| This is Bloomberg Opinion Today, the closest 18th-century analogue to Bloomberg Opinion's opinions. On Sundays, we look at the major themes of the week past and how they will define the week ahead. Sign up for the daily newsletter here. Hans Langseth probably isn't a name that means anything to you. Not unless you were a geeky tweenager in the 1970s spending countless hours memorizing useless facts from mind-expanding compendiums that Google had yet to make obsolete: The People's Almanac, The Book of Lists, The Book of Predictions, the Guinness Book of Records. [1] This was where you found out all the important stuff: that Nauru's economy was based on bird droppings [2] , that there were eight documented cases of human spontaneous combustion, that by 1990 wrist telephones would become popular (close!) and by 2002 all forms of cancer would be cured (no cigar, alas). To my mind, the least interesting was the Guinness Book, which was first published in 1955 by the Irish brewing company and distributed in pubs as a way to settle bar bets without bloodshed. I admit it had a fair share of crucial, pointless information: a guy named Gary Gabelich drove a rocket car at 630 miles per hour in a dry lakebed in Utah; [3] two high school sophomores went back and forth and nowhere in a rocking chair for more than 13 days; Parke Thompson, an attorney from Ohio, visited 229 countries. And then there was Hans Langseth: I think you can guess what put the North Dakota farmer in the Guinness Book — all 17.5 feet of it [4] — although I doubt many pub arguments about hirsuteness came to blows. Which may be about to change, folks, because THE BEARD IS BACK! [5] Not just with Midwestern eccentrics like good old Hans, but in the halls of power — and the power alleys of the Bronx. "Shohei Ohtani and Aaron Judge are the faces of Major League Baseball. Even non-fans recognize them. But outside of the two superstars, the league has struggled to turn its most talented players into recognizable and marketable celebrities," writes Adam Minter. "That's why [last month's] decision by the New York Yankees to end a nearly 50-year ban on beards and long hair is so important. It's not just about grooming; it's about personal branding and the nature of athletic fame in the social media era." Stephen L. Carter sees the Yankees' embrace of whiskers in more epochal terms. "For the first time in over a century, beards are coming to be seen as markers of the ruling class," he writes. "And not just because when JD Vance took the oath, he became the first bearded vice president since 1909. The beard, which in my lifetime has been treated as synonymous with oddball, has become a thing again." While Gerrit Cole and Giancarlo Stanton may choose to ride the zeitgeist on Opening Day, their influence will be nothing compared to Abraham Lincoln's. "Once the 16th president took the oath, the fashion gathered steam among the nation's leaders until, in Gore Vidal's words, 'all sorts of odd excrescences had begun to blossom on political faces,' " adds Stephen. "If I didn't know better, I'd think it was still the 1970s. But it isn't. Ours is, alas, a more masculine era, aggressive and angry. I hope the new affection for beards doesn't make things worse." Y'know who else had a longtime objection to facial hair? The standard-bearer of masculine, aggressive and angry: President Donald Trump. This aversion even reportedly gave him reservations on naming Vance to his ticket. But in the end, the masculine, aggressive and angry Ohio senator got Trump to go the way of the Yankees. But it's not Vance's beard I want to talk about right now, it's this guy's:  Photographer: Win McNamee/Getty Images No, not Ronald Reagan — his pompadour was flourish enough. I mean Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, whose beard is mostly gray, but had the sort of swashbuckling, bloody-minded, take-no-prisoners week that would have made Blackbeard himself proud. "As secretary of commerce, whose job is to 'foster, promote, and develop the foreign and domestic commerce of the United States,' one would expect Lutnick to be attuned to the needs and concerns of the business community," writes Robert Burgess. "But this week showed just how out of touch he is with corporate America, a constituency that has become visibly nervous about the administration's dubious approach to commerce faster than anyone could have forecast." Among the head-scratchers, Robert says, were Lutnick's assertions that tariffs don't cause prices to rise and that there can't be inflation if the budget is balanced. Um, Howard: Jonathan Levin thinks Team Trump — no doubt worried about the market nosedive and stumbling approval ratings — is "trying to rework economic data to fit their story about markets and the economy." Example A: "Lutnick suggested that he would encourage the Bureau of Economic Analysis, under the umbrella of the Department of Commerce, to present a version of gross domestic product that excludes government," writes Jonathan. "Lutnick's talking point suggests that he may seek to highlight a custom cut of the data." For a deep dive, as usual, we turn to Justin Fox. "Some economic analysts focus on a measure called final sales to private domestic purchasers, which also sifts out volatile trade data, as a better gauge of underlying economic activity than headline GDP. If Lutnick simply wants to play up such measures in quarterly GDP reporting, that seems fine," writes Justin. "Expunging all government spending from GDP is another matter, as most federal spending in the US is not consumption and investments but transfer payments in which the government takes money from one set of taxpayers and gives it to another. These payments show up in GDP accounts as spending by the recipients, and there's no way to extricate them without making the whole thing fall apart." Also falling apart: the Trump-Lutnick trade regime. "There is an argument that we have nothing to fear from tariffs, save tariff fear itself," writes John Authers. "There are arguments that the cost might not be that high, but forecasting is maddeningly difficult because US policy is so inconsistent. Thursday, the US lifted the 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada three days after it imposed them. This was what many wanted to hear, but amped up the uncertainty and volatility surrounding trade policy." Juan Pablo Spinetto isn't surprised that Mexico's "secret weapon" — massively popular president Claudia Sheinbaum — made the US blink on tariffs with her plans to retaliate big time. More surprising is that massively embattled (and weepy!) Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau did the same, in his last days in office. Team Trump may be starting to realize it shouldn't underestimate the neighbor to the north. The living person with the longest beard is a British Columbian, Sarwan Singh, at over 8 feet. No doubt he has Hans Langseth in his sights. Bonus Big Whiskers Reading: What's the World Got in Store? - Canada Liberal Party chooses new Prime Minister, March 9: We're About to See If the 'Trump Put' Is Real — John Authers
- China CPI, March 9: China's Inflation Problem Isn't Just Going Away — Daniel Moss
- Ukraine GDP, March 11: Aiding Ukraine Has Been a Great Investment for the US — Hal Brands
And then there is the administration's other bearded wonder: the vice president. When Vance isn't betraying Ukraine, quashing Spanish and threatening NATO, he seems to have a more ambitious goal in mind: destroying capitalism. According to Adrian Wooldridge, tariffs are only the "beginning of the assault on post-war prosperity" because "some of the most influential people in Trump world are determined to go even further and deconstruct the great workhorse of American capitalism: the publicly owned and professionally managed corporation." Vance, writes Adrian, "expresses the opinion that 'the closest 18th-century analogue to the modern Apple or Google is the British East India Company, a monstrous hybrid of public and private power that would have made its subjects completely unable to access an American sense of liberty.' " Is it any wonder that American businesses leaders, who flocked to Trump's banner either out of conviction or coercion, are showing some frustration? "Once upon a time, the conservative position on economics was easy to describe: It was in favor of free markets. In terms of public policy, this meant support for lower taxes, less regulation, smaller government and fiscal prudence," writes Allison Schrager. "Now a large part of the conservative movement is turning against free markets. This shift may well be bigger and last longer than the presidency of Donald Trump. All of which raises an uncomfortable question for free-marketers like me: Is there still a market-friendly party in America?" It's enough to make any diehard capitalist shake their head, bewhiskered or not. Notes: Please send pointless trivia and feedback to Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.net. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment