Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Robert Zoellick hopes that the Biden-Trump era of economic oppression will end in 2028. Three slices:
Despite their political differences, Donald Trump and Joe Biden seem to agree on economics. Both believe the White House should direct the American economy by favoring companies and courtiers.
…..
Presidents Trump and Biden have been big spenders, exploding the national debt. Both erected barriers to trade to protect friendly interests, which were then supposed to dance to presidential tunes. Both viewed the U.S. economy nostalgically and favored older industries. Mr. Trump ignores America’s competitive edge in the services trade, and Mr. Biden embraced the progressive wing’s suspicion of tech.
Neither recognized that trade negotiations should establish rules to help the country’s most vibrant and growing sectors. Their international economic policies presume a zero-sum, old-style mercantilist fight to divide wealth among nations, instead of enabling markets to enlarge win-win gains. Mr. Biden blocked foreign direct investments to please unions, while Mr. Trump opts for “golden shares” and partial corporate nationalization.
Messrs. Trump and Biden financed their industrial policies through bigger deficits. Easy monetary policies hid the increased expense. But we are now entering an era of rising costs, higher prices, pressures on productivity, and nervousness about debt financing and the dollar.
…..
The U.S. should capitalize on its appeal. American universities draw talent from around the world. University boards and administrators need to reverse progressive fads and add institutes that challenge groupthink. The remedy should be through the public spotlight and private action, not federal government mandates. The U.S. should play to its national strengths: openness to ideas, people, goods, and capital, fostering continuous reinvention.
The U.S. is the best-positioned country in the world to face the challenges of energy security and additional supply while transitioning to a mix of sources that recognize climate costs. America has the resources, new technologies, entrepreneurs, and venture capital—plus unmatched capacity to integrate all four when prices drive incentives.
Public narratives shape U.S. trade policy. The disaster in the 1930s of Smoot-Hawley’s high tariffs and international retaliation created an opportunity to lower barriers over the rest of the 20th century. Stories dramatizing the Rust Belt and fears of globalization have had the opposite effect. Mr. Trump’s chaotic tariffs—reversing 80 years of greater opening at home and abroad—will raise prices and hurt U.S. competitiveness. Public dissatisfaction will make a new trade and growth agenda possible.
Jonathan Sine ponders the future of Chinese manufacturing. (HT Tyler Cowen)
Jeff Jacoby decries what he rightly describes as Trump’s “brutal immigration crackdown.” A slice:
THE WHITE HOUSE continues to revel in its brutal immigration crackdown and to insist that mass raids, deportation without due process, ghastly detention camps, sweeping arrests of people with no criminal record, and expulsion of asylum-seekers and even US citizens are what Americans voted for when they returned President Trump to office. But the public is having serious second thoughts.
A slew of recent polls shows that a majority of Americans no longer favor Trump’s hard-line approach toward undocumented immigrants. The more aggressively the administration moves against noncitizens, the greater the backlash from voters.
Gallup reported this month that only 35 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of immigration — far below the 62 percent saying they disapprove. A year ago, 55 percent of the public wanted immigration curtailed; now only 30 percent do. At the same time, 79 percent of respondents — an all-time high — say that immigration is a good thing for the country.
Reason‘s Matt Welch explains “how Trump’s travel crackdown is hurting Americans at home and abroad.” A slice:
As the Trump administration began snatching college students, detaining legal European tourists, denying entry to British crust-punks, rejecting transgender passports, deporting tattooed Salvadorans, insulting the sovereignty of Canadians, and floating plans to ban visitors from 43 countries, the domestic travel and tourism industry braced itself for bad news.
“Historical data underscores that trade and geopolitical tensions influence travel demand,” warned the research firm Tourism Economics in late February. The group had previously estimated that inbound visits to the U.S. in 2025 would rise 8.8 percent over last year; now it was forecasting a 5.1 percent drop. What’s more, inbound travel spending this year “could fall by 12.3 [percent], amounting to a $22 billion annual loss.”
Sure enough, the year-over-year foreign visitor numbers in March were brutal. Down a jaw-dropping 18.4 percent, they were led by a sharp drop-off from America’s No. 1 supplier: Canada.
Arnold Kling reflects insightfully on DIY vs. specialization and trade.
Born outside Chicago in a German-American Catholic family, Feulner attended Regis College in Denver where he discovered conservative ideas. Barry Goldwater was an early political influence. “You have to choose between liberty and equality,” Feulner told John Miller of National Review. “I picked liberty.” Each year he published an essay by thinkers who defined conservative principles.
