The @FT's Unhedged asked me about the macroeconomic implications of a second Trump term:
When you have a president who challenges the results of elections and brags about what he could do in one day as a dictator, it is not something that can be completely relied on. That is a profound threat to our long-run prosperity, and therefore short-run asset prices, economic behaviour, hiring, investment and everything else. https://ft.com/content/59fff67e-b136-4435-89e1-2400b90f4b83
A Mussolini-ish type leader can have positive impacts on markets and some economic variables for some intervals. Mussolini ultimately was said to have made the trains run on time; Germany had some economic success during the 1930s. So I think it’s a mistake to confidently predict recession or depression in the short run. But I think it’s a mistake not to be extraordinarily alarmed about the medium-term economic prospects of a government of that kind.


Even when elections didn't go my way, I always thought the system was robust and that pendulums swing. I do not feel that way about the prospect of a Trump presidency. I think there is a substantial risk that it would be immensely destructive because it moves the conversation into realms that we don’t usually think about. Its destructiveness won’t take the form of interest rates being 100bp lower or higher than they should have been, or the budget deficit being one-and-a-half percentage points of GDP higher or lower than it should have been. But it will take the form of destruction of the fabric of rule of law, which is the air that successful capitalism breathes.
https://ft.com/content/59fff67e-b136-4435-89e1-2400b90f4b83 via @ft
https://ft.com/content/59fff67e-b136-4435-89e1-2400b90f4b83 via @ft


President Biden has supported what I think is a sound activist approach to economic policy. President Trump showed us what he was made of during his four years in office and even more clearly has showed us what his intentions are without the superstructure of restraint that surrounded him during his first term.


My thoughts on election-year economics on @BloombergTV Wall Street Week:
I think history will judge very badly those, who for the sake of a more expedient corporate tax position or a relaxation of what they see as overly burdensome regulation, go along with the subversion of American democracy. That is what is at stake in this election.


He has indicated support for removal of all kinds of legal restraints on the power of the presidency. He has spoken of being dictator for a day. He has spoken of severing traditional alliances with the rest of the world, of undercutting long standing American approaches to international trade, to economic regulation, to much else. I think all of this is very threatening to the American economy in the same way that populism, while it sometimes yields temporary and initial economic benefits, it did for Mussolini, it did for Perón in Argentina, ultimately brings a great deal crashing down around it. And so I am very worried that we will be a very different country that cannot rely on the rule of law and take it for granted as we traditionally have, if we experience a second Trump administration.

また、トランプの最初の政権は懸念されたほどひどいものとならず、雇用は創出され、経済は成長したので、第二次トランプ政権への今の懸念も過剰反応ではないか、というインタビュアーの質問に対しサマーズは、「fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me(一度騙されたならば相手の恥、二度騙されたなら自分の恥)」という諺を引いて、それが米国以外の国の反応になる、と指摘した。即ち、最初のトランプ政権は一回道を逸れただけ、と捉え、憤慨しつつも米国をまだ信じてきた他国も、91件の起訴と1月6日の騒乱を経て第二次トランプ政権が誕生したならば、もはやそのような見方をすることはないだろう、と指摘している。その場合、米国が冷戦ないし第二次大戦以来保持してきた道徳的権威は失われ、世界はより不安定化することになる。そこでサマーズが経済界の人々に懇願(plea)しているのは、バイデン政権の過度に進歩主義的で介入主義的な政策への懸念は分かるし、その多くに自分も共感するが、米国とその経済界が長年に亘って運営してきた枠組みそのものを駄目にすることに手を貸してはならない、ということである。もしそうなれば、上の二番目のツイートにあるように、歴史は厳しい判断を示す、とサマーズは警告する。ニッキー・ヘイリーやクリス・クリスティについてはそのような懸念は抱かないが、トランプ前大統領への懸念はレベルが全く違う、という認識をサマーズは示している。