Wu writes that “we are conducting a dangerous economic and political experiment,” and that “we have recklessly chosen to tolerate global monopolies and oligopolies in finance, media, airlines, telecommunications and elsewhere, to say nothing of the growing size and power of the major technology platforms.” Actually Professor Wu, “we” has nothing to do with where we are today. Better yet, the elite class you’re part of had nothing to do with what’s happened in the 21st century. Thankfully.
To see why, we readers need only consider the five most valuable companies in the world today. One of them is Microsoft, and the feds most certainly tried to wreck it at the end of the 20th century. They did even though MSFT’s late or non-arrival to the internet, search, social media, smartphones, and countless other technological advances ensured that its dominance was soon to be shrunk by the marketplace itself.
Max Gulker explains why free trade faces an uphill battle at the ballot box.
I especially like this line from this op-ed by Ira Stoll:
The sweet spot is for politicians to be rich enough that they understand and appreciate wealth creation, but not so rich that they are entirely remote from the reality of ordinary Americans.
James Pethokoukis shares four revealing graphs about the American economy.
Jonah Goldberg rightly criticizes Trump’s notion of “loyalty.” A slice:
This is all one piece of the broader tapestry of what Trumpism always boils down to when put to the test: a cult of personality. Support of the man is more important than support of anything else, including Trump’s own agenda. I disagree with Sessions on quite a few things, but the notion that he isn’t a conservative is silly. More importantly, the idea that he’s not a conservative — or a man of integrity — simply because he wouldn’t display blind loyalty to the president is grotesquely unconservative.
George Smith is favorably impressed with Timothy Sandefur’s new biography of Frederick Douglass.
