🧵Steve Miran is a pending nominee to the Federal Reserve Board. In addition to his fringe views on dollar devaluation, he has a long history of making basic errors about economics.
The first example comes from a bizarre speech he gave after Liberation Day back in April.
Miran declared - without any evidence - that the entire economics profession is "wrong" to oppose tariffs.
Miran then proceeded to mischaracterize "trade models" by falsely claiming that they do not account for trade deficits, or assume they will self-correct.
In reality, economists since Adam Smith in 1776 have been pointing out the fallacy of Miran's thinking:
As for Miran's claim that modern economists assume no trade deficits or assume that they are self-correcting, it's utter nonsense. There's a huge academic literature by leading economists on the persistence of trade deficits. Miran appears to be unaware of its existence.
In addition to the basic errors in his claims about trade economics, Miran has a long history of misusing and misrepresenting academic papers by other economists to make claims that their authors do not support.
Miran's "Mar a Lago Accord" white paper from 2024 cited a paper by Costinot & Rodiguez-Claire to support his call for a 20% baseline "optimal" tariff.
The problem? Both authors denounced Miran's proposal for misrepresenting their work.
Exact same thing happened again a few months later. Miran cited a 2024 paper by Pulojas and Rossbach, claiming that it showed the US could "win" a trade war by imposing tariffs.
Except as Pujolas explained, their paper aimed to show the exact opposite.
Issues of competence have plagued Miran since he took his current job at the White House. In April he met with Wall Street investors to calm their concerns about Trump's tariffs.
This is all in addition to Miran's adherence to a long list of fringe economic beliefs about trade, dollar devaluation, and even a backdoor default on the US National Debt, which the Wall Street Journal documented yesterday.
Earlier today, President Trump made a last ditch attempt to salvage his tariffs before the Supreme Court by claiming that it would be impossible to refund them.
There's a problem. Trump's own DOJ has been admitting in court filings for months that refunds are possible.🧵
Here's the Trump DOJ's initial response on April 29, 2025, admitting that if they lost an unappealable decision, the government would refund the illegal tariffs with interest.
On May 28, 2025 the Trump DOJ filed a motion for a stay of the US Court of International Trade's ruling against them, arguing that the tariffs could be refunded with interest.
The court granted their stay based on this promise.
10 things to listen for in tomorrow's SCOTUS hearing on tariffs:
1. Will the DOJ try to argue that tariffs are not taxes, but regulatory "surcharges" under the international commerce clause out of the hope that this gives them more leeway under delegation of congressional power?
2. Will Roberts accept a "tariffs are not taxes, they're regulations" argument from Trump in light of his (in)famous Obamacare tax argument from Sebelius?
3. Will Kagan clarify her position on when the nondelegation doctrine applies by suggesting that tariffs fit that constitutional test, whereas other cases where she rejected it did not?
In 2016 the @AAUP launched a campaign urging colleges to ban conservative students from recording professors in the classroom.
I FOIA'd emails of Hank Reichman, their VP at the time & author of the policy. It revealed he was working with a Marxist group to secretly record free-market economics faculty at a conference he disliked.
The AAUP has always been a coven of left wing partisan hacks and hypocrites.
@AAUP For those who asked, here is the policy recommendation adopted by Reichman's committee.
@AAUP There are several FOIA'd emails, but here I'll share some of the main documents. Here is the Marxist student group coordinating behind the scenes with Reichman to promote their recordings of economics professors at the conference.
A bibliometric tour of Carl Schmitt, attesting that his alleged "importance" is a very recent phenomenon of only the last ~30 years. 🧵
First we start with English Ngram, which shows Schmitt had a negligible amount of citations until the 1990s.
What about other language groups though? Here's French, where Schmitt had a slightly earlier rise no-thanks to Derrida and a few other postmodernist oddballs started engaging with him. But also, a very recent phenomenon that's almost entirely in the 1990s-2000s...and then drops.
Spanish is interesting because it has a slow, steady uptake - albeit at very modest citation levels - in the 1930s-70s. But it too only really spikes in the 1990s-200s, and then declines a bit like French.