Posts
What Does Being American Mean Now? | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'And, despite George Washington's warning, this legislation also would "deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the (U.S.) nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention." This is America?'
'The Patriot Act itself passed the Senate 98-1. The only dissenter was Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who, on Oct. 11, 2001, on the floor of the Senate, said:
"There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country where the police were allowed to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country where the government was entitled to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications ... the government would probably discover and arrest more terrorists or would-be terrorists, just as it would find more lawbreakers generally"'
'In the present Congress, Rep. Paul is not the only defender of what we used to tell other countries were our fundamental value'
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 30, 2011
Obama Officials Say We Don't Trust the Government Enough. Why Would We? | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
Obama Officials Say We Don't Trust the Government Enough. Why Would We? | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'No doubt we all make mistakes in our lives. But in the last few years, we’ve seen the government invade a country that turned out not to have weapons of mass destruction, ran up $15 trillion in debt, all but bankrupted Medicare and Social Security and nudged us toward a housing bubble that nearly brought down the economy. Should we really trust a government that thought shipping guns to Mexican drug lords and giving $535 million to a money-losing solar panel company were good ideas?'
Does Constitution Allow Supremes to Hide from Us? | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary
Does Constitution Allow Supremes to Hide from Us? | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'If I were teaching a high-school civics class, I don't know how I would explain to the students that they, like the rest of us ordinary citizens, are banned by the court from seeing and hearing how these top interpreters of our rule of law decide cases, thereby preventing us from learning who they are and how they think.'
The Debacle of Margarine's Utility - Morgan A. Brown - Mises Daily
The Debacle of Margarine's Utility - Morgan A. Brown - Mises Daily: 'It is hard to believe that there ever was a time when uttering "I can't believe it's not butter" would have provided ample warrant to arraign a hapless margarine producer for crimes against the state.'
'Peonage laws were in effect in states like Mississippi, but had other protective measures not been in place — i.e., the federal protection of butter's sacred yellow coloring — southern blacks would have made longer strides for economic success through vertical integration despite the oppressive commercial restrictions of Jim Crow.'
'The Federal and State antimargarine laws increase the cost of margarine, a food product as good and nutritious as butter. In many instances, due to these discriminatory laws, families cannot buy margarine. As we have stated, when it is purchased, the discriminatory laws force them to spend extra time in the kitchen, mixing color into margarine and wasting margarine in the process.
On behalf of the 14,300,000 colored consumers in this country, we plead with you to do away with all punitive Federal laws aimed at margarine.
The proposed color ban against margarine is as unfair and unjust as discriminatory race and class laws.
'Peonage laws were in effect in states like Mississippi, but had other protective measures not been in place — i.e., the federal protection of butter's sacred yellow coloring — southern blacks would have made longer strides for economic success through vertical integration despite the oppressive commercial restrictions of Jim Crow.'
'The Federal and State antimargarine laws increase the cost of margarine, a food product as good and nutritious as butter. In many instances, due to these discriminatory laws, families cannot buy margarine. As we have stated, when it is purchased, the discriminatory laws force them to spend extra time in the kitchen, mixing color into margarine and wasting margarine in the process.
On behalf of the 14,300,000 colored consumers in this country, we plead with you to do away with all punitive Federal laws aimed at margarine.
The proposed color ban against margarine is as unfair and unjust as discriminatory race and class laws.
Who's to Blame for Washington Gridlock | Jeffrey A. Miron | Cato Institute: Commentary
Who's to Blame for Washington Gridlock | Jeffrey A. Miron | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'This shows that the current debate is not really over the payroll tax; it is over the size and scope of government. That is an important topic, but it is not one that will get resolved now. Both sides have too much to lose if they make concessions on policy issues that can be used against them in the upcoming elections.'
'It is tempting to blame this outcome on the "extreme" or misguided views of one party or the other (take your pick, depending on your own views). But that is too simple.
The key problem is that, in one crucial respect, all politicians are alike: They want to get re-elected. In attempting to do so, however, they face different constraints depending on the district they represent. Republicans, especially the more conservative ones, are from states or districts with conservative voters. Democrats the reverse.
Thus even if behind closed doors every member of Congress held the same views on good versus bad policies, gridlock is still likely. Given the current distribution of voter preferences in the United States, roughly half the elected politicians are going to support conservative positions and half the opposite on most issues. Democracy may be the least bad form of government, but it is far from perfect.
This stand-off will only change if voters convince politicians that, on average, their views have evolved in the direction of either bigger or smaller government. This is what the November 2012 elections may reveal. Until then, politics rather than economic common sense will dominate the policy debate.'
'It is tempting to blame this outcome on the "extreme" or misguided views of one party or the other (take your pick, depending on your own views). But that is too simple.
The key problem is that, in one crucial respect, all politicians are alike: They want to get re-elected. In attempting to do so, however, they face different constraints depending on the district they represent. Republicans, especially the more conservative ones, are from states or districts with conservative voters. Democrats the reverse.
Thus even if behind closed doors every member of Congress held the same views on good versus bad policies, gridlock is still likely. Given the current distribution of voter preferences in the United States, roughly half the elected politicians are going to support conservative positions and half the opposite on most issues. Democracy may be the least bad form of government, but it is far from perfect.
This stand-off will only change if voters convince politicians that, on average, their views have evolved in the direction of either bigger or smaller government. This is what the November 2012 elections may reveal. Until then, politics rather than economic common sense will dominate the policy debate.'
King Newt Takes on the Judges | Roger Pilon | Cato Institute: Commentary
King Newt Takes on the Judges | Roger Pilon | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'He claims, for example, that since the New Deal, the judiciary's power has "increased exponentially" at the expense of the political branches. Yet Franklin Roosevelt accomplished exactly what Gingrich is calling for: His infamous 1937 threat to "pack" the Supreme Court with additional justices intimidated it into discovering new congressional powers and approving New Deal legislation.'
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Voters Like Paul's Honesty | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
Voters Like Paul's Honesty | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'At a time when our country is drowning in debt, the other GOP candidates seem unwilling to venture much beyond the idea of cutting “fraud, waste, and abuse.” Paul, on the other hand, has a specific plan to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget next year, including abolishing five cabinet agencies. That may or may not be practical, but it speaks to those seeking a smaller, less costly, less intrusive government, in a way that other candidates, with their 59-point plans for carefully trimming this agency or that, do not.'
Some Additional Reflections on the Economic Crisis and the Theory of the Cycle - Jesus Huerta de Soto - Mises Daily
Some Additional Reflections on the Economic Crisis and the Theory of the Cycle - Jesus Huerta de Soto - Mises Daily: 'the best way to preserve the environment is to extend entrepreneurial creativity and the principles of the free market to all natural resources, which requires their complete privatization and the efficient definition and defense of the property rights that pertain to them. In the absence of these rights, economic calculation becomes impossible, the appropriate allocation of resources to the most highly valued uses is prevented, and all sorts of irresponsible behaviors are encouraged, as is the unjustified consumption and destruction of many natural resources.'
'the credit expansion that central banks orchestrate and cyclically inject into the economic process through the private banking system' ... 'ends up placing an unwarranted strain on the real economy by making many unprofitable projects appear profitable (Huerta de Soto 2009). The result is unnecessary pressure on the entire natural environment: trees that should not be cut down are cut down; the atmosphere is polluted; rivers are contaminated; mountains are drilled; cement is produced; and minerals, gas, oil, etc., are extracted in an attempt to complete overly ambitious projects that in reality consumers are not willing to demand, etc.'
'the credit expansion that central banks orchestrate and cyclically inject into the economic process through the private banking system' ... 'ends up placing an unwarranted strain on the real economy by making many unprofitable projects appear profitable (Huerta de Soto 2009). The result is unnecessary pressure on the entire natural environment: trees that should not be cut down are cut down; the atmosphere is polluted; rivers are contaminated; mountains are drilled; cement is produced; and minerals, gas, oil, etc., are extracted in an attempt to complete overly ambitious projects that in reality consumers are not willing to demand, etc.'
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
RAHN: Government spending jobs myth - Washington Times
RAHN: Government spending jobs myth - Washington Times: 'As can be seen in the accompanying chart, there is an inverse relationship between increasing the size of government and job creation.'
'there is an enormous tax extraction cost for the government to obtain each additional dollar. Estimates of this extraction cost typically run from $1.40 to well over $2.50 of lost output for each dollar the government obtains.'
'If additional government spending could create more jobs, it would be expected that over the long run, the socialist or semisocialist economies would have full employment and the smaller-government, developed economies would have higher unemployment. Again, the empirical evidence shows just the opposite.'
'there is an enormous tax extraction cost for the government to obtain each additional dollar. Estimates of this extraction cost typically run from $1.40 to well over $2.50 of lost output for each dollar the government obtains.'
'If additional government spending could create more jobs, it would be expected that over the long run, the socialist or semisocialist economies would have full employment and the smaller-government, developed economies would have higher unemployment. Again, the empirical evidence shows just the opposite.'
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Do We Need Big Government? | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
Do We Need Big Government? | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Government payouts now account for more than a third of all wages and salaries in the United States. Worse, if one includes government employees’ salaries, more than half of Americans receive a substantial portion of their income from the government.'
'People talk about America’s free-market health-care system, but government pays for more than half of all health-care spending in this country.
Federal-government spending now consumes roughly a quarter of all the goods and services produced in this country over the course of a year. Throw in state- and local-government spending, and it’s more than a third. And, according the Congressional Budget Office, unless there is a drastic change in our current policies, we are on course for government to consume nearly 60 percent of GDP by mid-century.'
'The Federal Register now stands at an all time high of 81,405 pages. Nearly every product you buy and everything you do is regulated by the federal government in some way.'
'People talk about America’s free-market health-care system, but government pays for more than half of all health-care spending in this country.
Federal-government spending now consumes roughly a quarter of all the goods and services produced in this country over the course of a year. Throw in state- and local-government spending, and it’s more than a third. And, according the Congressional Budget Office, unless there is a drastic change in our current policies, we are on course for government to consume nearly 60 percent of GDP by mid-century.'
'The Federal Register now stands at an all time high of 81,405 pages. Nearly every product you buy and everything you do is regulated by the federal government in some way.'
This Is No Middle Class Tax Cut | Alan Reynolds | Cato Institute: Commentary
This Is No Middle Class Tax Cut | Alan Reynolds | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Calling this perennial payroll tax holiday a “middle class tax cut” is an outright hoax.
Former Census Bureau economists at Sentier Research, John Coder and Gordon Green, estimate that more than half of this year’s payroll tax cuts went to the most affluent 20%, while only 15% went to those with incomes below the median.'
Former Census Bureau economists at Sentier Research, John Coder and Gordon Green, estimate that more than half of this year’s payroll tax cuts went to the most affluent 20%, while only 15% went to those with incomes below the median.'
No Free Lunch in Subsidy Programs | Chris Edwards | Cato Institute: Commentary
No Free Lunch in Subsidy Programs | Chris Edwards | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'any stimulus from UI benefits will be counteracted by the anti-stimulus of the higher taxes needed to pay for them. Many states have been raising their UI taxes on businesses in order to replenish their unemployment funds, and these tax increases are surely harming job creation.
Another negative effect of UI benefits is that they increase unemployment because they reduce the incentive for people to find work. Higher UI benefits delay the need for people to make tough choices about their careers, such as switching industries, taking lower pay, or moving to a different city. It's a basic rule that when the government subsidizes something, we get more of it.'
'Larry Summers, a former top economist to Presidents Clinton and Obama, concluded in his academic work that unemployment benefits contribute to long-term unemployment.
Our UI system causes other problems. It suppresses personal savings because people expect the government to care for them when they are unemployed. That is harmful because personal savings are a key source of economic growth—savings get channeled into capital investment, which ultimately raises productivity and wages.
Another problem is the waste and fraud in the current UI system stemming from people getting benefits that they are not entitled to. The Department of Labor estimated that improper UI payments totaled $17 billion in 2010. As UI benefits expand, the waste grows.'
Here is another idea: Decrease UI amount by 1% each week. It would avoid the hard cliff of completely losing benefits while gradually increasing the incentive to find a job. After 1 year, the compound effect would be a 41% decrease.
Another negative effect of UI benefits is that they increase unemployment because they reduce the incentive for people to find work. Higher UI benefits delay the need for people to make tough choices about their careers, such as switching industries, taking lower pay, or moving to a different city. It's a basic rule that when the government subsidizes something, we get more of it.'
'Larry Summers, a former top economist to Presidents Clinton and Obama, concluded in his academic work that unemployment benefits contribute to long-term unemployment.
Our UI system causes other problems. It suppresses personal savings because people expect the government to care for them when they are unemployed. That is harmful because personal savings are a key source of economic growth—savings get channeled into capital investment, which ultimately raises productivity and wages.
Another problem is the waste and fraud in the current UI system stemming from people getting benefits that they are not entitled to. The Department of Labor estimated that improper UI payments totaled $17 billion in 2010. As UI benefits expand, the waste grows.'
Here is another idea: Decrease UI amount by 1% each week. It would avoid the hard cliff of completely losing benefits while gradually increasing the incentive to find a job. After 1 year, the compound effect would be a 41% decrease.
Obama and Teddy Roosevelt: Both Progressives, Both Clueless about the Economy | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary
Obama and Teddy Roosevelt: Both Progressives, Both Clueless about the Economy | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Since the rise of industrial capitalism, however, the greatest fortunes generally have been made by serving millions of ordinary people.'
'TR confused the size of businesses with the size of markets. Many businesses were big, but markets were bigger, they were growing faster, and even the biggest businesses were losing market share.
Far from being monopolistic, the American economy of TR's time was intensely competitive.'
'TR confused the size of businesses with the size of markets. Many businesses were big, but markets were bigger, they were growing faster, and even the biggest businesses were losing market share.
Far from being monopolistic, the American economy of TR's time was intensely competitive.'
How Bad Economies Recover Fast When Governments Get out of the Way | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary
How Bad Economies Recover Fast When Governments Get out of the Way | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'A new currency, however, wouldn't buy anything as long as chronic shortages persisted, so Erhard announced that price controls and rationing regulations would be abolished. Price controls simultaneously (1) discourage suppliers from providing more goods and (2) encourage consumers to line up for whatever might be available, which is why such controls cause shortages. U.S. commander Gen. Lucius Clay reportedly warned Erhard, "My advisers tell me you're making a terrible mistake." Erhard said, "Don't listen to them, General. My advisers tell me the same thing."
Within hours after Erhard's announcement, goods that had been reserved for black market deals began to reappear on long-empty store shelves. During the 1950s, West Germany's industrial production soared 225 percent. West Germany became a leading exporter. Overall, West Germany turned in the best economic performance of any developed country during this period. West Germany charged through the 1970s without the stagflation that afflicted the United States and other countries.
Although it's well-known that a devastated economy like Germany's could grow at above-average rates, the fact is nobody predicted the German economic miracle.'
Within hours after Erhard's announcement, goods that had been reserved for black market deals began to reappear on long-empty store shelves. During the 1950s, West Germany's industrial production soared 225 percent. West Germany became a leading exporter. Overall, West Germany turned in the best economic performance of any developed country during this period. West Germany charged through the 1970s without the stagflation that afflicted the United States and other countries.
Although it's well-known that a devastated economy like Germany's could grow at above-average rates, the fact is nobody predicted the German economic miracle.'
In Third White House Bid, Paul's Message The Same | Fox News
In Third White House Bid, Paul's Message The Same | Fox News: His pledge to "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution" earned him a nickname: Dr. No.
He refused to vote for any tax increase or any budget that was not balanced, and eschewed most "pork barrel" projects for his district. He even voted against awarding Congressional Gold Medals to Mother Teresa, Nancy and Ronald Reagan, and civil rights icon Rosa Parks — though he suggested his colleagues "each put in 100 bucks" to pay for the $30,000 cost of a medal for Parks.
He has refused to enroll in the House pension program, saying it would be "hypocritical and immoral" to accept a benefit unavailable to the taxpayers who fund it. He also discouraged his five children — including the future Kentucky U.S. senator and tea party darling Rand Paul — from applying for government-backed student loans.
He refused to vote for any tax increase or any budget that was not balanced, and eschewed most "pork barrel" projects for his district. He even voted against awarding Congressional Gold Medals to Mother Teresa, Nancy and Ronald Reagan, and civil rights icon Rosa Parks — though he suggested his colleagues "each put in 100 bucks" to pay for the $30,000 cost of a medal for Parks.
He has refused to enroll in the House pension program, saying it would be "hypocritical and immoral" to accept a benefit unavailable to the taxpayers who fund it. He also discouraged his five children — including the future Kentucky U.S. senator and tea party darling Rand Paul — from applying for government-backed student loans.
Police Aim To Crack Down On Violent New Trend, 'Knock Out' | Fox News
Police Aim To Crack Down On Violent New Trend, 'Knock Out' | Fox News: 'It isn't clear how long Knockout King has been around, nor is the exact number of attacks known. The FBI doesn't track it separately, but Slay said he has heard from several mayors about similar attacks and criminologists agree versions of the game are going on in many places.
St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom said the city has had about 10 Knockout King attacks over the past 15 months.'
St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom said the city has had about 10 Knockout King attacks over the past 15 months.'
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Wis. Gov. Has Hard Time Living Up To Jobs Pledge | Fox News
Wis. Gov. Has Hard Time Living Up To Jobs Pledge | Fox News: 'A recent report by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance backed up complaints about the national economy dragging down job creation in the state. The report found job growth and unemployment in Wisconsin has been closely tied with the national economy both during recessions like the one that began in 2008, and economic booms like when Thompson was governor in the 1990s.
State officials can change attitudes about the economy, but because it is so closely tied to national and global forces, there's little they can do to affect the actual direction of the economy, said Taxpayers Alliance President Todd Berry.'
State officials can change attitudes about the economy, but because it is so closely tied to national and global forces, there's little they can do to affect the actual direction of the economy, said Taxpayers Alliance President Todd Berry.'
Deja Voodoo: Detroit Repeats Big City Rail Mistakes | Randal O'Toole | Cato Institute: Commentary
Deja Voodoo: Detroit Repeats Big City Rail Mistakes | Randal O'Toole | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Although promoters often call light rail "rapid transit," it is actually very slow.
Nationally, light-rail lines average little more than 20 miles per hour. When operating in city streets such as Woodward, they average less than 15 mph. Such slow speeds entice few people out of their cars. The $60 million-per-mile cost of building light rail is enough to build a four-lane freeway. But the average light-rail line carries only about one-fifth of a freeway lane. Since most of those people would have ridden a bus, light rail offers little congestion relief.'
'Nor is light rail good for the environment. Nationally, light-rail operations use slightly less energy, per passenger mile, than the average car. But building light rail requires enormous amounts of energy that will never be repaid by the annual energy savings.'
'Buses can do anything light rail can do except spend lots of your money, but buses are faster, safer, and more flexible than trains. If traffic patterns change, bus routes can change overnight while moving a rail line takes years of planning and construction.
Rail advocates say you need rail transit to be a world-class city. The truth is that cities that use 1930s technologies to solve 21st century transportation problems are world-class chumps.'
Nationally, light-rail lines average little more than 20 miles per hour. When operating in city streets such as Woodward, they average less than 15 mph. Such slow speeds entice few people out of their cars. The $60 million-per-mile cost of building light rail is enough to build a four-lane freeway. But the average light-rail line carries only about one-fifth of a freeway lane. Since most of those people would have ridden a bus, light rail offers little congestion relief.'
'Nor is light rail good for the environment. Nationally, light-rail operations use slightly less energy, per passenger mile, than the average car. But building light rail requires enormous amounts of energy that will never be repaid by the annual energy savings.'
'Buses can do anything light rail can do except spend lots of your money, but buses are faster, safer, and more flexible than trains. If traffic patterns change, bus routes can change overnight while moving a rail line takes years of planning and construction.
Rail advocates say you need rail transit to be a world-class city. The truth is that cities that use 1930s technologies to solve 21st century transportation problems are world-class chumps.'
Team O's Denial on College-Cost Crisis | Neal McCluskey | Cato Institute: Commentary
Team O's Denial on College-Cost Crisis | Neal McCluskey | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Only about 57 percent of people who start four-year programs finish within six years, and most of the remaining 43 percent will probably never graduate. So lots of people will gamble for $1 million, but few will win.'
'The Obama administration has set the goal of leading the world in the percentage of the population possessing a college degree.
But the reality is that we've already got armies of people in college who'll never finish. There's little reason to think we could get even more people in and through.'
'The Obama administration has set the goal of leading the world in the percentage of the population possessing a college degree.
But the reality is that we've already got armies of people in college who'll never finish. There's little reason to think we could get even more people in and through.'
Pa.'s Rhyming Justice Pens Insurance Fraud Opinion | Fox News
Pa.'s Rhyming Justice Pens Insurance Fraud Opinion | Fox News: 'Part of his opinion reads: "Sentenced on the other crimes, he surely won't go free, but we find he can't be guilty of this final felony."'
The Back Story: Santa Claus | Fox News
The Back Story: Santa Claus | Fox News: 'Although skeptics abound, the spirit of every Santa Claus is rooted in a real saint; St. Nicholas, a third-century bishop in the Byzantine Empire, or modern-day Turkey. The relics of some of his bones rest in New York's Greek Orthodox Cathedral.
"He was known as a giver of gifts, but he gave them secretly," says Father Mark Arey, of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese.
"He redeemed people from slavery, but he did it secretly. He gave dowry's to women, but he gave them secretly. He helped the poor, but secretly, never to embarrass anyone or glorify anyone but to glorify God."
The stories go that St. Nicholas also dropped coins through windows, some landing in children's shoes or stockings hung out to dry.'
"He was known as a giver of gifts, but he gave them secretly," says Father Mark Arey, of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese.
"He redeemed people from slavery, but he did it secretly. He gave dowry's to women, but he gave them secretly. He helped the poor, but secretly, never to embarrass anyone or glorify anyone but to glorify God."
The stories go that St. Nicholas also dropped coins through windows, some landing in children's shoes or stockings hung out to dry.'
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Why Do GOP Bosses Fear Ron Paul? | The Nation
Why Do GOP Bosses Fear Ron Paul? | The Nation: 'Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught by the Carpenter of Nazareth, and if we believe in Christianity we should try to advance our ideals by his methods. We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home. We cannot talk world cooperation and practice power politics.'
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Democracy versus Bureaucracy | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
Democracy versus Bureaucracy | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'One provision of the new health care law empowers unelected panels of technocrats to make reductions in Medicare benefits each year in order to hit budget targets. This enables the politicians to claim they are not responsible for the cuts, but someone behind the tree is.'
'Control by the electorate in the United States will continue to diminish as long as the people demand more from government than they (not someone else) are willing to pay for and the economy can support.'
'Control by the electorate in the United States will continue to diminish as long as the people demand more from government than they (not someone else) are willing to pay for and the economy can support.'
Monday, December 19, 2011
Back to Bush's Big-Government Conservatism | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
Back to Bush's Big-Government Conservatism | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Both Gingrich and Romney have long supported more federal involvement and spending in education. Both backed No Child Left Behind. In fact, both endorsed the same strange idea of having the federal government buy a laptop computer for every child in America.'
'In fact, both are even opposed to cuts in farm price supports or ethanol subsidies. Gingrich was last seen suggesting that anyone who wanted to cut ethanol subsidies must hate farmers, while Romney believes food subsidies are a matter of national security, as if al-Qaeda is going to corner the wheat market.'
'Romney is the quintessential better manager, a "turn-around specialist," someone who can make government run more like a business. And Gingrich's new ideas are nearly all about making government work better. For example, he doesn't oppose a national ID system (E-Verify); he wants it "run by MasterCard or Visa." He doesn't want to get government out of health care; he wants to use "Lean Six Sigma" business strategy to make it less wasteful.
Nowhere in their rhetoric is there a recognition that big government is bad because it makes us less free.'
'In fact, both are even opposed to cuts in farm price supports or ethanol subsidies. Gingrich was last seen suggesting that anyone who wanted to cut ethanol subsidies must hate farmers, while Romney believes food subsidies are a matter of national security, as if al-Qaeda is going to corner the wheat market.'
'Romney is the quintessential better manager, a "turn-around specialist," someone who can make government run more like a business. And Gingrich's new ideas are nearly all about making government work better. For example, he doesn't oppose a national ID system (E-Verify); he wants it "run by MasterCard or Visa." He doesn't want to get government out of health care; he wants to use "Lean Six Sigma" business strategy to make it less wasteful.
Nowhere in their rhetoric is there a recognition that big government is bad because it makes us less free.'
Let the Boss Decide What to Do | Patrick Basham | Cato Institute: Commentary
Let the Boss Decide What to Do | Patrick Basham | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'If the nation's public health mandate is to produce a significantly lower level of obesity in the near term, the use of discrimination by employers is a perfectly logical and defensible instrument to employ in such a war on fat. The painful and inconvenient truth is that any rapid reduction in the number of obese Americans would require the private sector to discriminate against, rather than in favor of, the obese.
Instead of expensive lawsuits, counterproductive fat taxes and endless lists of (ignored) nutritional information, we should allow employers, insurers and other institutions to act toward the obese as they see fit.'
Instead of expensive lawsuits, counterproductive fat taxes and endless lists of (ignored) nutritional information, we should allow employers, insurers and other institutions to act toward the obese as they see fit.'
Down Syndrome Genocide | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary
Down Syndrome Genocide | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary: '"Today, 92 percent of mothers who get a definitive diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to abort, surveys show." These parents are told by their physicians that this child will not live a meaningful life.'
'However, a considerable number of families, instead of killing the child, provide their youngsters with regulated forms of therapy and tutoring. As a result, sizable numbers of these Americans graduate from high school and college and — as my next column demonstrates — enjoy meaningful lives.'
'However, a considerable number of families, instead of killing the child, provide their youngsters with regulated forms of therapy and tutoring. As a result, sizable numbers of these Americans graduate from high school and college and — as my next column demonstrates — enjoy meaningful lives.'
High-Tax Advocates Are Either Credulous or Envious of Wealthy | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
High-Tax Advocates Are Either Credulous or Envious of Wealthy | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'If you think increasing tax rates on the "rich" is the correct economic policy, then you also need to believe the following:
That most government spending is cost-effective, and cutting 3 percent of it (approximately $110 billion out of the current $3.7 trillion budget) would be more damaging than increasing taxes by $100 billion on many of those who create jobs.'
'That getting rid of the huge amount of waste and fraud in government programs, whether it is Medicare, Medicaid or defense, would do more damage to the economy than increasing tax rates on many highly productive people. Every year, many studies by government agencies and nongovernment groups show billions of dollars of waste and fraud within government, yet few government employees are fired or sent to jail, and little is done to correct the problems.'
'That being "rich" or "wealthy" is the same thing as having a high income. Many wealthy people generate much of their income from nontaxable sources, such as state and local bonds, and would not be affected by the higher tax rates being proposed. But some people with high incomes, such as young doctors, may have negative net worth because of the debt they incurred to obtain their education, and yet they would be hit by these proposed taxes.'
That most government spending is cost-effective, and cutting 3 percent of it (approximately $110 billion out of the current $3.7 trillion budget) would be more damaging than increasing taxes by $100 billion on many of those who create jobs.'
'That getting rid of the huge amount of waste and fraud in government programs, whether it is Medicare, Medicaid or defense, would do more damage to the economy than increasing tax rates on many highly productive people. Every year, many studies by government agencies and nongovernment groups show billions of dollars of waste and fraud within government, yet few government employees are fired or sent to jail, and little is done to correct the problems.'
'That being "rich" or "wealthy" is the same thing as having a high income. Many wealthy people generate much of their income from nontaxable sources, such as state and local bonds, and would not be affected by the higher tax rates being proposed. But some people with high incomes, such as young doctors, may have negative net worth because of the debt they incurred to obtain their education, and yet they would be hit by these proposed taxes.'
Friday, December 16, 2011
Should the Government Narrow the Income Gap? | Alan Reynolds | Cato Institute: Commentary
Should the Government Narrow the Income Gap? | Alan Reynolds | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'The grander estimates of Piketty and Saez are frequently cited as a rationale for increased tax rates on the rich and increased transfer payments to the rich. This is an irrational rationale. Even doubling tax rates and transfer payments would have no direct effect on those estimates, because they explicitly ignore taxes and transfers.'
'the top 1 percent's share always falls in recessions and rises during periods of rapid economic growth such as 1983-89 and 1997-2000. This cyclicality of the top 1 percent's share makes that share a preposterous definition of "inequality" because poverty rises in recessions. Are the unemployed supposed to welcome recessions and stock market crashes simply because such crises demolish top incomes from capital gains, dividends, interest, and small business?'
'the top 1 percent's share always falls in recessions and rises during periods of rapid economic growth such as 1983-89 and 1997-2000. This cyclicality of the top 1 percent's share makes that share a preposterous definition of "inequality" because poverty rises in recessions. Are the unemployed supposed to welcome recessions and stock market crashes simply because such crises demolish top incomes from capital gains, dividends, interest, and small business?'
We Don't Need a Balanced Budget Amendment | Tad DeHaven | Cato Institute: Commentary
We Don't Need a Balanced Budget Amendment | Tad DeHaven | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'The Constitution already places strict limits on what the federal government can and cannot do. The problem is that those limits have become stretched over the years to the point that the federal government can do pretty much what it pleases.'
'Most Republicans are about as enthusiastic to confront this reality as most Democrats are in reversing it. Thus, the convenient resurgence in popularity for a balanced budget amendment on the part of Republicans has been driven by an unwillingness — or inability — to flesh out exactly what federal agencies and programs would have to go in order to bring the budget into balance without raising taxes.
Indeed, it's not a coincidence that the balanced budget amendment wasn't a priority for Republicans when they were jacking up spending and debt during George W. Bush's tenure.'
'Republicans who support the balanced budget amendment cannot cite it as evidence that they're serious about cutting spending unless they're prepared to detail what they would cut in order to bring the budget into balance.
While proponents of the balanced budget amendment argue that it would also reign in spending, almost all the states possess balanced budget requirements and that hasn't stopped state spending from continuing to increase. In fact, the balanced budget amendment would actually end up solidifying the oversized and overbearing federal government we have today. Therefore, policymakers who truly desire a federal government that is smaller in size and scope should concentrate their efforts on convincing the American people that the country would be better off.'
'Most Republicans are about as enthusiastic to confront this reality as most Democrats are in reversing it. Thus, the convenient resurgence in popularity for a balanced budget amendment on the part of Republicans has been driven by an unwillingness — or inability — to flesh out exactly what federal agencies and programs would have to go in order to bring the budget into balance without raising taxes.
Indeed, it's not a coincidence that the balanced budget amendment wasn't a priority for Republicans when they were jacking up spending and debt during George W. Bush's tenure.'
'Republicans who support the balanced budget amendment cannot cite it as evidence that they're serious about cutting spending unless they're prepared to detail what they would cut in order to bring the budget into balance.
While proponents of the balanced budget amendment argue that it would also reign in spending, almost all the states possess balanced budget requirements and that hasn't stopped state spending from continuing to increase. In fact, the balanced budget amendment would actually end up solidifying the oversized and overbearing federal government we have today. Therefore, policymakers who truly desire a federal government that is smaller in size and scope should concentrate their efforts on convincing the American people that the country would be better off.'
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Mandatory Medical Malpractice Caps Hurt Patients | Shirley Svorny | Cato Institute: Commentary
Mandatory Medical Malpractice Caps Hurt Patients | Shirley Svorny | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Support for caps comes from individuals who see the medical malpractice system as broken, largely based on anecdotal observations. Everyone seems to have heard a story of a high verdict to a plaintiff whose claim was not valid. Yet, careful studies suggest these cases are anomalies, and the court system generally works. While there are no statistics for the country as a whole, based on the existing evidence, we can say confidently that a good chunk of initial claims (likely more than three-quarters) do not move forward because no negligence was involved. The vast majority of cases that do move forward settle.
This means that court signals from earlier trials are clear. If court awards were random, one would expect many more cases to go to court as there would be an expectation of an award even where there was no negligence. Many cases go to court because plaintiffs think they have a case when they do not. We know this because plaintiffs rarely win; less than a quarter of all cases that go to court are resolved in favor of the plaintiff. At least one study found court findings of negligence lined up with assessments by impartial reviewing physicians.'
'every review has found claims are concentrated among a very small subset of physicians; less than five percent of physicians are responsible for the overwhelming share of claims. Even if a large percentage of negligent actions are not reported, it would seem that the present system works in identifying physicians whose practice patterns put patients at risk.'
This means that court signals from earlier trials are clear. If court awards were random, one would expect many more cases to go to court as there would be an expectation of an award even where there was no negligence. Many cases go to court because plaintiffs think they have a case when they do not. We know this because plaintiffs rarely win; less than a quarter of all cases that go to court are resolved in favor of the plaintiff. At least one study found court findings of negligence lined up with assessments by impartial reviewing physicians.'
'every review has found claims are concentrated among a very small subset of physicians; less than five percent of physicians are responsible for the overwhelming share of claims. Even if a large percentage of negligent actions are not reported, it would seem that the present system works in identifying physicians whose practice patterns put patients at risk.'
It's Time to Gut, Not Cut, the Federal Government | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary
It's Time to Gut, Not Cut, the Federal Government | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'But there is no line item in the budget for "waste, fraud, and abuse." Part of the problem is management, which has never been Washington's strong suit. A lot of money is lost due to incompetence or theft. Putting in place the right people and procedures isn't easy.
More basic, however, is the fact that one man's waste is another man's priority. The basic purpose of the national government today is to allow everyone to live off of everyone else. The intent is to give away trillions of dollars. What matters most is giving it away, not giving it away efficiently.'
'The big spending boulders are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Pentagon, and interest. Cuts here would cause much political pain, which is why politicians prefer not to talk about such possibilities. The people must decide not to have the government do certain things.'
'First, Social Security and Medicare should be narrowed to focus on the poor. No more middle class welfare. If you can afford to care for yourself, you collect no more federal checks. And the young should be allowed to opt out of the programs, putting money aside for their own retirement and health care. Over the long-term this will cut trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.
Second, Medicaid should be turned into a competitive voucher program that shares cost savings with frugal recipients. It will never be cheap to provide health care for the poor, but only by changing the program's underlying incentives can much money be saved. Reforming Medicaid is important for state governments as well as Washington.
Third, the U.S. government should focus defense spending on defense. No more social engineering around the world. No more subsidies for rich states and nation-building in poor ones. No more interventions here, there, and everywhere for no good purpose. Then military outlays could be cut substantially.
Fourth, take these steps and the government would borrow less, reducing interest payments naturally. That would create a "virtuous cycle" of falling outlays, deficits, and debts.
Fifth, toss in big reductions in domestic discretionary spending for good measure. Let people spend their own money for their families and communities. Then government would be left doing the few things that it really should do.'
More basic, however, is the fact that one man's waste is another man's priority. The basic purpose of the national government today is to allow everyone to live off of everyone else. The intent is to give away trillions of dollars. What matters most is giving it away, not giving it away efficiently.'
'The big spending boulders are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Pentagon, and interest. Cuts here would cause much political pain, which is why politicians prefer not to talk about such possibilities. The people must decide not to have the government do certain things.'
'First, Social Security and Medicare should be narrowed to focus on the poor. No more middle class welfare. If you can afford to care for yourself, you collect no more federal checks. And the young should be allowed to opt out of the programs, putting money aside for their own retirement and health care. Over the long-term this will cut trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.
Second, Medicaid should be turned into a competitive voucher program that shares cost savings with frugal recipients. It will never be cheap to provide health care for the poor, but only by changing the program's underlying incentives can much money be saved. Reforming Medicaid is important for state governments as well as Washington.
Third, the U.S. government should focus defense spending on defense. No more social engineering around the world. No more subsidies for rich states and nation-building in poor ones. No more interventions here, there, and everywhere for no good purpose. Then military outlays could be cut substantially.
Fourth, take these steps and the government would borrow less, reducing interest payments naturally. That would create a "virtuous cycle" of falling outlays, deficits, and debts.
Fifth, toss in big reductions in domestic discretionary spending for good measure. Let people spend their own money for their families and communities. Then government would be left doing the few things that it really should do.'
Laws Shouldn't Supersede Free Speech | John Samples | Cato Institute: Commentary
Laws Shouldn't Supersede Free Speech | John Samples | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Political scientists have found that contributions explain little about lawmaking once ideology, party, and constituency are accounted for. One scholarly study of lobbying concluded that "the direct correlation between money and outcomes that so many political scientists have sought simply is not there."'
'Even as they fail to deliver benefits, campaign-finance regulations impose costs. The incumbents who write them are tempted to make it harder for challengers to raise money. Scholars have also found that reducing campaign spending leads to fewer and less informed voters.
In addition, those engaged in politics seek to legally evade regulations. So reformers constantly demand new regulations to close "loopholes," producing a complex body of law. Legal advice becomes vital for electoral engagement, discouraging participation — a perverse result for rules purporting to advance democracy.
Finally, the rhetoric of campaign finance reform has poisoned public debate. Instead of arguments, voters hear accusations of corruption. Not surprisingly, many attribute problems to malevolent "moneyed interests."
But our fiscal challenges, for example, come from popular and inadequately funded entitlement programs. No surprise there: Voters' desire for benefits without costs is a very democratic failing. But it is a failing Americans have refused to face; it's easier to blame moneyed interests for our problems.'
'Even as they fail to deliver benefits, campaign-finance regulations impose costs. The incumbents who write them are tempted to make it harder for challengers to raise money. Scholars have also found that reducing campaign spending leads to fewer and less informed voters.
In addition, those engaged in politics seek to legally evade regulations. So reformers constantly demand new regulations to close "loopholes," producing a complex body of law. Legal advice becomes vital for electoral engagement, discouraging participation — a perverse result for rules purporting to advance democracy.
Finally, the rhetoric of campaign finance reform has poisoned public debate. Instead of arguments, voters hear accusations of corruption. Not surprisingly, many attribute problems to malevolent "moneyed interests."
But our fiscal challenges, for example, come from popular and inadequately funded entitlement programs. No surprise there: Voters' desire for benefits without costs is a very democratic failing. But it is a failing Americans have refused to face; it's easier to blame moneyed interests for our problems.'
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Redeeming the Industrial Revolution - Wendy McElroy - Mises Daily
Redeeming the Industrial Revolution - Wendy McElroy - Mises Daily: '"Free-labor children lived with their parents or guardians and worked during the day at wages agreeable to those adults. But parents often refused to send their children into unusually harsh or dangerous work situations." Reed notes, "Private factory owners could not forcibly subjugate 'free labour' children; they could not compel them to work in conditions their parents found unacceptable."
By contrast, parish children were under the direct authority of government officials.' 'The Poor Law replaced outdoor relief (subsidies and handouts) with "poor houses" in which pauper children were virtually imprisoned. There, the conditions were made purposely harsh to discourage people from applying. Nearly every parish in Britain had a "stockpile" of abandoned workhouse children who were virtually bought and sold to factories; they experienced the deepest horrors of child labor.'
'Thus, in advocating the regulation of child labor, social reformers asked government to remedy abuses for which government itself was largely responsible. Once more, government was a disease masquerading as its own cure.'
' To modern ears, the working and living conditions were terrible with many women turning to prostitution on the side in order to keep a roof over their heads. As terrible as the conditions might have been, however, a fundamental fact must not be ignored. The women themselves believed that flight into the city was in their self-interest, otherwise they would have never made the journey or they would have returned home to farm life in disillusionment. To say factory work "harmed" 18th- or 19th-century women is to ignore the demonstrated preference that they themselves expressed. It ignores the voice of their choices; clearly, the women believed it was an improvement.'
'An employer wants to maximize the profit on every dollar he or she spends. This creates a strong incentive to be blind to everything but the merit of an employee, to be blind to race, sex, religion or other characteristics other than productivity. A skilled woman who works for $1 less than a similarly skilled man will usually get the job. If she doesn't, then the unbiased competitor down the street will hire her and the biased one will lose a competitive edge. When this dynamic occurs on a massive scale, women workers are gradually able to demand increasingly higher wages and whittle down that $1 differential. The "leveling" factor does not happen immediately, it does not happen perfectly. But over time, out of pure self-interest, employers become blind to race and sex because it is in their self-interest. They do so in the name of profit, and everyone benefits.'
By contrast, parish children were under the direct authority of government officials.' 'The Poor Law replaced outdoor relief (subsidies and handouts) with "poor houses" in which pauper children were virtually imprisoned. There, the conditions were made purposely harsh to discourage people from applying. Nearly every parish in Britain had a "stockpile" of abandoned workhouse children who were virtually bought and sold to factories; they experienced the deepest horrors of child labor.'
'Thus, in advocating the regulation of child labor, social reformers asked government to remedy abuses for which government itself was largely responsible. Once more, government was a disease masquerading as its own cure.'
' To modern ears, the working and living conditions were terrible with many women turning to prostitution on the side in order to keep a roof over their heads. As terrible as the conditions might have been, however, a fundamental fact must not be ignored. The women themselves believed that flight into the city was in their self-interest, otherwise they would have never made the journey or they would have returned home to farm life in disillusionment. To say factory work "harmed" 18th- or 19th-century women is to ignore the demonstrated preference that they themselves expressed. It ignores the voice of their choices; clearly, the women believed it was an improvement.'
'An employer wants to maximize the profit on every dollar he or she spends. This creates a strong incentive to be blind to everything but the merit of an employee, to be blind to race, sex, religion or other characteristics other than productivity. A skilled woman who works for $1 less than a similarly skilled man will usually get the job. If she doesn't, then the unbiased competitor down the street will hire her and the biased one will lose a competitive edge. When this dynamic occurs on a massive scale, women workers are gradually able to demand increasingly higher wages and whittle down that $1 differential. The "leveling" factor does not happen immediately, it does not happen perfectly. But over time, out of pure self-interest, employers become blind to race and sex because it is in their self-interest. They do so in the name of profit, and everyone benefits.'
My Life in the BLS - Shawn Ritenour - Mises Daily
My Life in the BLS - Shawn Ritenour - Mises Daily: 'If the BLS really wanted to save on meeting costs, they would hold every national conference in Kansas City, where the government hotel rates are among the cheapest, the food per diem is the lowest, and, being a central location, air fares are lower. In reality, I was told where the bureau was having the conference and it was up to me to find two other cities where it would be even more expensive for comparison. With New York City and Los Angeles as foils, I could justify any other location my superiors wanted.'
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Global Oil and Gas Markets, Our Best Energy Security | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary
Global Oil and Gas Markets, Our Best Energy Security | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'From a practical standpoint, there's really no such thing as a U.S. oil market. There's a global oil market, and oil shipments tend to go where the best prices are offered. Once a tanker leaves a port loaded with oil, the producing country no longer has control over it. In 1973, oil producing countries continued shipping to European countries that weren't involved with the Yom Kippur War, but much of that oil was re-shipped to the U.S. Some of the OPEC oil shipped to the Caribbean was also re-shipped to the U.S.
In addition, OPEC has experienced the chronic cheating that generally afflicts cartels: it's in the interest of each member to have everybody else cut back sales so that prices will be pushed up, while each member sells as much as possible "under the table" at high prices, making it difficult to maintain those prices. Algeria, Gabon, Indonesia, Iraq, Kuwait, Nigeria, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela reportedly have been among the most notorious OPEC cheaters, selling as much as 40 percent more oil than their assigned quotas.'
'It makes as little sense to worry about our "dependence" on foreign oil as it does to worry about our "dependence" on private enterprise, computers and other wonders. We would be worse off doing things that cost more or don't work as well. We should make the most of our comparative advantages.
Keep in mind that major oil producers have strong incentives to sell their oil. In most cases, it dominates their economies and generates a substantial percentage of government revenues. Moreover, many of these countries live beyond their means. They have spent huge sums on weapons, wars, palaces, religious police and money-losing nationalized industries. Generally the major oil producers have failed to diversify their revenue sources by providing an attractive business climate where different industries could develop.'
In addition, OPEC has experienced the chronic cheating that generally afflicts cartels: it's in the interest of each member to have everybody else cut back sales so that prices will be pushed up, while each member sells as much as possible "under the table" at high prices, making it difficult to maintain those prices. Algeria, Gabon, Indonesia, Iraq, Kuwait, Nigeria, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela reportedly have been among the most notorious OPEC cheaters, selling as much as 40 percent more oil than their assigned quotas.'
'It makes as little sense to worry about our "dependence" on foreign oil as it does to worry about our "dependence" on private enterprise, computers and other wonders. We would be worse off doing things that cost more or don't work as well. We should make the most of our comparative advantages.
Keep in mind that major oil producers have strong incentives to sell their oil. In most cases, it dominates their economies and generates a substantial percentage of government revenues. Moreover, many of these countries live beyond their means. They have spent huge sums on weapons, wars, palaces, religious police and money-losing nationalized industries. Generally the major oil producers have failed to diversify their revenue sources by providing an attractive business climate where different industries could develop.'
Monday, December 12, 2011
Smashing Protectionist "Theory" (Again) - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily
Smashing Protectionist "Theory" (Again) - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily: 'The best way to look at tariffs or import quotas or other protectionist restraints is to forget about political boundaries. Political boundaries of nations may be important for other reasons, but they have no economic meaning whatever. Suppose, for example, that each of the United States were a separate nation. Then we would hear a lot of protectionist bellyaching that we are now fortunately spared. Think of the howls by high-priced New York or Rhode Island textile manufacturers who would then be complaining about the "unfair," "cheap labor" competition from various low-type "foreigners" from Tennessee or North Carolina, or vice versa.
Fortunately, the absurdity of worrying about the balance of payments is made evident by focusing on interstate trade. For nobody worries about the balance of payments between New York and New Jersey, or, for that matter, between Manhattan and Brooklyn, because there are no customs officials recording such trade and such balances.
If we think about it, it is clear that a call by New York firms for a tariff against North Carolina is a pure rip-off of New York (as well as North Carolina) consumers, a naked grab for coerced special privilege by less-efficient business firms. If the 50 states were separate nations, the protectionists would then be able to use the trappings of patriotism, and distrust of foreigners, to camouflage and get away with their looting the consumers of their own region.'
'American labor is more costly than Taiwanese because it is far more productive. What makes it productive? To some extent, the comparative qualities of labor, skill, and education. But most of the difference is not due to the personal qualities of the laborers themselves, but to the fact that the American laborer, on the whole, is equipped with more and better capital equipment than his Taiwanese counterparts. The more and better the capital investment per worker, the greater the worker's productivity, and therefore the higher the wage rate.
In short, if the American wage rate is twice that of the Taiwanese, it is because the American laborer is more heavily capitalized, is equipped with more and better tools, and is therefore, on the average, twice as productive. In a sense, I suppose, it is not "fair" for the American worker to make more than the Taiwanese, not because of his personal qualities, but because savers and investors have supplied him with more tools. But a wage rate is determined not just by personal quality but also by relative scarcity, and in the United States the worker is far scarcer compared to capital than he is in Taiwan.'
'the fact that American wage rates are on the average twice that of the Taiwanese, does not make the cost of labor in the United States twice that of Taiwan. Because US labor is twice as productive, this means that the double wage rate in the United States is offset by the double productivity, so that the cost of labor per unit product in the United States and Taiwan tends, on the average, to be the same. One of the major protectionist fallacies is to confuse the price of labor (wage rates) with its cost, which also depends on its relative productivity.'
'The problem faced by less efficient US textile or auto firms is not so much cheap labor in Taiwan or Japan but the fact that other US industries are efficient enough to afford it, because they bid wages that high in the first place.
So, by imposing protective tariffs and quotas to save, bail out, and keep in place less efficient US textile or auto or microchip firms, the protectionists are not only injuring the American consumer. They are also harming efficient US firms and industries, which are prevented from employing resources now locked into incompetent firms, and who could otherwise be able to expand and sell their efficient products at home and abroad.'
'The alleged "deficit" was paid for by foreigners investing the equivalent amount of money in American dollars: in real estate, capital goods, US securities, and bank accounts.
In effect, in the last couple of years, foreigners have been investing enough of their own funds in dollars to keep the dollar high, enabling us to purchase cheap imports. Instead of worrying and complaining about this development, we should rejoice that foreign investors are willing to finance our cheap imports. The only problem is that this bonanza is already coming to an end, with the dollar becoming cheaper and exports more expensive.'
Fortunately, the absurdity of worrying about the balance of payments is made evident by focusing on interstate trade. For nobody worries about the balance of payments between New York and New Jersey, or, for that matter, between Manhattan and Brooklyn, because there are no customs officials recording such trade and such balances.
If we think about it, it is clear that a call by New York firms for a tariff against North Carolina is a pure rip-off of New York (as well as North Carolina) consumers, a naked grab for coerced special privilege by less-efficient business firms. If the 50 states were separate nations, the protectionists would then be able to use the trappings of patriotism, and distrust of foreigners, to camouflage and get away with their looting the consumers of their own region.'
'American labor is more costly than Taiwanese because it is far more productive. What makes it productive? To some extent, the comparative qualities of labor, skill, and education. But most of the difference is not due to the personal qualities of the laborers themselves, but to the fact that the American laborer, on the whole, is equipped with more and better capital equipment than his Taiwanese counterparts. The more and better the capital investment per worker, the greater the worker's productivity, and therefore the higher the wage rate.
In short, if the American wage rate is twice that of the Taiwanese, it is because the American laborer is more heavily capitalized, is equipped with more and better tools, and is therefore, on the average, twice as productive. In a sense, I suppose, it is not "fair" for the American worker to make more than the Taiwanese, not because of his personal qualities, but because savers and investors have supplied him with more tools. But a wage rate is determined not just by personal quality but also by relative scarcity, and in the United States the worker is far scarcer compared to capital than he is in Taiwan.'
'the fact that American wage rates are on the average twice that of the Taiwanese, does not make the cost of labor in the United States twice that of Taiwan. Because US labor is twice as productive, this means that the double wage rate in the United States is offset by the double productivity, so that the cost of labor per unit product in the United States and Taiwan tends, on the average, to be the same. One of the major protectionist fallacies is to confuse the price of labor (wage rates) with its cost, which also depends on its relative productivity.'
'The problem faced by less efficient US textile or auto firms is not so much cheap labor in Taiwan or Japan but the fact that other US industries are efficient enough to afford it, because they bid wages that high in the first place.
So, by imposing protective tariffs and quotas to save, bail out, and keep in place less efficient US textile or auto or microchip firms, the protectionists are not only injuring the American consumer. They are also harming efficient US firms and industries, which are prevented from employing resources now locked into incompetent firms, and who could otherwise be able to expand and sell their efficient products at home and abroad.'
'The alleged "deficit" was paid for by foreigners investing the equivalent amount of money in American dollars: in real estate, capital goods, US securities, and bank accounts.
In effect, in the last couple of years, foreigners have been investing enough of their own funds in dollars to keep the dollar high, enabling us to purchase cheap imports. Instead of worrying and complaining about this development, we should rejoice that foreign investors are willing to finance our cheap imports. The only problem is that this bonanza is already coming to an end, with the dollar becoming cheaper and exports more expensive.'
Tariff Lesson for Obama – and Us | Daniel J. Ikenson | Cato Institute: Commentary
Tariff Lesson for Obama – and Us | Daniel J. Ikenson | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Trade barriers and subsidies, while burdensome to foreign companies, are foremost matters of domestic economic policy. Australia's experience affirms that the most compelling case for dismantling trade restrictions is not that they are "concessions" to exchange for foreign market access, but domestic reforms that benefit the domestic economy, regardless of what other countries do with their own trade barriers.'
Friday, December 09, 2011
Mustangs Mistreated But Not Inhumanely | Fox News
Mustangs Mistreated But Not Inhumanely | Fox News: 'The U.S. Bureau of Land Management's internal review of a wild horse roundup in Nevada found some mustangs were whipped in the face, kicked in the head, dragged by a rope around the neck, and repeatedly shocked with electrical prods, but the agency concluded none of the mistreatment rose to the level of being inhumane.'
Thursday, December 08, 2011
Better Education Through Lower Taxes | Andrew J. Coulson | Cato Institute: Commentary
Better Education Through Lower Taxes | Andrew J. Coulson | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'for every dollar the education tax credit reduces state revenues, it saves the state $1.49 — according to an official study by the legislature's accountability agency. That is because educating children in the private sector is quite a bit less expensive than doing so in the public sector. So the program not only improves educational outcomes for all concerned, it generates a 50 percent annual return on investment — a remarkable boon in difficult economic times.'
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Opinion: The answer is: Spend less. Period. - Grover G. Norquist and Mike Needham and Phil Kerpen and Al Cardenas and Duane Parde and Daniel J. Mitchell - POLITICO.com
Opinion: The answer is: Spend less. Period. - Grover G. Norquist and Mike Needham and Phil Kerpen and Al Cardenas and Duane Parde and Daniel J. Mitchell - POLITICO.com: 'Let’s be balanced, they insist, and promise to cut some spending and raise some taxes. Having pushed spending way up, they now want to pretend this spending is normal or, at least, inevitable. It isn’t.'
'In 1990, the same trick was played out — this time at the expense of President George H.W. Bush and the American people. A two-to-one promise brought higher taxes and higher spending. When tax hikes are on the table, the talk about spending cuts evaporates. Oddly enough, the tax hikes remain.'
'In 1990, the same trick was played out — this time at the expense of President George H.W. Bush and the American people. A two-to-one promise brought higher taxes and higher spending. When tax hikes are on the table, the talk about spending cuts evaporates. Oddly enough, the tax hikes remain.'
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Referendum Initiatives Prevent Eminent Domain Abuse | Ilya Somin | Cato Institute: Commentary
Referendum Initiatives Prevent Eminent Domain Abuse | Ilya Somin | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'In reality, economic development condemnations often destroy local economies by wiping out neighborhoods, small businesses and schools. Moreover, the new owners are usually not required to actually produce the development they promised. In the Poletown case, the new factory produced only about half as many new jobs as were promised. In Kelo, nothing has been built on the condemned property six years after the Supreme Court upheld the takings.
Private developers who have a genuinely valuable project should be able to acquire the land they need through voluntary purchase. One of the strongest indications that their proposed project really is more valuable than current uses of the same land is their willingness to pay the current owners a price high enough to persuade them to sell. Economic development takings also undermine growth by reducing the security of property rights. If landowners fear that their land might be condemned, they are less likely to invest in it.'
Private developers who have a genuinely valuable project should be able to acquire the land they need through voluntary purchase. One of the strongest indications that their proposed project really is more valuable than current uses of the same land is their willingness to pay the current owners a price high enough to persuade them to sell. Economic development takings also undermine growth by reducing the security of property rights. If landowners fear that their land might be condemned, they are less likely to invest in it.'
The Real "1 Percent" | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Real "1 Percent" | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Roughly 80 percent of millionaires in America are the first generation of their family to be rich. They didn't inherit their wealth; they earned it. How? According to a recent survey of the top 1 percent of American earners, slightly less than 14 percent were involved in banking or finance.'
'since 2007, there has been a 39 percent decline in the number of American millionaires.
Among the "super-rich," the decline has been even sharper: The number of Americans earning more than $10 million a year has fallen by 55 percent. In fact, while in 2008 the top 1 percent earned 20 percent of all income here, that figure has declined to just 16 percent. Inequality in America is declining.'
'since 2007, there has been a 39 percent decline in the number of American millionaires.
Among the "super-rich," the decline has been even sharper: The number of Americans earning more than $10 million a year has fallen by 55 percent. In fact, while in 2008 the top 1 percent earned 20 percent of all income here, that figure has declined to just 16 percent. Inequality in America is declining.'
Friday, December 02, 2011
A Lesson on the Laffer Curve for Barack Obama | Daniel J. Mitchell | Cato Institute: Commentary
A Lesson on the Laffer Curve for Barack Obama | Daniel J. Mitchell | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'The key takeaway is that the IRS collected fives times as much income tax from the rich when the tax rate was far lower. This isn't just an example of the Laffer Curve. It's the Laffer Curve on steroids and it's one of those rare examples of a tax cut paying for itself.
Folks on the right, however, should be careful about over-interpreting this data. There were lots of factors that presumably helped generate these results, including inflation, population growth, and some of Reagan's other policies. So we don't know whether the lower tax rates on the rich caused revenues to double, triple, or quadruple. Ask five economists and you'll get nine answers.
But we do know that the rich paid much more when the tax rate was much lower.'
Folks on the right, however, should be careful about over-interpreting this data. There were lots of factors that presumably helped generate these results, including inflation, population growth, and some of Reagan's other policies. So we don't know whether the lower tax rates on the rich caused revenues to double, triple, or quadruple. Ask five economists and you'll get nine answers.
But we do know that the rich paid much more when the tax rate was much lower.'
Executive Privilege Claim Ahead on Solyndra | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary
Executive Privilege Claim Ahead on Solyndra | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'as is so often the case in politics, the real scandal is what's gone on in broad daylight. Solyndra is a perfect illustration of the dangers of government/business "partnership."
"We're all in this together," has been Obama's continual refrain this fall while pushing his $449 billion jobs bill. Sure, it's a collectivist notion that's hard to reconcile with a country dedicated to the individual pursuit of happiness. But he doesn't really mean it.
In this half-socialized, corporatist sector of privatized profit and socialized loss, we're only "all in it together" if a federally favored company goes belly up — as Solyndra did, sticking the taxpayer with tab. "One has to take risks in order to promote innovative manufacturing," as Energy Secretary Steven Chu put it last week.'
'Today, with unprecedented levels of money and power flowing to Washington, more and more Americans fear that the game is rigged. Can you blame them?'
"We're all in this together," has been Obama's continual refrain this fall while pushing his $449 billion jobs bill. Sure, it's a collectivist notion that's hard to reconcile with a country dedicated to the individual pursuit of happiness. But he doesn't really mean it.
In this half-socialized, corporatist sector of privatized profit and socialized loss, we're only "all in it together" if a federally favored company goes belly up — as Solyndra did, sticking the taxpayer with tab. "One has to take risks in order to promote innovative manufacturing," as Energy Secretary Steven Chu put it last week.'
'Today, with unprecedented levels of money and power flowing to Washington, more and more Americans fear that the game is rigged. Can you blame them?'
Keynes Was No Liberal - Allen McDaniels - Mises Daily
Keynes Was No Liberal - Allen McDaniels - Mises Daily: 'Keynes called his theory "general" because he claimed it would work not only in a laissez-faire setting but also, and more easily, in a totalitarian one.'
The Immorality of Democratic Voting - Kel Kelly - Mises Daily
The Immorality of Democratic Voting - Kel Kelly - Mises Daily: 'How is it that people are outraged when a CEO steals from his company, or a street thug steals a car, but they are not upset with themselves and their poorer neighbors for stealing from those who rightfully earned more money than they?'
'In 2008, congresswoman Maxine Waters threatened, on behalf of "society," to nationalize (i.e., to steal) the privately owned companies in the oil industry[9] due to the "large" profits they were making, since oil was at the highest price in years. But Congress itself brought about the high profits by
sanctioning the printing of money by the Fed (increased demand) and
preventing new oil drilling and refining (reduced supply).
One hundred fifty years ago, oil was a worthless substance. Companies voluntarily extracted and refined it, and made it useful, significantly improving our lives in the process. But by threatening nationalization, the government now threatens to take away the property of the millions of individuals who own these companies, by force, against their will. Americans should have been shocked and aghast that this government threat could happen in their own "free" country; instead, most agreed with her sentiments. If this is moral, then virtually anything could be argued as being moral.'
'In 2008, congresswoman Maxine Waters threatened, on behalf of "society," to nationalize (i.e., to steal) the privately owned companies in the oil industry[9] due to the "large" profits they were making, since oil was at the highest price in years. But Congress itself brought about the high profits by
sanctioning the printing of money by the Fed (increased demand) and
preventing new oil drilling and refining (reduced supply).
One hundred fifty years ago, oil was a worthless substance. Companies voluntarily extracted and refined it, and made it useful, significantly improving our lives in the process. But by threatening nationalization, the government now threatens to take away the property of the millions of individuals who own these companies, by force, against their will. Americans should have been shocked and aghast that this government threat could happen in their own "free" country; instead, most agreed with her sentiments. If this is moral, then virtually anything could be argued as being moral.'
Thursday, December 01, 2011
More Ratings, Not Fewer | Mark A. Calabria | Cato Institute: Commentary
More Ratings, Not Fewer | Mark A. Calabria | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'In the midst of a crisis, politicians and regulators all too often believe they can restore "confidence" by silencing the bearers of bad news. Witness the common banning of short selling whenever bank stocks take a tumble, as if speculators were to blame for the problems at Lehman or Fannie Mae.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)