“Also overlooked by those claiming that 19th-century tariffs made America great is that the country’s biggest import at the time was immigrants, who incurred no tariffs. As economists Cecil Bohanon and T. Norman Van Cott argue in “Tariffs, Immigration, and Economic Insulation,” weighing the impact of tariffs on economic growth without accounting for massive immigration—which increased from about 200,000 individuals a year in 1865 to more than 1,000,000 in 1910—can only lead to questionable conclusions. They explain that “the impact of high tariffs, clearly an insulating policy, was swamped by free immigration, a quintessential policy of economic openness.”
Trump is an avowed restrictionist on both immigration and trade. And so, if a second Trump presidency brings higher tariffs and further immigration restrictions, we won’t be as fortunate as were our 19th century forebears.
Making matters worse is that today’s economy is vastly different from that of a century ago. Globalization has interconnected markets and supply chains in unprecedented ways. Half of what Americans import are inputs they use to produce goods domestically. Tariffs on these imports increase production costs, making American products less competitive both at home and abroad.
Furthermore, the service sector—comprising industries like technology, finance, and health care—now represents nearly four-fifths of the U.S. economy. These sectors thrive on innovation, skilled labor, and access to global markets, rather than on protectionist policies.”
“Venezuelan opposition leader Edmundo González claims the regime forced him to sign a letter recognizing Nicolás Maduro as the winner of July’s disputed presidential election.
“Either I signed or I would face consequences,” González explained in a video posted to social media. “There were very tense hours of coercion, blackmail and pressure.” The letter, according to González, was a condition for his escape to Spain, where he arrived on Sunday after weeks in hiding.”
“In 1982, before Hezbollah existed, Israel invaded Lebanon to root out Palestinian guerrillas. Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon envisioned an operation aimed at “transforming Lebanon into a reliable ally,” assassinating Palestinian leadership, expelling Palestinians, and eventually overthrowing the government of Jordan, according to Rise and Kill First by Ronen Bergman.
After Israeli forces stormed Beirut, the Lebanese capital, they successfully installed their ally, Bachir Gemayel, as prime minister and forced the Palestine Liberation Organization to withdraw from the country. (U.S. Marines were sent to oversee the Palestinian withdrawal.) But Gemayel was assassinated by one of his own countrymen, and a new militia called Hezbollah emerged to fight both the Israeli and U.S. presence.”
“There’s a straightforward logic to both candidate’s claims. Increased demand for housing, whether from immigrants or corporate investors, would be expected to increase prices.
But increased demand should also be expected to increase supply, bringing prices back down.
Corporate investors and immigrants also play an important, direct role in increasing housing supply. Investors supply capital to build new homes. Immigrants supply labor for the same.
At least one study has found that the labor shortages caused by immigration restrictions do more to raise the cost of housing than they do to lower it through reduced demand.”
…
“one study has found that restrictions on investor-owned rental housing raised rents and raised the incomes of residents in select neighborhoods by excluding lower-income renters. Studies on the effects of rent-recommendation software have found mixed effects on housing costs. In tight markets, such software raises rents. When supply is loose, it lowers them.
As always, the ability of builders to add new supply is what sets the price in the long term. Both candidates gestured at this in their own way, although Walz was more explicit about the relationship.”
Trump played a key role in destroying the USFL in the 1980s?
“The NFL would later introduce extensive evidence designed to prove that the USFL followed Trump’s merger strategy, and that this strategy ultimately caused the USFL’s downfall. The merger strategy, the NFL argued, involved escalating financial competition for players as a means of putting pressure on NFL expenses, playing in the fall to impair NFL television revenues, shifting USFL franchises out of cities where NFL teams played into cities thought to be logical expansion (through merger) cities for the NFL, and, finally, bringing an upcoming antitrust litigation..”