Phil Gramm’s op-ed “Ronald Reagan was No Protectionist” (July 24) is absolutely right. Despite efforts by Oren Cass, Robert Lighthizer and other national conservatives to get the Gipper on their side, Reagan favored free trade and opposed protectionism. He wanted to cut taxes on trade, not raise them. One need only listen to Reagan’s words and observe his actions.
In 1985, Reagan stated “our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets—free trade.” He argued that “Instead of protectionism, we should call it destructionism. It destroys jobs, weakens our industries, harms exports, costs billions of dollars to consumers, and damages our overall economy.”
Reagan concluded free-trade agreements with Israel and Canada, vetoed protectionist legislation, rejected import relief for industries from footwear to copper, and helped launch the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade talks. Although committed to addressing unfair trade, Reagan saw open trade as promoting economic prosperity at home and strengthening our alliances around the world.
Douglas A. Irwin
Hanover, N.H.
Freedom of the press should mean freedom from government control that comes via funding. Spectrum license renewal still overhangs over-the-air TV network owners. The Fairness Doctrine, adopted in 1949, forced media to run opposing views. Its repeal in 1987 allowed media to pick sides and flourish, from Rush Limbaugh to MSNBC. Government-funded media—politicized and with raw momentum of swamp support—was always asking for trouble and should have also ended in 1987.
Video killed the radio star, and now social media has been killing broadcasters. Ask Stephen Colbert and his $40 million-losing “Late Show.” Artificial intelligence will stir the pot in new and not yet imagined ways. Such is progress. Of course, digital media inherits many old problems. Social media censored posts about Covid vaccines, often goaded by the Biden administration. Republicans and the Trump administration want to break up Big Tech for stifling conservative voices.
The First Amendment’s press freedoms should be absolute, including freedom from government-funded outlets. Freedom of thought and expression and freedom from government interference are critical to a functioning society. Even Oscar the Grouch would agree.
Andrew Stuttaford decries the continuing demise of freedom of speech in the United Kingdom.
Greg Mankiw’s Martin Feldstein lecture is (unsurprisingly) a worthwhile read. Two slices:
The topic I would like to talk about today was close to Marty’s heart: the stance of fiscal policy and the path of government debt. Throughout his career, Marty advocated for greater saving, both private and public. As President Reagan’s chief economist, he warned about the adverse effects of large budget deficits, much to the chagrin of some other Reagan administration officials. If he were here with us today, I have no doubt that he would be concerned about the fiscal path the United States is now on.
Some years ago, The Wall Street Journal ran a cartoon that goes to the essence of the matter. A small child is coming home after getting off a school bus. As he opens the door to his house, he shouts to his parents, “What’s this I hear about you adults mortgaging my future?”
I like this cartoon not because it’s funny (it’s not, really) but because it succinctly summarizes the economics of government debt. Courses in macroeconomics examine how government debt affects interest rates, capital accumulation, trade deficits, and so on. But the starting point for all that analysis is a transfer of income between generations. In their personal capacity, parents cannot choose to live beyond their means and leave negative bequests to their children. As voters and citizens, however, parents can do exactly that, and Americans are now doing so in a big way.
…..
I began this lecture with a cartoon. Let me conclude with another, one of my favorites from The New Yorker. It takes place in the Oval Office, with the president’s advisers huddling around the Resolute Desk. They tell him, “Our deficit-reduction plan is simple, but it will require a great deal of money.”
This is the situation we now confront. Putting the federal government on a sustainable path is, from a purely economic standpoint, relatively simple. If a random group of NBER research associates could be appointed as a committee of monarchs, they could solve the problem in a long weekend.
In the real world, the solution must come from our elected representatives, who know that any solution will impose significant pain on the current generation of voters. For most politicians, getting reelected is their highest priority. Enacting good policy is farther down the list. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that a solution won’t come until the financial markets leave policymakers with no other choice. That scenario would be unpleasant for nearly everyone.
“Notre-Dame was built – and rebuilt – through private donations.”
No one knows more about airline travel than does my Mercatus Center colleague Gary Leff.
