In my last post about Donald Trump, I posted a disclaimer stating that I was undecided and I wasn’t endorsing anyone for the Republican nomination. It has become apparent to me, however, that in order to get what I want, which is no Donald Trump in the White House, an endorsement and commitment to an alternate presidential candidate really can’t wait until later.

After this article in Bloomberg today about comments made by Marco Rubio and in consideration of everything else I know about him, such as having Market Monetarists as economic policy advisers, I have made my choice and will be donating to the Rubio campaign. He supports economic policies that I think will make a material difference for the better in the economic lives of average people – and that is what matters to me the most. In contrast to the bellicose current Republican front runner whose economic policies I believe will make our economic lives more difficult rather than relieving the pressure of tight monetary policy in addition to doing so at the greatest expense of the lowest class of the population, Rubio with a focus on an optimistic future and policy proposals to match is my logical choice.

I am tired of having reason to feel angry and pessimistic with no light at the end of the tunnel. I want to put the trials of the last several years into the rearview mirror and an angry candidate with bad policy proposals isn’t going to cut it. And since I have not the knack nor charisma to persuade my fellow Republicans that an angry Trump and his angry policy regime is NOT the answer to our problems, I have to pay someone possessing those attributes to do it in order to do my part in the effort to leave the world a better place than I found it.

I hope you will join me in making a bet toward Trump-proofing our politics and governance by either donating to Rubio or picking one of the other fine candidates to make a statement with. John Kasich was my second choice. But it doesn’t have to be a Republican candidate– pick a Dem if that’s your fancy. Everyone wants clean streets, but to get them somebody has to pick up a broom. Please help nip the Donald in the bud. My number of the day is 73 which I think is a great donation figure to start off with.

In other, older news, H_WASSHOI pointed me to this Simon Wren-Lewis blog post from January this year which is one installment in a debate with Tony Yates about NGDP targeting. This has probably already been poured over and commented on by Market Monetarists everywhere, but I don’t recall seeing it before. It’s a great read. But like all of the other polite debate that goes on between academics, it’s missing a few refinements that would make it more direct and understandable to most people, even angry Trump supporters.

It’s great that Wren-Lewis uses simplicity to debate the point that Yates’ assertion of multiple equilibria resulting from time inconsistent optimal policy is irrelevant, and that adaptive expectations models make time inconsistent policy costly due to communications problems is only half of the argument. I my view, Wren –Lewis is correct that the welfare gains of following such a policy are large and cannot just be waved away.

But what is missing from all of this is that we’ve tried the policies that are advocated by Yates, the flexible IT of the Fed circa 2008-2012. And even if a NGDP level target is difficult to communicate, which I do not agree with because the rules-based nature of the policy would condition expectations like in Pavlov’s experiment with the dog, it cannot be any more difficult to communicate than an inflation target in a flexible regime. It would in fact be easier to communicate consistency with income expectations than some nebulous policy based on aggregate price movement – case in point the political flack Bernanke received when he announced that he wanted to create more inflation. Trump supporters are angry about a lot of things, and I dare say that is one of them.

In short, it is very difficult to swat away the untried with arguments based on failed practices. And it really is sad that we can have all of this economic destruction and the resulting incensed population willing to support a jerk like Donald Trump for the Presidency of the United States, with brilliant people like Tony Yates just not getting it that the public anger over the results of these policies will do us in politically and tear down the good until its all just bad.

We just cannot go on with the economic results of the status quo. In the words of a famous, or in my view, infamous economist, “If something is unsustainable it will eventually stop. “ And I think it is currently not too late to choose the path by which it stops as to minimize the destruction to world as we know it. If we fail to choose the path, it will be chosen for us and I do not believe we will like the outcome.