More Seemingly Random Thoughts #62

More Seemingly Random Thoughts #62

Trump, says Treasury secretary Scott Bessent, “is probably the most economically sophisticated president we’ve had in 100 years, maybe ever.” Huh? Boy, does that say something about our past presidents!

Tariff stupidity = economic sophistication? Who knew?

Why doesn’t Trump meet with Powell regularly?

Can the Secretary of the Treasury be on the Open Market Committee? How about having the Fed chair on the cabinet? That would give the administration a voice – but not a veto – on the Fed’s actions.

It will be interesting to see the next FOMC vote. I bet it won’t be unanimous.

Republicans – not democrats – blocked Mike Lee’s suggestion to sell a sliver of Fed owned land (a la Thomas Sowell). Lee wanted to sell a paltry 1 million of the 640 million acres owned by the federal government. Four republican senators and 6 republican representatives threatened not to vote for the Big Beautiful bill forcing Lee to jettison his amendment. This is just another example of the difficulty in even cutting pennies from the federal budget.

National security tariffs? Wouldn’t it make more sense to lower all tariffs to zero if reciprocated on China’s competitors (Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Cambodia) and on all our ex-allies? Instead Trump is going forward with the lunacy of imposing tariffs on everyone. He thinks American economic might will cower every nation into kissing his ring. Instead, those nations will form other alliances – often with China. Some national security strategy.

Remember that in Trump’s world, reciprocal means a 20% tariff on Vietnam while their tariff on US goods is zero.

Also remember that one reason given for the tariffs was the bizarre notion that trade deficits in goods (only) somehow imperiled national security. Then why is Trump putting tariffs on all the countries with which we have a trade surplus like Brazil? Their tariff is an amazing 50%! I seldom agree with Paul Krugman but his calling the Brazilian tariffs “megalomaniacal and evil” may be an understatement. Let’s just be kind and say that Trump is either misinformed or a liar or – in Krugman’s words – a megalomanic. One observer says that this “defies logic”. But of course no logic is involved here. Trump’s tariff letter to Brazil said that Brazilian trade barriers caused “unsustainable trade deficits” for the U.S.  Pardon me but WTF. We have a trade surplus with Brazil in 2024 of $284 million. In the first half of 2025, it is $1.67 billion. So now trade surplus = deficits? Some economically sophisticated president!

On the home front one writer made the insightful comment that only Trump could have “capitalized on and exacerbated the manifold failings of a pre-existing culture and politics derailed by identity, incoherently wooing disaffected black and Latino Americans even as he elevates whites en masse to the status of victims and demotes racial and sexual minorities to the role of oppressors (invaders, usurpers, recipients of unfair advantages)”. But as I remind you, we would have never had CRT or DEI if white people (those libs in power) did not hate white people. 

Does Justice Jackson know the constitution? She was the sole dissenter in an 8-1 decision. Even Sotomayor would not join her. This case involved Trump’s ability to fire federal employees. Not only did Jackson dissent but her dissent was amazing in its scathing tone of disapproval toward her eight other colleagues. She wrote “For some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation. In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”  

Seriously? “Hubristic and senseless.” Even though Sotomayor disagreed with Trump’s actions, she agreed that the case should move forward so the lower courts can decide first if the eventual layoffs break any laws set by Congress. Jonathan Turley has called Jackson’s style one of “judicial abandon”. Turley is being kind. Although some are quick to attack Jackson’s intellect, her record and history show otherwise. Jackson is very smart but is using the court as a bully pulpit to espouse her personal views rather than being true to her oath of office that pledges ““I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Jackson is 54 and may be on the court another 20 years.

Clarence Thomas is 77 and Samuel Alito is 75. Maybe it is time for both to retire at the end of the current session of the court while republicans control the White House and the senate. If the democrats come back into power – and surely they will someday – can you imagine two more justices like Ketanji Brown Jackson?

And lastly, even the calendar says WTF after Tuesday.