Our economic performance is not determined by us alone, but as we learned during the 1997 Asian currency crisis, the 1998 Russian debt default, and the 2010 Eurozone debt crisis, our economy and financial system can be impacted adversely by untoward foreign economic developments. Maybe if President-elect Trump recognized that our economy was not an island, he might have second thoughts about his proposed resort to draconian tariffs that would be damaging to world economic prosperity that in turn would come to our shores.
Much as Trump might want America to go it alone behind high tariff walls, the fact of the matter is that the US economy is highly integrated in the world economy. As such, if Trump’s high tariff policy has the effect of tipping the European and Chinese economies into recession and of inviting trade retaliation, those economies troubles might come back to adversely impact both our economy and our financial markets. That could cause serious political trouble for Trump in the 2026 mid-term Congressional election.
Tyler Cowen, writing at Marginal Revolution, is correct about Michael Pettis:
I am usually loathe to turn MR space over to negative attacks on others, but every now and then I feel there is a real contribution to be made. I have been saying for years that Michael Pettis flat out does not understand international economics, and yet somehow he is treated as an authority in the serious financial press. Here is his recent tweet storm. It is wrong.
Here’s the abstract of a new paper by Anders Ydstedt and Rainer Zitelmann: (HT Dan Klein)
Attitudes towards the rich are far more positive in Sweden than in France, Spain, Germany, and Italy. Attitudes towards the market economy are also more positive in Sweden than in all other European countries, except Poland. Although Sweden is perceived by some as a model of ‘democratic socialism’, it has been 50 years since that this was – almost – the case. Today, Sweden is one of the ten most economically free countries in the world, although income tax is still above average. Corporate taxes are moderate, however, and inheritance, gift, and wealth taxes have been abolished. This article presents the findings of two surveys conducted by Ipsos MORI in Sweden. The first survey focused on perceptions of the rich, the second explored attitudes towards the market economy and capitalism.
It turns out we didn’t have to wait until Jan. 20 for the tyranny to start. The Democrats were right all along when they warned that a bad outcome would give us a president ready to abuse power to serve his own interests and lie about it. But it’s Joe Biden leading the way.
On a human level it’s easy to empathize with Mr. Biden’s decision Sunday to pardon his son Hunter. The decision will ensure that Hunter avoids prison time for crimes he’s already been convicted of and prosecution for any crimes he committed between 2014 and this Sunday.
Joe Biden is a father, first and foremost. What parent, equipped with a magical power granted to him by a dusty document to wipe away a child’s errant behavior and shield that child—even a grown one—from punishment, wouldn’t be tempted to exercise it? Only a saint would allow the law to take its course out of a sense of duty to a higher moral principle. Joe Biden is no Thomas More.
For him, the degree of parental self-denial required would have been even greater than for most parents. President-elect Trump has made it clear, both in his rhetoric and in a stream of law-enforcement-related cabinet nominations, that he is intent on “retribution” against his political opponents. Having dubbed them the “Biden crime family,” it is a near certainty that Mr. Trump, absent a comprehensive pardon, would have had his Justice Department spend the next four years hounding the younger Mr. Biden. The older one, too, presumably.
President Biden could argue that the lawful-but-unethical pardon precedent is now so deeply established—not least by his predecessor—that granting clemency to his own son could hardly be considered beyond political norms. If you doubt that, consider the pardon granted to Ivanka Trump’s father-in-law, Charles Kushner, who is now on track to enjoy a stint in the ultimate offender rehabilitation program as U.S. ambassador to France.
And yet, for all that, the Hunter pardon is a lamentable one, another bruising blow to the institutions of American democracy.
At his Facebook page, Phil Magness reacts to papa Biden’s pardon of junior Biden:
Every single person prosecuted for tax evasion under the Biden admin’s ramped-up enforcement policies should demand a pardon right now.
The gun charges involved a bad law that is seldom prosecuted, making it at least defensible to pardon. But the tax evasion charges were serious, and guilt was certain. Biden made the prosecution of tax evaders a top priority in his administration, so pardoning his son for the same offense is an obscene injustice even if the presidential pardon power is absolute.
My Mercatus Center colleague Ben Klutsey talks with C-SPAN about bridging the political divide.
Iain Murray tells of Milton Friedman’s revenge. A slice:
Friedman has been on the outs for a while. It’s nothing new for the left to deride him—as a Young Conservative in the UK in the ‘80s I would frequently be attacked as a “monetarist,” by people who had no idea what monetary policy was, such was his perceived influence over Margaret Thatcher. Leftists continue to this day to launch harsh broadsides against his memory. Yet recently, even self-proclaimed conservatives have consigned him to history in terms just as severe as Joe Biden.
Senator Josh Hawley, for instance, told the National Conservatism conference this year, “Now we need not the ideology of Rand or Mill or Milton Friedman, but the insight of Augustine.” Rusty Reno, the editor of First Things, criticizes him in his book, Return of the Strong Gods. Yoram Hazony invokes Friedman’s Free to Choose in The Virtue of Nationalismto critique it. And Compact Editor Sohrab Ahmari commented, “Whiney voice: But, but, but, what would Milton Friedman say?” when the Hungarian government instituted price controls, to which Ross Douthat of the New York Times responded, “He would say that this won’t work as intended, presumably.” (Spoiler: they didn’t.)
Bjorn Lomborg reports that “climate-change colonialism keeps poor countries impoverished.” A slice:
When people need jobs and food, it is immoral to give them solar panels instead. Poverty kills nearly 10 million people annually through related problems such as infectious diseases and hunger. By comparison, the climate-change toll is tiny. Extreme weather took an average of 9,000 lives each year over the past decade. There are many core development priorities wealthy nations could fund that would quickly and efficiently save lives and create economic growth. These include reducing the scourges of malaria and tuberculosis, improving learning outcomes and cutting maternal and neonatal deaths. Carbon mitigation in poorer countries, on the other hand, will generate only a minuscule temperature reduction about a century from now.
