But apparently I was not alone in that:
I only screamed a little when I checked my investment portfolio last night.
But let's look at a different WSJ story about what's probably going to cause further damage to my financial outlook. Andy Kessler points out that Trump Tariffs Are a Wealth Killer. It's a fine look at the unholy history of tariffs, and describes how the US Congress abdicated its Article I, Section 8 responsibility to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises". Bottom line:
A 2021 study by Oxford Economics and the U.S.-China Business Council showed the first-term Mr. Trump’s tariffs and trade policies destroyed 245,000 jobs. The Tax Foundation estimates Trump-Biden tariffs reduced long-run gross domestic product by 0.2%—roughly $58 billion annually. On the flip side, the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that free trade since 1950 has cumulatively boosted the U.S. economy by $2.6 trillion, or $19,500 a household. Why go backward? Congress should reclaim its tariff power.
Instead, the backroom begging will start for tariff exemptions—machinery, certain pharmaceuticals, school pencils, cobalt for electric-car batteries, Nike Kobe 5 Protro “Year of the Mamba” sneakers—a lobbyist’s paradise. Free trade, not politicians, is best at allocating resources. Protectionism and mercantilism in the form of tariffs and subsidies, like the British Corn Laws, are inefficient, unproductive, corruption-inducing and wealth-destroying. That won’t make America great again.
Is there anyone in TrumpWorld who can get him to read Andy's column? Asking for a friend. And also my eventual heirs.
Also of note:
-
Dementia makes you do demented things, right? John Hinderaker reports one recent example: Biden Commuted Sentence of Child-Murderer.
On his way out of the White House, Joe Biden pardoned or commuted the sentences of around 2,500 “non-violent drug offenders.” But drug users don’t get incarcerated; the drug offenders in federal prisons are dealers. And anyone who thinks drug dealers who are worth a federal prosecution are “non-violent” is deluded.
But it came out a few days ago that one of the “non-violent drug offenders” whose sentence Biden commuted was Adrian Peeler, of Connecticut. Adrian Peeler’s brother was being prosecuted for murder, and two of the witnesses on the prosecution’s list were Karen Clarke and Leroy Brown. This is what Adrian Peeler was convicted of:
According to court documents, Adrian Peeler ambushed Clarke and Brown as they returned to their Bridgeport apartment. Brown was found face-down, shot dead at the top of the stairs. Clarke was found dead in a nearby bedroom, shot while apparently trying to call for help.
The “Brown” who was found face-down, shot by Adrian Peeler, was Leroy Brown, age 8. Karen Clarke was his mother.
Well, that's horrible, but something to be expected when you are rushing to do as much damage as possible on your way out the door. Due diligence is so overrated.
Because I was curious: Googling "Adrian Peeler" shows that this story is mostly being covered by Connecticut local news outlets. (John's link is to a story in the Connecticut Mirror.) On the first page of results, just three are national: the Associated Press, the NY Post, and (of course) Fox News.
But if you get your news from the NYT, the WaPo, the WSJ, USA Today, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR,… Well, apparently you won't have heard about it.
-
Also, you can't rollerskate in a buffalo herd. Jesse Singal asserts You Can’t Pseudoscience (Or Even Science) Your Way Out Of A Genuine Trans Rights Debate. He is looking at attempts to discredit the science behind Trump's Executiive Order (and I quote) Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government. Specifically, Jesse analyzes articles from Arwa Mahdawi in the Guardian (After his executive order on sex, is Trump legally the first female president?) and Megan Molteni at STAT News (Trump executive order on only two sexes refuted by scientists). These are, you may be shocked to learn, heavy on the pseudoscience. RTWT for that, but there's apparently just plain old biased reporting too:
I’m finishing up a freelance piece on that EO that gets at the interesting and dysfunctional game of executive-order ping-pong that has played out since the Obama administration. But the fact of the matter is that it offers a perfectly fine, workable definition of sex. Both these authors should have known that — in Mahdawi’s case, especially, because she reached out to Carole Hooven for comment and Hooven explained to her that, as she put it in an email she later posted to Twitter, “There are two reproductive categories, and Trump is correct that they are based on the kinds of gametes individuals are designed to produce.” Hooven’s comments didn’t make it into Mahdawi’s piece. This isn’t inherently damning, because reporters reach out to people all the time and then don’t use what they get back, but in this case Mahdawi should have leaned on Hooven, because what she ended up writing was very confused and silly.
What’s going on here, as usual, is that left-of-center thinkers are trying to squeeze a scientific argument into the clothes of a moral one. They have foolishly accepted the framing that we should only treat trans people with dignity and grant them certain rights if they are really the sex they say they are.
To be fair, Jesse isn't comfortable with aspects of Trump's EO. Do you really care that Deirdre McCloskey's passport says "Female"? I, for one, do not.
-
Price of French Vanilla ice cream to rise in 3…2‥1… Peter C. Earle writes on Eggs: Incredible, Edible, and Increasingly Inaccessible. And he has a lot of Fun Facts:
Chickens are a remarkably adaptable species, thriving in diverse climates and easily fitting into both small-scale and industrial farming systems. Their ability to consume a wide range of feed, reproduce quickly, and lay eggs consistently has made them an efficient, readily renewable source of protein for mankind. Thus chickens have become a key pillar of agriculture across most continents and levels of economic development. Over the last century, chicken eggs have become not just a global dietary staple but also a critical ingredient in processed foods, baked goods, and sauces. Their versatility in cooking and nutrient density have cemented their role as a cornerstone of global food systems.
In the United States, eggs are a cultural and economic mainstay. The average American consumed 281.3 eggs in 2023, highlighting their ubiquity in our diets. The US is one of the top egg producers globally, generating approximately 110 billion eggs annually. Economically, the industry contributes over $10 billion to the national economy each year and provides direct employment to more than 500,000 workers. Beyond their economic impact, eggs are valued for their affordability and nutrition, offering 6 grams of high-quality protein alongside essential nutrients like vitamin D, B12, and choline. This combination of dietary value, economic significance, and accessibility underscores the central role of eggs in the American food landscape.
But egg prices have gone up, a lot. (See the graphs in Earle's article.) "There are a number of factors involved" but:
The lumber delirium of 2020, the global supply chain collapse of 2021, and scores of other consequences in addition to today’s soaring egg prices, are sending a clear message: where the execution of monetary policy is activist in nature, society must brace for disruptions to goods and services once taken for granted, with both greater frequency and intensity. It is a choice to which, whether by disinterest or inaction, Americans have committed.
-
Another candidate for the chopping block. Veronique de Rugy says it's the perfect time to Abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Picture this: a government agency that operates with little accountability, spends taxpayers' money without congressional oversight, and enforces regulations based on flimsy theories about consumer behavior. That's the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), an institution so misguided in both mission and execution that it does not deserve mere reform—it should be abolished outright.
Heralded as the savior of consumers after the 2008 financial crisis, the CFPB has instead become a regulatory monster that stifles innovation and drives up costs for the very people it claims to protect.
When the CFPB was created, Congress transferred authority to it for approximately 50 existing rules and orders coming from 20 different statutes. For fiscal year 2024, it has an estimated budget of $762.9 million, a 9.5 percent increase from the previous year. The agency's funding structure allows it to operate independently of the congressional appropriations process: The bureau's budget is funded through transfers from the Federal Reserve System.
I think Congress could abolish it. Unfortunately unlikely to happen unless and until the Senate gets 60 solid liberty-loving members.