I'm confused about your first point. Income tax brackets are adjusted annually for inflation, at least in the USA. Receiving a 20% raise in a year with 17% inflation comes with each tax bracket cutoff also going up about 17%, so the post-inflation and post-tax income should match receiving a 3% raise in a year with zero inflation.
We already know that most of the increase, even in diagnosis of level 3 autism, is due to diagnostic shifting/switching (as explained pretty well here: https://youtu.be/BdpSfrD3Nzs). We also know there are reasonably well supported risk factors that are increasing in prevalence; e.g. father aged >50 at the time of birth.
This is one view. Another view is that maintaining economic interdependence between countries — aside from making both countries richer via specialization and comparative advantage — is a great way to incentivize cooperation and prevent them from killing each other.
Needs to be two-way though. What if we rely on China, but they don't rely on us? Well then they can destroy us at any moment. It needs to be MAD to be a deterrent.
OK, so someone wrote a book and was wrong at the time. Times change. It's like saying in 2003 that nobody should launch a social network because the first one, Six Degrees, failed to take off. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SixDegrees.com)
It doesn’t really matter what Ricardo said in 1817: every US academic economist surveyed in 2018 by the Kent Clark Center disagreed that US aluminum and steel tariffs would increase the welfare of the American people ([0]), and this is with the benefit of >200 years in advances in economic scholarship and analysis since Ricardo.
Good industrial policy is made from positive economic actions. State investment, interest free loans for factory expansion, strong antitrust law, subsidies and tax reforms that promote industry growth instead of shielding it from competition.
Tariffs can be a good way to pay for this but they are always negative for consumers, and most of the time also net negative for domestic industry. Hard quotas and trade bans put up a wall that completely removes buyer choice and turns everything into a corrupt seller's market.
The American tradition is using negative tools because of their anti competitive effects. Car makers really don't want people buying cheaper cars from overseas so they lobbied for the chicken tax. In a country where funding from corporate super PACs is the most reliable way to win elections no president will change policy if it means losing a big sponsor.
The fact that he has two and a half years left in office, along with Congress not willing to do anything, means industrial policy cannot be done. We can certainly try again when something changes, whether that’s the required turnover in Congressional representation (maybe midterms, maybe two more years from now) or federal administration regime change (January 2029). “We are at an impasse.” Until then, the country keeps burning down, as voted for by the electorate.
I do not see another path, but perhaps I am mistaken. I am always open to being corrected when wrong.
If only all those academic economists were as loud about how to keep tech and industrial capacity from withering and moving to China, as they are with their criticism of attempts to prevent that. They don't even complain when China engages in protectionism, dumping, and general "market distorting" subsidies. Listening to them, you'd never learn that none of the advanced economies got that way by following their laissez-faire trade prescriptions [1].
And of course they limit their analysis to "welfare of the people", first-order, ignoring how loss of industry will (and is already) come back to bite us. As if our only interests were those of passive consumers.
[1] " ... none of the world's most successful trading regions, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and now mainland China, reached their current status by adopting neoliberal trading rules." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Criticis...
Many academic economists are loud about those. It is the politicians who pick and chose the ones they prefer and want to promote. Just see how Laffer and his "Laffer curve" have been embraced by the right to cut taxes despite having no evidence at all about the shape of the curve. An idea literally born during a cosy dinner between Laffer, Rumsfeld, Cheney and a WSJ journalist.
Economist here. Yes! Politicians choose to promote certain economists. I’m tired of answering questions about Modern Monetary Theory, which Bernie Sanders chose to promote. The creator is from an economics department ranked 259th. It’s a duuuumb theory.
Tariffs (and retaliatory tariffs) can be universally economically negative and still be rationally pursued by individual politicians.
For example: if Donald Trump tariffs the country you are in charge of, you are likely willing to pay the economic cost of a retaliatory tariff to seem like you are standing up to America to your constituents. The politician’s goal is to be re-elected.
The politician may aim to deter getting tariffed in the first place, and promising a retaliatory tariff if another country tariffs you first is also reasonable as a deterrent from a game-theoretical perspective.
All it takes is for one world leader to not understand or care about the clear economic negatives to tariffs to start the chain: everyone else can be a rational actor.
