≡ Menu

Some Links

Richard Epstein applauds the narrow outcome of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, but not the reasoning that led to it.

My intrepid Mercatus Center colleague Veronique de Rugy rightly ridicules Republicans for their spineless groveling, regarding trade, to Trump and his base. A slice:

Now that he’s in office, Trump has followed through with a comprehensive protectionist agenda — threatening foreign governments with a multi-front trade war, which he claims will be easy for us to win. Most recently, Trump imposed stiff tariffs on steel and aluminum against, among others, the European Union, Canada and Mexico — which may be followed with tariffs on automobiles. Adding insult to injury, he’s justifying his actions by claiming that imports of steel and aluminum — and automobiles, for that matter — from these countries “threaten to impair the national security” of the United States. Never mind that six of the top 10 providers of steel to the U.S. are our NATO allies and closest friends.

In today’s USA Today I challenge some of the absurd justifications offered by Trump & Co. for the tariffs that they’re imposing on Americans. A slice:

Last week, President Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imported from Canada, Mexico and the European Union. He claims the move will strengthen national security.

He’s dead wrong. The tariffs will weaken the United States, protect jobs in inefficient industries while preventing job growth in efficient ones, and harm relationships with our allies.

It’s as if Frank Fetter, writing more than a century ago, were responding to the poor reasoning regularly offered up by Wilbur Ross for tariffs today.

Simon Lester argues that it’s worth taking the time and effort necessary to fix Section 232.

Pierre Lemieux serves up yet more insight about trade and protectionism scarcityism.