Wall Street Journal columnist Mary Anastasia O’Grady rightly criticizes Donald Trump’s knee-jerk protectionism. Two slices:
Mr. Trump describes taxes on U.S. imports as his go-to solution for almost any problem he might confront as president, including Chinese aggression against Taiwan. He likes the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, completed in 2020. It “has turned out to be a very good trade deal,” he said. But he quickly added: “Frankly, if I had my choice, I’d have no trade deal. I really think we’d do much better.”
Statements like that from the self-described “tariff man” keep investors up at night. A rules-based trade pact institutionalizes openness and provides legal certainty to those willing to commit capital. Continental free trade since 1994 has been a boon to all three countries, with an estimated $1.8 trillion in U.S. goods and services trade with its USMCA partners in 2022, according to the U.S. trade representative. Mexico is now the largest U.S. trading partner and Canada a close second.
Mr. Trump would like to have a loaded tariff gun by his side at all times so that his itchy finger could pull the trigger whenever he sees some country getting out of line.
…..
That isn’t good for American workers who innovate and produce high-tech components that go to Mexico for final production. Less work in Mexico is less work for better-paid employees in the U.S. And nearshoring weakens China’s edge. All reasons to get closer to Mexico, not push it away.
Also decrying Harris’s and Trump’s grotesque fiscal irresponsibility is GMU Econ alum Dominic Pino. A slice:
In the ABC debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, one of whom will be the president next year, the moderators did not ask a single question about the budget, the debt, or overall tax policy. In fact, the words “budget,” “debt,” and “spending” were never spoken by anyone in the entire debate. The moderators were following the lead of the candidates, neither of whom has any clue how to deal with any of that stuff.
In the short run, the federal budget needs to be restored to some sense of normality after the pandemic-spending blowout. Annualized federal expenditures in the first quarter of 2020 were $4.9 trillion; today, they’re $6.7 trillion. Spending would be expected to be higher today than in 2020 regardless. Still, if it had stayed on its pre-pandemic trend (which was already too high), it would be about a trillion dollars lower.
Andrew Stuttaford reports on “the disinformation panic.” Two slices:
Overall, people appear to regard content seen on social media more skeptically than those who would “protect” us from disinformation think (or say they think). More generally, exaggerated views of persuasiveness are connected with a belief in the gullibility of others. Moreover, much, maybe most, disinformation is drowned out by all the other material coursing through its targets’ feeds.
But panic over disinformation (whatever its source) has been too useful to be allowed to let drop. A helpful complement to conveniently flexible “hate,” it has been a handy rationale for greater control over internet speech. It has accelerated the rise of “fact-checkers,” who all too often are propagandists and censors masquerading as guardians of objectivity. Their biases are insufficiently examined (not that they are hard to guess).
…..
[Robert] Reich also welcomed the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Murthy v. Missouri, which he described “as a technical win for the public good (technical because the court based its ruling on the plaintiff’s lack of standing to sue).” The Court, he maintained, “had said federal agencies may pressure social media platforms to take down misinformation.” That will surely depend on the circumstances, but that Reich approved of the Court’s letting the feds get away with their appalling behavior in this instance is dispiriting.
Cuba’s dictatorship is a human tragedy and its people deserve much better. But they won’t get it as long as Communists run the place and enrich themselves at the expense of the people they impoverish.
Tyler Cowen wisely recommends that we consult the writings of Gustav de Molinari.
