BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Economics & the Economy Archive

Wednesday

7

July 2010

0

COMMENTS

Death And Taxes Don’t Have To Go Together

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Liberty & Limited Government, Taxes

Ray D. Madoff writes in the LA Times that failing to confiscate the acquired wealth of individuals when they pass away will “harm our democracy.”  She reaches this odd conclusion primarily by arguing that, absent an intrusive government willing to pick the pockets of the deceased, our democracy would be harmed by “concentrations of wealth.” She buttresses this argument with the factually incorrect claim that, while “few Americans own an enormous amount … a large number of Americans own hardly anything at all.”

This is simply untrue. Owning a small percentage of American wealth is not the same thing as owning hardly anything.  Madoff ignores that owning a small, or even “unequal,” share of the American pie is still much better than having a large, “equal” or “fair” portion of almost any other, for the simple reason that America creates far more wealth to go around in the first place. This is because America has historically rewarded risk-taking and innovation, while other countries have been more concerned with Madoff’s brand of fairness. The consequence today is that even our poor are better off than the middle and upper classes of other countries.  To understand the backwardness of her agenda, just look at the year she cites as the pinnacle of redistributive fairness, 1976, which was also the heyday of stagflation and malaise.

She also attempts to wave away concerns about double-taxation by arguing that “there is no general principle that says income or property gets taxed only once.”  She supports this claim by saying that the same money is often taxed multiple times as it is earned, spent and passed along.  But each of these activities is economic in nature and represents a separate action.  Paying sales tax while spending the same money one has payed income tax on is not the same as having one’s estate pillaged by the state upon death. Death is not an economic activity.

Contrary to her claims, death taxes are harmful to the economy.  They discourage savings and investment by encouraging people to spend money before it is taxed away, leading to job loss and slower economic growth. Death taxes also hit hard small, family businesses, or those with significant assets tied up in land, like farms.  Would anyone expect major corporations to stay competitive if they had to liquidate and sell off half their assets every few generations?

Madoff’s biggest failure, however, is that she completely ignores the important role of the family unit in economic life.  Households have always been recognized as an economic entity because of the manner in which families work together to advance their economic condition.  To say that a parent has no right to pass on the fruits of their labor to their children and grandchildren is to completely ignore the unique role of the family in economic life.  There’s no more moral justification for taxing estates after death than there is for taxing the allowance a parent might give to a child.  Death and taxes are both be said to be inevitable, but there’s no reason they have to come together.

Tuesday

6

July 2010

0

COMMENTS

Public Knows Better Than Congress

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy

The statists in Congress are enamored with Keynesian big government policies and profligate spending as a means of “stimulus.”  But while they travel the country to tout so-called “stimulus success,” the public displays a far better understanding of the underlying economics.  Not only does a plurality find that the stimulus bill actually hurt – rather than helped – the economy, according to a recent Rasmussen Reports survey, but an overwhelming majority of 69% to 15% said that cutting taxes is a better way to create jobs than government spending.

Friday

2

July 2010

0

COMMENTS

Pelosi: Paying People Not To Work Creates Jobs

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

I’ve heard a few economic whoppers in my time, especially from the mouths of politicians, but this statement by Speaker Pelosi has got to be one of the most foolish yet.

Talking to reporters, the House speaker was defending a jobless benefits extension against those who say it gives recipients little incentive to work. By her reasoning, those checks are helping give somebody a job.

“It injects demand into the economy,” Pelosi said, arguing that when families have money to spend it keeps the economy churning. “It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.”

This is the same Keynesian clap-trap that claims you can “stimulate” the economy through government spending.  It’s the same theory that created a “lost decade” in Japan as they tried one Keynesian stimulus after another throughout the 1990’s.  It’s the same theory behind the 2008 Bush rebate checks, which did not spur growth, and the Obama stimulus, which did not spur growth.

You don’t have to be completely against some degree of unemployment insurance, as a cushion against economic hardship, to recognize that there has to be a balance between safety nets and the danger of creating a disincentive for work. When you subsidize something, you get more of it.  When you pay people not to work, you’re going to have more people not working.  Jobless benefits have to be finite; they can’t simply go on forever.

The length of the unemployment benefits granted so far is already unprecedented, so it’s not surprising that we’ve seen evidence that people are choosing to stay on the dole rather than to take work.  It is ludicrous for Speaker Pelosi to now argue that further encouraging such mooching is actually creating jobs.  The only real job she’s interested in creating (or saving in this case) is her own.  She clearly thinks that continuing to handout other people’s money is the best way for her and her party to stay in power.  Only time well tell whether she is right on that account.

Thursday

1

July 2010

0

COMMENTS

The Uncertainty Induced Failure Of Obamanomics

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Government Meddling

Allan Meltzer has an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal explaining the failures of Obamanomics. One of the causes he identifies is the high level of uncertainty surrounding tax rates and regulatory policy under this administration.  Such uncertainty is the enemy of growth.  Robert Higgs first introduced “regime uncertainty” in his 1997 article explaining how government policy extended the Great Depression.  According to Meltzer, the Obama administration has so far proven oblivious to this lesson.

Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have through their deeds and words heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.

…Mr. Obama has denied the cost burden on business from his health-care program, but business is aware that it is likely to be large. How large? That’s part of the uncertainty that employers face if they hire additional labor.

The president asks for cap and trade. That’s more cost and more uncertainty. Who will be forced to pay? What will it do to costs here compared to foreign producers? We should not expect businesses to invest in new, export-led growth when uncertainty about future costs is so large.

…Other aspects of the Obama economic program are equally problematic. The auto bailouts ran roughshod over the rule of law. Chrysler bondholders were given short shrift in order to benefit the auto workers union. By weakening the rule of law, the president opened the way to great mischief and increased investors’ and producers’ uncertainty. That’s not the way to get more investment and employment.

Almost daily, Mr. Obama uses his rhetorical skill to castigate businessmen who have the audacity to hope for profitable opportunities. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has taken that route. President Roosevelt slowed recovery in 1938-40 until the war by creating uncertainty about his objectives. It was harmful then, and it’s harmful now.

Tuesday

29

June 2010

1

COMMENTS

Monday

28

June 2010

0

COMMENTS

Faith In Government Regulators Is Misplaced

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Free Markets

Shakespeare would likely describe the latest major legislation winding its way through Congress as a piece of legislation crafted by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  Rather than address the systemic distortions created by prior government policies, and which caused the financial meltdown, policy makers are now “[putting] a lot of faith in the watchful eye of regulators to prevent another financial crisis,” according to the Washington Post.

Nearly two years after tremors on Wall Street set off a historic economic downturn, congressional leaders greenlighted a bill early Friday that would leave the financial industry largely intact but facing a more powerful network of regulators who could impose limits on risky activities.

The final bill took shape after a 20-hour marathon negotiation between House and Senate leaders seeking to reconcile their separate versions. The legislation puts a lot of faith in the watchful eye of regulators to prevent another financial crisis. New agencies would police consumer lending, the invention of financial products and the trading of exotic securities known as derivatives. Bank supervisors would have the power to seize large, troubled financial firms whose collapse could threaten the entire system. The bill calls for banks to hold more money in reserve to weather economic storms but leaves the details to regulators.

…”We are poised to pass the toughest financial reform since the ones we created in the aftermath of the Great Depression,” Obama said at the White House, adding that the bill “represents 90 percent of what I proposed when I took up this fight . . . We’ve all seen what happens when there is inadequate oversight and insufficient transparency on Wall Street.”

Essentially, Congress has decided that all we need is yet more overpaid bureaucrats.  No reform of Fannie and Freddie.  No efforts to stop politicians from continuing to force banks to issue risky loans so that they can point to expanding home-ownership under their watch.  Instead, we get harmful price controls on debit cards, which has nothing to do with the cause of the 2008 recession.

Even the crafters of the bill aren’t really buying their own stance that more government will help.  In one of those rare moments where a politician accidentally let’s the truth slip out, Senator Dodd admitted, “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works.”

Belief in big government really is all about faith.

Friday

4

June 2010

0

COMMENTS

Sunday

9

May 2010

2

COMMENTS

Best Way To Defeat Progressives Is To Teach Economics

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy

There’s no doubt that the general failure of the public to understand basic economic principles affects how they evaluate politicians and their policy proposals.  Economics is barely even taught in public schools. For those of us on the right, this is particularly frustrating when most of those who are economically illiterate tend to fall for the utopian promises of big government “progressives.”

This study on economic enlightenment provides some particularly interesting results regarding the relationship between economic knowledge and ideology.  Basically, the further to the left a person is, the less they know about economics. This probably has to do with the simple fact that leftwing policies deny basic economic realities, leaving only the economically illiterate as possible supporters of those policies.

Monday

3

May 2010

0

COMMENTS

Other Oil Politics

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Energy and the Environment

I haven’t surveyed the environmentalist response to the oil spill yet, but one argument I anticipate hearing is that the spill shows why we have to get off oil.  This argument holds no weight, because there is no energy plan that does not involve oil and offshore drilling.  We can go all in on “renewable technology,” build wind farms across the country and solar panels on every building, and we’d still need oil that we would either have to drill offshore ourselves or buy from someone who does.  So I’ll be on the lookout for these utopian arguments.

An important question raised by incidents like this involves who pays for the cleanup. BP says they will pay, as they should.  However, they owe more than just the cost of removing the oil.  They also owe economic compensation to the fisherman whose work they have made impossible, to the cities whose tourism will be devastated because their beaches are covered in oil, and anyone else directly harmed by this catastrophe.

Thursday

22

April 2010

0

COMMENTS

Unions March In Illinois, Demand More Taxpayer Money

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Labor Unions, Taxes

While Illinois, like so many state governments, is already struggling to pay for overly generous public pension plans, 15,000 union members marched on the state capital demanding yet more money in the form of higher taxes.

According to ALEC’s Rich States, Poor States, Illinois is ranked 47 out of 50 for its economic outlook.  It also already has the 10th highest worker compensation costs among the states.  Raising taxes to pay public workers yet more would be a disastrous move for the state, and likely foster continued migration of the wealthy out of the state in search of lower tax jurisdictions.