Brian Albrecht explains that tariffs are even worse in reality than they are shown to be in ECON 101. A slice:
As we dig even deeper, the problems with tariffs keep piling up. The uncertainty that accompanies the threat of tariffs, even before implementation, can chill business investment. Companies delay decisions on new facilities or supply chains when trade policy is in flux. During the U.S.-China trade tensions, many firms reported putting investment plans on hold because of uncertainty over tariffs and retaliation. This dampens economic growth beyond the direct impact of tariffs.
Consumers are also hurt in ways less obvious than higher prices. For example, tariffs also reduce their options when they shop. Go into any grocery store today at any point of the year, and you will see a dozen kinds of fresh fruit. How? Modern trade. Consumers benefit from this variety instead of being stuck with canned peaches all winter. Amiti, Redding, and Weinstein find variety accounts for half of the trade-induced GDP growth. Trump’s tariffs reduced the varieties of the affected goods. There’s no reason not to expect the same from future tariffs.
But we have been searching in vain for signs that she would break from, or even temper, the progressive excess that defines the current Democratic Party. Her endorsement by anti-Trump Republicans isn’t that sign because it’s based solely on loathing for Mr. Trump. A token GOP appointment to her cabinet would mean little unless it’s a major post.
On domestic policy, she is offering more Bidenomics without the label. She wants to expand the entitlement state beyond even what Mr. Biden has—for elder and child care, housing, a larger Affordable Care Act, and more. Her proposed tax increases are nearly as extensive as Mr. Biden’s, running past $4 trillion over 10 years. She shows every sign of wanting to expand and accelerate the climate corporate welfare and mandates that distort investment at enormous taxpayer cost but no benefit to global temperatures.
Ramesh Ponnuru rightly calls Donald Trump out for criticizing the press as he does. A slice:
The critics are within their rights to question the network’s editorial judgments, speculate about its biases and exact a reputational cost for its stonewalling. All of that is part of the give and take of a free society. Trump’s actual response to the controversy, however, has been worse than anything CBS has done. In social media posts, in interviews and at rallies, he has called for taking “60 Minutes” off the air (“IMMEDIATELY”) and stripping CBS of its broadcast license.
John Stossel decries profiteering off of doomsaying.
Daniel Yergin explains the importance to America of fracking. Here’s his conclusion:
A ban on fracking would be both misguided and destructive for the U.S. and its allies. Recurrent out-of-touch debates on the topic need to be tabled in light of a central fact: Shale has become crucial to the U.S. economy and global energy security. It’s here to stay.
Scott Lincicome reports on the current state of the American economy. Two slices:
The United States also continues to crush it on in the stock market: Only during the 1960s was American public companies’ share of total global market capitalization higher than it is today, and that share has not only grown rapidly in recent years but has done so even though the U.S. economy is a relatively smaller slice of the global economy than it was back then (thanks mainly to wars and communism). So, why does Wall Street keep killing it?
…..
Beyond The Economist’s report, there’s other good news. For example, the latest report from the National Science Foundation shows that U.S. R&D spending in 2022 (the last year available and notably before the new U.S. industrial policy push really got going) climbed to a record high a few years ago and then just kept on climbing, driven almost entirely by private business
