Bill Maher does something unusual – he says he was wrong
I’m not a Bill Maher fan. But I give him credit for this. So few people, in private life or public, admit they were wrong. But Maher did:
The stock market is at record highs….I don’t see a country in a depression at all. I see people out there just living their lives.
“And I would have thought — and I gotta own it — that these tariffs were going to f***ing sink this economy by this time — and they didn’t. So, how do we feel with that fact? Because that’s the fact.”
“I gotta own it” is an unusual sentiment, especially with public figures whose pronouncements have been seen and read by so many people.
Maher also changed his mind on something else:
NEW: Bill Maher *RAVES* over Trump’s Iran strike
“I loved it. That was a home run.”
“And I’m a guy who was always saying … we should try to see if the Obama plan — the peace deal that Obama made — can work.”
“Maybe I was wrong.”
It’s certainly not a full-blown political conversion. But it’s nevertheless something of which many people – I think most people – are incapable.
Yes. As I mentioned previously, much of the new tariffs have not filtered through to consumer prices as expected. One can quibble about who “expected” what, but certainly Maher and people he listens to expected something worse than the current economic state.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act is often citing as showing how bad tariffs are, but I have got to wonder if the actual blame for the outcome depended on other things as well, such as FDR’s later attempt to install a fascist government (NRA) and the general economic idiocy of the FDR years. And that is not to mention Hoover’s attempts to manipulate the economy.
Ludwig Erhard said somewhere that the Germans received much advice from such as Galbraith, and ignored it. The German economic miracle after WWII was the result of ignoring “expert” advice.
incapable is exactly right
Incidentally, the media description “The first-quarter drop, the first retreat of the U.S. economy in three years, was mainly caused by a surge in imports — which are subtracted from GDP” is false.
While imports (M) are subtracted from GDP, that is only to zero them out of the GDP calculation. The GDP calculation already counts imports implicitly in other categories (Consumption, Government, Investment), they are not produced domestically, and therefore must be subtracted out or else GDP is too high.
Mathematically a “surge in imports” cannot lower GDP, because if the imports had not “surged” the GDP total would have been unaffected– G + I + C would be lower by the same amount that M was lower.
The issue with tariffs is it is not a level playing field.
There are a lot of variables involved; as others have mentioned, one may want to do some high tariffs (or subsidies) strictly out of protectionism; i.e. we don’t want to not make some medicines here, or have some minimal manufacturing production on certain, potential armaments (we don’t want to be dependent on China for ammunition), etc…
But I think the reason we are not seeing immediate price effects is because we were getting screwed by other countries. After WWII the U.S. stood astride the world as a colossus. There was a theory (likely correct) that helping other nations rebuild or attain a higher standard of living would minimize the risk of another world war. Investing U.S. dollars to help other countries lessened the likelihood that U.S. dollars (and lives) would be spent in another war.
The rising tide has lifted most boats, and the remaining boats are no longer America’s problem, alone. We are no longer the sole, dominant economic power.
Trump recently told U.S. drug manufacturers they needed to get their U.S. pricing in line with what they were charging other nations. It astounded me how many U.S. journalists argued that Trump was a fool, and didn’t understand the market. “Trump doesn’t understand that they have to charge the U.S. more because nations with socialized medicine negotiate lower prices.”
Well, yes, that’s the why of why they charge the U.S. more, but the effect is U.S. consumers end up paying for foreigners’ medicines, along with their own. Foreigners in Germany and France who retire at an earlier age and get more vacation time than their U.S. counterparts because our fathers and mothers sacrificed to rebuild the industrial base in post war Europe.
I think Trump would be content with no tariffs. I think he would prefer that. But only when the other parties are giving us the same deal.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act is often citing as showing how bad tariffs are, but I have got to wonder if the actual blame for the outcome depended on other things as well, such as FDR’s later attempt to install a fascist government (NRA) and the general economic idiocy of the FDR years. And that is not to mention Hoover’s attempts to manipulate the economy.
==
The economic contraction occurred between 1929-33. The Roosevelt Administration was not yet in office. The National Industrial Recovery Act one may wager did retard economic recovery, but growth rates were still quite rapid during the period running from 1933 to 1936.
==
Smoot-Hawley was unsalutary, but the principal injury would have been done to countries for which the American market was crucial (i.e. Canada). The United States exported only about 5% of it’s output by value in 1929 and imported less.
Bill Maher is complex, in a good way. I always found him way too opinionated, but he makes a living expressing strong opinions. They are often stronger than I would prefer, but he’s profited well from his approach.
He recently stopped touring as a stand-up comedian and launched a podcast. I listen to every fifth episode, or so, based on my interest in that week’s guest. It’s a wide tent and he seems to genuinely want to hear others’ opinions. He will attack them, even ridicule them when he disagrees, but he wants his guests to speak their minds. He has also started a “podcast network.” His first hire (and only, as far as I know) is Sage Steele. Ms. Steele is a former ESPN journalist who was fired due to a woke purge against her. Sage Steele is openly Christian (Maher made a film mocking organized religion), patriotic and very non-woke. She’s also a good interviewer. Bill Maher seems to be a genuine, free speech advocate who believes in the importance of open debate. His debate style is sometimes cruder and ruder than I like, but he does seem to be the genuine article.
@Rufus:I think Trump would be content with no tariffs. I think he would prefer that…. But only when the other parties are giving us the same deal.
A lot of people think that way, but mathematically, an economy is better off not imposing tariffs or trade barriers regardless of what the other countries are doing (purely looking at economics and not at things like morality or national security).
There is an asymmetry that Trump is able to exploit because the United States is such a heavy net importer. No one wants to be shut out of the US market. The whole premise of Trump’s successful negotiations is that the US will continue to be a heavy net importer after the negotiation, otherwise the tactic wouldn’t work at all.
The flip side is that by agreeing to reduce their trade barriers for us, they’re not giving up much if we’re the heavy net importer and continue to be so. All these successes depend on the United States being a heavy net importer and continuing to be so for the future. I’m not sure how many of the folks in favor of both Trump and protective tariffs have seen the contradiction.
My guess is that Maher was friends with Trump before he was in politics, but unlike guys like Howard Stern, he didn’t completely turn on him once he was.
Maher is undoubtedly a lib but has periodically taken contrarian positions to the “narrative”. I suspect his motive is simply the same one that kept Johnny Carson and Jay Leno appearing “even-handed” despite also being Democrats – to not instantly alienate half the audience like Colbert and the others have done. Still do not regard Maher that highly but give him credit for at least trying to make people think.
Niketas,
That’s a smart analysis. My only question is with the word “net” in “net importer.” Individual countries will absolutely want to maintain their heavily export funded industries. And maybe the country’s net balance of trade with the US to a lesser extent.
But I don’t see why the US can’t produce more for export (when onerous foreign tariffs are lowered) and still import enough to support those particular foreign industries. There are two possible “nets.” The overall net US balance of trade, and the “net” for each individual country.
One of my areas of agreement with one of my lefty friends is that we in the US are not going to do away with the advantage of cheap foreign labor. The average US worker is very expensive, relatively speaking.
TommyJay,
The average US worker is also very productive, relatively speaking.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-top-countries-by-gdp-per-hour/
Niketas,
I agree that Trump is taking our consumption into account and that is a big part of his negotiation. It’s like China and Europe are restaurants in Manhattan and Trump daily brings in large groups that fill 70% of each restaurant’s tables. “Hey, can my groups get a discount on the chicken tetrazzini?”
What I meant is; Trump is no fool. I hear many pundits chastising Trump stating he doesn’t understand how tariffs work. That’s the point of my even playing field statement. I think Trump knows if it’s a fair playing field (all nations have equal resources, populations, labor rates…) tariffs will harm the one country that chooses to impose them. It is not an even playing field, and, as you point out, the American consumer is a very desirable commodity. Trump is using that to our advantage.
Rufus T Firefly…”Trump recently told U.S. drug manufacturers they needed to get their U.S. pricing in line with what they were charging other nations”
If a drug has high *development* costs but relatively low *unit production costs*, then it makes sense for a company to offer a lower price to low-income countries…the company is getting revenue and gross margin that it would not otherwise get. However, the game is different in the case of higher-income countries, and in the case of Medicare and other government-funded programs, it is entirely appropriate to require that the price be at or close to that charged to the EU countries, Canada, etc
@Rufus: It’s like China and Europe are restaurants in Manhattan and Trump daily brings in large groups that fill 70% of each restaurant’s tables. “Hey, can my groups get a discount on the chicken tetrazzini?”
That is a very good analogy. He’s not trying to make his groups start their own restaurant.
Tommy Jay…”One of my areas of agreement with one of my lefty friends is that we in the US are not going to do away with the advantage of cheap foreign labor”
See my post Labor Day Thoughts from 2021:
“My discussion question for today: In a world with global and highly-efficient transportation and communications…and billions of people who are accustomed to low wages…is it possible for a country such as the United States to maintain its accustomed high standards of living for the large majority of its people?…and, if so, what are the key policy elements required to do this?”
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/66613.html
David Foster,
Yes, but my point is (and, I believe Trump’s thought process) it’s no longer 1946 and the global, economic playing field is very different today. Why do we allow other 1st world countries to out negotiate us when it comes to drug prices?
RTF…we don’t need to do that, and shouldn’t. Just require price parity or something close to it when government is the purchaser and/or payor. This is NOT price fixing, it just a best-price requirement.
Once we’re talking about Medicaid and Medicare we’re pretty far out of free market territory, what’s a little price-fixing? Medicaid and Medicare represent 39% of national health expenditure.
Prescription drug prices are practically meaningless anyway. There’s too much third-party money at every stage from manufacture to retail.
Most people are covered under some kind of insurance, even most people on Medicare and Medicaid. That insurance company has probably negotiated drug prices and rebates with a pharmacy benefits manager. The pharmacy benefits manager has its own negotiations with drug companies and drug retailers. The price paid for any one drug by the consumer will have little relation to what was paid to the drug company for that drug and little relation to the “official” price set by the manufacturer.
One of my areas of agreement with one of my lefty friends is that we in the US are not going to do away with the advantage of cheap foreign labor.
==
Again, see Borjas. The sum of material benefit to the extant population of immigration is minimal. It’s not the ‘advantage of foreign labor’ that’s the issue. It’s that the Democratic Party wants their vote farm and the corruptocrat faction of the Republican Party will do favors for anyone who puts money in their campaign coffers (including industries which rely on illegal aliens).
David Foster,
“… and billions of people accustomed to low wages…”
I used to feel the same, but my perception has changed.
I think a lot of Americans would be willing to make do with less if they knew their children and grandchildren had jobs in industries that were not likely to disappear. If they knew their government wasn’t increasing their children and grandchildren’s debt burden. If drug overdoses decreased because more people had purpose in their lives.
I think many of us have concluded more material possessions and more leisure are not, necessarily, conducive to human flourishing. I think there is a segment where the trend of lower prices is an inverse relationship to human flourishing on a graph, but there’s a point where that stops, and, perhaps, even reverses.
I call it the parable of the bicycle. When I first learned to ride a bicycle my sister and I shared a hand-me-down bicycle from an aunt. It was a woman’s bike and so big I couldn’t reach the pedals while seated and had to ride standing. When I got my own bike, a Schwinn made in the U.S.A.(!) I was ecstatic. I took great care of it! Washed it. Rode it constantly. My friends and I all knew how to grease our own bearings, repair and adjust our bikes, repair flat tires… No adults taught us any of this. We took out books on bike repair from the library and rode to our local bike shop and peppered the owner with questions. And we rode our bikes all the time.
When I became a parent I was stunned at how cheap bikes had become. They were so cheap my wife and I bought our kids their own bikes, at age 4. And whenever they grew a bit (the kids, not the bikes) we bought them a larger one. I’d wager from birth to getting their drivers’ licenses my kids rode 1/100th of the miles I rode (maybe 1/1,000th). I don’t think any of my kids know how to do any repairs, even replacing a flat innertube, let alone finding a leak and using a patch, glue and a flame to repair one. I don’t recall my kids ever washing their bikes. I’d often get home from work and see a bike lying outside and I’d put it in the garage lest it get stolen. I used to carry my bike up a flight of attic stairs to my bedroom at the end of each day, to ensure it wasn’t stolen.
I’m not alone. Many people my age refer to their childhood bike akin to Charles Foster Kane and his sled, Rosebud.
Lower cost bikes did nothing to improve the function of a bike in a child’s life. I’m convinced it actually lessened the experience. And I’m leaving out the bike shop owner in my neighborhood who eventually closed up shop when bikes became cheap, and disposable. And the employees at the Schwinn factory that closed because it couldn’t compete with low cost, Chinese labor. Did their lives get better?
So, what is the true purpose of a thing? Is purchase price the only value we should measure?
“My discussion question for today: In a world with global and highly-efficient transportation and communications…and billions of people who are accustomed to low wages…is it possible for a country such as the United States to maintain its accustomed high standards of living for the large majority of its people?…and, if so, what are the key policy elements required to do this?”
==
No, the question for the day is can we maintain our country as a going concern in the social and political realm. The interlocking issues are low fertility, lawfare, illegal immigration and excess legal immigration, vote fraud, the administration of the penal law, eligibility standards for common provision, the maintenance of freedom to speak and to publish, and the restoration of a pluralistic culture in the media and higher education. Variations on this menu exist in most occidental countries.
==
We have another problem which implicates the competence and integrity of the political class: wretchedly excessive public sector borrowing.
==
I’m not hopeful. Trump has some good instincts and he’s draggled the DC Republicans along kicking-and-screaming. Not enough, I’m afraid. No clue how all this shakes out.
==
And then there’s China.
Art Deco,
I completely agree about immigration and “vote farms.” But, I was thinking about Nikes being manufactured in Vietnam. Or buying stuff on Amazon or Walmart that is made in China. Though I hear labor in China isn’t as cheap as it used to be.
Or Ford building plants in Mexico. It was a long time ago, before their bankruptcy, that people joked about GM being a healthcare company that built vehicles as a sideline.
Ludwig Erhard said somewhere that the Germans received much advice from such as Galbraith, and ignored it. The German economic miracle after WWII was the result of ignoring “expert” advice.
==
John Kenneth Galbraith had very little record of scholarly publication. See Thos Sowell on his teaching. Semester started off well, but people drifted away when they realized his lectures weren’t all that substantive. He was a well-connected man who had through some alchemy landed a berth at a prestigious institution, but he wasn’t much of a contributor to economic thought. You know who was willing to say this in print? Paul Krugman of all people.
==
His experience as a policy maker was derived from working in the Office of Price Administration during the war.
Rufus T — a beautiful essay.
You truly captured the role of my bike–so big, I too had to stand to ride it, until I grew– in my childhood.
It gave me my independence, at age seven.
I will be sharing it widely with my cousins, 68-79.
ah yes the Canadian who went from the OPA to the Strategic Bombing Survey to the Ambassadorship to India under Kennedy, he was always arguing for more extensive government intervention, the Keynesian on Benzedrine, some of this rubbed off on Krugman, and the mainlined drug of unnecessary debt is very to hard to wean oneself off, Finance has it’s place as does service industries, but none of those two sectors helped us win the war, it was our industrial might, which we have surrendered over the last third of a century, from the time of NAFTA, the Dems once saw purpose in decrying downsizing and outsourcing, this was in the late 80s,
(that was Michael Moore’s initial shtick, until he branched into other thinss he knew less about) but then they pushed into more financialization and outsourcing, this was all the while from CRA revisions they encouraged more sub prime lending to institutions, which along with the interest rate spike would lead to the 2007-9 popping of the property bubble,
Rufus,
That’s a great bicycle story. Mine is both similar and rather different. My older brother conned my parents out of a chunk of money by convincing them to buy both of us high-end French road bicycles in 1969. I was about 14.
I’ve laced and rebuilt wheels. Replaced all the bearings with sealed units and more. And with maybe 30,000 miles on it, I still ride it. But now, with lots of seashore rides and a lack of recent care, it’s got a lot of corrosion.
Just as I was reluctantly thinking about selling or junking it for something new recently, in spite of its sentimental value, a group of old guys rode up next to me and went ga-ga over it. “Oh, it’s a Gitane. I can tell even though you repainted it. Look at those center-pull brakes! Etc., etc.” Now I can’t make up my mind.
Good times & money well spent.
TommyJay,
from wikipedia: “… the name “Gitane” means gypsy woman. The brand was synonymous with French bicycle racing from the 1960s through the mid-1980s…”
Gypsy woman. I like that! Wonderful story!
Great story Rufus, thanks.
We are all right in the middle of one the greatest stories in human history – a virtual explosion of wealth. Ignore the naysayers. But sometimes one wonders, “What’s it all about?”
My dad, and his four siblings, grew up in real poverty in the worst of the depression. I heard all of those stories, and cherished them. Christmas for them was an orange and a peppermint stick – that’s it.
All five of them lived into their 90’s so I’ve heard all of these stories many times. Here’s my favorite. The neighbors were very used to the Plaiss kids coming around asking for food (yes, that kind of poverty.) The oldest, a rule-the-roost girl, used this to her advantage. One day the parents were out, and she dispatches the other four. The cutest, and the most charismatic, to the best-off house that would be most likely to have chocolate. The others to acquire sugar, flour, eggs.
You see, she had learned to make fudge – and that’s what they did. But they left some evidence, and evidently a neighbor talked, so they were found out. Hell was paid, and in this day and age, my grandmother would likely have gone to jail. But remembering those stories, at my grandmother’s house on Christmas Eve, with all of them laughing so hard they couldn’t breathe, I sometimes wonder, are my kids happier? Will they have memories like those? Will they have stories this good?
When someone inevitably asked them if they missed the old days the answer was a unanimous, “Hell no! It was terrible!”
One year ago Maher & Megyn Kelly talked for 2 hours. Maher was OK till it came to Trump then he changed dramatically. When he talked about all the cops who were killed on J6, Megyn politely but firmly informed him that NO cops were killed that day. He foundered for a few seconds then changed the subject. Now, if someone who is (supposedly) as hip as him believes this fallacy, how many millions more Democrats believe the same thing? Incredible. How to get this information out to these people is the big question. I don’t think some will believe it no matter what proof is shown to them.
Chazzand — Bill Maher & J6 myths.
Many or most of my inlaws believe it was an actual insurrection attempt that Trump incited.
They absolutely believe that several cops were killed that day.
I think even if I stated the facts & they listened, it’s likely they would insist the police suicides — 3, IIRC over the following 3 to 5 weeks? — were delayed but still murders by Trump’s people.
Neighbors also believe.
The politicians & news people stubbornly & repeatedly insisted on those lies.
It’s infuriating and extremely sad, all at once.
Bill Maher strikes me as a person who includes having an “open mind” as part of his identity. Not that he succeeds so much, but he makes the effort.
Being open-minded is pretty far down the list of priorities for most people.
There is a mystery there, what did happen to those capitol policemen there was nothing traumatic enough to commit suicide the video of the encounter by sicknick was particularly uneventful
In the running man they were not above killing airport personnel to frame the schwartzenegger character we know how they introduce ‘evidence’ in intel reports