Jane Shaw Stroup draws lessons from history about today’s renewed use of antitrust.
Bruce Yandle wonders why student-loan debt is treated differently that other debts. A slice:
If debt is to be forgiven for named individuals, even by the federal government, it will have to be funded by some other named or unnamed individuals. Put another way, the books have to be balanced. Debt forgiven by one party will be debt transferred to another party. After all, the federal bonds that cover it must be paid off.
Since we cannot simply wipe these things away, student debt forgiveness would mean that instead of 43,000 former students being in hock, some yet-to-be-identified future taxpayers will face paying off another dose of federal debt. Maybe these unknown future debtors will include your grandchildren and mine.
Why go to such lengths to highlight a single op-ed on a relatively minor issue? My guess is that the Biden team concluded it was a chance to use the big gun of identity politics to send a message to critics as it prepares to take power. There’s nothing like playing the race or gender card to stifle criticism. It’s the left’s version of Donald Trump’s “enemy of the people” tweets.
John Tamny loves John Mackey’s new book, Conscious Leadership. A slice from Tamny’s review:
Fast forward to the present, and Mackey has thankfully been very publicly against the hideous lockdowns that have bankrupted millions of U.S. businesses, and put tens of millions out of work. And when it’s remembered that the only closed economy is the world economy, the lockdowns have brought on disastrous implications of the poverty and starvation kind for a world very much reliant on American dynamism.
On the Dan Proft show, my GMU Econ colleague Dan Klein discusses Covid-19 lockdowns.
“Closing restaurants is unscientific and dangerous.”
