|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
Recently the portents of a weakening economy have continued. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “tech stocks and the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell sharply again on Monday,” and “Friday’s jobs report . . . showed employers added 151,000 jobs last month . . . half as many as in November and December.” We’re hearing more and more gloomy talk of a looming recession.
Many commentators, the Journal continued, are blaming “Mr. Trump’s willy-nilly tariffs” –– the latest on Canadian aluminum and steel––that “are weighing on business sentiment.” Trump’s measured admission that tariffs may cause “a little disturbance” and require a “period of transition” was not enough for many economists who see the more serious negative effects of raising tariffs as more important than the improvements that others say could follow correcting our negative balance-of-trade with China, Canada, and other countries.
Canada’s surplus, for example, alone was $64.26 billion in 2023. Our total trade deficit is $1trillion. Surely, eliminating such imbalances would be good for our fisc––especially those of our rich Nato partners, who until very recently have defied the 2014 obligation to spend a meager 2% of GDP on their militaries, while freeloading for decades on our military for their defense. And don’t forget Mexico’s $170 billion, and as Victor Hanson reminds us, “Mexico currently siphons off $63 billion in remittances from the U.S. economy, most of it from illegal aliens.”
So, which “experts” should we heed? First, we must acknowledge the problem with the dueling, credentialed economists who counsel government officials and inform us citizens––economics is not a science properly understood. Any discipline that involves individual, unique human beings–– with their unpredictable spontaneity, their “passions and interests,” and their power to serve both no matter how irrational, destructive, and selfish––cannot be the subject of a pure science.
For, as historian of ideas Isaiah Berlin points out, when it comes to human beings, “the particles are too minute, too heterogeneous, succeed each other too rapidly, occur in combinations of too great a complexity, are too much part and parcel of what we are and do, to be capable of submitting to the required degree of abstraction, that minimum of generalization and formalization––idealization––which any science must exact.”
This is not to say that economic knowledge and patterns are unavailable. But much of that wisdom comes from the long record of human experience and common sense, which provide us with useful information over time that can guide us. Even literature, particularly novels of social realism, can show us economic truths. For example, Charles Dickens’ chronically indebted Mr. Micawber says, “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.” Or take economist Herbert Stein’s famous adage, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”
Such common sense and practical wisdom may be dismissed as simplistic by professional economists with their complex theories, mountains of quantitative data, and forbidding jargon. But if such common sense like Mr. Micawber’s had been heeded over the last several decades, we would not now be facing over $36 trillion in debt, and entitlements laden with $74 trillion in unfunded liabilities, while our defense budget––less than what we spend on servicing that debt–– is inadequate for answering China’s challenge in the Indo-Pacific, as well as threats from other geopolitical rivals.
Another factor in our inability to anticipate future problems and dangers is our representative democratic government with regularly scheduled elections that hold politicians accountable to the voters. Since ancient Athens this “tyranny of the majority” has been a challenge, and a seductive argument for technocratic oligarchies.
The premier champion of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, nearly two centuries ago recognized this tendency for politicians to kick cans down the road rather than anger voters. The masses’ “conclusions are hastily formed from superficial inspection of the more prominent features of a question. Hence it often happens that mountebanks of all sorts are able to please the people, while their truest friends fail to gain their confidence.” Thus, “the difficulty that a democracy finds in conquering the people’s passions and subduing the desires for the moment with a view of the future.”
Winston Churchill in his postwar history The Gathering Storm similarly explained the causes of World War II. These include “the structure and habits of democratic States,” which “lack those elements of persistence and conviction,” and pointed out “how, even in matters of self-preservation, no policy is pursued for even ten or fifteen years at a time.”
In our times, however, this problem has worsened. The century-long dominance of scientism, and the empowerment of government “experts” housed in regulatory agencies, have crowded out and delegitimized the common sense, doctrines of faith, and traditional wisdom that in Tocqueville’s day were foundational to our Constitutional order, and to the citizens who elected their leaders.
No illiterate farmer in Tocqueville’s day, for example, would have taken seriously for a minute the claim that biological sex is an artefact of political power to be altered and multiplied; nor would he contemplate eliminating the cheap, abundant fossil-fuel energy that has created the modern world. Only we Westerners in thrall to scientism can be that stupid.
Another feature of our world that has eroded our capacity to make sacrifices for the common good is our therapeutic sensibility, which has replaced the tragic understanding of human nature that has existed for millennia, and characterized our civilization. The therapeutic narrative is a byproduct of the Enlightenment and its faith in science and technology, which replaced traditional wisdom and Judeo-Christian doctrines. Now progressive improvements in material life, and the “human sciences” like sociology, psychology, economics, and political science, supposedly can mitigate and eliminate the evils of human existence.
Indeed, new technologies in transportation, medical science, agronomy, and communication have changed and improved the world, and reduced human suffering. But that success encouraged utopianism, once a wish-fulfilling fantasy of “heaven on earth,” that now is our birthright––as long as the technocrats are given the power to direct and manage our lives, at the expense of our unalienable rights.
The flaw in this dream is a fallen human nature and its destructive passions and impulses, visible on every page of history. The 20th century alone should have disabused us of that hubristic belief in perpetual progress. The prevalence of mass violence, the holocaust, gulags and civilian slaughter, driven by irrational political religions like communism, Nazism, and fascism, and empowered by new weapons of war that killed hundreds of millions, tell the gruesome tale.
Such cruelty and violence have been, and continue to be the exorbitant costs of our utopian dreams. And it’s the horrific reconfirmation of the tragic wisdom that as Euripides says, “Suffering is a necessity for man,” not an anomaly that progress will correct. For as Kant said, “from the crooked timber of humanity, nothing straight can be made.”
Yet despite those lessons, the West has continued to entertain unrealistic expectations for human life, based on the belief that people do evil only because of material deprivation, political tyranny, or a lack of social validation and respect for their identities and self-esteem. In addition, they are entitled to success and happiness as unalienable rights, as are the absence of criticism, or hard work, or any personal accountability for their choices and failures.
In such a world, self-sacrifice for anything beyond one’s desires and grandiose expectations is scorned. Hence our age of “micro-aggressions,” “safe spaces,” or anything that troubles one’s subjective, thin-skinned standards of insult, now turned into “hate speech,” “assaults,” or even “violence” unprotected by the First Amendment.
And what’s worse, all of us, including those we call the “poor,” live in a world of affluence, health, safety, and comfort our ancestors could have imagined only for the gods. For decades now our civilization has validated Dostoevsky’s Underground Man, who over 150 years ago said that we “enlightened” moderns are “ungrateful animals.”
All these factors––the structures of representative democracies, the category errors of scientism, and the therapeutic utopian imperative––make difficult the answer to our opening question whether we can make the sacrifices necessary for correcting our feckless handling of looming debt, deficits, and underfunded entitlements disasters.
At least on the topic of tariffs, Donald Trump has told us that there will be a “little disturbance” and a “period of transition.” Perhaps that’s understated, but it does remind us that solving national problems exacts a price that won’t get cheaper by kicking the can down the road.
At my age of 93 years i realized that common sense is sorely lacking !
Me included !………I have never grown up !
At age 85 i had to do the unthinkable……………make a decision………….
I had no mommy or spouse !
8 years and i finally take a few days and talk to friends who have
COMMON SENSE……..and now i don’t screw up as badly!
I’m getting there!
Eddie
As always, the Wall Street Journal pretends the stock market’s performance matters more than the price of goods and services, and also as always since January 20th, it pretends that President Trump’s economic policies are failures.
Well Americans care a HELL of a lot more about our standard of living than the stock market, and it’s improved in only a month and a half with Big Don in charge. Inflation ended the day he took office, as he promised, and prices are down – even the D-Bag USDA rigged price of eggs. Canada, Mexico, the UK and China have all taken Trump’s tariffs like obedient little boys and the EU is next. Canada twice threatened punitive, retaliatory tariffs and both times backed down the next day. The PM didn’t want essential Canadian markets to crushed be crushed by President Trump and his tariffs, and the Premiere of Ottawa pissed himself the same day Trump threatened his steel and aluminum markets with a 200% tariff. And any writers at the Wall Street Yellow Journal (all the articles are editorials) who claim France will stand up to a 200% tariff on its wine and spirits are full of shit.
Yeah, Wall Street Journal, we ordinary Americans care more about our spending power and lifestyles than the stock market and your “woke” editorials. MAGA is in and TDS is out. And no, I won’t think about any of you when I use some more of my free – thanks to President Trump – condoms tonight while you lot impotently scream “Trump!!!!!” at your computer screens.
I was once a long time subscriber to the WSJ (1985 – 2012) until it dawned on me that the entire WSJ staff and writers were ruling class sycophants: i.e., pro-establishment globalists who thought little to nothing of average American people or their well being. At best, they thought of us as mere foot stools and snot rags for the wealthy elites.
After coming to that realization, I cancelled my subscription and haven’t missed it since. I know of others who have also cancelled their subscription to the WSJ for similar reasons. From what I’m told, only anti-Trumpers still read the WSJ.
Just when is Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio going to make Sacrifices in their Go Green($$$$$)lifestyles? When are those Gun Control Advocates going to give up their Armed Guards(Especially during the Oscars) when will the Useless Nations(UN) going to all Go Wind or Solar?!
Wow, that was deep. And I like your Churchill quote regarding the limited “10-15 year” attention span of the politicians.; even when civilization itself is at stake.
In contrast to China’s 500 year mentality. Maybe some underground Chinese dissident group will bring the Commie chapter of their 5,000 year society to an end.
I’ve always wondered why the racist Chi-Comms revere an old dead balding white dude named Karl.
I would guess they have stronger community ties, which may not be Marxist, but which recognize the joys and burdens of taking care of their own families and communities.
“The tribal notion of “the common good” has served as the moral justification of most social systems—and of all tyrannies—in history. The degree of a society’s enslavement or freedom corresponded to the degree to which that tribal slogan was invoked or ignored.
“The common good” (or “the public interest”) is an undefined and undefinable concept: there is no such entity as “the tribe” or “the public”; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of individual men. Nothing can be good for the tribe as such; “good” and “value” pertain only to a living organism—to an individual living organism—not to a disembodied aggregate of relationships….
Only on the basis of individual rights can any good—private or public—be defined and achieved. Only when each man is free to exist for his own sake—neither sacrificing others to himself nor being sacrificed to others—only then is every man free to work for the greatest good he can achieve for himself by his own choice and by his own effort. And the sum total of such individual efforts is the only kind of general, social good possible.” – Ayn Rand
A life lived only for oneself has no community, purpose, meaning or joy. It is lonely and deeply pitiable. Rand redefines the transcendental good, true and the beautiful in ways are evil, false and ugly.
Enlightenment philosophy has been on the ascendance (with its hatred of Christianity) for hundreds of years. It is the main weapon used by the progressive left and has given us the ugly, dysfunctional communities in which we now (many of us) live. Why did Rand even have a following? Had she come earlier, she would have been run out of town on a rail.
As it is, you cannot see this. You are the most religious, rigid and ideological poster on this forum. Your worship what R. R. Reno calls the “weak gods.” You might read his book, The Return of the Strong Gods and test your presuppositions against his arguments. I think it would help you.
How did I know you would be writing yet another novel today. There are certain phrases that get you drooling. Today it’s “the common good”. Your problem is you can’t help it. As if we are all going to stop caring about each other.
The common good, altruism, Christianity, Judaism are just a few of the concepts that trigger you. Pavlov’s doggie in action.
Woof woof.
Tarrifs protect the jobs for the favored crony industries and crony companies while destroying many more jobs for those Americans not favored by the tarrifs. Tarrifs destroy more jobs than they protect.
“… tariffs don’t tax foreign businesses or governments—they tax YOU. Every time you buy groceries, fill your gas tank, or replace your car or appliances, you’re paying the price for these government-imposed penalties on your freedom to trade, which restrict your choices and force you to pay more for less. Tariffs won’t stop addiction or protect American producers; they’ll just make life more expensive. Tariffs aren’t a solution—they’re a blatant violation of individual rights masquerading as economic policy in service of political power and cronyism. The evidence is clear: history, economics, and rational moral principles all demonstrate why tariffs fail—and why free trade is the only rational alternative.” -Trump’s Tariffs: Immoral, Indefensible, and Illiberal
By Nicholas Provenzo
“Trump’s Tariffs: Immoral, Indefensible, and Illiberal” – by Nicholas Provenzo
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/p/trumps-tariffs-immoral-indefensible
Tariffs can be used to influence behavior, both foreign and domestic. The U.S. must become a self-sufficient manufacturer again. The pain / discipline required to get there will be worth it. Free trade is not good at all times. If it were, it would produce good for everyone at all times.
The national good would be best served by ensuring American interests are always put first. And that means we return to our Anglo-protestant roots and emphasize American prosperity above other nations. Tariffs are only one tool in the toolbox.
Citizens need to become more mindful of their purchasing. It is impossible now to buy American with any consistency, but we need, individually, to make concerted efforts to do so – even if the cost might be a little higher.
And so far the only pain felt because of President Trump’s tariffs is suffered by foreigners who used to be allowed to abuse us as grievously as they wanted to.
At least we know now who you voted for.
Oh yeah, it’s one ‘r’, not two, moron.
“Tariffs don’t just hurt your wallet—they violate your freedom. They reduce your access to the best goods at market prices, forcing you to enrich politically connected industries while limiting your ability to act in your rational self-interest.
At stake here are your rights—including your right to produce, trade, and keep the rewards of your work. A free economy enables you to act in your self-interest without political interference. Tariffs violate this principle by forcibly limiting your choices and making it harder (or impossible) to purchase goods that best meet your needs—and to freely produce and trade your goods.
The next time a politician defends tariffs as a way to “help” America, ask yourself: Who, exactly, is being helped? Not the consumer, who is forced to pay more. Not the honest businessman, who is fully capable of creating value without such “help.” Not the entrepreneur, who is denied access to affordable materials. The only ones who “benefit” are those who have successfully lobbied the government to rig the game in their favor and politicians who get reelected for peddling economic nationalism as a substitute for improving human flourishing. And in the long run, even these people suffer from a weaker economy, deprived of the wealth, innovation, and opportunities that tariffs stifle.” – Nicholas Provenzo
“Trump’s Tariffs: Immoral, Indefensible, and Illiberal” – by Nicholas Provenzo
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/p/trumps-tariffs-immoral-indefensible
Paragraph 1 category error is “freedom.” You define freedom as access to the best goods at market prices. Freedom is lost when economic opportunity is lost or lessened. An impoverished definition of “freedom.”
Paragraph 2 category error is both “freedom” and “rights.” Paragraph 2 slops the “freedom” category into the category of “rights.” Your category of “rights” is limited to unhindered economic activity. A natural right is not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of culture or government.
Paragraph 3 assumes “help” consists only in creating a level playing field for all. There will NEVER be a level playing field in any form of government or culture because of 2 reasons: Humanity is inclined to sinful exploitation and individuals are not equal in any way except their common humanity – the same one inclined to sin.
While Christianity held sway, our most successful (Carnegie, Rockafeller etc.) tended to “give back” by creating public libraries, schools, playgrounds, hospitals, orphanages, shelters, etc. Further, families and communities tended to help one another so that the one who was in need could be restored to useful life and service.
That objectivism misses the joy of service is huge. Meaning and purpose will never spring from living for and serving oneself alone. We need one another in more ways than the economic.
Unless I’m missing something, this guy Nicholas Provenzo is arguing in favor of unfair and unbalanced trade and countries ripping us off and that we should just accept it as the “status quo” and STFU and do nothing other than bend over…..
I’ll bet that this same clown would argue that the US having borders is unconscionable and all 8+ billion people on the planet should be allowed to freely come to the US if they so choose.
Well, it appears that little Nicky P. just doesn’t understand how tarrrrifs work. And no one gives a sh*t who he is.
Be careful Bruce! You are treading near a religion similar to the Hindu. Their mantra is “tariff bad, tariff horrible”. They also have a rope. The reason God made economists is to keep weathermen from looking so bad.
1 durable goods manufacturing job creates about 2.78 other durable goods jobs and about 4 other jobs. That means about 7 workers paying taxes, paying SS and off welfare. That is MUCH cheaper than a 15% rise in prices that MAY occur if the other country does nothing.
A Free Trade treaty needs to be negotiated? If it is free why does it have to be negotiated?
It’s irrelevant as to whether we can make personal sacrifices for a common good when it now looks like most Americans will have to sacrifice regardless of willingness. I think that Bruce Thornton is really asking whether conservatives are willing to maintain unwavering support for Trump based on pure faith if his program comes with what even he predicts to be a period of economic downturn and hardship.
I don’t think so, especially after Trump won a base of Veruca Salt “I want it now” voters by promising them an immediate “Golden Age” and return to American greatness. I think that it will be difficult for Americans who largely voted for a lightning quick solution to their frustration with rising product costs to accept even greater costs and a recession as necessary stepping stones toward a less immediate, more abstract and hypothetical Golden Age that may or may not happen sometime in an unforeseeable future that many in Trump’s generation might not even live to see. Between this and Daniel Greenfield’s article today, it seems like FPM’s tenor has shifted from a fleeting sense of momentum to a plea for readers to conduct a complete overhaul of their expectations. But hey, I hope that everyone can find solace in the fact that–as Bruce reminds us– no matter how bad things get, you’ll still be better off than your ancestors were a few centuries ago.