Uncategorized

Ballroom Or Royal Court

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

While we’re waiting for some possibly momentous news, such as the Israeli Defence Force finally finishing off Hamas in Gaza, a Russia-Ukraine ceasefire, and a court ruling on Trump’s Tariffs, it might be a good time to reflect on some rules for leading to better government. A few posts ago, I featured an observation of the poorest performing nations, which were the ones where the state allocated resources and selected winners and losers rather than allowing the market to do the job.

What is the purpose of government other than providing the framework for its citizens to thrive? This structure must begin with the protection of body and property from arbitrary loss. Whether it’s an invader, thieves, or the government itself, you and your property are safe from capricious forces.

One of our great blessings is inheriting the English common law and the principles of representative government. We codified and expanded on these principles. An American citizen can’t be deprived of freedom or property without due process, as enshrined in our Constitution and its amendments, especially the first ten. Rather than a supreme leader doling out favors either directly or through subordinates, people should interact without government interference as much as possible.

These freedoms resulted in heretofore unheard-of economic growth, first in the British Isles, but followed closely by the young United States. The closer other nations emulated these two, the more their people benefited.

If you lack the basics of food, clothing, and shelter, not much else matters. In countries that provide a framework where people are free to choose not only the basics but also much more. (“More” in the sense of my series”The Long Journey to More”) The nations where rulers direct the economy struggle with even the essentials.

Marxists and other progressives claim that the expertise of an elite class can lead us to the promised land. The “best and the brightest,” rather than people interacting, know better. Those comprising the ruling elite live well, but the rest do not. In Cuba, Venezuela, or Argentina, where the state directs the economy, living standards fell.

Continue reading →

Topping Out?

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Could we be at the apex of the second Trump administration? The president is claiming victory on every front. Major trade deals with the E.U. and Japan, among others, were announced, with markets reaching new highs. Everyone is bending a knee to the master of the deal. Everyone knows because Donald Trump is on TV around the clock, telling us how great everything is going. To hear him tell it, there is almost too much winning.

Just under the surface, one can see some big rocks that the Administration is approaching. Both Japan and the E.U. imports are subject to a fifteen percent tariff. This rate seems stiff and protective of our manufacturing industries, such as the automotive sector, but a closer look reveals a different picture.

Reason’s economic and trade writer, Eric Boehm, points out that our domestic carmakers are dependent on inputs from Canada and Mexico, which are subject to a 25 percent levy. Using lower-cost parts and materials, Toyota could build autos completely in Japan, pay the tariff, and still undercut our auto manufacturers. The companies and the auto workers are already complaining about the disadvantage.

71% of Toyota cars sold in the U.S. are made here. This production supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in the U.S. With the price advantages afforded by the agreement to produce in Japan, these jobs are at risk.

If the 15% rate is suitable for Japan to produce at home, the E.U., subject to the same rate, will find itself in a similar position. European auto makers also employ a large number of people in the U.S. The Street put it this way, “The Big 3 now has a similar problem with EU competitors, as their 15% duties pale in comparison to the 25% duties U.S. manufacturers have to pay to get their cars from their Canadian and Mexican plants.” 

Continue reading →

Third Party Message For Elon Musk

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Stopping Inflation, Uncategorized , , , ,

Here we go again. A billionaire suddenly discovers our two-party system is dysfunctional. Instead of serving the desires of most Americans, each party reflects its extremes. This time it’s Elon Musk. It brought back memories of my association with Starbucks founder Howard Schultz’s brief Third-Party campaign. That campaign asked for people with fresh ideas to submit them.

At the time, I was creating my Future Party series. I concluded that any new party has to stand for something or a set of things. Just being against the other guys won’t work. Rather than dealing with personalities, people unhappy with the current two parties need to unite around common goals. The Republicans opposed the spread of slavery when the Democrats and Whigs equivocated.

I communicated this conclusion, along with a link to Dave’s Healthcare Plan, on this site. After all, it isn’t right to pontificate without contributing to a solution. To my surprise, the campaign asked me to join an “outside the box”ideas group. Someone there liked the Plan, and I will hear the details shortly.

What I heard next was that Howard Shultz was dropping his third-party crusade. I received an email stating that the idea group wanted to continue, but there was no further correspondence.  

I often wondered what would’ve happened if, instead of the “Third Way” pablum Schultz spouted, he had put forth bold ideas to solve real problems, rather than being perceived as just a spoiler. Dave’s Plan offers completely portable, universal healthcare and retirement benefits. It utilizes the money and structures we already have in place. It might’ve provoked discussion and attention. It’s not Democrat or Republican, just a comprehensive answer to big problems.

Continue reading →

Some Things On My Mind

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Catching up on some things I’ve commented on in the past. Remember when Donald Trump said he would end the Ukraine War in 24 hours? I made some suggestions on how he might accomplish this goal. Mainly, it consisted of ways to bring the pain of War to Russia—longer-range weapons to shoot back. As usual, the President ignores my advice. He still tells Ukraine not to hit key cities in Russia. Over half a year into his term, and the War rages on worse than ever.

After several pauses in aid to Ukraine, Trump has concluded that Putin is jerking him around. A former KGB officer can’t be trusted, who knew? Now he’s arranged to ship more arms to the embattled nation that our NATO allies will pay for. To many, this suggests a shift in Trump’s stance on the War.

I’m skeptical. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius, who in the past had good sources, says the new aid includes longer-range weapons and lifts range restrictions on some they already have. Still, unless these weapons hit the political centers of Moscow and St. Petersburg, it won’t matter that much. Till the people of these cities face the same terror that the citizens of Kyiv experience now, Putin has no incentive to change. Yet, Trump says Ukraine shouldn’t hit Moscow.

The President also threatened tough action on the sanctions-tariff front but gave Putin 50 days’ notice before any implementation. After more than six months, why so much time? Is it to head off the Senate from passing the Graham-Blumenthal sanctions bill? The Senate should pass the bill now with its significant bipartisan majority to send a message to both Putin and Trump.

Continue reading →

A Tale Of Two Books

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Elon Musk says our two major parties have turned him off; he’s starting the “American Party.” Musk isn’t the only person uncomfortable with the direction offered by the two parties. The Democrats seem to cling to small minority positions, the majority abhors, such as biological males in women’s sports, and open borders. A Republican president playing footsy with organized labor and imposing industrial policy through tariffs. These used to be Democratic policies.

It’s not surprising that long-term adherents to either party are dismayed. Recently, I began to understand what was going on, thanks to two books., “Abundance,” by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, and “The New Conservatives,” edited by Oren Cass. In a post last April, I noted, “Abundance” is weak tea, heavy on lamentations about how nothing ever gets built or finished. We’ve all seen this in action, or more realistically, inaction. What I found lacking is solutions.

The authors decry California’s high-speed rail boondoggle, but fail to mention that Florida already connects major cities with its non-government high-speed rail. It’s not profitable, but it’s running and rapidly growing. Completed green power projects are more abundant in red states. Houston has affordable housing, California doesn’t.

While the U.S. as a whole suffers from excessive regulation, some individuals have found ways to accomplish their goals. Instead of merely pointing out the overregulation, the authors needed to demonstrate how to mitigate the problem, providing examples of success, even if they’re in Red States.

I was surprised to read E.J. Dionne’s critique of the book in The Washington Post. Long featured on the left of the center media, such as MSNBC, he’s a longtime window into the progressive intelligentsia’s thinking. In his words, this mild book” has “the potential to divide the party.” What, a book that ends in the aspiration for “a liberalism that builds.” What a shocking idea.

Continue reading →