Some Links

Tweet

My Mercatus Center colleague Veronique de Rugy explains why Pres. Trump is correct to oppose the GOP’s border-adjustment tax proposal.

Matt Ridley observes that the difference between Brexit and Trumpit is that the British seek freer, not more restricted, trade.

Larry Reed explains that trade restrictions always backfire – backfire, that is, from the perspective of those who see trade restrictions as a means of increasing widespread prosperity in the home market.

Jeffrey Tucker ponders fascism.

Mario Rizzo dusts off a post from December 2008.

Judge William Pryor is mentioned as a possible Trump nominee to fill the current vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.  I’ve not fully researched Judge Pryor yet, but it’s good to learn that a Justice Pryor will likely be a principled defender of the First Amendment.

My great colleague Walter Williams reflects on the thuggery that is protectionism.  A slice:

One of the unappreciated benefits of international trade is that it helps reveal the cost of domestic policy. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration can impose high costs on American companies, but it has no jurisdiction elsewhere. Our Environmental Protection Agency can impose costly regulations on American companies, but it has no power to impose costly regulations on companies in other countries. Congress can impose costly tax burdens on American companies, but it has no power to do so abroad. Restrictions on international trade conceal these costs. My argument here is not against the costly regulations that we impose on ourselves. I am merely suggesting that we should appreciate the cost of those regulations. The fact that a good or service can be produced more cheaply elsewhere helps.

Comments