Simon Lester | Lightnews

Aaron Ross Powell ☸️ @aaronrosspowell.com · 11h

When my kids were young, I told myself I'd support them in whatever they wanted to do, but prayed it wouldn't be getting into anime. Now, though, something even worse than that has happened: My sixteen year old, taking AP Government, cheerfully announced, "Reading SCOTUS cases is a lot of fun!"

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 12h

I think their idea is that there will be super cheap insurance for catastrophic stuff, and everything else is just paid out of pocket. I doubt they can make that work though.

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 12h

Can the Republicans all get behind this? I can imagine some will say it's socialism!

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 12h

A reason I say that I'd be surprised if this went anywhere is that it's hard to imagine the Republicans unifying around any particular idea.

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 13h

Somebody is talking about these things to him, and he's giving a garbled version of whatever was said. I would be very surprised if this goes anywhere, but nevertheless I'm curious what it is people are saying that he is garbling.

Aaron Rupar @atrupar.com · 14h

Trump: "I want the money to go into an account for people where they buy their own health insurance. It's so good. The insurance will be better. It'll cost less. Everybody is gonna be happy. They're gonna feel like entrepreneurs. They're actually able to go out & negotiate their own insurance"

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 13h

What article? I didn't write an article. Did you think I was the author of the article?

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 13h

This is not my field at all, and you may or may not care, but I'm going to write something longer on this. Very hard to discuss it in short posts.

(I don't know what the "doctor" refers to -- I am not a doctor in any sense of the word!)

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 13h

The 1950s is not arbitrary though. This is the era that ultraconservatives like Nikki Haley's son, who was the basis for what I originally wrote, often want to go back to.

As for the 1970s, that's when I grew up, and I don't think people at the time felt very prosperous (stagflation, etc.).

Aaron Rupar @atrupar.com · 13h

Trump says that HBCUs would be "all be out of business" if fewer Chinese students were allowed to go to American universities

Aaron Rupar @atrupar.com · 14h

Trump: "I want the money to go into an account for people where they buy their own health insurance. It's so good. The insurance will be better. It'll cost less. Everybody is gonna be happy. They're gonna feel like entrepreneurs. They're actually able to go out & negotiate their own insurance"

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 14h

I have lots of complaints about what is going on today. I just don't think people should be nostalgic for the 1950s (or some other era), which were terrible in many ways. I'm surprised that this is controversial here on Bluesky! (I can imagine other places where it would be though.)

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 15h

And closer by, S Korea and Taiwan had recently industrialized and then liberalized. It felt like a natural progression.

Paul Nadeau @pauljnadeau.bsky.social · 15h

A lot of the critiques of liberalization with China almost always miss 1) What they would've done instead, 2) That China is it own country with power and agency and ability to chose its own direction, and China chose illiberalism, 3) China's scale and governance model always made it an awkward fit

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 15h

OTOH, if that group had been focusing all their attention on China, think about what a mess they might have made of things!

Judah Grunstein @judah-grunstein.bsky.social · 15h

I think there was an internal split among the American primacists between focusing on China and focusing on the Middle East (Saddam & Iran). And that split (and subsequently the inherent stickiness of the Middle East) has defined US foreign policy since then.

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 16h

Feigenbaum makes it sound like a push on China from the hawks was coming, but who knows how that would have played out.

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 16h

(Not that I think pressing harder would have been effective, especially on democracy)

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 16h

I would say they pressed China half-heartedly, but they also needed China's non-objection to War on Terror stuff so China knew it didn't have to take the pressing seriously.

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 16h

But, famously, he was influenced by those around him. And if you look at the link with the Feigenbaum quote, it's interesting to think about where the China hawks might have pushed him. Could have been confrontational, although about what exactly is hard to say.

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 17h

Ha, ok, I'm on board then!

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 17h

I agree with your first point.

Can you elaborate on your last point?

Lawfare @lawfaremedia.org · 17h

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the challenge to President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs. Joshua Villanueva, Kristijan Barnjak, and Rebecca Qiu provide an overview of the arguments and the justices’ line of questioning.

Oral Argument Summary: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Tariffs)

At stake is whether IEEPA authorizes tariff measures, and if so, whether that delegation violates constitutional principles of nondelegation.

lawfaremedia.org

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 17h

Ha, yes.

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 17h

The annual budget deficit is already around $1.8 trillion, and any checks sent to the people will just mean higher borrowing.

Aaron Rupar @atrupar.com · 17h

Hassett: "I think it's back on the table to think about what to do with those tariff revenues. I'm sure the president will discuss with congressional leaders whether because of all of the extra tax revenue, there is more room to get checks back to people."

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 17h

The good news about all that foreign investment money is that we wouldn't have to pay it back because we don't actually have it.

Matt Peterson @mattpeterson.bsky.social · 17h

Trump claims the U.S. would need to repay $2 trillion if the Supreme Court overturned his tariffs. He says that covers "tariff revenue and investments," which presumably includes the deals from Japan, Korea, etc. Credible estimates of tariff revenue are less than 10% of that.

The “Pay Back” Numbers being quoted by the Radical Left Lunatics, who would love to see us lose on Tariffs because of how bad it would be for our Country, are much higher than those being stated by our Fake Opposition — Opposition mainly from Foreign Countries that would do anything to be allowed to charge us Tariffs without retribution. The actual Number we would have to pay back in Tariff Revenue and Investments would be in excess of $2 Trillion Dollars, and that, in itself, would be a National Security catastrophe. Those opposed to us in the United States Supreme Court are giving low Numbers so that the Court will think it is easy to get out of this terrible situation that these Anarchists and Thugs have put us into!

Aaron Rupar @atrupar.com · 17h

Hassett: "I think it's back on the table to think about what to do with those tariff revenues. I'm sure the president will discuss with congressional leaders whether because of all of the extra tax revenue, there is more room to get checks back to people."

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 17h

I agree to some extent, although I do think that formally granting China permanent MFN, and the subsequent WTO accession, probably encouraged more US companies to set up shop in China. But of course it's impossible to know how the counterfactual would have played out.

Matt Peterson @mattpeterson.bsky.social · 17h

Trump claims the U.S. would need to repay $2 trillion if the Supreme Court overturned his tariffs. He says that covers "tariff revenue and investments," which presumably includes the deals from Japan, Korea, etc. Credible estimates of tariff revenue are less than 10% of that.

Simon Lester @simonlester.com · 18h

Yep. ielp.worldtradelaw.net/2021/08/the-...

The Place of China in U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 and China’s WTO Accession

Former State Department official Evan Feigenbaum was recently part of an oral history project on the George W. Bush presidency. I found his comments on that administration's initial focus on C…

ielp.worldtradelaw.net

Matt Peterson @mattpeterson.bsky.social · 18h

$2,000 tariff dividends would cost $600 billion a year and if paid annually would raise the debt to 134% of GDP (from ~100%) by 2035, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates.

Light upyour news

Sign in to Lightnews

Sign up to start reading

Connect Bluesky

Connect with Bluesky

Light up
your news