If Punjabi farmers had been portrayed as affluent, the media would view them as greedy entrepreneurs. But leveraging the political capital of perceived powerlessness has allowed them to obscure their true status as rent seekers.
Every depression generates a clamor among many groups for special privileges at the expense of the rest of society—and the American depression that struck in 1784–85 was no exception.
Protectionists are always wrong, but they're obviously wrong when it comes to "protecting" US goods from Anglosphere competition. Neither geopolitcal concerns nor fears of capital flight to "cheap labor" apply in this case.
With the Caribbean trade bloc Caricom, we find an international "free" trade agreement being used by a Dominica-based company to demand more limits on trade between Jamaica and a country outside the bloc. This isn't about free trade.
A trade deficit isn't actual evidence that anything is wrong. But if it were, one of the best things to do would be to reduce government spending. Unfortunately, politicians disagree.
What's a telltale sign of economic illiteracy? I'm starting to believe the worst is the claim that markets lead to monopoly and the accumulation of wealth in a few hands.
The alleged rise of China to impending global tech dominance is greatly overstated. And US efforts to combat China will only make American companies less competitive.
It is true that socialism and interventionism have not yet succeeded in completely eliminating capitalism. If they had, we would rediscover the meaning of hunger on a massive scale.
Protectionism is often most damaging when it prevents entrepreneurs from accessing products and services that would have increased domestic capital and worker productivity. The result is poorer workers and less productive domestic industry.
