Pun Salad

Nevertheless, Andrew Heaton provided some solid laughs too:

In the meantime, as Liberty Unyielding describes: Congress votes to increase budget deficits by $2 trillion over the next decade.

We've always muddled through this sort of fiscal mess before, but this could be different, in a very bad way.

Also of note:

• A contrarian take. And it's from Tyler Cowen at his new Free Press gig: The Conventional Wisdom Is That China Is Beating Us. Nonsense.

  Even before Trump’s “Liberation Day” and the market volatility it ushered in, a deep pessimism had already set in among the pointy-headed class of which I am a reluctant member.

  At nearly every conference, in nearly every WhatsApp group, and in most mainstream media commentary, the conventional wisdom has been clear: China is ascendant. A combination of their discipline and their manufacturing expertise—coupled with our decadence and profound vulnerability with high-quality semiconductor chips made in Taiwan—has made the Chinese century inevitable. The only question is how we are going to manage our own decline.

  I am not convinced.

  These people are right that the world is on the verge of some major geopolitical changes that will fundamentally reshape the world, particularly the relationship between America and China. But they are changes that are far more radical than whatever the tariff rate will wind up being—and changes that I believe will largely favor the United States and disfavor China.

  Tyler's interesting take: AI is going to revolutionize everything, and AI "will not just be Western but likely even American in their intellectual and ideological orientations for some while to come."

• How to be as nice as possible to Trump, while pointing out that his policies are awful. At City Journal, Allison Schrager manages to impressively thread that needle: Trump Is Right About Unfair Trade, but Tariffs Aren’t the Right Fix.

  With most of President Donald Trump’s policies—even the seemingly more outlandish ones—there’s often an important underlying truth. On tariffs, a long-standing priority of his, he raises valid concerns. American exporters frequently face disadvantages: other countries impose tariff and non-tariff barriers, while the U.S. has traditionally kept its markets more open.

  Where Trump goes wrong is in overlooking a counterintuitive reality about international trade: retaliation usually harms the retaliator most. Tariff costs are typically borne by domestic consumers and businesses. This is partly why the U.S. economy, despite foreign trade barriers, often grows faster and proves more productive than other advanced economies.

  Sure: American producers would prefer to easily sell stuff overseas. It would be nice if other countries lowered tariffs and dropped their non-tariff trade barriers to allow that to happen. But (as Allison says) those tariffs and barriers primarily hurt those countries' consumers and businesses.

  As I'm sure has been said by wiser people than I: just because other countries shooot themselves in the foot doesn't mean we should shoot ourselves too.

• Muh meds! What about muh meds! Jeffrey A. Singer makes a point you would think to be obvious: Making Medicine Cost More Won’t Make America Healthy Again.

  Last week, President Donald Trump told a National Republican Congressional Committee audience that he intends to impose tariffs on pharmaceutical products entering the United States soon. Finished pharmaceutical products and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) are not subject to the tariffs imposed last week. He hopes to “re-shore” pharmaceutical manufacturing. American patients, already facing declining health care access and rising health care costs, should brace for even greater challenges.

  Not that it matters, but I'm on five medications currently saving my life. And they are dead cheap. Can't wait until Trump fixes that.

• The feelgood label does not inspire confidence. But Paul McDonnold has something else in mind: The Problem With Wellbeing Economics.

  This May in Reykjavik, Iceland, the elegantly modern Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Center will host a meeting of academics, policy makers, business leaders, and politicians known as The Wellbeing Economy Forum . Aligned with sustainable development goals promulgated by the United Nations, the stated purposes include “reshaping our economic systems to operate within environmental limits and prioritize the wellbeing of all generations.” The evening program looks promising, with a singalong and dancing the first night. Daytime sessions will feature more serious fare, such as “Current economic paradigms and the need to rethink them for shared prosperity.”

  There is practically a global circuit of gatherings such as these, and their combination of paternalistic rhetoric with vast attendee power often sets conspiracy theorists’ keyboards to clacking. But what is the subject of the Reykjavik meeting—wellbeing economics—really about?

  I hear Reykjavik is nice in May, but it sounds like I'd need a lot of Brennevin (aka "Black Death") to deal with all the singalongs and dancing.

  But (seriously) the who-could-be-against-that "wellbeing" label is the latest cover for central planning. And:

  Unfortunately, sometimes one person’s wellbeing is another person’s nightmare. The problem with constructing a God equation to judge our economic theories by is that the kind of people one finds at the Reykjavik meeting, or any meeting anywhere, are simply not up to the task. This is the same egotism that once led monarchs to base their accumulation of power on the belief that it was for the benefit of the ruled, who were too simple-minded to be trusted with directing their own lives.

  People keep trying to claim they've found a solution to Hayek's knowledge problem. It's a safe bet they haven't.

• If you tell me I'm too tense one more time, I'm gonna scream! John C. Goodman looks Inside the Liberal Mind: The Tensions of Modern Political Thought. He distinguishes between ideology (a set of ideas that "fit together in a logical and predictable way") and a sociology ("a set of ideas that mainly reflects likes and dislikes of people with similar world views"). His illustrative example of "conservative" and "liberal" sociologies:

  Have you ever heard someone express outrage over the fact that “the US spends more on health care than any other country, but our health outcomes are very mediocre.” What about outrage over the fact that “the US spends more on public education per pupil than any other country in the world, but we rank dead last among developed countries in outcomes”?

  It’s not obvious that the first problem is any better or worse than the second. But the former concern is likely to be expressed by a liberal, and the latter by a conservative. Rarely do you find someone equally concerned about both problems. People who are equally concerned about both problems are being logically consistent, but they are probably neither conservative nor liberal.

  I get it, but it's a distinction that's going to be lost on people unless you start carrying around copies of John's essay to show them.