As I was writing this it has been about two weeks since the “liberation date” tariffs were repeated. I don’t think the political economic model is great (see the myriad of “economic impact studies” that come up for projects that match what local politicians want to hear), but the model stands out by UST/CEA. Me and many others have already written about the drawbacks of that number. It’s not a scientific recommendation, it reads like an underground wobble essay thrown together at the very end, following a furious run through Google Scholar. Further defense by the chair of the Economic Advisory Council Stephen Milan was inadequate, continuing to misuse the quote and proceeded with the plan using a credible model. You are justifying the policy of desire, not the policy created to solve the real problem.
But I remember the optimist and see the silver lining from this hot mess. As Frederick Bastiat once said,[T]His worst is that it can happen for good reason. It’s not to get cleverly, but to be inappropriately defended. “The natural consequences to that are the best that could lead to a febry poll of bad causes by Gallup. Protectionism continues to be a popular de tin given its great champion defended it.
That said, this silver lining has quite a bit of Arrejcic clouds. By writing and reimbursing this report, the Council of Economic Advisors has significantly damaged its reputation. One of the results seen many times in the expert opinion literature is that the experts are finished, providing low quality information, not discussing alternatives, and not discussing trust in them. This result is preserved even if the information is correct. Accuracy is important, but more important is important for communication. The economist who defends the tariff scheme, the most notable economist, Stephen Milan, was not outspoken. They see him listening quite a bit, even if he is lying or completely lying about the information he is quoting. All this undermines what has not been protested before the past Famsh months went to a source of trustworthy expert advice. Reducing the CEA’s reputation could lead to the rise of economic “flat acism.”
We saw a similar event on public health during Covid. Fauci et al was not open about Covid, vaccines, or in fact anything. Fauci has said many times that he lied or misunderstood to achieve his total goal. Very much, public confidence in the public’s government has plummeted and we have seen the rise of anti-Baxel sentiment. I fear the same for my profession.
A careful reader should note that the two effects I discuss are contrary to the other effects. I don’t know which one will ultimately win. To continue my phors, green clouds hide in a lot of rain, and the silver lining wins. Silver lining is also reduced by strong, destructive tornadoes. I hope for a silver lining. But I’m afraid of tornadoes.
*Note: When I say “anti-vaxxer”, I literally mean in that they are anti-vaccines. Suboon, who will hostile mandate, is not an anti-vaxxer.
