HBO host Bill Maher, who makes $6 million/year on top of his estimated $100 million net worth, would love nothing more than an economic collapse in order to "get rid of Trump."
"this economy is going pretty well," Maher said (total jobless claims remain the lowest they've been in 44 years, for example) before telling political commentator Shermichael Singleton “I feel like the bottom has to fall out at some point. And by the way, I’m hoping for it. Because I think one you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy. So please, bring on the recession. Sorry if that hurts people, but it’s either root for a recession or you lose your democracy.”
Maher, a multi-millionaire, would hardly be affected if the economy crashed, unlike millions of low and medium income Americans whose lives would be immeasurably worse if the HBO host's dreams come true.
For example, Maher could continue to attend Dominus - an elite $75,000 / year members-only sex club that requires a "blood oath" to join.
Bill Maher said last night:— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) June 9, 2018
“I hope for a recession to get rid of Trump. Sorry if that hurts people”
The left would like to America fail just so they can blame Trump for the suffering
“I feel like the bottom has to fall out [of the economy] at some point, and by the way, I’m hoping for it."— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) June 9, 2018
"I think one way you get rid of Trump is by crashing the economy. So please, bring on the recession.” #ApexOfLiberalSanity https://t.co/h9rSaHCkdS
As we noted earlier, Bank of America made the case that the only thing that would stop a "nuclear" trade war is a market crash, while last week Goldman suggested that if President Trump wants to win the brewing international trade war, the market has to tank.
As BofA puts it:
Market discipline could break the spiral. The markets provide immediate and publically observable feedback from investors on the expected effects of policies. So far, US equities have only had a small negative reaction to news on trade. This has likely emboldened the administration to take a more aggressive stance. But if back-and-forth tariffs with China were to cause a large selloff in US equities, China would probably push harder, knowing that continued escalation would be costly for the US.
BofA escalated the impact of a market crash on the political realm, and writes that, in a similar manner, "elections clarify the costs and benefits of protectionism. If the Republican party retains control of the House of Representatives and the Senate in November's midterm elections, free-trade advocates in the Republican party may remain reluctant to push back against the President. The opposite might be true if the Democrats win."
In summary, BofA sees risks to the view that "cooler heads will prevail" on trade, and its concern is not so much irrational action, but that the US and its trading partners could rationally engage in tit-for-tat protectionism, with growing economic costs, in order to test each other's resolve, while markets remain dormant and allow even greater escalation. Still, the Bank of America economists ultimately remain hopeful "because market and electoral discipline could break up this dynamic."