The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board reports that “Europe arms for the tariff war.” A slice:
The danger is that a trade war unleashes Europe’s worst instincts. It’s not an accident that France seems to be the ringleader agitating for tougher retaliation—especially measures such as the intellectual-property provisions that would put brute force behind Paris’s longstanding resentment over U.S. tech companies.
None of this would be smart for Europe’s economy. Think of it as the dumb-and-dumber trade war. Still, if Mr. Trump is going to sabotage America with protectionism, he can’t be surprised if other governments are willing to hurt themselves to retaliate. And the truth is, they can do a lot of damage to the U.S. in the process.
Autumn Billings unmasks some of the ugliness of Trump’s tariffs. A slice:
Even if American plastic production could scale up, consumers of self-care products would not be impervious to tariffs. The beauty industry isn’t able to fully onshore production since products rely on materials that can’t be fully sourced or replicated in the United States, such as Asian or African oils. Stringent patent protections, meanwhile, require that certain formulas be sourced from ingredients from specific geographical regions or countries.
Hair care and salon services have seen supply chain disruptions since 2019 that have increased prices by 27 percent. In response to higher costs, Americans are choosing low-maintenance options, going longer between appointments, or forgoing services altogether. A trade war increases the cost of everything, including daily beauty essentials. Even the mere uncertainty of increased tariffs will exacerbate the challenges salon owners and consumers face, forcing more Americans to trade down.
After reading this recent piece, in The Atlantic, about the so-called “Mar-a-Lago Accord” (through which the Trump administration arrogantly hopes to engineer the economy), Phil Magness writes this at his Facebook page:
This is worth a read.
Yes, I do believe there are some in the administration who are stupid enough to think that this is a real course of action. That includes Miran (the author of the scheme), possibly Lutnick, and probably Vance.
No, I don’t think it’s even remotely plausible that they could execute it in a serious way, in part because it’s complete MMT-style crazy and in part because Trump lacks the discipline to pull it off.
Yes, I do fear that some in the admin will try to pursue elements of it anyway, and end up causing a lot of damage in the process. And if it gains any meaningful traction, the Mar-a-Lago Accord scheme would almost certainly thrust us into a recession.
GMU Econ alum Jonathan Murphy makes a case for methodological cosmopolitanism. Here’s his conclusion:
This effect, well known to economists (indeed, one of the reasons why an optimal tariff has to be sufficiently small is to minimize the loss to domestic producers/consumers attached to the export market) is missed by nationalists and others who reject methodological cosmopolitanism. Even if one does not think the wellbeing of foreigners should matter, one must be a methodological cosmopolitan to fully appreciate and consider the total effects of policy (as opposed to simple single margin effects).
Clifford Thies tells the history of the Panama Canal.
The JEC acknowledges that the rising debt and persistent deficits are the result of runaway government spending, not insufficient revenues, as tax receipts have remained stable over time. It specifically identifies spending on entitlement programs as the primary driver of the deteriorating fiscal outlook, noting that costs have grown dramatically due to unsustainable benefit design coupled with an aging population.
Theodore Roosevelt hated the idea of unelected judges stopping him and his allies in the Progressive movement from wielding government power as they saw fit. So Roosevelt advocated stripping the courts of their independence by subjecting both judges and judicial decisions to recall by popular vote.
“When a judge decides a constitutional question,” Roosevelt argued in 1912, “the people should have the right to recall that decision if they think it is wrong.” It must be “made much easier than it now is to get rid, not merely of a bad judge,” Roosevelt declared, but of any judge. As far as Roosevelt was concerned, the Progressive movement “cannot surrender the right of ultimate control to a judge.”
Sound familiar?
Donald Trump’s second presidential term is barely 3 months old, and a Rooseveltian offensive against the courts is already in full swing. Indeed, the Trump administration began attacking the independence of the judiciary almost as soon as the administration began appearing in federal court. “When judges egregiously undermine the democratic will of the people,” declared Elon Musk, the head of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, “they must be fired or democracy dies!” “Radical left-wing judges are egregiously trying to stop President Trump from using his core constitutional powers as head of the Executive Branch and Commander-in-Chief,” claimed White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. “They MUST be reined in.”
…..
When Roosevelt attacked the courts, he did so from the political left. Trump is now doing it from the political right. Yet their respective attacks share much in common. It is a timely reminder that the independence of the judiciary remains of paramount importance no matter which political faction happens to occupy the halls of government at any given time.
