Chris Kleponis/CNP via ZUMA

Paul Krugman has a couple of questions for his fellow economists:

But my question is, why aren’t we seeing an open letter from right-leaning economists calling on Trump to lay off the Fed? After all, demanding an easy money policy when unemployment is 3.7% is a lot more likely to cause inflation than easing at 9.4%. But, crickets 3/

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) December 26, 2018

This goes hand in hand with denouncing deficits when the economy really needed fiscal support to being just fine with them when they result from tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, even though now would be a good time to rein in debt 4/

— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) December 26, 2018

As usual, Krugman doesn’t understand. Right-wing economists were calling for hard money in 2010 because the president was an obviously inexperienced Democrat likely to run the economy off the rails with his Democratic big-spending ways and tolerance for huge deficits. That was a totally reasonable position regardless of how deep our recession was.

Today, by contrast, the economy is in the hands of a Republican with 40 years of business experience who has shown himself to be a master of financial markets. And sure enough, he’s opposed to more spending except for defense and the wall and welfare for farmers affected by his trade war with China. Also, he cut taxes on corporations, which shows a real understanding of the fundamentals of the econonmy, and he tweets frequently about the dangerous deficits caused by the tax cut. This ability to keep multiple conflicting thoughts in his brain at once is the mark of a man with a Wharton degree and a sophisticated understanding of economics who can be trusted not do the right thing and should be given plenty of rope to do it.

Everything good now? Do we all understand why Obama needed to be reined in as a dangerously profligate Democrat while Trump can be given plenty of leeway because he’s a tightfisted Republican who won’t abuse his authority? Excellent.

Check it out, investors and investorettes!

Over the past 30 days, Bitcoin has outperformed the S&P 500 handily: It’s down only 4 percent compared to the S&P’s 10 percent drop. If only you’d listened to the blockchain mavens you’d be sitting pretty on your stash of real digital wallet money instead of bemoaning your losses in the fiat currency of the US government. Lesson learned?

NOTE: Past performance does not guarantee future results. Plus, bitcoin is a long con. But then again, Donald Trump is president of the US dollar. Take your pick.

A few days ago, this video went viral:

No, not the epitome of a team player. It’s a kid dealing with a racist ref (dreds gave him no advantage) who was humilated and seemed devastated even after his win. His team shoot have sttod up for him. Utterly and totally f*cked up thing to do to a kid. https://t.co/dD8nn4YSiq

— Soledad O’Brien (@soledadobrien) December 21, 2018

I didn’t post about this at the time because it seemed like there had to be more to the story. But there was nothing in the news reports. Today, though, I figured a few days had gone by and maybe the local press had dug into things a little more deeply. After a bit of sleuthing, I think I finally know what happened. I should warn you beforehand that this doesn’t answer the question of whether the referee in this video was racist or not. But it does explain how this seemingly bizarre incident unraveled:

• Wrestling rules require that hair be cut to “normal” collar length in back and above the earlobes on the sides.
• Andrew Johnson, the teenage wrestler in the video, had hair that was “a little too long,” according to his father, so he had to wear a cap.
• The match referee, Alan Maloney, “regarded as one of the state’s top wrestling referees,” was late to the meet and didn’t see Johnson’s cap during weigh-in. When he saw it before Johnson’s match began, he ruled that it was illegal.
• Why? Because the rules have changed. “Johnson would’ve been in compliance in the past, but the rule changed within the past couple of seasons to require the cap to be attached to the headgear, according to Howie O’Neil, who’s officiated for 44 years.”
• Johnson’s coach argued intensely with Maloney for several minutes, but Maloney wouldn’t budge. Finally, Johnson decided on his own to have his dreadlocks cut.
• According to the New Jersey Courier-Post, Maloney was “acting in accordance with the rules, according to multiple South Jersey referees.” Ron Roberts, a wrestling referee of more than 20 years who also happens to be a Buena graduate, said “The interpretation of the rule was applied correctly. The kid had to have legal head cover by rule or he’s got to cut his hair.”
• Buena had competed in a tournament the week before, presumably staffed by different referees, but this was their first dual meet of the year.

So this whole thing boils down to an opinion: should Maloney have simply warned Johnson and told him to get a regulation cap before his next meet? Or was he correct to enforce the rules as they stood?

I don’t know. Either way, though, what really sent this incident into the social media stratosphere was the discovery that Alan Maloney, the referee, had once called a fellow ref the n-word after having one too many drinks at an after-meet party:

Over a disagreement about homemade wine, said Preston Hamilton, who is African American, fellow referee Alan Maloney poked his finger in his chest and hurled the epithet….Hamilton told the Courier-Post he responded by slamming Maloney, who is white, to the ground.

….Maloney says he called Hamilton and apologized to him two days later, on Easter Sunday. “I left it alone,” Hamilton recalled. “I’ve known Al since I was 4 years old. I was just trying to leave it alone.”

….Four days after Preston Hamilton’s email to Southern Chapter President Sean Felkins about what he said transpired in the condo, Maloney emailed his fellow official.

“Preston, It was good speaking to you the other day (3/27/16) in regards to the statement you said i made. As i stated to you then i do not remember that i said what i was told, but i’m happy you accepted my apologies and i am glad we can move forward, very sorry that this happen. If you need to discuss anything further call me. Look forward to seeing you around and refing with you in the near future. best wishes, alan”

….On May 4, Hamilton got notification that an NJWOA ethics committee hearing for both parties would be held May 22….According to Felkins, Maloney volunteered to participate in an alcohol awareness program and sensitivity training. Both corrective actions were accepted, as long as he paid for and finished them. On top of that, Maloney received a one-year suspension from officiating, Felkins said.

So far, that’s all I can find out. Maloney and Hamilton were apparently longtime acquaintances (friends?); Maloney was tipsy when he used the n-word; he agreed to participate in sensitivity training; and he was suspended for a year. (Hamilton was suspended too, for slamming Maloney to the floor.)

As for the cap, it’s all a matter of how strictly Maloney should have enforced the rules. I have no idea about that, but perhaps I have some readers with wrestling experience who might shed some light on this?

It’s lunchtime on Christmas Eve, but I have no Christmas-themed photos to share with you. However, I’m sure we all agree that Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity is a timeless holiday classic, and it turns out that I do have a relativity-themed picture for you. I snapped it a couple of days ago, so I got it just in the nick of time.

Eagle-eyed readers with good memories will recall that explaining relativity is one of my pastimes, but I’ve long had a pet peeve about it: namely that general relativity is routinely explained using a timeworn picture of a trampoline to describe how gravity works. I’ll spare you the long-winded reason why this annoys me (it’s here, if you’re interested), but the nutshell version is that (a) it provides a completely incorrect impression of what’s actually going on, and (b) the real explanation of what causes gravity is both easier to understand and far more interesting. However, I have come up with a timely compromise. Behold the general relativity spider web:

Check it out! It’s a trampoline-shaped spider web! The reason it’s trampoline-shaped is that the spider has erected some extra web filaments that pull the center outward, thus providing the equivalent of a non-Euclidean spacetime in which the geodesic bends toward the center.

Don’t worry about what that means. It’s bafflegab. The point is this: If you want to write about general relativity and you insist on using the trampoline metaphor, you have my permission to use this photograph anytime you like. In fact, I insist on it. I further insist that you explain the warpage of spacetime using the metaphor of a gigantic, invisible, relativistic spider. Deal?

And what the hell. Here’s another photo of the spider web. It’s taken from a slightly different angle and at a slightly different time, and for some reason this tiny change converts it from a timeless black-and-white image to a surprisingly moving color rendition that evokes the inexorable motion of the spider’s prey toward the center of the web. Fascinating, no?

I have bad news, boys and girls: the president is all alone in the White House. You know what that means, don’t you? A presidential tweetstorm!

AMERICA IS RESPECTED AGAIN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 24, 2018

The only problem our economy has is the Fed. They don’t have a feel for the Market, they don’t understand necessary Trade Wars or Strong Dollars or even Democrat Shutdowns over Borders. The Fed is like a powerful golfer who can’t score because he has no touch – he can’t putt!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 24, 2018

The Wall is different than the 25 Billion Dollars in Border Security. The complete Wall will be built with the Shutdown money plus funds already in hand. The reporting has been inaccurate on the point. The problem is, without the Wall, much of the rest of Dollars are wasted!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 24, 2018

I am all alone (poor me) in the White House waiting for the Democrats to come back and make a deal on desperately needed Border Security. At some point the Democrats not wanting to make a deal will cost our Country more money than the Border Wall we are all talking about. Crazy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 24, 2018

America is respected again! The Fed can’t putt! The Wall will be built with Shutdown money! Trump is all alone!

Ah well, some people just don’t handle the holiday season well. But it’s all worth it because it’s no longer illegal to say “Merry Christmas,” amirite?

Coming up next: a Very Special Episode of Lunchtime Photo. I’ll just tell everyone up front that it’s not likely to make much sense to you. But that’s OK. Just enjoy the holidays anyway. Tomorrow I shall try to have a more traditionally themed Christmas photo.

For reasons that are a mystery to everyone, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin called up the country’s six biggest banks on Sunday and asked them if their liquidity was OK. Everybody was a bit nonplussed by this, but they said sure, everything’s fine. Any particular reason you’re asking?

Today I convened individual calls with the CEOs of the nation’s six largest banks. See attached statement. pic.twitter.com/YzuSamMyeT

— Steven Mnuchin (@stevenmnuchin1) December 23, 2018

Well, no, apparently there wasn’t any particular reason Mnuchin was asking about this, but it sure got everybody curious. Is there a problem with bank liquidity? Does the Treasury know something the rest of us don’t? What’s going on?

No one knows. The best theory seems to be that President Trump is enraged that the stock market is down, so he ordered Mnuchin to call all the banks and then issue an assurance that everything was hunky dory. That should calm the markets, right? As you can see, it had precisely the opposite effect:

The S&P 500 fell about 3 percent today and has now lost nearly all of its gains since Trump was inaugurated. Nice work, Donald! You really understand financial markets better than anyone.

Of course, this cannot be allowed to be Trump’s fault, which means it must be Mnuchin’s fault. How long will it be before the axe starts to fall on his old pal?

The LA Times reports that crime is up in California and people are worried. Let’s take a look:

I used FBI data through 2014 and the same Open Portal data used by the LA Times data for 2015-17. The Times appears to have mis-transcribed its own number for violent crime in 2017, so I fixed that (the real number is higher than the one used in the Times chart). The result is what you see above: the immense crime surge that’s prompted some people to say we should roll back the modest criminal justice reforms we’ve made over the past few years. This is nuts. It’s especially nuts because California enacted a couple of those reforms in 2011 and 2014, and crime rates surged in 2012 and 2015. Cause and effect! Of course, crime rates then dropped back to their previous levels in 2013 and 2016, suggesting that the tiny surges were either (a) nothing, or (b) temporary tiny changes while law enforcement got used to the new rules.

There’s literally nothing here unless you think that every tiny blip in the crime rate is cause for panic. It’s not. Crime rates are down about 50 percent over the past few decades, but there are going to be minor blips here and there if you look at periods of just a few years. Everybody needs to settle down here.

Kyle Mazza/NurPhoto via ZUMA

“Do you think Donald Trump has done anything right?” a friend asked me a few months ago. That was a tough one. Aside from trivial stuff, I think I eventually conceded that China really did deserve some tougher trade treatment and that the AT&T/Time Warner merger deserved to be stopped. Trump did both of these things for the wrong reasons, and in the case of China screwed up the execution epically. But I more-or-less supported the underlying concept behind both of them.

This week added two more items. First, Trump decided to withdraw from Syria. Once again, he did it for the wrong reasons, and there’s every reason to think he’s going to execute his decision as badly as possible. Still, I basically agree with him that we should never have been there and should pull out now even if it means accepting some ugly consequences.

Today brought the fourth item. After finally figuring out what James Mattis’s resignation letter really meant, Trump moved up Mattis’s final day in office to December 31 and replaced him with Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan. This was the right decision for two reasons. First, Mattis really had no right to set his own resignation date in the first place. He should either have consulted Trump about it or else simply resigned and allowed Trump to name the date. Second, Mattis wrote a truly brutal resignation letter. Trump was too dumb to figure this out for a while, but once he did he had no choice but to get rid of Mattis as soon as possible. It’s simply not possible to keep working with a Defense Secretary who has publicly declared that he believes his commander-in-chief is too soft on our enemies, too contemptuous toward our allies, and pays too little attention to national security and American values. Mattis may have said these things diplomatically, but he said them.

So there we have it: two more things Trump has done that I agree with. As usual, he did them badly and for the wrong reasons, but at least he got them right.

Over at the Washington Monthly, Tabitha Sanders comments on Donald Trump’s withdrawal from Syria:

As a candidate, Trump repeatedly stated his intentions to pull U.S. troops out of Syria….The policy change is in line with a worldview Trump has championed since his political rise: America shouldn’t continue spending trillions of dollars on other people’s wars overseas. While that may appeal to his rabid America-First base, he’s likely seeking another outcome with this decision.

Mark Landler of the New York Times seems to agree that this was a base-pleasing move:

If there was a common thread in Mr. Trump’s actions, it was his unswerving conviction that his political survival depends on securing his conservative base. Those supporters have pounded him relentlessly in recent weeks for his failure to build a border wall with Mexico….He criticized the Fed because its policy is dampening the stock market….And he pulled troops out of Syria because it fulfilled a campaign promise to extract the United States from foreign wars.

But is this true? Trump’s base is basically blue-collar white men, and this is the same group that’s supported every war since 9/11. These folks love the military, and by that I mean they love sending the military abroad to kick the asses of anyone who doesn’t like us. They were furious when President Obama pulled troops out of Iraq and furious yet again when he put a timetable on the surge of troops of Afghanistan. And then again when Obama originally refused to intervene in Syria.

Scott Clement at the Washington Post agrees, saying Trump’s surprise withdrawal “marks a rare instance in which Trump has broken strongly with his political base, which has widely supported military efforts to combat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.” He shows us this poll from July as evidence:

I’d sure like to see a detailed poll about this taken before Trump’s announcement. The problem is that there’s hardly any point in taking one now. Trump’s base is so cultish that they probably all changed their minds as soon as Trump said that ISIS was on the run and he was bringing our boys home. Likewise, an awful lot of liberals have suddenly decided that pulling troops out of the Middle East isn’t such a good idea after all.

I’d be a lot more interested in seeing what these groups thought specifically about Syria a few months ago. Unfortunately, I can’t find a poll that’s any more detailed than the one above. Does anybody know of one?