Tag: donald trump
Trump at superintelligence press conference

One More Reason Why Americans Hate Oligarchs' AI: It Does Nothing For Us

One unifying dynamic in America today: Americans really, really hate artificial intelligence. What began as a form of NIMBYism — no one wants a data center in their neighborhood — has broadened into severe doubts about the technology as a whole. For those of us who remember the giddy optimism that greeted the tech boom of the 1990s, the widespread negativity toward AI is astonishing. Here are the results of a new Wall Street Journal poll:

Only 28 percent of Americans believe that AI technology should move full speed ahead. Everyone else wants it slowed down or stopped, temporarily or permanently.

Of course, Donald Trump remains a huge booster. He believes that the public’s antipathy towards AI is just a marketing problem — and that he can solve that problem by forcing everyone to call it “super intelligence”. But the Journal poll also says that only 7 percent of Americans trust Trump’s leadership in regulating AI. Given Trump’s abysmal approval ratings, his advocacy of AI — err, super intelligence — probably taints the technology even further in the eyes of Americans.

Historically, Americans have been technology enthusiasts. As a nation, we’re not Luddites. So what explains Americans’ dislike of AI?

Obviously, there are near-daily prominent warnings that AI will destroy the human race or, failing that, destroy everyone’s job. And these warnings aren’t coming from left-wing cranks — they’re coming from the AI industry itself.

And we should be afraid – very afraid. The power of AI models to hack into supposedly secure systems — and to do so on their own, without prompting and against their owners’ intentions, and to lie to the humans about it — is truly shocking. Moreover, there is surely an element of financially motivated hype: “Our technology is so powerful that it can destroy the world, so you’d better invest in our IPO.” And there is more than a little bit of karma here: the race by the AI giants to reach the holy grail of AGI – artificial general intelligence – was surely a strategy to make vast riches from Wall Street, in contrast to the much more modest (and probably more successful) Chinese strategy of building modest, cost-effective models.

There is also, however, a more prosaic reasons for the public’s dislike of AI: This is a technology of, by and for oligarchs, with hardly any of the benefits trickling down to regular Americans.

Or to put it a different way, never before in history have corporations spent so much money — playing a major role in soaring interest rates — to create so few jobs.

Data centers themselves are basically banks of blinking servers that employ hardly any workers. Here’s data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on a category that includes data centers as well as a number of other activities. Employment in that category has declined since November 2022, often cited as the start of the AI boom because it’s the month ChatGPT was released to the public:

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics/Created with Datawrapper

Still, won’t the AI boom at least temporarily create a lot of construction jobs? It will create some, and Jared Bernstein has a good post on how to ensure that these are good jobs. But all indications are that AI investment will create far fewer jobs, even in construction, than expected.

Bear in mind that we are talking about a truly huge investment boom. In Sunday’s primer I cited estimates by Stijn van Nieuwerburgh suggesting that we’re entering by far the biggest capital-expenditure boom in U.S. history, dwarfing even the huge railroad boom that followed the Civil War:

These are projections rather than spending that has already happened. But the AI investment boom is already well underway. Here’s IT investment as a percentage of GDP, which really took off in late 2024 and is already well above its level during the 1990s tech boom:

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis via St. Louis Federal Reserve (FRED)

Given this spending surge, one should expect a sharp rise in nonresidential construction spending — basically construction for businesses rather than housing.

But that’s not what we actually see. Nonresidential construction rose rapidly during the Biden years, largely thanks to that administration’s promotion of clean energy. But nonresidential construction has basically flatlined under Trump, despite the immense AI investment boom:

How is this possible? Because even the physical construction of a data center involves relatively little construction. According to Van Nieuwerburgh, when a multi-billion-dollar AI training campus is built,

About one-third [of the investment spending] reflects the facility and power infrastructure, while roughly two-thirds consists of compute hardware and related IT systems.

So not a lot of conventional construction. And most of the “compute hardware” etc. is imported!

Overall, then, the deep unpopularity of AI isn’t hard to explain. Here we have a technology that is enriching a small number of people, but whose creators warn may destroy millions of jobs if not the world. And even the usual argument for pro-oligarch policies — job creation! — falls flat because hardly any jobs are being created even in the short run.

Will AI’s unpopularity matter? Indicators are that it will. So many things are going wrong for Republicans right now that it’s hard to single out any one issue, but Chris Caldwell has an interesting recent article arguing that the deep unpopularity of data centers may be the tipping point that turns Ohio blue this year, possibly deciding control of the Senate.

Thus there are good reasons, even beyond possible apocalypse, for the public backlash against AI. And that backlash is so strong, and has emerged so quickly, that it may have important political consequences.

Isn’t that super?

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former professor at MIT and Princeton who now teaches at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. From 2000 to 2024, he wrote a column for The New York Times. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.


Trying To Buy Votes Is Just Plain Wrong, No Matter Who Offers The Payoff

Trying To Buy Votes Is Just Plain Wrong, No Matter Who Offers The Payoff

It would be hard to find a more insulting offer than to exchange money for your vote. That's exactly what President Donald Trump did in announcing that if voters keep Republicans in power come the midterms, he'll send every adult citizen a $5,000 check.

Now, one would not put money on that promise. Even if Republicans do retain control of both the House and the Senate, the promise will surely be thrown in the same manila folder as the vow to release the Epstein files, all of them.

Of course, Trump would not be paying us five grand — the federal government would. That would cost around $1.2 trillion. Trump says the money would come from his tariff collections. The math doesn't work. The tariffs so far have raised only about $270 billion after subtracting the court-ordered refunds to importers.

To be fair to Republicans, the offer has turned a number of their stomachs. "I disagree with it," said Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC). "It's pay-to-play ... Plus, where are you getting the money? I think we're in debt $40 trillion."

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) was less diplomatic: "Some of us think dependency is evil and soul sucking, in all its forms."

Others skipped the moral disapproval but questioned the mechanics of handing out all that dough. Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-Texas) said, "The devil's always in the details."

Actually, the devil is in the offer. It is a buying of votes. If Republicans attempt a partisan comeback by arguing that Democrats do it, too, they have a point. Democrats do buy votes, though they usually couch the exchange in less vulgar terms.

Was Joe Biden buying votes when he promised to help pay off student loans? He was. He announced his student-debt cancellation plan, which would have erased up to $10,000 in debt for qualifying borrowers, shortly before the 2022 midterms.

Helping pay for education sounds nice on the surface. But it raised resentment in families who saved money for college. One middle-income father, ordinarily a devoted Democrat, complained to me that he sent his high-achieving son to a community college for the first two years because it was free.

Has New York Gov. Kathy Hochul put votes on the auction block by mailing checks of up to $200 "to help families keep pace with the rising cost of energy"? Of course. A Democrat up for reelection, Hochul is in a surprisingly close race with Republican Bruce Blakeman, a Nassau County executive.

Her pitch is pretty blatant: "You don't have to do a thing. No application, no paperwork ... If you're eligible, the check is coming to you." She pretties it up by calling the payments an investment.

These days, Vice President JD Vance sees himself as Trump's sander, smoothing the abrasive edges of his policies without sounding overly critical, important if he harbors his own presidential ambitions. Vance also suggested that wealthy Americans wouldn't get those $5,000 checks.

"What the president is saying," Vance explained, "is if you keep us in power and allow us to continue to do these things, then you're going to share in some of the benefits ..."

Which of "these things" is he referring to? Surely not the tariffs, the Iran war, the government borrowings that have made life in America a lot more expensive.

There's the argument that farm subsidies and tax cuts are also payoffs for votes. One difference is that the farm money goes mainly to farmers and the tax cuts go mostly to the upper incomes who least need the help.

All politicians should be called out for vote buying with taxpayer dollars. Trump's $5,000 bid just adds insult by being so blatant.

Inside Trump’s Elaborate (And Failed) Scheme To Kill Midterm Mail-In Voting

Inside Trump’s Elaborate (And Failed) Scheme To Kill Midterm Mail-In Voting

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court blocked an executive order from President Donald Trump restricting voting by mail in ways that could have thrown the upcoming midterms into chaos. But the White House originally had far more disruptive plans, ProPublica has learned.

According to several people knowledgeable about the discussions, the administration initially floated an idea that would have virtually shut down mail voting: requiring all ballots to be delivered exclusively through certified mail. The proposal — which would have required voters to be home and sign for delivery of their ballots — was ultimately abandoned, after vehement Postal Service objections that it would have been impossible to execute.

Even after the idea fizzled, Postal Service officials were cut out of crucial conversations as the Trump administration moved forward with what became the final executive order, two people familiar with the matter said. Issued in March, its contents came as a shock even to the Postal Service’s lawyers.

Trump’s order would have forced postal workers to serve as gatekeepers, deciding which ballots would be delivered and which wouldn’t. Beyond that, it would have inexplicably handed authority over the plan’s execution to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who has no formal oversight over the Postal Service.

Inside the Postal Service, which is overseen by a bipartisan Board of Governors, deliberations on whether to comply with the order stretched on for weeks. Some board members found it alarming but feared Trump would respond to a direct challenge by trying to fire them, sources familiar with their concerns told ProPublica. Instead, they remained silent, counting on the courts to block the measure.

“The board was being careful how or when it took action, knowing that it might be its last action,” one source said.

ProPublica previously detailed postal officials’ deep concerns with the Trump order. Now our reporting reveals how the order came to be and who was involved in crafting it, as well as the extent to which the White House tried to dictate how mail-in ballots would be processed.

The White House team leading the mail-in voting discussions included J. Brian Sikma, a special presidential assistant who has been involved in other administration election initiatives, including identifying noncitizen voters for prosecution and seeking to ban voting machines. (Sikma didn’t respond to a request for comment.)

The commerce secretary, Lutnick, served in “an advisory and coordination capacity” in drafting the order, a department spokesperson confirmed to ProPublica.

“President Trump values Secretary Lutnick’s advice on many matters,” the spokesperson said.

In an emailed statement, White House spokesperson Lauren Bis denied the administration had interfered improperly with the Postal Service, an independent agency whose governance structure is specifically designed to protect it from political influence. She said the executive order “added important safeguards to vote-by-mail. These were commonsense measures to protect the security of mail-in ballots and to ensure only Americans vote in American elections.”

Bis also rejected the idea that the certified-mail proposal was “unworkable,” saying this played no part in the administration’s decision “to go in another direction.”

A Postal Service spokesperson declined to comment on the agency’s internal deliberations about the executive order and said it was the Board of Governors’ policy not to discuss them.

He referred ProPublica to an earlier statement by Postmaster General David Steiner that said: “Postal employees take great pride in their responsibility to support the democratic process. We will continue to approach that responsibility with the care, professionalism, and dedication that voters and election officials expect from the United States Postal Service.”

In an interview, Jonathan Smith, president of the American Postal Workers Union, called the Trump administration’s push to revamp mail voting problematic and baseless.

“The ultimate goal was to create chaos and doubt in the vote-by-mail process,” he said. “You’re creating a rule to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.”

Read NowShow less
Why Markets Will Crash If Trump Tries To Steal The Midterm Election

Why Markets Will Crash If Trump Tries To Steal The Midterm Election

All the political experts are telling us that the Republicans face a shellacking in November. The Democrats seem virtually certain to win the House and are increasingly likely to take the Senate. If that happens, it will put an effective end to the Trump administration.

Donald Trump clearly hates losing and has no respect for democracy. He tried to steal the last election he lost in 2020. For that reason, we have good reason to expect he will try to steal this one.

However, a major restraining factor is the likelihood that the stock market will crash. Trump’s billionaire buddies care far more about their money than about him. If letting Trump continue to play king is going to cost them a large share of their fortunes, they will use their considerable power to insist that the election results be respected.

To be clear, I’m not under any illusion that these people respect democracy. Many of them, like Elon Musk, openly express their contempt for it. But overturning a democratic election is the sort of lawlessness that is likely to send investors fleeing and markets tumbling.

We all know that Trump has already taken huge strides to move the country away from a law-governed system. He regularly sells pardons to people convicted of everything from fraud and tax evasion to drug dealing and child sex trafficking. A contribution to Trump’s campaign funds can win tariff relief or favorable regulatory rulings. And he has turned the White House into a sales office for Trump crypto and all sorts of other Trump products.

These practices have already undermined the country’s status as a safe place to do business. In Donald Trump’s America, a business can be hit by a shakedown attempt at almost any time for any reason. This is undoubtedly part of the story in the sharp rise in interest rates since Trump took office.

But stealing an election is a qualitative leap into Zimbabwe-land. If an election can be stolen in broad daylight, Trump can do anything, and no investment in the United States is safe.

And to be clear, there is zero doubt that we would be talking about stealing an election. All of Trump’s claims of fraud are batshit crazy, as everyone who has tried to examine them has determined, and every court that heard the cases has ruled.

In fact, it is surprising how little fraud along Trumpian lines exists. The Department of Homeland Security flagged 16,000 cases in Nevada of potential non-citizens who were registered to vote. It whittled this down to a list of 185 people that it turned over to the state’s election officials. On closer inspection, the state found that every last one of these people was in fact a citizen.

Virtually all the immigrants who come here do so to work, and hope to eventually get citizenship. They are not going to jeopardize this opportunity by illegally voting and committing a felony. Still, we might think that a few would mistakenly register, but at least in Nevada, a state with over 2.0 million registered voters, this does not appear to be the case.

So, everyone who is not in the Trump cult will know that the claims of fraud are nonsense and that Trump has stolen an election in broad daylight. This is in effect saying there is no more law in the United States with Trump in the White House.

This is likely to translate into stock and bond market meltdowns very quickly. Foreigners hold close to $20 trillion in U.S. stock and another $16 trillion in government and private debt. Much of this money could leave quickly.

It’s not that these foreign countries and wealth holders are necessarily huge lovers of democracy, but they put their money into the United States under the expectation that it was a country that respected the rule of law. Trump stealing an election is saying as clearly as possible that the law means nothing in the United States. Investors demand a much higher return on investment when they put money in a country where dictators can do whatever they want.

Take the case of Kazakhstan, a good example of a dictatorship with limited respect for the rule of law. It pays almost 14% interest on its 10-year government bonds. The interest rate on 10-year bonds in the United States stands at roughly 5.3%, about 0.6 percentage points higher than when Trump took office. But even if interest rates never get near Kazakhstan levels, bondholders would take massive losses if rates just rose 1-2 percentage points. They all understand this and likely would look to get their money out before the crash.

The same logic applies to stocks. Foreign investors can shift much of their money to countries that do respect the rule of law. And it’s not just foreign investors. Most brokerage houses offer options with 401(k)s to invest in foreign funds as an alternative to U.S. stock and bond funds. Many people already have a substantial share of their assets in these funds. That percentage is sure to rise considerably if Trump throws our election results in the garbage.

The effect of people who invested in the United States, shifting trillions into countries that actually are safe havens, will be an unprecedented crash in the stock and bond markets. The recognition of this fact may be sufficient to motivate Donald Trump’s billionaire buddies to tell him that he has to respect the results of the election. That may be our best hope, because clearly Trump has contempt for voters and democracy, and his cabinet and other top aides all feel the same way.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack, from which this is reprinted with permission.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Trending

World