Posts tagged as:

Interventionism

Cash for clunkers clunked

by Bob Weeks on October 30, 2009

in Economics

Did the “Cash for Clunkers” program work as advertised? It all depends on the meaning of the word “work,” I suppose.

If the definition of success means moving more cars off of dealer lots than what probably would have happened anyway, that’s good. But when looking at the marginal activity — and I believe this is the correct way of looking at things — the cost of moving the additional cars is astonishingly high.

An Edmunds.com article calculates the cost per car for the clunkers program in a different way than the government does, and finds this:

Nearly 690,000 vehicles were sold during the Cash for Clunkers program, officially known as the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), but Edmunds.com analysts indicate that only 125,000 of the sales were incremental. The rest of the sales would have happened anyway. Analysts divided three billion dollars by 125,000 vehicles to arrive at the average $24,000 per vehicle sold. The average transaction price in August was $26,915 minus an average cash rebate of $1,667.

Not surprisingly, the Obama administration attacked the authors of this article.

This is just the latest evidence that the clunkers program didn’t really increase the wealth of our country. Writing at the Foundation for Economic Education, Bruce Yandle doubts the glowing assessment of effectiveness of the program:

The doubt arises for at least three reasons. First, the program was supported politically primarily for its much touted environmental benefits. Carbon emissions would be reduced. But the reduction costs are at least ten times higher than alternate ways of removing carbon. Second, there is Bastiat’s parable of the broken window to consider. And third, there is a serious matter of eroding social norms for conserving wealth. A crushed clunker with a frozen engine is lost capital. … The cost per ton of carbon reduced could reach $500 under a set of normal values for critical variables. The cost estimate was $237 per ton under best case conditions. The much celebrated Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade carbon-emission control legislation estimates the cost of reducing a ton of carbon to be $28 when done across U.S. industries. Yes, we are getting carbon-emission reductions by way of clunker reduction, but we are paying a pretty penny for it. … Before touting the total benefits of clunkers, we must take account of the destroyed vehicles and engines that represented part of the wealth of the nation. As Tony Liller, vice president for Goodwill, put it: “They’re crushing these cars, and they’re perfectly good. These are cars the poor need to buy.”

It’s very difficult for the government to intervene in the economy and produce a net positive result. Even if it could, the harmful effects of taking one person’s money and giving it to another so they can get a discount on a new car far outweigh the small economic benefit that might be realized.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark

{ 4 comments }

In Wichita this Monday, Robert L. Bradley, Jr. explained the state of capitalism in America today, using his experience working in a high-level position at the failed energy conglomerate Enron as a backdrop.

Bradley asked: What happened to business prudence? What has happened to capitalism? The answer is that what we have today is not free market capitalism. Rather, it’s a very different type of capitalism: political capitalism.

A common question today is has capitalism failed? Problems are automatically blamed on greed, self-interest, and profit maximization — in other words capitalism.

Historically, robber barons have been condemned as examples of capitalism out of control. But many “robber barons” such as Rockefeller made money through voluntary transactions with their customers, Some, however, lived off special government favor such as tariffs. That’s political capitalism.

Then during the Great Depression capitalism was blamed again. At that time, however, the Federal Reserve Bank was already in control, and this era saw the rise of other forms of government interventionism.

Today our problems are commonly blamed on self-interest and capitalism rather than government.

What is real capitalism vs. American-style political capitalism — the mixed economy where government intervenes heavily in business and the economy?

Enron is still the premier example of political capitalism. But not many knew the full extent of Enron’s activities, or they though it was okay: “Enron was everyone’s favorite company.”

But the company that everyone thought was the best turned out to be the worst.

Bradley said the moral of Enron is deeper. There was a systemic failure surrounding Enron. All the gatekeepers — regulators, auditors, legal counsel, the business press, credit rating agencies, business professors — all failed at the same time.

Many critics said that Enron refutes all that is good about free markets. Bradley quoted one business ethics professor: “The Enron value set was an extreme laissez faire ideology of absolutely free unregulated markets.”

Bradley disagrees with this assessment, however. Enron was all about Ken Lay, “a master political capitalist.” Lay was a PhD. economist with a lot of Washington experience. His business model for Enron was regulatory change. If Enron could direct the change, it could gain the “first mover” advantage.

Bradlet quoted a definition of political capitalism as “The utilization of political outlets to obtain conditions of stability, predictability, and security to allow corporations to make reasonable profits over the long run.”

Socialists, he said, believe that when there is private property, its owners will be in bed with politicians in order to gain special favors.

Enron’s profit centers had to do with regulatory change. Enron was the first major United States company to proclaim that the climate was in crisis and that government intervention was needed to reduce greenhouse gases.

But it was a self-interested position. Enron rescued the domestic wind power industry by purchasing a company in that industry, and getting a mandate from the Texas legislature for renewable power mandate.

Today, the Obama energy plan has a lot to do with Enron’s public policy thrust.

Enron also gamed regulatory systems. By manipulating accounting rules, Enron could show accounting profits where there were no true economic profits.

In the tax department, Enron used boutique accounting and legal firms to find niches in the tax code that could be exploited.

The lesson is that these regulations may not be providing investors useful information and protection, although there may be an illusion created. A corporate report from the 1930s of just three pages gave investors more useful information, and held the firm more accountable, than did Enron’s last corporate report of 56 pages. The lesson, Bradley said, is “simple rules for a complex world.”

So how did someone like Ken Lay get to the top of the business world? How did he fool everyone and bring down all the gatekeepers with him? Bradley said the government side of the mixed economy was the factor that created an environment that could be exploited.

The lesson is that the rise and fall of Enron discredits the mixed economy and political capitalism.

A question was asked: What should we do? Bradley said we should support public policies that are market-oriented, instead of supporting government intervention. But given the mixed economy, we need to watch out for artificial incentives.

Afterwards, I asked Bradley about government intervention at a local level, such as in Wichita. Specifically, what about TIF districts and tax abatements? Are these examples of political capitalism? Bradley said yes, these are. A side effect is that a tax abatement does leave money in the private sector instead of the government public sector. But a special favor means an artificial stimulus that encourages malinvestment.

I asked if we need more regulation to protect us, or is our current regulatory regime sufficient? Bradley mentioned that in the Bernie Madoff scandal, the defrauded investors are as mad, or more mad at the Securities and Exchange Commission, that they are at Madoff himself. Many figured that the SEC, with its thousands of regulators, had done their homework for them, and that Madoff’s company was safe. This represents a major unintended consequence of regulation.

Much more information about this topic can be found at Bradley’s website Political Capitalism. His recent book is Capitalism at Work: Business, Government and Energy.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark

{ 2 comments }

At the meeting of the Wichita City Council last week, several city council members gave their reasons for supporting the planning for the revitalization of downtown Wichita. It’s worthwhile to take a look at two members and their remarks.

Council member Janet Miller spoke first. (Click on Wichita downtown planning proposal: Janet Miller for video.)

“We’ve given the free market a chance in downtown,” Miller said. There’s a few things we can disagree with in this statement. First, the market downtown is not very “free.” There are TIF districts overlaying much of downtown, for example. These TIF districts are an example of government interventionism in the extreme, something quite different from free markets.

Besides this, Miller frames the decision incorrectly. To her, downtown redevelopment is something that must happen, and since people haven’t responded to this decree very well, that’s a failure of the market. But the correct decision point is when people and business decide to be downtown or somewhere else. That’s where we see free markets in action and the decisions people make. Because they make decisions other than what Miller wants them to make, that doesn’t mean that free markets have failed. Instead, people have simply made a decision other than what she believes is the correct decision.

She also said this: “Without incentives, the free market just doesn’t work.” To which I say: “Where there are incentives, markets are not free.” That’s government interventionism. It’s axiomatic.

Then, there’s this quote from Miller: “Just like the human body cannot succeed with rot at its core, neither can a city be healthy with rot at its core.” Variations on this nostrum are constantly repeated by government-subsidized downtown revitalization supporters. This analogy is meaningless. I’ve asked the city to supply evidence of this — something more authoritative than the mayor’s vision and dreams — and so far none has been supplied.

Regarding public and private investment in downtown Wichita: A document published earlier this year showed that public and private investment in downtown Wichita over the past decade is nearly even, or about a one to one ratio. Now Miller says: “I’ve heard the city manager talk about moving us toward a return more in the neighborhood of 15 to one, private contribution to public.”

So has something new been discovered in the last ten years that allows public-private partnerships to reap such fabulous rewards? It doesn’t seem likely.

Furthermore, if it is possible to achieve such impressive results from public investment, why is this our goal only now? Shouldn’t we have had this goal earlier? Is this an example of the incompetence of previous city councils, of which Mayor Brewer has been a member for many years?

Council member Lavonta Williams, in her remarks, said that we must have a plan, comparing the planning of downtown revitalization to planning her classes when she was a schoolteacher. (Click on Wichita downtown planning proposal: Lavonta Williams for video.)

“Without a plan, there is chaos,” she said, noting that some people think that the things we’ve done downtown may be chaotic. “Hopefully this bond will bring us all together. … Downtown is everybody’s community, but it’s not going to be if you don’t have everybody buying in to what’s going on.”

She urged citizens to attend meetings so that their comments are validated.

William’s analogy — downtown planning and running her classroom — is not meaningful. There’s simply no comparison between the two. One is a highly structured situation, while the other is a problem of immense complexity with very little structure. My post Planning downtown Wichita revitalization: an impossible task? summarizes some of the characteristics that make planning such a difficult task. Deluding ourselves that the task is as simple as Williams posits is a sure path to failure.

Then, I have some news for Williams: not everyone is going to buy in to these plans and the huge public subsidies that will accompany them. We’re not all going to come together on this. As council member Miller recognized in her remarks: “There’s a great variety of opinions on this subject.”

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark

{ 5 comments }

Last Thursday, John A. Allison visited Wichita to address the annual economic outlook conference produced by the Center for Economic Development and Business Research (CEDBR) at Wichita State University.

Allison is chairman and former CEO of BB&T Corporation, the nation’s 10th largest financial-holding company. Its headquarters are in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. His talk first diagnosed the cause of the crisis. You can read my coverage of it at Causes of global finance crisis explained in Wichita

Having described the cause, Allison told what we need to do to fix the mess we’re in, and to avoid future crises like the present.

One problem is the credit rating agencies and the functional oligopoly granted them by the government. These agencies — Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch — provide ratings for bonds. (These are the “AAA” and other ratings that many people are familiar with.) The oligopoly comes the fact that many institutional investors may purchase only those securities that have been rated by one of these firms.

These rating firms made many mistakes, and not just small mistakes. These companies did a poor job of analyzing the risk of these securities. That lead to insurance firms, most notably AIG, becoming deeply in trouble. The justification for saving or bailing out AIG is that there was a systems risk. AIG’s relationships with other parties such as the investment bank Goldman Sachs lead many to believe that the fall of AIG would lead to the fall of these other institutions.

Allison said that if you’re former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who was once chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, it’s easy to believe that if Goldman Sachs goes out of business, the world goes out of business. Allison asked: “Is that a systems risk or is that crony capitalism?”

There was an irrational belief in mathematical models. There is the “tail problem,” which comes from models usually assuming a normal mathematical distribution (the familiar bell-shaped curve). The events out in the tails are usually discounted, as they are rare. But Allison said “For anyone who has built a house in a hundred year flood plain, I’ll give you the bad news: we’re going to have a flood.” Given enough time, these rare events become a certainty.

Market corrections, Allison said, are healthy phenomenon. These events drive companies that are misallocating capital out of business, and the world is better for it.

One of the little-known things is that part of the reason for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) was to bail out General Electric. GE had done a lot of risky long-term financing using commercial paper, and this lead to trouble.

All the major banks participated in TARP, as there was huge regulatory pressure. There were four very large banks that were on the verge of failure. But the government didn’t want it to look like it was bailing out just those banks, so it forced all large banks to participate, even though many were healthy.

In his career, Allison said. Citigroup has failed three times, and each time they emerged bigger and worse. That, he said, will also be the result of the current bail out.

The five banks that are judged, as is Citigroup, as “too large to fail” will have advantages like lower cost of capital, and they’ll be able to engage in risky activities without the risk of going out of business if investments fail.

Allison said the government should have let these banks fail. Alternatively, they should be broken up, so that none are in the “too large to fail” category.

Going forward

“We ought to cut government spending, not increase it,” Allison recommended. The belief that wasteful government spending on the wrong things can increase our standard of living is irrational. It’s based on the belief of the economist John Maynard Keynes. He recommended that we pay people to dig holes in the ground, and then pay them to fill the holes. Will that raise our standard of living?

In the long term price instability is a major problem, as it leads to economic miscalculation.

The biggest issue, Allison said, is the continued attack on capitalism. Related is the attack on the wealthy, in terms of both taxation and ethics. Most very productive people become wealthy. If we attack these people, they become more conservative and less willing to take risk.

The government needs to privatize Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and let banks make mortgages the way the had for many years before the government became involved in the business.

We also need a market-based monetary standard, probably based on gold. “You can’t just print gold,” Allison said. If we can’t do this, we need to do as Milton Friedman advocated, which is to grow the money supply at a slow and predictable rate, probably about 3% per year.

There should also be less FDIC insurance, so that the shareholders of a bank bear risk, rather than the government.

Free trade is also needed, even though many conservatives oppose this. One of the reasons for the Great Depression was trade tariffs. Other countries responded to ours, and there was less trade.

Allison said that the most important problem we have is philosophical. Where does free medical care come from, for example? He said that the idea of rights on which the United States was built is that people have right to what they produce themselves, but not what others produce.

Free medical care and affordable housing are a perversion of this concepts of rights. The right to free medical care, he said, is the right to enslave a doctor to provide the care, or to enslave someone else to pay the doctor. That’s the opposite of the American system of rights.

Under such a system, no one has the right to their own life.

He also addressed the difference between short-term and long-term thinking. Some things that work in the short-term are destructive in the long-term, such as the pick-a-payment mortgages.

The “free lunch mentality” leads to a lack of personal responsibility, and that is the death of democracy. The “tyranny of the majority” — where a majority can vote a free lunch for themselves, eventually the providers quit.

The cure is the opposite. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness demand personal responsibility. Each person has a moral right to their own life.

“The United States is the only country founded on the concept that people should act in their rational long-term self interest, properly understood.” He said that you shouldn’t take advantage of other people, as it doesn’t work. You also shouldn’t self-sacrifice, as you have the right to your own life.

Where do we go now?

We are probably in the beginning of an economic recovery. Allison feels the most likely scenario is a period of stagflation — slow growth, high inflation, and higher unemployment than we should have — similar to the 1970s. This would not be a great time, but not a horrible time, he said.

He is more concerned about the long term. The liabilities in the social security and Medicare systems, our huge operating deficits, a dysfunctional foreign policy, and a failed K through 12 educational system lead to the certainty that in 25 years, the United States will be broke.

What we need to do, he said, is the opposite of what we’re doing. We need to return to individual rights, the incentives that free markets provide, and less regulation.

The “American sense of life,” Allison said, means that we are a very individualistic nation and not collectivist.

Business makes the world a better place to live by providing quality products and services. A primary difference between the United States and Africa is that we have better businesses.

Allison mentioned two pillars that make the human mind productive. The first is Freedom and liberty. He drew a parallel between academic freedom and economic freedom. Those who believe in academic freedom, however, often want to restrict economic and business freedom.

The second pillar is knowledge that comes from education, in the broadest context. We need an environment that encourages competition, discipline, and creativity in our educational system.

Allison encouraged the audience to seek happiness through a “life well-lived.” Self-esteem is developed by doing your job the best you possibly can, he said. Depending on government for security is the European way, but not the American way.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark

{ 1 comment }

Today, an audience of 600 business and civic leaders attended the 30th annual Economic Outlook Conference at Century II, produced by the Center for Economic Development and Business Research (CEDBR) at Wichita State University.

The featured speaker was John A. Allison, chairman and former CEO of BB&T Corporation, the nation’s 10th largest financial-holding company. Its headquarters are in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

The primary cause of the recent financial crisis is our federal government’s policies and actions, Allison said.

It’s not the fault of free markets, as some allege, because we don’t have a free market economy. We have a mixed economy, with some industries such as financial services being highly regulated by government.

What was the cause of the real estate bubble? We built too many houses, many of larger size than we should have built, and we built them in the wrong places, he said.

How did we make such a mistake? Allison said there are four causes or actors that contributed to the problem: the Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), housing policy as implemented by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The action of these agencies turned a natural correction into a panic. Also, the policies government has taken since then may help us in the short term, but will almost certainly hurt us in the long run.

The Federal Reserve’s errors include creating inducements to take risk based on false signals. The inverted yield curve that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke created induced banks to take on more risk than they had been assuming. Also, “The huge level of federal debt we have today would not be practical if the government did not own the monetary system.”

The Fed has sophisticated financial models to help it manage the economy, but these can’t integrate the economic activity of billions of humans. Illustrating this, Allison mentioned Frederich Hayek’s “fatal conceit,” where smart people believe they can do the impossible.

The FDIC contributed to the problem by allowing start-up banks to offer high interest rates to depositors. With FDIC insurance, depositors don’t have any incentive to investigate the soundness of the banks in which they place their deposits. This has led to a lack of market discipline.

Government housing policy has been a long-term problem. Spurred by the theory that home ownership for everyone is a good thing, in 1999, the Clinton administration announced that it would be the goal of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to have at least half their loans in so-called “affordable housing,” now called sub-prime mortgages.

At the time, economists, including liberal economists, warned that this is risky, and that this course could take them down, and the U.S. economy with it within ten years. Nine years later it happened, Allison said, and the government was forced to bail out these two agencies.

Politics played a role in this. Allison said he served on financial services roundtable committee for nine years. This committee warned Congress numerous times that it was certain that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would go broke. But Congress wouldn’t listen. Part of the reason was the political contributions to both Democrats (that party’s single largest contributor) and Republicans made by these two agencies.

Fair value accounting regulations, particularly mark-to-market, led to inaccurate valuation of some assets when markets are thin (not many buyers). When banks were forced to mark down the values of assets more than what economic reality indicated, the loss of capital was multiplied, because banks are leveraged. This lead to larger losses in lending capacity that what was necessary.

Banks with cash might be willing to assume the economic risk of purchasing some of these assets, but they couldn’t assume the accounting risk of future losses. This is an example of the distortions produced by our government-created accounting system, regulated by the SEC. Large and even small businesses don’t use this accounting system for their own management, because it’s not a good measure of value.

The actions of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae also led to the end of the “originate and hold” model for home mortgages, where banks and thrifts would make home loans, and then hold those loans as part of their portfolio of assets. Private institutions simply could not compete with these government-backed institutions.

This led to the “broker model” or “originate and sell,” which had a terrible incentive. If you simply originate loans but don’t hold them and its risk, your incentive is to originate as many loans as possible, without regard to the riskiness of the loan.

Summarizing the first part of Allison’s lecture: It is government policy that is largely responsible for the crisis. Free markets are commonly being blamed for the crisis, but this assessment is false. Our economy, as Allison has shown, is far removed from free and unregulated. Government intervenes everywhere.

Allison presented a great deal of information in his talk, including some steps we should take to get out of this crisis and to prevent another. I’ll report on this soon.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark

{ 4 comments }

Bob Weeks discusses planning for downtown Wichita revitalization and what he learned on his trip to the Platinum Triangle in Anaheim, California. Host Tim Brown and guest Randy Brown also appear. From the KPTS Television show Kansas Week, August 14, 2009.

The article referred to is Wichita’s getting ready to plan.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark

{ 0 comments }

Wichita’s getting ready to plan

by Bob Weeks on August 14, 2009

in Wichita city government

As the City of Wichita develops a grand plan for downtown revitalization, can we have a process that is freedom-friendly and respects property rights? I went to Anaheim to find out.

Leaders in Wichita — both private and public sector — believe that Wichita needs a plan for downtown. To support this, the city is seeking to develop a Downtown Revitalization Master Plan, a “a twenty-year vision for its thriving downtown.” Right away I want to ask: if downtown is thriving, why does it need revitalization?

The document Wichita used to lure planning firms to apply for the planning job is full of ambitious and colorful language: “a community synergy that is contagious,” “casting a grand vision to realize our potential,” “the bold vision the community is seeking.”

The danger we face is that Wichita’s plan will end up like almost all other urban plans — a top-down effort micromanaged by politicians and bureaucrats, people whose incentives are all wrong. We already have the structure in place, with our mayor promoting the plan for downtown as his signature achievement, and a tax-supported downtown development organization headed by a young and energetic planning professional.

There is a different way to go about redevelopment, a way that respects freedom and property rights, while at the same time promising a better chance of success.

Last month I visited Anaheim, California, to learn more about the Platinum Triangle. This is an area of low-rise warehouses and industry that the city thought would be a good place for redevelopment. (Anaheim’s old downtown was redeveloped starting in the 1970s, is fairly nondescript, and has not met expectations.)

What Anaheim decided to do with the Platinum Triangle is to employ “freedom-friendly” principles in the district’s development. Or, as the subtitle to an article written by Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle states, a “Foundation of Freedom Inspires Urban Growth.”

Here are the important things that Anaheim has done that are out of the ordinary:

No use of eminent domain to take property. The forceful taking of property by government for the purposes of giving it to someone else is one of the worst violations of property rights and liberty that we can imagine. But it’s a prime tool of redevelopment, one that the planning profession says is essential to their efforts to reshape cities.

In Kansas, we have a relatively new eminent domain law that, on its face, should provide strong protection to property owners. It’s unknown whether this protection will be effective when a city such as Wichita asks the legislature to allow the use of eminent domain, which is what the law requires. If a city makes the case that the success of Wichita and thousands of jobs depend on the use of eminent domain, will legislators go along?

Overlay zoning that respects existing land use. Instead of replacing existing zoning, the city added an “overlay zone.” This meant that while the land had new permissible uses and restrictions, existing rights were protected. It’s only if existing property owners wanted to pursue new development that they would have to conform to the new development standards contained in the overlay zoning.

No public subsidies or incentives. In California, they’re called redevelopment districts. In Kansas, we call them tax increment financing or TIF districts. In either case, this mechanism allows property owners to, in effect, retain their own increased property taxes for the benefit of their developments, something that the average taxpayer — or real estate developer not working in a politically-favored area — can’t do.

The City of Wichita views TIF districts as a powerful tool for development. The city has many existing TIF districts, and we can expect that others will be created to support downtown revitalization. While many people recognize and agree that the taking of land through eminent domain for economic development is bad, the taking of tax revenues through TIF is subtle. Most citizens don’t know this is happening.

Anaheim did a few other things: it streamlined the permitting process, reduced parking regulation, developed a broad-based environment impact report, and relaxed requirements for balancing commercial and residential uses.

It also used a “first-come, first served” housing permit allocation process. Instead of allocating housing permits to each parcel, permits were allocated to a much larger district. Developers could claim them through a competitive process and use them flexibly.

What’s been the result in the Platinum Triangle? After the district was formed in 2004, development started at a fast pace. But the housing crisis in California has definitely put a damper on the pace of development. An illustration: In a loft project in the Platinum Triangle, condos originally priced at $400,000 are now offered at $250,000. It’s expected that as the housing crisis eases, developers will go ahead with their plans.

The Platinum Triangle offers a distinctly different model for redevelopment than that practiced in most cities. A few other cities in California have noticed and are adopting Platinum Triangle-style, freedom-friendly, principles.

The question we in Wichita now face is this: Will Wichita adopt a freedom-friendly approach to downtown revitalization?

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark

{ 15 comments }

In 1994, George Reisman wrote a pamphlet explaining the problems with America’s health care system. He criticized the Clinton plan for reform, and offered an alternative based on freedom and markets rather than government interventionism. It is a brilliant work, and still relevant today: “I wrote this essay to help defeat the Clinton plan for socialized medicine. In all essentials it’s as valid today as it was then. It’s a demonstration that government intervention inspired by the philosophy of collectivism is the cause of America’s medical crisis and that a free market in medical care is the solution for the crisis. I urge everyone who wants to help defeat the essentially similar Obama scheme to read it.”

You can read the pamphlet by clicking on The real right to medical care versus socialized medicine. It’s lengthy, at about 22,000 words. It takes a while to read. Part of what accounts for its length is Reisman’s explanation of every point he makes, which is very helpful.

Reisman calls for more than simply defeating the Clinton plan, as we who oppose the Obama plan should be doing too. He calls for reform — radical reform — of America’s health care, and presents a plan.

By way of introduction, Reisman writes

… while the philosophy of Marx and Engels is dying, the philosophy of Locke and Jefferson, and Adam Smith, that is, the philosophy of individual freedom and capitalism underlying the American Revolution — the philosophy which, ironically enough, was the original meaning of the word liberalism — has been reborn. It has been reborn first and foremost at the hands of Ayn Rand in political philosophy and of Ludwig von Mises in economic theory, both of whom have enormously strengthened it. This philosophy of individual freedom, of the inviolability of individual rights, of the benevolent functioning of an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and the profit motive — of capitalism — calls for a radically new political agenda. It calls for a political agenda that progressively rolls back the interference of the state and progressively enlarges the freedom of the individual. This is now what political philosophy and economic theory at their highest levels of development recognize to be the essential means of solving social and economic problems. Movement in this direction — in the direction of individual freedom from government interference — is henceforth to be regarded as the standard of what is to be considered progress in the realm of political action.

It is on the basis of this newly resurgent, radically different political philosophy and economic theory — this philosophy and theory of individual rights and capitalism — that I explain the causes of the present crisis in medical care, criticize the Clinton plan, and present the appropriate solution and how to achieve it.

The fundamental problem is this: “… the perverted notion of the need-based right to medical care — that is, an alleged right to medical care that entails a claim on other people’s wealth or labor, which must be met with or without their consent — is what underlies both the collectivization of medical costs and the concomitant loss of the individual’s personal financial responsibility. In this way, it is a perverted notion of the right to medical care that is fundamentally responsible for the rising cost of medical care.”

Reisman goes on to explain, in detail, how the present system of purchasing health care leads to a variety of problems, such as “the potential for a limitless rise in the price of medical services” and “irrational medical malpractice awards and the practice of defensive medicine.” Most people seem to agree that these problems are present. He also explains how the present system is “perverting technological progress into a source of higher costs rather than lower costs,” how it is responsible for high drug prices, and how hospitals waste money buying costly equipment that is not needed.

He also explains “bureaucratic interference with medicine and the rise in administrative costs,” characteristics of private health insurance companies that those who support government takeover rail against.

Reisman then criticizes the details of the Clinton plan. These apply equally to the Obama plan.

Then, Reisman proposes his solution. It’s not more government, which is what Obama offers. It’s less government and restoration of individual rights:

The actual solution to the problem of runaway medical costs lies in the precise opposite of the direction chosen by the Clinton plan. It is not the final destruction of the individual’s rational right to medical care, which is what the Clinton plan would achieve, but the restoration and full implementation of that right — that is, the removal of all government interference that stands between buyers and sellers of medical care or in any way causes medical care to be more expensive than it otherwise would be.

The best way to accomplish reform, Reisman writes, is: “The simplest, most obvious method of achieving a free market in medical care would be at one stroke to abolish all government intervention that violates a free market in medical care.”

Recognizing that this is not likely to happen, Reisman proposes some steps to take.

The first is a change in the tax laws that would have the effect of “[having] employees realize that they were responsible for the cost of their own medical care, even if the employer continued to pay insurance premiums on their behalf. This is because the individual employee would know that he could have his share of the money his employer paid on his behalf, in his own pocket if he wished.” In other words, dissolve many peoples’ notion that their health care is free (or very low cost) just because they get it as part of their job.

Next, end the idea that Medicare is a free resource: “… unless they can demonstrate a lack of means, individuals covered by Medicare be required to pay a substantial deductible before their coverage under the program begins and then to make a continuing copayment of a significant percentage of all costs beyond some maximum limit. ”

To increase the supply of health care, “it is certainly reasonable to ask that medical licensing laws be liberalized — nothing so extreme, mind you, as their outright abolition, but merely their significant liberalization.”

To control hospital costs, a radical reduction in the regulation hospitals face is required.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark

{ 1 comment }

Someone in California understands TIF

by Bob Weeks on August 4, 2009

in Economics

In California, they’re called redevelopment districts. In Kansas, we call them tax increment financing or TIF districts. By either name, they provide a way to channel money to politically favored developers.

The back-door way by which this is done benefits both parties: It hides what is really happening. A recent Los Angeles Times story held this:

“If the state Legislature were asked to directly appropriate money for local shopping centers or any of the other endless private economic development that local officials like, they would never do it,” said former assemblyman and Sacramento mayor Phil Isenberg, who championed redevelopment reform when he was in the Legislature. “Because the current state subsidy is mostly hidden, it continues. … You have to ask if it is worth the expenditure of massive state funds to continue the process.”

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark

{ 1 comment }

Sunday’s Wichita Eagle carried an op-ed piece written by Doug Stanley, vice chairman of the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition. As we might expect, he calls for more government involvement and management of economic development.

Stanley makes the point that economic development organizations like GWEDC have customers, going so far as to cite the saying “the customer is king.”

The idea of a customer, however, implies willing and voluntary participants on both sides of the transaction. While the companies that receive benefits from the taxpayer are willing participants, the taxpayers are not.

Reading Stanley’s op-ed, you might conclude that Wichita has no industrial sites available. Conversations will several local developers indicate that the opposite is true: there are many industrial sites — some complete with existing buildings — available for immediate occupancy. It may be true that we don’t have the 800 acre site that Sedgwick County wants in an industrial park, but we have many sites that even very large companies could use.

And it’s a rare company that could use even a small fraction of 800 acres.

Critics might say that these sites, owned by private interests, won’t be as responsive to the needs of companies making site selections. But who do you trust to be more proactive and responsive: entrepreneurs looking for survival and profit, or government bureaucrats like those working for GWEDC?

The problem, of course, is that private entrepreneurs don’t have government largess funded by taxpayers to offer.

That leads to something that Stanlely doesn’t mention: Chasing jobs through economic development is expensive. A 1996 PBS report stated “The strategy of offering cheap land, cheap labor, and sizeable tax breaks has worked well for the southern and southeastern states, but it is getting expensive. In 1980, landing a new Nissan plant cost Tennessee $11,000 per job created. In 1985, recruiting the Saturn Corporation cost the state $26,000 per job. In 1992, it cost South Carolina more than $68,000 per job to bring in a BMW plant, and the estimates range from $150,000 to $200,000 per job for the Mercedes Benz plant in Alabama.”

This arms race among states needs to stop. Last year Cessna used the fact of an offer from other states to extract subsidy from Kansas, Sedgwick County, and the City of Wichita. But how else could political leaders in Kansas react? It would have been political suicide to let one of Kansas’ most famous companies escape.

Not that Cessna was planning to leave Wichita altogether. Instead, the decision was where to build a plant to produce a new airplane model. Since last year, Cessna has scrapped plans for the new plane. To its credit, Cessna is returning or not using the subsidies. But this is an indication of the risk that government assumes when engaging in economic development.

Government has a dismal record of picking winners and losers. Instead of making decisions based on economic factors, decisions are made for political reasons. Those reasons often have little to do with sound economic prospects and more to do with the next campaign for re-election.

Action at the federal level is needed to stop this wasteful competition between states. Then, all states can disband their economic development organizations and let business be business.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark

{ 2 comments }

In a talk to the Wichita Pachyderm Club on Friday April 24, 2009, Bryan S. Derreberry, President and CEO of the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce, laid out the case for government management of our area’s economic and community development. The title of the talk was “The Basis for Economic Partner Selection and Collaborative Efforts.” The slide presentation is available at the end of this article.

While the Chamber is, strictly speaking, not an arm of government, it receives a large amount of government funding. Additionally, many of the incentives that it offers to companies require governmental action and funding to implement.

One of the things I learned — I had suspected this, but now it is confirmed — is that “economic and community development are now the same.” The Chamber views their mission as more than just economic development.

Moreover, there’s a lot of competition in the economic development field. There are 361 MSA (metropolitan statistical areas) in the United States. There are 18,000 economic development organizations in the United States. All are looking to attract and retain business, just like the Wichita Chamber is.

The prize being sought — the really large expansion or relocation — is relatively rare, as Derreberry said there are just 200 expansions or relocations that feature 500 or more employees each year.

Some of the important tangible things companies are looking at, in order of decreasing importance, are highway access, low labor costs, low occupancy and construction costs, tax exemptions, availability of energy and its cost, availability of skilled labor, state and local incentives, fair corporate tax rates, low union profile, and available land and buildings.

One of the slides Derreberrry presented dealt with the intangible factors that, if aren’t nailed down, “the competition will beat you every time.” These include:

  • Risk minimization for expanding or relocating employer

  • Cooperative, enthusiastic, positive, and sincere public and private leadership — sophisticated and wanting of the project
  • Consultative economic development experts
  • Solutions-oriented negotiations (“we’ll find a way”)
  • Tireless momentum that overcomes obstacles

Other intangible qualities of a location include attributes such as vitality, earning, learning, social capital, cost of lifestyle, “after hours,” and “around town.” Many of these fall in to what our mayor and others refer to as amenities. It’s now the duty, it seems, of a city to plan for and provide entertainment for its citizens. Among the economic development planners, this is known as the “third place” beyond home and work: Are there other places I can go and feel good about the community I’m in?

Two years ago Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal wrote an important article titled “Tax Chambers.” I’ve commented on it before in Tax Chambers of Commerce, Right Here in Kansas and The Decline of Local Chambers of Commerce. I used this article as the foundation for a question, which went something like this:

“In February 2007, Stephen Moore wrote a column that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. In it he said ‘Thanks to an astonishing political transformation, many chambers of commerce on the state and local level have been abandoning these goals. They’re becoming, in effect, lobbyists for big government. … In as many as half the states, state taxpayer organizations, free market think tanks and small business leaders now complain bitterly that, on a wide range of issues, chambers of commerce deploy their financial resources and lobbying clout to expand the taxing, spending and regulatory authorities of government. This behavior, they note, erodes the very pro-growth climate necessary for businesses — at least those not connected at the hip with government — to prosper.’ Mr. Derreberry, the Wichita Chamber has supported tax increases, subsidies, centralized government planning, and what I call crony capitalism. Do you think this is valid criticism of this chamber?”

He replied that the Chamber opposed a tax increase for education in 2002. The Chamber will support “responsible” taxes, he said. He recognized that a high tax and regulatory environment will inhibit the ability to grow communities. He didn’t address subsidy or centralized government planning, and he didn’t agree that this criticism applies to the Wichita Chamber. Something tells me he doesn’t get asked questions like this very often.

Granting the incentives that the Wichita Chamber wants to offer is expensive. It requires government to pay subsidy directly to companies, or, as is often the case, grant companies relief from paying taxes. Sometimes a company is allowed to use its taxes for its own exclusive benefit, instead of funding the general operations of government.

All these courses are costly.

There’s also some question as to how important these subsidies are to companies. Last year, it was reported that North Carolina offered Cessna $200 million to build a new plant there. Between Kansas, Sedgwick County, and the City of Wichita, Cessna received an offer of $35 million, and decided to build the new plant here. To me, it looks like Cessna left $165 million on the table. Is building a new plant in Wichita worth that much? If they left $165 million on the table, would they have left, say, $185 million there too? The cynic in me says that Cessna never seriously considered building the plant outside Wichita, but they nonetheless wanted a reward for being a good corporate citizen.

The planning that Mr. Derreberry talks about requires government expansion and interventionism on a grand scale. In a newspaper op-ed a few years ago, he mentioned the entrepreneurial spirit of Wichita. Government planning like the downtown revitalization effort underway in Wichita strangles entrepreneurship. So does the public-private partnership.

Since there’s so much competition in economic development, and since Wichita doesn’t have picturesque mountains or seashore, why don’t we try something really different? We could make Wichita and Kansas a laboratory for economic freedom. That would be something quite unusual these days. There’s no telling to what level of prosperity we might advance.

The problem is that this would require unilateral disarmament by Wichita in the escalating arms race between states and cities to see who can dish out the greatest incentives. It doesn’t seem likely to happen, especially given the short time frame of most politicians — the next election campaign.

I spoke to one activist after the talk, and he was distressed at the call for government intervention that Mr. Derreberry called for. This reaction was in the minority, as many seemed appreciate of the Chamber’s efforts.

Another person I talked to said the Chamber’s action reminded him of a quote from Adam Smith: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.”

Myself, I thought of a passage by Milton Friedman, which reads: “[The political system] tends to give undue political power to small groups that have highly concentrated interests; to give greater weight to obvious, direct and immediate effects of government action than to possibly more important but concealed, indirect and delayed effects; to set in motion a process that sacrifices the general interest to serve special interests rather than the other way around. There is, as it were, an invisible hand in politics that operates in precisely the opposite direction to Adam Smith’s invisible hand.”

The basis for economic partner selection and collaborative efforts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark

{ 1 comment }

Articles of Interest

by Bob Weeks on April 23, 2009

in Politics

Kansas budget, wind power, alternative fuels gone wild, newspaper bailouts, journalism entrepreneurship

House pushing big K-12 cuts (Topeka Capital-Journal) “The Republican-led House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday approved a budget-reduction plan that would trim $100 million in state aid to public schools in Kansas. The 3.3 percent reduction for the upcoming 2010 fiscal year would help balance the state budget.” With K-12 schools consuming about half of state general fund spending, it’s surprising that is all they’re asked to sacrifice.

Wind farm to provide power to Greensburg homes, businesses (Wichita Eagle) A town destroyed by too much wind now seeks to benefit from wind. Actually, it’s milking the government subsidy that will benefit Greensburg: “And NativeEnergy Inc., a leader in climate solution services, will buy about two-thirds of the wind farm’s renewable energy credits over 20 years.” It’s unlikely this would be happening without taxpayer subsidy.

Brownback backs Open Fuels Standards Act (Kansas Liberty, a subscription service) “Republican Sen. Sam Brownback today endorsed the introduction of legislation that would require 50 percent of new cars to have the capability to operate on gasoline, ethanol and methanol or diesel or biodiesel.” This is more of government trying to plan the future of the automobile industry, this time from someone who is considered a conservative.

Kerry aims to rescue newspapers (Washington Times) “Troubled by the possible shuttering of his hometown paper, Sen. John Kerry reached out to the Boston Globe on Tuesday, then called for Senate hearings to address the woes of the nation’s print media.” Bailout fever continues to spread. If you think it’s bad for the federal government to run banks and automobile companies, just think how bad things will be when the press is beholden to people like Kerry for its survival.

True/Slant Tests Another Model Of Web Journalism (Wall Street Journal) “This week, a new Web news site is entering the fray, with a novel approach to journalistic entrepreneurship, new forms of advertising, and an effort to blend journalism and social networking.” This site’s address is trueslant.com. If journalism is to survive — and let us hope it thrives — it will serve America best if it is through private initiative like this, rather than through Sen. John Kerry’s government bailouts.

Alternative Fuel Folly (Kimberly A. Strassel in the Wall Street Journal) Describes how a paper company may reap a $1 billion annual windfall by simply continuing to do what it already does. It’s an example of how government policies often produce unintended effects.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark

{ 0 comments }

Walter Williams on the housing crisis

by Bob Weeks on April 22, 2009

in Economics

Economist Walter E. Williams explains the causes of the housing crisis. Then, why would we let these same people who caused the housing crisis take charge of health care? Short and worthwhile viewing.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark

{ 1 comment }

Articles of Interest

by Bob Weeks on April 1, 2009

in Politics

Obama’s volunteer corps, Kansas cigarette taxes, U.S. Auto industry, Austrian economics

The Rise of ObamaCorps (Americans for Limited Government) “Unless the Blue Dogs can muster enough support to halt Speaker Pelosi’s march to madness, the American taxpayer will have to pony up another $5 billion for paid ‘volunteers’ (an oxymoron if there ever was one) to politically-oriented organizations, the aims of many of which they will invariably oppose.”

Study documents historic trend of decreased state tax revenues following cigarette tax increases “This study clearly shows that raising cigarette taxes simply drives Kansas consumers to other states to purchase tobacco products,” said AFP-Kansas state director Derrick Sontag. “It clearly results in lower cigarette tax revenues, not because more people are quitting, but because people go elsewhere to avoid paying those higher per-pack taxes. … We hope this document will show to lawmakers that raising cigarette taxes is an ineffective deterrent to smoking and that it is simply unwise to fund government programs with revenue that is likely to dwindle once the new tax takes effect.”

Detroit’s Fate Sealed in West Wing (Wall Street Journal) Describes President Obama and his team’s involvement in the remaking of General Motors. “Mr. Rattner broke the news to [General Motors CEO] Mr. Wagoner at his office at the Treasury, according to an administration official. Afterward, Mr. Rattner met with Mr. Henderson, and told him he would take over as GM’s CEO.” The president plans to put some of his own staff into the auto companies. We can be sure that as the president and his team assert more control over GM and Chrysler, Congress will want to get in on the act too.

The Obama Autoworks: At GM and Chrysler, politics is now Job One (Wall Street Journal) More analysis of just how bad things are likely to get now that the American automobile industry — at least GM and Chrysler — is on the road to nationalization. “Bankruptcy or not, the larger problem here is Washington’s industrial policy. Even if Chrysler merges and GM restructures, Mr. Obama wants the companies to make the kind of cars the political class favors, whether or not consumers want to buy them. ‘The United States of America will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars,’ the President said yesterday. He didn’t mention a goal of profitability. … Mr. Obama’s industrial policy vision runs directly counter to a strategy that would get the companies back to profitability as soon as possible. … All of which is to say that the taxpayer commitment to the Obama autoworks is only getting started.”

Austrians Can Explain the Boom and the Bust (Robert P. Murphy at the Ludwig von Mises Institute) An Austrian explanation of the recent boom and bust cycle, including the Austrian model of the structure of capital. Interest rates, as it turns out, are very important.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark

{ 1 comment }

Articles of Interest

by Bob Weeks on March 31, 2009

in Politics

Government intervention, Kansas budget, open records, Obamanomics, social security

Did government or greed cause economic distress? (Thomas Sowell in the Detroit News) “An economist specializing in financial markets gave a glimpse of the history of housing markets when he said: ‘Lending money to American homebuyers had been one of the least risky and most profitable businesses a bank could engage in for nearly a century.’ That was what the market was like before the government intervened.”

Budget based on hopeful numbers (Topeka Capital-Journal) “A $13 billion-plus state budget is likely to win approval from legislators this week, but it’s built on what seems a convenient fiction.” The problem is that revenues may again fall short of forecasts. The danger is that government spending lobbies will view this as an opportunity to press for tax increases.

Exemptions from Kansas Open Records (Kansas Meadowlark) “The Kansas legislature recently extended certain exceptions to the Kansas Open Records Act to hide certain records from the public view at least until 2014.”

Obamanomics Isn’t About Big Government (Robert B. Reich in the Wall Street Journal) The former secretary of labor says public investment is the defining characteristic of President Obama’s economic policy.

Recession Puts a Major Strain On Social Security Trust Fund (Washington Post) “With unemployment rising, the payroll tax revenue that finances Social Security benefits for nearly 51 million retirees and other recipients is falling, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office. As a result, the trust fund’s annual surplus is forecast to all but vanish next year — nearly a decade ahead of schedule — and deprive the government of billions of dollars it had been counting on to help balance the nation’s books. … And at some point, perhaps as early as 2017, according to the CBO, the Treasury would have to start repaying the billions it has borrowed from the trust fund over the past 25 years, driving the nation further into debt or forcing Congress to raise taxes.”

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Digg
  • Share/Bookmark

{ 0 comments }

We need to not only remember, but to understand the past

March 6, 2009

Charles Koch, Chairman and CEO of Koch Industries, Inc., wrote an article in a recent company newsletter that explains the similarities between today and the early 1930s, and how our present government leaders aren’t following the lessons we should have learned. The article may be read by clicking on Perspective.

Read the full article →

Protest Pork in Kansas: Report and Photos

February 21, 2009

The Kansas Meadowlark has a report with photographs of today’s protest at Representative Dennis Moore’s office in Overland Park. Click on 500 in Overland Park brave cold, wind to protest stimulus, pork (photo essay) to see.

Read the full article →

It’s My Money — I’ll Bailout Myself!

February 17, 2009

From the Lone Star Times, economist Michelle Muccio appears in the video It’s My Money — I’ll Bailout Myself!
It’s funny how many people would rather keep control over their own money rather than sending it to Washington (and their state, county, city, and school district). Can people be trusted to spend their own money? The [...]

Read the full article →

Can Wichita government investment create jobs?

February 17, 2009

Recently the president of the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition wrote an op-ed that engaged in a large measure of self-congratulation, while at the same time asking for even more resources. (Vicki Pratt Gerbino: Invest in recruiting, preserving area jobs, February 15, 2009 Wichita Eagle)

We need to examine whether activities of groups like the GWEDC are really needed and desirable.

Read the full article →

Financial crisis caused by government

February 11, 2009

Did the “excesses” of capitalism cause the current financial crisis? First, we really don’t have capitalism in the United States, at least not any reasonable semblance of laissez faire capitalism, as explained in my post The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Present Crisis, based on the work of Professor George Reisman.

Read the full article →

NoStimulus.com Effort Crosses 200,000 Petitions

February 10, 2009

Here’s a press release from Americans For Prosperity that talks about the tremendous success of the NoStimulus.com website. This site experienced tremendous traffic yesterday and had difficulty staying online. Things are working smoothly now, so I encourage you to visit the site to learn about the stimulus plan. Then, sign the online petition.
NoStimulus.com Effort Crosses [...]

Read the full article →

Do Americans Support Obama’s Stimulus Plan?

February 9, 2009

Despite mainstream media claims, not everyone agrees with President Obama’s plan. In fact, a Rasmussen poll shows that more Americans than not are skeptical about the stimulus. They’d rather see other things such as less government spending and lower taxes.
National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted February 6-7, 2009
By Rasmussen Reports
1. Generally speaking, do increases in [...]

Read the full article →

Explaining Again Why Obamanian, or Keynesian, Stimulus Won’t Work

February 8, 2009

From The Stimulus Tragedy: Obama bets that we can spend our way to prosperity:
So there it is: Mr. Obama is now endorsing a sort of reductionist Keynesianism that argues that any government spending is an economic stimulus. This is so manifestly false that we doubt Mr. Obama really believes it. He has to know that [...]

Read the full article →

Stimulus bill payoff to wrong education interests

February 8, 2009

The Wall Street Journal analyzes some of the earmarks in the stimulus bill, and finds that specific provisions for spending are going to be wasted — except that they payoff special interests:

Read the full article →

NoStimulus.com surpasses 60,000 online petitions

February 6, 2009

Americans For Prosperity is dong a great job opposing the stimulus with their NoStimulus.com website. Visit there for information about the dangers of what President Obama and Congressional leaders are doing. Sign the petition, too.

Read the full article →

AFP Works to Oppose Stimulus

February 6, 2009

Here’s a message from Tim Phillips, President of Americans For Prosperity. I listened in to the telephone town hall meeting he mentions. Despite a few technical glitches, these meetings are becoming popular, and serve as an effective way to communicate with a large number of people. Wait — don’t we have the Internet for that?
Last [...]

Read the full article →

An Austrian Recommendation for President Obama

February 4, 2009

Robert P. Murphy, author of the fine book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism lays out what President Obama and Congress can do to really fix our economy.
In this article, Murphy addresses the critics of those who oppose the proposed stimulus plan. That’s important, because many critics of the stimulus say that the government should [...]

Read the full article →

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true

January 28, 2009

What isn’t true?
On January 9, President-elect (now President) Barack Obama said “There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jump start the economy.”
Not everyone agrees with our new president. The Cato Institute placed a full-page advertisement the New York Times today. Its statement reads as [...]

Read the full article →

The True Danger of the Current Economic Crisis

January 27, 2009

Thomas Sowell explains that the true danger we face is not recession or even a depression, but the permanent expansion of government that lingers forever:
No matter how many times President Barack Obama tells us that these “extraordinary times” call for “swift action,” the kind of economic policies he is promoting take effect very slowly, no [...]

Read the full article →

Economic Stimulus: Timing is Everything

January 27, 2009

When I took macroeconomics in college way back in the 70’s, people actually believed in Keynesian economic theory. It was in the textbooks. One of the problems with government attempting to stimulate the economy the Keynesian way is the matter of timing. By the time we’re sure we’re in a recession, Congress passes laws, and [...]

Read the full article →

Government Spending Is No Free Lunch

January 23, 2009

Robert J. Barro, an economics professor at Harvard University and a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, has an excellent commentary in The Wall Street Journal. This piece explains the problems with the multiplier that backers of government stimulus programs count on to make the government spending work. Here’s an excerpt:
Back in the 1980s, [...]

Read the full article →

Just Say No to Stimulus

January 21, 2009

“Congress should not enact an expensive spending bill under the pretense of stimulus or recovery. We cannot spend our way to prosperity, and such an expansion of the federal government will put a crushing burden on taxpayers in the long-term.”
That’s the online petition at NoStimulus.com. This website, a project of Americans For Prosperity, provides some [...]

Read the full article →

Minimum Wage: Helpful? Or Not?

January 19, 2009

What’s one of the barriers to advancement by minorities in the workplace? We’re told that the minimum wage law is a guarantee that workers will not be exploited by greedy employers. But does it really work that way? Art Carden writes this in his article The Minimum Wage, Discrimination, and Inequality:
Milton Friedman openly argued that [...]

Read the full article →

Barack Obama and the Price of Change

January 18, 2009

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, an important organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government, has a short (one minute) video that does a little arithmetic and arrives at the price of President-elect Obama’s plans for economic stimulus. Hint: it’s a pretty big number.

Read the full article →

The bailout reader

January 15, 2009

The events taking place in the financial market offer an illustration of the soundness of the Austrian theory of money, banking, and credit cycles, and Mises.org, which has long warned of precisely the scenario playing itself out today, is your source not only for analysis of these events but also the economic theory that helps explain what is happening and what to do about it. There are many thousands of articles available, and also the full text of thousands of books as well as journal articles.

Read the full article →

Big Government Is Not Stimulus

January 15, 2009

From the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation.
In less than four minutes, Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute reviews the theory and history of Keynesian policies, and demonstrates that more government spending does not spur economic growth. The video is very timely since government spending has increased dramatically under Bush and now Obama wants to [...]

Read the full article →

Markets are the best regulators

January 6, 2009

Since the start of the current financial crises, we’re told that markets are at fault. The most common diagnosis is that there’s not enough regulation in place, and only a move away from reliance on markets and toward more laws and regulations will save the economy.

Read the full article →

Accountants Seek Bailout

January 3, 2009

By Warner Todd Huston
Washington — In this current economic climate, bailouts for industries in the private sector are quickly becoming the chief form of reform and stability. From newspapers to the financial sector to the auto industry, Congress is infusing life saving money into the bloodstream of the country’s economy.
But one sector is finding itself [...]

Read the full article →

Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer’s Message to Wichitans

January 2, 2009

Here’s a message someone sent to me. It’s from Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer. It describes some of the ways that government grew in Wichita during 2008. It also promotes the mayor’s plan for greater centralized planning and control over Wichita’s future.
All this government expansion leads to less prosperity, making the mayor’s wish for a prosperous [...]

Read the full article →

In a time of crisis, don’t forget what they had to say

December 22, 2008

In his recent Forbes Magazine, Peter Robinson delivers three quotes from some great Americans: Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, and William F. Buckley Jr. Two of the quotes made it to the “Featured thoughts” section of this blog. Robinson delivers some good analysis of the current economic situation, too. Click on In a time of crisis, don’t forget what they had to say.

Read the full article →

Who is Responsible for Inflation?

December 19, 2008

Walter Williams explains the difference between counterfeiting and monetary policy. He explains that “inflation results from an increase in the supply of money relative to the demand for money.” He asks who, then, is responsible for inflation? In the United states, who is able to create money? The answer, of course, is the Federal Reserve System, and they’re creating it by the bucketful. Williams asks whether we really need our central bank, and answers his question with a history lesson. He makes a recommendation how to get our of the trouble we’re in.

Read the full article →