Category Archives: markets

Americans Are Just Too Stupid

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is telling us.  We’re too stupid to manage our own fiscal affairs, so we need Know Betters in Big Government to do for us.

He’s using this argument on Social Security, in particular.  As you know, Social Security will be out of money in just a few short years, dependent solely on cash flow—incoming payroll tax revenue from current workers—to pay current retirees, and that cash flow is only sufficient (barely) to pay around 75% of the current benefits.  That’s how well the Know Betters in Big Government have done for us so far.

Obama’s solution? He promises to fight the privatization of Medicare and Social Security:

We’re going to keep the promise of Social Security by taking the responsible steps to strengthen it.  And that’s not by turning it over to Wall Street.

There are two insults to our intelligence here.  One is that he actually thinks we believe that any plan to privatize either of these does so by “turning them over to Wall Street.”  The other is, as I said, that we cannot manage our own affairs—we must rely on Know Betters to take care of us.

Now, before going further into Obama’s contempt for our intelligence, it’s useful to summarize the actual plans put forward by the Republican ticket and thereby expose the dishonestly presented red herring that is Obama’s straw man.  With regard to Social Security itself, Romney/Ryan are looking to gradually increase the retirement age and to slow the growth in benefits for higher income future retirees—the changes would not affect current or medium-term future (those already 55 years old) retirees.

For the Medicare aspect of the Social Security system, they propose fixed payments to future retirees (i.e., those younger than 55; there would be no change here, either, for current or medium-term future retirees), initially set equal to current Medicare payouts.  These folks then could use these funds to shop around for their own health insurance coverage and keep the money they save if they buy a policy that costs less than these payments.  The resulting competition also will bring down the cost of such coverage and improve the quality of the policies offered (magnifying future savings) since these folks, now with skin in the game, will shop aggressively.  Or they could stay in the existing Medicare program, which would remain unchanged.

There’s very little privatization here; certainly, there’s not enough to suit me.

But why does Obama object even to this little bit?  After all, private accounts (to take an earlier suggestion from Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan, but which is not in the proposal actually on the table today), created from a diversion of one-third of a worker’s current payroll tax payment, would let these workers earn a greater rate of return on those tax payments than Social Security provides them.  This would achieve a number of things: for one, it would give the workers a considerable measure of responsibility for their own futures, and this would let them shop around for the best investments—driving costs down through competition.  For another, it would let those workers set aside money for their own future (and ultimately for their own families’ future) and not have it all diverted for the current retirement of utter strangers.  For a third, it would allow these workers to satisfy their own moral obligation to “seek their own happiness” and to not be burdens on strangers, except temporarily and in the most dire conditions.

Opponents—Obama—object to this individual responsibility and freedom.   He says private accounts would make then-retirees dependent on volatile stock and bond markets.  And the move to private accounts would incur large transition costs, because tax payments diverted to the accounts are needed to pay benefits for current retirees.

The last is just a crude sophistry.  Transition costs are, by their nature, temporary—they are not permanent like, for instance, the cost of a failed, bankrupt social security system.  Moreover, the transition costs, while large (every dishonesty has a measure of truth in it, in order to achieve an appearance of plausibility) actually are easily borne.  A flatter (I say flat) and broader-based income tax system will bring in more revenue for the government through that broader base, fewer (I say no) deductions, credits, and the like, and through sharply increased economic activity which will generate increased income to be taxed.  This excess [sic] revenue can be used both to cover the transition costs and to pay down the debt (and exclusively to pay that debt once the transition is complete).

But more than this, a population that isn’t beholden to—isn’t dependent on—the incumbents aren’t a power base for those incumbents.  Obama’s Social Security and Medicare plans are just crass bread and circus vote pandering.  And they won’t solve the impending failures of Social Security and Medicare.

But Obama thinks we’re just too stupid.  Too stupid to manage our own affairs and too stupid to see through his empty rhetoric to the lie underneath.

There He Goes Again

Posted on by
Reply

Alan Blinder had another one in The Wall Street Journal the other day.  This time he’s bellyachingtalking about the Romney/Ryan ticket and averring that it’s from too deep in right field.  He supports this with three main points grounded in an FDR-ian…consensus:

  • a modest social safety net to protect vulnerable Americans from some of the downsides of unfettered markets,
  • Keynesian-style policies to shorten recessions, and
  • a progressive tax-transfer system to mitigate income inequality

It continues to amaze me that he can say those things with a straight face.  He didn’t make deep right field this time, either.  He fanned.  Struck out in three pitches.

There’s nothing modest about today’s “safety net.”  Far from FDR’s original supplemental income design for social security, with retirees expected to look to their own families for any needed additional support, today’s social security is intended to be replacement income, funded not by themselves and their own families, but solely by direct transfer payments from strangers—at immediate cost to those strangers’ ability to see to their own and their own parents’ financial futures.

Those highly touted, wholly unsuccessful Keynesian policies didn’t shorten the Great Depression, they prolonged it.  By putting floors under food and labor prices, Keynesianism made it far more difficult for companies to resume hiring and for the out-of-work (among too many others) to buy their food (and so were created food stamps).  On top of that, FDR’s Keynesian spending crowded out of the economy that already straitened private sector.  FDR’s own Treasury Secretary confessed the utter failure of these policies.  Henry Morgenthau confided to his diary:

We have tried spending money.  We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.  I want to see this country prosper.  I want to see people get a job.  I want to see people get enough to eat.  We have never made good on our promises.  I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started.  And enormous debt to boot.

Obama’s Keynesian stimulus spending has been a similarly dismal failure.  Unemployment remains above 8% (and underemployment above 14.5%) nearly four years after he began his spending spree.  Fewer people are working today than at the end of the Panic of 2008, even with the 4 million “new” jobs that the economy has created despite his policies.  Obama today has spent “more than we have ever spent before,” it still “does not work,” and he has “never made good on [his] promises.”

To see what does work, review the actions taken by President Ronald Reagan in response to the Carter Recession.  Then go back to the FDR era—just a decade prior to FDR himself—and review the actions taken by President Warren Harding in response to the Depression of 1920-1921, still in progress when he took office (and begun from the policies of another Progressive President).

Mitigate income inequality?  This is the wrong goal, and separately, it’s immoral.  It’s the wrong goal because everyone’s economic prosperity flows from supporting opportunity equality, not income equality, so that every man can show the best that there is in him, so that  every man can seek to the fullest of his ability (in John Adams’ terms) his own happiness.  This also allows—and actively facilitates—every man to maximize his ability to satisfy his duties to himself, his family, and those less well off than he by maximizing his ability to accumulate the resources with which to achieve that satisfaction.  Working toward income equality necessarily caps the ability of a man to maximize the outcomes of his own potential, and it disincentivizes both the man redistributed from and the recipient.  Here, then, is the immorality of forced income equality: it denies every man his opportunity to honor his own obligations.

There are a couple of lesser points in Blinder’s piece.

Any piece of legislation running 2,319 pages will have flaws.

There’s a hint there.  And

For people now under age 55, the Republicans would like to replace Medicare by vouchers that will almost certainly fall short of covering future insurance costs.

There are two small things about this.  First, it’s a carefully static analysis that ignores free market responses to the competition that flows from letting people exercise responsibility for their own medical costs.  But, then, how free would our market be after four more years of Progressive central planning?  The other thing is that this is of a piece with the Progressives’ general refusal to allow any part of today’s Social Security to be privatized.  Americans, you see, are just too grindingly stupid to be able to manage our own fiscal affairs.  We need our Progressive Betters in government to “guide” us.

Who Built That?

Posted on by
1

A private enterprise built the car—a Ford—that I drive.  Private enterprise drilled the oil well for the oil, private enterprise refined the oil into gasoline, private enterprise shipped the gasoline to my local filling station—itself a private enterprise.

Private individuals, and collections of private individuals—businesses—built all of those.  And it was my own private industry that enabled me to earn the wherewithal to buy my Ford.

I built that.  All of us in that chain can say that.

Now, it’s true enough that infrastructure facilitated all of that.  It’s nice to have decent bridges and paved roads on which to drive my car and on which those fuel shippers could drive their trucks.  It’s good to have a communications system (vis., the Internet, a technology developed by a private enterprise to solve an internal data management problem) through which to talk with others and do some research enabling me to choose the car I’d end up buying.  It’s nice to have a set of laws that enables these private enterprises to compete with each other in a fair way, free of the depredations of brigands.

From where did this infrastructure come, though?  Some have insisted that Government built that.  Private individuals, private enterprise, had nothing to do with any of that.  More, that without that Government-provided infrastructure, private effort would have been impossible, and so by extension, I—and you—didn’t build our companies, either.

But without the desire to have a car, without private enterprise providing that long chain of support for the car, there would be no demand—and so no need—for that infrastructure.  Private enterprise—I, and all the other private entities—created that need.

Private enterprise built the roads and communications networks, and all the other infrastructure items.  Not the Navy’s Seabees, not the Army’s Corps of Engineers, not the USAF’s Civil Engineers—none of these were out there building that.  Those were private construction firms and private communications companies building that.

That legal system?  The courts are manned by individuals, not some nebulous “government” thingie, albeit those individuals are government employees.  Private individuals, choosing to lead for a time public, political lives, deliberate and enact the laws of that legal system.  They’re elected—and fired—by private individuals voting at the polls.

But surely government paid for all that.  No.  Government has no money of its own; it has only the money we private individuals and our private enterprises allocate to government in our tax payments.  It’s our privately originating money, pooled for the purpose, that paid for the construction of that infrastructure.  And that pays the salaries of those government employees and elected politicians.

Government didn’t build anything; it just acted as middle man for a small part of all that private building.

A Tax Reform Idea

Posted on by
1

Close, but no cigar.  Here are some ideas that are being kicked around.

…the president is pushing for tax incentives for making products, especially high-tech ones, in the US.  He also wants more focused federal research programs, including funds for new privately run institutes to study advanced manufacturing techniques.

Senator Debbie Stabenow (D, MI):

…legislation that would give tax breaks to help companies cover the cost of moving production back to the US and ban tax deductions for the expenses of moving operations abroad.

Congressman David Cicilline (D, RI):

…federal grants to help companies upgrade equipment and retrain workers.

Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney has these:

…repealing “excessive” regulation in such areas as environmental protection.  He also wants to require secret ballots for union-certification votes, which might make it harder for organized labor to win.”

The Democrats want Big Government solutions—that are careful to keep government’s hands in business’ pockets—and solutions that simply make an already excessively convoluted tax code even more so.  Romney’s ideas don’t even address the tax question; although they would help business.

No.  Instead of that claptrap, simplify and reduce.

Get rid of the tax subsidies.  Get rid of the tax credits.  Get rid of business regulations that do not actively support productivity improvement or enforce contract law—contracts between businesses and suppliers, businesses and customers, business management and business employees.

Lower—if not eliminate—tax rates on businesses.  They’re not the ones paying the taxes, anyway; their customers pay them in the form of higher prices, so that a tax on business is simply a second tax on private American citizens.  Including those 50% who pay little to no income tax of their own; including seniors who have only a fixed income with which to pay for their necessities.

Extremes

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama gave an interview to the AP in which he described Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney’s positions as “extreme.”  Yet both Obama’s descriptions and his countervailing positions demonstrate pretty conclusively which of the two is extreme.

Obama had this non sequitur in his remarks about what he has “learned about [Romney] this campaign:

What we’ve also seen is Gov. Romney has not been willing to, I think, own up to some of the responsibilities that are required if you’re president of the United States. So there’s been obviously a lot of discussion about his unwillingness to release his tax returns.

Apparently honoring the law (here, concerning the required releasability of personal tax returns) is “not willing to own up to some of the responsibilities that are required if you’re president of the United States.”  But ignoring the law (vis., DOMA) is such a responsibility.  Ignoring the will of the Congress and implementing carbon cap-and-trade by Executive fiat is such a responsibility.  Ignoring the will of the Congress (the failed DREAM ACT) and implementing immigration parameters by Executive fiat is such a responsibility.  Refusing to enforce our borders while attacking states that do attempt to enforce them, using laws that ape Federal law, is such a responsibility.

Obama made this argument about Romney being short on facts in his campaign.

[T]he most prominent argument that he’s been making for why voters should vote for him is this notion that Obama took the work requirement out of welfare, and he’ll put it back.

Never mind that the explicit requirement for actual work has been withdrawn, and the states’ “flexibility” includes the option to not require work or work training.

And without a trace of irony, Obama had this to say:

Well, I think that if you don’t have a good argument for how you’re going to make things better, then you stay focused on how you can discredit the incumbent.

After accusing Romney of being responsible for the cancer death of a woman (he did say in a separate interview that he didn’t really believe that, but in that same interview, he refused to repudiate the ad that made the accusation, or to call out the SuperPAC (run by his ex-Deputy Press Secretary) for having run it).  And after accusing Romney of being a felon over Romney’s position at Bain while rescuing the Olympics—stemming from Obama’s own “misunderstanding” of SEC filings.

On those extreme positions themselves, Obama had this:

[Romney] has signed up for positions, extreme positions that are very consistent with positions that a number of House Republicans have taken.

Obama then listed the Republicans’ $5 trillion tax cut proposal, the elimination of tax credits for wind energy, and an amorphous objection to the Republicans’ Medicare proposals as those “extreme” positions.

If I understand Obama aright, then, it’s extreme to cut taxes, especially in a recession: it’s extreme to leave more of private citizens’ money in the hands of the original private citizens instead of those of whom Obama favors.

It’s extreme, in a time of enormous government spending and debt buildup, to cut spending—especially to fringe energy sources like wind power.  Obama proudly pointed out that he’s doubled the output of wind-generated electricity with his tax credits.  Let’s see: total electricity generated in the US in 2008 was nearly 3.5 Terawatts.  Wind-generated electricity in 2011 was nearly 47 Megawatts.  Obama has pushed wind energy from nearly nothing to twice nearly nothing.  And that doubling came, as he so proudly said, only with the aid of government subsidy.  Wind-generated electricity is fringe not because it’s an idiotic idea, but because it cannot compete in the free market on its own; it needs a constant propping up.

Finally, it’s extreme to take steps to reform Medicare so as to preserve it for tomorrow’s seniors, while leaving it alone for today’s seniors and near-seniors (who have no chance of adjusting to any changes).

But what are Obama’s plans?  He’s carefully nebulous about those, but we can look to his record and see his plans.

Obama intends to ratchet up the taxes on Americans of whom he disapproves.  He intends to ratchet up his spendinginvesting in his favored companies and in his favored unions.  He already has taken the (not at all extreme, he says) measure of removing $700 billion from the present form of Medicare in putting it into his Obamacare to pay for that.

Who’s extreme?