friends who are interested in the "steel man" case for tariffs to your work, but I have been saying that you are interesting and worth reading but ultimately wrong. Noah's comment below is a good summary of why I think that's true.
What makes your work interesting is that I think you are correct that the huge drop in employment in the manufacturing sector has dealt a blow to many American communities and that we need to be paying more attention to that. That said, in a world of increasing automation (which is only going to increase with AI), I think that drop was inevitable regardless of our trade policy.
So I think we need to be focused on ways to increase "social solidarity" (to use Noah's term below) that are about making sure people have fulfilling lives no matter what type of work they do.
----
https://open.substack.com/pub/noahpinion/p/the-anti-economists-have-overreached?r=7jm13&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=121733490
Noah Smith
2d
"Cass has failed to address the fundamental question of *what we will get* from distorting the market in order to promote on-shoring. Advocates of targeted industrial policy (like myself) HAVE answered that question: We will get national security and technological leadership relative to China. But Oren simply assumes that A) tariffs will lead to on-shoring of manufacturing, and that B) this will somehow improve the non-economic parts of human life, like community and social trust.
I don't think there's good evidence for either of those propositions. I wrote about the first one here:
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/the-pundits-dilemma
As for community-building, I still don't even understand how Oren and the MAGA folks think tariffs are supposed to build social solidarity in America. It sounds like magical thinking. I wrote about that here:
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/this-thing-will-fail"
National security + technological leadership shouldn’t be the only goals of interventionist industrial policy. Community flourishing through more high-quality jobs should be priority #1. That requires broader interventions which hopefully create better agglomerations in the long run.
blake: Are there examples or evidence that suggests that interventionist industrial policy can lead high quality jobs and community flourishing in developed economies? I get that there are plenty of example where it has helped low income countries climb the economic ladder, but are there good examples/evidence where it has been effective in high income countries?
Tons! My favorite historical example is from Abraham Lincoln. He almost doubled tariffs from 20% to ~40% in order to protect labor, and he established a national banking + currency system in order to reign in the chaos caused by laissez faire wildcat banking. His legacy was frequently invoked whenever the US's global tariffs came under pressure from importers. It was all done for pro-labor / pro-national welfare reasons.
While contemporary examples abound (Taiwan and TSMC, Singapore's economic development board, Denmark and wind turbines) I will admit that it can be hard to isolate where benefits are limited to particular communities / industries, and which benefits go nation-wide. Agglomeration and innovation spillovers are a big factor here (e.g. how Chinese manufacturers take skills from lower-value manufacturing like batteries + phones and apply them to higher-value manufacturing like EVs and drones). The general pattern is clear though — sovereigns either invest heavily in industries whose success will help them achieve policy goals, or insulate them from foreign competition through trade policy, or both.
IMO this is the crux of the tariff v. targeted subsidy debate, and people are right to push on it — see e.g. when Ezra Klein had Oren on his podcast. I happen to believe that the broader you go, the more agglomeration effects you get and the more innovation you get in areas you wouldn't have thought to target. But at the margin where your targeted industrial policy interventions approach, say, China-scale, I'd say they're probably about as good as global tariffs.
1/ Noah’s article was hastily-written, ad hominem, and really uncharitable. I wish he’d re-write it.
2/ Your burden is higher, and will be held to a more rigorous standard as long as your views appear to provide intellectual cover for sloppy public policy.
3/ In philosophy of science it is widely accepted that there are differences in kind (not just degree) between physics + chemistry and the biological + social sciences. The latter irreducibly involve normative concepts that do not appear in the physical sciences. Those like Oren who want to sharpen this debate would do well to read up on the literature here or invite some philosophers of economics on to podcasts.
Keep up the good work, and I’m sorry that you have to deal with such bogus criticism, but such is your mantel.
Great essay. Scanning the comments, it's kind of incredible to me that we are still having any conversation at all as to whether economics is or is not like physics. The study of economics has greater overlap with social sciences and behavioral studies (both collective and individual) than it ever had with physical sciences that are built around hard determinism. All of us, including Oren's detractors, should rejoice that the new media is loosening the grip that gatekeeping institutions have held over public discourse in this subject. Keep stirring the pot folks.
Among Oren's messages, the one that resonates most with me is his assertion that comparative advantage as such is not prima facie applicable to our trade with China. It certainly seems like the net effect of our current approach is that China sends western countries depreciating assets in a net exchange wherein the west transfers appreciating assets to China. Even setting aside the savage distributional effects on regions and communities, international slave labor concerns and environmental destruction, I can't think of a single reason why this trade arrangement should be sustainable and why it is not worthy of serious debate. It seems quite likely to me that our China trade policy might make history as the worst foreign policy decision of my lifetime and it's a very good and healthy development that Oren et al are publicly challenging it's core shibboleths. May the best arguments win.
Really nice takedown of Noah Smith's snarky, facile attack on you, Oren Cass. After I read it I almost replied in your defense but then decided to just keep reading Noah's voluminous output (is he using AI?) until I could get a really good read on where he is coming from. I was surprised to learn, for example, that his idea of community in America going forward is based on digital relationships, not personal relationships between neighbors and fellow towns folk (I'm a small town guy after all).
So if economics is not a science, what is it? I think of it as an art and a logic, goal of which is the discovery of good policy, defined as policy that tends to increase the general welfare of this and future generations in the polity to which it is addressed.
Thus a good economist is an artist of sorts, armed not only with the standard textbook logic of supply and demand, the laws of diminishing returns, etc., but with extensive knowledge both of economic history and the history of economics—plus a lot of practical experience in the real world. No wonder great economist are so rare, many times rarer than great physicists.
But the real point here is that because the whole purpose of economics is the discovery of good policy, the true name of the discipline is. or ought to be, political economy, as it was in its formative years. We need to get back to that.
[BTW, an additional reason, not mentioned, for why economics is not a science is the problem of measurement. See, for example, Morgenstern's "On the Accuracy of Economic Observations." When guys like Smith start reporting error bars in the data they cite, I will start taking their arguments more seriously. ]
Anyway, great rebutal of Smith, Oren Cass. You did a good job.
Where have you been all my life, Oren? Re-reading this so I can quote it.
Sometimes I don't think you go far enough. First, there is NO truly free market under the sun outside of black markets or emergent new industries. Every state has its thumb on the scales on every industry under government purview. Call them standards, minimum requirements, codes, non-tariff trade barriers, etc. there are always constraints. Second, everyone focuses on comparative advantage and economies of scale at the macro level, but no one discusses portfolio management theory at this level. Which is more stable: 1970s Seattle that had a huge comparative advantage in avionics and airplane manufacturing or current Seattle that has IT (Microsoft, Amazon), retail (Costco), food & beverage (Starbucks), and some airplane manufacturing? In terms of the original question, it's one of semantics really. There are components of the field of economics that are science, others that are dependent on political and social structures, still others that are instrumental, and still others that are based on morals, precepts, first principles and desired goals and outcomes. People (hedgehogs) can be correct in their narrow definitions, but should also respect people (foxes) that see a bigger forest.
Superb! Might have also added a humorous spin on “Why is this night different than all other nights,” but that might have gone too far…perhaps in the narcissistic Twitterheaddom and its like, indicating that in the electronic media frenzied cacaphony, it is not different…after all, as the Bard-dess wails, “Haters gonna hate.”
Well that was fun to read! When Oren is not trying to defend the indefensible (Trump) he is rhetorically formidable. Free market fundamentalists are wrong about the infallibility of "the market". In part because the definition of optimum or most efficient is very narrow and divorced from actual well-being of people. Economics is a social science that tries to exclude all but a narrow set of behaviors so it's easier to describe mathematical relations. But underlying those behaviors are entire cultures, the rules of which allow and shape the behaviors economists like to model. Those models are dependent on factors they don't begin to address in a scientific way. To be fair, that is a gargantuan task that has only been addressed in science fiction. Economic discussions are largely rhetorical with some reliance on measured experience, mathematically described or not isn't super relevant. Logic and experience form the most powerful arguments for policy in service to the aims of the author. And that's sort of the crux of the disagreement. What are the aims of any particular economic policy?
Oren claims to be promoting policy to elevate the material well-being of working class Americans. As much of it is progressive economic policy I agree with much of it. Oren faces two different and serious challenges in his prescriptions. One is his insistence on framing his policies as "conservative". That is a big stretch. Partly even being clear on what a conservative is. As an economic progressive I can have a productive conversation with a Burkean conservative. But the infiltration of Libertarian poison into the identification of Conservative makes reasoning impossible with That as conservative. Corey Robin's Reactionary Mind as a companion To Russel Kirk's The Conservative Mind both show "conservative" as inconsistently defined at best. So why does Oren insist on framing it that way? It is suspicious, in part because it's counterproductive politically. It is another approach to splitting support for progressive economic policy which includes many conservative populist voters. Voters may becoming aware that they want similar (progressive) economic policy even if they want different social policy. Two parties claiming that economic policy is another way to divide support for it.
Oren's other really insurmountable problem is Trump/Vought/Bannon and MAGA as the vehicle for his policy vision. The whole constitutional lawbreaking and unitary executive theory deep state conspiracy aspects of MAGA theorists completely undermines whatever sensible notions they might espouse. An argument can be made for the good a benevolent dictator could accomplish. Americans don't want a dictator. And Trump has made it incandescently clear he is not benevolent if he's even sane. Oren latched onto the fact that Trump likes tariffs as a sign he will implement a whole agenda for American workers. Tariffs targeted to support nascent or revitalized industry make sense. There is next to zero evidence that is what Trump/Vought/MAGA is doing. So he's put himself in the position of defending tariffs when Trump's use of them has been incoherent and at odds with re-industrialization since there is no industrial policy other than undoing Biden's actual industrial policy.
I hope Oren abandons the Trump vehicle. (Loyalist clown car). It cannot succeed in helping the working class. I doubt it wants to. Instead he should task his rhetorical skill to uniting voters behind economic policy as the first and most important policy. When/if that happens we can see which party accommodates voters most effectively. Could be one that doesn't yet exist.
We'll soon know the outcome of DonOrenomics. Is Don really the taco man, or does he have the courage of his convictions? To date, whenever he touches the stove, he seems to waver. But the taco moniker is with us to say I feel. Ironically it is a creation of Wall Street, and represents an actual investing strategery. One might call it a new form of buy the dip:) The MAGA establishment is in full bloom however, as the leader of the new right implements MAGA's vision. Too bad Oren has no thoughts on the new right policies Don doesn't chicken out on: rule of law, alienating the allies we need if we're serious about confronting China, rampant political corruption, drastic research cuts, hollowing out the civil service, driving away the best and brightest from around the globe, political violence. Might these mundane items matter to a successful economy? Mainstream economists seem to think so, they often opine on them. But for Oren, it's all about elites arguing with fellow elites over arcane economic policy, while the real action is elsewhere. Makes me wonder if he's concerned Don might revoke AC's tax-exempt status like he has others? Good luck America.
"....driving away the best and brightest from around the globe..." People who have obviously never heard of the Thousand Talents Program really can't be allowed to have an opinion.
I have not but for the first time in my life I have actually had conversations with immigrants (naturalized, green card etc) about leaving and returning home. Likely just talk but shows declining appeal. Brain drain is big problem for many European and South American countries. We don’t need that here. Also for the first time my European wife has had to endure a few “go home you are ruining our country” comments. Leave probably not but maybe stop coming.
Oh I've heard. If you're concerned, I'm sure you'd agree we should gather allies for a confrontation, rather than drive them away? That's assuming of course that you agree that scale matters in great power conflict. Meanwhile, any thoughts on the meme coin scam?
After reading much of what Richard Hanania has written on various things I am confident in my assessment that he is what the kids today call a shitposter which is what people with a few more years under their belt recognize as someone who thinks they are very clever when actually they are just an asshole.
Similarly, I listen to John Podhoretz and his Commentary crew daily and I think when it comes to economics his views are much like his views on Judaism. It was written down in books many years ago and therefore it is unquestionably true and if you question him he will loudly say mean things about you on X and on his podcast. Similar to Hanania, but perhaps to a lesser degree (most of the time), Podhoretz is also an asshole.
You're right, of course, economics is not a science, subject to physical laws, it's more a tool. A tool for the provisioning people and communities. And as such it can be wielded like a club, a weapon, a scalpel, a tool of extraction, or like a tool to bring people together.
And your Hayek remark does get at the kernel of the market fundamentalist fraud: "Hayek can be right that markets are complex systems about which people have incomplete knowledge and it can also be the case that policies to constrain market forces generate positive outcomes." To pretend this is not the case is disconnected from reality and anti-historical precisely in the way your free market critics are calling you anti-economic .
What I don't get is how you could imagine any of your economic populist ideas about how markets can work could possibly support Trump's trade war, which is stupid and vindictive and obviously economically depressive, or DOGE's and Project 2025's sabotage of government services, or the power of the government to provide essential services and positive restraints markets. Or even the anti-DEI idiocy, again, obviously economically depressive? None of this throws even a bone to workers or the economic well-being of families or saves the environment or even adds incrementally to a sustainable economy.
Market fundamentalism, supported by many well-meaning technocrats, is a popular myth and destructive fraud, but your conservative values make less of a case for how markets can work and, actually, a stronger case for protecting markets from tyrants and billionaire monopolists.
Polanyi writes: "By the fourth quarter of the nineteenth century, world commodity prices were the central reality in the lives of millions of Continental peasants; the repercussions of the London money market were daily noted by businessmen all over the world; and governments discussed plans for the future in the light of the situation on the world capital markets." In the great transformation the repercussions are felt everywhere, the Trump tariffs are felt everywhere, many countries are only joining the proletariat and are not necessarily getting richer but more unhappy.
I’ve been following this fascinating debate from your initial piece. Well thought out response here. Keep the conversation going.
Noah Smith is an idiot and best ignored, though a periodic take down to remind everyone to ignore him (because he’s an idiot) is certainly appreciated
A cat fight if I ever saw one !