Price controls on credit card interest rates may sound populist, but decades of evidence show they reduce access to credit, especially for lower-income and higher-risk borrowers.
Banning institutional investors from single-family housing would reduce capital flowing into housing markets, shrink supply and ultimately raise costs for renters and buyers. Housing affordability improves when we build more homes, not when we restrict who can finance them.
In 1952, the court and Jackson again confronted the task of reconciling constitutional principles and a president’s claim of urgency. With the Korean War raging, Harry Truman said an impending nationwide steelworkers strike would “jeopardize national defense,” so he issued an executive order for government to seize and operate most mills. The companies sued, arguing that no act of Congress or constitutional provision validated Truman’s action.
Truman’s lawyers argued that his authorization “could be implied from the aggregate of his powers under the Constitution,” especially as commander in chief. The court disagreed, 6-3.
Concurring, Jackson said that Truman’s action flowed from neither an express nor implied authorization by Congress, and was against Congress’s will as expressed in a 1947 labor relations law that made no provision for such presidential action. It would be “sinister and alarming” to say that the president, enjoying vast discretion regarding foreign affairs, can by “his own” foreign commitment “vastly enlarge his mastery over” the nation’s internal affairs. This way, the president “of his own volition” can give himself “undefined emergency powers.” Truman’s seizure of the mills originates in his “individual will” and “represents an exercise of authority without law.”
Today, the nation is inured to presidential claims of urgent needs — “emergencies,” “existential” dangers — being used for evasions of the Constitution. Said Jackson, our institutions for keeping the executive under the law might be “destined to pass away,” but “it is the duty of the Court to be last, not first, to give them up.”
President Trump’s desire to control the public airwaves is verging on the comic, literally. Witness the Federal Communications Commission’s memo this week targeting late-night comedy—yes, the same shows that Mr. Trump claims are irrelevant.
The FCC is resurrecting its “equal time” rule, an artifact of the 1934 Communications Act. The rule requires public broadcasters, if they provide air time to one political candidate, to give comparable time and placement to all other candidates running for the same office. Congress later exempted “bona fide” newscasts, interviews, documentaries and events.
…..
There’s a strong argument that the rule violates the speech rights of broadcasters. It also makes no sense in today’s diverse media market in which public broadcasters account for a shrinking share. Many politicians connect with voters using social media and podcasts. Joe Rogan can host any politician he wants, and so can shows on cable networks, but Jimmy Kimmel gets government supervision.
The rule can lead to absurd results. After Arnold Schwarzenegger declared his candidacy for California Governor in 2003 on Jay Leno’s “Tonight Show,” all 135 candidates were invited to appear. Each was given 10 seconds to shout his ideas—at the same time. Stations also stopped running the actor’s movies during the campaign.
The FCC missive is a regrettable diversion from the yeoman work Mr. Carr is doing rolling back Biden-era regulation. Then again, maybe the goal is to make Mr. Trump’s Presidency the highest-rated comedy on TV.
Steven Greenhut understandably asks: “Where have the ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ Republicans gone?” Three slices:
Based on the troubling goings-on in Minneapolis, it’s hard to describe former GOP Rep. Justin Amash’s post on X as hyperbolic: “They’re building a police state right before our eyes—which will ultimately be deployed against conservative Christians and gun owners and those who refuse the jab—and a lot of ‘Republicans’ with Gadsden flags in their bios are like, ‘Yeah, FAFO!'”
There’s no hope for anyone cheering, but “responsible” conservatives have a rationale for defending these actions: It’s better than having Democrats in charge. Had, say, Kamala Harris won the presidency, she would have imposed socialistic policies, they say. That’s probably true, but have you noticed the latest policy plans from Donald Trump? His economic proposals echo the Democratic platform.
…..
These are the types of easy-button leftist solutions that always make matters worse because they interfere with the workings of the free market. Markets direct goods and services and set prices that reflect supply and demand. When the government meddles, via regulation, taxation, government ownership, and “industrial policy,” companies make decisions based on political preferences. It slows economic growth, stifles innovation, and rewards firms that serve the king rather than the consumer.
…..
A decades-old Catholic social teaching is known as the “seamless garment of life,”which references the tunic Jesus wore at the crucifixion. The faithful are supposed to revere life in a seamless manner by opposing all policies that undermine the dignity of human beings. These days, Republicans are pursuing a seamless garment of big government, from police-state immigration tactics to their interventionist economic policies. With both parties now hostile to limited government, Americans can only expect civic life to get worse rather than better.
Fareed Zakaria mourns the damage that Trump is doing to the reputation of the United States. Two slices:
Trump enjoys using America’s vast strength — built over generations — almost for sport. He placed tariffs on Switzerland, and then raised them sky high because the Swiss president, he said, “rubbed [him] the wrong way.” He relished recounting how quickly the Swiss came to him seeking relief. This was less strategy than a power play.
Last year, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte appeared to jokingly liken Trump to a “daddy” intervening in a schoolyard brawl, and Trump has repeated that line with evident pleasure, including at Davos. He seems to enjoy even insincere flattery because it shows that he is so powerful, people have to fake their admiration for him.
…..
The United States has been the world’s dominant power for close to a century. But its leaders understood that primacy is not only about coercion; it is also about legitimacy, reassurance and voluntary cooperation. They grasped a basic truth: Power is more sustainable when it is exercised with restraint, and influence is larger when allies feel dignity rather than fear.
My intrepid Mercatus Center colleague, Veronique de Rugy, applauds Javier Milei’s latest speech at Davos. A slice from Vero’s post:
Javier Milei’s recent address at Davos is impressive. It’s also a very timely reminder of many important lessons that are often forgotten.
The Argentinian president presents free enterprise not merely as an efficient economic system, but as a moral and institutional order rooted in Western ethical traditions. Rejecting the supposed tradeoff between justice and efficiency, Milei explains that true economic efficiency emerges only from institutions grounded in private property, voluntary exchange, and the non-aggression principle. In his view, policies that reject principles in order to pursue short-term political advantages are not only immoral but dynamically inefficient, ultimately leading to economic and social collapse. Free enterprise capitalism, Milei contends, is the only system that is both just and capable of sustaining long-run growth because it respects natural rights and enables entrepreneurial discovery.
Milei places economic growth squarely within an institutional and values-based framework. Growth depends on dynamic efficiency: the ability of institutions to reduce uncertainty, protect property rights, and allow entrepreneurial creativity to scale through capital accumulation, innovation, and the division of labor. He contrasts this commitment to free markets with socialism and heavy regulation, which suppress increasing returns and kill growth by punishing profits and blocking the diffusion of economic benefits. Argentina’s recent reforms, such as mass deregulation, fiscal stabilization, and a deliberate retreat of the state from economic control, are presented as real-world applications of these principles. For Milei, values are not an ornament to economic policy but its foundation: Societies that uphold liberty, property rights, and moral restraint create the institutional conditions for sustained prosperity, while those that abandon these values invite stagnation and decline.
Also praising Milei’s speech at Davos is the Washington Post‘s Editorial Board. A slice:
Trump is often credited with delivering hard truths to Davos attendees, but it’s Milei’s policies that are actually upending the status quo. Unlike Trump, the self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist has been working to eradicate trade barriers, even with countries like China. “If you look at China’s weight in the world,” Milei said at Davos, “you’ll understand I have to trade with China.”
But what truly sets the Argentine president apart from other leaders is his desire to reduce his own power and control. “The most responsible thing politicians can do is to stop pestering those who are creating a better world,” he said in Switzerland. Few of his peers will agree, which makes his message all the more important.
