For Donald Trump, calling someone a loser is not merely an insult, and calling someone a winner is not merely a compliment. The division of the world into those who win and those who lose is of paramount philosophical importance to him, the clearest reflection of his deep, abiding faith that the world is a zero-sum game and you can only gain if someone else is failing.
.. On the core issues he cares about the most — international trade, immigration, foreign policy — he’s strikingly consistent. He’s always been anti-immigrant, always been protectionist, always been fiercely nationalistic on matters of war and peace.
More generally, he’s always believed in the fundamental zero-sum nature of the world. Whether he’s discussing real estate in New York, or his ’00s reality TV career, or his views on immigration and trade, he consistently views life as a succession of deals. Those deals are best thought of as fights over who gets what share of a fixed pot of resources. The idea of collaborating for mutual benefit rarely arises. Life is dealmaking, and dealmaking is about crushing your enemies.
“You hear lots of people say that a great deal is when both sides win,” he writes in Think Big and Kick Ass, co-authored with Bill Zanker of the Learning Annex. “That is a bunch of crap. In a great deal you win — not the other side. You crush the opponent and come away with something better for yourself.” To “crush the other side and take the benefits,” he declares, is “better than sex — and I love sex.”
.. In Manhattan real estate, wealth is not created by offering new products that make consumers’ lives better.
.. Manhattan real estate is a zero-sum game.
How a Quest by Elites Is Driving ‘Brexit’ and Trump
Here is an overarching theory of what we might have missed in the march toward a hyper-efficient global economy: Economic efficiency isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
.. Against that backdrop, support for Mr. Trump and for the British withdrawal known as Brexit are just imperfect vehicles through which someone can yell, “Stop.”
.. But what if those gaps between the economic elite and the general public are created not by differences in expertise but in priorities?
.. In other words, the more evenly the pie was divided, the less pie there was to go around. There was a trade-off between equality and maximizing income, a version of economic efficiency.
Among the general American public, about half of those who played the game favored equality over efficiency.
.. Among the Yale students who played the game, 80 percent preferred efficiency to equality. They were more worried about the size of the pie, apparently, than making sure everyone got a slice.
.. “The people who are destined to fill these elite positions tend to have a strong efficiency orientation,” said Raymond Fisman, a Boston University economist and lead author of the study. “One underlying explanation may be that, if the system has been kind to you, and you find yourself at Yale Law School, you know you’re going to make out O.K. in the end, and so you don’t worry about widening the distribution of outcomes.”
.. But maybe it is really important for people who live in a place to be able to stay there indefinitely. Maybe the idea that things should stay the way they are, without new people moving in and new buildings going up, is not as inherently irrational as Economics 101 would suggest. Yes, rent control is a bad idea if you’re worried about the long-term prospects for economic efficiency. But maybe the people who advocate these policies know exactly what they’re rooting for, and that’s not it.
The rent control debate can be viewed as a microcosm of the debate about globalization and international trade.
.. It projects that the deal will add $131 billion a year to Americans’ incomes by 2030, or 0.5 percent of G.D.P. It will neither create nor destroy jobs, but is projected to add to churn — job changes — in the economy as work moves into higher-paying, more export-centric industries. The authors predict that the trade deal will mean an extra 53,700 job changes a year, but they note that 55.5 million people a year in the United States change jobs for all sorts of reasons, and that this extra churn will barely change those overall numbers.
.. If there is one crucial lesson from the success of Mr. Trump and Brexit, it is that dynamism and efficiency sound a lot better to people who are confident they’ll always end up being winners.
Could the U.S. Really Gut Its Trade Deals?
Trump and others vow to pull out of the TPP and beef up tariffs, but that wouldn’t stop companies from continuing to move jobs to where labor is cheapest.
the U.S. doesn’t have a bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam, but companies still make things there and sell them here. They do that because the standard-of-living is lower in developing countries, and workers are willing to work for lower wages.
.. The tariffs on textiles are actually among the highest that still exist, Chad P. Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics, told me. But companies still make clothing and shoes overseas because it requires a lot of labor to do so, and labor is much cheaper outside the United States.
.. The average tariff rates in the United States have declined from 18.4 percent in 1934 to 1.3 percent in 2007
.. as trade experts like Daniel Drezner have pointed out, the U.S. manufacturing sector isn’t exactly in need of a revival: Output has actually grown since 1990. But technology has made the sector more productive, so even as factories produce more, they need fewer people. Economists have calculated that 80 percent of the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. is due to technological progress, while just 20 percent is due to trade
The Coming Political Realignment
Donald Trump has done something politically smart and substantively revolutionary. He is a Republican presidential candidate running against free trade and, effectively, free markets.
By putting trade at the top of the conversation he elevates the issue on which Hillary Clinton is the most squirrelly, where her position reinforces the message that she will say anything to get power
.. Donald Trump has done something politically smart and substantively revolutionary. He is a Republican presidential candidate running against free trade and, effectively, free markets.
By putting trade at the top of the conversation he elevates the issue on which Hillary Clinton is the most squirrelly, where her position reinforces the message that she will say anything to get power
.. Trump’s only hope is to change the debate from size of government to open/closed.
.. His only hope is to cast his opponents as the right-left establishment that supports open borders, free trade, cosmopolitan culture and global intervention. He would stand as a right-left populist who supports closed borders, trade barriers, local and nationalistic culture and an America First foreign policy
.. But where Trump fails, somebody else will succeed. And that’s where he’s substantively revolutionary. The old size-of-government question was growing increasingly archaic and obsolete. In country after country the main battle lines of debate are evolving toward the open/closed framework.