"Economic Warfare" - Walter Block - Mises Daily

"Economic Warfare" - Walter Block - Mises Daily: 'The only "hostile" person [in a hostile takeover] is the CEO who was ripping off the firm. But when we say that in the market there is only peaceful cooperation, we mean on the part of those who engage in any specific transaction; e.g., the newspaper buyer and seller. Third parties, of course, can always be hostile.'

The Evidence Is Mixed | Peter Van Doren | Cato Institute: Commentary

The Evidence Is Mixed | Peter Van Doren | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Another rationale for targeted subsidies is that innovators in energy markets cannot capture the full benefits of their innovations. Notice that the complaint, however, is that business will underinvest in research and development across the board, not that investors pick the wrong technologies in which to invest. If this is a serious problem, the solution is to make all research and development more attractive through subsidies.'

Social Security Ponzi Scheme? Perhaps, but That's Not the Problem | Jagadeesh Gokhale | Cato Institute: Commentary

Social Security Ponzi Scheme? Perhaps, but That's Not the Problem | Jagadeesh Gokhale | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'That suggests that the program's various redistributive features do little to alter the distribution of economic well being. Other studies also refute the idea that Social Security is successful in providing social insurance through its redistributive provisions. In yet another study, I show how Social Security's current rules can prevent people from becoming richer over generations. Social Security's rules induce low income households to save very little through retirement, thereby preventing them bequeathing wealth to their children — unlike children of rich families.'

What Defense Cuts? | Benjamin H. Friedman and Caitlin Talmadge | Cato Institute: Commentary

What Defense Cuts? | Benjamin H. Friedman and Caitlin Talmadge | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Compared with 2011 spending, the deal requires only a minor trim in security budgets: $4.5 billion in 2012 and $2.5 billion in 2013. And that reduction — pocket change in a $529 billion annual defense budget — need not even come from the Pentagon.'

'Because the bill doesn't cap war spending, Congress may evade caps by shifting base spending to that account. The past decade has given appropriators ample experience in loading war bills with base spending. Already, Senate appropriators seem to have slipped more than $6 billion of expenses previously in the base budget into the 2012 war request.'

'The "doomsday" scenario would only return America to its 2007-level of defense spending.'

How Obama's Last Stimulus Bill Became a Comedy of Errors | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary

How Obama's Last Stimulus Bill Became a Comedy of Errors | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'In 2009, his $825 billion extravaganza, touted as an emergency measure, targeted sectors of the economy with the lowest unemployment rates — namely, government employees (2.3 percent unemployed), in particular those in schooling and health care (3.8 percent unemployed). By contrast, unemployment rates in manufacturing and construction were 8.3 percent and 15.2 percent respectively.'

'Even if one were to accept the original claims that a million jobs were "saved or created," the total amount of stimulus money spent was about $160 billion, which would mean each job cost taxpayers $160,000! In fact, when all the undocumented claims are discarded, the cost per government job is likely to be closer to what Cato Institute economist Alan Reynolds has estimated: $646,000. In some cases, the cost went much higher, as when nearly $6 million was spent to save just three jobs at Burson-Marsteller, a public relations firm headed by Hillary Clinton's former pollster Mark Penn. Cost per job saved: $2 million.'

Stealth Wealth Tax | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

Stealth Wealth Tax | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has made it worse by imposing a tax on nominal savings income, not just on inflation-adjusted income. The 16th Amendment to the Constitution gave the federal government the right to impose a tax on "incomes." A change in the price level caused by inflation is not income by any economic or sensible definition of the word. The IRS, in fact, recognizes that inflation is not income because it adjusts the individual income tax brackets each year to offset inflation. Yet it tries to impose a tax on the "imaginary income" of those who receive interest and capital gains. It cannot have it both ways. The Constitution does not grant the federal government the right to impose an individual wealth tax, which is what a tax on imaginary income is, nor has Congress legislated such a tax.'

'We have a situation in which tens of millions of American retirees are receiving real negative returns on their hard-earned savings yet the federal government, whose primary job is to ensure liberty and protect person and property, is, in essence, stealing from them.'

'Burden-Sharing' Basics | Alan Reynolds | Cato Institute: Commentary

'Burden-Sharing' Basics | Alan Reynolds | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'What Obama and Buffett ignore is the fact that people like Buffett go to great lengths to keep much of their money "invisible" to the taxman.'

'The average income-tax rate of those earning between $1 million and $10 million was 29.5 percent in 2009, according the same IRS data that Buffett cites.

Now, raising income-tax rates, as both Obama and Buffett propose, would barely affect Buffett: His actual salary is only $100,000 (which also explains how he pays less than his employees do in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare).'

'In 1977, the capital-gains tax was 39.9 percent — and realized gains amounted to less than 1.57 percent of GDP. From 1987 to 1996, when the tax was 28 percent, realized gains rose to 2.3 percent of GDP. Since 28 percent of 2.3 is larger than 39.9 percent of 1.57, the lower tax rate clearly raised more tax revenue.

From 2004 to 2007, when the cap-gains tax was 15 percent, realized gains amounted to 5.2 percent of GDP — so again, the lower tax rate raised more tax revenue.'

'It is easy to advocate a higher tax rate on capital gains, but it is even easier to avoid paying that higher tax rate. Choosing to pay tax on capital gains and dividends is usually voluntary — and when the rate gets too high we run short of volunteers.'

Hitler’s Best Kept Secret?

Hitler’s Best Kept Secret?: 'Adolf Hitler had a huge reason to kill Jews, because they helped him to finance his war-machine. Every time he seized the assets of wealthy Jewish families, it meant money in his bank. Big money. Cash, adding up to many billions of dollars came directly from their murder. According to those who have access to the details, he financed a massive 30 per cent of the German war effort by killing Jewish families and stealing their wealth.'

Gas against wind | The Rational Optimist…

Gas against wind | The Rational Optimist…: 'Wind turbines slice thousands of birds of prey in half every year, including white-tailed eagles in Norway, golden eagles in California, wedge-tailed eagles in Tasmania. There’s a video on Youtube of one winging a griffon vulture in Crete. According to a study in Pennsylvania, a wind farm with eight turbines would kill about a 200 bats a year. The pressure wave from the passing blade just implodes the little creatures’ lungs. You and I can go to jail for harming bats or eagles; wind companies are immune.'

'The wind farm requires eight tonnes of an element called neodymium, which is produced only in Inner Mongolia, by boiling ores in acid leaving lakes of radioactive tailings so toxic no creature goes near them.'

Abolish the Department of Homeland Security | David Rittgers | Cato Institute: Commentary

Abolish the Department of Homeland Security | David Rittgers | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Shockingly, the cost of the new headquarters roughly equals what we've averaged annually on homeland security grant programs to cities and states. That's part of the political appeal of "homeland security." It allows politicians to wrap pork in red, white and blue in a way not possible with defense spending. Not every town can host a military installation or build warships, but every town has a police force that can use counterterrorism funds to combat gangs or a fire department that needs recruits or a new fire station.'

'A study by professors John Mueller and Mark Stewart found that in order to survive a cost-benefit analysis, the past decade's increased homeland-security expenditures "would have to deter, prevent, foil or protect against 1,667 otherwise successful [attempted Times Square car bomb]-type attacks per year, or more than four per day."'