The presidency of Donald Trump continues to be an unpredictable one, with the latest twist being his announced plans to meet with North Korean despot Kim Jong-Un. Naturally the reaction from the beltway and the media was to condemn this diplomatic outreach.  Rachel Maddow perhaps did the best job as establishment media mouth piece, pointing out that Trump’s decision goes against a policy that has long enjoyed bipartisan support - a label which in DC is used to demonstrate clear intellectual superiority: 

Independence movements in Latin America and the United States have generated interesting discussions in historical circles over the past two centuries. Both wars of independence featured colonists in the New World revolting against their European overlords, eventually leading to the creation of new nation-states. Yet since then, the results in these two region’s levels of economic prosperity and political stability have diverged considerably.

What could explain such differences in overall economic and political outcomes?

Last Thursday, US President Donald Trump, signed an executive order to impose tariffs on aluminum and steel imports — of 10 percent and 25 percent respectively — exempting Canada and Mexico. In large part, the that protectionist measure is in response against the phenomena of “dumping,” in which it is believed that some regimes — specifically the Chinese — are subsidizing steel exports.

News that the Chinese government was preparing to remove constitutional term limits on President Xi Jinping shocked most Chinese. Many worry that an unlimited term of office will lead to unlimited power and increased restrictions on individual liberty.

In a recent article, David Brooks (New York Times “conservative” columnist who — surprise — writes as a “progressive”) suggests that “the culture war” is over or close to over: progressives have already won. Their opponents, “the … less educated ... tribalists” have “self-marginalized over the past two years.”

What Is Social Justice?

“Progressives” tend to think of themselves as warriors for racial, gender, and economic equality. The latter they equate with “social justice.”

But is economic equality synonymous with social justice? For one thing, equality is an oxymoron. If everyone is equal, who will have the power to enforce equality? And if some have the power to enforce it, how can they still be regarded as equal to everyone else?

Thanks to Luis Areizaga for his recent comments on the Mises Institute: 

Prior to 1933, the name “dollar” was used to refer to a unit of gold that had a weight of 23.22 grains. Since there are 480 grains in one ounce, this means that the name dollar also stood for 0.048 ounce of gold. This in turn, means that one ounce of gold referred to $20.67.

Observe that $20.67 is not the price of one ounce of gold in terms of dollars as popular thinking has it, for there is no such entity as a dollar. Dollar is just a name for 0.048 ounce of gold. On this Rothbard wrote,