President Trump is applying Say’s Law in managing the American economy

For almost everyone, Say’s Law is something they know nothing about, and especially among economists who are taught that Say’s Law is unambiguously wrong, who themselves not only do not know what Say’s Law is, but would not even know where to look to find out. But as the success of the American economy most clearly shows, Say’s Law is the most important single element in understanding how an economy can be made to grow. And as we find out, the American economy is being managed based on the application of Say’s Law.

The passage below begins at 13:13 of the video, and it is Donald Trump’s economic advisor, Larry Ludlow, specifically stating that the economic policies of the United States at the present time are based on the application of Say’s Law to the American economy. The greatest disaster in the history of economic theory was the Keynesian Revolution and the forced disappearance of Say’s Law. If you would like to see some of this, there is my article on Keynesian economics and Say’s Law that I published in February 2009 just as the stimulus was beginning across the world: The Dangerous Return to Keynesian Economics. It is not just about how damaging modern macroeconomics is, but how disastrous economic theory has become with the disappearance of Say’s Law. This is exactly what Donald Trump believes as is made clear in this discussion from Larry Kudlow.

I just want to note that we are in a boom. We had this blockbuster jobs number today. There is no inflation. There is no inflation. More growth, more people working does not cause inflation.

These old Federal Reserve models are outdated and have proven to be incorrect. Right now the inflation rate is probably less than one and a half percent even while unemployment is low and jobs are soaring and we are growing at three per cent. Why do I say that?

Because that is a point of view which the President holds and I think the President is exactly right.

This is supply side revolution. We’re creating more goods and services. We’re increasing the capital stock and business investment and that’s what creates incomes and jobs.

I’m sure you remember Jean-Baptiste Say. He wrote in the early part of the nineteenth century. He was a French economic philosopher. I met him awhile back, you perhaps did also.

Say’s Law: supply creates its own demand. This is not government spending from the demand side, this is lower tax rates from the supply side, and it is businesses that ultimately drive the economy.

I would like Jay Powell to hear that argument from President Trump who knows the argument very well. Now Jay I think does too – he’s a very smart guy. So I’m just saying that they can benefit from an exchange of views.

Let’s understand that more people working and solid percentage growth is not – IS NOT – causing higher inflation, and therefore Fed policies should take that into account.

Say’s Law. He may have to go and commune with him to fully understand it.

Everyone will need to commune with Say’s Law if they are going to understand how an economy works. If these sorts of things interest you, the third edition of my text, Free Market Economics, sets it all out in fine detail. And let me add this, the endorsement of the book found on the back cover from Art Laffer of Laffer curve fame, who drove the economic policies of the Reagan administration back in the 1980s.

‘This book presents the very embodiment of supply-side economics. At its very core is the entrepreneur trying to work out what to do in a world of deep uncertainty in which the future cannot be known. Crucially, the book is entirely un-Keynesian, restoring Say’s Law to the centre of economic theory, with its focus on value-adding production as the source of demand. If you would like to understand how an economy actually works, this is one of the few places I know of where you can find out.’

A restoration of Say’s Law is an essential if we are ever going to get our economies to thrive and grow.

China, China, China

David Archibald has been pointing towards a coming confrontation with China for quite a long time, and it seems that his concerns are reflected at the very top in the United States. Never mind what I or David say, this is what the new Acting American Secretary of Defence says.

Now that he is acting secretary of defense, the civilian Shanahan now has only one layer of command to defer to and can be his own man, it seems. For the first words from his mouth on taking command were “China, China, China” — no agonising over terrorists whose faith will not be named, no handwringing over global warming, no apologia for allies who shirk paying for their defense, and no histrionics on the subject of the impoverished kleptocracy that is Russia.  The Mattis era is over.

And if you go to the link in the para above, this is what you come to:
‘China, China, China’: Trump’s new Pentagon chief Patrick Shanahan sets US defence priorities
. The article begins:

Patrick Shanahan, the acting US defence secretary, singled out China as a key priority in a “great power competition” on his first full day in his new role at the Pentagon on Wednesday, continuing a course set by his predecessor.

“While we are focused on ongoing operations, Acting Secretary Shanahan told the team to remember China, China, China,” an anonymous defence official was quoted as saying….

Shanahan provided his view of long-term competition with China and Russia while speaking at an Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association event last February.

“We all hear about how our competitiveness has eroded,” Shanahan said. “Our strategy is about how to sharpen and strengthen our competitiveness.”

He told the audience that “there are no such things as fair competitions – there’s just competition”.

If this really is the real thing, worrying about deployment of a couple thousand in Syria is an absolute nothing.

Meanwhile, China is becoming more centre stage. These are minor items at Drudge today, but the issues are becoming more visible.

Xi Orders Military to ‘Enhance Combat Readiness’…
Tests its own ‘Mother of All Bombs’…
Chinese agents knock on doors, demand users delete tweets…

We certainly do live in interesting times.

How are open borders a winning strategy for the left?

It is a complete mystery. Why are there votes in allowing anyone who wants to show up to enter your nation state and just stay there while claiming every welfare benefit available to the population that finances them? Explain this to me if you can: OFFICIAL: DEMS ‘REFUSED’ TO EVEN LISTEN TO BORDER SECURITY BRIEFING AT WHITE HOUSE.

Democratic lawmakers brought a border security briefing at the White House to a screeching halt Wednesday, refusing to even listen to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, a White House official tells The Daily Caller.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy echoed this version of events to reporters outside the White House immediately after the briefing, saying, “Once the secretary started, Schumer interrupted her and didn’t want to hear it.”

Republican and Democratic lawmakers after the meeting indicated little progress was made toward ending the partial government shutdown and that they agreed to reconvene Friday. The White House official says there was a consensus in the room that negotiations would be put on hold until Pelosi officially assumed her expected role of Speaker. (Related: Trump Refuses To Budge in Shutdown Demand: ‘As Long As It Takes’) 

The White House official told TheDC that both Pelosi and Schumer refused to hear out Nielsen’s briefing and instead advocated for two solutions to end the government shutdown. Neither of the Democratic options would provide the additional funding for border security requested by The White House.

Why is this not the winning hand?

The left truly are beyond reason (ie insane).

A first class temperament

I find this remarkable. Both from Drudge.

TRUMP 2019: CALM DOWN AND ENJOY THE RIDE…
Calls ex-general ‘dog’ with ‘big, dumb mouth’…
MSM: HE. WILL. STEP. DOWN…
YEAR END POLL: APPROVAL 47%…
In Newly Divided Govt, Who Will Control Political Agenda? 

From the first:

President Trump ushered in 2019 in characteristic fashion — with a tweet expressing supreme confidence in himself, contempt for the “fake news media” and optimism for the country.

The famously teetotaling commander-in-chief proved he wasn’t nursing a New Year’s hangover with the early morning missive, his second of the freshly-minted year. The first was a message praising former adviser Sebastian Gorka, who has a book out.

“Happy new year to everyone, including the haters and the fake news media!” the president tweeted. “2019 will be a fantastic year for those not suffering from Trump derangement syndrome.”

Meanwhile:


ROMNEY DOWNLOADS ON TRUMP...
'Presidency made deep descent in December'...
Nation so divided, resentful and angry...
PRESIDENT RESPONDS: BE TEAM PLAYER AND WIN... 

The phrase in the heading comes from Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr who described FDR as “A second-class intellect. But a first-class temperament”. In the present case, however, the intellect is as good as the temperament. A rocky year ahead, but if PDT remains optimistic, then why shouldn’t we?

The true nature of things likes to conceal itself

The proper title of this article is, In defence of Donald Trump, a man of character among a pack of dogs. This is how it ends with much of good sense before the end is reached.

I don’t know anyone who voted for Donald Trump, or who later came to support him, because he thought the president was a candidate for sainthood.

On the contrary, people supported him, first, because of what he promised to do and, second, because of what, over the past two years, he has accomplished. These accomplishments, from rolling back the regulatory state and scores of conservative judicial appointments, from moving our Israeli embassy to Jerusalem to resuscitating our military, working to end Obamacare, and fighting to keep our borders secure, are not morally neutral data points. They are evidences of a political vision and of promises made and kept. They are, in short, evidences of what sort of character Donald Trump is.

Add them up and I think they go a long way towards a definition of good character that Donald Trump can clear.

Voltaire, writing against Rousseau and his self-intoxicated paeans to “virtue,” occupied a similar semantic neighborhood: “What is virtue, my friend?” Voltaire asked. “It is to do good: let us do it, and that’s enough. We won’t look into your motives.”

Character is not destiny. The future is not fixed. We have a right to hope.

And in this spirit, the best to you all for the New Year.

“We’re respected again as a nation”

Via Powerline

President Trump visited the troops in Iraq at Al Asad Air Base on Christmas. Sarah Sanders announced on Twitter: “President Trump and the First Lady traveled to Iraq late on Christmas night to visit with our troops and Senior Military leadership to thank them for their service, their success, and their sacrifice and to wish them a Merry Christmas.” President Trump himself tweeted out the video below.

I’m sure we’ll be hearing about it if he said anything to question the existence of Santa Claus during his visit. Otherwise, maybe not so much. The video warmed my heart. I thought readers would find it of interest.

Quotable quote (Trump via the linked Politico article): “We’re no longer the suckers, folks. We’re respected again as a nation.”

Except by all the mongrels, Dems and #NeverTrumpers.

Putting down a mad dog was the right thing to do

You have to trust someone’s judgement on issues one knows near nothing about, and David Archibald is one of my go-to people on foreign policy. He has now written this article, Mattis was no good, which begins like this.

American Thinker readers were warned about General Mattis over a year ago in this article.  Briefly, Mattis was and remains a supporter of global warming.

The issue of global warming continues to be a reliable and simple litmus test.  If someone believes in global warming, then you can be sure he is a globalist who loathes Western civilization.

Then there was his support for the Islamist Anne Patterson, loathed by the Egyptian people for her support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Then there was the matter of allowing one of his underlings to throw Fox Company, of Task Force Spartan in Afghanistan in 2007, under a bus so he could advance his own career.

And on it continues. He had me at global warming, the surest dye marker for incompetence and a sell-out for our Western way of life. The rest just adds more detail and substance. A great name “Mad Dog”, but past that happy to see him on his way.

The one certainty is that there is no certainty

With the Deep State found at every turn, it is hard to know where to look for sense on PDT’s pull-out of American forces from Syria. The one person whose views I therefore most wished to hear were those of Caroline Glick at The Jerusalem Post. She has now published this, which the headline writer described as: TRUMP’S DECISION TO PULL FORCES OUT OF SYRIA HAS UPSIDES. In the article itself, she is more positive, with this her conclusion which she links to Nikki Haley’s speech to the UN last week:

By abandoning the anti-Israel fake “peace process” and striking out on a new path based on reality, and by walking away from Obama’s pro-Iran policies in Syria and Lebanon and backing Israel in its efforts to defeat its enemies, the Trump administration is demonstrating what pro-Israel really means. So long as it is true to its word, Israel is safer and stronger for it.

OK. But there are two sides to this as she makes clear.

For the past two years, the Trump administration has continued implementing Obama’s pro-Iran policy in Syria. Efforts to change the US mission have failed, largely due to Pentagon opposition. During his visit to Israel in August, National Security Advisor John Bolton said that the mission of US forces had been expanded to block Iran from asserting control over Syria. But since the administration didn’t request a new mandate from Congress, the mission remained officially what it has been since 2014.

It is true that on the ground, the US forces in Syria do far more than fight ISIS. They block Iran from controlling the Syrian border with Iraq and so prevent Iran from controlling a land route from Tehran to the Mediterranean Sea.

US forces also have blocked Turkey from taking over Syrian Kurdistan and have prevented Turkish President Recep Erdogan from carrying out his pledge to destroy the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces. If the US chooses not to arm and supply the SDF, once the Americans leave, Syria’s Kurds – America’s only loyal allies there – will either have to cut a deal with Russia and Iran or face Turkey alone.

US forces in Syria also block Russia from taking over Syria’s oil fields. On February 7, forty US Special Forces troops blocked hundreds of Russian mercenaries from seizing the Conoco oil field on the eastern side of the Euphrates.

Finally, US forces in Syria act as a deterrent against Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah aggression against Israel. With US forces on the ground, they fear that provoking a war with Israel will be tantamount to going to war against America. With US forces out of Syria, their fear of attacking Israel will diminish.

Nevertheless, she still sees the positives, and it is quite striking that the Israeli reaction generally has been so quiet. It is the same people who oppose a border wall in the US who are also the ones most critical of Trump’s decision. The one certainty is that there is no certainty, no matter what you do.

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS: There is an apparent assumption that PDT just does what he does with no groundwork and preparation. However, as noted by Baa Humbug in the comments: Saudi Crown Prince MbS Sends Replacement Troops To Defend Kurds in Syria…. There is also this to dwell on if it doesn’t turn your stomach: THE NEW YORK TIMES WAS AGAINST WAR IN SYRIA BEFORE IT WAS FOR IT.

Almost a year ago, on Jan. 19, 2018, that same editorial board raked the president over the coals for even daring to continue America’s policy of military adventurism. The Times expressed concern that more American troops beyond the 2,000 initially deployed could soon be sent overseas in a mission without any clear goals. “Syria is a complex problem. But this plan seems poorly conceived, too dependent on military action and fueled by wishful thinking,” The Times said.

Who would depend on these people to protect our way of life?