If you put 50 randomly selected American academic economists in a room and ask them what they thought of raising tariffs as a way of increasing economic growth, I bet at least 48 of them would say that is a bad idea. That is amazing because I cannot think of ANY other major economic policy issue on which economists have such near-unanimous views. For example, if you ask those 50 randomly selected economists should the Fed lower, raise, or leave constant interest rates now to stimulate the economy, I expect you would get all sorts of different answers. As an economic historian, I am acutely aware that the 250-year-long move towards greater material abundance beginning in earnest with the British Industrial Revolution was also generally accompanied by an abandonment of the high tariff-mercantile regime that previously dominated. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776) is still appropriately considered the first great work in modern economics. Smith understands that people and geographic areas have different abilities in producing goods and services, and individuals should generally do what they do best, selling most of their output and, in return, buying things from others that they cannot themselves make easily or cheaply. Smith thus realized that a division of labor induced by trade could lead to higher output and that barriers to trade, like tariffs, had a stultifying economic impact. By 1860, England was the world’s richest nation and was essentially tariff-free. My most important scholarly work relates to a large extent to the domestic causes of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Like many economists, I believe that one key factor (although not the only one) was the high tariff policy of the United States, exemplified by the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff whose passage in the House in the spring of 1929 presaged by a few months the stock market crash beginning the Great Depression. By contrast, the lowering of tariffs rather continuously from 1934 onward contributed to nine decades of worldwide economic growth, exemplified by such things as the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the U.S. and neighboring Canada and Mexico, and the earlier creation of a massive tariff-free zone in Europe now known as the European Union. (RELATED: The New NAFTA Is Exporting the Same Old Bad Habits) The flexing of American muscle, integral to the American First political philosophy of Donald Trump, can be accomplished in numerous ways, including raising or threatening to raise tariffs. Important in promoting that idea discredited by nearly all mainstream economists with Trump has been Peter Navarro, part of the one or two percent of economists who believe enacting tariffs actually can help a nation. (RELATED: Ideas Collide as Trump Lays Out a Pro-Growth, Anti-Trade Vision) It is true that high tariffs can help provide jobs and higher living standards to some Americans. High tariffs on autos and steel, for example, conceivably could increase the sales of American cars as foreign imports decline, and enhance demand for American steel, helping steel and auto workers. But those gains would likely be more than wiped out by several undesirable side effects. First, as is already happening, the imposition of new American tariffs would lead other nations to retaliate by raising tariffs on American goods, lowering sales of American exports, and costing jobs and income to Americans. Second, tariffs are taxes that will lead to generally higher prices on consumer goods that virtually all of us buy — tariffs can increase inflation. (RELATED: Tariffs: The Hammer America Keeps Using) Trump considers himself the consummate deal maker, and probably some of Trump’s threatened tariff initiatives are in reality opening gambits in negotiations to get other things he wants, such as an enhanced Mexican crackdown on individuals attempting to illegally cross the border into the U.S. (RELATED: Geoeconomics in the Service of Geopolitics) Another aspect of international economic transactions is an area where something akin to a tariff or tax could be implemented with likely global benefits. Specifically, the U.S. could sell visas to individuals allowing them to become human imports (immigrants) into the U.S., with the visas selling for a market rate. I would not be surprised if we could sell two million permanent immigrant visas annually for an average of $75,000 each, or $150 billion. (RELATED: Tariffs: Preserving America’s Superpower Status) Such funds would both help Trump achieve other objectives constrained by massive budget deficits, and alleviate growing problems associated with declining birth rates and population stagnation. So revisiting the legal framework of our international economic relationships is not in itself a bad idea. Protectionists like Navarro often speak deploringly of an American trade deficit arising when one imports more than it exports. Yet trade deficits made America the world’s leading economic power. It generally has run trade deficits for most of its history, rather consistently from 1620 to about 1870, and then again from about 1970 to the present. For every year since 1620 that we have run trade surpluses, there are probably three or more where we ran deficits. Yet over the 400 years of American history, we have had persistent economic growth. Massive foreign investments in the U.S., for example, often provided us with currency needed to buy goods made outside our country — and financed the expansion of American productive capacity. Our success as a nation partly is a consequence of success in succeeding at what Adam Smith called the “propensity to truck, barter and exchange one thing for another.” Tariffs are taxes, and taxes are necessary for the efficient financing of government. If imposing tariffs provided the revenues and rationale to keep income taxes from rising after this year (as will occur under current law), it might be that the proposed Trump tariffs would be the lesser of two evils. The 2017 tax reductions have contributed importantly to generally prosperous times, and maintaining them is in the national interest, so if some tariff increases were part of a broader package to save the 2017 tax rates, it might be a price worth paying, although a much better idea in my judgment would be using other revenue enhancers, such as selling visas to productive foreigners, or government land and associated mineral or broadcast spectrum assets to private entrepreneurs, or, even, sell the Post Office as some European nations have done. READ MORE from Richard Vedder: A Tale of Two Universities in Flyover Country and the Potential Downfall of Coastal Elite Schools Progressives’ Aversion to Private Industry Does Not Extend to Private Universities Time to Put Our Fiscal House in Order Richard Vedder is Distinguished Professor of Economics Emeritus at Ohio University, Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute, and author of Let Colleges Fail: The Power of Creative Destruction in Higher Education, out April 15. The post Adam Smith Is a Better Economist Than Donald Trump appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

“I would have been hailed with approval if I had died at 50,” W.E.B. Du Bois reflected upon his 90th birthday. “At 75 my death was practically requested.” Mitch McConnell, who rather redundantly announced on Thursday that he would not seek reelection to the U.S. Senate, probably feels something like that right now. He entered the U.S. Senate 40 years ago. Time has clearly passed him by. In his defense, how many senators first elected during Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency played instrumental roles in the Reagan Revolution that McConnell served? This ultimate insider found himself on the outs with conservatives even prior to the start of the second Trump administration. Though McConnell acted as a rubber stamp to all but five of Joe Biden’s cabinet nominees, he voted with Democrats in recent weeks against Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense, Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for secretary of health and human services. It wasn’t always this way. Up until the beginning of last month — and this may seem impossible to believe but politics now moves faster than the speed of light — McConnell led Republicans in the U.S. Senate. And he held that role longer than anyone else in history. Although he leaves with a whimper, Cocaine Mitch, despite his funeral-director demeanor, occasionally ruled with a bang. Do you recall when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked the “nuclear option” in 2013? McConnell certainly did. He extended the precedent, which Reid set to avoid filibusters for lower court judges, to nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. Democrats cried foul, but McConnell merely highlighted how they had befouled themselves. McConnell took righteous stands against the mania for campaign finance reform that limited political expression, a constitutional position later vindicated by the U.S. Supreme Court. He enforced strict party discipline over Republicans in the U.S. Senate during the Obama presidency. And the tail end of Obama’s presidency witnessed the greatest gambit pulled off by a U.S. senator in history. McConnell called blocking Merrick Garland’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court “the most consequential decision I’ve made in my entire public career.” Considering that Hillary Clinton led in the polls, and a more moderate reputation than deserved followed Garland then, the possible outcomes looked almost entirely bad. But Donald Trump won the presidency, and because of Mitch McConnell — face it, Howard Baker or Everett Dirksen would not have dared such a gamble — the U.S. Supreme Court features Neil Gorsuch and not Merrick Garland. One can add to this, McConnell’s strength in keeping the coalition behind Brett Kavanaugh despite the slanderous accusations practically recycled from the Clarence Thomas hearings and in forcing through Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination during the last months of Donald Trump’s first term. “Seven times, my fellow Kentuckians have sent me to the Senate,” McConnell explained on Thursday, his 83rd birthday. “Every day in between, I’ve been humbled by the trust they placed in me to do their business right here. Representing our commonwealth has been the honor of a lifetime. I will not seek this honor an eighth time. My current term in the Senate will be my last.” Undoubtedly, many MAGA enthusiasts celebrate that last line. But Donald Trump, those MAGA enthusiasts should reflect, enjoyed his biggest first-term success because of Mitch McConnell and now operates with a freer hand during his second term because of Mitch McConnell. The man, who witnessed conservatives snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on the courts for decades, understood the great importance of the judicial branch. Newcomers to conservatism who did not endure David Souter, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, and the rest, may not fully appreciate this. READ MORE from Daniel J. Flynn: Mater Si, Magistra No Redux Buffy Sainte-Marie, Imposter Indian, Stripped of Order of Canada Honor How Party Animals Became Party Cannibals The post Cocaine Mitch, We Definitely Knew Ye appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

A FEMA Tragedy You May Never Hear About

Young conservative women are three times as likely to report having a happy life than liberal women—and the key factors driving the happiness gap are faith and family, a new study has found. Attending church together is twice as important to marital happiness than regular date nights, the same researchers conclude. In all, 37% of conservative women say they are “completely satisfied” with their life, compared to 12% of liberal women and 28% of moderates, according to data that researchers Brad Wilcox and Grant Bailey of the Institute for Family Studies drew from the 2024 American Family Survey. What accounts for these vast differences in life satisfaction? The science pinpoints two factors: marriage and church attendance. “Conservative women ages 18-40 are married at rates that are 20 percentage points higher than liberal women in the same age group. And whereas over half of conservative women in this age group attend church weekly, only 12% of their liberal peers do,” writes Wilcox, a professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia, and Bailey. “Together, these two factors account for about half the ideological gap among young women in a multivariate analysis of life satisfaction that included controls for factors like race, education, and income.” Among young women between the ages of 18 and 40, only conservatives boast of an outright majority who are married (51%) and attend church weekly (55%). Liberals are most likely to be single (40%) or cohabiting (17%) and to attend church seldom or never (65%). Conversely, 29% of liberal women report feeling lonely a few times a week or more, compared to only 11% of conservative women and 19% of moderates. The survey finds “a large part of this loneliness gap comes from different rates of marriage and church attendance,” reports the study. “Adding controls for marriage and church attendance, ideology becomes less important, with marriage being the strongest predictor of feeling less lonely.” Young white liberals are the most likely demographic to have been diagnosed with a mental illness, according to a study that found 46% of white liberals between the ages of 18 and 29 had been diagnosed with a mental disorder, compared to 21% of conservatives the same age. Some analysts have tied higher rates of liberal depression to progressives’ tendency to engage in catastrophic thinking, a cognitive distortion that predicts the chance of worst-case scenarios as improbably high. But Wilcox and Bailey say the Right-Left “ideological divide does not appear to be just a consequence of negative thinking; it also seems to flow from the fact that liberal young women are less likely to be integrated into core American institutions—specifically marriage and religion—that lend meaning, direction, and a sense of solidarity to women’s lives.” Since loneliness derives from the Left’s estrangement from purpose-giving institutions, “any efforts to bridge this ideological gap in young women’s emotional well-being will seemingly require not only a change in thinking but also a renewal of young liberal women’s connection to America’s core institutions—family and faith,” they conclude. But the two institutions of marriage and religion work best together, they find. The 4 Factors That Make for a Good Marriage Include … Church Attendance If you want to have a happy marriage, don’t make the wedding the only time you go to church, according to separate Institute for Family Studies research on the four factors that contribute to a happy marriage. Regular church attendance does twice as much to make a happy home than going on regular date nights, finds the study released earlier this month titled “For Better: Four Proven Ways to a Strong and Stable Marriage,” which analyzed data from the 2022 State of Our Unions Survey. The happiest marriages grow between two spouses who are committed, protective, religious, and romantic. People who regard their marriage as one of the most important parts of their life are more likely to have a “very happy” marriage, both among women (399%) and men (234%). Couples who go to church together are twice as likely to be “very happy” than couples who have regular date nights. Wives are 112% more likely to say they are “very happy” if they go to church with their spouse, and husbands are 212% more likely. By comparison, 56% of wives and 114% of husbands feel happy thanks to date nights. That results in a partisan gap between red states and blue states. “Republicans continue to enjoy significantly happier marriages and somewhat more stable families with children than Democrats,” stated Institute for Family Studies researchers Wilcox, Wendy Wang, and Sam Herrin, summarizing their research brief released last October. “One bottom line is that a majority of young Republicans are married, whereas only a minority of young Democrats are married.” Republicans were also more likely to say they were “very happy” with their marriages than Democrats (65% to 54%). The gap is more pronounced among those without a college education. Their conclusions dovetail with a host of other surveys tying lifetime satisfaction, personal thriving, and deep-seated happiness to marriage, children, and faith. Young married adults were more likely to be “thriving” than unmarried adults, according to a Gallup poll released last March. “From 2009 to 2023, married adults aged 25 to 50 were more likely to be thriving—by double-digit margins—than adults who have never married. The 16-percentage-point gap between married adults (61%) and those who have never married (45%) in 2023 is within the range of 10 to 24 points recorded since 2009,” found Gallup. Marriage’s emotional bonus held true “for men and women across all major racial/ethnic groups” and “is not explained by other demographic characteristics—such as age, race/ethnicity or education.” Gallup researchers added that “ideologically conservative parents report higher quality and more harmonious relationships with their children compared with liberal or moderate parents.” Additional studies have found: Americans who believe in God and value their marriage are more likely to be “very happy” than their secular and single counterparts, according to a March 2023 Wall Street Journal-NORC poll. Americans who regularly attended religious services were 44% more likely to consider themselves “very happy” than those who attended infrequently or never, found the Pew Research Center in 2019. “Regular churchgoers are between about 30% and 50% less likely to get divorced, compared to Americans who are unchurched,” wrote Wilcox and Wendy Wang last February. Christians who consistently read the Bible scored higher on the Human Flourishing Index than non-practicing Christians or Nones [those who have no religious affiliation and don’t attend church], especially on finding a “meaning and purpose” to their lives, an American Bible Society study reported in June 2023. The researchers who compiled the “Handbook of Religion and Health” reviewed “326 articles on the relationship between health and measures of ‘religiosity and subjective well-being, happiness, or life satisfaction,’ finding that 79% of those studies reported that religious people were happier, while only 1% reported that they were less happy (the rest found no or mixed findings),” reported Stephen Cranney of Baylor University and The Catholic University of America. Numerous studies also bear out biblical commandments on sex and marriage, showing that couples who wait until marriage to have sex never have sex with anyone other than their spouse, and those who attend church together report the highest level of sexual satisfaction. This article originally appeared in The Washington Stand. The post Conservative Women 3X Happier than Liberals Thanks to Church Attendance, Marriage, Study Shows appeared first on The Daily Signal.