Category: Uncategorized

Tariffs and Economic Isolationism: Four Principles for a Response

Posted on by Alex Terr

The incoming Trump administration promises a very large increase in tariffs, perhaps to levels last seen during the mid-1930s in the Depression. As national policy, this would abandon the liberalizing program developed during the New Deal and extended under presidents of both parties all the way through the Obama administration. In its place would come something like the high-tariff worlds of Harding/Hoover isolationism in the 1920s, or (in Mr. Trump’s apparently preferred formulation) the even more remote Gilded Age of the 1880s and 1890s.

Just a week before the inauguration, in the real world of 2025, what will actually happen — to borrow from lyrics from a slightly later era — still ain’t exactly clear. Mr. Trump has proposed at least five different policies, mostly incompatible. One is an overall 10% or 20% tariff — the most Hoover-like option, with tariffs as much as ten times their current rate. Another is the imposition of tariffs on particular countries as tools for particular issues such as migration, and a third is stopping trade with China, Canada, and Mexico in particular. Last year’s Republican platform added a “Rube Goldberg”-style scheme in which each U.S. tariff line is equal to or higher than every analogous tariff line in every other country, and the tariff schedule balloons out to millions of lines; another option is traditional, Hoover-era tariff legislation. The most recent, via press trial balloons, is tariffs on products administration officials decide are especially sensitive. 

Tariffs are occasionally necessary, of course. Governments can use them appropriately to give industries struggling with import surges or subsidized competition space to recover (as the Biden administration did last year with respect to Chinese-produced electric vehicles), or to isolate aggressor governments as with the punitive tariffs imposed on Russia in 2022. But they always raise costs — a strange choice for Mr. Trump to make, after the advantages his campaign drew from the inflation burst of 2021-2023 — and, in general, tend to lower living standards and erode industrial competitiveness. Depending on the way the incoming administration tries to impose them, they can also harm the separation of powers and the Constitution. And looking ahead, the Biden administration’s experience demonstrates the error of trying to answer by blurring differences or proposing “lite” versions of the same thing.

This doesn’t mean critics need a very detailed response now. That isn’t necessary until the administration program becomes clear. But they do need to lay the intellectual foundation for it soon. Here, then, are four principles, meant to bridge the Constitutional, economic, strategic, and political issues the various Trump proposals raise: 

  • Defend the Constitution and oppose attempts to rule by decrees.
  • Connect tariff policy, both as taxation and trade policy, to growth, work, prices and family budgets, and living standards.
  • Stand by America’s neighbors and allies.
  • Offer a positive alternative.

I. MOVING BEYOND BIDENOMICS

In applying these principles, there’s no need for Democrats — or liberals in general, or others concerned about living standards, competitiveness, and America’s place in the world — to feel bound by Bidenomics. To the contrary, a new agenda needs some clear breaks with it.

President Biden’s program had some very positive results: low unemployment, steady growth, and faster decarbonization. Its “industrial strategy” programs, if expensive, do seem to have strengthened the semiconductor industry and might still prove durable ways to reduce emissions in automobiles and power plants. The Biden team also leaves some useful trade policy starting points:  Commerce Secretary Raimondo’s innovative export promotion programs, Secretary Yellen’s Treasury concept of “friendshoring” as a way to ensure diverse sourcing and pool allied strengths in a more dangerous world, and Vice President Harris’s campaign summary of a broad tariff increase as fundamentally a tax increase on working families all make sense.

But Bidenomics also had failures and missed opportunities, and ended as a political liability. The White House badly oversold its “industrial strategy” as something that could create a much larger manufacturing sector, as opposed to the very important but less cosmic semiconductor and emissions-reduction plans. (Manufacturing, at 10.9% of GDP before Mr. Trump’s initial round of tariffs in 2018/19, fell to 10.3% by 2021. Its share now, industrial strategy or not, is 10.0%.) In trade policy as in some other areas, Bidenomics missed an opportunity to cut prices for families — obviously, the working-class public’s single largest concern last year — and make sure the first Trump administration bore its appropriate share of blame for inflation, by leaving the 2018/19 tariffs largely untouched and declaring the permanent tariff system untouchable. It stranded the U.S.’ $3 trillion export sector by giving up on lowering foreign trade barriers and promoting digital trade. Most important, as we warned nearly two years ago, its concession of tariff issues to Trump without a fight in 2021-2023 proved a grave political weakness in 2024, leaving Vice President Harris’ valiant campaign without a positive alternative to Trump’s tariff increases.

II. FOUR PRINCIPLES

The coming years require something else. What might it be? Trumpism will be better defined within a few months. Within a few years, any of its various proposals will likely create new problems (or recreate old ones) that require solutions we cannot now define. So, for now, a detailed response would be premature. But as a point of departure, here are four principles meant as a foundation for critiques of Trumpism and the development of alternatives:

1. Defend the Constitution. First, prevent breaches of the separation of powers, and insist that Congress consider any change in tariff policy in a Constitutionally appropriate way. The Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, gives Congress unambiguous authority over “Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises,” and for good reason. No single individual, president or not, should have the power to create his or her own tax system out of nothing. That, at minimum, risks impulsive and ill-considered decisions. Even more seriously, it creates a standing temptation for all future presidents to use tariffs to reward personal friends and supporters, and likewise to punish critics, business rivals, and disaffected states.  

As a legal matter, Congress has passed a number of laws “delegating” tariff policymaking to presidents in certain situations. Some seem Constitutionally sensible and convenient. Others, such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and sections 301 and 232 of U.S. trade law, give presidents too much unchecked power. But even in these cases, no law is meant to allow a president to create his own tariff system. Whether or not courts find such a step “unconstitutional,” given precedent from case law and Congressional drafting errors, as an obvious breach of an unambiguous Congressional power, it would certainly be “anti-Constitutional.” Congress should oppose the perversion of any current law for this purpose, insist that no general tariff increase ever occur absent a formal vote, and reject any attempt to impose tariffs by decree.

2. Connect trade and tariff policies to American living standards, work, and growth. Second, define tariff policy correctly as tax and trade policy, and analyze its effects on the basis of its impact on working family living standards, business competitiveness, and growth.

As Laura Duffy explained in her PPI paper last fall, tariffs are a poor form of taxation, distinguished from broader income or consumption taxes for narrow base and high rates, and for opacity, regressivity, and inequity. They are opaque because they are hidden from the consumers who bear their costs — one reason PPI and other polling tend to find tariffs a low-priority issue (pro or con) among working-class families. They are regressive because, in their role as a form of sales tax, they tax only goods, and less affluent families spend twice as much of their income on goods — clothes, shoes, cars, toothbrushes, Band-Aids, food, rugs, TVs, chairs — as rich families. Even today, tariffs account for a quarter of the cost of cheap shoes, and add 10% to the price of mass-market stainless steel forks and spoons. Adding another 10% or 20% tariff, or whatever the actual Trump administration policy turns out to be, to this adds immediately to their cash-register prices. A tariff increase, therefore, presages not only higher prices in the abstract — but higher prices mostly on things important to hourly-wage families. (And remember the Trump platform’s top single promise last year: “restore price stability, and quickly bring down prices”). And they are inequitable for businesses as well as families, since they tax goods-using industries — manufacturers, farmers, building contractors, retail outlets, restaurants — but not services- and investment-intensive sectors like financial services or real estate.

In trade policy, tariffs do have legitimate policy roles — for example, as part of a program to isolate aggressor governments (as with the removal of Russia’s MFN status in 2022), or giving temporary support to industries facing import surges or competitive troubles, and needing some space to upgrade. But policymakers should reserve tariffs for these kinds of unusual circumstances. The better trade policy approach is to build the export sector — a $3 trillion part of the U.S. economy, leading the world in farming, energy, and services exports, and second in the world for manufacturing — and find ways to promote it. Exporters pay high wages and earn a fifth of all U.S. farm income; they are disproportionately successful manufacturers, lead the world in cutting-edge innovation from digital technology to biotech, and range from world-famous medicine and aerospace firms to small chocolatiers and specialized musical-instrument makers. All are easy targets for the foreign governments who will retaliate against U.S. tariff hikes and breach of agreements. These are national assets, and policy should encourage their success, rather than turning them into trade war cannon fodder.

3. Stand by America’s allies and neighbors: Third, protect and build, rather than disrupt and erode, America’s strategic relationships with allies and neighbors. The U.S. is rare among historic world powers to have both long-term alliances with most of the world’s advanced economies, and deep and friendly ties with its immediate neighbors. These are strategic assets built over decades and core elements of any serious economic or national security strategy for the next decades. 

So it is especially disturbing to see Mr. Trump use his free time in these transition months to pick fights, including through tariff threats, with neighbors and allies from Canada and Denmark to Mexico and Panama. Economics apart, these countries have often stood with the U.S. when it counted a lot. Remember, for example, that Denmark, with its 6 million people and 21,000 military personnel, lost 43 soldiers not so long ago in Iraq and Afghanistan. Canada lost 158. Neither deserves repayment with bullying and economic threats. Certainly, difficult policy issues and disputes turn up at times in alliance and big-neighbor relationships — military spending, export controls, border issues, narcotics control — are all important topics on which the U.S. has legitimate interests, and sometimes disagreements. But to think you can solve any of them more easily by alienating the relevant governments and publics is arrogant. And to forget the very large value we draw from mutually beneficial trade, technological partnerships, and cross-border investment with allies and neighbors is self-destructive folly. Democrats should stand by our alliances and good-neighbor relationships as major national strengths, even if the incoming administration hasn’t yet learned their value.

4. Provide a positive, reformist, alternative: Fourth, define the outlines of a better trade approach. Though a very detailed program is premature, three lines of policy can form a basic vision that offers both household and national benefit:

* International engagement: Pool strengths and deepen ties with neighbors and allies through updated, reciprocal trade agreements. Trade negotiations and agreements can help both find non-inflationary sources of growth by expanding markets for America’s exporting factories, farmers, energy, and services industries, and diversity and secure supply chains by deepening relationships with neighbors and allies. This can include U.S.-Europe agreements with the United Kingdom as an immediate choice, a return to the 15-country Trans-Pacific Partnership — now functioning very well as the “CPTPP” for Japan, Australia, and other allies, including the U.K. — and using the 2026 “review” of the “USMCA” to broaden it to Caribbean, Central, and South American countries. The content of such agreements would change in some ways from the FTAs negotiated in the 2000s — probably, for example, through coordination of export control policies vis-à-vis authoritarian countries, joint approaches to Chinese over-capacity, and subsidies in some industries, energy and LNG supply to Europe and Asia, secure access to and joint development of critical minerals and other essential industrial inputs, and other matters — but would remain in the internationalist strategic tradition.

*  Domestic reform: Lower costs for families and industry. Balancing this outward-looking, optimistic approach to negotiations, move on from defending Constitutional government to restoring it, and from opposing regressive tariff hikes to developing a new approach that makes trade policy fairer and cuts costs for families. At a more personal level, Congress can ease the cost of living by reforming the permanent tariff system, stripping regressivity and sexism out of the clothing, silverware, shoe, and other consumer goods schedules — where hundreds of lines simply raise the prices of cheap mass-market goods not made in the U.S. for decades, and the higher rates imposed on women’s clothes as opposed to men’s extracts $2.5 billion from women each year — and making the functioning of this system transparent. Here the starting point is the Pink Tariffs Study Act introduced last spring by Representatives Lizzie Fletcher and Brittany Pettersen. 

* Protect the Constitution: Finally, ensure Constitutionally appropriate policymaking by safeguarding Congress’ control over tariff rates.  Here, the starting point is the Prevent Tariff Abuse bill introduced by Representatives Suzanne DelBene and Don Beyer, which bars the use of tariffs through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

CONCLUSION

These are of course starting points and principles meant as guidelines for a period of uncertainty and flux. They identify areas in which policymaking needs to be strengthened and guarded against abuse, new threats and destructive ideas to oppose, and lines of policy that can help families stretch their budgets, strengthen U.S. industries, and safeguard America’s place in the world.

In trade as in some other matters, the Trump administration is taking office next week with a variety of incompatible promises, threats, Hooverist rhetoric, and eccentric references to the late President William McKinley. This means the next years may create new challenges that analysts can intelligently guess at but can’t predict with real precision, and a detailed response will have to. But though even a week before the inauguration, its program ain’t exactly clear, two things do seem certain:

One, Mr. Trump’s tariff threats — whichever among them proves to be the “real” policy — are bad ideas. All of them, though in different ways, would leave Americans with lower living standards, higher-cost and less competitive businesses, and eroded national security.

Two, critics of these threats should not repeat the Biden administration’s attempts to blur differences with Trumpism and propose softer versions of it. Instead, they need a forthright critique and an alternative that can deliver the opposite of Trumpism: a lower cost of living, more competitive agriculture and industries, and a stronger position in a more dangerous world.

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: In Ukraine’s Army, the “Heavenly Punishment” Battalion’s Morale is Unwavering, Its Blows Punishing

Posted on by Max Sherrill

A half dozen officers from Ukraine’s 54th Mechanized Brigade hover around the table in what was once a modest civilian home on the outskirts of Sloviansk, a small, war-torn city just behind the front line. The table is heaped with a holiday feast—meat, rice pilaf, salads, and even smoked salmon canapés. We’re waiting for the colonel, code-named Khors, a career officer in his early 50s with a Cossack haircut—shaved on the sides to show off a long, flaxen topknot. When he arrives, we sit down to eat.

No one speaks of the battle a few days before—a close encounter with more numerous and better armed Russian forces. The Ukrainians mounted a robust defense, and the men now seem eager to put it behind them. But when I ask about morale, their faces grow longer. “People are tired,” Khors says, staring into the middle distance. “Especially the commanders. And the winter doesn’t help.”

After nearly three years of all-out combat, the war in Ukraine is heading into what could be a pivotal few months. The Russians have been moving forward on the eastern front, throwing troops at the fight and losing as many as 2,000 a day, but still advancing yard by yard into Ukrainian territory. Intensifying bombardments terrorize cities far from the battlefield. Over half the country’s electricity-generating capacity has been destroyed; some households experience daily outages. Ammunition is somewhat more plentiful than when U.S. aid stalled a year ago, but many units complain they are short of manpower.

Perhaps most uncertain is what a Trump presidency will bring. Will the new American leader try to make good on his promise to end the war in one day? Will Vladimir Putin heed his call to come to the negotiating table? And what kind of peace deal might they strike, with or without Ukrainian approval?

Continue reading in Washington Monthly.

Weinstein Jr. in The Boston Globe: How ‘administrative bloat’ swells staffing, costs at Massachusetts colleges

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Even as financial pressures on universities grow, experts said, the growth in administrators is unlikely to reverse in the short term.

The Trump administration aims to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; boost the tax on college endowments; and reevaluate federal funding for universities — all of which could prompt schools to hire a cadre of attorneys and other professionals to stay in compliance, or fight back. An anticipated wave of higher ed mergers will need compliance managers, consultants, and other experts to shepherd deals and manage integration.

But Paul Weinstein Jr., a Johns Hopkins professor in Maryland and senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, said the boom cannot last forever. Both students and professors are catching onto the uptick in administrators, critiquing the floors and floors of employees who scarcely interact with the rest of the institution, he said.

“We’re coming to this reckoning moment,” Weinstein added. “Universities going to be faced with this reality that they have more administrators than they can support or justify, and it’s not going to be pleasant.”

Read more in The Boston Globe.

Manno for Forbes: K-12 Public Education’s Pandemic Hangover Lasts Into 2025

Posted on by Max Sherrill

As we begin 2025, the pandemic disruption to K-12 public schools continues to haunt America’s young people. Some of its effects result from school closures, while others predate the pandemic but were made worse by these closures.

“We’re in the midst of an education depression. By depression, I mean an extended era of shrinking outcomes and opportunity. This goes far beyond the pandemic,” writes Tim Daly in The Education Daly.

So our young people, especially the most vulnerable, face a diminished future. Stanford University economist Eric Hanushek calculates that if learning loss is not reversed, the average student’s lifetime earnings will be 6% lower, the equivalent of a 6% income tax surcharge on students’ working lives. Nor will these losses be equally distributed as the most disadvantaged will suffer the worst consequences.

Keep reading in Forbes.

Moss for ProMarket: Massachusetts Lawmakers Just Made It Harder for Trustbusters To Break Up the Live-Nation Ticketmaster Monopoly

Posted on by Alex Terr

Sports fans and concertgoers have lived with Live Nations-Ticketmaster’s monopoly grip on the ticketing market for decades. Even as Ticketmaster maintained its 70% plus market share in primary ticketing it stealthily moved into ticket resale, where fans buy and sell tickets after they have been sold on the primary market. Between 2019 and 2022, Ticketmaster grew its share of resale to almost one-third of the market.

Together with its monopoly in primary ticketing, Ticketmaster’s incursion into ticket resale creates yet another roadblock for fans, who are confronted by Ticketmaster at every turn. Moreover, the ticketing behemoth is pursuing an aggressive state-level campaign to push for laws that effectively regulate the resale market while it continues to operate, unfettered, in the primary market. This aides Ticketmaster in reinforcing its monopoly in ticketing, and Massachusetts consumers are the most recent victim.

Ticketmaster’s SafeTix mobile ticket program, launched in 2019, is the major channel for buying and selling millions of tickets to live events. If competition holds sway in ticketing markets, myriad benefits will follow. These include a choice of ticketing services for artists, venues, and fans, ticket fees that do not extort fans, and quality and innovation in ticket delivery. But Ticketmaster’s dominant position in ticketing eliminates these benefits for consumers.

Read more in ProMarket.

India has 84 of the world’s 100 most air-polluted cities.

Posted on by Alex Terr

FACT: India has 84 of the world’s 100 most air-polluted cities.

 

THE NUMBERS:  Share of annual deaths attributable to air pollution* – 

India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh:    ~17%
Rest of world:                                   ~8%* World Bank for India, calculations based on national data for Pakistan and Bangladesh.WHAT THEY MEAN:

The annual urban air quality survey by IQ Air (a Swiss air purification company) reports “PM 2.5” concentration per cubic meter of air in 7,812 cities in 134 countries and territories. (Punta Arenas to Nome; Dublin to Vladivostok; Cape Town to Oslo; Cairo, Dushanbe, Suva, Colombo, Chiang Rai, Sydney, etc.) PM 2.5 is “particulate matter” measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter. Typically it’s smoke, soot, effluent, car exhaust, small acid drops produced by atmospheric chemical reactions, and the like. The survey’s 2024 edition, with figures for 2023, finds the world’s healthiest air in Kuusamo, a Finnish town of 15,000 about 500 miles due north of Helsinki. They breathe in just 0.3 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter of air. At the smoggy top, meanwhile, comes Begusarai, a Bihar industrial center with 3 million residents, at 118.9 micrograms per cubic meter.

Begusarai’s case is extreme but also representative: 84 Indian cities and towns show up in the survey’s 100 most air-polluted cities. National capital New Delhi comes in at 92.7 micrograms, Patna 88.2, Gwalior 68.9, and Meerut 78.9. Another six of the top ten are Bangladeshi and Pakistani towns — Lahore ranks fifth, just above New Delhi, and Dhaka is 24th — each with over 50 micrograms of dirt per cubic meter of air. In sum, the belt of fertile green land below the Himalaya and north of the Deccan Plateau, home to over a billion people, has the worst air in the world. This, in part, comes from geography (the Himalaya range is the world’s largest winter air-flow trapper) but also from poor policing of brick kilns, rubbish-burning, crop residue burnoff, vehicle emissions, and other sources policy can, in principle, address.

Three ways to put these numbers in context:

Compared to other big emerging-economy cities: City air is usually smokier in emerging economies than in top-end wealthy countries, but the Pakistan-northern India-Bangladesh belt is unique. For example, IQ Air puts Lagos’ PM 2.5 count at 21.8 micrograms per cubic meter of air, a fifth of the Delhi level. Mexico City’s is 22.3 micrograms, and Istanbul’s at 18.7. Others include Bangkok at 21.7, Cairo a dense 42.7, Shanghai 28.7, and Sao Paulo 14.3.

Compared to the U.S.: American cities and towns nationally averaged 9.1 micrograms, just between Germany’s 9.0 micrograms and Argentina’s 9.2, and in the mid-range of wealthy countries. (See below for a representative list.)  Big American cities range from Chicago’s relatively smoky 13.0 micrograms to Tucson’s desert-fresh 3.8; San Juan in Puerto Rico, with a sparkling 2.7 microgram reading, gets IQ Air’s title as the world’s cleanest-air capital. Coraopolis in Pennsylvania fared worst at 19.3 micrograms, but mainly by bad luck — Coraopolis was directly in the path of that June’s Canadian wildfire smoke river, and its 2022 rating was a better 7.2 micrograms.

Compared to other regions: In Europe, the highest continental air pollution rating goes to Plevlja in Montenegro at 40.7 micrograms per cubic meter. (It’s near a coal mine and a Yugoslav-era power plant.)  The western hemisphere’s top reading is in Chilean mountain town Coyhaique at 33.2 micrograms. though both are smoky by American and “developed-world-city” standards, neither would make a list of South Asia’s 150 most-polluted cities.

What does this mean?  High particulate matter counts aren’t merely unpleasant. The World Bank says they engender or inflame enough illnesses each year – heart diseases, strokes, lung cancer, a smaller number of lung infections — to cause 1.67 million Indian premature deaths to air pollution. That’s nearly a fifth of India’s 9.5 million total annual deaths; the comparable estimate for Bangladesh is about 160,000 of 859,000 deaths, and for Pakistan 128,000 of 1.6 million deaths. Overall, the World Health Organization attributes 6.7 million premature deaths to air pollution worldwide, or one in nine of the world’s annual 61.7 million deaths.

Two concluding thoughts: First, it’s rare to solve a problem before you recognize it, and the survey’s very broad coverage shows rapidly growing worldwide interest in understanding air quality levels. So the high-P.M. 2.5 countries participating in the survey deserve credit for transparency. (The regions least covered are the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa.) Second, air pollution is not immune to policy. The U.S.’ national PM 2.5 average, for example, was 13.5 micrograms per cubic meter in 2000, so the 9.1 micrograms of 2023 represents a 30% cleanup so far this century. Likewise, Beijing’s 34.1 microgram count, though nothing to brag about, is vastly better than the New Delhi-like 101.6 micrograms in 2013. So policy can help. The cities and national governments at the top end of the list have the information they need to do better, and ought to use it. In this case, the “people are dying” cliché seems perfectly true, lots of them.

Further Reading

IQ Air’s World Air Quality 2024 report.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency explains “PM 2.5” and U.S. clean air laws.

And the World Health Organization on air pollution as a cause of death.

Top and bottom:

Kuusamo, just south of the 66th parallel — for American readers, about 80 miles north of Nome and Fairbanks –advertises excellent skiing seven months a year, as well as the world’s freshest air. If you’re planning a vacation, though, note that in this winter season, Kuusamo gets less than four hours of sunlight. Tomorrow’s dawn is 10:14 a.m., and darkness returns by lunchtime at 2:06 p.m.

Begusarai residents, meanwhile, can check in with Bihar’s air quality monitoring service to see whether it’s safe to go outside.

South Asia:

al-Jazeera asks why South Asia’s air is so bad.

The World Bank looks at ideas and air quality policy in India.

… and finds overuse of brick kilns and home ovens burning wood and other biomass as core causes of Bangladesh’s highest-in-the-world national PM 2.5 rating.

Pakistan’s College of Physicians and Surgeons looks at health and air quality challenges.

Rankings (cities):

Here’s a selection of 60 of the report’s 7,812 cities, illustrating (a) the worldwide range from Kuusumo’s 7,812th-place 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter of air to Begusarai’s top-ranked 118.9, and (b) the U.S. range (American cities in italics) from the low of 1.9 micrograms in Wilson, N.C., to Coraopoli

Rank City PM 2.5 micrograms per cubic meter
1 Begusarai, India 118.9
2 Gauwahati, India 105.4
5 Lahore, Pakistan 99.7
6 New Delhi, India 92.7
24 Dhaka, Bangladesh 65.8
231  Jakarta, Indonesia 43.8
233 Hanoi, Vietnam 43.7
258 Cairo, Egypt 42.4
284 Kathmandu, Nepal 42.0
321 Chengdu, China 39.0
454 Beijing, China 34.1
488 Accra, Ghana 33.2
667 Shanghai, China 28.7
958 Phnom Penh, Cambodia 22.8
999 Mexico City, Mexico 22.3
1048 Lagos, Nigeria 21.8
1052 Bangkok, Thailand 21.7
1206 Seoul, Korea 19.7
1246 Coraopolis, PA 19.3
1301 Istanbul, Turkey 18.7
1315 Thessaloniki, Greece 18.5
1633 Jerusalem, Israel 15.7
1659 Hong Kong, China 15.5
1711 Tegucigalpa, Honduras 15.1
1771 Makati, Philippines 14.8
1840 Sao Paulo, Brazil 14.3
2026 Singapore, Singapore 13.4
2071 Warsaw, Poland 13.2
2086 Florence, Italy 13.1
2120 Chicago, IL 13.0
2210 La Paz, Bolivia 12.6
2357 St. Louis, MO 12.2
2563 Washington, D.C. 11.7
2627 New York, NY 11.6
2906 Atlanta, GA 11.0
2990 Toronto, Canada 10.8
3158 Houston, TX 10.6
3179 Berlin, Germany 10.5
3196 Nairobi, Kenya 10.5
3422 Marseilles, France 10.1
3702 Tokyo, Japan 9.7
3754 Buenos Aires, Argentina 9.6
3890 Los Angeles, CA 9.5
4053 Lviv, Ukraine 9.3
4279 Madrid, Spain 9.0
4672 New Orleans, LA 8.6
4830 London, United Kingdom 8.4
5215 Copenhagen, Denmark 7.9
5281 Boston, MA 7.9
5470 Lisbon, Portugal 7.0
5828 York, United Kingdom 7.1
5853 Missoula, MT 7.1
5888 Sapporo, Japan 7.0
6305 Denver, CO 6.4
6575 Cape Town, South Africa 5.9
6872 Stockholm, Sweden 5.4
7087 Sydney, Australia 5.0
7100 Tallin, Estonia 4.6
7635 Tucson, AZ 3.5
7692 Wellington, New Zealand 3.1
7753 San Juan, PR 2.7
7806 Wilson, NC 1.9
7812 Kuusamo, Finland 0.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rankings (countries):

Shifting from cities to countries, only ten countries meet WHO’s “healthy air” standard of 5.0 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter of air. Most are small islands such as Tahiti, Mauritius, Bermuda, and Iceland. The best big-country records are Australia’s and New Zealand’s, with Baltic Sea countries Estonia, Finland, and Sweden also very good. On any given afternoon, Bangladesh’s 79.9 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter means Bangladeshis are breathing 20 times as much dirt as New Zealanders, with their best-in-class 4.3 micrograms. A sample:

Rank Country PM 2.5 micrograms per cubic meter
1. Bangladesh 79.9
2. Pakistan 73.7
3. India 54.4
7. United Arab Emirates 43.0
14. Indonesia 37.1
19. China 32.5
29. Ethiopia 29.0
35. Nigeria 23.9
46. Mexico 20.1
50. Korea 19.2
74. Poland 14.3
83. Brazil 12.6
96. Japan 9.6
102. United States 9.1
103. Germany 9.0
112. United Kingdom 7.7
117. Jamaica 7.1
124. Sweden 5.1
128. Australia 4.5
129. New Zealand 4.3
134. French Polynesia 3.2

America’s worst air day:

The 2023 Canadian wildfire smoke event peaked on June 8. That day’s PM 2.5 readings, the 21st century’s worst for the United States, reached 196 micrograms per cubic meter in New York and 141 micrograms in Washington, D.C. — that is, levels typical of a bad but not unusual week in northern Indian cities. The day’s national average was 27.5 micrograms. The Guardian looks back.

… and the Washington Post lets you look up that day’s PM 2.5 ratings by city:

And last:

A morbid chart from Our World in Data counts total annual world deaths. Note the sharp spike in 2020 during the COVID pandemic, from 58.4 million deaths in 2019 to 69.7 million in 2020, followed by a drop back to last year’s 61.7 million.

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week.

PPI Asks the Departments of Justice and Transportation to Focus on Access and Choice to Promote Competition in U.S. Airline Markets

Posted on by Alex Terr

WASHINGTON — The U.S. airline industry has undergone a dramatic transformation over the past two decades, marked by a wave of mergers that has reshaped the competitive landscape. As a result, consumers in many regions now face fewer options for air travel. With the Biden Administration having placed renewed emphasis on fostering competition across key sectors, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is calling for a fresh approach to airline competition policy that prioritizes access, choice, and affordability for American families.

Today, PPI submitted comments to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) on the “state of competition” in the air transportation industry. The comments focus on critical markets for passenger air service where U.S. consumers and working families are directly affected by the consolidation of U.S. carriers and encourage the DOJ, DOT, and Congress to make airline competition a priority in evaluating competition in the air transportation supply chain.

The unprecedented wave of consolidation in the domestic airline industry between 2005 and 2015 has many implications. PPI’s comments highlight the reality of today’s market — a handful of major airlines that account for almost 70% of the national market and a small group of regional, ultra low-cost (ULCC), and smaller carriers.

PPI urges policymakers to frame competition policy that prioritizes the prospect of more, smaller, ULCC, and regional carriers, as access and choice are especially important for flyers who do not live near major airports or in cities without a choice of airports. PPI’s Vice President and Director of Competition Policy, Diana Moss, noted: “Access to a choice of convenient and competitively priced flights is critical for American consumers and working families.”  

PPI’s comments also emphasize that competition policy that promotes access and choice should not stop at the U.S. border. Policymakers should also take a close look at how DOT’s liberally grants U.S. carriers antitrust immunity on some global alliance routes. The consumer costs of some agreements, in the form of lost competition, are not always outbalanced by benefits elsewhere in the alliance networks, including for flyers in the U.S.

PPI argues that the DOJ recently advanced a strong agenda to prevent airline consolidation that is harmful to consumers. The DOT has done the same on the consumer protection side, but has not made much progress on competition. Therefore, a DOT competition agenda moving forward, and better cooperation between the DOJ and DOT is needed.

Read the full comment response to the Request for Information issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Transportation here.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

PPI Comments on Competition in Air Transportation

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) submits these comments in response to the Request for Information (RFI) issued by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) on October 24, 2024, in docket number ATR 103. The RFI seeks information on the “state of competition” in the air transportation industry. PPI’s comments address specific questions in the RFI that relate to markets for passenger air service (“passenger service”). In these markets, U.S. consumers and working families are directly affected by strategic business practices and consolidation, such as mergers, acquisitions, and joint venture agreements. Changes in competitive dynamics affect airfares and ancillary fees (“fees”), quality and innovation in technology and service, business models, and the reliability and stability of the air transportation supply chain.

PPI’s comments stress that competition in passenger service markets should be a priority for reframing competition policy in air transportation. Comments on the RFI from other organizations will focus on other parts of the air transportation supply chain, such as aircraft manufacturing, distribution of fare and schedule information, and labor markets. We encourage the agencies to consider how competition concerns in other markets can potentially create market power “bottlenecks.” Shocks to these bottleneck markets can cause cascading failures that affect the entire air transportation supply chain, including passenger air service. Recent examples include the Boeing 737 Max safety incidents and their impact on aircraft supply shortages and the flying public.

PPI’s comments begin with an assessment of inter-agency coordination on airline consolidation. This section is responsive to Section 10 in the RFI. The comments then turn to consolidation in domestic markets and access by smaller ultra low-cost (ULCC) and regional carriers to essential inputs such as takeoff and landing slots and airport facilities such as gates. This section is responsive to Section 3 in the RFI. The final section addresses changes in passenger service markets that affect DOT’s grants of antitrust immunity (ATI) for joint-venture agreements in the three major international alliances. This section is responsive to Section 2 in the RFI.

Read the comment response to the Request for Information issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Transportation.

Moss in The Wall Street Journal: U.S. Expands RealPage Price-Fixing Lawsuit to Include Six Big Landlords

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Some of the defendants, such as Greystar, the biggest apartment owner in the U.S., and Cushman & Wakefield, have already faced private-sector lawsuits from tenants and prosecutors alleging that they colluded on rent increases using the RealPage algorithm.

Those private cases could get a boost now that the federal government is publicly suing these landlords with parallel claims, said Diana Moss, vice president and competition policy director at the Progressive Policy Institute.

The DOJ’s expanded lawsuit creates a “mutually reinforcing effect of public and private enforcers working together,” she said.

Read the full article in The Wall Street Journal.

Marshall in The New York Times: Trump’s Return Is a Civil Society Failure

Posted on by Max Sherrill

A post-election YouGov poll commissioned by the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank, sent a clear message to party loyalists.

YouGov asked 5,098 working-class voters (defined as those without college degrees), including detailed analyses of voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, and also asked 881 people in the national sample, to evaluate the political parties on measures of trust and commitment.

More significant, on two survey questions that previously favored Democrats — is the party “on my side or not” and which party do you trust “to fight for people like me” — the Democrats lost ground to Republicans. Fifty percent of all voters participating in this survey said that the Republican Party would fight for people “like me,” while 36 percent said the Democratic Party would.

In an essay accompanying the release of the poll, Will Marshall, president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute, wrote:

The most lethal attack ad of the presidential campaign was a clip from a 2019 interview in which Kamala Harris explains her support for publicly funded sex-change surgery for prisoners, including detained immigrants. The kicker: “Kamala is for they/them; President Trump is for you.”

Keep reading in The New York Times.

Jacoby for Forbes: Bound By The Rule Of Law, Europe Wrestles With Escalating Hybrid Warfare

Posted on by Alex Terr

Looking back, Estonian officials are confident that they handled the May 2024 buoy incident about as well as it could be handled. Estonian border guards caught the Russian theft on video: a handful of uniformed men in patrol boats moving slowly up the river between the two countries, systematically removing 25 of the 50 buoys laid down by Estonia to mark the frontier. “Moscow is testing our reaction,” director general of the Estonian police and border guard Egert Belitšev tells me as we watch the tape. “When we don’t react, they go further.”

A tiny country of 1.4 million, formerly occupied by the Soviet Union, Estonia has long seen itself as the front line between Russia and the West, and Estonians are used to the so-called “hybrid” aggression that has been escalating elsewhere in Europe in recent months. The day after the buoy incident, the foreign minister summoned Moscow’s top diplomat in Tallinn and told him in no uncertain terms that the theft was unacceptable. Will that be enough to deter similar sabotage this year? Belitšev shrugs off the question. “We couldn’t follow the provocation,” he explains. “We do not enter Russian territory. Our job is to keep Estonians safe, not provoke World War III.”

It has taken the rest of Europe several years to recognize the growing challenge posed by Moscow’s shadow warfare. But with the provocations increasingly frequent and increasingly menacing—not just cyberattacks and disinformation but bomb threats, arson, and a foiled assassination attempt last year—officials across the continent are wrestling with how to react.

Western countries’ commitment to the rule of law generally prohibits responding in kind—what separates us from the Russians, after all, if not our commitment to a rules-based international order? But it’s not clear that the tools we have at hand are enough to deter Moscow from further aggression. In Western Europe, as in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin believes might makes right, and the civilized world has been largely unable to come up with a counterargument.

Read more in Forbes.

Remembering Another Date That Will Live in Infamy

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Today marks the fourth anniversary of a shameful first in the 236-year old saga of American democracy — the Jan. 6, 2021 plot to overturn a U.S. presidential election and block the peaceful transition of power. 

As then-Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell told Congress and the nation, the author of this attempted coup was then-President Donald Trump, whom Biden had handily defeated in the 2020 election. 

Instead of accepting the voters’ verdict, Trump launched a campaign of lies and intimidation intended to nullify the election result and prevent Biden, the rightful winner, from taking his seat. When that failed, he summoned a mob of supporters to Washington and instigated a violent and destructive attack on the Capitol, where Congress was meeting to certify Biden’s victory.

That insurrection likewise failed. But it claimed the lives of rioters and police officers alike, forced Congressional leaders to hide and flee and led to criminal prosecutions for more than 1500 Trump backers.

Trump’s obvious complicity in these criminal and treasonous acts should have disqualified him from ever serving in public office again. But Senate Republicans – led by McConnell – failed to rise to the defense of Constitutional government and impeach a president gone rogue.

Even worse, honest Republican election officials who withstood Trump’s attempts to corrupt them and political leaders who condemned his subversion of our electoral system have been hounded out of public life.

When U.S. voters last November elected Trump president, they set a baleful precedent in normalizing deviant political behavior. Our country has crossed a moral and legal Rubicon, and it’s essential that all patriotic Americans regardless of party resolve to repair the damage done to peoples’ confidence – at home and around the world – in the integrity of America’s democratic institutions and rules.

Here the people are sovereign, and Democrats and independents must accept their decisions even if we find them hard to understand or respect. That’s why Trump is now receiving from President Biden that which he refused to give him – a orderly and peaceful transfer of power.   

But as citizens, we should never forget or forgive what happened on Jan. 6, 2021. Instead, let’s stay vigilant and resolute in repelling further attacks on what remains the world’s foremost experiment in democratic self-government.

PPI Statement on Biden’s Decision to Block Nippon Steel Purchase of U.S. Steel

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

Today, PPI issued the following statement in response to President Biden’s decision on Nippon Steel’s purchase of U.S. Steel:

“President Biden’s decision this morning to block Nippon Steel’s purchase of U.S. Steel is a bad mistake on the merits, and the White House’s explanation of the reasons is so opaque and so lacking in substance as to suggest that it knows this. Here is the core of the release (with ellipses stripping out some legal language):

‘(a) There is credible evidence that leads me to believe that … Nippon Steel Corporation … through the proposed acquisition of United States Steel Corporation … might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States; and

‘(b) Provisions of law, other than section 721 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act … do not, in my judgment, provide adequate and appropriate authority for me to protect the national security in this matter.’

“Nothing in the release hints in any way as to what ‘action’ Nippon Steel might take and how it might differ from the actions of the company’s steelmaking facilities in Alabama for over a decade. Neither does it suggest what the ‘credible evidence’ the statement mentions might involve. Still, less does the release offer any way to resolve the questions raised if this mutually agreed-upon transaction doesn’t go ahead:

  • Will U.S. Steel now follow through on its statement earlier this year that blocking the transaction would lead to the closure of western Pennsylvania steel mills? If so, how would the administration explain its decision to the affected communities and workers?
  • How does the administration view the possibility of a blast-furnace steel monopoly emerging as a result of an alternative purchase, and its impact on downstream industries such as auto production?
  • Does the administration, in general, feel that foreign investors from allied countries such as Japan, Korea, the European Union, Canada, and the U.K., who employ a quarter of all U.S. manufacturing workers, are unreliable?

“Looking forward, it is very likely to have set a bad precedent for future CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) decisions on sensitive transactions, which up to now have been civil-service driven and based on objective criteria. As such, it does a disservice to U.S. businesses, to foreign firms interested in manufacturing and employing skilled workers in the United States, and to consumers and unions sharing an interest in transparent decision-making with a clear statutory basis. It also creates deep uncertainty about the future of U.S. Steel, and in particular, its Pennsylvania operations.

“Little about the rationale for this very controversial decision, with its attendant damage to an important alliance and its potential harm to American heavy industry, is clear. The Biden administration owes the country a better explanation, and we hope it will provide one in its remaining days.”

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe, iokeefe@ppionline.org

Why the Sixth Circuit Was Right on Net Neutrality

Posted on by Max Sherrill

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to block the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) attempt to revive net neutrality regulations is a significant affirmation of judicial restraint and regulatory clarity. This decision not only preserves the light-touch framework that has driven unprecedented internet growth since 2017 but also sends a clear message: federal agencies must respect the boundaries of their statutory authority, leaving sweeping policy changes to Congress where they belong.

Since the FCC’s 2017 repeal of Obama-era net neutrality rules, the internet has defied expectations of its demise. Investment in broadband infrastructure has surged, speeds have risen, and access has expanded, particularly in rural and underserved areas. Critics of deregulation once forecast a dystopia of throttled connections and blocked content. Yet the reality has been altogether more mundane: a market-driven system where broadband providers, spurred by consumer demand and competition, have kept the internet open and reliable. Far from descending into chaos, the internet has flourished under a framework that prioritizes innovation over heavy-handed oversight.

The Sixth Circuit’s ruling resonates beyond the FCC, reflecting a broader recalibration of regulatory authority in Washington. In rolling back Chevron deference — a doctrine that long gave agencies leeway to interpret ambiguous statutes — the Supreme Court signaled a new era of constraint. The Sixth Circuit’s insistence that the FCC stay within its statutory bounds is a pointed reminder that sweeping policy shifts belong to Congress, not unelected bureaucrats. By curbing the impulse to govern by fiat, the court has reinforced the foundational principle that regulation must rest on clear legislative intent.

Outgoing FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel’s acknowledgment that the commission’s efforts had reached a dead end is a candid admission of the regulatory reality. While she called for Congress to enshrine net neutrality principles, this plea also highlights the inherent challenges of imposing sweeping rules through agency actions alone. Legislative clarity would resolve many uncertainties and contentious legal battles that have plagued this issue for over a decade.

Proponents of net neutrality argue that the principles of a “fast, open, and fair” internet are non-negotiable. However, those ideals can coexist with the flexible, innovation-friendly regulatory environment established in 2017. The internet’s evolution has consistently been driven by market forces, not prescriptive government mandates. Internet service providers have every incentive to maintain user satisfaction, as consumer trust and market competition remain key drivers of success in the digital age.

Moreover, the narrative that stricter regulations are necessary to protect consumers or enhance cybersecurity fails to hold up under scrutiny. Since the repeal of net neutrality rules, there has been no documented systemic abuse of power by broadband providers. The argument for reintroducing heavy-handed regulations often appears to be a solution in search of a problem.

Looking ahead, Congress has an opportunity to step in and provide a durable resolution to the net neutrality debate. Bipartisan legislation that balances the need for an open internet with the benefits of a market-driven approach could end the regulatory ping-pong that has defined this issue. Such a framework should prioritize transparency, competition, and consumer protections while avoiding the pitfalls of overregulation that stifle innovation.

The Sixth Circuit’s ruling is a win for consumers, businesses, and the broader internet ecosystem. By upholding the light-touch regulatory framework that has driven unprecedented growth and connectivity, the court has ensured that the Internet remains a dynamic and open platform. As the FCC enters a new chapter, its priority should shift from ideological skirmishes to pragmatic policies — building better infrastructure, narrowing the digital divide, and ensuring that America retains its leadership in the global digital economy. The internet’s strength has always been its adaptability. Today’s challenge is to nurture that resilience, not smother it in outdated regulation.

Marshall for The Hill: Democrats Must Make Working Americans a Better Offer

Posted on by Max Sherrill

Americans voted for radical change in November, and judging by the chaos he’s already generated before taking office, Donald Trump might give them more than they bargained for. Can Democrats offer a saner alternative?

So far, the signs aren’t encouraging. Instead of taking a hard look at how they managed to lose to the most ethically tainted and unpopular presidential candidate in memory, many in the party seek refuge in self-exonerating excuses.

President Biden was too old. Kamala Harris didn’t have time to wage a real campaign. Republicans and Elon Musk dominated social media and flooded the campaign debate with lies and bigoted attacks on immigrants and transexual people. The high cost of living warped voters’ perception of the nation’s economic health.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Weinstein for Forbes: Which Of America’s Top Colleges Limit AP And IB Course Credit?

Posted on by Max Sherrill

The cost of a college education continues to rise beyond the means of most Americans. Despite growing sources of federal financial assistance, more Americans carry excessive levels of student debt than ever before per statistics from Motley Fool.

Americans can reduce the cost of tuition in various ways, but among the most popular is earning course credit for work done before finishing high school. In some cases, high schools can engage in dual enrollment—namely by taking certain courses at a community college. In others they can take a college-level class in high school, and ear college credibly by earning a score of 3 or more on Advanced Placement subject tests or completing the International Baccalaureate curriculum.

Of course, those programs come at a cost to the colleges where those students matriculate—registrars can’t charge students for classes they’ve already taken. And over time, colleges and universities have erected new hurdles to receiving dual enrollment, AP, and IB credit.

Keep reading in Forbes.