Category: Political Economy

Scott Bessent on Alexander Hamilton on Economic Security

At the WSJ:

Under President Trump’s leadership, the U.S. Treasury is working to restore economic security as the foundation that allows a nation to fulfill its most basic obligations.

Emboldened by our actions, other countries began to exploit our dependence as leverage. Now is the time to correct this. We need to insist on trade that is fair, reciprocal and consistent with our national interest. This is why the U.S. Treasury is organizing its economic statecraft around five core principles.

First, economic security begins with national capacity. We have rediscovered at great cost what Alexander Hamilton taught us: that every nation “ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply.” Our strength is derived from what we can build, for the nation that can’t produce what it needs isn’t truly secure. The nation that depends on its adversaries for critical inputs isn’t truly sovereign. And the nation that reduces its economics to consumption isn’t truly prosperous.

The Hamiltonian point about security and sovereignty is perfectly obvious. How foolish to be dependent upon a geopolitical adversary such as the Chinese Communists for pharmaceuticals and semiconductors! But that dependence is what the Democrats allowed, whatever their motives.

This is why we are lucky that Donald J. Trump came along. You may find him stylistically off-putting, as I do, but substance trumps style, a fact that escapes the stylish but merely performative Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris.  If it is style you want, Melania has more than enough for both POTUS and FLOTUS.

For my edgier political observations, take a gander at my Facebook page, where I do not hesitate to impute motives to our political enemies.  And yes, they are enemies, even if you do not want to go all the way with Carl Schmitt.

Nancy Pelosi in 1996: A Pre-Trumper on Tariffs

You have probably seen this by now, but in case you haven't, here is Nancy Pelosi in 1996 talking sense! I didn't think she had it in her, given the inanities she has been spouting for the last quarter century. I don't see much if any difference between what she said then about  tariffs, trade imbalances, and trade reciprocity and what Trump is saying now.

Part of what enrages contemporary Dems about Trump is that he has (a) stolen their thunder, and (b) is actually doing things they only talked about doing, e. g,  curtailing waste, fraud, and abuse at the federal level, controlling the borders, and shrinking the size of the federal government.

Blinded by their mindless rage, they cannot assess policy proposals on their own merits, but only on whether or not they are supported by Trump. If Trump is for it, they are against it, no matter what it is, and vice versa.

Anti-Trump Dems cannot stand the man because he has transformed the fat-cat GOP into a people's party.  The Never-Trump Republicans cannot stand him because he gate-crashed their rich guy club and exposed the bow-tied Beltway/Bulwark boys and girls for the effete and epicene bunch they are.  Interestingly, Trump has won the sympathy, though not the full support, of the socialist outlet, The Militant. See here for a recent article in support of my assertion.

But he wins because he is loaded too, and more importantly, loves his country, its people, and has the biggest cojones of the toughest hombre on the world stage at present.  

Central Bank Digital Currency

It is already upon us. Fifty Shades of Central Bank Tyranny.

In this article, I will define what a Central Bank Digital Currency is by exploring its major categories. I’ll demonstrate that the US already operates with a form of CBDC, albeit without the flashy labels. I will also show that the Federal Reserve (the Fed) can introduce more dystopian elements into this system—such as programming restrictions on when, how, and where you can spend your money without requiring Congressional approval.

However, the fear of central bank control over your transactions is, in fact, a red herring. The real threat lies with our government, which has already perfected the art of surveillance. Adding programmability is just the next logical step. Ultimately, both Republicans and Democrats are steering us toward the same destination: total digital control. They may use different words and different propaganda, but their goals converge. While we can’t simply vote out of this predicament, we can opt out entirely.

U. S. Treasuries Still a Safe Haven?

Argument contra. Excerpt:

Even though the U.S. government’s debt-fueled spending response began as a national emergency under former President Trump, excessive spending continued under the Biden-Harris administration. It continued long after the emergency faded and continues today.

By continuing it, the Biden-Harris administration squandered the opportunity to refill the U.S. government’s credit reservoir to restore its risk-free status. They could have reduced spending to sustainable levels after the pandemic ended, but instead, they failed this basic test of fiscal responsibility.

The national debt in relation to the U.S. economy has now reached levels not seen since the end of World War 2. It may be helpful to consider how politicians of that time tackled this challenge. After the war, they adjusted their spending habits and stopped investing money in a war that had already ended. This decision ensured that the U.S. government’s credit reservoir would be replenished for future generations.

It’s a history lesson that today’s politicians either never learned or have chosen to ignore. Because they haven’t heeded the lesson, debt issued by the U.S. government has become riskier to the nation’s creditors. Because it has become riskier for those who lend money to the U.S. government, that same debt has become much more costly to U.S. taxpayers.

“If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” It’s only a question of when and how painful it will be when it does.

Here we have yet another reason why anyone who supports Harris-Walz is a contemptible fool.  Is it not one of the marks of the fool to be unaware of, or unconcerned with, one's long-term best self-interest, where such self-interest correlates closely with the long-term best self-interest of one's country? 

Meanwhile the spot price of gold hovers around 2500 USD/oz.  That says something, doesn't it?