It is what P.J. O’Rourke was getting at when he described protectionism as an IQ test rather than an ideological test. There is a reason that almost every economist supports free trade.
Eric Boehm explains that tariffs “on imports from Canada and Mexico are still a terrible idea.”
Sarah Montalbano’s letter in today’s Wall Street Journal is very good:
As a born and raised Alaskan, I found it refreshing to see other states call for reform of the century-old Merchant Marine Act (“Connecticut Asks Congress to ‘Rethink the Jones Act’” by Bryce Chinault and Andrew Fowler, Cross Country, Feb. 22). The Jones Act, which limits trade between U.S. ports to U.S.-flagged ships, effectively prohibits New Englanders from importing liquefied natural gas from the Gulf Coast. The effect: They must pay top dollar for overseas LNG.
The law, passed in 1920, was originally intended to capture the nascent market of Alaska. It uniquely burdened the territory by also prohibiting the use of Canadian railroads in conjunction with foreign ships. While that practice came to an end with statehood in 1959, Washington Sen. Wesley Jones had already firmly cemented Seattle’s monopoly over shipping to Alaska.
The damage continues today. Despite Alaska’s proximity to international markets, the Jones Act inflates the cost of groceries, building materials, consumer goods and energy. Hawaii and Puerto Rico face the same: According to recent research, the law costs Hawaii and Puerto Rico an estimated $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion a year, respectively. Coastal states can attribute 2% to 3% of their shipping costs to the Jones Act.
The law reduces competition, raises prices and discriminates against the residents of any state that enjoys the benefits of shipping. Reforming it should be a top priority for an administration that cares about reducing costs for consumers.
Why did the Vice President try to provoke a public fight? Mr. Vance has been taking to his X.com account in what appears to be an effort to soften up the political ground for a Ukraine surrender, most recently writing off Mr. Putin’s brutal invasion as a mere ethnic rivalry. Mr. Vance dressed down Mr. Zelensky as if he were a child late for dinner. He claimed the Ukrainian hadn’t been grateful enough for U.S. aid, though he has thanked America countless times for its support. This was not the behavior of a wannabe statesman.
Mr. Zelensky would have been wiser to defuse the tension by thanking the U.S. again, and deferring to Mr. Trump. There’s little benefit in trying to correct the historical record in front of Mr. Trump when you’re also seeking his help.
But as with the war, Mr. Zelensky didn’t start this Oval Office exchange. Was he supposed to tolerate an extended public denigration of the Ukrainian people, who have been fighting a war for survival for three years?
Dan McLaughlin decries J.D. Vance’s ad hominem approach to foreign policy. A slice:
But in trying to put my finger on what’s so grating about Vance’s approach to foreign policy debates, I find it’s not just that I disagree with the substance of a lot of his opinions and worldview. It’s Vance’s constant instinct to go swiftly to the ad hominem argument whenever anyone is in his way on foreign affairs. It’s a habit that we normally associate with left-wing positions on foreign and national security policy, and it bespeaks a profound lack of confidence in the strength of his own arguments.
Juliette Sellgren talks with Charlotte Thomas about learning and the liberal arts.
