64425 stories
·
4 followers

Open Letter to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick

1 Share

May 11, 2025

Mr. Howard Lutnick
Secretary, United States Department of Commerce
Washington, DC

Mr. Lutnick:

When CNN’s Dana Bash pointed out to you this morning that – in her clear words – “the cost of tariffs are paid by American consumers,” you responded: “Well, I disagree with that, you know” – implying that you believe that foreign producers, in response to the tariffs, will lower the prices they charge American buyers by the full amount of the tariffs.

But you’re also on record predicting that President Trump’s tariffs will spark an American “manufacturing renaissance.”

Can you explain how tariffs will incite Americans to buy fewer manufactured imports – and, hence, more American-made goods to launch that “manufacturing renaissance” – if the prices that foreign producers charge Americans for manufactured imports don’t rise? How would that work???

Do you really not see that it is logically impossible for U.S. tariffs both not to raise the prices that Americans pay for imports and to discourage Americans from buying imports, which discouraging is necessary to increase American manufacturing?

Each semester I teach an auditorium full of college freshmen. In more than 40 years in the classroom, I do not recall a single student committing such an egregious error as you commit in peddling to the American public your and Pres. Trump’s poisonous protectionism.

I’m quite certain that you’re not a stupid man; you can’t possibly believe all that you say about the administration’s trade ‘policy.’ I can conclude only that you have no respect for the intelligence of ordinary Americans.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

The post Open Letter to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick appeared first on Cafe Hayek.

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
6 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

HEH: https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/1920752753304821962 Related? One-Third of Ameri

1 Share

HEH:

Related? One-Third of American Cities No Longer Report Crime Statistics to the FBI.

No report, no problem.

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
6 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Mutually Assured Law Enforcement Destruction

1 Share


Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
6 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Thursday assorted links

1 Share

1. Mario Rizzo LSE talk on behavioral economics.

2. Pendant.

3. Noah Smith on libertarianism.

4. More AI geoguessing.

5. “Korea is facing a surge in suicides among men in their 30s to 50s, driven by worsening economic hardship, social isolation and high-profile celebrity deaths, highlighting urgent calls for stronger national suicide prevention measures.”  Link here.

6. Short video of America’s largest data center.

7. Lakers go down 4-1 to Minnesota.  More here.  And here.  POTMR.

The post Thursday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
10 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Democracy in danger

1 Share

Germany’s domestic intelligence agency on Friday designated the far-right Alternative for Germany party, or AfD, as an “extremist endeavor,” a move that lowers hurdles for the spy agency in conducting certain kinds of surveillance on the party, the second-largest in Germany’s parliament.

In a statement, the intelligence agency said the designation was “due to the extremist nature of the entire party, which disregards human dignity.” The statement cited the group’s anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant orientation.

The reclassification — AfD was previously designated a “suspected” extremist group — is likely to reignite debate over potentially banning the party via Germany’s Constitutional Court. Such a move would initiate a lengthy legal process lasting years that experts and even the AfD’s fiercest critics say may carry greater risks than rewards.

Furthermore:

The decision could put public funding of the AfD at risk, while civil servants who belong to an organisation classified as ‘extremist’ face possible dismissal, depending on their role within the entity, according to Germany’s interior ministry.

Here is the first story.  Although I do not like the AfD, there is an alternative solution here.  Other German parties, including the ruling coalition, could move closer to median voter sentiment on migration issues.  (Whether or not one agrees with the median voter stance, it is, believe it or not, an alternative democratic strategy.)  Heaven forbid!

And didn’t France just stop Le Pen from running in the next election?  I am very much opposed to the efforts of the Trump administration to intimidate the U.S. judiciary, but I find it weird when Europeans tell Americans concerned with democracy to move to Europe.

The post Democracy in danger appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
10 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Not De Minimis

1 Share

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick:

Ending the “de minimis loophole” is a big deal. This rule allowed foreign companies to avoid paying tariffs on small shipments, giving them an unfair advantage over American small businesses. To small businesses across the country: we have your back.

The Value of De Minimis Imports by Fajgelbaum and Khandelwal:

A U.S. consumer can import $800 worth of goods per day free of tariffs and administrative fees. Fueled by rising direct-to-consumer trade, these “de minimis” shipments have exploded in recent years, yet are not recorded in Census trade data. Who benefits from this type of trade, and what are the policy implications? We analyze international shipment data, including de minimis shipments, from three global carriers and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Lower-income zip codes are more likely to import de minimis shipments, particularly from China, which suggests that the tariff and administrative fee incidence in direct-to-consumer trade disproportionately benefits the poor. Theoretically, imposing tariffs above a threshold leads to terms-of-trade gains through bunching, even in a setting with complete pass-through of linear tariffs. Empirically, bunching pins down the demand elasticity for direct shipments. Eliminating §321 would reduce aggregate welfare by $10.9-$13.0 billion and disproportionately hurt lower-income and minority consumers.

In other words, eliminating the de minimis rule is a significant tax on poorer Americans.

Frankly, it’s also a pain in the ass to have your international shipments delayed at broker (who often charges you exorbitant rates, more than the customs tax) and then have to go down to the customs office to pay the stupid tax. Yes, I am speaking from experience.

The post Not De Minimis appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Read the whole story
gangsterofboats
10 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories