Neither is exactly a devotee of Milton Friedman but at least Harris won’t use fiscal and economic policy to settle personal scores and violate the rule of law
MIGHT be less injurious to the economy than Trump? In other words, you don't know for sure.
Well, I do know: Harris will make a bigger mess of things than Biden. And a Biden buck is only worth 8o cents of a Trump buck. Interest rates are so high that they have nearly frozen the housing market. No problem: Kamala will just hand out more money to first time homebuyers, thereby causing more inflation.
It's time to stop playing make believe. We can't afford to. Kamala is clueless. We don't even know who is running the show. It sure isn't her.
The reason that MIGHT qualifier is there is that Trump is flaky and incompetent. It's possible that once he's in office he'll be too scatterbrained to implement all his bad ideas. If Trump does even a fraction of what he says he wants to do, he will definitely be far worse on the economy than Harris.
Biden has been fine on the economy. After COVID unemployment went down fast. Everywhere was short-staffed because workers were in such demand. Inflation was mostly due to COVID relief spending, which Trump and Biden were both guilty of. Inflation was fastest in 2020, when Trump was still in charge. Fortunately Biden (or whoever is whispering in his ear) was able to clean up Trump's mess.
Everyone can have an opinion. Opinions, by themselves are worthless, unless they are based on reality. Trump was president for four years. We were told he colluded with Russia, would start WWIII, would wreck the economy, and sell earth to the Martians, or some such. EVEYTHING, not just some things, EVERYTHGING we have been told about him has proven to be a lie. Anyone can continue to believe those lies, and call them opinions. I just call them what they are, lies.
No, inflation was not up when Trump left office. That's another lie. The inflation rate during Trump's presidency is 1.9%. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Under Biden, it's 5.7%, another fact.
The impact of Presidents on the economy is greatly exaggerated.
The imposition of tariffs is supposed to be the task of the Congress but like waging war has been given over to our imperial presidency. That is what makes Trump a relatively greater threat to the economic well being of most Americans as consumers in the short term. The market will shift to compensate for the tariffs BUT there will be a time lag before that happens.
Either Harris or Trump will have relatively little impact on the very wealthy and the very poor.
The greatest fraud perpetrated on populations in every nation is that leaders and political parties can claim credit for good economic performance. Logically it is false to say they can control bad economic outcomes.
Market forces determine the trajectory of the economy not governments. Sure they can diminish the consequences and enhance benefits from the general trends.
The most significant economic driver that we DO control is deficit spending and the accumulation of debt and the printing of money and to be honest neither candidate and certainly neither party is serious about those fundamental things over which they do have control.
The real reason to support Harris (as most Republicans who haven't lost their integrity are doing) is simply because she is the only person running for the office of President whereas the other guy is running simply to keep his ass out of prison and fill his bank accounts and strike beneficial deals for his future interests. Oh, yes, the criminally corrupt candidate was, is and always will be totally unqualified and temperamentally unfit to be the President of the United States of America.
Harris may well be "Less Injurious to the American Economy than Trump", but maybe much more damaging in many other more fundamental ways.
When Harris boots "Rachel Levine" out of the White House, acknowledges the Cass Report, repudiates Biden's Title IX claptrap, and recognizes "How the Democrats and the Left Betrayed Women and Girls" is maybe when my "doubts", and those of many others, about the Democrats would be alleviated enough to consider voting for Harris.
All this trans-hysteria is far off from the topic being discussed.
The only relevant question regarding Dr. Levine is whether she is generally capable of doing the job assigned. All job performance which touches on politics will be critically viewed by partisans. Her job performance in Pennsylvania during the COVID pandemic was generally considered competent. So other than your animus towards trans-persons I see no reason for being "booted out."
I agree that Biden's Title IX expansion is clap trap but I think every aspect of Title IX should be repealed. It no longer is needed.
The Cass Report is just ONE report (in the context of treatment in the UK and the NHS) but it is far from a definitive study upon which all policy around medical treatment for trans-persons should be based.
Above everything any treatment of gender dysphoria in children should be determined by the parents and not the state or federal government.
Like it or not until the entire 21st century medical system collapses and as long as the free market drives health care out comes trans-personas are going to part of the society we live in.
The safety of women and girls needs to be protected but the practical needs of trans-women also need to be accommodated. Trans-persons should not have more rights than the rest of us but neither should they have fewer rights.
Can't say that I've read much of it myself, but seems it is an overview of all of the so-called evidence:
"[Cass] also commissioned a sizable bundle of independent systematic reviews evaluating both the evidence for puberty blockers and hormones, as well as the quality of recommendations published by influential groups like the World Professional Association for Transgender Healthcare. ... youth gender medicine 'is an area of remarkably weak evidence, and yet results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint. The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.' .... "
They're really not "women", i.e., "adult human females". They are, at best, guys in drag if they still have their nuts attached, and sexless eunuchs if they don't. Neither condition justifies giving them any rights that are, wisely or not, granted exclusively to actual "adult human females".
I appreciate your response but my concern is how best to protect the safety and well being of women which is a genuine concern and also not trampling on the needs of trans-persons. You may not like the fact that these people exist but the fact is they do and regardless of their choices, which I think are bizarre, have a right to live in safety and security as well. I don't have the answers. I do know that while issues of safe single sex spaces for women and in sports are more complicated it saddens me that the issue has been reduced to bathroom bills by politicians.
Another thing I find interesting is how much the focus has been on men transitioning to women. Hardly anything is said about women transitioning to men even though the numbers are about equal. I suppose for the same reason homosexual men were more policed and sanctioned than homosexual women back when same sex behavior was outlawed. Gay men were almost always the targets of homosexual panic and lesbians rarely. I suppose because women didn't really count or matter until recently.
Another thing I find curious is the misandric assumption that because trans-women are biological males they are by nature a threat to women essentially implying all men are rapists and perverts and trans-women have found a unique pathway to rape and harm women.
My greatest objection to Dr. Levine is aesthetic.
The war between the trans-maniacs and the trans-hysterics is decades from resolution.
> "You may not like the fact that these people exist ..."
Really not the issue. It's the corruption and rot that "self-identification" -- and all that comes in under that rubric -- has created in our educational, legal, scientific, and governmental institutions. You might take a gander at my post on a case of that in the Statistics Departments of several countries, my own -- Canada's -- in particular:
"Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology
Lysenkoism and The Gangs Who Couldn't Shoot Straight"
If a trans woman has had surgery and has been taking hormones for a long enough time, they are basically an adult female human in every way that is relevant to giving them female-exclusive rights.
If someone has a female phenotype it doesn't really matter how they came by it. Genotype is irrelevant, it isn't 100% correlate with sex, even in nature.
"transwoman" -- compound word like "crayfish" which ain't.
> "... basically an adult female human in every way ..."
In every way except the essential one -- they don't have any ovaries at all, much less functional ones. In some cases it might not matter -- no skin off my nose if transwomen and their neovaginas want to use the lady's loos. In many other cases it has some far-reaching and quite sticky consequences:
So would you say that a cis-woman who has to have her ovaries removed because of some health problem isn't a woman anymore? Or are you saying it's a gradient and she's still somewhat a woman, but less than before?
Depends on how you define "woman". What's your definition? You'll stand pat on "adult human female"?
If that's the case then technically your "cis-woman who's had her ovaries removed" doesn't qualify. You might note that US biologist PZ Myers, in particular, endorses that definition and interpretation:
For elaborations on that theme you might take a gander at the conversations I've had recently on Karen Davis' Substack -- "You're Kiddin', Right?" -- on Scottish transwoman Mridul Wadhwa. Do note the "Like" from Ms. Davis:
But if you define "woman" as a gender -- as do many, including Merriam-Webster -- then I guess your "ovary-less cis-woman" still qualifies:
MW: "Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with 'sex' as the preferred term for biological forms, and 'gender' limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits. In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender)."
Though maybe moot how many "degrees of separation" there is between anyone and the "golden mean" -- maybe that "adult human female"? "Trans women" with penises are further away from that exalted estate than "trans women" with neo-vaginas? 🙄
More fundamental? How? The economy affects everyone. Trans people are less than 1% of the population. Most Americans have never even met a trans person. Trans issues are a rounding error compared to the economy. All "culture war" issues are dwarfed by economic ones in importance, it is perverse that they get more focus.
Don't think you -- and too many others -- quite understand how far and how deep the rot has gone -- transgenderism is just sort of the proverbial tip of the iceberg. It extends into law, education, science, and government. See my earlier comment:
Uh, because it is an actual tax paid by the importer and the cost of it is passed onto the consumers who purchase the imports. The only difference being sales and VAT taxes are visible and tariffs are an invisible tax on the consumer. If it looks like a duck...
Actually the burden of the tax is split between the producer and consumer according to relative elasticities of supply and demand. That does make it like a sales tax. But it would be weird to call it a national sales tax, given that it's a tax only on imports.
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics". And political dogma ... 😉🙂
Speaking of Twain -- and whether they'll ever meet again, particularly on the bonnie, bonnie banks of Lock Lomond ... -- a classic from Mark Himself that many, on all sides, might be wise to reflect on:
I don't think we know what either of them would do. Harris was a left wing Democrat in 2019 when she thought it was the best way of winning the nomination, a centrist Democrat in 2020 when she thought it was the best way of winning the election. That tells us that she either has no ideology or is willing to lie about it, so either way we don't know if she is really a left winger or not.
Trump pretty obviously is willing to say whatever he expects to serve his purposes, so what he does if elected will depend on what seems in his interest then not what he says now, which is hard to predict. His first term was a lot less radical than expected.
The most predictable of the lot is Vance, who seems to be a committed populist, but he won't be controlling Trump.
One other point I disagree with you on is climate. You take for granted the current orthodoxy, the belief that climate change will have large net negative effects. I don't think we know that. It will have substantial negative effects, substantial positive effects, both of uncertain size, and there is no good reason to predict that the net will be negative. That was my published view on population growth fifty years ago when that was the looming catastrophe that everyone important was sure we had to deal with, and that orthodoxy turned out to be wrong.
For my arguments on climate see http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Sorted_Posts.html#Climate and, for a summary, https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/p/my-first-post-done-again. If Trump would not do expensive things to reduce climate change that's an argument for him. Even if I am wrong, slowing climate change faces a public good problem among countries as well as individuals, so in terms of the welfare of the US we are better off not doing it unless the benefit is many times the cost.
My conclusion is that we do not know, probably cannot know, which would b worse for the economy. Probably best for the economy is divided government, one party controlling the White House, the other at least one house of congress.
In the debate, Kamala looked at the camera, hence, Americans who were watching. Her campaign could use her footage effectively. Trump, on the other hand, looked down, always, never had any eye contact with the Vice President or the voters.
I think that Harris has a much better chance for 400 electoral votes than Trump has at reaching 270. (Texas and Florida flip). Mark my words. 😎
I don’t get how anyone under the age of 26 could need a reminder of how unfit Trump is for the presidency. 🤔
Can't wait to celebrate Harris victory wearing this "We the People means EVERYONE" t-shirt on November 5th 👇
It would be great if Trump’s prospects were really as bad as you say, but they’re not. I live in a deep red state, and people around here find it impossible to believe that Harris could possibly win. They honestly can’t figure out how anyone could vote for her and believe that the only way Trump can lose is through electoral fraud. I can’t figure out how they can’t see Trump for what he is, but they can’t.
The truth is that this election remains a tossup, and unless something big changes — a debate and some ads aren’t enough — it could go either way.
#HolocaustHarris! and #GenocideJoe! The Dems are the #PartyOfGenocide; #Gaza is a #DemocraticParty #War and #AIPACisAFifthColumn #KamalaIsALush #ObamaDeported #ObomaLiedPeopleDied
I liked the article, and am trying to be positive about it but... Yet another election that comes down to a choice between dumb and dumber, at least when it comes to economics.
How is the country ruined? Trump was in charge for four years and his Republican advisors managed to stop him from screwing up too badly until COVID hit, at which point he started mailing everyone checks and caused massive inflation. Biden started out similarly bad, he overspent on COVID relief too, but eventually he righted course and got inflation under control.
This time around Trump will be advised by fewer normal Republicans and more yes-men, so he will probably screw up more.
I agree with what you say here generally but Trump went along with Congress (Schumer, McConnell, Pelosi and McCarthy) who were all desperate to "do something" and in Congressional fashion threw money at the problem. Trump went along only because it would make him "look good." he had no understanding or concern about the economic consequences at all. To veto COVID relief would make him look "mean." Didn't Trump want the COVID relief checks sent out with his signature and then they explained 1.) that the Secretary of the Treasury alone can sign checks for the government and 2.) that few people get checks anyway because most of it is all transferred electronically. Apparently this was a technological advance of which he was unaware.
The main driver of inflation was basic supply and demand and we couldn't have had a recovery without some inflation. What was unexpected was how long the inflationary period would last and most economists, especially those advising Biden and the Congress were taken by surprise. Also inflation was global not just a lever the POTUS could pull to make it go away.
The complexity of the economy defies simple and efficient changes in policy that will make problems go away. And politicians are wedded to "solutions" that will make them "look good" and avoid those that will make them look draconian or hard hearted. This means the often do things that are actually harmful and do not do hard things that could help. This is a bipartisan problem.
Because Trump is who he is he will probably do more harm deliberately than good by accident with no guardrails.
Trump went along with it because he had to do something to make him look good, as the Mainstream Media hype machine was publicly smearing and maligning him on a level never before seen in the country, including manufactures smear campaigns (Clinton's Steel Dossier / Russian collusion) and ultimately concluding in 2 failed impeachments. What they have been doing to him has been ridiculous by ANY objective standard, and the general public is more aware of it now than they ever have before which is why the DNC is so desperate to win 2024 at any cost. They know that if they lose, this is the endgame. Blaming Trump for the Covid spending and inflation is not consistent with the pressures put on him to do so at the time. He wanted to open the country up and get the economy rolling, and rightfully so. It was the Dems that continued to pressure to give out more money and keep the economy and schools closed. They used politics to manage the pandemic and not reason or science. And before someone cries out about deaths and Covid, we knew even back in 2021 that anyone who had Covid had lasting, powerful immunity, AND we knew that young, healthy people were not at risk from severe outcomes. But the DNC ignored this and pushed on with their political goals in spite of the destruction it was bringing on society.
The trans movement is an extension of woke ideology that is anti-business, anti-fairness, anti-progressive, anti- realistic. It's backfired and that's because the left pushed too hard on it as they did with everything else including Covid measures. There is no way Dems can clean up the mess they made without admitting they were wrong. That's the only way out.
Trans people have been part of American life since 1952. They will not be going away.
The only thing that has changed is that medical technology has improved the life outcomes for trans persons and that society has become more accommodating of trans people. This has enabled more people to make decisions about their identity for themselves.
I have worked with trans-women in professional settings. My attorney has a trans-woman working as a legal assistant and goes into courtrooms on a regular basis. One of the medical practices I use on a regular basis has a trans medical assistant. All behaved professionally and produced work just as competently as their non-trans peers.
How is that anti-business? How unfair?
As a one nation conservative I believe that every citizen needs to have a place to be included and productive within society. That no one is above or below the rule of the civil law and share all the same rights of all other citizens. That diversity can unify and does not need to divide the nation. I believe the past, present and future are all one continuous movement that will inevitably change again and again and that it is not the society that is the strongest that survives--- but the society that is most adaptable.
Lol. Wherein Unpopulist consistently makes the case for leftist positions, politicians, tactics, & by leftist commentators, & yet somehow “isnt leftist”. 🤦🏻♂️🤡😂
Harris is a centrist Democrat, not a leftist. There's nothing leftist about supporting someone who isn't a leftist. The actual left has generally been frustrated by the way the center had reasserted control of the Democratic party.
Lol - supporting Medicare for all, defunding police bc of communistic crazed theories of ‘systemic racism’, 90% tax rates on the wealthy & wealth taxes, confiscating guns, weaponizing the legal system & employing lawfare against one’s political enemies, & destroying fossil fuels (all of which she has provably supported or done) are not centrist. Damn - like a good leftist y’all even gaslight yourselves! 😂😂😂
I just love the reductionist and meaningless term "the left" and its equally meaningless antonym "the right."
Even if she is left of center (whatever that is) there is in fact a Congress and Supreme Court through which any policy she proposes must first pass to become law.
So I would say Harris is just a traditional Democrat. I disagree with most of her policies but we can fight her and make her compromise in the Congress and the courts. At the end of the day she will sooner or later leave office having left the Constitutional infrastructure of the Republic in tact and functioning.
I believe that there have to be TWO FUNCTIONING political parties operating in good faith and the current Republican Party is without a moral compass, without integrity and believes in nothing. It is rotting from the inside.
As an independent "libertarianish" conservative I can say the only people gaslighting themselves are those who think that Donald Trump is fit for office.
MIGHT be less injurious to the economy than Trump? In other words, you don't know for sure.
Well, I do know: Harris will make a bigger mess of things than Biden. And a Biden buck is only worth 8o cents of a Trump buck. Interest rates are so high that they have nearly frozen the housing market. No problem: Kamala will just hand out more money to first time homebuyers, thereby causing more inflation.
It's time to stop playing make believe. We can't afford to. Kamala is clueless. We don't even know who is running the show. It sure isn't her.
The reason that MIGHT qualifier is there is that Trump is flaky and incompetent. It's possible that once he's in office he'll be too scatterbrained to implement all his bad ideas. If Trump does even a fraction of what he says he wants to do, he will definitely be far worse on the economy than Harris.
Biden has been fine on the economy. After COVID unemployment went down fast. Everywhere was short-staffed because workers were in such demand. Inflation was mostly due to COVID relief spending, which Trump and Biden were both guilty of. Inflation was fastest in 2020, when Trump was still in charge. Fortunately Biden (or whoever is whispering in his ear) was able to clean up Trump's mess.
Everyone can have an opinion. Opinions, by themselves are worthless, unless they are based on reality. Trump was president for four years. We were told he colluded with Russia, would start WWIII, would wreck the economy, and sell earth to the Martians, or some such. EVEYTHING, not just some things, EVERYTHGING we have been told about him has proven to be a lie. Anyone can continue to believe those lies, and call them opinions. I just call them what they are, lies.
No, inflation was not up when Trump left office. That's another lie. The inflation rate during Trump's presidency is 1.9%. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Under Biden, it's 5.7%, another fact.
The impact of Presidents on the economy is greatly exaggerated.
The imposition of tariffs is supposed to be the task of the Congress but like waging war has been given over to our imperial presidency. That is what makes Trump a relatively greater threat to the economic well being of most Americans as consumers in the short term. The market will shift to compensate for the tariffs BUT there will be a time lag before that happens.
Either Harris or Trump will have relatively little impact on the very wealthy and the very poor.
The greatest fraud perpetrated on populations in every nation is that leaders and political parties can claim credit for good economic performance. Logically it is false to say they can control bad economic outcomes.
Market forces determine the trajectory of the economy not governments. Sure they can diminish the consequences and enhance benefits from the general trends.
The most significant economic driver that we DO control is deficit spending and the accumulation of debt and the printing of money and to be honest neither candidate and certainly neither party is serious about those fundamental things over which they do have control.
The real reason to support Harris (as most Republicans who haven't lost their integrity are doing) is simply because she is the only person running for the office of President whereas the other guy is running simply to keep his ass out of prison and fill his bank accounts and strike beneficial deals for his future interests. Oh, yes, the criminally corrupt candidate was, is and always will be totally unqualified and temperamentally unfit to be the President of the United States of America.
Harris may well be "Less Injurious to the American Economy than Trump", but maybe much more damaging in many other more fundamental ways.
When Harris boots "Rachel Levine" out of the White House, acknowledges the Cass Report, repudiates Biden's Title IX claptrap, and recognizes "How the Democrats and the Left Betrayed Women and Girls" is maybe when my "doubts", and those of many others, about the Democrats would be alleviated enough to consider voting for Harris.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/12/opinion/gender-affirming-care-cass-review.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ek4.WYYy.3PjXOAQyHVS3&smid=url-share
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/13/health/hilary-cass-transgender-youth-puberty-blockers.html?unlocked_article_code=1.KU4.bs-p.ZuW2Zdo_Ibwd&smid=url-share
https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B0CN32BXC2/ref=cbw_us_ca_dp_narx_gl_book
A couple of "doubts" there that you might "heed". At least give some thought to.
All this trans-hysteria is far off from the topic being discussed.
The only relevant question regarding Dr. Levine is whether she is generally capable of doing the job assigned. All job performance which touches on politics will be critically viewed by partisans. Her job performance in Pennsylvania during the COVID pandemic was generally considered competent. So other than your animus towards trans-persons I see no reason for being "booted out."
I agree that Biden's Title IX expansion is clap trap but I think every aspect of Title IX should be repealed. It no longer is needed.
The Cass Report is just ONE report (in the context of treatment in the UK and the NHS) but it is far from a definitive study upon which all policy around medical treatment for trans-persons should be based.
Above everything any treatment of gender dysphoria in children should be determined by the parents and not the state or federal government.
Like it or not until the entire 21st century medical system collapses and as long as the free market drives health care out comes trans-personas are going to part of the society we live in.
The safety of women and girls needs to be protected but the practical needs of trans-women also need to be accommodated. Trans-persons should not have more rights than the rest of us but neither should they have fewer rights.
> "All this trans-hysteria is far off from the topic being discussed."
Not at all "far off". You might try reading Dansky's book, even the blurb. And see also, "The Corrosive Impact of Transgender Ideology" by Joanna Williams: https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/2454-A-The-Corrosive-Impact-of-TI-ppi-110-WEB.pdf
> "... only relevant question regarding Dr. Levine is whether she is generally capable ..."
LoL. See Jesse Singal's post:
"Unsealed Court Documents Show That Admiral Rachel Levine Pressured WPATH To Remove Age Guidelines From The Latest Standards Of Care":
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/unsealed-court-documents-show-that
> "The Cass Report is just ONE report ...."
Can't say that I've read much of it myself, but seems it is an overview of all of the so-called evidence:
"[Cass] also commissioned a sizable bundle of independent systematic reviews evaluating both the evidence for puberty blockers and hormones, as well as the quality of recommendations published by influential groups like the World Professional Association for Transgender Healthcare. ... youth gender medicine 'is an area of remarkably weak evidence, and yet results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint. The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.' .... "
https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/
https://thedispatch.com/article/the-cass-review-wont-go-away/
> "... the practical needs of trans-women ..."
They're really not "women", i.e., "adult human females". They are, at best, guys in drag if they still have their nuts attached, and sexless eunuchs if they don't. Neither condition justifies giving them any rights that are, wisely or not, granted exclusively to actual "adult human females".
I appreciate your response but my concern is how best to protect the safety and well being of women which is a genuine concern and also not trampling on the needs of trans-persons. You may not like the fact that these people exist but the fact is they do and regardless of their choices, which I think are bizarre, have a right to live in safety and security as well. I don't have the answers. I do know that while issues of safe single sex spaces for women and in sports are more complicated it saddens me that the issue has been reduced to bathroom bills by politicians.
Another thing I find interesting is how much the focus has been on men transitioning to women. Hardly anything is said about women transitioning to men even though the numbers are about equal. I suppose for the same reason homosexual men were more policed and sanctioned than homosexual women back when same sex behavior was outlawed. Gay men were almost always the targets of homosexual panic and lesbians rarely. I suppose because women didn't really count or matter until recently.
Another thing I find curious is the misandric assumption that because trans-women are biological males they are by nature a threat to women essentially implying all men are rapists and perverts and trans-women have found a unique pathway to rape and harm women.
My greatest objection to Dr. Levine is aesthetic.
The war between the trans-maniacs and the trans-hysterics is decades from resolution.
> "You may not like the fact that these people exist ..."
Really not the issue. It's the corruption and rot that "self-identification" -- and all that comes in under that rubric -- has created in our educational, legal, scientific, and governmental institutions. You might take a gander at my post on a case of that in the Statistics Departments of several countries, my own -- Canada's -- in particular:
"Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology
Lysenkoism and The Gangs Who Couldn't Shoot Straight"
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/statistics-departments-corrupted
Of particular note there is Joanna Williams' essay on The Corrosive Impact of Transgender Ideology:
https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/2454-A-The-Corrosive-Impact-of-TI-ppi-110-WEB.pdf
You might also take a gander at a post from "TransAtlantic" -- not sure if that's a pun or not:
" 'Nullius in Verba' - Identity Ideology vs. the Scientific Disposition: The Dangers of Self-ID"
https://thetransatlantic.substack.com/p/self-id-or-nullius-in-verba-between
"The dislocations experienced around gender identity ideology have revealed the great threat couched in abnegation of the scientific disposition."
If a trans woman has had surgery and has been taking hormones for a long enough time, they are basically an adult female human in every way that is relevant to giving them female-exclusive rights.
If someone has a female phenotype it doesn't really matter how they came by it. Genotype is irrelevant, it isn't 100% correlate with sex, even in nature.
"transwoman" -- compound word like "crayfish" which ain't.
> "... basically an adult female human in every way ..."
In every way except the essential one -- they don't have any ovaries at all, much less functional ones. In some cases it might not matter -- no skin off my nose if transwomen and their neovaginas want to use the lady's loos. In many other cases it has some far-reaching and quite sticky consequences:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/23/truth-world-built-for-men-car-crashes
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/05/16/pregnant-transgender-man-births-stillborn-baby-hospital-missed-labor-signs/3692201002/
Perpetrating or being a party to a fraud to insist or agree that transwomen have changed sex -- though a great many of them do so:
"Is it really true that 'no one's denying the reality of biological sex'?
There seems to be a lot of people doing that thing that 'no one' is doing":
https://speakingplainly.substack.com/p/is-it-really-true-that-no-ones-denying
So would you say that a cis-woman who has to have her ovaries removed because of some health problem isn't a woman anymore? Or are you saying it's a gradient and she's still somewhat a woman, but less than before?
Depends on how you define "woman". What's your definition? You'll stand pat on "adult human female"?
If that's the case then technically your "cis-woman who's had her ovaries removed" doesn't qualify. You might note that US biologist PZ Myers, in particular, endorses that definition and interpretation:
PZM: " 'female' is not applicable -- it refers to individuals that produce ova. By the technical definition, many cis women are not female." https://x.com/pzmyers/status/1466458067491598342
For elaborations on that theme you might take a gander at the conversations I've had recently on Karen Davis' Substack -- "You're Kiddin', Right?" -- on Scottish transwoman Mridul Wadhwa. Do note the "Like" from Ms. Davis:
https://ykright.substack.com/p/mridul-wadhwa-edinburgh-rape-crisis/comment/69003772
But if you define "woman" as a gender -- as do many, including Merriam-Webster -- then I guess your "ovary-less cis-woman" still qualifies:
MW: "Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with 'sex' as the preferred term for biological forms, and 'gender' limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits. In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender)."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender#usage-1
Though maybe moot how many "degrees of separation" there is between anyone and the "golden mean" -- maybe that "adult human female"? "Trans women" with penises are further away from that exalted estate than "trans women" with neo-vaginas? 🙄
More fundamental? How? The economy affects everyone. Trans people are less than 1% of the population. Most Americans have never even met a trans person. Trans issues are a rounding error compared to the economy. All "culture war" issues are dwarfed by economic ones in importance, it is perverse that they get more focus.
Don't think you -- and too many others -- quite understand how far and how deep the rot has gone -- transgenderism is just sort of the proverbial tip of the iceberg. It extends into law, education, science, and government. See my earlier comment:
https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/kamala-harris-might-be-less-injurious/comment/68949742
You might also look at my "Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology" -- those of Britain, New Zealand, and Canada in particular: https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/statistics-departments-corrupted
Steve, You write:
Harris labels these tariffs, accurately, as the equivalent of a national sales tax.
How is that accurate? How is it correct to say that a tax on imports, bad as it is, is equivalent to a national sales tax?
Uh, because it is an actual tax paid by the importer and the cost of it is passed onto the consumers who purchase the imports. The only difference being sales and VAT taxes are visible and tariffs are an invisible tax on the consumer. If it looks like a duck...
Actually the burden of the tax is split between the producer and consumer according to relative elasticities of supply and demand. That does make it like a sales tax. But it would be weird to call it a national sales tax, given that it's a tax only on imports.
LOL. Weird is where we live nowadays, David!
True that. :-)
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics". And political dogma ... 😉🙂
Speaking of Twain -- and whether they'll ever meet again, particularly on the bonnie, bonnie banks of Lock Lomond ... -- a classic from Mark Himself that many, on all sides, might be wise to reflect on:
"Cornpone Opinions":
https://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html
I don't think we know what either of them would do. Harris was a left wing Democrat in 2019 when she thought it was the best way of winning the nomination, a centrist Democrat in 2020 when she thought it was the best way of winning the election. That tells us that she either has no ideology or is willing to lie about it, so either way we don't know if she is really a left winger or not.
Trump pretty obviously is willing to say whatever he expects to serve his purposes, so what he does if elected will depend on what seems in his interest then not what he says now, which is hard to predict. His first term was a lot less radical than expected.
The most predictable of the lot is Vance, who seems to be a committed populist, but he won't be controlling Trump.
One other point I disagree with you on is climate. You take for granted the current orthodoxy, the belief that climate change will have large net negative effects. I don't think we know that. It will have substantial negative effects, substantial positive effects, both of uncertain size, and there is no good reason to predict that the net will be negative. That was my published view on population growth fifty years ago when that was the looming catastrophe that everyone important was sure we had to deal with, and that orthodoxy turned out to be wrong.
For my arguments on climate see http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Sorted_Posts.html#Climate and, for a summary, https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/p/my-first-post-done-again. If Trump would not do expensive things to reduce climate change that's an argument for him. Even if I am wrong, slowing climate change faces a public good problem among countries as well as individuals, so in terms of the welfare of the US we are better off not doing it unless the benefit is many times the cost.
My conclusion is that we do not know, probably cannot know, which would b worse for the economy. Probably best for the economy is divided government, one party controlling the White House, the other at least one house of congress.
This is a good, thought-provoking analysis, but I think you ignore the potential silver lining of not taxing tips: https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/07/trumps-win-win-tax-proposal/
In the debate, Kamala looked at the camera, hence, Americans who were watching. Her campaign could use her footage effectively. Trump, on the other hand, looked down, always, never had any eye contact with the Vice President or the voters.
I think that Harris has a much better chance for 400 electoral votes than Trump has at reaching 270. (Texas and Florida flip). Mark my words. 😎
I don’t get how anyone under the age of 26 could need a reminder of how unfit Trump is for the presidency. 🤔
Can't wait to celebrate Harris victory wearing this "We the People means EVERYONE" t-shirt on November 5th 👇
https://libtees-2.creator-spring.com/listing/wtpmelb
It would be great if Trump’s prospects were really as bad as you say, but they’re not. I live in a deep red state, and people around here find it impossible to believe that Harris could possibly win. They honestly can’t figure out how anyone could vote for her and believe that the only way Trump can lose is through electoral fraud. I can’t figure out how they can’t see Trump for what he is, but they can’t.
The truth is that this election remains a tossup, and unless something big changes — a debate and some ads aren’t enough — it could go either way.
#HolocaustHarris! and #GenocideJoe! The Dems are the #PartyOfGenocide; #Gaza is a #DemocraticParty #War and #AIPACisAFifthColumn #KamalaIsALush #ObamaDeported #ObomaLiedPeopleDied
I liked the article, and am trying to be positive about it but... Yet another election that comes down to a choice between dumb and dumber, at least when it comes to economics.
Trump ran the country and it ran like a finely tuned engine, in spite of the DNC literally throwing EVERYTHING at him they could to take him down.
Kamala Harris ruined the country for 4 years. When does she start repairing it? Next time? lol
What a ridiculous article.
How is the country ruined? Trump was in charge for four years and his Republican advisors managed to stop him from screwing up too badly until COVID hit, at which point he started mailing everyone checks and caused massive inflation. Biden started out similarly bad, he overspent on COVID relief too, but eventually he righted course and got inflation under control.
This time around Trump will be advised by fewer normal Republicans and more yes-men, so he will probably screw up more.
I agree with what you say here generally but Trump went along with Congress (Schumer, McConnell, Pelosi and McCarthy) who were all desperate to "do something" and in Congressional fashion threw money at the problem. Trump went along only because it would make him "look good." he had no understanding or concern about the economic consequences at all. To veto COVID relief would make him look "mean." Didn't Trump want the COVID relief checks sent out with his signature and then they explained 1.) that the Secretary of the Treasury alone can sign checks for the government and 2.) that few people get checks anyway because most of it is all transferred electronically. Apparently this was a technological advance of which he was unaware.
The main driver of inflation was basic supply and demand and we couldn't have had a recovery without some inflation. What was unexpected was how long the inflationary period would last and most economists, especially those advising Biden and the Congress were taken by surprise. Also inflation was global not just a lever the POTUS could pull to make it go away.
The complexity of the economy defies simple and efficient changes in policy that will make problems go away. And politicians are wedded to "solutions" that will make them "look good" and avoid those that will make them look draconian or hard hearted. This means the often do things that are actually harmful and do not do hard things that could help. This is a bipartisan problem.
Because Trump is who he is he will probably do more harm deliberately than good by accident with no guardrails.
Trump went along with it because he had to do something to make him look good, as the Mainstream Media hype machine was publicly smearing and maligning him on a level never before seen in the country, including manufactures smear campaigns (Clinton's Steel Dossier / Russian collusion) and ultimately concluding in 2 failed impeachments. What they have been doing to him has been ridiculous by ANY objective standard, and the general public is more aware of it now than they ever have before which is why the DNC is so desperate to win 2024 at any cost. They know that if they lose, this is the endgame. Blaming Trump for the Covid spending and inflation is not consistent with the pressures put on him to do so at the time. He wanted to open the country up and get the economy rolling, and rightfully so. It was the Dems that continued to pressure to give out more money and keep the economy and schools closed. They used politics to manage the pandemic and not reason or science. And before someone cries out about deaths and Covid, we knew even back in 2021 that anyone who had Covid had lasting, powerful immunity, AND we knew that young, healthy people were not at risk from severe outcomes. But the DNC ignored this and pushed on with their political goals in spite of the destruction it was bringing on society.
The trans movement is an extension of woke ideology that is anti-business, anti-fairness, anti-progressive, anti- realistic. It's backfired and that's because the left pushed too hard on it as they did with everything else including Covid measures. There is no way Dems can clean up the mess they made without admitting they were wrong. That's the only way out.
The trans movement does not exist.
Trans people have been part of American life since 1952. They will not be going away.
The only thing that has changed is that medical technology has improved the life outcomes for trans persons and that society has become more accommodating of trans people. This has enabled more people to make decisions about their identity for themselves.
I have worked with trans-women in professional settings. My attorney has a trans-woman working as a legal assistant and goes into courtrooms on a regular basis. One of the medical practices I use on a regular basis has a trans medical assistant. All behaved professionally and produced work just as competently as their non-trans peers.
How is that anti-business? How unfair?
As a one nation conservative I believe that every citizen needs to have a place to be included and productive within society. That no one is above or below the rule of the civil law and share all the same rights of all other citizens. That diversity can unify and does not need to divide the nation. I believe the past, present and future are all one continuous movement that will inevitably change again and again and that it is not the society that is the strongest that survives--- but the society that is most adaptable.
Lol. Wherein Unpopulist consistently makes the case for leftist positions, politicians, tactics, & by leftist commentators, & yet somehow “isnt leftist”. 🤦🏻♂️🤡😂
Harris is a centrist Democrat, not a leftist. There's nothing leftist about supporting someone who isn't a leftist. The actual left has generally been frustrated by the way the center had reasserted control of the Democratic party.
Lol - supporting Medicare for all, defunding police bc of communistic crazed theories of ‘systemic racism’, 90% tax rates on the wealthy & wealth taxes, confiscating guns, weaponizing the legal system & employing lawfare against one’s political enemies, & destroying fossil fuels (all of which she has provably supported or done) are not centrist. Damn - like a good leftist y’all even gaslight yourselves! 😂😂😂
I just love the reductionist and meaningless term "the left" and its equally meaningless antonym "the right."
Even if she is left of center (whatever that is) there is in fact a Congress and Supreme Court through which any policy she proposes must first pass to become law.
So I would say Harris is just a traditional Democrat. I disagree with most of her policies but we can fight her and make her compromise in the Congress and the courts. At the end of the day she will sooner or later leave office having left the Constitutional infrastructure of the Republic in tact and functioning.
I believe that there have to be TWO FUNCTIONING political parties operating in good faith and the current Republican Party is without a moral compass, without integrity and believes in nothing. It is rotting from the inside.
As an independent "libertarianish" conservative I can say the only people gaslighting themselves are those who think that Donald Trump is fit for office.
And you would be utterly wrong in your conclusions.
Well, that's an empty answer.
Truth hurts. Cope.
"MIGHT" be???!!!!
Unsusbscribed.