Dartmouth economist Douglas Irwin writes in the Wall Street Journal that truths that economists have long known about trade were not proven false or upended by Donald Trump’s peddling of protectionist fallacies. Here’s his conclusion:
All this points to a disappointing—but entirely predictable—set of outcomes that, unfortunately, have damaged the U.S. economy and alienated allies. The president sought to reduce the trade deficit, increase manufacturing employment, change China’s policies, and reach better deals, but fell short on all counts.
Also in the Wall Street Journal, Tunku Varadarajan profiles the great Ward Connerly and his young protégé, Wenyuan Wu – the dynamic duo who are helping to protect Californians from the ugly and ignorant racism of that State’s “Progressives.” A slice:
“Equal citizenship is not negotiable any more,” Mr. Connerly says. “You get the same rights, same responsibilities. You own just as much cultural stock in the country as anyone else.” Black people “have not always been accorded equal citizenship, I can tell you, because I know a little bit about that,” having been born in the South in 1939. But America has overcorrected for past wrongs. “Black people have been accorded a certain stature in American life” because of their history, Mr. Connerly says. “In the race sweepstakes right now, being black means that you get preferred stock.” Unless you’re a “race advocate,” he adds, “that is not a good thing.”
Gradually, and sometimes almost imperceptibly, the rationale for the lockdowns changed. Curve flattening became an end in itself, apart from hospital capacity. Perhaps this was because the hospital crowding issue was extremely localized in two New York boroughs while hospitals around the country emptied out for patients who didn’t show up: 350 hospitals furloughed workers.
That failure was embarrassing enough, given the overwhelming costs. Schools closed, commercial rights were vanquished, shelter-in-place orders from wartime were imposed, travel nearly stopped, all large events were cancelled, and so on. Clearly there needed to be a good, solid, science-based reason for why the politicians and their advisers had, on their own, decided to take away much of what we once regarded as human rights.