Originally posted to The Washington Examiner. 

Solar stocks plunged on Tuesday after the Senate released its version of what President Donald Trump has called the “big, beautiful bill.” While some anti-growth carveouts remain, one of its strongest reforms is how it begins to unwind former President Joe Biden’s green energy subsidies. This shift marks a long-overdue correction, ending an era where Washington picks winners and losers in the energy economy.

The market’s reaction was revealing. Overinflated by years of preferential treatment, many renewable companies are now adjusting to reality — one where their products compete on merit, not mandates. That’s a good thing.

Under Biden, energy policy was driven by top-down planning and heavy-handed regulation. The results? Higher prices, constrained supply, and a fragile grid. But under Trump, we’re seeing a reorientation: more energy abundance and a return to common-sense competition.

We don’t need Washington trying to engineer our energy future; we need it to get out of the way. Stripping tax favoritism, streamlining environmental permitting, and unleashing domestic production will lower prices and improve reliability. People in markets, not bureaucrats, should decide where capital flows.

This fact extends beyond energy. The Trump administration has wisely begun dismantling financial regulations that have weaponized the government against innovation and consumer choice. One key win: the executive order halting any advance on a Federal Reserve–issued central bank digital currency, which would have been a surveillance tool masquerading as modernization.

In another victory for freedom and innovation, the Securities and Exchange Commission dropped its lawsuit against Binance, signaling the end of an era in which cryptocurrency was treated more like a threat than a technology. The Biden administration’s hostility toward decentralized finance stifled innovation. Trump is helping reverse that trend, encouraging financial innovation and clarity.

Then there’s the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s dropped case against Zelle — a legally flimsy attempt to hold banks liable for fraud committed by third parties. Peer-to-peer payments aren’t inherently risky; bad actors are. The right approach is strengthening consumer education and fraud prevention, not punishing tech-enabled payment tools.

The Biden Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Visa’s debit card business was another case of political antitrust, targeting a company not for consumer harm but for being too successful. The sin? Having a 60% market share in a highly competitive industry with no hint of predatory behavior and no shortage of payment choices for consumers and businesses. 

Thankfully, a shift is underway. Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater has emphasized a return to data-driven enforcement and sound economic reasoning in antitrust. That’s a necessary course correction from the ideologically driven activism of recent years.

Still, regulatory bloat remains. Trump should go further by reversing the Biden-era expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act, which pressures banks to prioritize geography and politics over creditworthiness. That’s distortion, not inclusion. When credit is misallocated for political goals, financial stability and the people it’s supposed to help suffer.

Energy permitting is another frontier. Under current laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, critical infrastructure is delayed for years. We must accelerate approvals for pipelines, liquefied natural gas terminals, and power plants if we want a resilient energy grid and lower prices. Energy abundance should not be held hostage to outdated processes and red tape.

What ties all this together is a single, clear principle: Government should not control economic outcomes — it should set the rules of the game and then get out of the way. America doesn’t need a new round of industrial policy or neopopulist planning. We need a recommitment to classical liberalism, grounded in free-market economics, limited government, and individual freedom.

Industrial policy, whether from the left or right, assumes Washington knows better than markets. It doesn’t. The history of failed subsidies, protectionist trade wars, and crony corporatism proves it. If we want more innovation, investment, and opportunity, the best policy is humility: Let people prosper.

That starts by ending the “winners and losers” economy. No more special favors, mandates, or market manipulation. Just a level playing field where success is earned, not granted.

​What does it mean to be a conservative in the 21st century—and how do we bridge liberty with virtue?

In this milestone 150th episode of the Let People Prosper Show, I interview John Hood, president of the John William Pope Foundation and a leading voice behind the Freedom Conservatism movement (sign the statement of principles at the link).

We talk about his career as a journalist and policy expert, how fiction writing helped him rediscover deeper meaning, and why a renewed framework for conservatism is essential for America's future. From education and immigration to family and fiscal responsibility, this conversation unpacks the foundations for prosperity in a free society.

For more insights, visit vanceginn.com. You can also get even greater value by subscribing to my Substack newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com. 

(0:00) – Introduction to Freedom Conservatism
(2:09) – John Hood’s Journey and Journalism Career
(5:00) – Writing Books, Fiction, and Purpose
(9:58) – Teaching Students and Conservative Thought
(13:02) – Understanding the Debate Within Conservatism
(18:07) – Why “Freedom Conservatism” Matters Today
(25:02) – Core Principles: Liberty, Virtue, and Responsibility
(27:07) – The Foundation of the Movement
(34:50) – The Case for Fiscal Discipline
(39:52) – Immigration as a Strength, Not a Threat
(44:38) – Human Nature and the Temptation of Group Identity
(50:23) – Conservatism That Builds Opportunity
(53:32) – A Vision for America's Future

Originally posted to X. 

Americans are watching grocery bills rise, rents rise, and paychecks barely keep pace. They hear promises from Washington—this time from the right—that new government investments and industrial planning will bring jobs back, rebuild the middle class, and revive American greatness. It sounds appealing. But be warned: these are recycled progressive ideas wrapped in new rhetoric. What’s being offered is not a solution—it’s a mirage.

The Techno-Industrial Policy Playbook, recently released by American Compass and others, calls for a new wave of federal involvement in the economy: new bureaucracies, new mandates, and billions in taxpayer subsidies for favored sectors like semiconductors and green energy. It promises to fix problems supposedly caused by free markets. But the reality is exactly the opposite. Capitalism didn’t fail us. Governments did.

Source: https://www.rebuilding.tech/playbook

This push for industrial policy assumes the Rust Belt was gutted because of trade and automation. But what really happened was a long pattern of failed decisions at every level of government. High taxes, overregulation, union mandates, zoning barriers, failing schools, and fiscal mismanagement made building or investing in many places too costly. Jobs didn’t vanish. They moved—mainly to the Sun Belt and sometimes overseas, where it was more profitable.
Middle-class Americans haven’t disappeared either. Many have moved up.

Census data show the share of households earning above $100,000 has grown significantly over the past few decades. At the same time, those in the lowest income brackets have declined. This is upward mobility—something markets, not mandates, deliver.

What Americans are really feeling today is the result of inflationary policies, wasteful spending, and regulatory burdens that choke off opportunity. Doubling down on those same mistakes with centralized industrial planning will not help; it will worsen them. Look at the track record. Solyndra, the CHIPS Act, and bloated COVID relief fraud show what happens when the federal government tries to micromanage markets. The incentives are wrong. The waste is real. And the American people get stuck with the bill.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has revealed just how bad it is. Over $233 million in DEI grants were canceled, including a $1 million program on “Antiracist Teacher Leadership.” The Department of Defense admitted to $80 million in wasteful spending. One government contract paid $181,000 for a climate advisor in Central Africa. More than 500,000 government credit cards were found active across 32 agencies. That’s not innovation. That’s government waste. The estimated savings so far are $165 billion, or more than $1,000 saved per taxpayer. Much less than the $2 trillion proposed by Elon Musk, but a start that Congress should build on.

And yet, the American Compass plan would add even more federal coordination. They propose a new National Investment Council, a Chief Investment Officer answering to the President, and legal frameworks to steer capital into politically approved sectors. What’s their assumption? That Washington knows better than you where your job should come from, what industries matter, and how to spend your tax dollars.

But no bureaucracy can outthink the millions of daily decisions individuals, businesses, and families make nationwide. Real prosperity doesn’t come from centralized planning—it comes from people freely trading, building, and adapting. The innovation that drives better lives doesn’t originate in Washington. It starts in the garage, the startup, the small business. All of that gets crowded out when the government starts steering the ship.

The alternative is clear and proven: limit government spending to no more than the rate of population plus inflation. Flatten and simplify the tax code. Eliminate special-interest subsidies. Reform healthcare by letting people make healthcare decisions. Expect work from capable recipients of benefits. This isn’t punishment—it’s dignity and responsibility.

When people can control their destiny, they invest in their future. Communities grow from the bottom up, not the top down. That’s how we rebuild—not through subsidies but earned success.

Some industrial policy advocates claim that capitalism corrodes culture and weakens community. But real community isn’t something you build with tax dollars. It grows from people owning homes, starting businesses, attending churches, and building families. Bureaucrats can’t create that with a grant or an investment council.
​
The Techno-Industrial Policy Playbook replaces trust in Americans with trust in central planners. It hands more power to Washington under the guise of competition. But what it really offers is more stagnation, more dependency, and more political favoritism. We should respect those who want to fix what’s broken. But we should be honest about what’s actually broken—and what works. The government doesn’t need more authority over the economy. It needs to get out of the way.

Originally posted to Pelican Institute. 

Lately, more lawmakers—even some conservatives—are criticizing companies for “making too much profit.” That’s happening right now in the Louisiana Legislature and across the country. Some are advocating for new laws to penalize businesses through stringent rules, price caps, and taxes, particularly in the tech and insurance industries. The idea is that taking profit away will somehow make things better for everyday people.

But that thinking is backward. Profit isn’t the problem. Profit is part of the solution.

Here’s why.

In a free-market economy, businesses earn a profit when they provide goods or services that people want. That profit indicates that the company is utilizing its resources effectively, whether it’s selling food, insurance, phone service, or any other product or service. No one is forced to buy these things. When someone buys a product, it means they think it’s worth the price.

That’s Economics 101: voluntary exchange makes both the buyer and the seller better off.

And when a company fails to meet people’s needs? It loses money. That’s how the profit-and-loss system works. It rewards good ideas and punishes bad ones. That feedback loop helps businesses learn, improve, or step aside for someone else who can do better.

Profit is what allows businesses to grow, hire more workers, and reinvest in new tools, products, and services. Without it, there’s no incentive to take risks or innovate.

Yet too many lawmakers are focused on capping profits instead of solving real problems.

Take insurance. Rates are high in Louisiana—not because companies are raking in profit, but because the state has one of the worst legal climates in the country, coupled with a large number of uninsured motorists. Lawsuit abuse drives up costs, and regulatory mandates limit choices. Instead of fixing the system, some want to go after the insurers.

The same thing is happening in tech. Some want to break up large companies or impose new regulations on them. But these businesses have created thousands of jobs, made life easier through innovation, and opened up new markets for small businesses. Still, the policy response is to punish profits rather than address the root causes.

Government price controls sound like a quick fix, but they almost always backfire. Setting prices too low leads to shortages. Think about it: if insurance rates are capped below what it costs to cover risk, companies will stop offering coverage. If tech companies are fined or slapped with heavy-handed regulations for offering popular products, they’ll stop investing and innovating. That means fewer jobs, slower growth, and worse service.

It’s also important to understand that only people pay taxes. When the government taxes a business more, it doesn’t magically come from a corporate wallet. It comes from workers (in lower pay), consumers (in higher prices), or shareholders (which includes anyone with a retirement account). Blaming companies for not paying “enough” taxes ignores how the tax system actually works.

Many understandably desire fairness. However, true fairness means creating a system where anyone, regardless of their background, has an equal opportunity to succeed. This means encouraging competition, protecting property rights, and eliminating unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.

Everyone acts in their self-interest. That’s not a flaw—it’s a fact of life. People seek better jobs, more affordable prices, and improved lives. A free-market system takes that normal behavior and channels it into something good.

You can only earn a profit by giving someone else something they value more. That’s cooperation, not exploitation.
Instead of punishing profit, we should fix what’s broken. That means tackling lawsuit abuse, improving education, empowering parents with tools and supports to help their children, and letting businesses compete on a level playing field. It means making sure the government doesn’t block innovation or create winners and losers through handouts and heavy-handed regulation.

Free-market capitalism isn’t perfect, but it’s the best system ever created to help people lift themselves. It lets people try, fail, learn, and succeed. It gives room for new ideas to grow. It allows individuals, not the government, to decide what’s worth doing.

If we want a stronger economy, more jobs, and better opportunities for everyone, we need more freedom in the market, not less. Profit is how people get ahead. Let’s stop treating it like a problem and start treating it like the pathway to prosperity.

Originally published at American Thinker.

Americans’ retirement funds are swinging like a carnival ride as the markets try to anticipate how President Donald Trump’s tariff moves will affect global trade. His 90-day pause on tariffs has provided some relief as everyone tries to determine the long-term scenario.

As a free-market economist who worked in President Trump’s first administration and reviewed many speeches and policy briefs, I gained firsthand insight into his thinking. I can see both opportunities and risks in the current pause.

One risk—already acknowledged by the president—is that tariffs may cause pain because they upset global supply chains. And the impacts are real. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model estimates that real GDP contracted at a negative 2.4% annualized rate in Q1 2025. This results from a weak economy inherited from President Biden and an unpredictable trade policy. Even the model’s alternative forecast shows little to no economic growth. Those figures will evolve as policies are smoothed out, but for now, they are concerned with economic metrics.


If Trump remains committed to his first-term goal of decoupling from China, he can overcome domestic risks by creating strategic partnerships with countries like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. These partnerships will create better supply chains for everything from batteries and semiconductors to basic computer and smartphone components.

Japan is an especially relevant example because of Nippon Steel’s attempt to acquire U.S. Steel. Japan is one of our strongest allies, economically and strategically. Nippon has already committed to maintaining operations in Pittsburgh, investing $15 billion into the proposed purchases, a further $6 billion into American-based operations, and hiring American workers. The national security risk is nonexistent, but the economic risk will be carried worldwide if the deal doesn’t come through. America would signal that the U.S. is closed for business, even for global economic partners.


Trump can also show how his trade policies are about expansion by seizing this moment to renegotiate a modernized Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that addresses opportunities like Nippon-U.S. Steel. There is still an opportunity to remove flaws from the original deal and leverage the deal to strengthen U.S. economic leadership in Asia. A new TPP would help us rally regional allies, reduce reliance on China, and give American producers access to booming markets.

Free trade is a net benefit for both American citizens and our allies. It lowers prices, expands choices, and encourages international cooperation. That’s not just an economic argument—it’s a moral one. As Milton Friedman argued, economic openness is necessary for political freedom and prosperity.

Trump was elected in part for his willingness to challenge the status quo. That’s a good thing, and he has set the stage for possibly building bridges through business deals with companies like Nippon Steel, trade deals like a modern TPP, and ensuring that dictatorships like China know they are welcome when they liberalize their trade practices. 
​
This 90-day pause was a good use of a “time out.” It should allow everyone to regroup and find the right path to prosperity and freedom, preferably with pro-growth policies of less spending, lower taxes, reduced regulations, and more free trade, which was a goal during Trump’s first term.