Notwithstanding the tariff exemptions, the duties undeniably increased prices for American importers and consumers. Economic research shows that the higher costs from tariffs passed through to prices paid by Americans at a rate as high as 96 percent. The administration and tariff defenders often cite that tariffs did not lead to an inflationary spiral, but—as many economists have repeatedly explained — that outcome was never a serious possibility. What was likely — and what did indeed happen — is that tariffs increased the prices of tariffed goods (imported and domestic) last year, and they remain elevated today. Economists from Harvard Business School have examined thousands of items sold at major US retailers and found significant increases in their prices—especially as compared to pre-tariff trends (Figure 3). Other studies have reached similar conclusions.
David Henderson confesses – factiously – to some recent errors. A slice:
What a fraud that Adam Smith was. What the heck did he know, sitting in Scotland and pontificating about the world? Sure, he predicted that the continental congress, sitting in the 13 colonies, would bring forth a new nation that would become the most powerful in the world. And sure, even then, he knew what a fraud much of higher “education” is. But those were just lucky calls. Moreover, Smith was just trying to rationalize people’s desire to look out for themselves. Too bad he never wrote a book about morality. Then he would have figured out the limits of self-interest.
GMU Econ alum Julia Cartwright, writing in the Washington Post, busts the myth that wartime spending enriches the economy. Here’s her conclusion:
This is not an argument against maintaining a military or fighting necessary wars. It is an argument for honesty about what GDP measures. Economic growth is not simply the volume of spending; it is the creation of value. That means goods and services that people want, that improve their lives and expand future possibilities. By that standard, war is not a source of prosperity but a diversion from it.
GDP can tell you how much money is being spent. It cannot tell you whether that spending is making people better off.
Public worker unions are asking more from the Democrats they help elect, and the latest demand is legal protection against critics. An Oregon law targeting a think tank that notifies workers of their right not to pay union fees is now being imitated in other states.
Oregon’s Worker Fraud Protection Act makes it illegal to “falsely impersonate” a union representative and imposes fines for infractions. The law was written to discourage the Freedom Foundation, which sends out mailers to union members reminding them they can opt out of the union and save money under the Supreme Court’s 2018 Janus v. Afscme ruling.
New York and Hawaii have now introduced copycat legislation. The Oregon law provides that a plaintiff “shall receive statutory damages in an amount of $6,250 per incident,” which could be each individual postcard sent to a union member. In the New York version, the fines are $15,000 per incident. That adds up fast. Hawaii allows for unspecified damages and appropriate relief.
The unions claim the Freedom Foundation is trying to trick workers into thinking the mailings come from the union. But the mailings all identify the foundation or its union educational outreach project in plain sight. Freedom Foundation’s Maxford Nelsen says it’s “very risky to continue our outreach efforts in the state,” and that’s the point. Democrats mean to discourage the think tank from dissuading workers from automatic union fees collection.
Allen Guelzo defends birthright citizenship.
Iain Murray decries “the villainization of business.”
