Richard Reinsch looks back on Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs as their first anniversary nears. Three slices:
At the time, Trump had boldly declared that Liberation Day would “forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America’s destiny was reclaimed, and the day that we began to make America wealthy again,” claiming that the tariffs would raise “trillions and trillions of dollars” to reduce taxes and pay down the national debt. “Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country … and ultimately, more production at home will mean stronger competition and lower prices for consumers,” he added.
Yet today, the promises of those in power must be constantly trimmed to account for their negative side effects. Those with memories longer than a news cycle will recall that the response from the equity, debt, and currency markets to the April 2 “declaration of economic independence” was so immediately and overwhelmingly negative—the S&P 500 declined 10 percent, the dollar fell, and bond prices plummeted—that Trump had to reverse course, suspending the tariffs and then lowering them. Currently, 52 percent of imported items are exempt from tariffs because of trade agreements, exemptions, and carve-outs.
Over the past year, most of us have grown nauseated by the near-constant refrain from tariff advocates that Liberation Day has not led to economic disaster. Elites and globalists are part of a global free trade conspiracy, the argument goes, and don’t know what they’re talking about, especially when it comes to tariffs.
Yes, the tariffs haven’t led to disaster, but we’ve also been dealing with a moving target in tariff rates, tariff-affected goods, delays in implementation, and exemptions. And the need for this breathing space amid the tariffs seems to support the broader free-trade argument against them. Taxes stall commerce, both within nations and internationally among producers and buyers.
…..
To support manufacturing, we should reduce the federal regulations that drain around $350 billion per year from the sector, a burden that, to varying degrees, also constrains every other sector. The energy and capital expensing policies under the Trump administration are steps in the right direction. Trump’s energy policies aim to unleash energy production through deregulation and the easing of licensing and permitting requirements. The capital expensing policy allows companies to deduct the full value of capital investments from their taxes in the first year they are made. These are pro-growth measures. Tariffs are not.
…..
Tariffs are a very blunt form of taxation. They tax not only imported consumer goods but also intermediate capital goods. They lower workers’ real wages by making certain goods more expensive. They reduce the productivity of companies and capital by raising the prices of inputs and other goods used in business while protecting domestic industries, leading to inefficiencies and job losses in other sectors. We were promised liberation. Instead, we have relearned that tariffs are just taxes that slow down our strong economy and weaken America’s power.
The New York Times‘s obituary for Brian Doherty is good. Two slices:
“Libertarians talk a lot about freedom and responsibility,” Katherine Mangu-Ward, the editor in chief of Reason, a libertarian magazine where Mr. Doherty worked for decades, recalled in the magazine’s announcement of his death. “Brian embodied both. His weird, colorful life — filled with comics and festivals and music and books — was a model of life lived freely and openly.”
…..
Mr. Doherty became a libertarian at the University of Florida in the late 1980s, from which he received a bachelor’s degree in journalism. But he traced his political tendencies even earlier, to his reading, as a 12-year-old, of a science fiction trilogy, Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson’s “Illuminatus!”
“One of the specific purposes of that work, according to Wilson,” Mr. Doherty later wrote, “was to do to the state what Voltaire did to the church — that is, reduce it to an object of contempt for all thoughtful people.”
Wall Street Journal columnist William McGurn decries the increasing coarseness of public life in America. Here’s his conclusion:
Vulgar language can be effective in a sharp response, but it dulls with overuse. And too often we disdain politeness as phony rather than respect it as the tribute that vice pays to virtue. Like schoolyard kids forced to shake hands after a nasty fight, Americans could use a healthy respect for good form, even at the risk of being hypocrites.
Cuban-born Martin Gurri writes about Cuba. Here’s his conclusion:
Meanwhile, the Cuban people can only watch as their fate is determined by forces beyond their control.
Will they get a taste of freedom in the near future? I am a pessimist when it comes to toppling totalitarian regimes. Yet in the case of Cuba, special circumstances come into play. Inner rot combined with outside pressure may offer a measure of hope. Every dictatorship has a natural life cycle and an appointed end. I wouldn’t be shocked, therefore, to see the Cubans start their happy dance before the end of this year.
More than a million Cubans have fled since 2021, when the Castro regime cracked down on protest amid a dire economic crisis. While the socialist tourists might blame American sanctions for the island’s decline, Cubans overwhelmingly believe the people who have run their economy since 1959 are more at fault. They also might take a jaundiced view of people coming to the island to support the dictatorship while enjoying a concert and air-conditioned buses.
“New York Gov. Hochul begs ‘high-net-worth’ refugees to return and be taxed.”
