Why Is Trump Firing Park Rangers?

[Gadianton]

It's not actually clear at all that this is unsustainable, or even that it is in any way bad. The US government is not a household or even a corporation. It can print its own money. The money it borrows each year is mostly lent by American citizens who gladly buy Treasury bills. It's not as though any loan sharks are going to come around and break Uncle Sam's knees. He's got nukes.

You can take it farther and say that foreign countries gladly hold the treasuries and we're really socking it to them. The world rushes to buy our bonds and hold our currency. It's like magic. But it's all interconnected, if dollars flow out of the US they ultimately need to land somewhere. They either can be literally held, exchanged (held), or ultimately invested back in America. That also comes in the form of huge investments into the private sector. It's literally the other side of the macro ledger. If we run a trade deficit then by definition we run a capital account surplus. One way to think about it, if we print too much money, if we devalue the dollar so terribly such that other countries don't want to hold our stuff, then double-entry accounting comes to the rescue and closes the trade deficit. No tariffs needed. (more like many moving parts move differently together to produce that result)

As you point out, these cuts are a drop in the bucket. Cutting park rangers is flexing his muscles and being scary -- preying on the weak for show -- when he plans on massive or continuing tax cuts to billionaires. He could close the deficit by taxing billionaires more. In fact, ironically, from the post-Keynesian talking points you're bringing into the discussion, his epic money printing may be the only thing that saves us from a recession caused by his tariffs. It's huge game of musical chairs while Trump tries to learn econ 101 as a visual learner.

How much is too much borrowing nobody can really say because there literally is no measuring stick for it. Our opponent is China. Are we going to lock the books down, take the recession, start running a surplus, and then see if we can go up against China's massive navy that was purchased on credit?

One quick point, I haven't reviewed the data for "who does better" republican administrations or democratic with the economy (because in general I think it's silly), but if Democrats do better, and if Republicans really are running the big deficits and easy low-rate money, then it may be by virtue of the lag time for the money to take effect that Democrats reap the results.

[Physics Guy]

I'm going to waste everyone's time with a whole new post for a trivial point of arithmetic that is somehow nonetheless flabbergasting.

A hundred million dollars out of 1.8 trillion dollars is one part in eighteen thousand.

[Physics Guy]

I guess the other big point is that governments are not in business. In business what you spend is just gone. In economics, it's not.

That's not ivory tower mumbo-jumbo. If a government agency pays out a billion dollars in salaries, the people who receive that billion dollars turn around and spend it on food and goods and services. So that same billion dollars that the agency spent is also money earned by farmers and workers—who will in turn spend it on things, paying other people. It all stays in the country, and every dollar just keeps on changing hands again and again and again, making two parties happy each time, because each transaction is free in a market economy.

If you're a business then you don't care what other citizens do with the money you pay them, unless perhaps they happen to pay it back to you for something. The money you pay out is just costs, for your business. If you're a government, though, you represent all the citizens. You take in money from citizens in taxes and bond sales, and you pay it back to citizens, just as they keep on paying each other, passing the dollars around.

A government may be incentivising people to do the wrong things, like shuffling forms instead of growing corn, or building aircraft carriers in an age of drones. That's a serious issue. It just isn't a matter of losing money.

[Gadianton]

You're kind of getting into the gray zone now where I haven't found a lot of consistency; the broad lines of division come up as supply-vs-demand side policy. If we're going to run a deficit, does it best go the billionaires, consumers, public works, or does it matter at all? The only common thread to all of it, what Milton Friedman, Keynesians and liberal post-Keynesians have in common, is that the one for-sure bad thing you can do is turn off the money tap. That's the Austrian influence that has traditionally pervaded the non-Milton conservatives until very recently, and I'm seeing that kind of thinking resurface, that the inner circle has a broad plan to turn off money, by some mad scheme that involves gold and bitcoin.

[Physics Guy]

I don't know what the right fiscal policy is. I'm only a very amateur economist, and even the experts don't seem to agree. Economics is strange for us physics people, because there don't appear to be any fixed rules. Up to a point human nature may be consistent, but if everyone simply woke up one morning with a bunch of different ideas, everything could totally change.

All you have to do, though, to recognize that cutting government spending is different from cutting expenses in a business, is think a bit about what really happens. Reducing spending may very well be exactly the wrong thing to do, sometimes. And cutting spending by amounts that sound enormous even for a large company is certainly nowhere near as good as it sounds, on the scale of the US government.

[Gunnar]

I don't know what the right fiscal policy is. I'm only a very amateur economist, and even the experts don't seem to agree. Economics is strange for us physics people, because there don't appear to be any fixed rules. Up to a point human nature may be consistent, but if everyone simply woke up one morning with a bunch of different ideas, everything could totally change.

All you have to do, though, to recognize that cutting government spending is different from cutting expenses in a business, is think a bit about what really happens. Reducing spending may very well be exactly the wrong thing to do, sometimes. And cutting spending by amounts that sound enormous even for a large company is certainly nowhere near as good as it sounds, on the scale of the US government.

Speaking of economics reminds me of one of my favorite jokes by my favorite author, Isaac Asimov, which I will paraphrase here. It was about Ronald Reagan's struggle with reconciling some of his conservative ideas with troubling arithmetical reality. He conferred with his chief accountant and asked, "what is 2 + 2?"

The accountant answered "4, of course!"

This answer didn't seem to completely ease his concerns, so he called in a renowned mathematician and asked the same question and got the same answer.

So, then he called his chief science advisor, a renowned physicist, and asked the same question. The physicist answered, "Mr. President, all the available evidence and experience known to us indicates that the correct answer is most probably 4."

Still a bit troubled, he called in his chief economist and asked the question again. The economist closed all the doors and windows and shades and checked to be as sure as possible that they were alone and there were no hidden surveillance devices and whispered confidentially in Reagan's ear, "What do you want the answer to be, Mr. President?"

[Gadianton]

All you have to do, though, to recognize that cutting government spending is different from cutting expenses in a business, is think a bit about what really happens. Reducing spending may very well be exactly the wrong thing to do, sometimes. And cutting spending by amounts that sound enormous even for a large company is certainly nowhere near as good as it sounds, on the scale of the US government.

there are different motives for cutting spending. a Milton type would cut spending not because spending is bad, but because he thinks it crowds out private investment, and private investment will be more efficient. well, typically government spending is related to those PD's you've brought up, bridges, military, stuff that private investment doesn't have the incentive to provide such that it would lead to an optimal outcome. But the current leadership influenced by tech billionaires see the government as one giant business, and thinking about it exactly in this wrong way you bring up. The spending is bad because we've ran out of money and are going broke. they want the government to run like their businesses (which ride on all kinds of leveraged money ironically anyway). They hold capital or assets like stock or crypto, and they don't sell for a few reasons, but rather, take out loans against it. And it seems like the tech-bro model is trying to reimagine how the government works to be like their personal investment companies. we have reserves of gold and bitcoin and some altcoins, and we print out dollars as loans against those assets, as they would do in their business, assuming they aren't being total hypocrites from the outset.

[Hound of Heaven]

The Real Reason Trump Is Firing Park Rangers

Theodore Roosevelt, one of our greatest Republican Presidents, who established the American National Park System, once said:

"There is nothing so American as our national parks. The fundamental idea behind the parks is that the country belongs to the people, that it is in process of making for the enrichment of the lives of all of us."

The Writer, Wallace Stegner, described the concept of the National Park system as "the best idea we ever had." This sentiment was echoed in the Ken Burns documentary series: The National Parks: America's Best Idea. If you have not yet seen this series, I highly recommend it. Some of the most memorable and uplifting times in my life were spent in such parks!

For decades these natural treasures have been enjoyed and supported by both liberals and conservatives, both Republicans and Democrats and people of most any other political persuasion.

So why is Trump decimating the staffs who administer these parks? He makes no secret of the fact that he wants to privatize these treasures and lease them out for basically unregulated exploitation of their mineral and timber resources, with little regard for preserving their natural beauty for us and our posterity. Some of the relevant comments from the comment section:

It is not just about logging and mining, but rather about the land grab of tech billionaires who want to set up not just huge exclusive holiday properties for themselves, but also new tech mini states with own laws arranged by corporate entities.

This video should be broadcast ed on every media platform. Thank you. everyone open your eyes and take action before it’s too late

I am a 66 year-old conservative who loves this country. My first visit to our national parks out west was in 2020. On this first visit we visited Yellowstone National Park, The Grand Tetons, and Glacier National Park. I was blown away by the beauty of the these beautiful parks, and lands. I asked my husband to take me back out west to see more parks. We visited in 2022 for the first time Grand Canyon National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Zion National Park, and many other parks. I believe these parks and lands need to be protected. There needs to be strict measures in place to protect these lands and parks from destroying the eco systems, the animals, and waterways. I don’t want BlackRock coming in here gobbling up our lands or destroying them. I do not want oil rigs in any of our National parks, let’s say they don’t do any damage to the parks, they would take away from the beauty of these parks. We need to speak up about protecting these lands. I do believe we should use our own resources for oil, minerals, and trees for wood. Saying this I also believe we can do this in a mindful safe way by establishing protections. We need to speak up demanding protections be in place for protecting of these parks, and lands.

I doubt that Trump has ever visited any of these natural treasures. I'm sure he couldn't care less how much he despoils the environment in his never ending quest for ever more wealth for himself and the already obscenely wealthy.

Gunnar, Canpakes has given the green light for personal attacks, so I’ll just say it, quit the drama queen routine! Trump is certainly sticking to his script, slashing spending just as he promised. Oh, and just a little tidbit, both Clinton and Obama decided to trim the budget, including cuts to Medicare and other vital programs.

Why are you worried about Park Rangers?

[Hound of Heaven]

Weird!

[canpakes]

Hound, the year you highlight was subject to the Budget Control Act, which was driven by a Republican-controlled House brinkmanship instigating a fight over their initial refusal to raise the debt ceiling. The Republican-controlled House only allowed a raise in the debt ceiling once significant budget cuts were enacted across the board.

Do you have a better example?