Prediction: Government regulations greatly reduce economic growth. Trump, with the help of the Republican Congress, is going to significantly cut regulations and this is going to supercharge economic growth allowing Trump to win reelection in a true landslide.
Do you want to put a probability on that? Also, break it down into a bunch of steps. Be precise. Include timelines.
Has anything like that every happened in the entire history of the world? In four years? For example, most of what Reagan is credited with doing to the economy was either done by Carter or in Reagan’s second term.
Why do you believe that federal regulations are a significant portion of the total?
Has anything like that every happened in the entire history of the world
Yes, China after Mao.
It might not just be federal regulations. For example, if Republicans passed a freedom to build law that allowed landowners to quickly get permission to build we would see a massive construction boom.
You made a strong conjunction that deregulation lead to economic growth lead to popular support for the regime in four years. That definitely did not happen to China in the first four years after Mao’s death. Maybe if you cherry-pick 1980-1984 as the beginning of Deng’s real hold on power it is an example, but I doubt it.
Sure, if you want to open up the pathways and no longer predict a conjunction, I can’t stop you, but I do complain that this is a new prediction. But predicting that Trump will abolish States’ Right so quickly to have economic effects doesn’t seem very plausible to me. I wouldn’t be focusing on elections in that scenario.
For example, if Republicans passed a freedom to build law that allowed landowners to quickly get permission to build we would see a massive construction boom.
Given that land use is mostly legislated by the individual states, why do you think a Republican congress would infringe on state laws that strongly?
Over the next 4 years, 50% that Republicans will enact such a law or that Trump with use regulations to make it easier to build by, for example, claiming it’s racist for San Francisco to restrict the building of low income housing. But I’m not willing to bet on this because it would be hard to define the bet’s winning conditions.
I think it’s a clear enough prediction, but putting some actual numbers on it would be useful. Personally, I would put the odds of a Trump landslide well under 50% even contingent on “supercharged” economic growth. Maybe 25%. Politics is too identity-oriented now to see anything like the Reagan landslides in the near future.
I voted for Trump but I don’t think there is any realistic possibility of a Trump landslide, even if the economy grows very well for the next 4 years. The country is just too bitterly divided along social lines for economic prosperity to deliver one candidate a landslide (assuming a landslide in the popular vote means at least 10% margin of victory.)
In terms of economic growth, I wonder what you mean by “supercharge”. I think 4% is pretty unlikely. If the US manages an annual average of 3.0% for the next 4 years that would be a good improvement, but I don’t think that could really be called “supercharged.”
Trump job approval looks pretty good right now considering the unrelenting negative press, so right now I think Trump is likely to be re-elected if he chooses to run in 2020.
The country is just too bitterly divided along social lines for economic prosperity to deliver one candidate a landslide (assuming a landslide in the popular vote means at least 10% margin of victory.)
Assuming that
the US does in fact hold a nationwide presidential election in 2020,
the Democratic & Republican parties get > 90% of the votes in 2020, and
US military fatalities in new, unprovoked, foreign wars are minimal (< 3000),
I predict:
a Trump landslide with probability 20%, assuming 2% weighted growth over Trump’s term
a Trump landslide with probability 70%, assuming 3% weighted growth over Trump’s term
a Trump landslide with probability 95%, assuming 4% weighted growth over Trump’s term
using your definition of landslide, and defining “weighted growth” as annualized growth in quarterly, inflation-adjusted, disposable, personal income per capita, with recent growth weighted more heavily with a discount factor λ of 0.9. (See Hibbs for more details.) This is a clear prediction.
I’m more doubtful of chatter about rising political polarization than I am about fundamentals-based models of voting, and those models highlight the economy & war as the factors that most matter. As such I reckon sufficient economic prosperity could in fact produce a landslide for Trump (and virtually any incumbent, really).
I doubt the remaining trade barriers imposed by the US government are making much difference to overall US growth. As far as I know, models which don’t crowbar in optimistic second-order effects (like big jumps in productivity) estimate that trade liberalization would raise US GDP by ~ $10 billion a year. That’s a big number, but surely one has to compare it to existing US GDP: $18,560 billion a year.
This gives me the back of the envelope estimate that trade barriers are depriving the US of about 0.05% of GDP. American voters would scarcely notice that.
I think in January I read you as amplifying James_Miller’s point, giving “tariff and other barriers” as an example of something to slot into his “Government regulations” claim (hence why I thought my comment was germane). But in light of your new comment I probably got your original intent backwards? In which case, fair enough!
Prediction: Government regulations greatly reduce economic growth. Trump, with the help of the Republican Congress, is going to significantly cut regulations and this is going to supercharge economic growth allowing Trump to win reelection in a true landslide.
Do you want to put a probability on that? Also, break it down into a bunch of steps. Be precise. Include timelines.
Has anything like that every happened in the entire history of the world? In four years? For example, most of what Reagan is credited with doing to the economy was either done by Carter or in Reagan’s second term.
Why do you believe that federal regulations are a significant portion of the total?
Yes, China after Mao.
It might not just be federal regulations. For example, if Republicans passed a freedom to build law that allowed landowners to quickly get permission to build we would see a massive construction boom.
You made a strong conjunction that deregulation lead to economic growth lead to popular support for the regime in four years. That definitely did not happen to China in the first four years after Mao’s death. Maybe if you cherry-pick 1980-1984 as the beginning of Deng’s real hold on power it is an example, but I doubt it.
Sure, if you want to open up the pathways and no longer predict a conjunction, I can’t stop you, but I do complain that this is a new prediction. But predicting that Trump will abolish States’ Right so quickly to have economic effects doesn’t seem very plausible to me. I wouldn’t be focusing on elections in that scenario.
the US regime operates on popular support in a way very unlike that of China.
The difference is that the regime in China actually has popular support while the US regime doesn’t.
Given that land use is mostly legislated by the individual states, why do you think a Republican congress would infringe on state laws that strongly?
The commerce clause + big cities are controlled by the left so Republicans would be willing to step on their power+Trump is a builder.
What’s you credence for this event?
Over the next 4 years, 50% that Republicans will enact such a law or that Trump with use regulations to make it easier to build by, for example, claiming it’s racist for San Francisco to restrict the building of low income housing. But I’m not willing to bet on this because it would be hard to define the bet’s winning conditions.
Would you like to quantify that enough that we can look back in a few years and see whether you got it right?
I think it’s a clear enough prediction, but putting some actual numbers on it would be useful. Personally, I would put the odds of a Trump landslide well under 50% even contingent on “supercharged” economic growth. Maybe 25%. Politics is too identity-oriented now to see anything like the Reagan landslides in the near future.
Could you operationalize the terms? What’s a landslide? And what probability do you attach to that event?
Kudos for making a clear prediction.
I voted for Trump but I don’t think there is any realistic possibility of a Trump landslide, even if the economy grows very well for the next 4 years. The country is just too bitterly divided along social lines for economic prosperity to deliver one candidate a landslide (assuming a landslide in the popular vote means at least 10% margin of victory.)
In terms of economic growth, I wonder what you mean by “supercharge”. I think 4% is pretty unlikely. If the US manages an annual average of 3.0% for the next 4 years that would be a good improvement, but I don’t think that could really be called “supercharged.”
Trump job approval looks pretty good right now considering the unrelenting negative press, so right now I think Trump is likely to be re-elected if he chooses to run in 2020.
Assuming that
the US does in fact hold a nationwide presidential election in 2020,
the Democratic & Republican parties get > 90% of the votes in 2020, and
US military fatalities in new, unprovoked, foreign wars are minimal (< 3000),
I predict:
a Trump landslide with probability 20%, assuming 2% weighted growth over Trump’s term
a Trump landslide with probability 70%, assuming 3% weighted growth over Trump’s term
a Trump landslide with probability 95%, assuming 4% weighted growth over Trump’s term
using your definition of landslide, and defining “weighted growth” as annualized growth in quarterly, inflation-adjusted, disposable, personal income per capita, with recent growth weighted more heavily with a discount factor λ of 0.9. (See Hibbs for more details.) This is a clear prediction.
I’m more doubtful of chatter about rising political polarization than I am about fundamentals-based models of voting, and those models highlight the economy & war as the factors that most matter. As such I reckon sufficient economic prosperity could in fact produce a landslide for Trump (and virtually any incumbent, really).
You should take into account that tariff and other barriers to trade are a form of government regulation.
I doubt the remaining trade barriers imposed by the US government are making much difference to overall US growth. As far as I know, models which don’t crowbar in optimistic second-order effects (like big jumps in productivity) estimate that trade liberalization would raise US GDP by ~ $10 billion a year. That’s a big number, but surely one has to compare it to existing US GDP: $18,560 billion a year.
This gives me the back of the envelope estimate that trade barriers are depriving the US of about 0.05% of GDP. American voters would scarcely notice that.
Trump was saying he would increase trade barriers, so current levels are not the point.
I think in January I read you as amplifying James_Miller’s point, giving “tariff and other barriers” as an example of something to slot into his “Government regulations” claim (hence why I thought my comment was germane). But in light of your new comment I probably got your original intent backwards? In which case, fair enough!