Good points. Thanks. Here's another one for your list.
Based on my analysis, the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments that gave the FDA more power have reduced the life expectancy of you and every American you know by about 10 years. This is based on comparing our current life expectancy to what it could have been had the FDA not prevented a large fraction of the drugs that would have been discovered, developed, and marketed without the FDA's burdensome regulations.
The evidence suggests that the FDA has reduced our life expectancies, metaphorically, as if we all took up smoking.
Rather than causing crashes, the policies you're referring to instead had more of an impact by preventing growth. And preventing growth is much more invisible.
You should open your mind to the possibility that, unlike modern economists, Dr. Pangloss understood granularity and the repugnant conclusion. For there could be (and are) many policies that wantonly create value in just about every particular case, like free trade and open borders, but that would leave us vulnerable, dependent, and deeply fragile overall.
Wonks are doing the math. Trump is doing Foreign Policy. Whether or not it works is the question.
There was just an agreement for a Carbon Tax on International Shipping if Carbon emissions are over the limit. Probabll cost more than the Tariffs. Interesting that no one is talking about that. Tariffs bad. Carbon taxes good.
Really strong point on the invisible wealth destruction of bad regulations, like on building & nuclear power, tho the effective tariff on foreign labor should probably have an explanatory footnote, including some notes on non-tariff barriers.
What if, in 2 years (before Nov 2026), your evaluation of Trump's tariff policy as it actually happened, changes from net negative to slightly net positive? Metrics such as other US taxes down, total international trade about the same (except China), stock market p/e ratios much lower but 3-12 prior months of slow increase, US national debt with the smallest increase since 9/11/2001, higher employment, higher median wage, higher investment in US mfg, including robots & chips.
I'm pretty sure some of these metrics are going to be better in Oct 2026 than now, so on those metrics Trump will claim his econ policies, including tariffs, was a success.
I'm disappointed so few critics are willing to specify metrics on trade that, depending on their performance in 18 months, would falsify their tariff critique.
I've moved away from "Free Trade--Free Markets" with other countries that are unfree, so am far more sympathetic to Trump trying out policies to make US trade better for American workers.
But in the case of existing wealth-destroying policies, you assume they can be changed while everything else remains constant—which, at least in some cases, is far from obvious. In contrast, pre-Trump tariff rates had demonstrably worked better for both the US and the whole world than current ones, yet this doesn’t seem to bother MAGA fans. That’s why what Trump did is all the more annoying.
Good points. Thanks. Here's another one for your list.
Based on my analysis, the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments that gave the FDA more power have reduced the life expectancy of you and every American you know by about 10 years. This is based on comparing our current life expectancy to what it could have been had the FDA not prevented a large fraction of the drugs that would have been discovered, developed, and marketed without the FDA's burdensome regulations.
The evidence suggests that the FDA has reduced our life expectancies, metaphorically, as if we all took up smoking.
From my book, Should the FDA Reject Itself?
This is a drum worth beating, thank you.
An insight I wish my fellow Australian would take to heart!
Rather than causing crashes, the policies you're referring to instead had more of an impact by preventing growth. And preventing growth is much more invisible.
Fantastic insight! Thank you for continuing to make me think differently.
Now do this with health and seed oils. (Context: https://tyleransom.github.io/research/obesity-seed-oils.pdf)
You should open your mind to the possibility that, unlike modern economists, Dr. Pangloss understood granularity and the repugnant conclusion. For there could be (and are) many policies that wantonly create value in just about every particular case, like free trade and open borders, but that would leave us vulnerable, dependent, and deeply fragile overall.
The killer is not high, low, or no tariffs. The killer is UNCERTAINTY. And Number Two Killer is SPEED OF CHANGE.
THEN come the actual rates/amounts.
We are killed BUT GOOD.
Wonks are doing the math. Trump is doing Foreign Policy. Whether or not it works is the question.
There was just an agreement for a Carbon Tax on International Shipping if Carbon emissions are over the limit. Probabll cost more than the Tariffs. Interesting that no one is talking about that. Tariffs bad. Carbon taxes good.
Really strong point on the invisible wealth destruction of bad regulations, like on building & nuclear power, tho the effective tariff on foreign labor should probably have an explanatory footnote, including some notes on non-tariff barriers.
What if, in 2 years (before Nov 2026), your evaluation of Trump's tariff policy as it actually happened, changes from net negative to slightly net positive? Metrics such as other US taxes down, total international trade about the same (except China), stock market p/e ratios much lower but 3-12 prior months of slow increase, US national debt with the smallest increase since 9/11/2001, higher employment, higher median wage, higher investment in US mfg, including robots & chips.
I'm pretty sure some of these metrics are going to be better in Oct 2026 than now, so on those metrics Trump will claim his econ policies, including tariffs, was a success.
I'm disappointed so few critics are willing to specify metrics on trade that, depending on their performance in 18 months, would falsify their tariff critique.
I've moved away from "Free Trade--Free Markets" with other countries that are unfree, so am far more sympathetic to Trump trying out policies to make US trade better for American workers.
But in the case of existing wealth-destroying policies, you assume they can be changed while everything else remains constant—which, at least in some cases, is far from obvious. In contrast, pre-Trump tariff rates had demonstrably worked better for both the US and the whole world than current ones, yet this doesn’t seem to bother MAGA fans. That’s why what Trump did is all the more annoying.