Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economics, Education, Environment, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Freedom, History, Immigration, Law, Middle East, Military, National Security, Politics, The United States | Tags: Free Markets / Free People, The Decline and Fall of Liberalism, Victor Davis Hanson
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economics, Economy, Election 2016, Energy, European Union, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Freedom, History, Immigration, Iran, Law, National Security, Progressivism, Regulation, Taxes, Terrorism, The Constitution | Tags: Free Markets / Free People, Regulation and Control, Separation of Powers
“This is the most important election of my lifetime,” unfortunately, that is a statement you hear in every election. But then, sometimes, it’s true. So do we worry most about — ISIS? The plight of Europe as they can increasingly not cope with the flood of migrants, many of whom are ISIS fighters? Or do we worry about terrorist attacks in our own country? Is it the Zika Virus? Or is it the economy which after over seven and-a half long years has shown little sign of a real recovery. This is really not the new normal.
Republicans are more apt to recall what they learned in school about separation of powers and federalism. Democrats have decided that they are far more interested in controlling the peoople, and that is a problem.
President Obama has maintained a steady course of increasing new regulations, more spending on”infrastructure,” more spending on the chimera of global warming, and through his unconstitutional executive actions, he has backed federal mandates on business, closed a lot of small businesses, increased taxes and in the strange interest of making America just one among the many countries of the world, made America weak. And then there’s the Iran Deal.
The executive actions are a big problem. All presidents do some, but President Obama has carried it to an extreme, and Congress has found it hard to cope. This is the first time we have had a president, schooled by Saul Alinsky, determined to change the country to something that is more in line with his personal vision of social justice, and unconcerned with following custom or the rules.
Republicans are inclined to believe that there is no such thing as “social” justice — that justice is what is embodied in our courts, our body of laws, our Constitution and the constitutions of the several states.
Democrats have had a degree of success with “social justice” and the associated ideas of an unjust minimum wage, income inequality, racial injustice, “white privilege,” a War on Cops, excessive incarceration of black perpetrators, too many blacks in prison, thousands of Syrian “refugees” who cannot be vetted are put ahead of those who have waited patiently in line as legal immigrants, and of course “crumbling roads and bridges.” You will notice that most of these are rallying cries in the Democrat campaign.
I continually get the sense that Democrats operate with talking points handed down, and thus do not have to study issues, read, or think seriously about history or the world, or about whether their issues are right or workable or even make sense. Or maybe that’s just Hillary.
They seem to be fixated on an improved version of socialism that will be socially just, totally different from all those other socialisms, and will fix all the dreadful problems of America — as it is. They find the old buildings and their peeling paint and the antique cars in Havana charming, and can’t get it through their heads that it is “charming” because that’s all they have. They completely ignore the devastation in Venezuela where the people are dying from lack of the simplest medicines, and plain starvation. They broke into the zoo to kill a horse to eat, but the animals in the zoo are starving to death too.
Hillary wants to raise taxes on the rich, who already pay most of the taxes, and on corporations, capital gains, death taxes and stock transactions, without the slightest understanding that will simply deliver more stagnant growth, falling wages and declining productivity. But then, that’s what her economic plan promises. More of Obama’s “success.”
What makes economies grow and prosper are free markets and free people who can work to come up with new ideas and bring them to fruition in their garage or small town or big city. Freedom works small and big miracles every day. Tried and tested for 240 years.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Freedom, Politics, Progressivism | Tags: Economist Milton Friedman, Free Markets / Free People, What Free Trade Means
This is a classic long (48 min.) lecture by Milton Friedman from 1978, in which he explains free trade and tariffs, how they work, why we get confused, trade deficits and government interference. There’s a long section where the film is bad (in the original) with snow/static/ interference early in the film, but it clears up fairly promptly at about 20.42 and remains clear for the remainder of the video. You can still hear Milton Friedman perfectly well throughout. Take notes. Play again until you feel confident that you have it down.
Here’s another, in which Milton Friedman debates a protectionist. It’s from January 2012, and is between Milton Friedman, Michael Walker, and Steven Cohen, from the “Time to Choose”series. This one is just over 15 minutes long.
Our politicians are just ordinary human beings like the rest of us, and they get just as many nutty ideas as we do. Many of the Republicans who are as yet uncomfortable with Donald Trump, are because of his misunderstanding of the Trade issue. Many assume that a “trade deficit” is a bad thing, but do not recognize that the excess dollars we pay for a large quantity of stuff from another country must be invested in the United States. This is not to suggest that there are not some very bad deals, but free trade is the goal.
Filed under: Capitalism, Freedom | Tags: Capitalism, Free Enterprise, Free Markets / Free People
Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute, economist, and french horn player, gives a short class in Capitalism, always a worthy endeavor. Free enterprise works to lift people all over the world out of poverty.
Filed under: Capitalism, Communism, Cuba, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Latin America | Tags: Free Markets / Free People, No Change in Communism, Raul Castro: "We Won!"
President Raúl Castro, Fidel’s little brother, declared victory for the Cuban Revolution in a televised speech before Parliament and a group of favored guests —including Elián Gonzales (remember him?) — reaffirming that any restored relations with the United States did not mean any change in Communist rule in Cuba. He added “We won the war.”
Obama didn’t check in with any of the Cuban community here or with the Cubans who are fighting for freedom in Cuba. They are pretty unanimous in saying that the way Obama has gone about this is a major mistake. The Ladies in White who march in support of political prisoners each week in a major display of courage, said “betrayal” and didn’t understand why Obama had gone back on his statement that “significant steps toward democracy” must precede any liberalization.
As usual, Obama does not learn from history. Engagement does not necessarily promote freedom — see China, Vietnam, and increasingly less freedom in those countries.
In an official announcement in the state newspaper Gramma. government officials announced a system in which employees of corporations with foreign capital will be paid two Cuban Pesos for every Convertible Cuban Peso (CUP) which are used exclusively for tourists and is the equivalent of an American dollar and 26.5 Cuban Pesos. The 24 Cuban Pesos that workers will NOT receive amount to 92% of their salaries. So 92% of the value of Cubans’ work will go to prop up the Communist state. How that is supposed to be an important entry in the history books for Mr. Obama is not clear.
Cuba’s major benefactors —Russia and Venezuela — are in deep trouble from the declining price of oil. The current price is far below their ‘break-even’ point. Some Conservatives welcome the change in policy, believing that free trade will make great changes in Cuba. Raúl Castro doesn’t think so. “Once they see better goods and services” they say, but at roughly 67¢ a day in income Cubans cannot buy “better goods.” I don’t know what they have to trade. Reportedly, even their cigars aren’t that good any more.
Will Cuba suddenly allow their people to travel to the U.S.? Not likely. Any visitors to the U.S would be likely to seek asylum. The Cuban Adjustment Act says that any Cuban who is granted parole into the U.S. may, after one year apply for adjustment to permanent resident status. In the past every Cuban who made it here got parole and a green card.
I firmly believe in free markets and free people — but the “free” part seems to be completely missing here.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Liberalism, Politics, Regulation, Taxes | Tags: America's Corporate Taxes, Free Markets / Free People, World's Highest
Democrats are not happy with President Obama, and they are trying desperately to change the subject from things like ISIS, and Russia, and foreign policy in general, ObamaCare, immigration, the miserable economy, and jobs, and jobs and jobs.
Their natural inclination is to focus on those things which arouse people’s passions, so naturally they are freaking out about Burger King’s plans to merge with Tim Horton’s Canadian coffee and donut chain and move to Canada. “Economic Patriotism” they cry, and moral panic and sheer rage that an American business would consider relocating for the simple reason of paying taxes. Obviously it’s time for my favorite quote from Walter Wriston:
Capital will go where it is wanted and stay
where it is well treated. It will flee from manipulation
or onerous regulation of its value or use and no
government power can restrain it for long.
The business of business is to make a profit. Liberals always want to impose other rules on business. They are deeply suspicious of the whole idea of profits. They are outraged at CEO salaries. Proper people work in service jobs, like government, or for foundations, or righteous causes or universities. Liberals are really quite conflicted about business. They were outraged by the Citizens United decision. And even more so by Mitt Romney’s claim that corporations are just people. On the other hand, they get enthusiastic support from some businesses like Google, or Facebook, but that’s different.
The problem isn’t just that America has the highest corporate taxes in the world, but that America collects taxes on the income earned in other countries., though those other countries collect taxes as well. Because they distrust business in general, Liberals have little hesitation in finding new and better ways to tax business.
Total tax costs are 46.4% lower in Canada than in the U.S. Is it really a surprise that Burger Kind wants to move there? Burger King would still pay their full taxes on income earned in the U.S. but their taxes on income earned in Canada would be taxed at Canadian rates.
The number one issue among American voters is unsurprisingly — jobs. If you vigorously try to maximize the taxes that American businesses pay, they will hire fewer people. If you raise taxes on business, they raise the cost of the goods or services they sell, or reduce their expenses, by cutting the number of people they employ.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Law, Politics, Regulation, Taxes | Tags: Big Isn't Better, Free Markets / Free People, Too Many Cooks...
Politicians keep debating the size of government. Republicans believe that government tries to do way too much, and that government is not very good at the things it does try to do. Democrats are inclined to believe that government needs to do more to alleviate the problems of society.
The recovery from “the Great Recession” has been sluggish at best, and way too many people have left the labor force. To encourage growth, the Obama administration relies on government action: the latest is manufacturing hubs, and it has been infrastructure projects, crumbling roads and bridges, wind farms and solar arrays, job training programs, and they have all done little to change the unemployment rate, or significantly increase the labor force. But the belief in government action to change and improve society remains firm.
Over the years, economists have measured the effect of the size of government on economic growth and social outcomes like life expectancy, infant mortality, homicide rates, educational attainment and student reading proficiency. One recent addition to the studies of the result of government size comes from a study published by Canada’s Fraser Institute, entitled “Measuring Government in the 21st Century” by Canadian economist and university professor Livio Di Matteo.
Di Mateo’s analysis confirms a large body of empirical research examining the relationship between the size of government and economic outcomes. Canada’s recent retrenchment is an example of a country shrinking government without a trade-off in economic and social outcomes.
When governments focus their spending on basic, needed services like the protection of property. His findings also demonstrate that there is a tipping point at which more government actually hinders economic growth and fails to contribute to social progress in any meaningful way. Di Mateo examines international data and finds that, after controlling for disparate factors, annual per capita GDP growth rates start to decline when government spending consumes 26 percent of the economy. Economic growth rates start to decline when government spending exceeds this level. Government spending becomes unproductive when it goes to things like corporate subsides, overly generous wages, overly generous benefits for government employees, and crony capitalism.
According to data from the OECD, the size of government in the United States was approximately 40 percent of GDP in 2012, Which suggests that a smaller size of government than we currently have would translate into higher annual economic growth.
Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Election 2014, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Health Care, National Security, Regulation, Taxes, The United States | Tags: Big-Tent Conservatism, Free Markets / Free People, United We Stand
[American Elephant adds: While I wrote the paragraph quoted from our “About” page, I did not write this post and do not agree with the insulting characterization of the Tea Party.]
If you have ever clicked on the “ABOUT” line in the sidebar, it says :
American Elephants is the internet home of big-tent conservatism — black, white, brown, gay, straight, Christian, Jew or Hindu — it takes elephants of all persuasions, united, to beat back the liberal clowns and lead the circus of politics. So, ladies and gentlemen! Children of all ages! Step right up and come on in under the Big Top!
I have no story about my magical conversion from a youthful romance with the Democratic party, I have always been a Republican. In fact, I’m a 4th generation Republican, one of my great-grandfathers wrote around 1860 that he “was a quiet but interested member of the Republican Party.”
“Republican” is a term in current disfavor, Liberals have gone to great lengths to call us racist, bigots, mean, uncaring, racists, and now “conservative” is the preferred term. My party registration remains the same. The “Big Tent” part has lapsed into disfavor among many Republicans as the Tea Party people are furious with the Republicans in Congress because they haven’t taken down the Democrats, impeached the president, and denied funding to ObamaCare. Business interests are furious with the Tea Party because of their encouragement for shutting down the government, and opposition to increased immigration. Libertarians keep complaining about the regulatory state, and want more conversation about liberty — personal and economic. Republicans disagree about a lot of things, but they also agree about most of the really important ones.
Democrats apparently agree about everything, They even agree in exactly the same words, so one must assume that “the words” are passed down from a particular source, probably the Center for American Progress, the home of those who now want to be called ‘progressives’ instead of ‘liberals’ because ‘liberal’ has become somewhat out-of-favor word. Since they are well-informed by the left-wing media, they scrupulously avoid anything that might question their certainties, which makes it hard to find ways to compromise with opponents.
There is a lot on which Republicans agree. Free markets, free people, respect for the Constitution, support for the military, small government, avoiding over-regulation, low taxes, balanced budgets, fiscal conservatism — a very partial list. But some are neglecting what is meant by a big tent. The Founding Fathers put together a government where the process was meant to be slow so that all sides could be heard and disagreements fully aired. Individuals have their own opinions. Expecting everyone else to agree, or attempting to drum out of the party those who do not agree is a recipe for disaster. Concentrate on the areas of agreement, and support those who agree most of the time.
I agree with the Tea Party. I think the Obama administration is the most incompetent and corrupt administration that we have ever had. I agree with the Libertarians that big government and the administrative state are way out of control, and that Americans are perfectly capable of managing their own affairs without government interference. I agree with business that over-regulation and uncertainty are devastating to business; and if we want a recovery we need to remove the barriers we put in the way of business. There is no reason in the world why America should have the world’s highest corporate tax. Corporations don’t pay taxes, they pass them through to consumers in the price of their goods. No candidate is going to be perfect. We are human, a quarrelsome, flawed species, and we are not going to agree on everything. Don’t expect perfection. If we are going to win, we need everybody in the big tent.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Freedom, Law, Politics, Regulation, Taxes | Tags: Democrat Control Freaks, Free Markets / Free People, Unchanging Upward Mobility
The upward path of income mobility is not always smooth, and not always easy, but for anyone who is determined, it has changed little in the last 50 years. You may get lots of help or have to do it all on your own, but the path is there and open. Freedom is the key.
This year Lyndon Baines Johnson’s “War on Poverty” is fifty years old, and a failure. Unlike today’s Democrats, Johnson was quite explicit on what he intended. The purpose of the “war on poverty” was to make “taxpayers out of taxeaters,” and the slogan was “Give a hand up, not a handout.” He declared “The days of the dole in our country are numbered.” 50 years and trillions of dollars later, there is more dependency than ever. Ironically, dependence on government had been declining since 1960 and was only half of what it had been in 1950. It started up again with the War on Poverty.
In the State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Obama is expected to make income inequality— as measured by the Census Bureau— the centerpiece of his speech. He is unlikely to mention that income inequality has increased more on his watch than it did under any of the three previous presidents. The policies that he is pushing have provided few benefits to those they are supposed to help. Redistribution, raising taxes on the rich would seem like it would help, but Clinton raised taxes and inequality went up. Bush cut taxes and inequality was unchanged during his term in office.
Raising the minimum wage is popular with those who believe that the minimum wage is just not enough to support a family — but that’s not what the minimum wage is supposed to do. It is supposed to be a beginner wage where inexperienced people can learn how to work. It is often called an Unemployment Act for young people — who are usually the ones who get minimum wage jobs. It does not reduce inequality. The minimum wage climbed 21% under Clinton, and inequality also climbed. The unemployment rate among black youth is a disgraceful 60%.
Obama has proposed setting up “Promise Zones” in economically distressed areas that will get federal help and some tax breaks. This is not new, but a variation on the enterprise zone program which had no effect on job or business creation. Obama’s favorite is college aid, but federal aid has exploded in recent years, and encourages increases in tuition. Business wants more immigration, but increased numbers are not good for those struggling at the bottom. The CBO found that the Senate immigration bill would depress the overall average wage for the first ten years.
If there is one thing that most defines the Obama administration, it is the push for control. New regulations are pictured by the large stacks of paper that represent new pages in the Federal Register. The most obvious difference between Democrats and Republicans is the degree of control imposed on ordinary Americans. Republicans believe firmly in free people and free markets. They assume that ordinary people are mostly perfectly capable of managing their own affairs.
Democrats believe that people need to be managed. It’s more that they believe that the wise people who work in government are much more capable of doing the right thing, and telling others what to do. Ordinary people cling to their bibles and guns (yes he actually said that), and need regulating. It can be called the totalitarian impulse. It begins with banning Big Gulp drinks, banning trans-fats, banning incandescent lightbulbs, and extends to managing your health care, your communication, and soon to extend to managing the energy you use. Progressives believe that the world can be improved if they just control every aspect of your life. It’s not meant to be really noticeable. A ban on plastic bags here, a fee to visit a park, you cannot see your usual doctor — he’s not on the list, The little annoyances mount up until one day you wake up and realize just how intrusive the government has become.
Upward mobility is still there. The one thing you need to remember when presented with scary statistics about unemployment, inequality or economic mobility is that these are not the same people over time.
“Income inequality” sounds bad, but how do you make people equal? And is that a good thing? I don’t think so. The control freaks in government decided that we should not have electricity produced by coal-fired power plants. That has added thousands of people to the unemployment rolls. The government has invested millions in favored businesses like solar panels and wind farms, and the few that have not faced bankruptcy have only raised the cost of our energy. Government efforts to pick winners and losers result in failure. The American people are perfectly capable of managing their own affairs without government help. If the government would just stop “helping”, things might turn around.
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Freedom, Politics, Regulation, Taxes, The United States | Tags: Economic Freedom, Free Markets / Free People, The Business Roundtable
Randal Stephenson is chairman and CEO of AT&T Inc, and the new chairman of the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies. He wrote, in the Wall Street Journal today:
No matter the topic, the debate in Washington often comes down to whether we need more government funding for social programs or less spending to reduce the debt we leave our children. But this win-lose framing completely misses the one thing required to achieve both objectives: robust economic growth.
The simple fact is that if we want to control the deficit, preserve key entitlement programs, educate our children, grow jobs, and offer upward economic mobility for everyone, we have to get our economy growing faster.
To that end, the Business Roundtable, whose member companies generate annual revenues of more than $7 trillion while employing 16 million workers, is embracing an agenda for 2014 centered on one thing—encouraging public policies that will return the U.S. to its full growth potential.
We need four basic elements, he says: Fiscal stability. Stop stumbling from one fiscal crisis to another. Uncertainty. Nobody can plan. Will U.S. default on its debt? Interest rates? Budget deal is a step in the right direction. Other three elements are 1) Tax reform. 2) Expanded trade. 3) Immigration reform.
A study in American Economic Review shows that a one-percentage point decrease in the average corporate tax rate would result in an increase in real U.S. GDP of between 0.4% — 0.6% within one year.
Today, one our of every five U.S. jobs is supported by international trade. NAFTA has been a dramatic success in our hemisphere.
They support immigration reform with a larger pool of visas for high-skilled workers, and new visa system for lower-skilled workers. I’ll go for that when a goodly percentage of the 91 million workers who have dropped out of the labor participation force. find work. These are people in the working age group, not retired or disabled, but simply working age people who have given up. They do not count as “unemployed” and receive no unemployment compensation.
The “shortage” of people trained in science, technology, engineering and math is largely a myth, and there are far more graduates than openings. I have read that business is reluctant to hire people who have been out of work for some time, on the assumption that if they were qualified they would not be unemployed. This may be true.
Business has little idea how to sort through job applicants, and high-tech companies have devised all sorts of elaborate tests to try to sort out those who will fit in. Anyone who has worked in business has met people who make you wonder how they possibly got hired. Unfortunately they sometimes occupy important positions, but that is true of any large organization, the larger, the worse the problem.
Economic growth is the remedy for poverty, inequality and unemployment. Growth fosters innovation and creativity, and the fuel for economic growth is freedom. Countries that pursue economic freedom get prosperity as a bonus.
According to the 2014 Index of Economic Freedom, just released by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, after seven straight years of decline, the U.S. has dropped out of the top 10 most economically free countries.
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Freedom, Law, Politics, Regulation | Tags: Federalism: States Rights, Free Markets / Free People, Local Control
It is easier to change regulations imposed by a community, a county, or a state than it is to deal with the federal leviathan. Not that it always works, but it is easier to see the results of regulations locally. And if the imposition of regulation is too dire, you can pick up and move to another state where the market and the people are more free.
The free enterprise system is the on-ramp to economic progress and rising incomes. A Heritage Foundation study on economic progress around the globe finds clear and compelling evidence that the poor are always and everywhere better off in those countries that are economically free countries than in nations that are not free. If we judge society by how well it serves the poor, then free enterprise is far and away the greatest anti-poverty program known to man. (Stephen Moore: Who’s The Fairest of Them All )
Filed under: Australia, Canada, Freedom, History, The United States, United Kingdom | Tags: Free Markets / Free People, Individual Liberty, The Anglosphere
In “Inventing Freedom”, Daniel Hannan reflects on the historical origin and spread of the principles that have made America great, and their role in creating a sphere of economic and political liberty that is as crucial as it is imperiled. Hannan argues that the ideas and institutions we consider essential to maintaining and preserving our freedoms — individual rights, private property, the rule of law, and the institutions of representative government — are the legacy of a very specific tradition that was born in England and that we Americans, along with other former British colonies, inherited.
American Elephants 