Trump's Tariffs: the uselessness of economists

I heard a nice joke the other day:  

After astrology, came astronomy.  After alchemy, came chemistry.  And after economics ..? 

The world has been watching and waiting in a state of fear and loathing for Trump's long-awaited, bizarrely-telegraphed barrage of punches.  What will happen now?

To me, the hilarious aspect is that nobody has a clue.  I suppose everyone agrees it will act as a brake on world trade.  Well, duh.   OK, and ... ?

If macro-economics means anything whatsoever by way of a 'science', there should be a definitive answer when such extreme measures are taken.  And to me, an avowed econo-skeptic, this all looks to be as significant as, say, the oil-price hike of 1973-4. 

Anyone round here got anything better?  What we're after is solid, unequivocal, drop-dead economy-related predictions beyond the short-term and the trivial.

ND

Business Blunderers I Have Known (1)

Continuing from Jailbirds and Rogues ...

Archie Forster (Sir Archibald, 1928-2001) was Chairman / CEO etc of Esso = Exxon-in-the-UK.  I met him occasionally, he being the top Esso participant in a joint venture I was involved with.  He was a cheerful, bustling cove, but his business history told clearly of a dynamic and steely character, with much conventional success along the way (within the one-company career - and Exxon is an odd company). 

Once he got to the top, however, there were reasons to doubt his judgement and what must have been a heads-down, over-confident, solo decision making style ...  

The first story revolves around his determination to cash in the very valuable SW1 HQ property Esso occupied for many years - 1,200 people, multi-storey carpark, occupying more than an entire block on Victoria Street - and move somewhere cheaper.  Esso's geography dictated somewhere west and possibly south of London: its worldscale refinery is at Fawley, near Southampton;  it had a smaller refinery at Milford Haven; a research centre at Abingdon; and, not coincidentally, Forster lived in Winchester.  When we met Esso folks, they'd give us the latest office relocation update like Father Ted used to update Dougal on tales from the confessional: although it was meant to be secret, all the Esso guys had their contacts in the company treasury who would tell them the addresses of where they were sending the latest batch of cheques made payable to estate agents.  And so we learned of the search progressing along the M4 corridor, right out to Swindon - but seemingly there was something wrong with all of the sites they were offered.

Suddenly, a breakthrough!   A big, cheap, brownfield site (the old Goblin Teasmade factory) became available near Leatherhead, right on the M25, on the London side of the motorway.  Forster was delighted.  Excellent transport links; south-westerly from London; and, he had heard from somewhere, if the move was within the M25 - and it was, just - no redundancy would need to be paid to staff that didn't want to leave SW1.  Shedding staff without cost was part of the cunning plan.

Boy, was he wrong.  (a) The 16 miles between SW1 and Goblin is far further than a move which is of such short distance, it lets you off making redundancy payments.  Oh, and (b) although smack on the M25, it was not on a junction, and the nearest one is an absolute pig at rush hour.  Loads of staff considered Leatherhead / M25 a much different proposition to the comfortable public-transport journey to Victoria SW1, and took the money.  Being an upfront cost, the fat redundancy bill significantly impaired the deemed economic benefits of the relocation exercise, even if losing staff was part of the plan.  But he ploughed on anyway.

Embarrassing enough for his dealings with his masters in Florham Park NJ: but the second tale is, if anything, even funnier worse ...  to be continued.

ND

Welby: a man with no brain speaks ...

"Every day more cases were coming across the desk that had been in the past, hadn't been dealt with adequately, and this was just, it was another case - and yes I knew Smyth but it was absolutely overwhelming"    J Welby, 2025

There was an old woman

Who lived in a shoe

There were so many perverts

He didn’t know what to do

So he busied himself

With the wine and the bread

And let them off lightly

And went back to bed

ND

Labour leadership stakes: rats-in-sack update

It's two months ago since we last looked at the jockeying for position going on in the Cabinet.  At that time we cast our eyes over Reeves (nobody's idea of the next leader, then or now); Streeting (obviously positioning himself actively); Lammy (radiating ambition); and Rayner (also ambitious but actually a joke).  For completeness, we mentioned Khan (permanently on the lookout for the Main Chance); Miliband (radiating competence); and Mandelson (devious and unpredictable as ever).

How do things look now?  The Grauniad has a telling, tearful piece, avowedly briefed by the wimmin: and it's worth quoting a couple of chunks. 

... a female minister spoke directly to the prime minister to complain about the leaks and briefings she saw directed against other women ... including Bridget Phillipson, Liz Kendall, and Yvette Cooper .,. “Cabinet really no longer feels like a safe space for genuine debate,” one minister said ... after weeks of tension felt by some women in the cabinet... Almost a dozen female Labour MPs who spoke to the Guardian said they were unnerved at how female cabinet ministers appeared to be getting the brunt of the blame for issues in government – though there is less sympathy for the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, because of anger over the Treasury’s handling of spending cuts and welfare. Among some of the new intake of MPs, there is a strong feeling that any ultimate successor to Starmer should be a woman – and a resentment of what they see as a campaign to anoint Wes Streeting.

Hahah!  More popcorn supplies, please.  It goes on: 

At the moment [Streeting] has no obvious female rival as the heir apparent. Senior cabinet ministers who did not want to see Streeting win had previously coalesced around Reeves, but her unpopular decisions as chancellor have meant that is no longer the case. Other ministers would back Rayner, but she would face a brutal press onslaught. Among Labour members there is no doubt, however. Rayner is streets ahead of her rivals in terms of popularity with the grassroots ... There is only one cabinet minister ahead of her, who is probably the least likely of anyone around the table to have another shot at the top job – Ed Miliband.

This is not intelligent commentary.  First, selecting the next leader when there's no vacancy is well-known to be an absolute mug's game.  Genuine, nailed-on heirs-apparent are few and far between in British politics (in the past century or more, only Anthony Eden and Gordon Brown).  

Second, Miliband is not at all the least likely to have another shot.  In countries like France and Italy he would be the number one contender in everyone's books: competent (at politics, that is), confident, popular, experienced, sure-footed, intelligent, and comfortably dynamic enough.  And he has the green-left eating out of his hand - potentially deemed a vital constituency when the Green Party is snapping around Labour's heels in such politically volatile circumstances.  That's how he'd be marketed, anyhow. 

A couple more comments.  (a)  You just can't rule out Khan or Burnham.  These guys' ambition and political capital is so great.  Safe seats aren't so hard to find in a hurry: Boris always found one at the drop of a hat.

(b) Having mentioned the Prince of Darkness last time and just out of interest, I have it on good authority Mandelson has already f****d up royally in Washington.  Of course, he's made comebacks in the past from many an appalling situation of his own making, so who knows?  But right now, his political capital is deep in the red.

Oh, and Lammy?  Speaking of in-the-red, he's so far out of the money right now, I almost forgot him.

ND  

Is 'Trumpism' an ideology? Ye-es, but ...

When I first joined the Conservative Party as a teenager, many long years ago, the opening sentence of the rules read thus:  

Membership of the Conservative Party is open to anyone who opposes Socialism and Communism ..."

And there you have it in a nutshell.  Conservatism, and the Right in politics generally, isn't really any kind of ideology - it even has to define itself negatively, by what it's opposed to.  It's essentially an unintellectual, not-very-articulate Burkean tendency.  Genuinely articulate Rightists such as Roger Scruton are few and far between - and they don't have cults, cliques and followers.  Leftists, who really are ideologues and can't envisage any other way of life, spit out words like 'capitalism' as if that, too, is a competing ideology - and that's an ignorant misunderstanding, too.  'Thatcherism'?  Not really: Keith Joseph notwithstanding, Thatcher's was a forceful petite bourgeois tendency on HRT.  'Reaganism'?  Not much up top, is there? - as Thatcher herself said.  'Gaullism'?  Nah - just nationalism.  'Neo-liberalism'?  If anything, an expression of the desire to clear the decks for some fairly aggressive money-making.  Etc etc etc.

So if you'd asked me any time up until very recently, I'd have said that in my political lifetime the Right has been essentially non-ideological.  Frustrating for the Left because, for all their fervour, ratiocination and well-written 5,000-word essays peppered with nicely-turned neologisms, they've nothing intellectual to grapple with except the splitters in the other Leftist factions. 

Until very recently.  Because now, it's quite evident from the voluminous output of what we might loosely call the 'Trumpite' camp, there is thinking going on that is identifiably ideological.

Of course, it's also messily bound up with some entirely mercenary motives; and as with any broad movement, one can readily discern several camps whose varying emphases in their pro-Trump enthusiasms are really quite different - the makings of fissures and splits yet to become a serious problem for The Donald's regime; but that will come.  IMHO it's rather too early to attempt to systematise all this; but it's brewing up to a point where one will be able to.**  There are some early attempts at articulation - here's one - but not perhaps very convincing yet.  (This of course isn't to be marvelled at, because being essentially Right-ish, the whole Trump thing will have a strong tendency to inarticulacy.)   

Meanwhile, as all this is slowly coagulating into something with defined contours we can pin down and gaze at, we face the sobering fact that many of its leading lights in the highest of high places are unhinged, messianic, in a massive hurry, drunk on power, and untouched by normal considerations of prudence.  We need no better evidence than the truly amazing spectacle of grown men in high office, with all the resources in the world should they care to use them with due deliberation, conducting their communications like a bunch of doped-up teenagers on their mobile 'phones plotting a Friday-night fight with a neighbouring crew.  The average County Lines drugs gang isn't as crass in its actions as these high-ranking promoters of the Trumpian Flame.  FFS, what is to become of the 'Free World'?

ND  

___________

** if anyone knows of a good early attempt to do this, or would care to try themselves in less than, say, 100 words, we'd all like to know!