Home

(This item originally appeared at Forbes.com on April 23, 2025.) Economic Nationalism, done right, could work very well for the United States in coming decades. The most glorious period for US business, before 1913, was a time of high tariffs and controlled immigration. But, it was also a time when there was no Income Tax; and, in this pre-Federal Reserve era, the money was fixed to gold. The result was very good. The United States, at first a promising “emerging market,” ended up a global superpower. The present era of Globalism dates from Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, passes landmarks such as the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994, but reached its full expression with the inclusion of China into the World Trade Organization in 2001. This was paralleled by a range of technological developments, empowered by the new Internet, which made long-distance supply chains possible. Although this Globalist trend arguably did benefit the world as a whole, it is not clear at all that it benefited American citizens. Many industries were “hollowed out,” with unemployment, underemployment and depressed wages the first consequence. A weak domestic economy did little to pick up the slack. Supply-chain dependency proved incompatible with a trend toward a more “multipolar” world, where China or Russia’s growing regional authority combined with American exhaustion with its post-WWII role as global policeman. Within this framework, certain Economic Nationalists (such as Pat Buchanan) have argued in favor of an across-the-board flat rate tariff, avoiding the aggravating complexity of different rates for different products from different countries. It is basically the tariff equivalent of a flat-rate retail sales tax, and might be in the range of 10% to 20%. To this might be added some country-specific (but still flat-rate) tariffs, depending on the situation, perhaps 5%-20%. For some reason, we

(This item originally appeared at Forbes.com on March 11, 2025.) In our 2022 book Inflation: What It Is, Why It’s Bad, and How To Fix It, we said: When the price of gold rises – in other words, when more money is needed to buy an ounce of gold – that usually means that the dollar’s value has decreased. … Daily price movements may not be significant. But, if the price goes up and stays there for an extended period, or if it fluctuates but the general trend is up, that signals a downturn in the value of the dollar. (p. 100) When we wrote this, it took about $1800 to buy an ounce of gold. Today, it is more like $2900. That implies an $1800/$2900=0.621 or a 38% decline in dollar value over that period. Prices will eventually adjust, over a period of years, to the new, lower value of the currency, with some prices moving faster and some moving slower. “All things being equal” (they never are but it is a good principle), we should expect a $2900/$1800 or 61% rise in prices of goods and services going forward, compared even to the inflation-boosted prices that we have had to get used to in 2022-2024. Compared to prices in 2018, when it took about $1200 to buy an ounce of gold, we should expect a $2900/$1200 or 141% increase in nominal prices. Doesn’t seem like much fun, does it. This is why we say “you can’t devalue yourself to prosperity.” No country ever got rich with a weak currency. They get rich with a stable and reliable currency, which means: a currency of unchanging stable value. You would have to increase your nominal income by 141% just to break even. Maybe more than that, on an after-tax basis. Even

Today we come to one of the core elements of Economic Nationalism, which is not the economics, but the Nationalism. Economic Nationalism series In practice, this leads directly to economics as well. Why are America and Canada the only wealthy countries in all of the Americas? It has something to do with their British heritage, which has led to certain political outcomes, which in turn lead to economic policy. I have put off writing this item for a while, because it is hard to express properly the idea of the Nation, and what it means for human social organization. Here’s a description of Aristotle’s idea of the “philia”: I will have to collect some better and additional examples to this over time, perhaps from the writings of Ibn Khaldun, Arnold Toynbee, or John Glubb. Here is Glubb’s description of the early stages of National success: The characteristics of the Nation are a combination of enough similarity of thought and background (and language, religion and so forth) that a group of people can effectively work together to achieve some kind of positive outcome for the group. Any short reading of the Founders of the United States shows how rare and precarious good government is. Glubb then goes to show why empires (and nations) decline: Here’s the “Tytler Cycle”: Note again that success begins, and is sustained, by “Unity and Deep Moral Groundings.” I am sure that someone else can express these concepts better than I am doing here. Anyway, the result of all this, over a period of many centuries, was the idea of the “Nation-State.” In other words, State boundaries and jurisdictions should be defined by, and separated by, Nations. Against the “Nation State,” we can contrast several other common situations: The Multi-State Nation, such as Germany before 1871. One

(This item originally appeared at Forbes.com on February 13, 2025.) The United States was founded on Free Trade. And, high tariffs.  Free Trade applied between the States. The new Federal Government was given specific powers over Interstate Commerce, to prevent the States from erecting tariff barriers against each other. States were not allowed to establish their own tariffs on foreign trade. The Federal Government applied a uniform tariff throughout the United States. It was one of the principal sources of revenue, in the Nineteenth Century. Domestically, the United States had exceptional economic policy. There were hardly any taxes, and the currency was reliably fixed to gold. Trade was Free between States. With what I’ve called “The Magic Formula” (Low Taxes and Stable Money), the US got rich – even with high tariffs with the rest of the world.  Immigration was highly restricted during the first half of the Nineteenth Century. No significant immigration took place until a burst of Irish immigrants, fleeing the Irish famine and British oppression, in the 1840s. In 1830, 98% of the US population was native-born. Even until 1890, almost all immigration came from Britain, Ireland, Canada, and Germany (England’s medieval ancestors). The tariffs themselves were extremely problematic, however. They invited extreme overcomplexity, with different tariffs for different goods, and even for different countries, with rates that changed suddenly. Every tariff rate became an object of political contention. High tariffs were an object of chronic disagreement between the North and South, which was only exacerbated when the election of Abraham Lincoln resulted in still-higher tariffs. During the Nineteenth Century, the United States ran a persistent current-account deficit with the rest of the world, which basically reflected the desire of foreigners to invest in the booming United States. This arrangement changed with the introduction of the Income Tax in 1913. Now, there was an alternative