Bruce Yandle warns that “the tyranny of debt is alive and well.” A slice:
Just out-the-door DOGE director Elon Musk is sharply critical of the budget bill. He sees it as undermining his efforts to reduce government deficits and debt and calls the latest version a “disgusting abomination.” President Trump, not at all pleased that Musk has become a megaphone-equipped, outspoken critic, has threatened to eliminate federal subsidies that support Musk’s Tesla sales and federal contracts that support Musk’s enterprises.
While these two titans tussle, one thing is sure. It’s a whole lot easier to borrow money than pay it off. The pay-off struggle constrains the ability to pursue happiness long after debt-enabled happy times have come to an end. The interest rate clock never stops ticking. Debt is a tyranny.
Phil Gramm and I are honored that Sam Gregg reviews our book, The Triumph of Economic Freedom, favorably in the Wall Street Journal. A slice (link added):
The debate isn’t exclusively about ideas and theory. It’s also, perhaps mainly, about history. When making their case for protectionism, for example, today’s economic nationalists insist that tariffs were central to the U.S. economy’s takeoff in the late 19th century. Critics of that position (Douglas A. Irwin of Dartmouth, among others) contend, with better evidence, that America’s explosive growth in those decades had little to do with tariffs. If anything, tariffs retarded growth in the sectors in which they were highest.
Today’s tariff proponents, however, seem largely uninhibited by facts. The reason is simple. They’ve worked out that if you control the historical narrative surrounding economic questions, you are more than halfway toward winning the policy battles. This is the insight Phil Gramm and Donald J. Boudreaux bring to “The Triumph of Economic Freedom.” In their words, “he who writes history determines the future.” The writing of American economic history, they argue, has long been dominated by skeptics of capitalism peddling myths that nonetheless retain potency and, predictably, populate high school and college textbooks.
In eight chapters, Messrs. Gramm and Boudreaux tackle seven longstanding historical myths about American capitalism that still influence economic discussion today. In each case, they are careful not to caricature the conventional wisdom they challenge.
But having given their opponents’ positions more than a fair shake, Messrs. Gramm and Boudreaux turn to extensive rebuttals. These are supported by detailed attention to data sets. The authors also outline alternative explanations for the path taken by American manufacturing since the 1970s, and for the state of poverty in America today.
A common theme throughout the book is the extent to which government intervention has either made situations worse during crises or impeded economic progress in other periods. Policymakers, meanwhile, have repeatedly exacerbated matters by misdiagnosing the problems confronting them or by doubling down on failed policies.
National Review‘s Jim Geraghty is correct (even though Trumpians apparently disagree with him):
The American government should not own a car company, and it should also not own part of a steel production company, either.
If congressional Republicans do not object to this arrangement, the GOP position is simple. The U.S. government owning shares in private companies and directing a company’s decisions is socialism, communism, economic foolishness, and arguably a form of economic fascism. But that’s only when a Democratic president does it. When a Republican president does it, it’s perfectly fine.
Also correct is Reason‘s J.D. Tuccille: “Parades are great, but we shouldn’t venerate the military.”
Canadian-born-and-raised American citizen David Henderson reflects on Trump’s treatment of Canada. A slice:
The U.S. Constitution is a beautiful mixture of checks and balances. The Bill of Rights is, of course, a check on government power. But other parts of the Constitution are a check also. Libertarian scholar Tom Palmer has pointed out that the Constitution enumerates the powers of each branch of the federal government. As I put it in a 2007 talk on Constitution Day, September 17, “If the federal government does not have a specific power granted to it within the Constitution, then it does not have that power. Period. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments assure that. The U.S. Constitution is a set of enumerated powers.”
What’s particularly relevant is that the U.S. president has no power to set tariffs—that power belongs only to the U.S. Congress. That means that President Trump is violating the U.S. Constitution and, incidentally, his oath of office. Some pundits argue that Trump does have that power because the U.S. Congress, in a 1977 law, granted him that power. That’s false. The only way the president can get new power—that’s not granted to him in the Constitution—is through a constitutional amendment. There’s a well-defined process for amending the Constitution. That has not been done.
Field profiles a number of scholars who are on the Trump train. Several of them are in the Administration. Famous names include Michael Anton, Christopher Rufo, JD Vance, and Patrick Deneen. There are about two dozen others.
Ms. Field disapproves of their politics. I am not a fan of any of them, either, but Ms. Field is coming from a standard lefty academic point of view, which by the time I reached the middle of the book had really turned me off.
So who do I like? I guess I am more of a fan of the older libertarians and mainstream conservatives. Give me the GMU economists (none of whom appears in the book), or some of the AEI scholars, or Rob Henderson, or Virginia Postrel, or Coleman Hughes, or Greg Lukianoff.
To get on Ms. Field’s radar, you seem to require an impressive academic credential, and preferably an academic institutional affiliation. This made me realize what a challenge this is for someone on the right. Other than George Mason, Claremont, or Hillsdale, is there a well-known college or university where you could populate even a small lunch table with faculty conservatives? No wonder the world of conservative intellectuals looks to Ms. Field like a tightly-networked conspiracy. You could fill the whole lot of them inside a meeting room in a Garden State Parkway motel.
