The Senate’s 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is a melange of some 40 bills. Call it a blueprint for a bigger Washington. It establishes multiple grant and loan programs for “affordable” housing while expanding federal power over local zoning. The worst provision is a ban on large investors purchasing single-family homes to rent.
Companies like Amherst and Invitation Homes that buy and then rent single-family homes have become a popular scapegoat for high housing prices. The real leading culprit is the Federal Reserve’s pandemic-era monetary policy. Historically low mortgage rates followed by inflation fueled price appreciation and resulted in a lock-in effect for owners that is constricting the supply of homes for sale.
Large investment firms mopped up foreclosed homes after the 2008 housing crash, placing a floor on prices. They account for less than 1% of the single-family housing stock, and the number of rental homes has declined on net by 900,000 since 2017. They manage fewer homes in pricy markets like Los Angeles (0.3%), Boston (0.02%) and Washington, D.C. (0.07%).
President Trump thinks the investor ban polls well and likes to say “people live in homes, not corporations.” But who does he think lives in rental homes—hedge fund managers? Most tenants are lower-income. The Senate bill could force many of them out of their homes.
…..
Imagine how a Democratic administration will exploit this sweeping power. How about a nationwide eviction moratorium or rent control? The bill also instructs the Housing and Urban Development Department to establish housing “best practices” for local governments—solar panels on all homes!
Oh, and don’t forget a grant program to reward local governments that “promote dense development” and “mixed-income housing,” an idea Ms. Warren campaigned on during her presidential bid in 2020. She sent out an exuberant press release on Tuesday listing all of the left-wing groups endorsing the bill.
Eager to claim a housing victory, the White House is pressuring Senate Republicans to pass the bill and wants the House to accept it. But why do Republicans want to provide a down payment for Ms. Warren and fellow progressives to expand Washington control over housing in their states?
On the other hand, repealing the Jones Act, which would allow non-U.S. tankers to transport oil between U.S. ports, would immediately have salutary effects. The decrepit Jones Act fleet makes it cost prohibitive to move products from Gulf Coast refineries to the Northeast or the West Coast. The Trump administration is reportedly considering waiving the law, and there is already legislation introduced in Congress to repeal it. That’s a great idea regardless of anything happening with Iran.
Anthony Lo Sasso of the University of Wisconsin-Madison warns that price controls will give larger pharmaceutical companies a significant advantage. “Even well-intentioned price controls can sometimes reshape market structure in unintended ways,” Lo Sasso said. “Firms with diversified portfolios and global operations may be better able to adapt than smaller companies reliant on only a few products. Generally, policymakers need to consider whether MFN could inadvertently increase concentration even as it attempts to reduce prices.”
Jacob Sullum is correct: “Trump’s new tariff plan still asserts a crisis that does not exist.” A slice:
When imports exceed exports, the difference is balanced by inflows of loans, capital, and other transfers. That is why, as the government’s lawyers conceded during the litigation over Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, a trade deficit is “conceptually distinct” from a balance-of-payments deficit.
Trump has now changed his tune and his terminology.
As the Trump administration imposes a barrage of illegal and unprecedented tariffs on an ever-increasing number of imported products, the rest of the world is showing that it can continue trading despite these tariffs and without the United States. Other countries are lowering trade barriers with each other by concluding new bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements, and exporters are reconfiguring supply chains to route around American protectionism. Regardless of whether the United States remains indispensable to the global economy, international trade continues—and increasingly so—without the United States.
At the same time, these countries should not be doing what they have mostly been doing: forging new trading arrangements outside the World Trade Organization (WTO). Although the temptation to go outside the WTO legal framework is understandable, the better course would be for the other 165 WTO members to redouble their efforts toward trade liberalization within the institution while pursuing a different approach. That approach should be WTO-based plurilateralism that can build up to multilateralism, which is precisely how, over decades, the original General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) evolved into the WTO.
Industrial policy FTW: “China’s Tariff-Defying Export Boom Leaves Its Factory Workers Behind: Workers who powered a tariff-defying boom tell a grim story of falling wages and vanishing jobs.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-03-09/china-s-tariff-defying-export-boom-leaves-its-factory-workers-behind
Sam Gregg reflects on Adam Smith’s deeply human vision. A slice:
The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations are thus, despite their different foci, methodologically similar works. But they are also unified by an overarching goal: that of introducing improvement into the human condition and changing the world for the better. While Smith was devoted to his scholarly endeavors, he was also anxious to advance a reformist agenda: one that removed the economic fetters of the mercantile system and instead allowed people to pursue lives marked by mature liberty, personal responsibility, and virtue, free of subservience to those who, thanks to the mercantile system, had acquired legal and economic privileges from the state.
Underpinning that reform agenda is a profound awareness, revealed in both The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations, of the interdependencies that characterize the commercial societies then emerging in the European world, especially Britain and its North American colonies. Far from being a society of radical individualists, the picture of human relations that arises from Smith’s two books is one in which people are morally and economically dependent on one another.
