≡ Menu

Some Links

My intrepid Mercatus Center colleague Veronique de Rugy welcomes imports – and she recommends, for your benefit, that you do the same. A slice:

One more reason why imports are so important is that they are tremendously beneficial to middle- and lower-income consumers. The more imports, the better, as these lead to greater consumer choices and varieties, all at lower prices.

Moreover, final consumers aren’t the only ones to benefit from imports. U.S. manufacturers benefit from lower input prices. At least half of U.S. imports are not final consumer goods; they are, instead, inputs for U.S.-based producers, which help reduce imported-input costs. This reduces businesses’ overall production costs, which promotes employment possibilities and economic growth.

The great Doug Irwin likes Veronique de Rugy’s recent New York Times essay exposing Trump’s false promises on trade.

David Henderson, with impressive clarity, explains how the Jones Act harms Americans.

Jeffrey Tucker celebrates the forgotten Franz Cuhel.

In a Wall Street Journal letter (available here), GMU Econ alum Patrick Newman reveals one of the many unsavory truths about the origin of the Sherman Antitrust Act. A slice:

Sen. John Sherman, who had hoped to be the Republican presidential nominee in 1888, pushed for an antitrust law in 1890 partly to embarrass his rival Russell Alger, who was associated with the Diamond Match Company and also served as a senator, governor and later secretary of war. Theodore Roosevelt prosecuted Standard Oil in part because it was not supportive of his first term. Many politicians are now initiating antitrust legislation against the big tech companies because they either believe that their platforms helped Donald Trump win in 2016 or are angry at the liberal bias of the owners. Misguided policies and self-interested politicians are eternal constants throughout history.

George Will writes with his usual insight, depth, and wisdom about government oversight of college-admissions criteria.