Is Trump Aiming To Continue Biden’s Antitrust Insanity?

“Right-wing populism is a strange bird, an ideology that’s not grounded in any enduring economic or philosophical principles. It mainly entails using the government to address a variety of ill-formed social, nationalistic, and cultural grievances. Former British politician David Gauke was spot on when he says that populism amounts to little more than “a willingness by politicians to say what they think the public wants to hear.”
That’s why President-elect Donald Trump’s recent appointments reflect a mish-mash of conflicting opinions. Many conservatives were, for instance, shocked by his selection of Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R–Ore.) as Labor Secretary given that her pro-union positions aren’t different from those advocated by President Joe Biden.”

https://reason.com/2024/12/06/is-trump-aiming-to-continue-bidens-antitrust-insanity/

What happens when you promise child care for every kid?

“It wasn’t even until 1977 that women in Western Germany became free to legally seek jobs without their husband’s permission. The country still has a tax structure that penalizes married couples if both individuals work full time.”

https://www.vox.com/policy/379309/child-care-affordable-germany-motherhood-kita-daycare

Elon Musk assures voters that Trump’s victory would deliver “temporary hardship”

“Were Trump to implement Musk’s vision while simultaneously honoring his promise to avoid cutting entitlements and the GOP’s commitment to avoiding defense spending cuts, then he would need to slash all other government programs by 80 percent. That would involve gutting all social services for low-income Americans, food inspections, air safety, health insurance subsidies, and infrastructure investments, among countless other things.
This would abruptly and massively reduce demand in the US economy, potentially triggering a recession.

There is little reason to expect such severe and haphazard spending cuts to benefit the economy in the long term. After all, government investments in education and infrastructure often increase the economy’s growth potential — slashing funding for such programs could impair America’s economic performance in the coming decades.”

https://www.vox.com/politics/381637/elon-musk-donald-trump-2024-election-temporary-hardship

Project 2025 is infiltrating the Trump administration already

“President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly distanced himself from Project 2025, a 900-page opus of conservative policy recommendations published by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank. But he has nominated two of the document’s co-authors to Cabinet-level positions, and many others served in his first administration, which suggests the document may be a window into what the next four years could bring.”

https://www.vox.com/politics/386224/project-2025-trump-cabinet-carr-homan

The congressional bathroom ban is the latest transgender policy battle

“In January, Delaware Rep.-elect Sarah McBride will also make history in congressional representation, becoming the first openly transgender individual to serve in Congress. But once again, being a trailblazer has come with challenges.
In response to McBride’s election, South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace introduced a resolution last week intended to ban transgender women like McBride from using women’s bathrooms in the Capitol. House Speaker Mike Johnson initially equivocated on the issue, but under pressure from fellow Republicans like Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, he issued a statement that all single-sex facilities in the Capitol and House offices “are reserved for individuals of that biological sex.” Mace has since followed up with an even more sweeping proposal, a bill that would apply a transgender bathroom ban to all facilities on federal property.”

“56 percent of Americans said they agreed more that “transgender rights have gone too far, infringing on the rights of women and children,” compared to 32 percent who said they agreed more that “protecting transgender rights is essential to ensuring equality for all Americans.” And in another YouGov poll last week, a plurality of 43 percent of Americans said they’d prefer their congressional representatives to focus more on upholding traditional definitions of gender, versus 30 percent who wanted them to focus more on protecting the rights of transgender people (12 percent said neither, and 15 percent were unsure).

When it comes to specific policies, about half of Americans in that poll (including 78 percent of Republicans and 29 percent of Democrats) seemed to agree with Mace on bathroom bans, telling YouGov they think transgender people should use bathrooms that correspond to their assigned sex at birth, while 34 percent thought they should use bathrooms that align with their current gender identity, or either option.

Slightly more voters also seem to favor bans on sports participation, while opinions are split on banning gender-affirming care for youth. In an October UMass Amherst poll, a plurality of Americans, 47 percent, supported bans on transgender individuals’ participation in school sports teams matching their gender identity, compared to just 25 percent who opposed them (the rest were undecided). In a Morning Consult poll of registered voters from Nov. 6-7, 56 percent said they would support and 30 percent said they would oppose banning transgender girls and women from competing in high school and college sports. Meanwhile, 39 percent in the UMass Amherst poll said they would oppose policies to ban gender-affirming care for trans youth, while fewer, 35 percent, said they would support them. And in the Morning Consult poll, more were still in favor of the bans: 46 percent, compared to 39 percent opposed.”

“in an October CNN poll, registered voters were asked if they supported federal policies that were more supportive or more restrictive of transgender rights: Their answers were about evenly split between those options, but a plurality, 42 percent, said they “don’t have strong feelings either way.” That indicates that these issues may not be as pressing or important to many Americans as they are to politicians hoping to fan the culture war flames.”

https://abcnews.go.com/538/congressional-bathroom-ban-latest-transgender-policy-battle/story?id=116205618

Federal ‘Buy American’ Rules Cost Over $100,000 Per Job Created

“In a rare instance of agreement, Republicans and Democrats have converged on the idea that “Buy American” provisions should be expanded in order to increase American jobs. But a new paper finds that existing federal rules impose high costs on consumers.
A September 2024 working paper published by the National Bureau for Economic Research (NBER) found the Buy American Act has created more than 50,000 jobs. Just one catch: Each one of those jobs costs the economy more than $100,000.”

“The economists say “they find scant evidence of the use of Buy American rules as an effective industrial policy.” The BAA does not promote economic growth; it’s a costly “employment measure” that benefits a few by robbing all.”

https://reason.com/2024/10/04/federal-buy-american-rules-cost-over-100000-per-job-created/

Did Sam Altman’s Basic Income Experiment Succeed or Fail?

“three-year pilot of Sam Altman’s that provided $1,000 a month to 1,000 people in Texas and Illinois and compared that group to a control group of 2,000 people who got $50 a month. Every participant was between the ages of 21 and 40.”

“”saturation” pilots where entire communities receive basic income instead of only individuals spread across a large area. When basic income is provided to people here and there, local economies aren’t stimulated by the spending of the money and new jobs aren’t created by employers needing to hire more employees to meet higher demand. It’s one thing to provide money to an entrepreneur. It’s another to do that and also provide their business lots of customers with money to spend.”

“Employment can increase or decrease along two measures: the binary state of working a job or not and the number of hours worked. On average, those who got basic income were two percentage points less likely to be employed and worked about 1.3 fewer hours per week.”

“The employment of both groups greatly increased.”

“A weekly drop of 1.3 hours works out to about 15 minutes a workday. That’s an extra break or a slightly longer lunch. On an annual basis, it’s equivalent to 8 days a year. That’s a week-long paid vacation.”

“there were no significant decreases in employment status and hours worked among childless adults or those over age 30.”

“”Recipients who were single parents at the time of enrollment were about 3.9 percentage points less likely to be employed and worked an average of 2.8 hours less per week than single parent control participants. For recipients who were not single parents at enrollment, we do not find statistically significant effects on employment or hours worked.””

“The reason that parents respond differently should be obvious. They aren’t working less. They are switching from paid work to unpaid work. They’re putting their kids first.”

“”There was no statistically significant effect on employment or hours worked for recipients over 30. In contrast, recipients under 30 were roughly 4 percentage points less likely to be employed and worked an average of 1.8 fewer hours per week compared to control participants. We also observe larger effects on formal education among those in this age group, suggesting younger adults may be more likely to use the money to enroll in post-secondary education and work fewer hours while in school, though this alone would not account for the observed differences in employment.””

https://www.scottsantens.com/did-sam-altman-basic-income-experiment-succeed-or-fail-ubi/

Universal Basic Income Shows Why Giving People ‘Free Money’ Doesn’t Work

“big study gave 1,000 low-income people $1,000 per month for three years—no strings attached. What happened?
Not the great things that were promised. After three years of getting $1,000/month, UBI recipients were actually a little deeper in debt than before.

Why? Because they worked less. Their partners did, too.

Some recipients talked about starting businesses, but few actually tried it. Most who said they did start a business waited until the third year of the study—when their free money was about to end.”

https://reason.com/2024/10/09/universal-basic-income-shows-why-giving-people-free-money-doesnt-work/