“Donald Trump’s proposal to impose tariffs as high as 60 percent on imports from China, and a global tariff of 10 to 20 percent,” Oren Cass argues at The Atlantic, “takes the right approach to addressing globalization’s failures — but it has drawn resounding mockery from economists, and, in turn, from the mainstream media.”

While Cass, usually described as an “economic nationalist” or “national conservative,” cheerfully concedes that tariffs harm consumers in terms of their spending power, he claims that the economists who point out those costs fail to see commensurate benefits.

“The basic premise,” he writes, “is that domestic production has value beyond what markets reflect.”

The consumer who prefers paying $1 for a widget made in China to paying $2 for a widget made in the US, he correctly argues, “will probably not consider the broader importance of making things in America.”

Question: Why SHOULD that consumer consider that “broader importance?”

Well, says Cass, not doing so creates negative externalities — indirect costs to uninvolved third parties.

Which is where his argument falls apart, because the supposed externalities he describes either don’t exist or are net positive externalities to any version of “America” where broad freedom and prosperity are considered more valuable than the warm feeling one gets from indulging the authoritarian fantasies of Oren Cass.

Cass’s claimed externalities fall into three main, interrelated categories: “National security,” innovation, and supply chain resilience.

The solution to all three of these supposed “problems,” if they actually exist, is … freer trade.

Protectionism increases the likelihood of war, while freer trade decreases that likelihood. As Otto Mallery put it, “if soldiers are not to cross international boundaries on missions of war, goods must cross them on missions of peace.”

Innovation is no respecter of national borders. If someone has a good idea, that idea will make its way around the world and enjoy adoption everywhere. Yes, even in countries where people and governments fall for Cass’s siren song of economic insanity — just more slowly and less profitably, because Cass-style “protection” is itself a massive negative externality.

Tariffs fray supply chains, while free trade — and freer trade’s “peace dividend,” a reduced need for military spending in the name of “national security” — incentivizes building the most robust and efficient supply chains possible.

Cass’s real argument for protectionism is that freer trade thwarts his fantasy of a “national greatness”  powered by his terrible economics and our obedience. That argument is indeed correct.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

If there’s a single global through line to  the politics of the last decade, that through line is the continuing fight over something called, by both its supporters and opponents, “populism.”

Donald Trump (the US). Narendra Modi (India). Viktor Orban (Hungary). Giorgia Meloni (Italy). Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil). Boris Johnson (the United Kingdom). A cast of thousands, a few still enjoying their 15 minutes and then some, many others at least temporarily out of the limelight.

The negative reactions, usually postured as defenses of “liberalism and democracy” against “illiberalism and authoritarianism,” are just as plentiful and, in places, at least marginally as successful … but not quite so big on cults of personality.

Rather odd, don’t you think? The “populists” pose as “the voice of the people” but center their efforts on backing individual leader figures, while their supposedly “elitist” opponents emphasize “the people” over particular representatives of same.

In reality, both sides are fake versions of “populism.”

The core underlying claim of populism is this: There are two classes of people, the “exploitative elites” and the “righteous masses.”

That claim is true as far as it goes. The falsehood — or, being generous, error — is in identification of those two classes.

Today’s self-described populists identify the exploitative elites as those who either belong to, or pretend to support, particular easily scapegoated “out-groups” like racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual minorities. They identify the righteous masses as whoever falls for the scapegoating and flocks to Dear Leader’s banner.

Today’s self-described anti-populists identify the exploitative elites as the populists, whom they also identify with easily scapegoated “out-groups,” especially anyone who has more money than you. They identify the righteous masses as whoever falls for the scapegoating and flocks to the Leader Party’s banner.

In reality the two classes — as identified in Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer’s “libertarian class theory” in the 19th century — are the productive class (everyone who earns a living by producing and exchanging valuable goods and services — the righteous masses) and the political class (the exploitative elite who use government to exercise power and parasitically rake off a portion of the wealth the righteous masses produce).

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, as members of the US political class, have a lot more in common with each other than either has in common with the average American.

Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi, as members of India’s political class, have a lot more in common with each other than either has in common with the average Indian.

And so on, and so forth.

So why the fake “populist” versus fake populist “anti-populist” posturing?

Because it WORKS.  Any given political class faction may be on top or in waiting to get back on top at any given time, but those factions cooperate to ensure that the productive class remains in thrall to their various schemes and scams.

Politics is about power.

Realpolitik is about acting to maintain power, moral and ethical considerations be damned.

Real populism — libertarianism — rejects political power, not just one political class faction.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On September 13, the Biden administration announced a “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” to “protect American consumers, workers, and businesses by addressing the significant increased abuse of the de minimis exemption.”

That’s a pretty bland way of saying that Biden and Friends are opening up a new front in the US government’s war on your ability to find and purchase the things you want at a price you find attractive.

The current targets of opportunity in that war: Chinese e-commerce outfits like Temu and Shein, which use the “de minimis exemption” to ship goods directly to American consumers at low prices.

Under the de minimis exemption, items worth less than $800 aren’t subject to the tariffs Donald Trump and Joe Biden have increasingly leaned on over the last few years as a way of rewarding  American business donors and organized labor supporters at your expense.

How things used to work: A US importer would order, say, $10,000 worth of, say, motorcycle helmets. They’d arrive in a big shipping container and if the tariff was 10%, the importer’s cost (passed on to retail customers, of course) now became $11,000 — and the customers’ cost came to that higher price plus the wholesalers’ and retailers’ markups.

How it works now: You find a motorcycle helmet you like online, priced with no tariff and fewer “middleman” markups. You click. You pay. It arrives. It’s not as quick as going to a local shop or ordering from Amazon, but it’s usually MUCH cheaper.

American customers love paying less for what they want or need.

American producers, wholesalers, and labor unions hate that you’re able to pay less for something you want or need … because they’re not getting their cut.

Domestic retailers, meanwhile, are increasingly eyeing the whole thing as a new supply chain streamlining opportunity. With so much commerce taking place online now, why not just drop-ship individual items directly from China to consumers instead of paying tariffs on bulk purchases that then require additional shipping and take up expensive shelf space until they’re bought  with the assistance of paid store staff?

Biden’s hoping Big Business and Big Labor will notice he’s ripping you off for their benefit and support Democrats in November. He’s also hoping voters won’t notice their lighter wallets.

Don’t buy Biden’s malarkey about “national security,” fentanyl, and “protecting” you from “abuse.” This is about paying political allies off with your hard-earned money, and that’s all it’s about.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY