Contrary to common nationalist claims, it’s simply implausible that there are anywhere close to 7 million working-age American men just itching to jump into the U.S. labor market should future President Donald Trump somehow make millions of immigrants and billions in imports quickly disappear. Given various survey results, in fact, a large majority of that 7 million isn’t working today for reasons unrelated to the labor market, and—barring a serious life change—is unwilling or unable to hop back in tomorrow. Even discounting some of the survey responses (especially on disability), the real number of “missing” American men is probably a small fraction of the total number not working today.
Pushing back on the 7 million men narrative is about more than just nitpicking the exact number. It’s critical to understanding a big, practical reason why mass deportations and widescale protectionism won’t usher in a new era of Trumpian prosperity: Without a vast reserve of available American workers, U.S. companies will struggle to replace newly deported immigrants or expand into newly protected industries, and that will—barring a robot/AI revolution!—act as a hard limit on future economic expansion, especially as policy diverts already employed workers from more productive enterprises to less-productive ones (like making T-shirts or toasters). Skepticism of such plans certainly runs deeper than simply asking “who will build the houses and man the factories,” but the question remains a perfectly fine and important place to start.
But adding insult to injury, the organization has for several decades led a campaign for tax harmonization and a global tax cartel. Read this excellent article by Professor Andrew Morriss on this issue. Starting in the 1990s, the OECD designated 41 nonmember countries and territories as “tax havens” that are supposedly guilty of unfair tax competition simply for having lower tax rates and a healthy commitment to financial privacy (though all these countries collaborate with law enforcement when presented with a warrant). These countries were asked to promptly discontinue their “unfair practices” unless they wanted to face financial protectionism imposed by OECD member countries. The whole point of the initiative was to shelter high-tax nations like France from bleeding capital to lower-tax jurisdictions.
Noah Rothman reveals just how stunningly ignorant Trump is of basic economics. A slice:
There is an article of faith among Donald Trump’s most vociferous defenders that he fights for the right’s causes and convictions with a vigor that exposes the old-guard GOP’s capitulatory spinelessness. This tenet of the MAGA movement is unfalsifiable insofar as whatever Trump’s priorities are at the moment automatically become the right’s priorities, even if they might have been core Democratic principles only a few minutes earlier. The president-elect’s abject surrender in the face of extortionist tactics from one of the country’s most avaricious labor unions is a case in point.
GMU Econ alum Dominic Pino recently debated trade with American Compass’s Mark DiPlacido.
The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board bids “an unfond farewell to Lina Khan.” Two slices:
One benefit of the recent election is this: Lina Khan soon won’t have American business to kick around anymore. This week Mr. Trump named Andrew Ferguson to replace Ms. Khan as chair of the Federal Trade Commission. She won’t be missed, except perhaps by corporate lawyers who are racking up billable hours defending against her antitrust revanchism.
…..
GOP Commissioner Melissa Holyoak distills the history of the Robinson-Patman Act in a biting 88-page dissent. Antitrust regulators mostly stopped enforcing the law after a 1977 Justice Department report documented how it resulted in higher prices and price-fixing among competitors, while inhibiting small retail cooperatives from negotiating discounts with suppliers.
Mr. Ferguson’s muddled dissent tweaks Ms. Holyoak and gives half a loaf to Ms. Khan by criticizing “the breathless warnings of the catastrophe that will follow the return of the Robinson-Patman Act.” He argues the FTC should “sensibly” enforce the law, but the Democratic majority’s complaint against Southern Glazer’s lacks merit.
Senators might press Mr. Ferguson during confirmation hearings on how he would “sensibly” enforce the law. While Mr. Ferguson has shown undue hostility toward big business—which may have been a prerequisite to get JD Vance’s nod for the chairmanship—he’s unlikely to drive antitrust law off the rails like Ms. Khan.
President-elect Donald Trump announced Tuesday his intention to nominate Mark Meador as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). If confirmed, Meador would take over the commissioner slot currently held by FTC Chair Lina Khan, whose term expired on September 26.
Meador is an accomplished antitrust litigator, but his antagonism toward Big Tech, and bigness per se, will compromise Trump’s stated goals of maintaining America’s economic and technological dominance.
He has long opposed big business, from Google to Ticketmaster, and regards the free market as merely a means to the end of human flourishing, not as an end in and of itself. Meador’s stance on economic freedom reflects his explicitly anti-libertarian conception of freedom as “requir[ing] order and restraints upon our passions.” Achieving Meador’s vision of freedom apparently also requires restraints upon trade.
Jack Butler tells how Paul Krugman helped to make him a conservative.
