Forget About Us

 

The European Union recently agreed to a trade deal with the U.S. which was embarrassingly one-sided. A 15% tariff on European exports to the U.S. A commitment to purchase U.S. oil, gas, and nuclear energy products valued at $750 billion over the next three years. A promise for EU business to invest $600 billion in the U.S. by 2029. A continued 50% tariff on EU steel, copper and aluminum exports. For the U.S., minimal commitments.

 

The Administration has adopted a “bully the world” approach to trade. The era of free trade as a goal is over. Other countries will be hit with a similar approach. This one-sided deal will increase consumer costs at home, and resentment abroad. Not the best approach to trade policy.

 

When dealing with a bully, of course, there are options. One is accepting the demands as the price of doing business. Another is retaliating, engaging in a trade war which raises costs everywhere and distorts consumption patterns.

 

There is a third option: ignoring the bully and forming an independent bloc of trading partners. Is this even possible?

 

In 2024, the largest exporters to the US were Mexico (510 B), China (462 B), Canada (421 B), Germany (163 B), Japan (152 B), Vietnam (142 B), South Korea (135 B), Ireland (104 B), and India (91 B). Over 2 trillion in exports to the US.

 

The largest importers from the US were Canada (348 B), Mexico (334 B), China (144 B), Netherlands (90 B), United Kingdom (80 B), Japan (80 B), Germany (75 B) and South Korea (65 B). Over 1 trillion in imports from the US.

 

As a thought experiment, could these countries increase trade among themselves, essentially replacing both exports to the US and imports from the US with goods made within their group?

 

The long-term goal has to be much greater independence from the US. Increasing US isolation will make the tariffs less important. If there is only one left in the sandbox, there will be no one to push around.

 

Our trading partners need their own sandbox, free from tariffs and threats. They should hurry up and stop giving in. They should hang together, rather than hang separately in the wind. The bully must be shown the door...

 

Saturday, 16 August 2025

​

Oh, Columbia!

 

Columbia was founded in 1754 as King’s College, under King George II. It was renamed Columbia College in 1784, after the Revolution, and renamed Columbia University in 1896.

 

It is worth remembering that the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. NO law. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court broke this wall of protection in 1919, in case decisions authored by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

 

The two most important decisions stated that (1) “The First Amendment, while prohibiting legislation against free speech as such, was not intended to give immunity to every possible use of language”, and (2) “Words that, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

 

In the first case, the Supreme Court meant that the Constitution’s “no law” provision was not absolute, thus changing the meaning of “no” from never to “hardly ever.”

 

In the second case, the Supreme Court created a “clear and present danger” standard for breaching the protection of free speech. One example given was that shouting “fire” in a crowded room was not protected speech.

 

For most of my life, I have been a free speech absolutist. More recently, I have been thinking of the case of incitement to riot. Perhaps freedom of speech should not extend this far…

 

Be that as it may, in March 2025, after last year's pro-Palestinian protests, Columbia agreed to the Administration demands to "overhaul disciplinary processes, ban masks at protests, add 36 officers with the authority to make arrests and appoint a new senior vice provost to oversee academic programs focused on the Middle East" among other demands.

 

Then, in July 2025, the university disciplined over 70 students who took part in campus protests, with punishments including probation, suspensions, degree revocations, and expulsions. They punished students for their speech. In my opinion, this violated the Constitution.

 

Columbia also agreed to pay the federal government $220 million in exchange for a resumption of federal funding, a settlement of investigations into the school by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and a resolution of claims that the school discriminated against Jewish students. And, Columbia agreed to provide the federal government with the private information of applicants to the university—those admitted as well as those not admitted—including their race, GPA, and standardized test scores.

 

Thus, Columbia succumbed to Federal extortion. This was most likely un-Constitutional federal action. Note that Columbia’s endowment is about $15 billion. Rather than pay the $220 million, Columbia just could have given up the $400 million in federal funds, remaining independent of federal pressure. Private fund raising could have replaced much of that federal funding, going forward.

 

Columbia’s leadership chose to cave, rather than to fight in court, with a likely winnable case. Indeed, while Congress may withhold funds for reasonable and relevant conditions, it is not at all clear that the President has any power to withhold Congressionally appropriated funds.

 

A private university must be able to protect the free speech of its faculty and students. Free speech protections are not just for opinions we like. It is most important for speech we don't like.

 

We used to speak of a free market of ideas, with each one of us free to choose which ideas to support. What happened to this free market? Do we want to revert to the monarchical dictatorship of what speech is acceptable?

 

What has happened to resisting government oppression? Do we really want to go down this path?

 

No! Shame on you, Columbia.

 

Allan Abramson

Columbia ’63

 

Friday, 1 August 2025