Ryan Owens decries “the new politics of resentment.” Two slices:
A new wave of class-baiters and grievance politicians have shown how deeply economic liberty is under attack in parts of America. We should be alarmed because economic liberty is not merely about economics; it is about human flourishing.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani recently filmed a “tax the rich” video outside the Manhattan residence of Ken Griffin, founder of Citadel. His message was clear — that wealth creators are villains. Griffin rightly called the stunt “creepy weird.” He could have added “dangerous” and “economically destructive.”
On the other side of the country, Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson mocked concerns that wealthy residents and businesses will flee Washington’s new “millionaire tax” and take their jobs with them, stating: “I think the claims that millionaires are going to leave our state are, like, super overblown. And if — the ones that leave, like, bye.”
These attitudes from leaders of some of the nation’s largest cities are not merely juvenile; they are immoral, self-defeating, and profoundly economically illiterate.
America rests on the idea that citizens are and ought to be free to rise through hard work and risk-taking. That’s what “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is all about. If you’re confused as to why, go ask a former Soviet, Cuban, or Venezuelan.
Frederick Douglass understood all this. The former slave explained the liberation he felt when, at last, he earned wages for his work: “To understand the emotion which swelled my heart as I clasped this money, realizing that I had no master who could take it from me — that it was mine — that my hands were my own” affected him in ways few Americans today can comprehend.
Every dollar the government spends comes out of your pocket. Every “free” item provided by the state comes courtesy of a taxpayer who has a job and a family to support. When government treats private success as public property, it tears the fabric of liberty.
…..
Resentment politics and populism also make for bad economic policy.
People respond to incentives. When individuals are free to innovate and to keep a meaningful share of what they earn, prosperity grows. Individuals generally allocate resources more efficiently than centralized government planners. Families know their needs better than bureaucracies do.
President Trump is hammering away at “affordability” to help Republicans win an uphill battle to keep Congress in November. He can’t undo the damage his tariffs have done to household budgets to date, but he can keep things from getting worse.
One opportunity concerns “quartz surface products” used in some 36% of kitchen counter-tops in American homes last year. Quartz is also a popular choice for bathroom vanities, shower walls and backsplash. A handful of domestic quartz slab producers want to use Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 to hurt the competition: American quartz fabricators who use imported slab. If they prevail, expect costlier new homes and thousands of lost jobs in the U.S. quartz fabricating industry.
Mr. Trump can stop them, but he’ll have to disappoint the six companies that petitioned the International Trade Commission (ITC) under the banner of the Quartz Manufacturing Alliance of America. They’re led by Minnesota-based Cambria and CEO Marty Davis, a big Trump donor.
The ITC ruled 2-1 in April in favor of a “global safeguard” petition alleging that quartz imports are causing “substantial” harm to domestic producers. The lone Republican on the commission voted against the petition.
“Exxon says goodbye to New Jersey.” A slice:
Politicians like to blame companies for acting in their self-interest, but that’s the easy way out. If New Jersey and Delaware want to retain companies, let alone attract them, they need to take a hard look at what they’re doing to drive so many away.
Policywise, this idea is as short-sighted as they come. The GOP will bleat that its new Frankenstein targets only EV and hybrid owners. True, until it doesn’t. What Republicans build, Democrats will supersize. As Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist warned: “As soon as the Democrats get into power, they’ll say, ‘Oh my goodness, there’s the gas-car loophole. We must have the car tax on all cars.’ . . . It won’t take them two weeks to do it.”
And don’t think it will stop there, not after every local DMV has become a branch of the Internal Revenue Service. With that plumbing in place, Democrats can expand (or exempt) the “fee”—and plenty of new climate-related taxes—with infinite creativity. Greater and varying annual amounts for gas-guzzlers, luxury rides, vehicles that choke metro centers. Lower fees based on income, profession or government-favored safety features. Hedge-fund owner car tax: $2,000. Union teacher car tax: $11. What could possibly go wrong?
Politically, it’s even more foolish. Millions of Americans have bought electric and hybrid vehicles in recent years, and Congress paid them mass subsidies to do so. Republicans—who say they want to run on “affordability”—want to penalize these households with a brand new bill on Oct. 1. (Yes, these geniuses would impose this tax one month before the election.) Does the GOP fail to realize this pool contains any number of would-be (but won’t be) GOP voters?
Andrew Stuttaford reveals how China meets – “meets” – its green goals:
And thus the FT’s Edward White can only note that it “appears” that China [in its reports on carbon emissions] is now “excluding non-energy uses of fossil fuels. “
Convenient!
Ben Zycher continues to write wisely about energy. A slice:
There is a view, seemingly popular among many, that what is good for the oil industry must be bad for America—that is, the rest of us—and vice versa. That this is a view utterly childish should be obvious: What is good for America is good for America, and whether that condition is good for the oil industry is neither here nor there as a matter of general concern. But it is obvious as well that years of policies designed to substitute unconventional energy in place of fossil fuels have yielded a sharp increase in costs and a decline in political support for such policies. The reason too is obvious: A sharp increase in the cost of energy makes most people worse off. Baseless litigation against the fossil energy producers would have the same effect: It is an attack on national wealth and the well-being of ordinary people. It is a pure money grab.
Matt Yglesias tweets: (HT Scott Lincicome)
I am completely against involving “planners” in any of this. All I think is that a landowner should be allowed to build whatever he thinks there is a market for on the land that he owns, subject to bona fide safety concerns.
