Tag: donald trump
Trump crypto

Trump Gave Crypto Bros Everything They Wanted -- And Their Assets Tanked Anyway

Ryan Cummings and I had an oped in yesterday’s NYT, wherein we ask and answer this question re crypto’s loss of trillions in value in recent months:

What took so long? Outside of crimes and scams, the technology is useless, and its economics are even worse.
The answer is that crypto was held aloft for months by a period of euphoria that followed the extraordinary support the industry gained in the Trump administration. The crypto bros who spent millions getting Donald Trump elected seemed to get virtually everything they might want: a longtime industry investor elevated to White House adviser; one type of crypto given the imprimatur of the federal government; the near annihilation of effective regulatory scrutiny; invitations to White House dinners hosted by Mr. Trump.
But instead of cementing crypto’s legitimacy, the administration has only pulled back the curtain on the fundamental worthlessness of its assets. At a time when investors have growing skittish about riskier assets, the value of Bitcoin has fallen nearly 50 percent since October, dropping to below $70,000, proving it was only a matter of time before crypto faced the critical lens it always needed but never truly received.

Back in the day, for at least four reasons, a team of us at CEA were inherently skeptical about non-sovereign digital currencies, like Bitcoin and even more so, stablecoins, which are allegedly pegged to the dollar (one stablecoin=one dollar; in fact, there’s already been a few cases of stablecoins “breaking the buck”). First, especially given that Jeff Zhang (look up his work on this with Gary Gorton) was at CEA at the time, we knew the sordid history of private currencies meting out pain and sorrow. Second, we have a dollar—it’s the global reserve currency—so why do we need a mysterious coin tied to the dollar?

Third, the graybeards among us, i.e., me, had lived through numerous financial crashes and were well schooled in Minskian finance. The great economist/banker understood that as the business cycle progress and the last bust fades in the rearview mirror, investors get their risk back on and are prone to shiny new objects, be they synthetic derivatives and Bitcoin. The investors get ahead of, or, in the case of crypto, purchase, the regulators, and systemic risk proliferates.

Fourth, as we note in the NYT piece, our tech advisers understood and were unimpressed by blockchain technology, which they viewed as a clunky, slow, expensive database.

The whole project lacked compelling, real economy use cases, outside of illegal scams and transfers. (In the piece, we do recognize that digital currencies are used for a small fraction of legal cross-border transfers.)

For all these reasons, it seemed to us that crypto was an accident going out to happen, a volatile, unreliable store of value that it needed to be regulated like the risky asset it was.

…we aired our concerns in the 2023 Economic Report of the President. Crypto is at best a form of private money, which has a long history of ending up in financial ruin. At worst, it is a speculative and highly volatile asset with almost no practical use, whose backers were (and still are) constantly trying to embed it into the financial system, both to increase its adoption and, should the market nosedive, stick taxpayers with the bill.

Sharp regulators, like Gary Gensler at the SEC, were on the same page as us and acted accordingly.

Then the Orange Menace, who in the interim had a highly profitable conversion to crypto advocacy, took over, and the industry got everything they wanted. The problem with that is: be careful what you wish for.

The lack of legal use cases and the cumbersome nature of the currencies meant that what was propping up their value was pure speculation, leavened by a boatload of bros whining that the jack-booted-regulator thugs of the Biden admin were blocking the world from seeing their utility. Take that away, and much as the low tide reveals naked swimmers, the industry and its assets got the scrutiny it sorely needed. Once the curtain got pulled back, investors didn’t much like what they saw.

Neither we nor anyone else can say with certainty what crypto will be worth in the future. But with the most crypto-friendly administration and Congress money could buy, “its boosters have run out of excuses. They may now also be running out of time.”

Jared Bernstein is a former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Budget and Policy Priorities. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Econjared.

David Ellison

Turning America Into Hungary, Trump Forces Netflix To Drop Warner Bid

Another major media conglomerate teeters on the precipice of being absorbed by a deep-pocketed ally of President Donald Trump and his administration.

At the end of last week, Netflix had a signed deal to purchase the theatrical and streaming divisions of Warner Bros., with the company’s cable division — including CNN — set to be spun off into a separate company. Netflix had previously defeated a rival offer for all of Warner Bros. from Paramount, the media conglomerate owned by David Ellison, a Trump favorite and the son of the president’s buddy Larry Ellison, the billionaire.

Since then:

  • On Saturday, Trump demanded that Netflix fire board member Susan Rice or face “consequences” while promoting an ally’s statement that he should “kill” the Netflix-Warner Bros. deal. (The president’s propagandists on Fox News had spent the previous days trying to turn Rice’s involvement with the company into a scandal.)
  • On Monday, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos refused Trump’s demand, saying, “This is a business deal. It's not a political deal."
  • On Tuesday, Warner Bros. announced it was considering a new bid from Paramount, putting the Netflix deal in doubt.
  • On Wednesday, Politico reported that Sarandos had a White House meeting the next day to discuss Netflix’s bid.
  • On Thursday, Warner Bros. said that it now viewed the Paramount bid as superior; soon after, Netflix said it would not raise its bid, effectively ceding to Paramount.

The rival bids provide the shape of what Sarandos described as “a business deal,” and surely all parties will present it as such. But no one else needs to pretend to be so gullible.

Trump wanted Warner Bros. assets — particularly CNN, whose reporters he loathes — in the hands of an ally. His public statements and White House leaks made it crystal clear both that he preferred that Paramount purchase Warner Bros., and that his administration would corruptly wield its regulatory power to thwart rival bidders. And the strategy seems to have succeeded.

The result reeks of a “political deal” in which the president steered the ownership of a major news outlet to his crony. That’s unconscionable in a free society — but a familiar tactic of authoritarian leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, who dismantled his country’s independent news media through such methods in service of his vision of “illiberal democracy,” which Trump seeks to emulate.

It’s working. In less than a year, CBS News and the massive social media platform TikTok, along with Paramount’s movie studios, have come under the thumb of a single family of pro-Trump billionaires. If the Warner Bros. purchase goes through, CNN, along with HBO and Warner’s movie business, will join them.

For CBS News, the Ellison takeover has involved new right-wing newsroom leaders who impose onerous reviews of critical reporting, veteran journalists leaving for greener pastures, layoffs, and an influx of MAGA-friendly hires. CNN can expect the same treatment — indeed, the White House and Larry Ellison have reportedly already discussed the potential firing of particular CNN hosts “whom Donald Trump is said to loathe, including Erin Burnett and Brianna Keilar.”

The owners of The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, meanwhile, seem to have been suborned and are disemboweling their institutions, while ABC News’ corporate owners have repeatedly capitulated to the administration.

We’ve warned for years that Trump intended to employ an authoritarian’s playbook against the media. That’s exactly what he’s done since returning to office. And now that he’s learned how easy it is to get corporate media owners to dance to his tune, it seems certain that he’ll soon find another target.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Kevin Stitt

How Popular Governors Rise Above Party (And Trump's Petty Manipulation)

Another exercise in nonpartisan cooperation ended sadly, as Donald Trump undoubtedly planned. Every year, the nation's governors meet with the president to discuss common concerns. Trump had initially banned two Democratic members of the National Governors Association from attending — governors Jared Polis of Colorado and Wes Moore of Maryland.

The association's chair, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, objected to Trump's banishing of two members. The governors' gathering is one of the few cross-party events still held at the national level.

"He can invite whomever he wants," press secretary Karoline Leavitt snapped like a high-school mean girl.

And Stitt responded by canceling the meeting. As he explained to Trump, "I said, 'Sir, I can't cancel an event at the White House. The only thing I said was, 'If it's not for all 50 governors, then the NGA is not the right facilitator for it.'"

Once Trump succeeded in injecting his unique brand of nastiness into what's normally a friendly bipartisan affair, he backpedaled and said, OK, Polis and Moore can attend. Mission accomplished. He had wrung maximum attention from a venue that normally escapes extensive news coverage. But by keeping the governor's confab from collapsing, he still had a full set of politicians to toy with.

About our governors. As the highest elected state officials, they manage, budget and lead in emergencies. They set educational standards and oversee road projects. In other words, they do things that matter to everyday citizens.

And facing a statewide electorate, they must appeal to a broader voter base than representatives cosseted in their gerrymandered districts. Because their job revolves around pragmatic problem-solving, governors occupy one of the political offices for which voters will cross their party lines. In addition, their party affiliation doesn't greatly change the power balance in Washington.

The job's above-the-fray nature helps explain why deep-blue Vermont has a Republican governor — and conservative Kentucky and Kansas have Democratic ones. On the Tennessee governor's official website, Bill Lee offers an extensive biography covering his deep Tennessean roots and accomplishments in office. Nowhere is there mention of political party. (Lee is a Republican.)

With congressional Republicans staring down a rough ride through the midterms, some political analysts have expressed surprise at polls showing momentum in governors' races leaning more toward Republicans than Democrats. Some wrongly hold up these Republican-friendly surveys as evidence that the party isn't in as much trouble as was widely thought.

But the real reason was already outlined above. Washington Republicans have largely submitted to Trump's grifting schemes and erratic policies — the tariff chaos being most unpopular. That makes them a different animal from Republicans in state capitals, in Montpelier, Vermont, or Columbus, Ohio.

Speaking of Ohio, Gov. Mike DeWine did himself proud by denouncing Trump's demented claim, echoed by the spineless JD Vance during the 2024 campaign, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield are eating cats and dogs. DeWine responded: "These Haitians came in here to work because there were jobs ... And if you talk to employers, they've done a very, very good job and they work very, very hard."

Trump isn't helping Republican governors seeking reelection by dragging them into his house of crazy mirrors — notwithstanding their survival in the recent past. In 2022, DeWine won again after angering Trump by saying Joe Biden was the elected president. Trump repeatedly attacked Georgia's governor, Republican Brian Kemp, for defending his state's election results favoring Biden. And New Hampshire's governor, Republican Chris Sununu, prevailed after Trump accused him of disloyalty.

Democrats are pumped for the midterms and might just supply the boost that brings defeat to otherwise popular Republicans — popular precisely because they rise above party when doing so seems right.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

No Justification: Trump Won't Explain His Feckless And Bellicose Iran Policy

No Justification: Trump Won't Explain His Feckless And Bellicose Iran Policy

Donald Trump’s interminably verbose State of the Union address delivered all the typical Trumpian tropes in an extended version, from his mendacious slurs against immigrants to his cosplay as super-patriotic commander in chief. He even riffed on his yearning to give himself a Congressional Medal of Honor, an award normally unavailable to draft-dodgers.

What the president did not do, even as a ballooning U.S. air and naval force surrounds Iran, was to justify such ostentatious preparations for war against an adversary he claimed to have disarmed only months ago. It is all well and good to hang medals on courageous service members; it is imperative to tell the American people – especially those in uniform and their loved ones – why they must again go in harm’s way.

Dwelling at length on stories of valor and pathos, Trump uttered only a few sentences about the military buildup that indicates preparation for an extended and bloody conflict. Unlike Venezuela or any of the other adversaries that his administration has targeted, the Islamic Republic maintains a formidable arsenal of weapons and nearly a million men under arms. Any attempt to overthrow that regime beyond the bombing campaigns already undertaken is liable to inflict mass casualties on our troops -- and even more damage on our reputation abroad.

Trump might at least have mentioned why he believes those risks are worthwhile. The rationale he offered last night made little sense. He claimed again to have “obliterated” the Iranian nuclear weapons program during last year’s bombing campaign – an assertion rejected by the International Atomic Energy Agency – which ought to mean that the regime is years away from making a bomb. He said that the Iranians have refused to foreswear any nuclear weapons ambitions, a falsehood contradicted eight hours before his address by Iran’s foreign minister, who posted on X that his country would "under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon."

Trump also mentioned the Iranian regime’s killing of thousands of protesters, a horrible crime that he had vowed to prevent in one of his many hollow promises. While he is no doubt furious over that embarrassing dereliction, that would hardly vindicate a war killing thousands more innocent Iranians.

Led into a cul-de-sac by his own bellicose pronouncements, Trump finally is facing the consequences of the rash decision in his first term to abandon the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action negotiated by President Obama, which was backed by an international alliance that included France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia, and China. Personal animosity toward Obama was his only real reason for wrecking that painstakingly negotiated agreement. Among the many valuable aspects of that deal was its safeguards against Iran enriching uranium to weapons grade before 2030 – precisely the issue that has stalled the current negotiations. (It doesn’t help that Trump again dispatched Steve Witkoff, his befuddled real estate pal and crypto investment partner, to deal with the Iranians in this hour of crisis.)

If we brush aside all the flag-waving and jaw-thrusting in his State of the Union, it should be clear that Trump now faces a pair of bad choices – one worse for him, perhaps, and the other far worse for his country and the world. If he backs away from war without any major concessions from the Iranians, then “Trump Always Chickens Out” will echo louder than ever. If he plunges us into a forever war he always pledged to avoid, the costs could be incalculable and even catatrosphic.

Let us hope that the clueless Witkoff – or maybe Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is smarter -- can somehow retrieve a deal from the ruins of the JCPOA before it is too late. But remember that we have only reached this perilous moment because of Trump’s dishonesty and egomania.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World