Not that I disagree with anything you said but I doubt that 25% of the people have heard the word and far fewer would understand it. It is time to discuss another term that few know-autarchy. The supply chain debacle during the COVID lunacy and the resilience of Russia in the face of sanctions that are unprecedented short of all out war are examples that require the discussion. The pure form is unobtainable as are the pure forms of free trade or mercantilism and even attenuated forms are inefficient. But inefficiency is sometimes safer. An analysis of what goods are absolutely essential for national survival and a strategy to source as much as possible domestically is called for.
Returning the relevance of history to economics is invaluable. Situating the present within the structure of a coherent narrative that follows the genealogy of Western civilization is a prerequisite for understanding, legislating, and healing.
Mr Lind seems a tad defensive:). As always on Commonplace, there is plenty of thin-skinned criticism of fellow elites, just not much commentary on what the leader of the "new" right is actually doing in the real world. Meanwhile, the "new" right agenda is unfolding before us in spectacular fashion, led by the movements founder and intellectual lodestar-Don. Let's all enjoy the spectacle, lord knows we need humor in our lives these days.
Karl, I liked Mr. Lind’s essay precisely because it did provide commentary relevant to the Trump administration’s policies and the intellectual tools needed to relieve its fearless leader of his intellectual duties.
So, while I applaud your enthusiasm for humor, the laughter I hear from you is coming from the peanut gallery.
Am I mistaken? Or did I miss the part where you addressed what Mr. Lind actually did say as opposed to what he did not?
Jim I'll say this for Mr Lind. He's eloquent in his effort to retrofit an intellectual framework around Don's taco trade schizophrenia. And his history lesson, though barely relevant, is mildly interesting nonetheless. But, like much Commonplace commentary, it has an "other than that Mrs Lincoln" feel. And I'll readily cop to the humor accusation. I just have to laugh at the stupidity and incoherence of Don and his acolytes. It's just doggone funny stuff!
Oh yes I caught his passing references to the administration's strategery, such as it is. But, as I reflect on the public descriptions of this strategery offered by Don, Bessent, Hassett, Lutnick, et al, I struggle for the coherence ascribed to it by Mr Lind. All I hear are random, incoherent comments by Don, followed by embarrassing attempts at cleanup. Am I missing something?
“To blame America rather than China for disrupting world trade is to denounce the victim for engaging in self-defense.” Should have been the first sentence, but eminently sensible essay.
Not that I disagree with anything you said but I doubt that 25% of the people have heard the word and far fewer would understand it. It is time to discuss another term that few know-autarchy. The supply chain debacle during the COVID lunacy and the resilience of Russia in the face of sanctions that are unprecedented short of all out war are examples that require the discussion. The pure form is unobtainable as are the pure forms of free trade or mercantilism and even attenuated forms are inefficient. But inefficiency is sometimes safer. An analysis of what goods are absolutely essential for national survival and a strategy to source as much as possible domestically is called for.
Returning the relevance of history to economics is invaluable. Situating the present within the structure of a coherent narrative that follows the genealogy of Western civilization is a prerequisite for understanding, legislating, and healing.
Nice to see a little history injected into trade policy discussion!
Trade policy debate thus far has been remarkably dominated by theory without reference to historical reality.
Unilateral disarmament is generally terrible strategy (as Lind discusses in this piece).
Mr Lind seems a tad defensive:). As always on Commonplace, there is plenty of thin-skinned criticism of fellow elites, just not much commentary on what the leader of the "new" right is actually doing in the real world. Meanwhile, the "new" right agenda is unfolding before us in spectacular fashion, led by the movements founder and intellectual lodestar-Don. Let's all enjoy the spectacle, lord knows we need humor in our lives these days.
Good luck America.
Karl, I liked Mr. Lind’s essay precisely because it did provide commentary relevant to the Trump administration’s policies and the intellectual tools needed to relieve its fearless leader of his intellectual duties.
So, while I applaud your enthusiasm for humor, the laughter I hear from you is coming from the peanut gallery.
Am I mistaken? Or did I miss the part where you addressed what Mr. Lind actually did say as opposed to what he did not?
Jim I'll say this for Mr Lind. He's eloquent in his effort to retrofit an intellectual framework around Don's taco trade schizophrenia. And his history lesson, though barely relevant, is mildly interesting nonetheless. But, like much Commonplace commentary, it has an "other than that Mrs Lincoln" feel. And I'll readily cop to the humor accusation. I just have to laugh at the stupidity and incoherence of Don and his acolytes. It's just doggone funny stuff!
Oh yes I caught his passing references to the administration's strategery, such as it is. But, as I reflect on the public descriptions of this strategery offered by Don, Bessent, Hassett, Lutnick, et al, I struggle for the coherence ascribed to it by Mr Lind. All I hear are random, incoherent comments by Don, followed by embarrassing attempts at cleanup. Am I missing something?
“To blame America rather than China for disrupting world trade is to denounce the victim for engaging in self-defense.” Should have been the first sentence, but eminently sensible essay.
China AND Europe.
YES!