Evidently, the members of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal and most economists complaining aloud on X this last weekend expected otherwise.
How did "most economists" reach a conclusion? Granted, it was the wrong one, but they apparently met my expectations. And right about now, I think the WSJ editorial board is not always seeing things too clearly. I expected Trump would get exactly what he wanted, that it would happen quickly, and that he would be satisfied that he did the best he could for his America First mission.
I don't know, and I am not sure what the shallow complaining all these policy know-alls reveals.
One speculation: They really do subscribe to the ultimate technocratic conceit, or, the same thing, to the soft Sovietization of everything. So, for example, they believe in the idea that government should be composed of administrative agencies invested with "rulemaking" capacity--basically, the capacity to both make law and enforce law, notwithstanding the fact that such capacity violates the separation of powers. But, they hate the separation of powers. They hate the idea of subjecting administrative agencies to judicial review, because such agencies should just be run by the technocratic experts. Outsiders should just "believe The Science" and not be equipped to challenge the experts by making them justify their rules in a court-ordered process.
Seriously; did anyone really expect the outcome to be different?
Evidently, the members of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal and most economists complaining aloud on X this last weekend expected otherwise.
Puzzling.
How did "most economists" reach a conclusion? Granted, it was the wrong one, but they apparently met my expectations. And right about now, I think the WSJ editorial board is not always seeing things too clearly. I expected Trump would get exactly what he wanted, that it would happen quickly, and that he would be satisfied that he did the best he could for his America First mission.
I don't know, and I am not sure what the shallow complaining all these policy know-alls reveals.
One speculation: They really do subscribe to the ultimate technocratic conceit, or, the same thing, to the soft Sovietization of everything. So, for example, they believe in the idea that government should be composed of administrative agencies invested with "rulemaking" capacity--basically, the capacity to both make law and enforce law, notwithstanding the fact that such capacity violates the separation of powers. But, they hate the separation of powers. They hate the idea of subjecting administrative agencies to judicial review, because such agencies should just be run by the technocratic experts. Outsiders should just "believe The Science" and not be equipped to challenge the experts by making them justify their rules in a court-ordered process.