Voice For Liberty

Tag: Economic freedom

Economic freedom means property rights are protected under an impartial rule of law, people are free to trade with others, both within and outside the country, there is a sound national currency, so that peoples’ money keeps its value, and government stays small, relative to the size of the economy.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Monday March 28, 2011

    Wichita Eagle endorsements. Yesterday the Wichita Eagle released its endorsements for Mayor, Wichita City Council, and Wichita school board. It is no surprise that in each case the newspaper editorial board recommended that voters select the candidate most likely to support the board’s big-government interventionist policies, thereby (unwittingly?) providing a guide as to who not to vote for, if you value limited government and economic freedom.

    Wichita City Council this week. As it is the fifth Tuesday of the month, the Wichita City Council will not meet. While some might say the mayor and council members need to get to work and do their jobs, I’m more aligned with Will Rogers when he quipped: “Be thankful we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for.”

    Sedgwick County commission this week. At Wednesday’s meeting, the Sedgwick County Commission has two economic development incentives to consider. These are forgivable loans, essentially grants of money, to be made to MoJack Distributors, LLC and Apex Engineering International LLC. Each has already received a forgivable loan from the City of Wichita, as well as other subsidy of various forms from governments state and local. More discussion is at Wichita again to bet on corporate welfare as economic development. The commission’s agenda is available at Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners, March 30, 2011.

    Kansas judicial selection. A legislative maneuver could force the Kansas Senate to debate and possibly vote on the method of selecting judges for the Kansas Court of Appeals. This is despite the efforts of Senator Tim Owens, an attorney and Republican from Overland Park, to block the bill in his committee. See Method of choosing judges could see debate.

    Kansas Department of Labor computer system. From Kansas Reporter: “A $50 million, six year project to upgrade unemployment claims technology within the Kansas Department of Labor was grossly mismanaged, resulting in massive system flaws according to Labor Secretary Karin Brownlee.” Brownlee took office earlier this year after being appointed by Kansas Governor Sam Brownback. More at Massive waste, inefficiency in Labor Department technology upgrade, secretary says .

    General Electric: no taxes for me. Competitive Enterprise Institute explains how General Electric, one of the largest companies in the world, earns large profits and manages to pay no income tax.

    Freeloaders come in all types. This weekend John Stossel had an hour-long special show that focused on freeloaders. Not just panhandlers, although Stossel did work in disguise as a panhandler and discovered he could make over $90 a day. Tax free, he added. One segment of the show uncovered farmers who received $50,000 because they were discriminated against by lenders. But — some of these farmers merely grew potted plants or fertilized their lawn to qualify as a farmer. Another reported on homeowners who stopped paying their mortgages on advice of a website. The homeowners and the website operator said there is no moral obligation to pay their mortgage loans. Corporate freeloaders didn’t escape, as General Electric was mentioned as a large recipient of government handouts. And, they won’t pay taxes: “Despite billions in profit, they’ll pay no taxes this year,” reported Stossel. … The severe poverty of American Indian tribes that live on government-managed reservations and living on government handouts is contrasted with a tribe that accepts no handouts and has no casinos. … Stossel covered his own beach house, which was covered by low-cost subsidized federal fund insurance. It suffered losses twice. … Standing in front of the U.S. Capitol, Stossel said “We rich people freeload off you taxpayers all the time, because the over-promisers in there keep churning out special deals for politically-favored groups. And they tend to be rich people, because the rich can afford lobbyists. … Think about how much money we could save if these guys just didn’t pass so many laws that encourage freeloading. But they do, year after year. They micromanage life with subsidies. And the winners are not so much the needy, but people like Bon Jovi, Ted Turner, Maurice Wilder, and — me. So let’s hope for an end to all this freeloading.”

    New York City may seek waiver from ObamaCare. One of the strongest advocates for ObamaCare may seek an exemption for the city he represents. Politico reports in Anthony Weiner: Waiver might work for New York. … So far over 1,000 waviers have been issued, exempting businesses, labor groups and a handful of states from at least some of the requirements of the Affordable Health Care Act.

    Economic freedom and a better life. Economics professor Josh Hall explains that economic freedom leads to greater human well-being. If we look at average income, life expectancy, income of the poorest 10%, and other factors, we see that when governments let citizens make economic decisions for themselves, this leads to greater human flourishing. This video refers to the Economic Freedom of the World index, which was the subject of a lecture delivered last year in Wichita by Robert Lawson. In that lecture, Lawson warned of the path of the United States in terms of economic freedom, as I reported: “Speaking about the United States, Lawson said that the numbers are likely to go down in the future. While the U.S. ranks above the world average, its measurement of freedom has been declining since 2000. At the same time, the rest of the world is on an upward trend. ‘It’s no longer accurate to say the United States is among the very top tier in the economic freedom index,’ Lawson said, adding that he blames George Bush for this. The decline is partly due to the increasing size of government, but the largest cause of the decline is in the area of property rights. This area is measured largely by surveys asking people how they feel about property rights in America. The perception, Lawson, said, is that the security of property rights are on the decline.”

    Government investment specialty. Gene Callahan, in his book Economics for Real People: An Introduction to the Austrian School, explains some of the problems inherent in government acting as investor. Writing about a plan to build a sports stadium in Hartford: “The Public Choice School has pointed out another force weakening that incentive, indeed, in most cases, completely negating it. Strong incentives exist for politicians to favor special-interest groups at the expense of the general public. Those upon whom benefits are concentrated are motivated to campaign hard for those benefits. As the costs of most political actions are spread across the public as a whole, the average person has little motivation to become involved. In the context of the stadium project, we can see that, even at a total cost of $374 million, the cost to each Connecticut resident is only about $100. It is simply not worth much of any individual citizen’s time to become devoted to the cause of stopping the stadium. However, for the construction companies who hope to get work on the stadium and the owners of businesses and land nearby, the potential benefits are enormous. They have a strong incentive to lobby hard for the project, to donate to the campaigns of politicians who support it, and to sponsor studies that will make the project look good. In fact, if there were a profit to be made in some particular investment, private investors would be likely to act quickly to take advantage of the opportunity with their own funds. … Private investors will turn to the risky business of lobbying the government to support a project only when it is not clear to them that it is profitable without taxpayer subsidies. Thus, the government is likely to specialize in money-losing projects.”

  • The Left’s ‘obsession with all things Koch’

    Yesterday John H. Hinderaker of Powerline wrote another article about the political Left’s obsession with Charles and David Koch and Koch Industries. It’s a lengthy piece and worth reading, but because it is long, I will try to summarize.

    The Center for American Progress and its website ThinkProgress are fronts for the Obama Administration and are “lavishly funded by George Soros and several other left-wing billionaires.”

    The Center for American Progress, through ThinkProgress, “has carried on a bizarre vendetta against Charles and David Koch and their company, Koch Industries.” The Kochs are active in politics on the conservative/libertarian side.

    Having an “obsession with all things Koch,” ThinkProgress has attacked freshman U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, who represents the strongly Republican Kansas fourth congressional district where Koch Industries’ Wichita headquarters is located.

    Therefore, the man-bites-dog story: “Republicans support Republican candidate in Republican district!”

    Other things we learn: ThinkProgress charges that Pompeo “made his fortune off of a Koch backed company.” The facts are that Koch Venture Capital invested in a company that Pompeo and some partners founded to the amount of two percent.

    ThinkProgress has also made an issue of campaign contributions by Koch Industries, writing “In fact, Koch Industries even ranked at top of Pompeo’s campaign contribution list, outpacing the second top contributor by $60,000.” This is true, but when we look at data at OpenSecrets.org, we can see that of the $79,500 contributed, $10,000 came a Koch Industries political action committee (PAC). The balance of this amount came from a large number of people employed by Koch Industries.

    The left-wing mob behavior is noted in the story: “One of the curious media phenomena of our time is the synergy between the fever swamp of left-wing web sites, often closely affiliated with the Democratic Party and supported by far-left billionaires, and the supposedly mainstream media. Repeatedly, ‘stories’ that begin in the fever swamp attain a sort of respectability a few days later when they are picked up by the New York Times or the Washington Post, and often are disseminated from there to liberal newspapers around the country. This is a case in point. On March 20, the Washington Post, evidently inspired by Think Progress, laundered that site’s attack on Pompeo into slightly more respectable form, and brought it into polite company.”

    (The story referred to is GOP freshman Pompeo turned to Koch for money for business, then politics.)

    The recent congressional campaign between Pompeo and Raj Goyle is mentioned, and it is revealed that the Center for American Progress — the parent of ThinkProgress, the site attacking Pompeo and Koch Industries — contributed $8,300 to the Goyle campaign. By the way, according to OpenSecrets, Goyle raised much more money for his campaign from out-of-state donors than from people in Kansas.

    Powerline also criticizes the Post story’s usage of Kansas University political science professor Burdett A. “Bird” Loomis as a source without identifying Loomis as a “Democratic Party partisan and a virulent enemy of Republicans in general and the Kochs in particular” and having written an “anti-Koch op-ed.” (The op-ed, from the Wichita Eagle, doesn’t outright criticize Koch, but you can tell Loomis doesn’t care for the Kochs and their advocacy of economic freedom.)

    Powerline also notes on Loomis’ Facebook page his affinity for left-leaning politicians like Jim Ward, Laura Kelly, and Goyle, and also for the left-wing attack blog “Dome on the Range,” which exists only to poke fun at Republicans.

    Summarizing — and from my observations Hinderaker is correct:

    What we see here is incest to the third degree. The disgusting morass of left-wing blogs, funded by far-left billionaires like George Soros, spew up an endless stream of slimy attacks on mainstream citizens, like Charles and David Koch, and mainstream politicians, like Mike Pompeo. Democratic Party outlets that are generally presumed to be more respectable, like the New York Times and the Washington Post, watch the dirt flow by and periodically, when they see something promising, pluck it out of the swamp and take it mainstream in order to benefit their party. The Post isn’t as bad as some — I have referred to it as the most respectable voice of the Democratic Party — but when it follows this disgusting practice, plucking out the vilest unsubstantiated smear and promoting it for purely partisan purposes, it is hard to distinguish the Post from the most disreputable far-left rags, like ThinkProgress and the New York Times.

    Anatomy of a Smear

    By John H. Hinderaker

    The Center for American Progress is generally regarded as a front for the Obama administration. Its President and CEO is John Podesta, formerly Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff and the chairman of Barack Obama’s transition team. CAP is lavishly funded by George Soros and several other left-wing billionaires. It runs, among other things, a web site called Think Progress, which cranks out a steady stream of slimy hit pieces for the benefit of the Obama administration and the far left.

    Soros apparently believes that only left-wing billionaires should be able to participate in public discourse, so his Center for American Progress, through its web site, has carried on a bizarre vendetta against Charles and David Koch and their company, Koch Industries. The Kochs are two of the very few billionaires who are active in politics on the conservative/libertarian side, a phenomenon that apparently drives left-wing billionaires wild with rage. I’m not sure why; maybe they think the Kochs are traitors to their class. In any event,Think Progress has stalked the Koch brothers with video cameras and produced one false, over-the-top attack on the Kochs after another, some of which we have had fun dissecting here.

    Continue reading at Powerline.

  • Charles G. Koch: Why Koch Industries is speaking out

    In today’s Wall Street Journal, Charles G. Koch, who is chairman of the board and CEO of Koch Industries, writes that economic freedom — not government spending and intervention — leads to prosperity and economic well-being for all, even for our poorest citizens.

    Koch describes an “economic crisis” of increased spending and debt, at both the federal and state levels. The spending cuts currently being considered by Congress, he says, are “relatively minor,” with few proposals for necessary cuts to military and entitlement programs. He describes Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker as someone who takes seriously the challenge of controlling government spending.

    Mismanagement of our finances by both Democrats and Republicans, along with their and President Obama’s refusal to tackle the problem of existing debt and the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, means we are looking at “looming bankruptcy,” Koch writes.

    On the relationship between government and business, Koch writes that too many business firms have practiced “crony capitalism”: lobbying for special favors, subsidies, and regulations to keep competitors — who may be more efficient — out of the way.

    While it’s more difficult than practicing cronyism, competing in open markets assures that firms that efficiently provide goods and services that consumers demand are the companies that thrive, Koch writes. It is these efficient firms that raise our standard of living. When politically-favored firms are propped up and bailed out, our economy is weakened: “Subsidizing inefficient jobs is costly, wastes resources, and weakens our economy.”

    He concludes: “I am confident that businesses like ours will hire more people and invest in more equipment when our country’s financial future looks more promising. Laying the groundwork for smaller, smarter government, especially at the federal level, is going to be tough. But it is essential for getting us back on the path to long-term prosperity.”

    Why Koch Industries Is Speaking Out

    Crony capitalism and bloated government prevent entrepreneurs from producing the products and services that make people’s lives better.

    By Charles G. Koch

    Years of tremendous overspending by federal, state and local governments have brought us face-to-face with an economic crisis. Federal spending will total at least $3.8 trillion this year — double what it was 10 years ago. And unlike in 2001, when there was a small federal surplus, this year’s projected budget deficit is more than $1.6 trillion.

    Several trillions more in debt have been accumulated by state and local governments. States are looking at a combined total of more than $130 billion in budget shortfalls this year. Next year, they will be in even worse shape as most so-called stimulus payments end.

    For many years, I, my family and our company have contributed to a variety of intellectual and political causes working to solve these problems. Because of our activism, we’ve been vilified by various groups. Despite this criticism, we’re determined to keep contributing and standing up for those politicians, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who are taking these challenges seriously.

    Both Democrats and Republicans have done a poor job of managing our finances. They’ve raised debt ceilings, floated bond issues, and delayed tough decisions.

    Continue reading at The Wall Street Journal (subscription not required)

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Sunday February 27, 2011

    Boeing tanker contract. While almost everyone in Kansas is celebrating the award of the air fueling tanker replacement contract to Boeing, there are a few reasons we shouldn’t over-celebrate. First, we bought an expensive war weapon. This is guns, not butter. President Dwight Eisenhower warned against the creation of a permanent armaments industry. Now our leaders celebrate defense spending as a jobs creation program, forgetting the opportunity costs of this spending. … In 2008, when the contract was awarded to the foreign company European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. (EADS) and Boeing successfully protested the award, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal correctly analyzed the politics: “What’s really going on is a familiar scrum for federal cash, with politicians from Washington and Kansas using nationalism as cover for their pork-barreling.” The article correctly stated the goal of the contract: “The Pentagon’s job is to defend the country, which means letting contracts that best serve American soldiers and taxpayers, not certain companies.” Noting the aging fleet of tankers the contract would replace, and that the protest by Boeing would delay receiving them, the Journal concluded “Protectionists in Congress want to make America’s soldiers wait even longer for this new equipment, all to score political points at home. There’s a word for that, but it’s not patriotism.” … Of the contract awarded this week, the Journal wrote: “The military and Capitol Hill proved so good at fouling up this decade-long contest through political meddling, fake patriotism and sheer incompetence that a clean resolution may be near impossible.” Noting the international nature of manufacturing, the article wrote: “Boeing and Airbus each would have employed about 50,000 Americans to build up to 179 aerial refueling tankers.” Concluding: “The law tells the Defense Department to buy the best hardware at the best price on the global marketplace, regardless of any impact on domestic job creation. The fuel tanker debacle has undermined a competitive and open market for defense purchases free of political pressure. The losers are American taxpayers and soldiers.”

    Kansas Economic Freedom Index. This week I produced the first version of the Kansas Economic Freedom Index: Who votes for and against economic freedom in Kansas? for the 2011 legislative session. Currently I have a version only for the House of Representatives, as the Senate hasn’t made many votes that affect economic freedom. The index now has its own site, kansaseconomicfreedom.com.

    Elections this week. On Tuesday voters across Kansas will vote in city and school board primary elections. Well, at least a few will vote, as it is thought that only nine percent of eligible voters will actually vote. Many of those may have already voted by now, as advance voting is popular. For those who haven’t yet decided, here’s the Wichita Eagle voter guide.

    Civility is lost on the Wisconsin protesters. Lost not only in Wisconsin, but across the country, writes Michelle Malkin in Washington Examiner. “President Obama’s new era of civility was over before it began. You wouldn’t know it from reading The New York Times, watching Katie Couric or listening to the Democratic manners police. But America has been overrun by foul-mouthed, fist-clenching wildebeests. Yes, the Tea Party Movement is responsible — for sending these liberal goons into an insane rage, that is. After enduring two years of false smears as sexist, racist, homophobic barbarians, it is grassroots conservatives and taxpayer advocates who have been ceaselessly subjected to rhetorical projectile vomit. It is Obama’s rank-and-file “community organizers” on the streets fomenting the hate against their political enemies. Not the other way around.” … Malkin details the viciousness of some of the political activity across the country, some of which is especially demeaning to minorities — and women, as we’ve seen in Kansas this week.

    Help Wisconsin Governor Walker. Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity explains what’s happening in Wisconsin: “Governor Walker is simply repairing the Wisconsin budget by reining in the overly generous pension and benefits packages that are far beyond what people in the private sector receive. He’s also ending the government union collective bargaining that has been the chief reason why union benefits and pensions have gotten so out of control.” … Phillips recommends supporting Walker by signing a petition stating: “Union dues should be voluntary, and the state should not be in the business of collecting them. Union certification should require a secret ballot. Collective bargaining should not be used to force extravagant pension and health benefits that cripple state budgets. These common-sense reforms have made the union bosses desperate to disrupt Wisconsin government and overturn an election. They must not be allowed to succeed. In fact, every state should adopt Governor Scott Walker’s common sense reforms.” Click on Stand With Walker to express your support.

    Wichita city council. On Tuesday the Wichita City Council will take up these matters: First, the council will decide on a policy regarding soliciting charitable contributions at street intersections. Then, the council will decided whether to create a Community Improvement District for the Eastgate Shopping Center. While the council has enthusiastically granted other applicants this privilege of setting their own sales tax policy for their own benefit — and has voted against meaningful disclosure of this to potential shoppers — this CID may not pass. The Wichita Eagle has editorialized against this CID in particular — twice. Vice Mayor Jeff Longwell voted against accepting the petitions for this CID, although he did not explain his lone dissenting vote. … Then Chrome Plus, a manufacturer, seeks forgiveness from paying property taxes under the city’s Economic Development Exemption (EDX) Program. … In the consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a payment of $235,000 to settle a lawsuit over “damages incurred in an accident between a Wichita Transit bus and a pedestrian in December 2008.”

  • Koch executives respond to fraudulent call

    This week a prankster called Wisconsin governor Scott Walker and pretended to be David Koch, who is executive vice president of Koch Industries.

    Responding to the fraudulent call in National Review Online, Koch executives pledged to continue supporting free enterprise, free markets, and economic freedom in spite of opposition generated as part of an “orchestrated campaign” headed by the Obama Administration and groups like Center for American Progress. Bringing in labor groups is an escalation not seen before. The prank call is described as “fraudulent.”

    Koch Executives Speak Out on Wisconsin

    “We will not step back at all.”
    By Robert Costa

    Madison, Wis. — Earlier this week, a blogger impersonating industrialist David Koch spoke with Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who is attempting to pass a budget-repair bill. The conversation between Walker and the poseur, which was recorded, has received heavy media attention and turned the national spotlight onto the political activities of Koch Industries, a private, Wichita-based company with diverse holdings.

    In interviews with National Review Online, Koch executives responded to the incident and pledged to “not stop” supporting free-enterprise initiatives, even as opponents attempt to sully the Koch name and the groups that brothers David and Charles Koch, the company’s co-owners, support. They also noted that David Koch and the governor have never met or spoken.

    Continue reading at National Review Online.

  • Kansas Economic Freedom Index released

    Today marks the release of the first Kansas Economic Freedom Index for the 2011 legislative session. To view the index, click on Kansas Economic Freedom Index.

    Why is economic freedom important? Here’s what Milton Friedman had to say in the opening chapter of his monumental work Capitalism and Freedom:

    The Relation between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom

    It is widely believed that politics and economics are separate and largely unconnected; that individual freedom is a political problem and material welfare an economic problem; and that any kind of political arrangements can be combined with any kind of economic arrangements. The chief contemporary manifestation of this idea is the advocacy of “democratic socialism” by many who condemn out of hand the restrictions on individual freedom imposed by “totalitarian socialism” in Russia, and who are persuaded that it is possible for a country to adopt the essential features of Russian economic arrangements and yet to ensure individual freedom through political arrangements. The thesis of this chapter is that such a view is a delusion, that there is an intimate connection between economics and politics, that only certain arrangements are possible and that, in particular, a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom.

    Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.

    Resources on economic freedom:
    Wikipedia article on economic freedom
    Milton Friedman, the Father of Economic Freedom

  • Kansas auto dealers have anti-competitive law on their side

    In Topeka, a new car dealer wants to add the Buick and GMC lines to its dealership. In Wichita, an RV dealer wants to add an additional location. But if a privileged class of people are able to persuade the Kansas director of vehicles, these actions won’t be allowed.

    In Kansas, like many states, existing new car dealers are able to weigh in as to whether competition will be allowed into their market areas. In Kansas, the statue is 8-2430, captioned “Establishment of additional or relocation of existing new vehicle dealer; procedure; relevant market area.”

    Examination of this statute lets us learn of its anti-competitive nature. A person proposing a new dealership must state in writing why the new dealership should be allowed to be formed. The law requires that the applicant provide “a short and plain statement of the evidence the licensee, or proposed licensee, intends to rely upon in meeting the burden of proof for establishing good cause for an additional new vehicle dealer.”

    If the director of vehicles holds a hearing and finds that “good cause has not been established,” the director shall deny the application, according to the statute. The burden of proof is on the applicant for the new license, and must be proved “by a preponderance of the evidence presented.”

    The statute says that in determining whether there is good cause for a new dealer, the director of vehicles shall consider:

    • “permanency of the investment of both the existing and proposed new vehicle dealers”
    • growth in population
    • “effect on the consuming public in the relevant market area”
    • “whether it is injurious or beneficial to the public welfare for an additional new vehicle dealer to be established”
    • whether dealers of the same make of cars are “providing adequate competition and convenient customer care”
    • whether the proposed new dealer would increase competition and if that increased competition would be “in the public interest”
    • the effect of a new dealer on existing dealer(s)

    The decision of the director is not limited to these considerations, says the statute. Some of these factors are so vague and open-ended that they give the director reason to deny a new license virtually at his discretion. Will a new dealer have an effect on an existing dealer? Sure. Licensed denied.

    These laws that restrain trade and competition are harmful to the consumer. In his recent book The Right to Earn a Living: Economic Freedom and the Law, author Timothy Sandefur discusses the Illinois Motor Vehicle Franchise Act, which has language similar to the Kansas law. He writes:

    Although cloaked in the language of public benefit, such laws are really private-interest legislation designed to allow the government to choose each company’s “fair share” of the trade. But the only way of determining what share of the trade is “fair” for any business is its success with consumers who are free to choose. If bureaucrats, rather than consumers, decide what amount of economic success is “fair,” businesses will devote their time not to providing quality products at affordable prices but to wooing government officials to give them special favors. … Consumers, again, are victims of anti-competitive laws of which most of them are not even aware.

    Sandefur cites studies that show that states with laws like Kansas’ have fewer new-car dealerships, and higher prices for new cars. “This price difference means that consumers are forced to pay more for cars without getting any increased value; the extra money is merely transferred into the pockets of politically influential car dealers.”

    This law is bad for all Kansans except those who own automobile dealerships. It ought to be repealed.

    Ironically, the notice of the two dealers’ proposals is contained in this week’s issue of the Kansas Register. The very next page holds the text of Kansas Governor Brownback’s Executive Order 11-01, which creates the “Office of the Repealer.” In its preamble, the order recognizes the administration’s priority to promote “growth of liberty and economic opportunities for the citizens of Kansas and for Kansas businesses” and our state’s “mutual interest in a system of government, laws, regulations, and other governing instruments that are reasonable, comprehensible, consistent, predictable, and minimally burdensome.”

    I suggest to the repealer — Dennis Taylor is his name — that we’ve found the law that should be first to go by the wayside.

  • Koch Industries: Jobs created through market principles

    Now that President Barack Obama has embraced job creation in his 2011 State of the Union Address, he might want to take a look at a company that has been successful in creating both jobs and value for its customers. Wichita-based Koch Industries Inc. has done this through an application of market-based practices as described in The Science of Success: How Market-Based Management Built the World’s Largest Private Company, a 2007 book authored by company CEO Charles G. Koch. Koch’s approach has been successful. Since 1960, the value of Koch Industries Inc. has increased faster than the value of the broad-based S&P index of the 500 largest U.S. companies by a factor of 16 times.

    Charles and David Koch also believe in free markets and economic freedom as the best way to promote prosperity for all people, and they have long supported organizations that work towards this goal.

    But not everyone agrees with Charles and David Koch and their free-market approach to creating jobs, value, and prosperity. Recently they have come under baseless attack by the liberal activist group Common Cause for an alleged attempt to influence two U.S. Supreme Court justices. But as shown in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, Common Cause’s complaint is based on incorrect facts, even a total disregard for facts, and is totally groundless. As the Journal notes: “Common Cause’s letter to the Justice Department is just the latest salvo in a long campaign by left-wing groups to intimidate conservative judges, academics and activists.” Fortunately for the cause of freedom, Charles and David Koch do not shrink back from these attacks.

    Recently the Wichita Eagle profiled Koch Industries Inc. and how the company’s growth supports over 50,000 jobs in the U.S. and 17,000 overseas. When ripple effects are counted, the job count is at over 203,000 in the U.S. A reprint of the Eagle article is available at Koch cautious in acquiring other businesses.

  • Arts funding in Kansas

    Arts funding by the State of Kansas has been in the news recently, as Governor Sam Brownback has proposed that the state stop funding the Kansas Arts Commission. This is a good move, as Kansas would be better off without state-funded art for two reasons: economic and artistic.

    The economic case for government art funding

    Supporters of government art funding make the case that government-funded art is good for business and the economy. They have an impressive-looking study titled Arts & Economic Prosperity III: The Economic Impact of the Nonprofit Arts and Culture Industry in the State of Kansas, which makes the case that “communities that invest in the arts reap the additional benefit of jobs, economic growth, and a quality of life that positions those communities to compete in our 21st century creative economy.”

    I read this report in 2007 when it was first used to promote government funding of arts in Wichita. Its single greatest defect is that it selectively ignores the secondary effects of government spending on the arts.

    As an example, the report concludes that the return on dollars spent on the arts is “a spectacular 7-to-1 return on investment that would even thrill Wall Street veterans.” It hardly merits mention that there aren’t legitimate investments that generate this type of return in any short time frame. If these returns were in fact true and valid, we should invest more — not less — in the arts. But as we shall see, these returns are not valid in any meaningful economic sense.

    Where do these fabulous returns come from? Here’s a passage from the report that government art spending promoters rely on:

    A theater company purchases a gallon of paint from the local hardware store for $20, generating the direct economic impact of the expenditure. The hardware store then uses a portion of the aforementioned $20 to pay the sales clerk’s salary; the sales clerk respends some of the money for groceries; the grocery store uses some of the money to pay its cashier; the cashier then spends some for the utility bill; and so on. The subsequent rounds of spending are the indirect economic impacts.

    Thus, the initial expenditure by the theater company was followed by four additional rounds of spending (by the hardware store, sales clerk, grocery store, and the cashier). The effect of the theater company’s initial expenditure is the direct economic impact. The subsequent rounds of spending are all of the indirect impacts. The total impact is the sum of the direct and indirect impacts.

    The fabulous returns erroneously attributed to spending on the arts derive from this chain of spending starting at the hardware store. But there’s a problem with this reasoning. It ignores the secondary effects of economic action. What the authors of this study fail to see is that anyone who buys a gallon of paint for any reason sets off the same chain of economic activity. There is no difference — except that a homeowner buying the paint is doing so voluntarily, while an arts organization using taxpayer-supplied money to buy the paint is using someone else’s money. Money, we might add, that is taken through the government’s power to tax.

    The study also pumps up the return on government spending on arts by noting all the other spending that arts patrons do on things like dinner before and desert after arts events. But if people kept their own money instead of being taxed to support the arts, they would spend this money on other things, and those things might include restaurant meals, too.

    This report — like most of its type that attempt to justify and promote government “investment” in someone’s pet program — focuses only on the benefits without considering secondary consequences or how these benefits are paid for. Henry Hazlitt, in his masterful book Economics in One Lesson explains:

    While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.

    It is, as Hazlitt terms it, “the special pleading of selfish interests” that drive much of the desire for government spending on the arts. Government-funded arts advocates can promote their case with economic fallacies all they want, but in the end that’s what their case relies on: “the special pleading of selfish interests.” You can see an example of this type of campaign by visiting the Kansas Arts Commission.

    No government art means better art

    Arts organizations need to survive on their own merits. They need to produce a product or service that satisfies their customers and patrons just as any other business or human endeavor must. This is especially true and important with something so personal as art. David Boaz, in his book The Politics of Freedom: Taking on The Left, The Right and Threats to Our Liberties writes this in a chapter titled “The Separation of Art and State”:

    It is precisely because art has power, because it deals with basic human truths, that it must be kept separate from government. Government, as I noted earlier, involves the organization of coercion. In a free society coercion should be reserved only for such essential functions of government as protecting rights and punishing criminals. People should not be forced to contribute money to artistic endeavors that they may not approve, nor should artists be forced to trim their sails to meet government standards.

    Government funding of anything involves government control. That insight, of course, is part of our folk wisdom: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” “Who takes the king’s shilling sings the king’s song.”

    Government art. Is this not a sterling example of an oxymoron? Must government weasel its way into every aspect of our lives? And the fact that government arts funding means tax dollars taken through coercion — don’t the government arts promoters realize this? How better to crush the human spirit — the same spirit that the arts are meant to uplift and enrich.

    Government arts funding means that artists and arts organizations are distanced from their customers. Instead of having to continuously meet the test of the market, they must please government bureaucrats and politicians to get their funding. Instead of producing what the great unwashed mass of people want, they produce what they think will get government funding.

    Without government funding, organizations that provide culture and art will have to satisfy their customers by providing products that people really want. That is, products that people are willing to pay for themselves, not what people say they want when someone else is paying the bill. With government funding, these organizations don’t have to face the discipline of the market. They can largely ignore what their customers really want. They can provide what they think their customers want, or, as I suspect is the case, what they believe the people of Kansas should want, if only we were as enlightened as the elitists that staff arts commissions.

    Without the discipline of the market, arts organizations will never know how their customers truly value their product. The safety net of government funding allows them to escape this reality. We have seen this many times in Wichita and Sedgwick County, as organizations fail to generate enough revenue to cover their costs, only to be bailed out by the government. Other businesses learn very quickly what their customers really want — that is, what their customers are willing to pay for — or they go out of business. That’s the profit and loss system. It provides all the feedback we need to determine whether an organization is meeting its customers’ desires. The arts are no different.

    Some say that without government support there wouldn’t be any arts or museums. They say that art shouldn’t be subject to the harsh discipline of markets. Personally, I believe there is little doubt that art improves our lives. If we had more art and music, I feel we would have a better state. But asking government commissions to judge how much art and which art we should have is not the way to provide it. Instead, let the people tell us, through the mechanism of markets, what art and culture they really want.

    It might turn out that what people want is different than from what government arts commission members believe the people should want. Would that be a surprise? Not to me. In the name of the people, we should disband government arts councils and government funding and let people decide on their own — without government intervention — how to spend their personal arts budgets on what they really value.

    (The material by David Boaz is from a speech which may be read here: The Separation of Art and State.)