Can You Be Objective About Trump?
Try in the comments below
David Friedman writes
Parts of what Trump is doing I very much approve of. I believe it would be a better country, a better educated country, if the federal role in education were entirely eliminated. I suspect that scientific progress would be faster if the government played no role in either funding or regulating it. Some of what the EPA does is probably worth doing but much of it is not. Climate policy is, in my view, an expensive mistake based on badly biased science. I have long believed that both the US and the world would be better off if the US had a less interventionist foreign policy, if our allies took chief responsibility for their own defense.
Other parts of what Trump is doing I very much disapprove of. I expect his tariff policy to make both the US and its trading partners poorer. I expect increased restrictions on legal immigration to make both present inhabitants of the US and would-be immigrants worse off. Limiting the ability of immigrants, legal and illegal, to benefit by welfare state features of the present system would be a good thing but expelling present illegal immigrants would, in my view, make both them and us worse off. As best I can tell, support for that policy is driven by an exaggerated, in part fictional, account of the problems they cause.
If Milton Friedman were alive today, I believe he would say something very similar. As for the rest of David’s post, I’m less moved by it, but it’s still important.
Which of Donald Trump’s actions most concern you? Can you say it respectfully and objectively? Which of his actions do you most favor?
I’m in agreement that Trump round 2 is very mixed. I agree with dismantling the Department of Education but Tariffs against our allies seems stupid. Against China is one thing, but Canada and European nations is another.
One more thing: I think we need to temporarily close the border until we sorted out all the illegal migrants here. What do you think?
I’m a free trade believer generally, but I think tariffs on China could be strategically appropriate. China has a history of government investment in targeted industries in order to deliberately put competitors out of business. If China has a monopoly in multiple industries it gives them leverage over the US financially. Once they have a monopoly, they can then jack up the prices and soak up profits, at least in industries where capacity cannot be built quickly. This also serves as military leverage - the ability to threaten or cause pain to US consumers to prevent or retaliate against US military action. Tariffs could be a strategic defense against this sort of aggressive economic warfare from China.