David Henderson is correct: this essay on the American Revolution by Jeff Hummel is superb. A slice:
It’s true that the American Revolution had some mixed results from the standpoint of liberty. Like all major social upheavals, it was brought off by a disparate coalition of competing viewpoints and conflicting interests. At one end of the Revolutionary coalition stood the American radicals—men such as Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas Jefferson. Although by no means in agreement on everything, the radicals tended to object to excessive government power in general and not simply to British rule. They viewed American independence as a means of securing and broadening domestic liberty, and they spearheaded the Revolution’s opening stages.
Arnold Kling is thoroughly unimpressed with Eric Posner’s and Glen Weyl’s Radical Markets. A slice:
The title, Radical Markets, is a 180-degrees head-fake. What they actually advocate is radical despotism. That is, rather than try to improve markets by going out as entrepreneurs and doing things better, they play the role of fantasy despot. They want to back their experimental notions not with “skin-in-the-game” entrepreneurship but with state power.
Tyler Cowen is correct that the political focus of most Americans is misdirected and distorted (but, alas, I believe that the reason Bryan Caplan identifies for this unhappy state of affairs means that it is unlikely to change any time soon).
No one can say with certainty who owns what in this world. Yes, firms may be legally domiciled in a particular country, but their ownership consists of constantly shifting shares of stock. What may be a majority U.S.-owned firm today can have an Indian majority tomorrow.
Keeping track of product nationality is just as confusing. When President Trump says Americans are buying too many German cars, is he speaking of Mercedes made in Alabama, BMWs produced in South Carolina, or VWs from Chattanooga? Would it be better to buy Buicks made in China or Jeep Renegades assembled in Italy? Or is he just interested in cars produced in Rust Belt states?
Pierre Lemieux weighs in again with sound reasons why Trump’s understanding of trade is unsound.
Dan Mitchell reveals the similarities between Obamacare and Trump’s protectionism scarcityism. A slice:
And the longer this sordid protectionist process continues, we will see a repeat of what happened with Obamacare as senior-level people in government move through the revolving door so they can get lucrative contracts to help clients manipulate the system (yes, Republicans can be just as sleazy as Democrats).
Washington wins and we lose.
