There was a time conservatives all knew this, but the new right's fatal flaw is not just in the application -- the perpetual desire for more state intervention -- but rather in the very nature of things that they get wrong. Markets are not created by the state, but rather by voluntary, organic human interaction. David unpacks the relevance of this basic creational, economic, and yes, moral message, in today’s Capital Record.

Populism seems to be the driving force of the new right’s economic philosophy. The new right has said that they want to take on “libertarian” economics and “free market orthodoxy.” Others have said that “libertarian economics is the same thing as conservative economics” (i.e., laissez-faire, low tax, low regulation, etc.). David suggests the need of the hour is not just more precise definitions, but a truly robust understanding of conservative economics -- one that goes where libertarianism didn’t, and goes where populism simply can’t.

David takes on the idea that protectionism and globalization are chief rivals, and instead suggests that the chief rival of protectionism is free enterprise itself. He critiques Joe Nocera’s recent Free Press article suggesting that the protectionists have been vindicated, and instead suggests that the entire protectionist agenda is essentially the plight of the central planner. A careful critique of the tariff dogma, combined with a non-revisionist view of what has transpired in trade and culture over the last few decades!

As the Trump administration and Amazon/Bezos almost duked it out over the “shocking” idea of disclosing the impact to prices from taxes on imports, those of us seeking to understand economic application out of cogent economic theory were given a great chance to relearn some lessons from master himself, Friedrich Hayek. It turns out price discovery is important in economics for the same reason transparency is important in political theory -- and this ought to be a very non-partisan belief!

If our goal is a monetary policy that minimizes interventions and distortions in the marketplace and most optimally allows capital to find its most efficient use, the last thing we should want is a Fed that is less independent and more captive to political whims and desires. David explains his various criticisms of Jerome Powell this week, but points out how we make things much worse, not better, if we believe it a good idea for the Fed to be a pawn of the president. In this case, it is counterproductive; for future precedent, it is downright dangerous.

With so much talk circulating that Americans need to be deathly afraid of a “strong dollar,” David takes on recent comments from Stephen Miran, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, suggesting that a strong dollar is really unfair to Americans. Underlying some of these recent allegations about dollar supremacy is a familiar crisis of responsibility. It is time to set the record straight.

David talks about all the things that are right in the dichotomy between the “stock market” and the “real economy,” but then goes into all the things that are wrong -- namely, that 99 percent of the time someone is making this distinction, they are doing it wrong, for the wrong reasons, in the wrong way. Understanding what public equity prices measure versus what broad economic data measures is a good thing, but pitting capital against labor is called “Marxism” -- and it can be deadly wrong.

David talks about all the things that are right in the dichotomy between the “stock market” and the “real economy,” but then goes into all the things that are wrong – namely, that 99% of the time someone is making this distinction, they are doing it wrong, for the wrong reasons, in the wrong way. Understanding what public equity prices measure versus what broad economic data measures is a good thing, but pitting capital against labor is called “Marxism” – and it can be deadly wrong.