If you’re trying to understand the US election outcome, this is the only graph you need:
I’m not saying “anti-incumbency” is everything. There are a lot of forces wrapped up within this graph. My unnuanced take is that that the pandemic hens came home to roost for incumbent parties. Every single bundle of pandemic policies, from the heaviest handed to the most laissez-faire, were characterized by inevitable trade-offs. People don’t like tradeoffs regardless of whether the bill is paid with a year of doubled fatalities, two years of tripled unemployment, or three years of quadrupled inflation. And that’s why I think incumbent parties, be it US Democrats or UK Tories, lost significant ground. If you want to parse it farther, you could argue US Republicans should be disappointed they didn’t win more given how well opposition parties performed elsewhere.
None of that will change the Take Economy, of course. Thousands of pundits, published or barstool, are all describing in exquisite detail exactly the manner in which this election is a referendum on how the Democrats handled exactly the issue they personally happen to care the most about. It doesn’t mean any one of their opinions is narrowly wrong. I’m sure there was a more perfect campaign to be run, if only because there always is and was.
National politics is rarely a referendum and it’s never just the will of the people. It’s a chaotic system. It’s the weather. We forecast the weather. We makes plans. We accomodate, mitigate, and celebrate. And yes, sometimes we just try to survive it. But we can’t control it.
When MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) burst onto the education scene in the early 2010s, they were hailed as the future of learning. With the promise of democratizing education by providing free access to world-class courses from top universities.
Leading universities rushed to put their courses online, venture capital poured in, and platforms like Coursera and edX grew rapidly. Yet today, while MOOCs still exist, they’ve largely retreated to the margins of education. Meanwhile, long-form podcasts have emerged as a surprisingly powerful force in American intellectual life.
Is this ironic? I wanted to learn a bit about MOOCs while I took a walk before writing this blog post. I typed “MOOCs” into the Apple Podcasts search bar.
I learned about MOOCs from Russ Roberts at a reasonable pace (when I listen to podcasts, I do it at 1x speed but I’m almost always doing something like driving or folding laundry).
I consider myself a lifelong learner. I buy and read books. Like hundreds of millions of people around the world, I like podcasts. I will attend lectures sometimes, especially if I personally know someone in the room. I did sit in classrooms for course credit throughout college and graduate school. I took extra classes that I did not need to graduate purely out of interest, and yet I have never once been tempted to sign up for a MOOC.
Enough introspection from me. My viral “tweet” this week was: “MOOCs never took off, as far as I can tell, and yet long-form podcasts are shaping the nation.”
Did MOOCs fail? Many millions of people signed up for MOOCs. A much smaller percentage of people completed MOOCs. Some users find MOOCs worth paying for.
However, if you listen to the podcast with John Cochrane in 2014, you can see the promise that MOOCs failed to live up to. The idea was that many people who did not have access to a “top quality” education would get one through MOOCs. Turns out that access is not the bottleneck.
If you’ve ever been vegetarian or if you have ever spoken to a vegetarian about their diet, then you have probably heard or asked “How do you get enough protein?”. While it’s important for health and economic achievement to get adequate protein, not too long after comes the questions about types and sources of protein. This question is relevant for vegetarians and vegans, but also people with meat allergies and people with religious dietary guidelines that prohibit meat always or seasonally. Let’s break it down.
Some omnivores are incredulous that vegetarianism can provide adequate protein or protein quality. But protein itself is relatively easy to get and any judgmental attitudes on both sides are mostly just vibes. Legumes and nuts tend to have a lot of protein. But relative to what?
The World Health Organization recommends that an 80-kilogram (176 lb) adult should get 66.4 grams of protein per day (0.83g per kg). That’s the protein content of about a 9oz of peanuts. Protein is super important and it’s luckily not that hard to get if you eat a variety of foods. Even if you’re trying to consume double the WHO recommended daily intake (RDI), it’s an easy feat.
Below is a table of some popular protein sources. The table includes the grams of protein per 100 grams of food, which makes the protein content a percent. The table also includes the number of grams needed in order to achieve the WHO protein RDI of 66.4 grams. The last column is for our American readers who need the serving to be in ounces.
Last week I laid out my own expectations for what economic policy would look like in a Trump or Harris presidency. Now after yesterday’s market reaction, we can infer what market participants as a whole expect by roughly doubling the size of yesterday’s market moves. Prediction markets had a 50-60% change of Trump winning as of Tuesday morning’s market close, which moved to a 99+% chance by Wednesday morning. Look at how other markets moved over the same time, multiply it by 2-2.5x, and you get the expected effect of a Trump presidency relative to a Harris presidency. So what do we see?
Stocks Up Overall: S&P 500 up 2%, Dow up 3%, Russell 2000 (small caps) up 6%. My guess this is mostly about avoiding tax increases- the odds that most of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act gets renewed when it expires in 2025 just went way up. Lower corporate taxes boost corporate earnings directly, while lower taxes on households mean that they have more money to spend on their stocks and their products. Lower regulation and looser antitrust rules are also likely to boost corporate earnings.
Bond Prices Down (Yields Up): 10yr Treasury yields rose from 4.29% to 4.4%. This is the flip side of the tax cuts- they need to be paid for, and markets expect they will be paid for through deficits rather than cutting spending. The government will issue more bonds to borrow the money, lowering the value of existing bonds.
Dollar Up: The US dollar is up 2% against a basket of foreign currencies. I think this is mostly about the expected tariffs. People like the sound of the phrase “strong dollar” but it isn’t necessarily a good thing; it makes it cheaper to vacation abroad, but makes it harder to export, even before we consider potential retaliatory tariffs.
Crypto Way Up: Bitcoin went up 7% overnight, Ethereum is now 15% up since Tuesday. Crypto exchange Coinbase was up 31%. Markets anticipate friendlier regulation of crypto, along with a potential ‘strategic Bitcoin reserve’.
Single Stock Moves: Private prison stocks are up 30%+. Tesla is up 15%, mostly due to Elon Musk’s ties to Trump, but also due to tariffs. Foreign car companies were way down on the expectation of tariffs- Mercedes-Benz down 8%, BMW down 10%, Honda down 8%.
Sector Moves: Steel stocks are up on the expectation of tariffs, while solar stocks (which can’t catch a break, doing poorly under Biden despite big subsidies and big revenue increases) were down 12% in the expectation of falling subsidies. Bank stocks did especially well, with one bank ETF up 12%. This gives us one hint on what to me is now the biggest question about the second Trump administration- who will staff it? I could see Trump appointing free-market types, or wall-streeters in the mold of Steve Mnuchin, or dirigiste nationalist conservatives in the JD Vance / Heritage Foundation mold, or an eclectic mix of political backers like Elon Musk and RFK Jr, or a combination of all of the above. The fact that bank stocks are way up tells me that markets expect the free-marketers and/or the Wall-Street types to mostly win out.
Just Ask Prediction Markets: If you want to know what markets expect from a Presidency, you can do what I just did, look at moves the big traditional markets like stocks and bonds and try to guess what is driving them. But increasingly you can skip this step and just ask prediction markets directly- the same markets that just had a very goodelection night. Kalshi now has markets on both who Trump will nominate to cabinet posts, as well as the fate of specific policies like ‘no tax on tips‘
Last night was a big win for Trump, but it was also a big win for prediction markets. In January 2024, I suggested that one of the best ways to follow the election was by following prediction markets. That prediction turned out to be correct!
Before any polls had closed, prediction markets had Trump with about 60% odds of winning. That’s far from a sure thing, but it’s much better than many prediction models, which all had the race as basically a 50-50 toss-up with a very slight edge to Harris (though one simple model that I wrote about two weeks ago had Harris slightly losing the popular vote, a good call in hindsight). So going into the election results, you would have been more confident that a Trump win was a real possibility if you watched predictions markets
Last night after the results started coming in, the average over five different prediction markets from Election Betting Odds put Trump at over 90% odds by 11:00pm Eastern Time. By about 12:45am, he was already over 95%. These aren’t absolutely certain odds, but if you were watching the election night news coverage, they were still treating this as essentially a toss-up in the battleground states.
The Associated Press hadn’t even called Georgia, the second of the battleground states, by the time prediction markets were over 95% for the overall race! Decision Desk HQ, which is a very good source for calling races in real time, didn’t declare Trump the winner until 1:21am, when they called Pennsylvania (they also have a nice explanation of how they made the call). The AP didn’t declare Trump the winner until 5:34am, when they called Wisconsin.
Polymarket is the largest of the five markets in the Election Betting Odds average, and they are also a good source because they have markets for all of the battleground states (here’s the market for Michigan, which still hasn’t been called as of 11:30am on Wednesday by most news sources!). This table shows when the 90% and 95% thresholds were permanently crossed on Polymarket odds for each of the 5 early battleground states, in comparison with the DDHQ and the AP.
Notice that the 90% threshold consistently beats DDHQ by at least an hour (the one exception is North Carolina, where DDHQ called it very early — they are very good at what they do!). And the 90% threshold is consistently beating the AP by at least 3 hours.
None of this should be read as a criticism of the Associated Press. They should be cautious about predictions! But if you want to know things fast (or, before your bedtime in this case), prediction markets are clearly worth following.
How can prediction markets be so far ahead of media sources? Because there is a strong incentive to be right early: that’s how you make money in these markets! How exactly this is done is unclear, since the traders are all anonymous and we generally can’t ask them. But likely they are doing a similar analysis of counties results compared to the 2020 election, as DDHQ told us they did after the fact, just quicker (indeed, if you were watching news coverage, they were doing the same thing, just in an ad hoc way, and much more slowly).
Typically, the federal government spends more than it takes in. This has been going on for decades. At moderate levels, i.e. moderate debt/GDP ratios, this is not cause for concern. Presumably the national economy will grow enough to service the debt.
Historically, deficit spending would temporarily increase during some crisis like a major recession or major war, then it quickly tapered back down again. There was a general understanding, it seems, among most voters and most politicians that huge deficits were not healthy; one would not want to burden future generations with a lot of debt.
During the 2020-2021 epidemic experience, however, politicians found they got instant popularity by handing out trillions in stimulus money; anyone who squeaked that we couldn’t afford this much largesse got run over. And this spend-big, tax-small mentality has now become entrenched. Both presidential candidates have been traversing the nation promising juicy tax cuts. Apparently, we the people have decided to vote ourselves lots of free money right now, and the heck with future generations.
Here is a forecast from the Congressional Budget Office, with the optimistic assumption that we will never get another recession, showing that the recent levels of deficit are much higher than historical norms:
This is just the yearly deficit, not the exponentially-growing accumulated debt. The influence of the total debt may be seen in the mushrooming interest outlays. Below is another chart with data from the St Louis Fed, displaying both deficit level and unemployment over the past 80 years. Again, deficit spending would ramp up during recessions, due to reduced tax revenue and increased spending on unemployment benefits, etc., but then it would ramp right back down again. It failed to come back down completely after the 2008-2009 recession, and indeed started ramping up around 2016, even with low unemployment.
I don’t see this trend changing, and so investors need to take this into account. Here I will summarize some key points from analyst Lyn Alden Schwartzer in her article on the Seeking Alpha investing site titled Why Nothing Stops The Fiscal Train.
She notes that besides the primary deficit, the interest paid on the federal debt is a transfer of money to mainly the private sector, and so is further stimulus. This is one factor that has helped keep the economy stronger, and inflation higher, than it would otherwise be.
Some key bullet points in the article are
The U.S. faces structurally high fiscal deficits driven by unbalanced Social Security, inefficient healthcare spending, foreign adventurism, accumulated debt interest, and political polarization.
Investment implications suggest favoring equities and scarce assets over bonds, with defensive positions in T-bills, gold, and inflation-protected Treasury notes.
Fiscal dominance will likely lead to persistent inflation, asset price volatility, and potential stagflation, making traditional recession indicators less reliable.
A neutral-to-negative outlook on U.S. stocks in inflation-adjusted terms, with better prospects for international equities and cyclical mid-sized U.S. stocks.
She suggests looking to the recent histories of emerging economies to see what happens in nations with perhaps stagnating real economies kept afloat by ongoing federal deficits. Her tentative five-year outlook for investing is bearish on the major U.S. stock indices (gotten overpriced) and on government bonds (real returns, in light of anticipated ongoing inflation, will be low), but bullish on international stocks, inflation-protected bonds, short-term T-bills, gold, and bitcoin (again, all mainly driven by expected stubborn inflation as the money supply keeps growing):
-For U.S. stocks, I have a neutral-to-negative view on the major U.S. stock indices in inflation-adjusted terms. They’re starting from an expensive baseline, and with a high ratio of household investable assets already stuffed into them. However, I do think that among the universe of more cyclical and/or mid-sized stocks that make up smaller portions of the U.S. indices, there are plenty of reasonably priced ones with better forward prospects.
-For international stocks, I think the 2024-2025 Fed interest rate cutting cycle is one of the first true windows for them to have a period of outperformance relative to U.S. stocks for a change. It doesn’t mean that they certainly will follow through with that, but my base case is for a meaningful asset rotation cycle to occur, with some of the underperforming international equity markets having a period of outperformance. At the very least, I would want some exposure to them in an overall portfolio, to account for that possibility.
-For developed market government bonds, like the U.S. and elsewhere, I don’t have a positive long-term outlook in terms of maintaining purchasing power. A ten-year U.S. Treasury note currently yields about 3.7%, while money supply historically grows by an average of 7% per year, and $20 trillion in net Treasury debt is expected to hit the market over the next decade. So I think the long end of the curve is a useful trading sardine, but not something I want to have passive long exposure to.
-A five-year inflation-protected Treasury note, however, pays about 1.7% above CPI, and I view that as a reasonable position for the defensive portion of a portfolio. T-bills are also useful for the defensive portion of a portfolio. They’re not my favorite assets, but there are worse assets out there than these.
-Gold remains interesting for this five-year period, although it might be tactically overbought in the near-term. It has had a nice breakout in 2024, but is still relatively under-owned by most metrics, and should benefit from the U.S. rate cutting cycle. So I’m bullish as a base case.
-Bitcoin has been highly correlated with global liquidity, and I expect that to continue. My five-year outlook on the asset is very bullish, but the volatility must be accounted for in position sizes for a given portfolio and its requirements.
I’ll add two comments on this list. First, the bond market is usually pretty good about figuring things out, and has evidently realized that endless huge deficits mean endless huge bond issuance and ongoing inflation. Thus, even though the Fed is lowering short-term rates, bond buyers have started demanding higher rates on long-term bonds. And so long-term government bonds may not be as bad as Schwartzer thinks.
Second, for reasons described in The Kalecki Profit Equation: Why Government Deficit Spending (Typically) MUST Boost Corporate Earnings, when you work through the various sectoral balances in the macro economy, most of the huge deficit spend dollars will end up in either corporate earnings or in the foreign trade deficit. So the ongoing deficits will continue to buoy up U.S. corporate earnings, and hence U.S. stock prices.
Voting costs time and attention, arguably the only resources everyone is short on. The compensation is implicit, ephemeral, and uncertain. Never make the mistake of thinking you can predict exactly how much other people will behave when the price is subjective and wrapped in uncertainty.
A democracy is an endless cascade of institutions designed to pick winners. Those winners are themselves a product of the rules as much, if not more, than the preferences of voters. Rules will inevitably be gamed, sometimes in manners that seem unfair at best, antithetical to the ambitions of democracy at their worst. A good rule of thumb, however, is that the more unfair an outcome seems, the more fragile it is. A minority party that has gerrymandered voting districts to the hilt might have disproportionate power one day, but they are exactly one exogenous shock away from a electoral cascade event. Any political party is never more than one election away from the dustbin of history.
Polling is increasingly challenging and it’s hard not to feel like they are always fighting the last war. How do you find out what people want in a world where, as previously mentioned, time and attention are scarce? How do you poll people who won’t answer the phone and, even worse, those who do answer phone are decidedly different from those who do? Same thing for people on Facebook. Same thing for people at the mall. Same thing for anyone who uses one tool or media instead of another. It’s never been easier to learn about an exact subset of people, while never harder to learn about everyone.
The electoral college is an extremely dumb peculiar institution. Tuesday could be a tie or a two point differential, but the most likely outcome is a roughly 80 point blowout. The catch being that the blowout could go either way.
I voted (early) for Harris/Walz. I hope they win, but not sure I can say much else for sure. Democracy is hard.
Abstract: We study how transparent information about effort impacts the allocation of earnings in a dictator game experiment. We manipulate information about the respective contributions to a joint endowment that a dictator can keep or share with a counterpart…
Employees within an organization are sensitive to whether they are being treated fairly. Greater organizational fairness is shown to improve job satisfaction, reduce employee turnover, and boost the organization’s reputation. To study how transparent information impacts fairness perceptions, we conduct a dictator game with a jointly earned endowment.
The endowment is earned by completing a real effort task in the experiment, an analog to the labor employees contribute to employers. First, two players work independently to create a pool of money. Then, the subject assigned the role of the “dictator” allocates the final earnings between them.
In the transparent treatment, both dictators and recipients have access to complete information about their own effort levels and contributions, as well as those of their counterparts. In the non-transparent treatment, dictators have full information about the relative contributions of both players, but recipients do not know how much each person contributed to the endowment. The two treatments allow us to compare the behaviors of dictators who know they could be judged and held to reciprocity norms with dictators who do not face the same level of scrutiny.
*drumroll* results:
This graph shows the amount of money the dictators take from the recipient contribution, in cents. There are two ways to look at this. Notice the spike next to zero. Most dictators do not take much from what their counterpart earned. They are *dictators*, meaning they could take everything. Most take almost nothing, regardless of the treatment. We interpret this to mean that they are acting out of a sense of fairness, and we apply a humanomics framework to explain this in the paper.
Also, there is significantly more taken in non-transparency. When the worker does not have good information on the meritocratic outcome, then some dictators feel like they can get away with taking more. Some of this happens through what we call “shading down” of the amount sent by the dictator under the cover of non-transparency.
There is more in the paper, but the last thing I’ll point out here is that the “worker” subjects (recipients) anticipate that this will happen. The recipients forecast that the dictator would take more under non-transparency. In our conclusion, we mention that, even though the dictator seems to be at an advantage in a non-transparent environment, the dictator still might choose a transparency policy if it affects which workers select into the team.
View and download your article* This hyperlink is good for a limited number of free downloads of my paper with Demiral and Saglam, says Springer the publisher. Please don’t waste it, but if you want the article I might as well put it out there. I posted this on 11/2/2024, so there is no guarantee that the link will work for you.
Parkinson’s Law, the principle that “work expands to fill the time available for its completion,” was originally intended as a satirical observation on bureaucratic inefficiencies. However, it has broader applications, especially in academic life. When preparing to teach an intermediate microeconomics class, for example, I often find that Parkinson’s Law applies: no matter how much time I dedicate, there’s always more content, illustrative examples, and analysis that could be included. The time invested in preparation creates a tradeoff between covering the broad spectrum of microeconomic theories versus delving deeply into a few core concepts. Either approach can be effective, but Parkinson’s Law reminds me that more preparation doesn’t always imply improvement.
Teaching intermediate microeconomics presents a natural tradeoff between breadth and depth. The course covers foundational concepts like consumer and producer theory, market structures, and welfare economics, and each of these areas is rich with intricate details, special cases, and real-world applications. A broader approach would expose students to more topics, providing a more comprehensive view of microeconomics. Exploring fewer topics fosters more critical thinking and analytical skills. Too much preparation on one topic can detract from time that could be spent introducing other essential concepts… Or other classes for that matter.
Let’s say I have a few hours to prepare for a Monday lecture on consumer theory. I might fall into a spiral of over-preparation: digging into endless variations of consumer surplus or finding additional applications that illustrate price elasticity. This is precisely what Parkinson’s Law warns against; if I pour time into my preparation, then the lecture becomes denser beyond the ideal for my students’ comprehension.
The extra hours may result in a more detailed presentation, but this doesn’t necessarily mean better learning outcomes. A concise, well-planned lecture is often just as effective—if not more so—than one crammed with detail. Overwhelming students with information that won’t stick is bad pedagogy.
I doubt anyone has been waiting for my take on the Trump and Harris economic plans to decide their vote. More than that, it is entirely reasonable to vote based on things other than their economic plans entirely- like foreign policy, character, or preservingdemocracy. But either Trump or Harris will soon be President, and thinking through their economic plans can help us understand how the next 4 years are likely to go.
The bad news is that both campaigns keep proposing terrible ideas. The good news is that, thanks to our system of checks and balances, most of them are unlikely to become policy. The other good news is that our economy can handle a bit of bad policy- as Adam Smith said, there’s a lot of ruin in a nation. After all, the last Trump admin and the Biden-Harris admin did all sorts of bad economic policies, but overall economic performance in both administrations was pretty good; to the extent it wasn’t (bad unemployment at the end of the Trump admin, bad inflation at the beginning of Biden-Harris), Covid was the main culprit.
Note that this post will just be my quick reactions; the Penn Wharton Budget Model has done a more in-depth analysis. They find that Harris’ plan is bad:
We estimate that the Harris Campaign tax and spending proposals would increase primary deficits by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years on a conventional basis and by $2.0 trillion on a dynamic basis that includes a reduction in economic activity. Lower and middle-income households generally benefit from increased transfers and credits on a conventional basis, while higher-income households are worse off.
We estimate that the Trump Campaign tax and spending proposals would increase primary deficits by $5.8 trillion over the next 10 years on a conventional basis and by $4.1 trillion on a dynamic basis that includes economic feedback effects. Households across all income groups benefit on a conventional basis.
We are already running way too big a deficit; candidates should be competing to shrink it, not make it worse. This isn’t just me being a free-market economist; Keynes himself would be saying to run a surplus in good economic times so that you have room to run a deficit in the next recession.
Now for my lightning round of quick reactions:
No tax on tips: both campaigns are now proposing this; it is a silly idea, there is no reason to treat tips differently from other income. The good news is that this almost certainly won’t make it through Congress.
Taxes: Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 is set to expire in 2025. He says he wants to renew it and add more tax cuts, though he will need a friendly Congress to do so. Harris wants to let most of it expire, but renew and expand the Child Tax Credit while raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. There’s a good chance we end up with divided government, in which case probably only the most popular parts of TCJA (increased standard deduction and child tax credit) get renewed and no big new changes happen.
Price controls: both campaigns, especially Harris‘, have talked about fighting ‘price gouging’, leading economists to worry about the price controls (any intro micro class explains why these are a bad idea). My guess is that no real bill gets passed, President Harris gets the FTC to make a show of going after grocery stores but nothing major changes.
Tariffs: Harris would probably leave them where they are; Trump is promising to raise them 10-20% across the board and 60% on China. This would lead to higher prices for US consumers and invite retaliation from abroad; we saw the same things when Trump raised tarriffs in his first term, but he is promising bigger increases now. This is worrisome because the President has a lot of power to change tariffs unilaterally; it would take a bill getting through Congress to stop this, and I don’t see that happening.
Regulation / One in two out: The total amount of Federal regulation stayed fairly flat during the Trump administration thanks to his one in two out rule, while regulation increased during the Biden-Harris administration. I expect that a second Trump admin would behave like the first here, while a Harris admin would continue the Biden-Harris trend.
Antitrust: FTC and DOJ have been aggressive during the Biden-Harris administration, blocking reasonable mergers and losing a lot in court. But Trump’s VP candidate JD Vance thinks FTC Chair Lina Khan is “doing a pretty good job”, so we could see this poor policy continue either way. More generally, voters should consider what a Vance presidency would look like, because making him Vice President makes it much more likely (Trump is 78 and people keep trying to shoot him; plus VPs get elected President at high rates).
Immigration: Immigration rates have been high under the Biden-Harris admin, while Trump’s top two planks in his platform are “seal the border” and “carry out the largest deportation operation in American history”. Economically, this would lead to a reduction in both supply and demand in many sectors, with the relative balance (so whether prices go up or down) depending on the sector. The exclusion of Mexican farmworkers in the 1960’s led to a huge increase in mechanization, to the point that domestic farmworkers saw no increase in their wages; presumably this also limited the potential harm to the food supply.
Crypto: The Biden admin has been fairly negative on crypto; both Harris and Trump are making pro-crypto statements in their campaigns, particularly Trump.
Marijuana: The Biden admin is in the process of rescheduling marijuana to no longer be in the most restricted category of drugs. I think Trump would probably see the process through, while Harris definitely would.
Elon Musk / Civil Service: Elon Musk has thrown his support hard behind Trump, spending lots of money, tweeting continuously, and attending rallies. It’s hard to know how much of this is genuine support for a range of Trump’s policies, how much is to get the Federal government to stop suing his companies so much, and how much is to get himself a direct role in government. In any case, it is a safe bet that more Federal civil servants get fired in a Trump admin than in a Harris admin. What’s much harder to say is how many get fired, and what proportion of firings come from a genuine attempt to improve efficiency vs a purge of those Trump sees as disloyal. Personally I think government could stand to treat its employees a bit more like the private sector, making it easier to fire people for genuine poor performance (not political views), but also allowing for more flexibility on improved pay, benefits, and the ability to focus on achieving goals more than following the way things have always been done. But I doubt that’s on the table either way.
CFTC/ Prediction Markets: The Biden CFTC has tried to crack down on prediction markets, though they have mostly failed in the courts, and the growth of Kalshi and Polymarket mean that prediction markets are now bigger than ever. Most of the anti-prediction-market decisions have been 3-2 votes of the democrats vs the republicans, so a new republican appointee could lock in the legal gains prediction markets have made, though this is far from guaranteed (not all Rs support this).
Final Thoughts: So much of how things turn out will depend not just on who wins the Presidency, but on whether their party wins full control of Congress. Because the Democrats have a lot more Senate seats up for grabs this year, Harris is much more likely to be part of a divided government (especially once you consider the Supreme Court).
Because of this, and because of the ability of the President to raise tariffs unilaterally, I see Trump as the bigger risk when it comes to economic prosperity, as well as non-economic issues. Harris with a Republican Senate is the best chance of maintaining something like the status quo, whereas a Trump victory is likely to see bigger changes, many of them bad.
That said, predicting the future is hard, and this applies doubly to Presidential terms. I’m struck by how often in my lifetime the most important decisions a President had to make had nothing to do with what the campaign was fought over. Who knew in 1988 that the President’s biggest task would be managing the breakup of the Soviet Union? In 2000, that it would be responding to 9/11? Bush specifically tried to distinguish himself from Gore as being the candidate more against “nation-building”, then went on to try just that in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2004, who knew that the biggest issue of the term would be not Social Security or foreign policy, but a domestic financial crisis and recession? In 2016, who knew that they were voting on the President that would respond to the Covid pandemic? In 2020, who knew that they were voting on who would respond to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
The most important issue for the next President could easily be how they address China or AI, because those are clearly huge deals. I won’t vote based on this, because I don’t know who has the better plan for them, because I have no idea what a good plan looks like. Or the most important issue could be something that comes completely out of left field, like Covid did. Not even the very wise can see all ends.
What I do know is that, while much of the Libertarian Party has recently gone from its usual “goofy-crazy” to “mean-crazy“, Chase Oliver is so far the only candidate pandering to me personally. But it’s not too late for other politicians at all levels to try the same.
See you all again next Thursday, by which time the election will, I hope, be over.
Economist Writing Every Day 