Trump's Non-Reciprocal "Reciprocal" Tariffs Are Chasing a Nonexistent "Trade Deficit" Boogeyman

Last week on April 2, what Trump dubbed "Liberation Day," Trump declared that "April 2nd, 2025, will be forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America's destiny was reclaimed, and the day that we began to make America wealthy again." As the title of this piece indicates, I would argue that what he did could very well be a day that forever lives in the infamy of U.S. history. 

Trump announced a two-tier trade policy: 1) a baseline import duty equivalent to 10 percent on all goods entering the U.S., and 2) so-called "reciprocal" tariffs on 90 countries that are generally equivalent to half of what he purports other countries are imposing on the United States. From Trump's telling, he is using these tariff rates to offset what other countries are allegedly implementing. He even pulled out a chart during his "Liberation Day" speech to illustrate the point. The reason I facetiously put "reciprocal" in quotes throughout is because what Trump claims about other countries' tariff rates and using corresponding reciprocity is false. 

During his April 2 speech, Trump pulled out a chart that supposedly listed tariff rates that other countries were imposing on the United States. As you can see from World Trade Organization's database, they were not tariff rates. Rather than identify the tariff rates, what his economic team did was divide the trade deficit by imports for each country. This ratio represents the extent to which the United States has a trade imbalance with a given country. 

Setting aside for a moment those are two distinct percentages, Trump's take on trade imbalances is that they are bad because he views them as a metric of unfair trade practices and "cheating" the United States. You would have thought we would have left mercantilism in the dustbin of history back in the 18th century, but here we are. I refuted this silly notion that "trade deficits are evil" back in 2017 when he was first toying with the idea. Here were my summary points back then: 

1. There is more to an economy than just the trade balance. 
2. A country running a trade deficit is not just throwing away money. It acquires goods and services that improves consumers' lives, creating a mutually beneficial relationship between the two countries. 
3. The United States ran a trade deficit for decades and its economy grew just fine. 
4. The trade deficit is not a good metric of economic health. 
5. Even if the trade deficit were an issue, the focus would need to be on savings, investment, and capital flows, not trade flows. 

None of this matters to Trump because he is recklessly trying to emulate President William McKinley, the original Tariff Man. Trump imposed a baseline 10 percent import duty (read: tax) on those who had lower rates, but overall imposed tariffs based on this trade imbalance ratio, not the other countries' actual tariff rates. He then divides the trade imbalance ratio by half to get at the new effective tariff rates on each country because he thinks he's a benevolent businessman giving a half-off discount. 

To recap so far, we already have two main issues. The first is that the rationale for implementing these tariffs is baseless because trade deficits are not the evil Trump makes them out to be. He is willing to unravel the global economy because he does not have a clue of how international trade works. I buy a lot of groceries from the grocery store, but they never buy anything from me. I run a trade deficit with my grocery store, but that does not mean I am harmed by the grocery store. Quite the opposite! That money I spend helps ensure I am fed. Even if Trump's depiction of trade deficits were somehow accurate (to reiterate, he is way off), it does not matter because tariffs do not have a statistically significant impact on trade deficits (Furceri et al., 2019). The reason for that is tariffs disincentivize both imports and exports alike. And guess what? All trade by definition is reciprocal because both parties mutually benefit. Trump's tariffs will interfere with that reciprocity, which brings me to the second issue. 

Even if Trump were right about trade deficits, he did not present other countries' tariff rates, but rather the size of the trade deficit that each country has with the United States. He lied about the tariffs being reciprocal by presenting junk math. If you look at the tariff data collected by Cato Institute, you will see significant discrepancies between what the White House claims and what is the actual tariff rate. The chart from economist Justin Wolfers below shows how low the tariffs of major U.S. partners has been prior to the "Liberation" Day spectacle. 

The excuse of reciprocity is nothing but a smokescreen to increase tariffs to 22.5 percent, which is a tariff rate that has not been this high in the United States since 1909. You can put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig. No matter how Trump talks up tariffs and no matter how much he tries to cut tax rates elsewhere, he is still calling for a major tax increase because tariffs are taxes. 

I wish Trump would look in the mirror when it came to harmful trade practices. While the U.S. has had a relatively low average tariff rate prior to "Liberation" Day, the United States has had plenty of non-tariff trade barriers, including subsidies, quotas, "Buy American" restrictions, protectionist regulatory systems (e.g., baby formula regulations), and the farkakte Jones Act. When adding up these interventions, much like the independent Global Trade Alert has, the United States has actually contributed more trade interventions to the global market than any other country. 

When looking at the Right-leaning Heritage Foundation's Economic Freedom Index, it would explain why the United States ranks 69th in the world when it comes to trade freedom, which is a lower ranking than Canada, France, or Germany. That means if he were to make it truly reciprocal, he would have lowered tariffs for nearly 70 countries because those countries have better trade policy than the United States. If Trump actually cared about trade reciprocity or trade fairness, he would be decreasing U.S. trade barriers, not increasing them. 

Another thing that gets me is that in the Executive Order, he goes on about how the effects of the trade balances include "reducing opportunities for domestic manufacturers to expand, and in turn, leading to lost manufacturing jobs, diminished manufacturing capacity, and an atrophied industrial base." From the sound of this rhetoric, you would think that the U.S. manufacturing industry would be ecstatic about Trump's tariffs. So why did the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) say earlier this week we need to brace for the tariffs? Here is what NAM had to say shortly before the tariffs were announced: "The high costs of new  tariffs threaten investment, jobs, supply chains and, in turn, America's ability to outcompete other nations and lead as the preeminent manufacturing superpower." 

And if this is so great from America, why did the Dow Jones drop 1,600 points in response to Trump's tariff announcement? The stock market is not a crystal ball about economic performance, but it does generally track with what major corporations expect future profits to be. This makes sense considering that 30 percent of S&P 500 companies derive their revenue from overseas operations. This is to say that neither do major corporations outside of manufacturing believe Trump's assertion that major wealth is going to pour into the United States as a result of these tariffs. The lack of support from those who Trump claims to be helping with these tariffs should give Trump great pause.

Trump's Auto Tariffs Won't Help U.S. Manufacturing, But They'll Make Cars Much More Expensive

Trump is driving the American people crazy (myself included!) with his trade war, pun intended. Last week, Trump announced that he is imposing 25 percent tariffs on automobile and automobile parts imports, which took into effect yesterday. Per the White House's fact sheet announcing the tariffs, Trump believes these tariffs are a national security issue since "excessive imports [are] threatening America's domestic industrial base and supply chains." In his fantasy world, Trump believes that the tariffs will simply encourage manufacturers to bring production back to the United States. Give me a break! There will not be a revival of the manufacturing that the United States experienced in the 1950s because as I explained during Trump's first term, those days are long behind us.

In addition to believing the tariffs will boost manufacturing, Trump also believes that tariffs will make America great again, a claim that has been refuted multiple times here at Libertarian Jew. Whether it is under the guise of national security, fighting the War on Drugs, helping out small businesses, or fighting trade deficits, I have been shaking my head wondering what gives with Trump's trade war. So what makes Trump's latest tariffs especially harmful to the auto industry?  

Let's say that it is not a coincidence that General Motors' stock fell six percent after Trump's announcement about the automobile tariffs. And if tariffs are so good for automakers, why is Auto Drivers America, the largest trade association for U.S. automakers, denouncing the tariffs? Trump is not going to boost manufacturing or improve domestic supply chains because Trump does not grasp how supply chains work for the auto industry. As this table from the Cato Institute below shows, automobiles are not strictly manufactured in the United States. More than half of the content of what many would consider "an American car" consists of foreign parts. 

Some brands will be harmed more than others with these tariffs, but the harm in the auto industry will be widespread. And it is not as if these manufacturers could shift manufacturing to the United States on a dime even if they wanted to. That is not how capital-intensive industries such as this one work. Given how integrated the global market for automobiles is, it should not come as a surprise that these tariffs will increase automotive prices for U.S. consumers. Fragmenting the global supply chain will lead to more inefficiencies, which will contribute to the higher costs. Speaking of which.....

In its 2024 report, the International Trade Commission calculated that a 25 percent tariff on automobiles would decrease imports by 70 percent while increasing average vehicle prices by 5 percent. The chief economist at Cox Automotive, which is the world's largest automotive services and technology provider, had told the New York Times that these tariffs would make the average vehicle $3,000 more expensive, whereas the National Taxpayers Union estimates that these tariffs will increase the average vehicle price by over $6,500. Depending on the model of the car, Anderson Economic Group puts the estimates in a range from $4,000 to $12,000 per vehicle. 

This also means cutting back on automobile choice. To compensate for higher costs, automakers could cut back on various features or even stop selling affordable models. Cox Automotive also projects that there will be 700,000 few automobiles than initially estimated because of Trump's trade volatility and the trade war he initiated. That does not exactly sound like helping out the 7.3 million Americans working in U.S. auto manufacturing, now does it? 

What Trump does not understand is that it was freer trade vis-à-vis the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that made the automobile industry great, not protectionism. After all, the import quotas that the Reagan administration put on Japanese automobiles in the 1980s had the same unfortunate result, whereas automobile production took off after NAFTA (see chart below). 

Since Mexico is a major participant in the manufacturing of U.S. automobiles, these tariffs (along with Trump's trade war generally) could also push Mexico over into recession territory. Trump cannot coax the automotive industry into bringing its manufacturing back to the United States. What Trump's latest stunt will do is cause supply chain delays in the auto industry, limit automobile choice, undermine his own trade agreement, USMCA, from his first term (which will erode trade relations with other countries because it shows that he can go back on his word), and make cars more expensive. This goes to show that Trump's tariff does not make America great again, but rather really screws over the American consumer. 

Ranked-Choice Voting Has the Potential to Partially Help Fix the U.S. Electoral System

A couple of weeks ago, there were two state governors that banned ranked choice voting (RCV) for their state: West Virginia and Wyoming. This has brought up the total of U.S. states that have banned RCV to 13 states. RCV is an electoral system that allows voters to elect candidates by ranking them in order of preference on their ballots. There are typically two forms of RCV. One is instant runoff voting (IRV), in which there are multi-round eliminations use in a series of runoff elections. The second is single transferable vote (STV), which allows a vote to be transferred to alternative preferences if their preferred candidate is eliminated or elected with surplus votes. Maine and Alaska, the two states that have RCV for statewide elections, both use IRV. IRV is primarily used in single-winner races, whereas STV is mainly used in multi-winner races (e.g., electing members in a council).

What is so bad about RCV that 13 states ban its usage? For RCV opponents, it comes down to election integrity. They view RCV as a needlessly complicated process that makes it harder for voters to navigate and get timely election results released, especially when it comes to ensuring accuracy of the tabulation of votes in RCV. I can appreciate the argument for complexity; it is one I have used in favor for federal tax code simplification. The increased complexity of RCV diminishes my support of RCV. 

At the same time, it does not eliminate my support for RCV. One of the things that frustrates me about how the two-party system has evolved in U.S. politics is that it does not leave space for third parties to have influence. RCV is a fairer representation of what the American people want, instead of it simply being "Republican, Democrat, Independent, supposedly 'wasting your vote' on a third party candidate, or the increasingly prevalent apathetic voter." RCV means a more accurate depiction of the electorate because it shows who has the strongest support across the electorate, not solely the most passionate base of a given party. It would make sense that those devoted to either majority party would be most opposed since they have the most to lose in an electoral system that has been favorable to preserving this electoral status quo. 

I can point out that Australia has been using RCV for over a century (e.g., Reilly, 2009; Bean, 2007; Graham, 1962). I also remember what I learned from taking Comparative Politics in college: what might work in one political system may or may not work in the other one, especially when it comes to electoral systems. That is why I prefer to keep my analysis here focused on evidence in the United States. That also proves challenging since most states in the United States do not use RCV, although there are municipalities that do. As such, it makes the evidence base limited. Nevertheless, I tried looking.  

Alaska provides an insightful case study on RCV. Right-leaning think tank R Street Institute found that RCV in Alaska gave greater voter choice while improving representation (Williamson, 2023). This research also showed that it did not damper the Republicans' "ability to translate their support into seats in the state legislature." 

According to Patinkin Research Strategies, 85 percent of Alaskans found RCV to be simple when Alaska began using RCV. Another study by a political scientist at the University of Iowa found that 68 percent of voters believed RCV was easy (Coll, 2021). The voters having more difficulties were older voters. This finding helps to neutralize the argument that RCV is too complicated for voters. And while there additional steps to counting votes in an RCV system, that is a logistical obstacle that could be overcome. 

In its research on RCV (Eggers and Bouton, 2024), the University of Chicago's Center for Effective Government concluded that RCV across the United States could end up "leading to more candidates, less polarization, and less incentive to vote strategically." The polarization argument is interesting because it is one of the most often used by RCV proponents. 

As for less polarization, the research on RCV's effects is limited. There is a study about RCV in Maine showing that RCV can reduce polarization, but modestly so (Ceronne and McClintock, 2021).One other U.S.-based study asking about this question, but their caveated conclusion was that RCV only works if it increases the number of political parties in play. Otherwise, it would more likely increase animosity (Fischer et al., 2021). Using a sample size of 50,000 people, another study indicates that because RCV is more representative, RCV is better positioned to combat political extremism and polarization (Atkinson et al., 2023).

I like the idea of a system that does a better job of appealing to the median voter instead of what exists in the United States. I think it would be an improvement over the status quo. Based on theory and preliminary research, it seems to do well. At the same time, I would like to see more research that better establishes RCV's efficacy. In the interim, I will say this: As a series of RCV bans implemented last year illustrates, whether by ballot or legislation, it is easier said than done to make the transition from something that has been so engrained in the U.S. electoral system. 

How Lockdowns and Other COVID Measures Have Caused Suffering, Even in 2025 (Part III)

This month commemorated the five-year anniversary of the COVID pandemic being declared. A lot of panic ensued. Nothing encapsulated the hysteria more than the lockdowns. I was against them before they were implemented and strongly voiced my issues with lockdowns in May 2020. I criticized lockdowns multiple times throughout the pandemic. I continue to do so five years later. Why? Because its effects remain with us. I have developed such a strong opinion that I ended up writing a three-part series. The first Part was about health costs. Part II focused on economic costs. Today, I am covering the political and social costs. 

Still reeling from woke politics that the lockdowns allowed. How did I go from lockdowns to woke political clout?  In June 2020, I wrote about how the lockdowns precipitated the George Floyd protests due to the lockdowns and social isolation. There has always been a Far Left presence in politics, but they were on the periphery of the political Left. That changed in 2020 because the woke Left toke advantage of the social chaos and found a way in when society was at its weakest. Those protests, in turn, became an inflection point that opened the floodgates for all things woke, whether that is identity politics, Critical Race Theory, identifying by preferred pronouns, or racism-perpetuating DEI initiatives. While Trump being re-elected signals an anti-woke impetus in politics, we still have a ways to go before undoing all the harm that the woke Left has done both in the United States and abroad. 

Lockdowns made people less sociable and ruder. As I brought up in the previous Part, adults now spend less time in social situations. That makes sense because the isolation of the lockdowns created habits that adapted towards isolation and disincentivized socializing. But the effects of the lockdowns went a step further. According to senior advisor Brian Michael Jenkins at the RAND Corporation, prolonged isolation increases irritability and aggression while diminishing impulse control. 

Survey data from Pew Research released this month shows that about half of Americans say that people have gotten ruder since the pandemic.  Jenkins also noted that in past pandemics and plagues, there was a social erosion and mistrust that was even passed down to descendants. When you combine mistrust along with the effects of prolonged isolation (e.g., anxiety, depression, stress), I would hazard to guess that this coarseness and fear-mongering will not go away anytime soon. Speaking of fear....

We live in a more fear-based world than we used to. As of date, there have been about 7 million reported COVID deaths (Oxford). Even if the United Nations' estimate of 14.9 million deaths or the Economist's estimate of 17.6 million were true, the COVID death rate was nowhere the death rate of the Spanish Flu, let alone the Bubonic Plague. 

It does not matter that there have been fewer than 1 million COVID reported deaths since April 2022, and that's assuming those were deaths from COVID instead of dying with COVID. It does not matter that Biden declared the end of the pandemic in April 2023, followed by WHO in May 2023. A Gallup poll from earlier this month shows that 40 percent of Americans believe that we are still in a pandemic. I expressed concern in May 2022 about how the obsession of wearing masks would lead to greater fear. 

The lockdowns resulted in more authoritarianism. Sadly, that fear is with us not only in terms of COVID. It persists with the politics of both sides of the political aisle, whether it is the Right clamoring against immigration, crime, and pornography; or the Left fear-mongering about how climate change will end the world or how democracy will cease to exist if their candidates are not in power. 

Authoritarianism is bred with anger and fear-mongering (e.g., Butler, 2013). The pandemic gave politicians across the world cover to increase their power in the name of public health and "Follow the Science." To quote a study from Economic Affairs (Andersson and Jonung, 2024) that I analyzed last year: 

The restrictions seem to have inspired growing polarization, conspiracy thinking, and protests and demonstrations in many countries. The lockdowns may thus have undermined liberal democracy and economic freedom. Freedom of the press was curtailed...In authoritarian countries, restrictions were used as a pretext for increased repression. Confidence in liberal democracy was undermined when citizens were locked up and prevented from moving freely in society.

Even in the "Land of the Free," there were lockdowns, the school closures, and a Biden administration that doubled down on failed policies and eroding civil liberties along the way. As Freedom House brought up in its detailed report entitled Democracy During Lockdown, government responses to COVID in multiple countries eroded the essential pillars of democracy (see below). 

Freedom House's 2025 Freedom in the World report shows that freedom and democracy across the world continue to decline. The Human Freedom Index, which was co-created by the Cato and Fraser Institutes, do not fare much better. Reading its 2024 report on the Human Freedom Index, human freedom recovered a wee bit post-pandemic but is still well below pre-pandemic levels. Freedom of expression, rule of law, and freedom of association and assembly took the largest hits. Even in the Western world, whether it is the United States or Europe, people are lamentably caring less and less for freedom of expression. 

It remains unclear as to whether we are taking "one step back after taking two steps forward" or, to paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., the arc of moral universe still bends towards justice but is taking a detour. Time will tell on the long-term trajectory, but two things are clear. One is that the pandemic was an inflection point. For what it ends up being an inflection point for, we will have to wait. And two, at least for the foreseeable future, the trajectory of humanity is pointing in the direction of greater authoritarianism. 

A Libertarian Case for PEPFAR and Continuing Funding HIV/AIDS Prevention In Other Countries

Since 2003, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR for short, has been USAID's global health initiative to fight HIV/AIDS. PEPFAR has received over $100 billion in funds for the response to HIV/AIDS. It has been the largest global health program dedicated to fighting a single disease.  Why is PEPFAR making it on my blog? Aside from PEPFAR services being disrupted by the Trump administration cancelling various foreign aid contracts (read study on preliminary effects of that disruption here), Congress extended PEPFAR's reauthorization last year. If the reauthorization is not renewed, it is set to expire tomorrow: March 25, 2025.

This begs the question of whether PEPFAR should be reauthorized or not. Some of you might expect a knee-jerk response of "No" from me simply because it is a sizable government program. Last month, I made an argument for shutting down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in no small part because of the perverse incentives that foreign aid generally creates. That much is true. Additionally, I worry about how much on PEPFAR is spent. In FY2024, the government spent $6.5 billion on PEPFAR. Although it is about 0.1 percent of government spending, I am quite concerned with the ballooning public debt of the U.S. government.  

At the same time, the price tag and the fact that it is a government program are not prima facie adequate reasons for me to automatically say "No." I am first and foremost a consequentialist libertarian. What this means is that my main reason for being libertarian is because I find that freer markets, lower taxes, and fewer regulations generally create more desirable outcomes than government intervention. 

It would not be the first time I argued for at least some government intervention in public health policy. I have done so by arguing for birth control subsidies, partial smoking bans, and paying people to take the COVID-19 vaccine, all of which I did from a libertarian lens. One of the reasons I have such problems with government intervention generally is because it does not solve the problem the policy was intended to address, or even worse, it exacerbates the problem. A government policy that actually helps is a notable exception, not a norm. Looking at the data, it looks like PEPFAR is one of those exceptions from an outcomes-based point of view.

PEPFAR's main success is its considerable positive health outcomes. PEPFAR reports that it has saved 21 million lives. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that PEPFAR reduced the all-cause mortality rate in recipient countries by 20 percent. I came across an independent citizen review of PEPFAR (Piper et al., 2024) that estimated that PEPFAR saved between 7.5 million and 30 million lives between 2004 and 2018. At that point, $70 billion was spent. That would mean PEPFAR costs between $1,500 and $10,000 per life saved. 

Let's create a low-bound estimate for this cost-benefit analysis. Use the average life expectancy payout from life insurance in the U.S. (i.e., $168,000) and the low-bound estimate of 7.5 million lives saved. it would mean $1.26 trillion in benefit for lives saved for the $70 billion spent, or $18 of benefit for each dollar spent. If you use the value of life from FEMA or EPA of around $11 million along with the high-bound estimate of lives saved (i.e., 30 million), the benefit-to-cost ratio increases to over $4,700 in benefit for each dollar spent. 

This back-of-the-envelope cost-benefit analysis is quite frankly astounding. And to think it does not even consider the benefit of greater economic stability. The Kaiser Foundation calculated that PEPFAR was associated with a 2.1 percentage point increase in GDP from 2004 to 2018. Even if the boost to GDP was only 1.4 percentage points (Tompsett, 2020), that would still mean a $14 increase in per capita income for the sub-Saharan region, which is significant for a region with lower purchasing power. An economic analysis in the Public Library of Science found similar boosts to the GDP and education outcomes (Crown et al., 2023). Why would it create better economic outcomes? Because people who are healthier and live longer are able to contribute to the economy. 

One could argue that PEPFAR puts major emphasis on HIV/AIDS while de-emphasizing other health issues in those regions, such as malaria, tuberculosis, maternal health, or malnutrition. One could also argue that the U.S. government should focus on health problems at home, whether that is the opioid crisis or diabetes and heart attacks primarily caused by high obesity rates. Where funds should be spent and how much are subjective policy preferences directed by one's priorities and values. 

I would counter by saying that HIV/AIDS is another example of how a public health problem can be global, much like we saw with the COVID pandemic. Rather than focusing on government-to-government aid, PEPFAR focuses on public-private collaboration with pharmaceutical companies and suppliers of diagnostic tools, treatments, and other health technology to strengthen the private-care healthcare systems of developing countries that have been contending with high HIV/AIDS rates. This means that PEPFAR strengthens local health systems in the long-run instead of creating dependency on foreign governments for treatments and preventative services. 

Focusing on both HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention not only mean a lower mortality rate, but also means that stopping future infections means fewer dollars spent on treatment, especially if those dollars are spent by the government. Tangentially, the Right-leaning Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) makes a case for using PEPFAR to strengthen global security for when the next disease strikes. PEPFAR is an example of what foreign aid should strive for, rather than most foreign aid that perpetuates dependency and malfunctioning economies and political institutions. 

Does that mean that the PEPFAR program is perfect? No. Even someone as critical of PEPFAR as the Right-leaning Heritage does not suggest eliminating PEPFAR, but rather reforming PEPFAR. If USAID is indeed eliminated, PEPFAR could be managed solely by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the Department of State instead of having USAID participation. There can also be better programmatic objectives, a focus on more countries due to the global nature of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, or even figure out how PEPFAR could develop sustainable health systems that can address multiple diseases. 

Much like I did with arguing for birth control subsidies, the libertarian in me has to ask what sort of costs would be incurred if the program disappeared versus the cost of the program itself. Some problems that would emerge by eliminating PEPFAR include increased HIV transmission and new infections, rising mortality rates, increased healthcare costs, economic stability and social unrest, and potentially regional instability in parts of the world that already have more than their fair share of issues. The interconnectedness of these problems could create problems not only on a regional level, but a global one. 

Some might balk at the price tag, but I would contend that it would cause more problems in the big picture by removing PEPFAR. I will conclude by saying that even with a need for reform, the number of lives saved and economic benefit derived from PEPFAR, not to mention the problems and headache avoided, make a very strong case for PEPFAR. 

Age Verification Laws Do Not Protect Children, Data Privacy, or the First Amendment

Disclaimer: This blog entry does not contain any pornographic images or links to pornographic websites. This blog entry functions as a criticism of age verification laws. 

If you listen to social conservatives, they will tell you that pornography and other adult content are some of the major scourges in our society. Last year, I wrote a two-part series (see Part I and Part II) about how the social conservatives' war on pornography and other adult content. I detailed how a) porn does not increase sexual assault, b) that the health effects of pornography are mixed at best, c) what a consenting adult does in the privacy of their home is no one else's business because of this is supposed to be a free country, d) banning porn would have major First Amendment implications, and e) forcing porn in the underground markets makes matters worse. 

Even if one were to concede that porn consumption is acceptable for adults, what about children? Should it not be the government's priority to protect children from material that is not age-appropriate? I have covered the "think of the children" mantra multiple times, whether that has been with harmful COVID-era school closures, universal preschool, banning violent video games, or banning same-sex adoption. None of these instances merited government intervention, but maybe this time is different. 

I would start out with the burdens that age verification laws create. The age verification law debate is not new in U.S. politics. There was a flurry of age verification laws in the 1990s, and the courts struck them down because they impose undue burden on adult speech, whether that is the First Amendment right to anonymity, user access, website feasibility, or a violation of the vagueness doctrine (especially with censoring LGBT content). This does not even get into the murky waters of having the government defining what constitutes as age-appropriate, which could be manipulated by policymakers to censor certain information.

Better technology does not resolve these issues because the French government found with their age verification laws that they neither verify age accurately, are user-friendly, nor do they protect user privacy. In modern times, these systems would be collecting sensitive data, whether that is government IDs or biometric information. With the prevalence of data breaches, I would contend that it causes greater risks than benefit. And imagine a world where everything you do online would be tracked to your government ID or other biometrics because that is exactly what proponents are asking for. 

For argument's sake, let's give the social conservatives a benefit of the doubt and say that sacrificing the First Amendment and data privacy are acceptable prices to protecting the children. This leads to a more fundamental question of whether age verification laws protect children. According to a working paper from researchers at New York University and Stanford University released earlier this month (Lang et al., 2025), the answer to that question is a resounding "No!" 

What did these researchers find about age verification laws that make them so ineffective? In short, people find ways around age verification laws. One is to find content providers that are not compliant with these laws. Another is to use virtual private network (VPN) services. VPN services allow a user to mask their location, thereby circumventing age verification laws. Another researcher from the University of Toronto similarly found that people find ways around the age verification laws (Spencer, 2025). When arguing against aTikTok ban, I pointed out that bans, whether it is illicit drugs, sodas greater than 16 ounces, or high-capacity magazines for guns, can be circumvented. Age verification laws are no exception.

I have pointed out the problem with multiple instances of bans driving people to underground markets or less savory options, whether it is with sports betting, marijuana, human organ sales, payday loans, or with regards to prostitution. According to one of the researchers, age verification laws do not reduce overall traffic, but rather "drive users toward potentially less regulated and more dangerous alternatives." 

To summarize, age verification laws do nothing to protect children while harming data privacy and the First Amendment. Even the Right-leaning American Enterprise Institute recommended the market solution of greater parental controls instead of more government intervention. As TechFreedom's Corbin Barthold points out, "there is nothing conservative about letting the state watch your kids. If you're not overseeing your children's internet use..., laws are not going to keep them out of trouble." Much like with Trump's English as an official language executive order, age verification laws are an example of Right-wing virtue signaling that do not produce any material good.

How Lockdowns and Other COVID Measures Have Caused Suffering, Even in 2025 (Part II)

While the COVID pandemic might seem like a distant memory that started about five years ago, the truth of the matter is that we are still not over the impact of the lockdowns or other COVID measures. The fact that there are multiple impacts does not shock me in the slightest. I was against lockdowns before they started in the United States, and I was adamantly opposed once implemented because of the harm it was going to cause. This is hardly the "I told you so" I want to write, but here we are. I was thinking about this enough where I decided to write a multi-part blog series on how we still feel that impact to this day. 

Part I covered the health-related suffering, whether that was greater backlog in health services, higher obesity rates, higher rates of substance abuse, or less trust in public health experts. In Part III, I intend on covering the political costs that we still pay today. As for Part II right now, I will cover the costs related to the economy. 

School closures harmed the economic future of today's children. School closures meant that students were unable to effectively learn. In terms of academic achievement, students have still not recovered from the pandemic. As I pointed out in 2022, that loss in academic achievement and attainment will translate into diminished wages in the future. Not only will it reduce wages, but life expectancy, thereby diminishing their quality of life in the long-run. So much for the mantra "Think of the children!"

Lockdowns stunted our social skills and socializing, and by extension, can impact the economy. As I wrote in 2023, the lockdowns lowered children's social-emotional skills in comparison to the pandemic. That makes sense because childhood is a formative moment in one's emotional development and depriving children of socialization erodes social skills. While children were the most affected, they were not the only ones affected. 

According to a recent study from the Journal of the American Planning Association conducted by researchers at UCLA and Clemson University, people spend an average of 51 minutes a day less on out-of-home activities than they did pre-pandemic (Morris et al., 2024). This 51 minutes does not count the reduction of 12 minutes for daily travel. There also seems to have been at least some impact on college students, as well (Cerutti et al., 2024). Less socializing not only has impact on our mental health, but less socializing and going out can mean less economic growth. 

Increased poverty and income inequality, especially in developing countries. Before the pandemic in 2019, 37 percent of U.S. citizens could not cover a $400 emergency without needing to borrow or sell something (Federal Reserve). Economic insecurity was even more pronounced in developing countries, where 50 percent of households could not able to sustain basic consumption in the event of income loss for more than three months (Badarinza et al., 2019). As the World Bank illustrates (but does not explicitly state), having to endure lockdowns for multiple months exacerbated income inequality. 

As the International Monetary Fund points out, the ability to work remotely is highly correlated with education, and thus pre-pandemic earnings. This was more pronounced during the pandemic because those who worked remotely during the pandemic were able to maintain their financial status better than those who could not. As the IMF shows in another research paper (Fuceri et al., 2021), this trend impacted employment of lower-income households. Since it diminished the employment prospects of these individuals, the effects of lockdowns continue to exacerbate income inequality, and by extension, their future earnings. 

Federal debt made worse by policy choices. As I covered last year, the greater the COVID restrictions, the greater the budget deficit due to the economic downturn. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act cost over $2 trillion, with the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act costing $1.9 trillion. And that was just the COVID-related Federal spending in the United States during the pandemic. 

The trajectory of U.S. debt was already not in a good place before the pandemic. As I brought up during the pandemic, greater debt means more interest payments and less savings and investment for citizens. Because Trump is not showing any interest in reducing debt in any significant way, the federal debt gained during the pandemic combined with greater anticipated deficits will ultimately diminish quality of life for us all. Sadly, this was not a strictly U.S.-based phenomenon. Average global debt levels have increased by 12 percentage points as a result of profligate spending during the pandemic.