“On the campaign trail, Trump pledged to put a tariff of between 10 percent and 20 percent on all imports to the United States, along with a 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods and a 25 percent import surcharge on Canadian and Mexican wares — at least, until our neighbors choke off the flow of all migrants and drugs across America’s northern and southern borders.
This protectionist agenda is far more radical than anything Trump attempted during his first term. It threatens to hamper American tech companies by increasing the cost of semiconductors, depress stock valuations by reducing economic growth and fueling a global trade war, and disrupt the US auto industry, whose supply chains were built around the presumption of duty-free trade with Mexico.
Thus, American investors, executives, and entrepreneurs watched Trump’s first day in office with bated breath: Would his inaugural address and initial executive orders prioritize corporate America’s financial interest in relatively free global exchange — or his own ideological fixation on trade deficits?
Trump’s Day 1 actions did not fully clarify his priorities on this front. In his inaugural speech, the president reiterated his broad commitment to protectionism. Meanwhile, his administration prepared to launch federal investigations into America’s trade deficit in general, as well as the trade practices of China, Mexico, and Canada in particular.
Nevertheless, Trump did not actually establish any new tariffs on his first day in office, as his administration’s arch-protectionists had hoped that he would.
Investors interpreted Trump’s caution as a sign that he would be heeding his advisers’ push for a more limited and incremental tariff policy; stocks rose Monday while the US dollar fell (stiff tariffs would increase the value of America’s currency).
Wall Street’s relief may be premature. Trump appears as ideologically perturbed by America’s trade deficit as ever.”
…
“Imposing even a 10 percent tariff on all imported goods would not only harm various business interests, but would also likely increase costs for consumers. Thus, such a duty would harm both Trump’s donors and voters.
If Trump’s first term is any guide, his universal tariff would not even redound to the benefit of American manufacturers, who would be vulnerable to higher costs and retaliatory tariffs from foreign nations. Generally speaking, presidents seek to avoid enacting policies that harm the bulk of their coalition, to the benefit of a narrow band of ideologues. And this is what implementing Trump’s grandest visions for trade policy would likely entail.
Second, the imposition of a universal tariff would roil stock markets. During Trump’s first term in office, he monitored the markets’ performance obsessively, tweeting about it incessantly and suggesting that stock values were a barometer of sound policy, warning in 2018, “If Democrats take over Congress, the stock market will plummet.”
Finally, Trump has recently shown some sensitivity to the interests of his newfound friends in tech, even when those interests conflict with the tenets of rightwing nationalism. Over the holidays, Elon Musk feuded with their co-partisans over the desirability of high-skill immigration and the H-1B visa, which help American tech companies to hire foreign talent. Trump ultimately expressed support for Musk’s position.”
https://www.vox.com/politics/395829/trump-tariffs-executive-orders-inauguration-stocks-trade-policy
College Student Slapped With $84,000 Bill for FOIA Records
https://reason.com/2024/12/04/college-student-slapped-with-84000-bill-for-foia-records/
“This is not only unfair but uniquely so. The United States is the only developed nation that taxes based on citizenship rather than residency. We are in terrible company. As the Cato Institute’s Adam Michel writes, “Eritrea’s brutal dictatorship is the only other country to come close, imposing a 2 percent levy on all expatriates.””
https://reason.com/2024/12/05/its-time-to-end-double-taxation-for-americans-living-abroad/
“There are many reasons a person could find themselves homeless, but severe mental illness is a major contributor. Last month, Esquire ran a first-person account of Patrick Fealey, an award-winning journalist who found himself unable to hold a job after he was diagnosed with Bipolar I disorder in 1997; after struggling for years, he became homeless in October 2023. While admitting that his particular cocktail of drugs is not ideal and negatively affects other parts of his body, Fealey writes that it also “enables me to function and has kept me alive for twenty-seven years.”
A 2019 meta analysis of 31 studies, encompassing nearly 52,000 homeless people in both developed and developing countries, found that more than 10 percent had schizophrenia or related disorders.
“While ensuring drug safety is essential,” Singer and Bloom write, “the REMS program has unintentionally created barriers that disproportionately affect individuals with severe mental illnesses like schizophrenia, further compounding the significant challenges they already face, including unemployment, substance abuse, heightened suicide risk and homelessness.””
https://reason.com/2024/12/05/fda-policy-worsens-homelessness-by-limiting-access-to-antipsychotics/
“Faulkender was the assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury Department during the first Trump administration, and it was in that role that he oversaw the PPP, a stimulus program that ultimately distributed more than $800 billion.
That money was supposed to go to businesses that had been shuttered by the pandemic (or by various governmental edicts), and it was supposed to keep furloughed workers on the payroll until reopening. In fairness, at least some of the PPP’s budget was used for that purpose, but we now know that much—maybe even most—of the PPP funds ended up being wasted or stolen.
“Only 23 to 34 percent of the program’s funds went directly to workers who would have otherwise lost their jobs,” a National Bureau of Economic Research study found. Another study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found that taxpayers paid roughly $4 for every $1 of wages and benefits to workers.
Some of the PPP’s funds likely ended up in the pockets of business owners rather than funding workers’ paychecks, a New York Times investigation concluded. A lot of it was simply stolen—so much, in fact, that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) says a full accounting of the losses “will never be known with certainty.””
https://reason.com/2024/12/05/the-ppp-was-a-covid-era-disaster-trump-wants-to-promote-the-guy-who-ran-it/
“If you want to create a black market in a perfectly legal product, just make regulations and taxes so onerous that many people prefer to buy from illegal vendors to escape being hassled and mugged by the powers that be. As a new study reveals, that’s certainly the case with cigarettes, which remain available for sale across the United States but with much of the trade continuing to involve smokes smuggled from one jurisdiction to another. Since busybody politicians refuse to learn from the ongoing trade, this is a tempting business opportunity for risk-tolerant entrepreneurs as well as low-tax jurisdictions.”
…
“”As tax rates increase, consumers and suppliers search for ways around these costs. In cigarette markets, consumers tend to shop across borders where the tax rates are lower and dealers develop black and gray markets to sell illegally to consumers, paying little or no tax at all.””
…
“At $3.51 per pack, Massachusetts isn’t even the most heavily taxed state when it comes to cigarettes, nor does it have the largest black market in tobacco products. That honor belongs to New York, which last year raised its tax rate to $5.35 per pack (New York City adds another $1.50).
“New York has the highest inbound smuggling activity, with an estimated 54.3 percent of cigarettes consumed in the state deriving from smuggled sources in 2022,” note Hoffer and Macumber-Rosin. “New York is followed by California (46.7 percent), New Mexico (41.2 percent), Massachusetts (39.7 percent), and Washington (36.8 percent).”
The cigarette-tax study authors add that because their tax rates drive people to purchase their smokes from illicit dealers, high-tax states suffered a revenue hit in 2022 of more than $5 billion. Since 2007, they’ve lost out on more than $79 billion.”
https://reason.com/2024/12/06/cigarette-taxes-and-regulations-continue-to-fuel-a-thriving-black-market/
“Donald Trump will soon become the second president to serve non-consecutive terms. Naturally, this invites comparison between Trump and the first president to serve non-consecutive terms, Grover Cleveland. In one crucial respect that juxtaposition is both instructive and cruelly ironic.”
…
“When tariffs are too high, Cleveland argued, it means that corrupt politicians and businessmen are able to exploit consumers, often imposing severe hardships through price increases. Just as bad, it means that the government is failing to treat all citizens as equal before the law, instead picking winners and losers in the aforementioned “communism of pelf.”
This was the situation that existed in America during and after the Civil War, when politicians imposed weighty tariffs under the pretext of supporting the nation’s burgeoning business community. While American consumers initially accepted the additional taxation as a wartime necessity, the high rates persisted even after the nascent military-industrial complex had been wound down.
The problem was both simple and intractable: There were thousands of manufacturing, industrial, agricultural, and other business interests that profited from high tariffs. Each special interest group disregarded the national welfare to protect themselves, and as a result, the government accumulated massive surpluses—$113 million in 1886–1887 alone.
Despite this growing crisis, initially, Cleveland did not prioritize tariff reform. For the first two-and-a-half years after taking office in 1885, Cleveland concentrated on rooting out government corruption, which had reached such a nadir that in 1873 Mark Twain dubbed the post-Civil War era as a “Gilded Age.” To the extent that Cleveland’s anti-corruption agenda involved vetoing legislation he deemed financially wasteful, he indirectly picked off some of the rotten fruits that grew from the protectionist tree. However, it was not until 1887 that he shifted his attention to a need for sweeping tariff reform. When he did, he transformed the presidency and America in the process.”
…
“Cleveland’s tariff reform proposals passed the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives but failed in the Republican-controlled Senate. Even worse, despite winning the popular vote, Cleveland lost the 1888 election to Republican nominee Benjamin Harrison amid Electoral College disputes in the key states of New York and Indiana. (Unlike Trump, Cleveland accepted his defeat with grace and peacefully ended his term in 1889.) The Republicans took office and passed a high tariff law (framed by future president William McKinley, then an Ohio congressman). The McKinley tariffs raised the average duty on imports by almost 50 percent, and as Dartmouth University economist Douglas Irwin demonstrated in 1998, these tariffs did little to stimulate the economy even as they imposed considerable suffering on low-income Americans.
This is why, just like Trump, Cleveland was able to comfortably get elected to a non-consecutive term by promising to lower prices. The key difference is that, unlike Trump, Cleveland proposed an intelligent solution to the problem—lowering tariffs, not raising them.
Unfortunately for both Cleveland and the Americans of his time, he would not live to see his vision for tariff reform realized. America plunged into an economic depression shortly after he took office in 1893, compelling Cleveland to confront a number of unrelated crises before he could get to tariff reform. By the time a tariff bill did reach his desk in 1894, special interest groups in both parties had diluted it almost to meaninglessness.”
…
“Tariff reform along the lines Cleveland advocated would not become the law of the land until the Underwood-Simmons Act of 1913, which was promoted with far more political effectiveness by Woodrow Wilson, the first Democratic president to serve after Cleveland’s administration. By then, Cleveland had been dead for five years.”
https://reason.com/2024/12/06/trump-vs-cleveland-a-tale-of-two-tariff-strategies/
Everything WRONG With The Modern World (+ A Hopeful Way Forward) | Sam Harris x Rich Roll
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ6SZ94JhBg
CUBA Has Collapsed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGcgBodh9QQ
A left or liberal party in the United States doesn’t line up with what a left or liberal party is in East Asia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp2vG5dfQ6I