Policy

Decision Time

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy , , , ,

Well, it’s crunch time. Ballots have gone out in Arizona, and I’ll soon be looking at mine. At 86, waiting to vote isn’t an option. Decisions: Dececions. Over the past weeks, I’ve examined several issues to determine the right course and where Trump and Harris stand. I explored the economy, abortion, and Education.

Surprisingly, both candidates advocate industrial policies bordering on mercantilism: tariffs, subsidies, and tax breaks for the favored. With each announcing new expensive policies almost daily, knowing which will ultimately add the most to our staggering national debt is impossible. Trump stands to retain a business-friendly tax structure. In the long run, an effort to rein in regulations may do more for an economy that increasingly finds itself unable to complete anything. Harris continues piling on rules at a record pace, advocating making the rich “pay their fair share,” whatever that means.

Trump is punting the abortion issue to the states to decide. Harris selected a running mate who signed a bill in Minnesota allowing elective abortions up to birth. No one cares about the little living human. By the second trimester, we certainly know they’re living humans. Some people want to give more rights to octopi than these little people. Neither has dealt with abortion’s future issues affecting gays, autistic, and others.

While a massive problem, Education receives little or no attention from Trump or Harris. Why do we have a Department of Education if this isn’t a national issue? If the children are our future, the outlook is grim.

The last area to examine may be spiraling out of control. Readers know I have agreed with very little the present administration has done on the world stage. From the relatively quiet world the Biden administration inherited, its actions in Afghanistan, Ukraine, and the Middle East have created spreading conflicts. In addition to our loss of position in places such as Africa and South America, I see a need for immediate reappraisal, which will lead to coarse corrections.

Continue reading →

Working Towards Decline

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Two happenings this week show how far we’ve traveled from reality. The vice-presidential debate and the East Coast Longshoreman Strike may have little in common, but both evidence an archaic way of thinking. The idea that we can stand in the way of progress in a way that saves everyone’s present job has never worked out in practice. Pursuing such a program with an expanding wage scale is madness.

From Diocletion’s Roman Empire to China’s Qing Dynasty, stopping time by government fiat only resulted in decline. Yet both vice presidential candidates claim they can preserve and bring back manufacturing jobs. J.D. Vance hews to Trump’s tariffs to protect otherwise unprofitable businesses. At the same time, Tim Walz would continue massive subsidies and tariffs to do the same.

The East Coast longshoreman demanded a considerable wage increase and banned further automation. With its potentially severe economic consequences, this strike is a stark reminder of the dangers of resisting technological progress. The Luddites in the U.K. in the early 19th century, who violently opposed technological change and rioted over the introduction of new machinery in the wool industry, would seem to be a strange model to follow. There appears to be a settlement with a significant wage increase, but we don’t know about automation. It’ll be interesting to see the final draft.

Both presidential tickets employ industrial policy methods of protection and subsidies, disregarding the fundamental economic concepts of “Comparative Advantage” and “Opportunity Cost.” Some countries possess advantages that enable them to produce goods more economically. Understanding these concepts is not just important; it’s empowering. It’s the key to making informed economic decisions and fostering growth.

Understanding and applying the principles of comparative advantage is crucial for economic growth; it’s a beacon of hope. Canada could grow dates in greenhouses, but countries with a favorable climate can send them to Canada at a much lower price. On the other hand, wooded Canada has lumber unavailable in date-producing desert nations. Dates for the lumber trade leave everyone with more. Adhering to these principles has allowed billions of people to live better than ever, and continuing to do so can lead to even more prosperity.

Continue reading →

It Gets Worse

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

It’s hard to believe, but both presidential campaigns keep getting worse. Have we learned anything? As I’ve pointed out in my series, “The Long Journey to More,” settled societies were run by the ruling elites for their benefit, while the masses were left to subsistence. Kings and emperors picked winners and losers. It was better to align with the ruling powers than rock the boat with innovation.

From the Pharaohs in ancient Egypt to Louis the Fourteenth in France, rulers dictated who got what. However, the fifteenth century ushered in changes undermining elite arbitrary authority, resulting in markets, not masters dictating actions. More people participated in making, trading, and benefitting from new goods used in innovative ways. A new system replaced the old great for the few but bare sustenance for most with “More” for those allowed to partake.

Moral philosophers began to take notice. The author of “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” proposed that markets, rather than potentates, making decisions on prices and what to produce and sell would bring widespread benefits. The “invisible Hand” of markets was the moral way to “The Wealth of Nations.” At the time, no one thought of this Scotsman as an “economist” because, in retrospect, he was the father of this “science.” He and his contemporaries thought of Adam Smith only as a philosopher.

Continue reading →

The Forgotten Issue

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy , , , ,

Nothing is more determinative about how well your life will go economically than acquiring valuable skills. Our ability to learn starts with the schooling we get early in life. Basic competence in reading and math allows us to follow our natural curiosity. We measure the success of our educational efforts by how well we impart the tools our children need to achieve their life goals. Understanding that education is the key to economic success and empowering individuals and communities is crucial. We must strive to realize this potential.

Education, a cornerstone of economic success, should be a top priority in any election. Yet, it receives less attention than other issues such as inflation, the economy, the border, or abortion. This disparity is a cause for concern and a call to action. Education is not just a local issue but also carries national implications, as evidenced by the existence of the Department of Education. Our ability to compete globally hinges on the expertise of our people, making it all the more crucial to urgently prioritize education in political agendas.

We hear about this group or that some others fail to do as well economically. Rather than putting down differences in outcomes to things such as discrimination or class, we need to ascribe it more to differences in educational opportunities. The two most identified lagging groups are blacks and Hispanics. Both heavily populate our inner cities, and even though high per capita educational funds are expended, the results are abysmal. Whether it’s Chicago, New York, D.C., Philadelphia, or California cities, all have something in common. They’re ruled by Democrats. On the other hand, Red State, Florida, provides uniformly good schools with solid results even in its big cities.

Continue reading →

Trouble In River City

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

While waiting for Trump to name his vice presidential pick at the Republican Convention, followed by the inevitable dumping of Joe Biden, it’s an excellent time to identify the issues the new Democratic ticket will run on. One might think the economy, including inflation, the border, and the decline of many cities with rising crime and homelessness. Still, you’d be wrong—troubles abroad, with wars in Ukraine and Gaza with the attendant rise in antisemitism, not so much. The new candidates will finesse all these, saying we will reevaluate our positions on these issues.

Of course, Kamala Harris isn’t eligible for this option as an integral part of the Biden administration. Hence, she will follow Joe off the ticket. Rather than draw attention to Democratic failures, the area of attack besides abortion is fear of that monster, Donald Trump. They tell us the ex-president “will be a dictator on the first day” of his return. Democracy as we know it is over-Political opponents charged with various crimes—executive orders flying in every direction. The future of our “Democracy” is now a significant election issue.

Unfortunately, Democrats aren’t the only ones seeing attacks on democracy. Republicans, already suspicious of election-voting shenanigans, have seen their candidate subjected to “lawfare” on an unprecedented scale. Had the Supreme Court not declared the president immunity for presidential acts, a New York court could’ve sentenced Donald Rump to prison just before the convention declared him the Republican presidential candidate.

While Democrats claim Trump will take revenge on his political opponents, everyone can see the progressives are already doing it to him. Putting a presidential candidate in prison is the stuff of banana republics.

Upset about their collapsing lawfare attack, the Democrats are now threatening the Supreme Court with investigations and packing for having protected present and future presidents from being imprisoned by their opponents. Who is attacking democracy?

Still, Trump’s continuing unpopularity with the majority of the public is the only line of assault; the Democrats and their media allies have to find something new to strike fear in voters’ hearts. They are basing their latest offensive on “Project 2025,” a proposal compiled by the right-leaning Heritage Foundation suggesting how a second Trump presidency should proceed.

Continue reading →