Tweet

Here’s the abstract of a new paper by Ling Feng, Qiuyue Huang, Zhiyuan Li, and Christopher Meissner [emphasis added]:

This paper investigates the causal impact of international trade on interstate military conflicts using global bilateral data from 1962 to 2014. To address endogeneity concerns, we exploit exogenous spatial-temporal variation in international trade stemming from technological advances in air relative to maritime transport. Empirical results demonstrate a strong “peace dividend” of international trade: that is, increased trade significantly reduces the probability and intensity of conflicts between nations. This effect remains robust across specifications and withstands a wide range of potential confounders. Such findings highlight how economic interdependence shapes international conflict—a relationship that is especially relevant amid escalating geopolitical tensions and the global shift toward “decoupling”, “de-risking”, and greater trade protectionism.

Scott Lincicome tweets:

Ignore for a minute that beef prices aren’t actually “down”. Here’s the president’s top economic adviser [Kevin Hassett] saying US beef prices have improved “enormously” because “we opened up imports to beef.”

How interesting!

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, in a speech excerpted in the Wall Street Journal, eloquently explains that progressivism is a political ideology incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. Three slices:

The Constitution is the means of government; it is the Declaration that announces the ends of government. The Constitution achieves this purpose by protecting our natural rights and liberties from concentrated power and excessive democracy. Our Constitution creates a separation of powers and federalism—truly for the first time in modern history—to prevent the government from becoming so strong that it threatens our natural rights. Federalist No. 10 proposed the idea that the great threat to our rights comes from majority faction.

Human history teaches us, alas, that numerical majorities frequently seek to control government, and use the state to violate the rights of the minority. Because man is fallen and the desire for power was, as James Madison described it, “sown in the nature of man,” government had to be limited. For, as Madison said, “if men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” But men are not angels. The slaveholders used the power of government to deny the fundamental natural rights of the slaves; the segregationists used the state to oppress the freed men and women—including my ancestors.

…..

Progressivism was the first mainstream American political movement—with the possible exception of the pro-slavery reactionaries on the eve of the Civil War—to openly oppose the principles of the Declaration. Progressives strove to undo the Declaration’s commitment to equality and natural rights, both of which they denied were self-evident. To [Woodrow] Wilson, the inalienable rights of the individual were “a lot of nonsense.” Wilson redefined “liberty” not as a natural right antecedent to the government, but as “the right of those who are governed to adjust government to their own needs and interests.” In other words, liberty no longer preceded the government as a gift from God, but was to be enjoyed at the grace of the government. The government, as Wilson reconceived of it, would be “beneficent and indispensable.” Progressives such as John Dewey attacked the Framers for believing that “their ideas [were] immutable truths good at all times and places,” when instead they were “historically conditioned, and relevant only to their own time.” Now, Dewey and the progressives argued, those ideas were to be repealed.

Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from the government. It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a Constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights.

You will not be surprised to learn that the progressives had a great deal of contempt for us, the American people. Before he entered politics, Wilson would describe the American people as “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn” and “foolish.” He lamented that we “do too much by vote” and too little by expert rule. He proposed that the people be ruled by administrators who use them as “tools.” He once again aspired to be like Germany, where the people, he said admiringly, were “docile and acquiescent.”

…..

None of this, of course, was an improvement on the principles of the Declaration. Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” is largely about how America owed its superiority over Europe to its conscious decision to reject central planning and administrative rule root and branch. Progressivism, in other words, is retrogressive. As Calvin Coolidge said on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration:

“If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people.”

Richard Menger explains “how an Obama-era restriction strengthens hospital monopolies.” Two slices:

Less than two decades ago, a growing number of hospitals in the United States were at least partially owned by physicians. Known as POHs, for physician-owned hospitals, these institutions made up the majority of new hospitals, providing higher-quality care at lower costs than their corporate-owned counterparts.

The 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act halted that progress. The hospital industry, led by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, had lobbied aggressively to impose strict limits on POHs. These Medicare restrictions — embedded in Section 6001 of the ACA — blocked the formation of new POHs and largely froze the expansion of existing ones, preventing them from adding beds and operating rooms without navigating a bureaucratic exceptions process.

…..

POHs consistently outperform traditional hospitals by aligning physician incentives with efficient, patient-centered outcomes — often through specialized “focused factory” models that emphasize streamlined processes and specialization. They rank among the top hospitals for quality of care and patient satisfaction, and a study of more than 1,400 hospitals nationwide found that patients paid up to 15 percent less for services delivered in POHs compared with non-physician-owned hospitals.

National Review‘s Andrew Stuttaford isn’t super-excited about Mayor Mamdani’s government-built and owned supermarkets. A slice:

Mamdani boasted that “at our stores, eggs will be cheaper. Bread will be cheaper.” Not so “cheap” for taxpayers.

Meanwhile, Elsie Encarnacion, the city council member for the part of Manhattan where that borough’s store will be located, commented that “this means access to affordable, healthy food that is hopefully culturally relevant.”

So, this store will be in a food desert?

According to the New York Post, there are “already five grocery stores within a two-block radius” of the lot where the store will be located and 15 within five blocks. I wonder how they have survived without selling “culturally relevant” fare.  I also wonder how they will manage to deal with the challenge posed by a heavily subsidized competitor (which, incidentally, will not have to pay rent or real estate taxes).

Elizabeth Nolan Brown warns of the Heritage Foundation’s enthusiasm for having government intrusion into marriage and family matters.

Tweet

… is from page 50 of the late Arthur Seldon‘s 1998 monograph, The Dilemma of Democracy:

The leading responsibility for the diminishing respect for democracy and observance of its governing processes is that of the politicians. Even when well-meaning they are misled by the political scientists who have over-estimated the beneficence and intention of democratic government. Political leaders have been interminably invited or incited to expand government, its powers, functions and services, beyond their necessity, beyond their innate low quality, and, not least for the lowest-income families, beyond their sheer cost.

Tweet

Here’s a letter to the Washington Examiner. (I thank Prof. Harold Black for alerting me to this piece by Chaffetz.)

Editor:

Former Rep. Jason Chaffetz’s defense of Trump’s tariffs is a mayhem of misunderstanding (“USMCA renewal: American manufacturing is a nonnegotiable,” April 19).

By writing of “bringing manufacturing back home,” Chaffetz sneaks in the baseless conclusion that manufacturing in the U.S. has gone away or otherwise suffered in the few decades leading up to Trump’s presidency. In fact, manufacturing output in the month before Mr. Trump began his second term was, although 10% lower than the all-time high it hit in December 2007, 9% higher than when China joined the World Trade Organization, 51% higher than when NAFTA took effect, and 164% higher than in 1975, the last year the U.S. ran an annual trade surplus.

Even these numbers don’t adequately convey the strength of U.S. manufacturing. On an absolute basis, the U.S. trails only China in the value created by its manufacturing sector, yet on a per-capita basis U.S. manufacturing value-added is 158% higher than China’s.

And high-value-added manufacturing in the U.S. is expanding, while much of the moderation in the 21^stcentury in the growth of U.S. manufacturing is due to the steep decline in American production of textiles and leather goods – a low-value-added segment of manufacturing that’s typically performed in low-wage countries that are just beginning to industrialize. It’s only because American workers in these industries encountered better opportunities in other occupations that American textile and leather-goods production fell so dramatically. We should be pleased, not perturbed, at this development. (If you doubt this conclusion, ask: How many people do you know who long for their children and grandchildren to spend their lives working in textile mills?)

A final point: By subsidizing their countries’ exports to the U.S., foreign governments compel their citizens to bestow gifts on us Americans. We are enriched by such gifts no less than we are enriched by technological advances that reduce the amount of American labor required to produce manufactured goods. Especially if we take a stance now fashionable in some conservative circles and reject “cosmopolitanism” in favor of what is called ‘putting America first,’ we should welcome rather than reject foreign countries’ self-destructive practice of ‘putting America first’ by selling to us goods at prices below cost.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

Tweet

Alfredo Carrillo Obregon’s and Scott Lincicome’s letter in today’s Wall Street Journal is superb:

Paul Rahe’s justifications for tariffs fail under scrutiny (“There’s a Case for Tariffs,” op-ed, April 16).

Mr. Rahe assumes tariffs boost resiliency, but recent history shows the opposite. National security might justify narrow trade restrictions, but tariffs have not insulated Americans from economic disruptions and have frequently made things worse. The baby-formula crisis of 2022 and automakers’ recent struggles to obtain aluminum, each triggered by the sudden closure of a tariff-protected U.S. factory, show that localized supply chains are vulnerable to local shocks—and tariffs block alternatives. Research from the pandemic finds that globalized supply chains performed better and adjusted faster than nationalized ones.

Mr. Rahe also errs on tariffs’ ability to promote manufacturing. Decades of protection failed to create thriving U.S. steel, shipbuilding, textile and footwear industries. More recent duties on solar panels did the same. With around half of imports being manufacturing inputs, tariffs raise American producers’ costs and undermine competitiveness. Combined with uncertainty surrounding executive branch tariffs, this explains why surveys consistently reveal manufacturers opposed to new protectionism.

Mr. Rahe is correct about the intrusiveness of income taxes, but tariffs can’t replace them because import volumes are far too small. Their invisibility, meanwhile, isn’t the benefit Mr. Rahe thinks. Since the 19th century, tariffs have been a breeding ground for rent-seeking and corruption and have persisted after decades of failure, precisely because their costs are hidden and diffuse. Transparency is a hallmark of good tax policy; opacity is its enemy.

Also from Alfredo Carrillo Obregon – here writing at National Review – is this accurate assessment of Trump’s tariffs punitive taxes on Americans’ purchases of imports. Three slices:

Even before the Court scrapped the Trump administration’s reciprocal tariffs, however, these duties were riddled with tariff-rate reductions and exemptions. First, the president paused the implementation of the tariffs for 90 days following a stock market plunge in reaction to his liberation day announcement, and he invited countries to negotiate lower rates during that time. Several U.S. trading partners (including the European Union, Japan, and South Korea) proceeded to negotiate agreements (or frameworks for agreements) with the administration, locking in lower reciprocal tariff rates in exchange for trade concessions and investment pledges. Then the president issued many rounds of exemptions from the reciprocal tariffs, most notably for semiconductors and certain electronics, including smartphones and computers, products from countries that negotiated agreements or framework agreements, and agricultural products.

As a result, the applied U.S. tariff rate fell from 21.5 percent, at its highest point in 2025, to 13.6 percent before the Supreme Court ruling. Most notably, only 42 percent of U.S. imports (based on 2024 import levels) were subject to IEEPA tariffs by the end of 2025. While these numbers help explain why the tariffs were not as harmful as many experts feared in April 2025, they also demonstrate that the president’s policies, from the outset, were hampered by economic realities and influenced by political considerations.

…..

The emerging economic literature on the tariffs imposed in 2025 broadly finds that Americans paid for most of the tariffs’ higher costs. Studies published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Goldman Sachs, and the Brookings Institution, among others, find that, in the aggregate, Americans bore 77 to 96 percent of the 2025 tariffs’ higher costs, with American companies paying for most of this tariff pass-through. At the same time, a Harvard Business School survey of products sold at large U.S. retailers found that tariffs led to higher retail prices of both imported and domestic goods in the same product categories. Not only did U.S. consumers pay for about 43 percent of the tariff-induced increase in the cost of imported goods, but import-competing U.S. producers also marked up their prices.

The administration and proponents of protectionism often point out that tariffs did not lead to an inflationary spiral. A low bar, to be sure, yet many economists doubted this could happen from the outset. Even many economists opposed to the tariffs doubted such a spiral, in part because imports of goods accounted for only 11 percent of U.S. GDP in 2024.

These economic analyses consider tariffs’ visible costs — that is, their effects on prices — yet tariffs also impose invisible costs on Americans that, while harder to quantify, compound their economic damage. One of these unseen costs is the uncertainty surrounding U.S. tariff policy. The U.S. tariff code underwent 50 changes in 2025, most of them related to tariffs imposed and modified by the executive branch. That is double the average number of tariff changes in the preceding five years. It is no surprise, then, that researchers have quantified that uncertainty surrounding U.S. trade policy reached its highest point on record in April 2025. For businesses with global networks of suppliers that took years to build, this uncertainty is crippling.

…..

Most notably, a tariff-induced “manufacturing renaissance” has not materialized. While industrial capacity indeed increased in 2025, this is only a continuation of a trend that started in early 2022. Real manufacturing output is unchanged from 2022. Real manufacturing value-added (i.e., output minus costs of intermediate inputs) appears to be on track for a historic high, yet this record has been broken nearly every year since the Great Recession in 2009. Meanwhile, inflation-adjusted spending on manufacturing facilities precipitously declined throughout 2025. The post-2022 decline in manufacturing capacity utilization continued, and the economy added no manufacturing jobs in 2025.

While the U.S. manufacturing sector, as a result of many factors, has gone through fits and starts since 2022, the recent tariffs clearly have not reversed the sector’s fortunes. On the contrary, they probably worsened them. Industry surveys during 2025 indicated that higher, tariff-induced prices and tariff uncertainty depressed activity and growth for firms throughout most of the sector. Re-shoring, though appealing as political rhetoric, is not a viable business strategy for many of these businesses.

Richard Menger makes clear that, like international-trade protectionism, domestic protectionism – specifically here, certificate-of-need (“CON”) legislation – also reduces competition, restricts output, raises prices, and lowers quality.

My former Mercatus Center colleague Adam Thierer tweets: (HT Scott Lincicome)

What have information and communications technology companies done for us lately?

Well, here’s one of the most underappreciated things. It remains remarkable​ just how fast information technology platforms and application providers responded to the COVID shutdowns with rapid-fire deployment of new services that helped many sectors and workers muddle through​ using new work from home​ (WFH) technologies​.

This innovation and workplace revolution continues marching forward according to this new study, which reveals: “The share of patent applications that advances technologies in support of WFH rose by about two thirds within three years after the pandemic struck and remains about 50% above pre-pandemic levels five years later. [. . . ] It is driven overwhelmingly by US corporations rather than foreign assignees or universities. In short, we find evidence that a sudden, lasting rise in WFH redirected innovation to technologies that support it.​”​

This has opened the door to more remote work / flexible work arrangements for a huge number of people, including me. 🙏

“Trump Proved to be Unimaginably Bad for the Free Market Cause: A Conversation with Veronique de Rugy.”

The Editorial Board of the Washington Post warns against the childish belief that government should supply health-care free of direct charges to users of health care. A slice:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) visited a park with a podcaster recently to seek policy advice from elementary school students. Surprise: The children agreed with AOC – and brought the same level of sophistication to political and economic questions that Americans have come to expect from the four-term congresswoman.

One child suggested that the United States should have free health care. But why talk to children, who should never be used as political props, when there is plenty of empirical data about health policy around the world?

Putting the government in charge of giving out “free” health care inevitably leads people to look elsewhere.

Consider Britain and its National Health Service, which for decades has been the beau ideal for American progressives

Despite the government funding and running a universal health care system, private hospital admissions in the United Kingdom reached their highest level ever in 2024, according to fresh data from the Private Healthcare Information Network.

The number of people opting to buy private health insurance rose to 6.5 million in 2024, the highest number in a quarter-century, according to the Association of British Insurers.

GMU Econ alum Caleb Petitt looks at the nations in Adam Smith’s Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

Tweet

… is from page 71 of Thomas Sowell’s 1999 book, Barbarians Inside the Gates:

The automobile has been one of the great liberating forces of the twentieth century. It did more to reduce severe overcrowding, common in cities a century ago, than all the hand-wringing reformers put together. But, as the automobile enable people to spread out into the suburbs, to get some elbow room, the anointed began to wring their hands over what they now chose to call “urban sprawl.”

Tweet

Here’s the abstract of a new paper out of the Richmond Fed [emphasis added]: (HT Scott Lincicome)

This paper analyzes the effect of the 2025 U.S. import tariffs on import prices and local labor-markets. To that end, we use highly disaggregated customs data to construct realized tariff rates from actual duty collections, rather than announced statutory schedules. An important contribution is that we document a large and persistent gap between the two measures, driven by within-country product reallocation, cross-country sourcing shifts, and implementation frictions. This implies that statutory rates are a poor proxy for the trade shock that firms actually faced. Using realized tariffs, we find that pass-through of realized tariffs into import prices was close to one hundred percent, with negligible adjustment by foreign exporters and a significant reduction in import quantities. When we examine local labor-market consequences of the increase in import tariffs, we find that counties which are more exposed to import-competing sectors experienced small declines in unemployment and that rising input costs weighed marginally on labor-force participation. Both effects, though heterogeneous across space, are economically negligible. In contrast to the 2018–2019 tariff episode, where rising input costs dominated, resulting in lower manufacturing employment, the 2025 tariffs did not generate large labor-market changes in either direction.

Chad Wolf and my old law-school classmate Tom Plofchan, writing in National Review, argue for nationwide privatization of airport security. A slice:

The movement of millions of Americans through our domestic aviation ecosystem represents a multibillion-dollar industry and supports billions more in downstream annual economic value. Not only is it irresponsible to continue to treat both our current TSA employees and the American public as negotiating chips in border and immigration security funding negotiations; it is also unnecessary. More than 20 airports around the country have experienced almost no delays during this lapse in DHS funding because they are staffed by private contractors under a TSA program known as the Screening Partnership Program (SPP), which allows airports to “opt in” to having qualified private companies handle screening under TSA’s oversight. Proprietary industry analysis highlights the ability of the SPP to save taxpayers as much as 15 percent per airport — potentially $1 billion annually if scaled nationwide.

This program must be expanded and incentivized by empowering airports to have a greater say in who runs their security and incentivizing private investment in security upgrades, and other, more comprehensive options for privatization should be made available.

Also calling for the privatization of U.S. airport security screening is Marc Scribner. Here’s his conclusion:

To ensure that airports aren’t stuck with the unfunded mandate that led airlines to lobby for security nationalization after the 9/11 attacks, the longstanding September 11 Security Fee assessed on airline tickets should be converted into a local airport user fee. Airlines would continue to collect the money, but instead of remitting the revenue to the Treasury—where much of it is diverted for nonsecurity purposes—it would be paid directly to airports to fund TSA-approved security projects and operations.

The TSA’s defective design is one of many errors made by elected officials in response to 9/11—and American travelers are paying the price. Congress limiting TSA’s role is the only way to insulate airport security from dysfunctional Washington politics.

David Henderson shares four timeless facts about taxes.

Paul Mueller talks with Julia Cartwright and Tom Savidge about taxing wealth.

C. Jarrett Dieterle decries “the bipartisan war on cheap food.”

David Harsanyi rightly ridicules Zohran Mamdani’s economic cluelessness. A slice:

The latest is New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who has promised to open five city-run markets to combat “out-of-control” grocery prices by getting rid of the “profit motive,” passing on the savings to consumers.

The first glaring problem with Mamdani’s plan is that the “profit motive” is the best device to <icreate savings.

Tweet

… is attributed to Leslie Ford:

The colonists understood their obligation to defend their families, their homes, and their town. Fathers and sons, young and old, the men of Lexington were the first to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. They hoped to prevent a war, but they would not surrender their liberties.

DBx: 251 years ago today, at Concord, there was “fired the shot heard round the world.” The American Revolution began in earnest on this date in 1775 at Lexington and Concord.

Tweet

Here’s a letter to my long-time protectionist correspondent.

Mr. M__:

Thanks for sharing Oren Cass’s latest comments on trade. You’ll be unsurprised to learn that I’m unimpressed.

Oren laments “our failure to attend to industrialization.” What failure? When Pres. Trump returned to the White House in January 2025 America’s industrial capacity had been on the rise since the pandemic and that month reached an all-time high. This capacity has continued to grow. Today, America’s industrial capacity is 13 percent larger than when China joined the World Trade Organization in December 2001, 66 percent larger than when NAFTA took effect in January 1994, and 148 percent larger than in 1975, the last year the U.S. ran an annual trade surplus.

Oren might respond that the precise kind of capacity that we now have prevents us from producing the most-important stuff. Using the example featured in the piece you sent, Oren would likely point out that because we import many transformers of the sort used in data centers, our reliance on foreign producers for transformers is slowing our completion of data centers and, hence, hampering our development of AI. Perhaps. (Never mind that domestic politics is now the highest obstacle to data-center construction, and also threatens to thwart AI directly.) Oren’s solution is to produce more transformers domestically.

How simple! This conclusion appears to be a no-brainer. But appearances here deceive. Like all protectionists, Oren never asks: What outputs will America therefore produce less of? He supposes that the capital and resources that tariffs or subsidies draw into transformer production will be drawn away only from domestic industries producing goods or services that are less important (according to criteria preferred by Oren) than are transformers. But Oren can’t possibly know just what other domestic industries will shrink as a result of transformer tariffs or subsidies, or by how much they’ll shrink.

We might all agree that an engineered increase in the production of transformers would be worthwhile if the only consequence were reduced American production of deodorant and dog biscuits. But what if increased production of transformers reduces American production of semiconductors or jet engines or software for running AI?

Of course, I have no idea what we Americans would produce less of if the government uses tariffs or subsidies to increase American transformer production. But nor does Oren have any idea. He naively points to something – transformers – that would be good to have more of were that something costless, and then he leaps to the unwarranted conclusion that free trade has failed because we currently don’t have more of that something.

To overcome, for any product, the strong presumption in favor of a policy of free trade – a policy with a proven record not only of raising living standards but also of enhancing national defense – requires compelling argument and solid evidence. But all that Oren gives here, as in his other writings, are half-told tales detached from the important considerations that serious economists habitually take note of.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

Tweet

Check out the Cato Institute’s new Handbook on Affordability.

My Mercatus Center colleague Salim Furth shares a new paper that, as summarized by Salim, “demonstrates that mayoral elections have a large influence on housing supply outcomes. It also shows that developer’s political contributions pay off in ways that sound like corruption.”

Murray Sabrin’s letter in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal is excellent:

Sen. Bernie Moreno’s op-ed, “Trump Gave the GOP a New, Populist Soul,” (April 14), rests on a series of deeply flawed economic premises. The claim that American workers are being ripped off by corporate greed ignores a basic reality: In competitive markets, firms must bid for labor, driving wages in line with productivity. Government intervention is what truly erodes workers’ purchasing power.

Equally troubling is the redefinition of free enterprise as federal micromanagement. True free markets rely on voluntary exchange and price signals, not industrial policy directed from Washington. When the government substitutes its judgment for that of millions of people, inefficiency and cronyism inevitably follow.

Furthermore, the op-ed’s nod to “fiscal discipline” is difficult to take seriously as federal deficits continue to balloon. Similarly, while tariffs are portrayed as a path to manufacturing strength, they actually function as taxes on American consumers and invite retaliation, distorting trade rather than revitalizing it.

Sound economic policy requires a stable dollar, low tax burdens, constitutionally limited spending and the removal of unnecessary regulations. Sen. Moreno’s piece contains echoes of ideas more commonly associated with Sen. Bernie Sanders than with a genuine commitment to free enterprise.

George Will warns of dire consequences if California’s proposed wealth tax is enacted. A slice:

Although the wealth tax is a cafeteria of unintended economic consequences, even cumulatively they are less ominous than one predictable, and perhaps intended, political consequence. The tax would effect a radical, and probably irreversible, change in the relationship of the individual to any government that enacts such a tax.

Laura Williams of the American Institute for Economic Research, writing for Reason, says the tax would give government a roving license “to inventory every item in our possession.” This would likely be a prelude to repeated confiscations of percentages of the possessions’ value. Even worse, the infrastructure for administering the tax would mean a permanent enlargement of the government’s intrusiveness. This would contract the sphere of individual autonomy, and subtract from the security of liberty.

Speaking of economically harmful policies in California, my Mercatus Center colleague Satya Marar makes clear that “California’s latest attack on big tech is BASED on bad economics.” A slice:

California has long been the global digital economy’s growth engine. However, Californian policymakers’ latest proposal to “promote fairness” for third-party businesses by importing European-style regulation would only hamper the goods and services that have made American tech companies like Google, Apple, Amazon and Meta so popular.

Introduced by Senator Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, the BASED Act imports elements of the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). It targets “self-preferencing,” that is where digital platforms like Amazon’s marketplace or Google Maps promote their own services or those of affiliates over third-party businesses that use their platform to reach customers. The BASED Act would treat many common product integrations, such as ranking, bundling, defaults, data use, and even some AI-driven recommendations, as presumptively illegal without asking whether they harm consumers.

Instead of promoting fairness, it would make digital tools less useful by tailoring their architectures and algorithms to regulators’ whims rather than user preferences. Far from promoting neutrality, it would “rig the game” by favoring some businesses over others.

Self-preferencing long predates the internet. Supermarkets, for example, give their own house brands prime shelf space, pushing name brands to compete on price or quality. This often increases competition, and can lead to lower prices by eliminating “double marginalization,” where multiple firms each add their own markups along the supply chain.

Eric Boehm reports this fact that should not be – but, apparently, to many people nevertheless is – surprising: “Trump ended free trade for Mexican tomatoes. Prices are up 23 percent in the last year.” A slice:

Tomato prices are now 23 percent higher than they were in March 2025, according to the BLS. That means tomato prices have risen significantly faster than overall inflation (up 3.3 percent in the past year) and food prices as a whole (which are up 2.7 percent). Even gas prices, which get more attention, are up just 18.9 percent in the past year.

So why are tomatoes suddenly much more expensive? In part, it’s because tomatoes imported from Mexico are now subject to tariffs. With the tomato trade agreement gone, Mexican tomatoes are now subject to a tariff of about 17 percent — and, like with many other products, the tariff gets passed along down the supply chain.

Linking to this Bloomberg report and quoting its headline, Scott Lincicome tweets:

“US Industrial Production Fell in March in Broad Decline”
Still waiting for that tariff boom….

Robert E. Wright details his experience as a plaintiff in a Fourth-amendment case.

The Washington Post‘s Editorial Board recounts how the Biden administration’s use of antitrust – allegedly to promote competition in the U.S. airline industry – wound up reducing competition in the U.S. airline industry. A slice: