Tag: History

Our First Amendment Freedom of Speech

President Trump seems to disregard our constitution generally but his attack on its guarantee of our freedom of speech is particularly dangerous. Its importance to our freedoms and democratic governance is so well-known and obvious that I will not bother to defend it. Trump has increasingly utilized his executive power and the administrative apparatus to target, penalize, or attempt to silence his critics, political opponents, and media organizations.

Through executive orders, directives, and appointees, the administration has ordered investigations into political adversaries and former officials who publicly criticized him. This includes directive-backed investigations targeting former government security officials like Chris Krebs (who contradicted election fraud claims) and first-term Trump official Miles Taylor.

Trump has repeatedly stripped high-ranking former officials and critics—such as former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey—of their security clearances, access to classified briefings, or government protection details after they issued public criticism. The Department of Justice is pursuing criminal prosecutions against former FBI Director James Comey on trumped up (no pun intended, maybe) charges.

Executive actions have targeted non-profit think tanks, advocacy groups, and legal firms that represented positions adverse to the administration or published critical reports, including threats to target their tax-exempt statuses or initiate government reviews.

In an excellent and damning critique of Trump’s use of executive power to silence his critics Walter Olsen reported that “Donald Trump says he’s going to sue a private think tank over a report criticizing his policies. The report, from the left-leaning Center for American Progress, enraged him by arguing that his decision to deploy the National Guard in Washington, D.C. doesn’t really deserve credit for the city’s drop in violent crime rates since then because rates had been falling steeply before he acted.”  https://www.facebook.com/share/p/191KXwjiEJ/

Executive agencies have been leveraged to exert pressure on disfavored press. Measures have included revoking White House press credentials for journalists and news outlets covering the administration critically, threatening the regulatory status or FCC licenses of major broadcast networks, and directing federal agencies to limit media access.

Secretary of Defense Hegseth (after some thought and a glass of wine I have decided not to use any of the adjectives that I think apply to him) has largely shut down a free press in his department.  When he issued directives requiring journalists to obtain official approval before publishing military information—even unclassified details—and prohibiting unapproved gathering of information, most journalists walked out and took legal action. Dozens of major news outlets across the political spectrum—including The New York Times, Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox News—refused to sign the pledge. Media organizations issued joint statements condemning the directive as an unconstitutional attempt at prior restraint and an assault on First Amendment press freedoms.

Media organizations challenged the policy in court (New York Times v. Department of Defense). In March 2026, a federal district judge ruled that the DOD rules amounted to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and censorship, ordering the restoration of press credentials for journalists who refused to sign.

More recently “the longtime publisher of Stars and Stripes announced he’s stepping down weeks after the Pentagon installed an active-duty Navy captain at the military newspaper, an atypical appointment that staffers, board members and Democratic lawmakers say risks further eroding the publication’s independence from the government.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/08/20/democrats-sound-alarm-about-new-leader-uniform-stars-stripes/

Step by step the direction Trump is taking the country remains clear.

Econ 101: Capitalism and Socialism

The popularity of socialism seems on the rise. Is it justified?

Starting from the top, the difference between capitalism and socialism is who decides how our resources (capital and labor) are allocated. Under capitalism the private owners of a country’s resources decide how to use what they own. They are driven by the desire to maximize profit. Under socialism public owners (government) of our resources decide how to deploy them. They are driven by…. Well let’s see.

Capitalists (company shareholders and the management they employ) seek out the goods and services the public want and the cheapest way to provide them. Entrepreneurs develop new products and services they hope the public will want and will pay for. The government’s role is to protect private property, enforce freely-agreed contracts, provide infrastructure that facilitates trade, and enforce law and order (including defense from potential foreign invaders). Freely negotiated prices reflecting supply and demand provide capitalist with essential information in their search for maximum profits.

While capitalists own the capital they deploy, they must attract and hire the labor who work with it. Consistent with their pursuit of maximum profit they seek the most productive (skillful) workers at the lowest cost (wages). While a worker’s wage is a very important part of their willingness to accept a particular job, every other aspect of the conditions of their employment is important as well. Thus, their employer has a profit incentive to establish with employees the least-costly way of satisfying those demands. These incentives (private ownership and profit maximization) have maximized the incomes of capitalist economies. https://wcoats.blog/2026/08/02/econ-101-profits/

The incomes of the average person hardly changed from poverty levels for thousands of year. But with the advent of capitalism and the industrial revolution average income in the United States over the last 250 years increased 50 to 60 times.

Some capitalists have become very rich. For seventeen years Bill Gates was the richest man in the world. Was that a bad thing–a price we had to pay for the benefits of capitalism? I have always and continue to think that I have benefited from Gates’ Microsoft products (Windows, Word, Excell, PowerPoint to name a few) far more than I have paid for them. But that is the nature of capitalist free market transactions: win-win.

In Socialist economies, the “government” owns much of the economy’s capital (e.g., government grocery stores, or airplane factories), and determines how to allocate much of its resources (what to build and produce—e.g., silicon chip factories). While the government might seek to determine what the public wants, it will also determine what it thinks it should have.

But who is the government and what are the incentives it faces when making its decisions? The government consists of elected politicians (in democracies) with the power to make laws, the public officials they appoint to various agencies to implement them, and the workers those officials employ. The primary incentive for politicians is to get elected and reelected. Presumably that depends on supporting (and actually implementing) the policies most voters in each congressional district want. Voters might support policies they think are in the country’s best interest or in their own personal best interest.

Many of the voters in the state of Washington work for Boeing aircraft and might favor government programs that direct tax money to that company. Boeing has a large complex a few blocks from where I live in Pentagon City Virginia (half a mile from the Pentagon). It builds nothing there but seems to keep its workers busy.

Unlike the profits from sales by private firms to their customers, which result from the voluntary purchases of satisfied customers, the goods and services provided to the public by governments are rarely paid for by the recipient. Nor are their costs paid for by the politicians or officials who provide them. Therefore, the incentives of governments (politicians, officials, employees) are very different than those of private firms.  This is true of any government but the scale of what is directed by socialist governments is significantly greater.

Consider the implications of these incentives for the workers hired by socialist governments. By the way, in 2024, the US federal government employed just over 3.0 million people (excluding 1.3 active-duty military personnel). State and local governments employed an additional 20 million, or a combined 7.1% of the total population.  As government officials are not spending their own money, their incentives for choosing workers can be quite different than are those for private capitalists. Hiring friends and relatives may be more rewarding to public sector bosses than those who are most qualified and hard working.

The incentives for corruption in large governments are significant. Thus, the American constitution provides checks and balances between the congress, executive, and courts. Moreover, congress has established additional oversight of executive branch agencies in an effort to keep them honest. Unfortunately, in January 2025, President Trump abruptly fired at least seventeen presidentially appointed inspectors general from major cabinet departments and federal agencies without providing the 30-day advance notice or substantive rationale required by the Inspector General Act. And by the way, Trump’s net worth and business revenues have surged during his second term, with financial analysts estimating he brought in roughly $2.2 billion to $2.4 billion during his first year back in office alone, pushing his overall net worth to an estimated $6.5 billion. This does not include our tax money he has used to put his name, picture, and gold all over the place. This is a failed businessman who declared bankruptcy six time. Just sayin.  

Even if a Socialist government is led by honest people truly committed to the general public’s interest, they lack the market prices that guide capitalists when deciding what would be “best.” Moreover, they are not likely to offer multiple options when choosing policies to impose on the public. It is unlikely that a socialist government will establish a range of different policies to satisfy different tastes. The top-down decision making of socialist governments is more likely to impose uniform approaches to the provision of goods and services and rules. In capitalist economies we are freer to choose among a wide variety of e.g., stores following different approaches to satisfying their customers.

When choosing capitalist or socialist economies, we want to know which has been more successful in allocating our resources to their most productive and desired uses. Given the differences in the incentives faced by each outlined above, have socialist governments been better at “choosing winners” than capitalists? The answer from the real world is overwhelmingly clear.

Given the different incentives faced by each, it should not be surprising that the economic well-being of capitalist and socialist economies has been dramatically different. The most dramatic comparison of the economies of two otherwise similar countries are the former East and West Germany and North and South Korea. In 1989, the year before East and West German merged into the Federal Republic of Germany, percapita income of West Germany was about double that of East German. The differences are much more dramatic between North and South Korea. In 2024 percapita income in North Korea was only 3.4% of South Korea’s.

Perhaps those promoting socialism do so thinking that it would better service the poor. This has not been true, but it does suggest that capitalist societies need to provide well-considered safety nets for those who stumble. The U.S. does not have a perfect set of safety net policies by any means. I advocate a Universal Basic Income and a government financed by a consumption (rather than income) tax. These maximize the freedom of choice and incentive to work. https://wcoats.blog/2023/01/15/fair-tax-act-of-2023/

My Blogs

From the time I could vote (1964) I have indevoured to evaluate each president’s policies on their merits (as seem by me of course). Thus, at one time or another I have praised or criticize policies of LBJ, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan (my favorite president), George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump. I often condemned a policy but not the President promoting it, in the belief that each President thought his policy was for the welfare of our country even if I disagreed. The exception is Donald Trump. 

Unique in my lifetime, we have a President whose primary interest is in seeing his name on things (Kennedy Center, Peace Institute, maybe Dulles Airport), filling the White House with gold to look like a palace, being praised by strong men (Putin, Orban, Mohammed bin Salman), dropping bombs where ever he chooses (having given up begging for the Nobel Peace Prize) and throwing his weight around (bullying), irrespective of the considerable damaging he is doing to our country. Now he wants his name on US currency (not to mention his likeness on gold coins).

Since 1861 the US treasurer’s signature has appeared on bank notes, along with the likeness of a deceased President.  In 1866, Congress passed what is commonly called the Thayer Amendment, which forbids the likeness of any living person from appearing on U.S. securities and currency. “Donald Trump is set to become the first sitting US president to have his signature on US banknotes, the treasury department has announced…. Trump’s signature will appear alongside Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, an unprecedented move that the department said would mark America’s 250th anniversary…. The first $100 bills with the signatures of Trump and Bessent will be printed in June, with others to follow.  Notes currently being printed bear the signatures of former President Joe Biden’s Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, and Treasurer Lynn Malerba.” Just in case you didn’t know that we have a Treasurer in addition to the Secretary of the Treasury https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz0el909yp3o  

Trump is an egoist with the tastes and desires of a spoiled child. Unfortunately, as President of the United States his childish behavior is doing great damage to the U.S. and global order.

Bosnia

In my last blog I condemned the US’s illegal attack on Venezuela and worried about what might follow given the apparent lack of a broadly considered and agreed plan. In this blog I will contrast it with the approach taken at the end of the vicious civil war between the Croat, Serb and Bosnian populations of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina ended with the signing of the Dayton accords. “Three decades ago, in November 1995, the U.S.-brokered Dayton accords ended the Bosnian war, a three-and-a-half-year ethnic conflict that killed roughly 100,000 people and displaced two million. The settlement imposed a complex power-sharing structure on a divided country, promising the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina a new start.” This quote is from an excellent assessment of that agreement and the new constitution for Bosnia and Herzegovina that it created by Elmira Bayrasli in Foreign Affairs: “Bosnia’s Unfinished Peace”

I drafted the monetary section of that constitution, which established a central bank bound by currency board rules (i.e. no monetary policy as the money supply is determined by the public’s demand for and willingness to purchase its currency). I also led the IMF teams that drafted the Central Bank Law that merged the existing three central banks (Croat, Serbian and Bosnian) into one national bank and currency. The negotiations with the three (obviously) future governors of the Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CBBH) lasted for over a year of heated discussions of the CBBH’s powers and the details of its currency notes. For details see my account in “One Currency for Bosnia”  Surprisingly to many the CBBH’s currency board rules were accepted instantly by all three with no debate. The reason was that the three didn’t trust one another and currency board rules eliminate an monetary policy discresion.

The Dayton accord was the product of intense negotiations between the Presidents of Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian provinces of B&H and diplomates from the US, UK, EU and Russia culminating with the agreement at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton Ohio—the Dayton Accord. To lay out the sharp contrast between these negations and the lack of them in the current “take over” of Venezuela, I will quote extensively from Wikipedia:

“During September and October 1995, world powers (especially the United States and Russia), gathered in the Contact Group, pressured the leaders of the three sides to attend settlement negotiations; Dayton, Ohio was eventually chosen as the venue.

“Talks began with an outline of key points presented by the US in a team led by National Security Adviser Anthony Lake in visits to London, Bonn, Paris and other European stops 10 – 14 August 1995. These included Sochi, to consult Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev. Lake’s team handed off to a separate US inter-agency group led by Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, who went on to negotiate with Balkan leaders in their capitals. The Holbrooke crew conducted five rounds of intense shuttle diplomacy from August to October, including short conferences in Geneva and New York that resulted in the parties’ adoption of principles for a settlement on 8 and 26 September respectively.

“The Dayton conference took place from 1–21 November 1995. The main participants from the region were the President of the Republic of Serbia Slobodan Milošević (whom the Bosnian Serbs had previously empowered to represent their interests), President of Croatia Franjo Tuđman, and President of Bosnia and Herzegovina Alija Izetbegović with his Foreign Minister Muhamed Šaćirbeg.

“The peace conference was led by US Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and negotiator Richard Holbrooke with two co-chairmen in the form of EU Special Representative Carl Bildt and the First Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Igor Ivanov. A key participant in the US delegation was General Wesley Clark. The head of the UK’s team was Pauline Neville-Jones, political director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The UK military representative was Col Arundell David Leakey. Paul Williams, through the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG) served as legal counsel to the Bosnian Government delegation during the negotiations.”

The history and situation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was dramatically different than Venezuela. Ending its civil war required extensive negotiations and considerable international oversight of compliance to the agreed arrangements. As noted in the Foreign Affairs article sighted above, a serious mistake was holding national elections far too earlier. The intense hatreds of the three national groups were not given enough time to soften resulting in the election of hardliners and the continuation of the war by other means. The second mistake was the failure of international oversight (the UN High Representative) to fully exorcise its powers. None the less the three nation country has held together peaceably for three decades following its civil war.

While the political situation in Bosnia remains fragile (see the excellent article sited above in Foreign Affairs) the central bank itself has been a great success, widely trusted and respected by most citizens from the three provinces. I attribute this to its enlightened leadership and the central bank law with its currency board rules. Tragically the DOGE chain saw seems to have eliminated US capacity for effective diplomacy. “At the breaking point”

Trade

Without trade each household/family would have to be self-sufficient, i.e., would only have to consume what they themselves could make, grow or do. No one would doubt the dire poverty the world would endure. Even trade limited to your neighborhood, with each household specializing in a few things to trade with other families specializing in other needs or wants would significantly increase everyone’s income. The wider the range of trade the greater the degree of specialization and increased income possible.

Expanding the potential for trade requires the ability to transport goods and serves over longer distances. The benefits of such connectedness extend well beyond higher incomes. Quoting from George Will’s wonderful book The Conservative Sensibility: Referring to the:

“Erie Canal. [Dewitt] Clinton [the sixth governor of New York] saw this project as a means of preventing states in the West from detaching themselves from the Union. The canal would “bind the union together by indissoluble ties” because the people would be “habituated to frequent intercourse and beneficial inter-communication,” and all Americans would be “bound together by the golden ties of commerce and the adamantine chains of interest.” The canal also, and inadvertently, helped to bring down the old order in Europe. By bringing cheap wheat from America’s Great Plains, the canal struck at the roots of Europe’s landed aristocracy.”

Implicit in the above is private ownership of one’s production. People work hard for their own benefit but to benefit from trade they must take account of the needs and wants of others. Trade must be win-win or it will not take place. I benefit from selling my production and you benefit from buying it. Communism—communal production—lacks the personal (selfish) incentive to work hard and has broadly failed as a system. Also from George Will: “In China, once collective farms were disbanded in 1978 under the leadership of the reformer Deng Xiaoping, agriculture output doubled in the space of just four years.”

The topic of trade keeps returning and I have written about it often. Rather than repeat myself, yet again, I will share some of those earlier blogs:

Econ 101—Trade in very simple terms
The politics of Trade
Econ 101: Tony Judt on Trade

Our President

When our government functions properly, each President is elected because the majority of voters trust his/her leadership and largely agree with his/her policy proposals. When he/she assumes office he/she appoints department and agency heads and senior management who agree with his/her policies and are committed to implementing them. However, the vast majority of government employees (the civil service) hold their jobs because of their nonpartisan competence to execute the regular functions of government. Though elected to implement his/her promised policies, the President heads the government for the benefit of all Americans, not just those who voted for him/her.

Our current President, Donald Trump, has adopted a very different approach. At Charlie Kirk’s memorial service in Arizona on September 21, 2025, President Donald Trump gave a eulogy that stated his approach clearly. Following a speech by Charlie’s widow— Erika Kirk– who said she forgave her husband’s alleged killer and urged love for one’s enemies—Trump said, “That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent, and I don’t want the best for them. I’m sorry, Erika. Maybe you and the group can convince me otherwise, but I can’t stand my opponent”. 

Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has launched a sweeping campaign to use the federal government against those he perceives as political enemies, fulfilling his campaign promise of “retribution.” His actions have combined formal Justice Department prosecutions with broader administrative, financial, and regulatory retaliation against critics and opponents.​

Justice Department Prosecutions

Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ), led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, has indicted several high-profile critics including former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and former National Security Adviser John Bolton. Many of these cases were initiated shortly after Trump publicly urged prosecutions on Truth Social or in speeches.

Expansion of Presidential Control

Under a broad interpretation of the “unitary executive” theory, Trump has expanded direct presidential control over previously independent agencies. He dismissed thousands of career employees in agencies such as the IRS and DOJ, replacing them with loyalists, and ordered investigations into opponents across multiple sectors, including education, media, and civil society. His administration’s “Weaponization Working Group” reportedly monitors and investigates state and federal officials who previously investigated or criticized him.​ Most concerning he has fired all Inspector Generals who monitor the executive’s compliance with the law.

Use of Financial and Regulatory Power

Trump has also leveraged federal contracting and tax policy to punish critics. Liberal law firms, universities, and media outlets that opposed him have been subjected to audits, funding withdrawals, or bans on federal contracts. The IRS—restructured under his direction—has reportedly targeted nonprofit organizations and universities seen as left-leaning, threatening to revoke tax-exempt status for political reasons.​

Broader Campaign Against Civil Society

The administration’s actions have extended to immigration and education systems. Activists, international students, and visa-holders accused of criticizing Trump’s policies have faced deportation or visa revocations, according to multiple reports. Tourism and foreign students are important exports. Their reduction is adding to our trade deficit. Federal oversight of university curricula and media licensing has been tightened.​

Political and Legal Reactions

Democratic lawmakers like Senator Chris Murphy have called these measures an “authoritarian use of presidential power,” warning that Trump’s systematic punishment of dissenters marks “one of the most dangerous moments America has ever faced”. Foreign governments and legal scholars have echoed fears of democratic backsliding as independent institutions are subordinated to presidential control.​

In sum, Trump’s second administration has explicitly weaponized federal agencies to investigate, prosecute, and financially damage those viewed as enemies, blending legal action with bureaucratic pressure in what observers describe as an unprecedented campaign of political retribution.  Trump’s spread of hate is intensified by his frequently claimed authority “to do whatever I want as president” based, he claims, on Article II of the US constitution.

Trump’s bullying has not stopped at our borders. He has attacked our friends with tariffs and sanctions losing allies right and left. The American beacon on the hill has sunk to the bully in your face. America’s place in the world is sinking fast. Will the Republicans on the Hill wake up and stop him. The Supreme Court has been a mixed bag.

European Vacation Musings

Following a very enjoyable river cruise from Amsterdam to Budapest, and three days in Prague, Ito and I are now relaxing in Munich for three weeks before traveling on the Bob Mundell’s annual gathering of economists at his home near Siena, Italy.

This afternoon, while reading my first book on an iPad (my friend Michael Lind’s new history “Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States”) in our hotel lobby, I was intrigued by overhearing the hotel manager discussing some repair work with two tradesmen in English. Obviously the workers were not German. After the manager left, I was further intrigued by the fact that the workers continued to convers with each other in English even though English was obviously not their first language. However, as is common in Europe, it was the common second language shared by them.

Several hours later a third worker joined the first two and all three conversed in English. I overcame my natural reserve and called out to one of them. “Excuse me. You are all speaking English to each but English is obviously not your first language. Where are you each from.” “I am Iranian,” the obvious leader of the group replied. “The electrician over there is from Spain, and our IT guy there is also from Iran.”

I love such things. It makes the world more interesting. But it has also made Germany, two Iranians and a Spaniard better off as well.

It reminds me of a conversation I had a few years ago in Dubai with an Arab citizen. Less than twenty percent of the residents of the United Arab Emerates (UAE) are Emeratis. Over 50% are Pakistanis, Indians, Filipinos, and Bangladeshis, whose second language is English. “Why is it,” I asked, “that you Arabs all speak such good English.” “We have to,” he replied in his pristine white thawb. “English is the language of international business and we are businessmen. In addition, it is the only way we can talk to the help.”