George E. Bogden’s justifications for President Donald Trump’s tariffs in his Jan. 29 online op-ed, “Forget TACO. It’s GUAC that matters with Trump’s tariffs,” were far from being the nutritious feast that he supposes.
Bogden wrote that “tariff opponents judge the policy on whether it conforms to an economist’s ideal of friction-free markets.” We opponents point out that tariffs that enable some domestic industries to expand necessarily draw resources away from other domestic industries, causing these other domestic industries to shrink. This effect is as inescapable in real-world markets, with all of their frictions, as in “friction-free” textbook markets.
We also explain that tariffs used as bargaining chips, which are the focus of Bogden’s praise, are inconsistent with the president’s wish to increase American manufacturing or to raise revenue. Because bargaining chips are withdrawn when opponents capitulate, such tariffs won’t protect manufacturing long enough to spark increased investment. Nor are such chips a useful or reliable source of revenue.
It’s as unsurprising as it is undeniable that, as Bogden documents, Trump’s tariff threats often pressure foreign governments to alter their policies in ways that at least appear to suit Trump’s fancies. It’s equally undeniable that Trump’s tariff sturm und drang creates economic inefficiencies and policy and market uncertainties in the U.S., as well as ill will among the allies that America will be sorry to have antagonized if and when tensions with China further intensify.
Donald J. Boudreaux, Fairfax
The writer is the Martha and Nelson Getchell chair for the study of free market capitalism at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
On climate change
Regarding Alex Flint’s Jan. 30 op-ed, “Here’s the real problem with the climate movement”:
Flint noted that the primary driver of reduced greenhouse gas emissions between 2005 and 2023 was the switch away from coal to natural gas that was enabled by the bipartisan 2005 Energy Policy Act. He concluded that “coal did not fade because it was protested out of existence. It declined because something cheaper, cleaner and easier to deploy became widely available.”
The power-generating technologies that best fit Flint’s description today are wind and solar energy, which are cheaper than natural gas.
More than 90 percent of new energy capacity in 2024 was provided by renewable sources in part because they are cheaper, cleaner, easier to deploy and widely available.
These characteristics were made possible by previous government investment and subsidies, and the market is now responding accordingly.
Flint also noted that environmentalists often find themselves at odds with humanity’s desire to improve living standards. The desire to improve living standards includes the desire to not make them worse. If we can mitigate environmental, infrastructure and human welfare damage caused by drought and severe weather events, we would certainly improve our living standards. Perhaps environmentalists’ biggest challenge is convincing the public that it is in their own interest to mitigate climate change. Mother Nature is certainly doing her part.
Lawrence Blincoe, Arlington
Alex Flint was exactly right to argue that the environmental movement must try to satisfy economic “demand in ways that do the least harm to the climate.” The simple fact is that environmental quality behaves like an economic luxury good.
Yes, a clean environment benefits everyone, but people are naturally focused on meeting the immediate quality-of-life needs such as food, clothing and shelter. The environmental movement should stop trying to stifle economic growth and instead focus on improving living standards in a cleaner and more sustainable way. With improved living standards, people will naturally focus on improving the environment, too.
Glenn Ackerman, Fairfax
Borrowers need a better plan
Preston Cooper in his Jan. 26 online op-ed, “Trump has a solution for student loans. Forgiveness isn’t it.,” touted the GOP’s new Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) for student loans, claiming it will be better for borrowers than the Save plan. But Cooper made the new plan appear far better than it is.
Cooper focused on RAP’s interest subsidies without noting that the Save plan included the same subsidies. RAP does include one additional “principal match” subsidy, but it forces borrowers to make significantly higher monthly payments to get it, putting it out of reach for many.
Borrowers have always had the option to pay down their debt more quickly. But RAP requires even the lowest-income borrowers to make much higher monthly payments than the Save plan. Income-based plans were never meant to be a borrower’s only option; they’re a safety net to keep borrowers afloat when they can’t afford higher payments.
Cooper also made no mention of how much higherpayments under the RAP plan will be. A borrower representing the breadwinner of the median U.S. household — a family of four with a household income of $81,000 — will see their monthly payment spike from $36 under the Save plan to $440 under RAP.
Decades of research show that when borrowers must choose between making their student loan payment and covering rent, groceries or medical bills, they fall behind on loan payments. More than 9 million borrowers are already in severe delinquency or default. Without changes to make RAP truly affordable, millions more may follow.
Michele Zampini, Hopewell, New Jersey
The writer is associate vice president of federal policy and Advocacy at the Institute for College Access & Success.
The post Free the market from tariffs appeared first on Washington Post.
