I submitted the following comment to the New York Times, article "A flimsy attack on clean air" but as far as I know it was not published.
"The Congress shall have the Power to...regulate Commerce...among the several States... U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.
Maybe the polluters have a case if ALL of their pollution stays within their own state. However to do so, they'll probably have to dam rivers and stop the winds. But since these flow into other states...
Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Monday, September 26, 2016
Paul Krugman's use of "free marketer"
I'm surprised the economist Paul Krugman is using "free market" as loosely as the so-called "free marketers" do. "Free market" too often means fewer and fewer sellers doing whatever they please. A true free market has many buyers and sellers, both buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market, both buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision, and all costs are paid for in the transaction.
How many independent pharmacies are there is our cities? You can probably count on one hand the corporate pharmacies.
How many situations like Epipen where the buyers are not really free to leave the market?
As to full information how much do the sellers know about you while fighting with dozens of lobbyists to hide information about their products. GMOs?
Externalities? These "free marketers" don't want the government to regulate worker safety and don't want government to regulate the pollutants from their smokestacks, farms, and mines going downwind or downstream.
Posted at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/opinion/progressive-family-values.html?comments#permid=19921473
How many independent pharmacies are there is our cities? You can probably count on one hand the corporate pharmacies.
How many situations like Epipen where the buyers are not really free to leave the market?
As to full information how much do the sellers know about you while fighting with dozens of lobbyists to hide information about their products. GMOs?
Externalities? These "free marketers" don't want the government to regulate worker safety and don't want government to regulate the pollutants from their smokestacks, farms, and mines going downwind or downstream.
Posted at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/opinion/progressive-family-values.html?comments#permid=19921473
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Conservatives conserve what?
This entry was triggered by Ross Douthat’s “Trumponomics Is Reform Conservatism’s Evil Twin”, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/opinion/campaign-stops/trumponomics-is-reform-conservatisms-evil-twin.html, New York Times, 2016-08-10.
Once again, a commentator uses “free market” without clearly defining what it means. And of course, they really never define what is being conserved.
“Free markets’ generally mean that corporations are free to do what they please, no government regulation, no interference from shareholders, and no unions.
The Constitution states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states. Isn’t contamination of rivers that flow into other states “commerce among the states”. Isn’t the smokestack pollution that goes into neighboring states “commerce among the states”.
But those conservatives who are so quick on the “patriotism” of
"limited government” quickly ignore the conservatism of carefully reading the Constitution. The Constitution has lots of checks and balances to have a fair government for all, but these “conservatives” only note those that fit their agenda. For example, they want legislators to attend “prayer breakfasts”. But isn’t the political pressure to attend a “prayer breakfast” a religious test for office, a test prohibited by the Constitution?
Once again, a commentator uses “free market” without clearly defining what it means. And of course, they really never define what is being conserved.
“Free markets’ generally mean that corporations are free to do what they please, no government regulation, no interference from shareholders, and no unions.
The Constitution states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states. Isn’t contamination of rivers that flow into other states “commerce among the states”. Isn’t the smokestack pollution that goes into neighboring states “commerce among the states”.
But those conservatives who are so quick on the “patriotism” of
"limited government” quickly ignore the conservatism of carefully reading the Constitution. The Constitution has lots of checks and balances to have a fair government for all, but these “conservatives” only note those that fit their agenda. For example, they want legislators to attend “prayer breakfasts”. But isn’t the political pressure to attend a “prayer breakfast” a religious test for office, a test prohibited by the Constitution?
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Corporations and governments: can’t have one without the other
Considering some of the shouting, one might think that politics has divided into two camps: government is bad and corporations are for the common good, or corporations are greedy and government is for the common good.
As too often is the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
First, let’s look at the similarities.
Corporations and governments are organized by people for a large number of reasons. The people who organize these entities do so to provide goods and services, to make money, to be famous, or to push certain views, both altruistic and selfish. Neither type of organization is any better than the people who run the organization. Success depends more on the leadership and the resources available than on the form. Success also depends on the circumstances of the time. If a large segment of the population is not interested in an idea, it will take a lot of effort to promote the idea, whether a new product or a new law. On the other hand, if a very large segment of the population is interested in an idea, somebody in corporations or government will be working overtime to fulfill the population’s wishes.
The big difference is that the corporations are run by the few and governments are run by the many, if the many show up and vote.
As many misinterpret Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”, many misinterpret Milton Friedman’s the only purpose of a corporation is to “increase profits”.
“[t]here is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud." - Milton Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”, The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970
Many interpret this as the only purpose of a corporation is to increase shareholder value. Unfortunately, they ignore “rules of the game” and “without deception or fraud”. But what is shareholder value? Is it a continued gain in stock price? Is it a continuous stream of increasing dividends? Or could it be the long-term provision of a good or service? For example, do investors want to create a product that could take years to bring to market? Do investors want to insure that medical services can be provided to a community for decades rather than maximize profits for the short-term and destroy the community long-term?
Many point to the problems of MNSure and ObamaCare as examples of government inefficiency. But guess who provided the computers and software for these health insurance programs? Private companies!
And private companies have not been known for efficient, trouble-free rollouts of new products. How many auto recalls are there every year? Has every computer program or system you purchased or downloaded been free of bugs? It seems every time I get a notice of an app update, the description includes “bug fixes”.
In the “bad old days” of mainframes, it was really a major milestone when a computer ran a whole day without a crash. Now things are much better. My laptop, which is more powerful than any mainframe I worked on, might go a whole week without some kind of frustrating error, including freezes.
MNSure and Obamacare are massive systems requiring massive co-ordination of many pieces. As we don’t give up on our computers, we shouldn’t give up on massive projects that don’t work perfectly on the first day.
"I'm as confident of this as I would be that when the first cars didn't work well, it wasn't time to return to horses and buggies; it was time to improve the cars. This is the new technology; there are kinks to it and it's going to take some time to work them out.”
Joel Ario, quoted in “Contractor’s report slams MNsure weaknesses, readiness”, Elizabeth Stawicki, MPRNews, 2014-06-18
Are you collecting Social Security? Is your check posted to your bank account on the promised day every month? But it was not always so. Like getting computers to not crash, the rollout of Social Security was not without glitches or without critics who claimed dire consequences. Like “nationalization of wheat fields would soon follow” and Americans would be reduced to passive servility. It would take forty years of tinkering to have ninety percent of Americans covered by Social Security.
See “What about Social Security’s rollout?” Bruce J. Schulman, 2013-10-29, Reuters
An interesting contrast to the call for less regulation and taxes is the call by some of the same people for government subsidy. How many stadiums for billionaires have been built without government subsidies? How many companies have chased after the best subsidies and tax breaks to determine the location of a new office or factory? Are these the same people who say government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers?
Consider the big howl from Congress when Solyndra collapsed. But nothing was said about the success of Tesla. Both received start-up subsidies from the Federal government. Tesla paid its loans back! Also among those who received subsidies were Compaq, Intel, and Apple. Now Apple is the largest company in the world in capitalization! And looking for ways to avoid paying back its benefactor through taxes.
For a lot more on how government has fostered many other successful innovations, see “The Innovative State: Governments Should Make Markets, Not Just Fix Them”, Mariana Mazzucato, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2015.
- Mel wishes a few far-sighted Republicans and Democrats would start a Pragmatic Party.
This was also published in the Duluth Reader, 2015-03-26 at 2015/03/26/5005_corporations_and_governments_cant_have_one_without
As too often is the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
First, let’s look at the similarities.
Corporations and governments are organized by people for a large number of reasons. The people who organize these entities do so to provide goods and services, to make money, to be famous, or to push certain views, both altruistic and selfish. Neither type of organization is any better than the people who run the organization. Success depends more on the leadership and the resources available than on the form. Success also depends on the circumstances of the time. If a large segment of the population is not interested in an idea, it will take a lot of effort to promote the idea, whether a new product or a new law. On the other hand, if a very large segment of the population is interested in an idea, somebody in corporations or government will be working overtime to fulfill the population’s wishes.
The big difference is that the corporations are run by the few and governments are run by the many, if the many show up and vote.
As many misinterpret Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”, many misinterpret Milton Friedman’s the only purpose of a corporation is to “increase profits”.
“[t]here is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud." - Milton Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”, The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970
Many interpret this as the only purpose of a corporation is to increase shareholder value. Unfortunately, they ignore “rules of the game” and “without deception or fraud”. But what is shareholder value? Is it a continued gain in stock price? Is it a continuous stream of increasing dividends? Or could it be the long-term provision of a good or service? For example, do investors want to create a product that could take years to bring to market? Do investors want to insure that medical services can be provided to a community for decades rather than maximize profits for the short-term and destroy the community long-term?
Many point to the problems of MNSure and ObamaCare as examples of government inefficiency. But guess who provided the computers and software for these health insurance programs? Private companies!
And private companies have not been known for efficient, trouble-free rollouts of new products. How many auto recalls are there every year? Has every computer program or system you purchased or downloaded been free of bugs? It seems every time I get a notice of an app update, the description includes “bug fixes”.
In the “bad old days” of mainframes, it was really a major milestone when a computer ran a whole day without a crash. Now things are much better. My laptop, which is more powerful than any mainframe I worked on, might go a whole week without some kind of frustrating error, including freezes.
MNSure and Obamacare are massive systems requiring massive co-ordination of many pieces. As we don’t give up on our computers, we shouldn’t give up on massive projects that don’t work perfectly on the first day.
"I'm as confident of this as I would be that when the first cars didn't work well, it wasn't time to return to horses and buggies; it was time to improve the cars. This is the new technology; there are kinks to it and it's going to take some time to work them out.”
Joel Ario, quoted in “Contractor’s report slams MNsure weaknesses, readiness”, Elizabeth Stawicki, MPRNews, 2014-06-18
Are you collecting Social Security? Is your check posted to your bank account on the promised day every month? But it was not always so. Like getting computers to not crash, the rollout of Social Security was not without glitches or without critics who claimed dire consequences. Like “nationalization of wheat fields would soon follow” and Americans would be reduced to passive servility. It would take forty years of tinkering to have ninety percent of Americans covered by Social Security.
See “What about Social Security’s rollout?” Bruce J. Schulman, 2013-10-29, Reuters
An interesting contrast to the call for less regulation and taxes is the call by some of the same people for government subsidy. How many stadiums for billionaires have been built without government subsidies? How many companies have chased after the best subsidies and tax breaks to determine the location of a new office or factory? Are these the same people who say government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers?
Consider the big howl from Congress when Solyndra collapsed. But nothing was said about the success of Tesla. Both received start-up subsidies from the Federal government. Tesla paid its loans back! Also among those who received subsidies were Compaq, Intel, and Apple. Now Apple is the largest company in the world in capitalization! And looking for ways to avoid paying back its benefactor through taxes.
For a lot more on how government has fostered many other successful innovations, see “The Innovative State: Governments Should Make Markets, Not Just Fix Them”, Mariana Mazzucato, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2015.
- Mel wishes a few far-sighted Republicans and Democrats would start a Pragmatic Party.
This was also published in the Duluth Reader, 2015-03-26 at 2015/03/26/5005_corporations_and_governments_cant_have_one_without
Saturday, October 04, 2014
Constitution á la carte
“Á la carte” is French for “from the menu”. It means that one chooses various items from the menu rather than being offered a complete meal chosen by the chef. It seems to me that the writers of the U.S. Constitution provided us a complete meal for governance, but we all seem to pick and choose what we want from the Constitution and ignore much of the rest, even going so far as to go against the intent of the writers.
Let’s start at the beginning: “We the people…” Just who are “the people”? The word “people” is used just twice in the original constitution: in the opening and in Article I, Section 2. In the latter “the People of the several States” choose the Representatives. The “electors”, presumably of the people, are defined by state law. Interesting, the Constitution doesn’t prohibit women from voting. But considering that states had laws allowing only men to vote, then the Constitution indirectly prohibits women from voting.
Another prominent noun is “person”, again without gender stipulation. All of the uses assume a single human individual, free or otherwise. For census purposes the qualification “free” is added. So, although the States didn’t allow women the vote, did they allow free Blacks and Indians taxed to vote? The Constitution is mute on this.
The sticking point nowadays is the use of “people” and “persons” in the Bill of Rights. The “people” can peaceably assemble, bear arms, “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”, retain rights not enumerated, and have powers not in the Constitution or “prohibited by the States.”
We seem to have a real “á la carte” on these amendments.
Some think peaceably assemble means they can have marches or demonstrations that block entire streets. Others think that a small group of people, especially Blacks, is not a peaceable assembly. The Twin Cities has a case that assumes one person sitting on a publicly-accessible chair is not peaceable assembly.
Bearing arms has been a contentious issue for ages, but most Supreme Court cases until at least 1939 interpreted it as militia-related and not personal. After all, it is a right of the people, not of persons. Now there are persons who insist that they have a right to have a gun wherever they feel like. Interesting, that there were lots of sheriffs and marshals who made gun toters check in their guns while in town.
Many Southern States conveniently overlooked and resisted the Federal authority to override state laws regarding “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Election for … Representatives.” See Article I, Section 4.
Many complain about federal regulation, but Article I, Section 8, leaves two questions wide open. “The Congress have have the power to lay and collect Taxes…and provide for the … general Welfare of the United States.” Are a highway system, an air traffic control system, and clean air and water “general Welfare”? There seem to be many who think clean air and water are over-regulation. Some of these same people want to have an extensive highway network to move themselves or goods, but they don’t want Congress to “lay and collect Taxes” for them.
One of the current ironies is that the Postmaster General is trying to overturn Congress’ responsibility “to Establish Post Offices”. Is getting a Netflix DVD the next day a Constitutional right? It is ironic that the Postmaster General’s actions are an attempt to promote corporate interests over public interest but that one large competitor to the Postal Service depends on USPS for the “last mile”. UPS sends many small packages for the “last mile” via USPS. Can you imagine UPS stopping every two blocks or so to distribute a package that fits in the mail box?
Some corporate interests are working overtime to redefine “limited time” for “exclusive Right to “Writings and Discoveries” They hope to retain film and book rights forever long, long after the creators have died. I can see a family retaining the rights but not for generation after generation. I remember that some decades ago the Verdi family lost the rights to royalties for Verdi’s operas and other works.
Has Congress abandoned the spirit of no appropriation for Armies should be for longer than two years? This was written because the writers of the Constitution disliked standing armies. Not only do we have a standing army but a globe-straddling army. I am glad that all the signers of the Constitution are not buried in the same place; the spinning in graves would be deafening.
Their backup plan was the state Militias which “may be employed in the Service of the United States.” Many may complain about the multiple deployments of the National Guards, but they are Constitutional.
On the other hand, Congress was “To provide and maintain a Navy”. It apparently doesn’t have the appropriation limitations that the Armies have. After all, the Navy has to support Congress’ power to “punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas”. Does this also apply above the high seas?
All of the above is mostly my opinion and interpretation of the Constitution. I tried to frame most of it as questions rather than fixed-in-stone assertions. Unfortunately, there are those who believe they can deduce the Founder’s intent by reading the Constitution. Sorry, but consider all the words written in the Federalist Papers to “sell” the Constitution. Also consider how few Supreme Court cases are decided by unanimous opinions. These are judges who have spent life-times studying the Constitution.
Mel has long been fascinated by rules and regulations, and like many others, tries to interpret them to his advantage.
Also posted to the Reader Weekly, 2014-10-02.
See also
"Foreign policy foreign to founders"
"Constitution, Rights, and secretive Congress"
"Quote of the day: Stealing the Constitution"
"The right to bear Canons"
Let’s start at the beginning: “We the people…” Just who are “the people”? The word “people” is used just twice in the original constitution: in the opening and in Article I, Section 2. In the latter “the People of the several States” choose the Representatives. The “electors”, presumably of the people, are defined by state law. Interesting, the Constitution doesn’t prohibit women from voting. But considering that states had laws allowing only men to vote, then the Constitution indirectly prohibits women from voting.
Another prominent noun is “person”, again without gender stipulation. All of the uses assume a single human individual, free or otherwise. For census purposes the qualification “free” is added. So, although the States didn’t allow women the vote, did they allow free Blacks and Indians taxed to vote? The Constitution is mute on this.
The sticking point nowadays is the use of “people” and “persons” in the Bill of Rights. The “people” can peaceably assemble, bear arms, “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”, retain rights not enumerated, and have powers not in the Constitution or “prohibited by the States.”
We seem to have a real “á la carte” on these amendments.
Some think peaceably assemble means they can have marches or demonstrations that block entire streets. Others think that a small group of people, especially Blacks, is not a peaceable assembly. The Twin Cities has a case that assumes one person sitting on a publicly-accessible chair is not peaceable assembly.
Bearing arms has been a contentious issue for ages, but most Supreme Court cases until at least 1939 interpreted it as militia-related and not personal. After all, it is a right of the people, not of persons. Now there are persons who insist that they have a right to have a gun wherever they feel like. Interesting, that there were lots of sheriffs and marshals who made gun toters check in their guns while in town.
Many Southern States conveniently overlooked and resisted the Federal authority to override state laws regarding “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Election for … Representatives.” See Article I, Section 4.
Many complain about federal regulation, but Article I, Section 8, leaves two questions wide open. “The Congress have have the power to lay and collect Taxes…and provide for the … general Welfare of the United States.” Are a highway system, an air traffic control system, and clean air and water “general Welfare”? There seem to be many who think clean air and water are over-regulation. Some of these same people want to have an extensive highway network to move themselves or goods, but they don’t want Congress to “lay and collect Taxes” for them.
One of the current ironies is that the Postmaster General is trying to overturn Congress’ responsibility “to Establish Post Offices”. Is getting a Netflix DVD the next day a Constitutional right? It is ironic that the Postmaster General’s actions are an attempt to promote corporate interests over public interest but that one large competitor to the Postal Service depends on USPS for the “last mile”. UPS sends many small packages for the “last mile” via USPS. Can you imagine UPS stopping every two blocks or so to distribute a package that fits in the mail box?
Some corporate interests are working overtime to redefine “limited time” for “exclusive Right to “Writings and Discoveries” They hope to retain film and book rights forever long, long after the creators have died. I can see a family retaining the rights but not for generation after generation. I remember that some decades ago the Verdi family lost the rights to royalties for Verdi’s operas and other works.
Has Congress abandoned the spirit of no appropriation for Armies should be for longer than two years? This was written because the writers of the Constitution disliked standing armies. Not only do we have a standing army but a globe-straddling army. I am glad that all the signers of the Constitution are not buried in the same place; the spinning in graves would be deafening.
Their backup plan was the state Militias which “may be employed in the Service of the United States.” Many may complain about the multiple deployments of the National Guards, but they are Constitutional.
On the other hand, Congress was “To provide and maintain a Navy”. It apparently doesn’t have the appropriation limitations that the Armies have. After all, the Navy has to support Congress’ power to “punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas”. Does this also apply above the high seas?
All of the above is mostly my opinion and interpretation of the Constitution. I tried to frame most of it as questions rather than fixed-in-stone assertions. Unfortunately, there are those who believe they can deduce the Founder’s intent by reading the Constitution. Sorry, but consider all the words written in the Federalist Papers to “sell” the Constitution. Also consider how few Supreme Court cases are decided by unanimous opinions. These are judges who have spent life-times studying the Constitution.
Mel has long been fascinated by rules and regulations, and like many others, tries to interpret them to his advantage.
Also posted to the Reader Weekly, 2014-10-02.
See also
"Foreign policy foreign to founders"
"Constitution, Rights, and secretive Congress"
"Quote of the day: Stealing the Constitution"
"The right to bear Canons"
Sunday, November 03, 2013
I love taxes and regulations!
Printed in the Reader Weekly, 2013-10-31 and found at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2013/10/31/2364_party_of_one-3.
I submitted it as follows; I did remove from this copy the missing section in last week's Reader Weekly.
Well, not all that much. What I like is all the benefits that taxes and regulations bring me and many other people.
Like many, I find paying taxes a chore. I have to set aside money twice a year for property taxes. I have to keep lots of records and fill out detailed forms to calculate how much federal and state income tax I owe. And because I don’t have withholding on all of my income, I have to estimate these taxes quarterly and pay a portion of the presumed shortfall.
A few years ago I had a sore chest, extreme sweating, and nausea. Was this a heart attack? Don’t hesitate; call 9-1-1! Within five minutes a fire truck with four fire fighters/emergency medical technicians arrived. Without going into all the details, I was hospitalized but it was determined that I did not have a heart attack. My taxes, your taxes, and the taxes of many others paid for this quick response.
Was this an entitlement?
One of the ER doctors I saw lived in our house a few years before we bought it. He was a graduate of the UMD medical school. State taxes paid some of the cost of operating UMD. Would there be as many doctors and nurses if they or their parents had to pay the full cost of their education, starting with elementary school?
Is this an entitlement?
Keep in mind George Washington’s farewell address, which contained among much other ignored advice:
“[I]t is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant…”
Most of us drive regularly on streets and our commerce depends on the roads. They cost a lot more than the streets of George Washington’s time. And city streets like George Washington rode his horse on still existed in my lifetime. See “11 Traveled Dirt Streets to Be Hard Surfaced at No Cost to Property”, Kansas City Star, 1944-04-06.
Are hard-surfaced streets an entitlement?
Red lights are a bothersome regulation. Why should I wait while somebody comes by on the cross street? Well, when I’m driving on the cross street, I appreciate that the other traffic will stop periodically so that I may drive into the intersection safely.
Requiring auto insurance is a bothersome regulation. But it sure is nice when another person is at fault for banging my car that their insurance will pay for the damage. I think it was in Michigan that a driver came out from a parking lot and put a dent in the side of our car. He didn’t stop, and so I made a U-turn and followed him a block or two before he stopped. We pleasantly exchanged information and we went on our way. But after a few blocks we saw his insurance agency. We stopped in and related the incident. Oh, but he buys the insurance and cancels within a week or so. Off we went to the police station and told our story again. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if everybody followed these “burdensome” regulations?
Among my allergies is quaternium-15, an ingredient in many lotions. Imagine my surprise when a hypoallergenic lotion contained quaternium-15. If regulations didn’t require a list of ingredients, would I wind up having an allergic reaction and not know why?
My wife has to stay away from soy lecithin. Dark chocolate is a healthy treat. Many dark chocolate bars contain soy lecithin. If regulations didn’t require the labeling of ingredients, what would happen to her if she ingested soy lecithin unknowingly?
When all the nutrition information was mandated on foods, I pooh poohed it. Come on, you know a candy bar has lots of calories; so stay away from candy bars if you have a weight problem. I recently had a colonoscopy and was told not to take iron before the procedure. Chocolate was one of the OK foods. But, dark chocolate contains 6 to 35 percent of the daily value of iron. If I had that much iron would it have changed the diagnosis? I stayed away from chocolate and I had a negative result. Without the regulated nutritional information I might have had a false positive result.
Many corporations regard regulations against air and water pollution as burdensome and anti-free market. Many studies have shown that many of the chemicals in our environment are causing brain impairment in children and that they don’t perform well in school. Oh, poor school performance is not caused by pollution, it’s the “greedy teachers’ unions”!
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. supposedly said he liked taxes, “They buy civilization.” I would add without regulation, we would not have civilization.
I submitted it as follows; I did remove from this copy the missing section in last week's Reader Weekly.
Well, not all that much. What I like is all the benefits that taxes and regulations bring me and many other people.
Like many, I find paying taxes a chore. I have to set aside money twice a year for property taxes. I have to keep lots of records and fill out detailed forms to calculate how much federal and state income tax I owe. And because I don’t have withholding on all of my income, I have to estimate these taxes quarterly and pay a portion of the presumed shortfall.
A few years ago I had a sore chest, extreme sweating, and nausea. Was this a heart attack? Don’t hesitate; call 9-1-1! Within five minutes a fire truck with four fire fighters/emergency medical technicians arrived. Without going into all the details, I was hospitalized but it was determined that I did not have a heart attack. My taxes, your taxes, and the taxes of many others paid for this quick response.
Was this an entitlement?
One of the ER doctors I saw lived in our house a few years before we bought it. He was a graduate of the UMD medical school. State taxes paid some of the cost of operating UMD. Would there be as many doctors and nurses if they or their parents had to pay the full cost of their education, starting with elementary school?
Is this an entitlement?
Keep in mind George Washington’s farewell address, which contained among much other ignored advice:
“[I]t is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant…”
Most of us drive regularly on streets and our commerce depends on the roads. They cost a lot more than the streets of George Washington’s time. And city streets like George Washington rode his horse on still existed in my lifetime. See “11 Traveled Dirt Streets to Be Hard Surfaced at No Cost to Property”, Kansas City Star, 1944-04-06.
Are hard-surfaced streets an entitlement?
Red lights are a bothersome regulation. Why should I wait while somebody comes by on the cross street? Well, when I’m driving on the cross street, I appreciate that the other traffic will stop periodically so that I may drive into the intersection safely.
Requiring auto insurance is a bothersome regulation. But it sure is nice when another person is at fault for banging my car that their insurance will pay for the damage. I think it was in Michigan that a driver came out from a parking lot and put a dent in the side of our car. He didn’t stop, and so I made a U-turn and followed him a block or two before he stopped. We pleasantly exchanged information and we went on our way. But after a few blocks we saw his insurance agency. We stopped in and related the incident. Oh, but he buys the insurance and cancels within a week or so. Off we went to the police station and told our story again. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if everybody followed these “burdensome” regulations?
Among my allergies is quaternium-15, an ingredient in many lotions. Imagine my surprise when a hypoallergenic lotion contained quaternium-15. If regulations didn’t require a list of ingredients, would I wind up having an allergic reaction and not know why?
My wife has to stay away from soy lecithin. Dark chocolate is a healthy treat. Many dark chocolate bars contain soy lecithin. If regulations didn’t require the labeling of ingredients, what would happen to her if she ingested soy lecithin unknowingly?
When all the nutrition information was mandated on foods, I pooh poohed it. Come on, you know a candy bar has lots of calories; so stay away from candy bars if you have a weight problem. I recently had a colonoscopy and was told not to take iron before the procedure. Chocolate was one of the OK foods. But, dark chocolate contains 6 to 35 percent of the daily value of iron. If I had that much iron would it have changed the diagnosis? I stayed away from chocolate and I had a negative result. Without the regulated nutritional information I might have had a false positive result.
Many corporations regard regulations against air and water pollution as burdensome and anti-free market. Many studies have shown that many of the chemicals in our environment are causing brain impairment in children and that they don’t perform well in school. Oh, poor school performance is not caused by pollution, it’s the “greedy teachers’ unions”!
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. supposedly said he liked taxes, “They buy civilization.” I would add without regulation, we would not have civilization.
Monday, May 06, 2013
Business-friendly is often people-unfriendly
Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin, is famous for his desk sign: "Open for business". But somehow, his attitude seems to be more "closed for people". Wisconsin has already severely curtailed the rights of government workers to organize and bargain.
The explosion at the West fertilizer plant in Texas was definitely people-unfriendly. It was indirectly caused by a state government that likes to consider itself business-friendly, that is, low taxes and few regulations.
"It's rare for Texas to require insurance for any kind of hazardous activity. We have very little oversight of hazardous activities and even less regulation."
Randy C. Roberts, one of the plaintiff lawyers, quoted in "Texas plant that blew up carried only $1M policy", Christopher Sherman, Associated Press, Duluth News Tribune and others, 2013-05-04 and 2013-05-05
Because of the explosion, the company will likely file for bankruptcy. An ounce of prevention is worth millions of failure?
Where does Texas rank in taxes, regulation, and business-friendly indicators?
For taxes, Texas is sixth lowest, with 7.9%; New York is highest with 12.8%. See http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/03/02/state-local-tax-burden/1937757/
Surprisingly, Freedom in the 50 States ranks Texas 24th for "regulatory freedom". Freedom in the 50 States is a web page of the Mercator Institute of George Mason University. Most of its rankings seem to be predicated on the freedom of businesses to reduce costs to the detriment of people and the freedom of people to make themselves nuisances to other people.
The explosion at the West fertilizer plant in Texas was definitely people-unfriendly. It was indirectly caused by a state government that likes to consider itself business-friendly, that is, low taxes and few regulations.
"It's rare for Texas to require insurance for any kind of hazardous activity. We have very little oversight of hazardous activities and even less regulation."
Randy C. Roberts, one of the plaintiff lawyers, quoted in "Texas plant that blew up carried only $1M policy", Christopher Sherman, Associated Press, Duluth News Tribune and others, 2013-05-04 and 2013-05-05
Because of the explosion, the company will likely file for bankruptcy. An ounce of prevention is worth millions of failure?
Where does Texas rank in taxes, regulation, and business-friendly indicators?
For taxes, Texas is sixth lowest, with 7.9%; New York is highest with 12.8%. See http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/03/02/state-local-tax-burden/1937757/
Surprisingly, Freedom in the 50 States ranks Texas 24th for "regulatory freedom". Freedom in the 50 States is a web page of the Mercator Institute of George Mason University. Most of its rankings seem to be predicated on the freedom of businesses to reduce costs to the detriment of people and the freedom of people to make themselves nuisances to other people.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
The high cost of low regulations
Corporation after corporation calls for less regulation, but can we trust them to regulate themselves as to consumer and employee safety? The answer is over century old: "No!"
Think of all the mine disasters because production was more important than worker safety. Think of the "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire" over one hundred years ago. Think of all the auto and food recalls. Think of the shortcuts that led to the latest BP oil spill
Now the latest is the Bangladesh factory collapse, a collapse a day after police ordered it evacuated: "Western Firms Feel Pressure as Toll Rises in Bangladesh", Julfikar Ali Manik, Steven Greenhouse, and Jim Yardley, New York Times, 2013-04-25.
And there was a deadly fire in a garment factory in Bangladesh in November 2012. Almost any story you find will have links to other factory disasters in Bangladesh.
All because we in the West look for low prices and corporation after corporation looks for the lowest price manufacturers. Maybe it's time we double-check what we buy and look for the lowest price executives.
Think of all the mine disasters because production was more important than worker safety. Think of the "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire" over one hundred years ago. Think of all the auto and food recalls. Think of the shortcuts that led to the latest BP oil spill
Now the latest is the Bangladesh factory collapse, a collapse a day after police ordered it evacuated: "Western Firms Feel Pressure as Toll Rises in Bangladesh", Julfikar Ali Manik, Steven Greenhouse, and Jim Yardley, New York Times, 2013-04-25.
And there was a deadly fire in a garment factory in Bangladesh in November 2012. Almost any story you find will have links to other factory disasters in Bangladesh.
All because we in the West look for low prices and corporation after corporation looks for the lowest price manufacturers. Maybe it's time we double-check what we buy and look for the lowest price executives.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Private vs. Public, No Clear Answer
Many people are calling for the privatization of almost everything: schools, utilities, prisons, armies, and more. They claim that a private corporation will be more efficient than a government operated entity. The skeptic should ask what is meant by efficiency and what other values would be lost with privatization.
For example, if a private company operates a prison will a lower cost per prisoner come with a lower cost for security?
If a private company operates something, will it be calling for less regulation, regulations that could be protecting public safety and public health. For example, BP was state-operated for a long time, and then Margaret Thatcher privatized it. Apparently the deadly accident rate has gone way up because costs were cut to keep profits way up.
If private schools take away selected students from public schools, will the students left have fewer role models for success? Many "failing" schools do graduate successful students.
Regardless of the form of an organization, three ingredients are needed for success: clear goals, management that understands those goals, and sufficient resources to meet those goals.
For more, see "When Public Outperforms Private in Services", Eduardo Porter, New York Times, 2013-01-15. See also the book that he mentions, "The Org: The Underlying Logic of the Office" by Ray Fisman and Tim Sullivan.
For example, if a private company operates a prison will a lower cost per prisoner come with a lower cost for security?
If a private company operates something, will it be calling for less regulation, regulations that could be protecting public safety and public health. For example, BP was state-operated for a long time, and then Margaret Thatcher privatized it. Apparently the deadly accident rate has gone way up because costs were cut to keep profits way up.
If private schools take away selected students from public schools, will the students left have fewer role models for success? Many "failing" schools do graduate successful students.
Regardless of the form of an organization, three ingredients are needed for success: clear goals, management that understands those goals, and sufficient resources to meet those goals.
For more, see "When Public Outperforms Private in Services", Eduardo Porter, New York Times, 2013-01-15. See also the book that he mentions, "The Org: The Underlying Logic of the Office" by Ray Fisman and Tim Sullivan.
Monday, November 19, 2012
The economy ran into trouble when…
...When employees became associates;
...When personnel became human resources;
...When employee pay stagnated and executive pay soared;
...When executives were more concerned with the bottom line than with employee safety;
...When executives complained more about regulation instead of examining their own business.
...When personnel became human resources;
...When employee pay stagnated and executive pay soared;
...When executives were more concerned with the bottom line than with employee safety;
...When executives complained more about regulation instead of examining their own business.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Quote of the day - Competition
"When, for instance, competition laws are not enforced, monopolies grow, and with them the income of monopolists. Competition, by contrast, drives profits down." - "Some Are More Unequal Than Others", Joseph E. Stiglitz, New York Times 2012-10-26
The article relates how the oligopolists are over and over driving down their costs, including taxes and wages, and increasing their profits.
My thought is that there may be a time when there are no profits to made because few can afford to buy the oligopolists' products and services and there will be insufficient qualified employees because there were insufficient taxes to educate a large number of people.
See "fastest to ruin" quote in "The Invisible Adam Smith".
The article relates how the oligopolists are over and over driving down their costs, including taxes and wages, and increasing their profits.
My thought is that there may be a time when there are no profits to made because few can afford to buy the oligopolists' products and services and there will be insufficient qualified employees because there were insufficient taxes to educate a large number of people.
See "fastest to ruin" quote in "The Invisible Adam Smith".
Thursday, September 20, 2012
One business group that wants more regulation
In the name of efficiency, one business sector has become inefficient, and that sector would like government regulation to restore efficiency.
The business sector: stock trading. The inefficiency: run-amok computer algorithms for high-frequency trading, HFT. There have been several cases where HFT algorithms have caused problems with initial public offerings and set off price-spikes that some firms couldn't handle. Firms may not put in sufficient checks on certain trades in order to gain speed.
"'Market participants at every level of the trade life cycle reported they are looking to regulators to establish best practices in risk management and to monitor compliance with those practices,' Carol Clark, senior policy specialist at the Chicago Fed, wrote in a summary of the survey's findings."
See "High Frequency Trading: Worse than You Thought", Jeff Cox, CNBC, 2012-09-20.
Next time a newspaper reports that "investors decided" ask yourself do they mean traders and do they mean trading computers.
The business sector: stock trading. The inefficiency: run-amok computer algorithms for high-frequency trading, HFT. There have been several cases where HFT algorithms have caused problems with initial public offerings and set off price-spikes that some firms couldn't handle. Firms may not put in sufficient checks on certain trades in order to gain speed.
"'Market participants at every level of the trade life cycle reported they are looking to regulators to establish best practices in risk management and to monitor compliance with those practices,' Carol Clark, senior policy specialist at the Chicago Fed, wrote in a summary of the survey's findings."
See "High Frequency Trading: Worse than You Thought", Jeff Cox, CNBC, 2012-09-20.
Next time a newspaper reports that "investors decided" ask yourself do they mean traders and do they mean trading computers.
Monday, August 20, 2012
The political spectrum – from wrong to wronger
The conventional idea of the political spectrum from left to right is as if one adapts different ideas as one moves smoothly from one side to the other. But people aren't so easily graded as eggs. Some people are for ideas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and other are against all six. Some people are for ideas 1, 2, and 3, and against ideas 4, 5, and 6. Others are for ideas 1, 3, and 6 and against 2, 4, and 5. And so on.
But a group of activists or diehard or hard-nosed have determined that if you are for ideas 1, 2, and 3 and against ideas 4, 5, and 6, then you are a conservative. If you are against ideas 1, 2, and 3 and for ideas 4, 5, and 6, then it is obvious that you are a liberal.
Even the labels conservative and liberal are misnomers. If you are for liberal extraction of resources then you are a conservative. If you are for conservative extraction of resources you are a liberal. If you are liberal in what powers should be given to corporations you are a conservative. If you are conservative in what powers should be given to corporations you are a liberal.
About the only thing conservative about conservatives is keeping privileges and powers to themselves. About the only thing liberal about liberals is spreading privileges and powers to larger and larger numbers of people.
So, Mel, what about your title "from wrong to wronger"?
That was a bit of whimsy based on my dissatisfaction with political discussions, mostly spectrum categorizations.
Many of the "liberal" causes don't excite me. Sure, two people who share some property should have rights of inheritance. I have many gay and lesbian friends, but I don't get excited about celebrating their status. I buy as much as I can locally, but on the other hand I'm not going to give up bananas and coffee because they are transported so far.
Most of the way "conservative" causes are presented excites me even less. Many regulations may be hard to fathom, but let's not get rid of all regulations. Do we want unsafe trucks on the highways and tainted food? Freedom is a nice idea, but "freedom" doesn't mean free to do whatever one damn well pleases. Abortions may be something to avoid if possible, but bombs cause lots of abortions without the mother even having a choice.
It is tough to be a thoughtful voter nowadays. Even if you like idea A of the conservatives and idea B of the liberal, they all muddy the waters so much that I'm afraid too many people are going to stay home on election day. As for me, I'll vote for wrong over wronger.
But a group of activists or diehard or hard-nosed have determined that if you are for ideas 1, 2, and 3 and against ideas 4, 5, and 6, then you are a conservative. If you are against ideas 1, 2, and 3 and for ideas 4, 5, and 6, then it is obvious that you are a liberal.
Even the labels conservative and liberal are misnomers. If you are for liberal extraction of resources then you are a conservative. If you are for conservative extraction of resources you are a liberal. If you are liberal in what powers should be given to corporations you are a conservative. If you are conservative in what powers should be given to corporations you are a liberal.
About the only thing conservative about conservatives is keeping privileges and powers to themselves. About the only thing liberal about liberals is spreading privileges and powers to larger and larger numbers of people.
So, Mel, what about your title "from wrong to wronger"?
That was a bit of whimsy based on my dissatisfaction with political discussions, mostly spectrum categorizations.
Many of the "liberal" causes don't excite me. Sure, two people who share some property should have rights of inheritance. I have many gay and lesbian friends, but I don't get excited about celebrating their status. I buy as much as I can locally, but on the other hand I'm not going to give up bananas and coffee because they are transported so far.
Most of the way "conservative" causes are presented excites me even less. Many regulations may be hard to fathom, but let's not get rid of all regulations. Do we want unsafe trucks on the highways and tainted food? Freedom is a nice idea, but "freedom" doesn't mean free to do whatever one damn well pleases. Abortions may be something to avoid if possible, but bombs cause lots of abortions without the mother even having a choice.
It is tough to be a thoughtful voter nowadays. Even if you like idea A of the conservatives and idea B of the liberal, they all muddy the waters so much that I'm afraid too many people are going to stay home on election day. As for me, I'll vote for wrong over wronger.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Oil! Republican dependency on fantasy
Rep. Chip Cravaack, R-MN8, claims to be an independent voice for his constituents but he seems to be sticking to the ALEC and Koch brothers line. ALEC is American Legislative Exchange Council that is an organization of big businesses to write laws in their interests rather than the public interest.
One is his recent republishing in his newsletter of his op-ed article in the Duluth News Tribune, "Reducing regulations, expanding U.S. drilling will lower gas prices". He also republished it on his Congressional web site! See http://cravaack.house.gov/in-the-news/reducing-regulations-expanding-us-drilling-will-lower-gas-prices/. Hm, I'm supposed to give exclusive rights to the News Tribune for my submissions, and so I do not re-post my submissions on my blog.
Back to the subject.
As to be expected in election year, the opposition gets all the blame for any problems. Cravaack blames Obama for high gas prices, but he ignores the high gas prices during Bush's terms. In both cases, there are many more factors contributing to gas prices.
How about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Not only do these create uncertainty in energy markets, they add enormously to the demand for fuel. Wouldn't it be grand if all those humvees, fighter jets, and drones could run on the hot air coming out of Congress?
How about the cost of drilling? As the easily accessible oil is depleted, it cost lots more to get the remainder. And these costs will go up as the oil becomes even less accessible. Right now it costs $60 a barrel to extract gulf oil (see "Two dollars a gallon gasoline? No way!"). But will world markets price oil only a little bit above that? I doubt it.
Reducing regulations won't really change the price of oil; it might if Congress mandated that no oil could be imported or exported. Do you think the large oil companies would go for that? Right now, gasoline is being EXPORTED from the U.S. Oil and gasoline are world commodities. If somebody in India, say, is willing to pay $3.28 per gallon (today's NYMEX price, not including shipping) to import a tanker of gasoline, do you think any U.S. gasoline refiner is going to charge less in the United States?
Cravaack points out how the U.S. investment in Solyndra and Fisker automotive went sour. How many energy investments have done well? He is silent on oil depletion allowances and other tax breaks the oil industry gets. He is silent on the huge investment in nuclear energy research made by the U.S. Government. He is silent on the cost of nuclear waste, most of which will be borne by the U.S. Government. He is silent on the loan guarantees that have gone to nuclear power plants. He is silent on the huge cost in health and other externalities of burning fossil fuel.
He faults the secretary of energy, Steven Chu, when asked if his goal was to lower gas prices, he said, “No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil.” Does Cravaack live in a bubble? How many wars are we going to fight to ensure access to oil? How much are we going to go into debt to finance these wars? How many people are going to die for "lower gas prices"? If we can reduce our dependency on oil faster than India or China can, we will be at a huge economic and foreign policy advantage.
One is his recent republishing in his newsletter of his op-ed article in the Duluth News Tribune, "Reducing regulations, expanding U.S. drilling will lower gas prices". He also republished it on his Congressional web site! See http://cravaack.house.gov/in-the-news/reducing-regulations-expanding-us-drilling-will-lower-gas-prices/. Hm, I'm supposed to give exclusive rights to the News Tribune for my submissions, and so I do not re-post my submissions on my blog.
Back to the subject.
As to be expected in election year, the opposition gets all the blame for any problems. Cravaack blames Obama for high gas prices, but he ignores the high gas prices during Bush's terms. In both cases, there are many more factors contributing to gas prices.
How about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Not only do these create uncertainty in energy markets, they add enormously to the demand for fuel. Wouldn't it be grand if all those humvees, fighter jets, and drones could run on the hot air coming out of Congress?
How about the cost of drilling? As the easily accessible oil is depleted, it cost lots more to get the remainder. And these costs will go up as the oil becomes even less accessible. Right now it costs $60 a barrel to extract gulf oil (see "Two dollars a gallon gasoline? No way!"). But will world markets price oil only a little bit above that? I doubt it.
Reducing regulations won't really change the price of oil; it might if Congress mandated that no oil could be imported or exported. Do you think the large oil companies would go for that? Right now, gasoline is being EXPORTED from the U.S. Oil and gasoline are world commodities. If somebody in India, say, is willing to pay $3.28 per gallon (today's NYMEX price, not including shipping) to import a tanker of gasoline, do you think any U.S. gasoline refiner is going to charge less in the United States?
Cravaack points out how the U.S. investment in Solyndra and Fisker automotive went sour. How many energy investments have done well? He is silent on oil depletion allowances and other tax breaks the oil industry gets. He is silent on the huge investment in nuclear energy research made by the U.S. Government. He is silent on the cost of nuclear waste, most of which will be borne by the U.S. Government. He is silent on the loan guarantees that have gone to nuclear power plants. He is silent on the huge cost in health and other externalities of burning fossil fuel.
He faults the secretary of energy, Steven Chu, when asked if his goal was to lower gas prices, he said, “No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil.” Does Cravaack live in a bubble? How many wars are we going to fight to ensure access to oil? How much are we going to go into debt to finance these wars? How many people are going to die for "lower gas prices"? If we can reduce our dependency on oil faster than India or China can, we will be at a huge economic and foreign policy advantage.
Friday, March 09, 2012
Wisconsin's Selective Free Markets
Many in the Wisconsin Senate want to relax the "restrictive regulations" on permits for iron mining. Others claim that those restrictions will ensure protection for the water and land near the proposed mine. "Updated:(Gogebic Abandons Mine Plans!) Wisconsin Mining Bill Sent Back To Committee", Eric Bau, Daily Kos.
A few years ago there was a big hullabaloo about a high-voltage line in Wisconsin. Many who lived in the area of the right-of-way were opposed. I don't remember what setback was required for the line, but many residents felt that it was too little. There were also strong complaints about property rights. The project went through and the line was built.
Now a company is trying to put wind turbines in several areas of Wisconsin. Some landowners object to the size of the setbacks and the amount of access to be granted the wind companies. Suddenly, the Wisconsin legislature is falling all over itself to increase the setbacks and other regulations on the wind companies.
What is so different about the third case that doesn't apply in the first two cases? That is, why do large companies' interests trump the rights of individual property owners in the first two cases, but the rights of individual property owners should be paramount in the third case.
I have my suspicions, but I would need a lot more documentation than I care to look for now.
A few years ago there was a big hullabaloo about a high-voltage line in Wisconsin. Many who lived in the area of the right-of-way were opposed. I don't remember what setback was required for the line, but many residents felt that it was too little. There were also strong complaints about property rights. The project went through and the line was built.
Now a company is trying to put wind turbines in several areas of Wisconsin. Some landowners object to the size of the setbacks and the amount of access to be granted the wind companies. Suddenly, the Wisconsin legislature is falling all over itself to increase the setbacks and other regulations on the wind companies.
What is so different about the third case that doesn't apply in the first two cases? That is, why do large companies' interests trump the rights of individual property owners in the first two cases, but the rights of individual property owners should be paramount in the third case.
I have my suspicions, but I would need a lot more documentation than I care to look for now.
Thursday, December 08, 2011
Free market view published
Today the Duluth News Tribune published my local view on the free market. They titled it "Free Market Requires Many Levels of Regulation. You can find it free at http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/216679/group/Opinion/ for the next week or so.
Hey, I just thought of this naive question. Are free markets those where everything is for free? That is, do those in favor of free markets want to give away all their goods and services?
Hey, I just thought of this naive question. Are free markets those where everything is for free? That is, do those in favor of free markets want to give away all their goods and services?
Friday, December 02, 2011
Comment on "job creators"
I posted the following as a comment to the Coffee Party's Facebook posting of "7 Ways to Support the Real Job Creators".
I highly recommend slogging through the 1000+ pages of 18th Century English that are Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations".
Would you believe that he is more sympathetic to the workmen than the masters? That he thinks banks should be regulated? That taxes are necessary? That we have to co-operate with and assist one another? That talents come from our experiences? That he doesn't believe in giving 110% to employers? That the rich get rich at the expense of the poor? That governments are needed to enforce contract law? That merchants complain that high wages affect the economy but say nothing of how high profits affect the economy? That honorable professions are underpaid? That regulations are needed to prevent abuse? That he doesn't think much of corporations controlling government? That corporations are not concerned with the public interest? That although he complained it was illegal for workers to unite to raise wages but legal for masters to unite to keep wages down, he didn't think much of labor unions? But that regulations in favor of workers were just but those in favor of the masters were unjust?
Those are only some of the comments with which I annotated the first 150 pages of my Project Gutenberg copy of "Wealth of Nations".
I highly recommend slogging through the 1000+ pages of 18th Century English that are Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations".
Would you believe that he is more sympathetic to the workmen than the masters? That he thinks banks should be regulated? That taxes are necessary? That we have to co-operate with and assist one another? That talents come from our experiences? That he doesn't believe in giving 110% to employers? That the rich get rich at the expense of the poor? That governments are needed to enforce contract law? That merchants complain that high wages affect the economy but say nothing of how high profits affect the economy? That honorable professions are underpaid? That regulations are needed to prevent abuse? That he doesn't think much of corporations controlling government? That corporations are not concerned with the public interest? That although he complained it was illegal for workers to unite to raise wages but legal for masters to unite to keep wages down, he didn't think much of labor unions? But that regulations in favor of workers were just but those in favor of the masters were unjust?
Those are only some of the comments with which I annotated the first 150 pages of my Project Gutenberg copy of "Wealth of Nations".
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Economics made too simple
As I scanned through Yahoo Finance's main page I came across an interesting title:
"4 Misconceptions About Free Markets", Andrew Beattie, Investopedia, 2011-11-18
Because I have been writing a lot about free markets, I thought I should read this.
His list of misconceptions is
Inflation is Inevitable
Governments Can Save Us
Free Market Means No Regulation
Taxes Don't Affect Output
He writes that inflation is a result of printing presses and is a tax on income. He writes that because inflation lessens the real value of debt, then only government benefits. Oh, others that borrow money don't benefit from inflation? And inflation is not caused by companies raising prices to increase profits? Or workers wanting higher wages? Or…
I won't go into his government section. Suffice it to say that he treats government as some foreign king that rules over us. He forgets that government is us, and we get only as good a government as we choose to elect. He does perpetuate the myth of "the expensive toilet seat". The toilet in question was a specialized toilet for a reconnaissance plane that would be aloft for 24 hours or more.
He thinks that customer feedback is sufficient regulation. Oh, and what customers were giving feedback to factories polluting air and water? And what customer regulation is going to prevent somebody putting a junkyard next to Beattie's house?
He looks as taxes as only something shifted from one group to another. Taxes are really a mixed bag. Without government investment in roads, schools, science, and many other things, much economic development would not have happened. Ironically, his article is available to the whole world at the click of a mouse because the military financed and promoted research into interconnected communications.
Finally, he writes, "The economics of Adam Smith, Fredrik Hayek and Milton Friedman are simple and straightforward…" Well, I haven't read much Hayek but I've read a couple of Friedman's books. These had much too praise, but also a lot of wishful thinking. If you've read any of my excerpts from the "Wealth of Nations" you know that Adam Smith is anything but simple and straightforward.
"4 Misconceptions About Free Markets", Andrew Beattie, Investopedia, 2011-11-18
Because I have been writing a lot about free markets, I thought I should read this.
His list of misconceptions is
Inflation is Inevitable
Governments Can Save Us
Free Market Means No Regulation
Taxes Don't Affect Output
He writes that inflation is a result of printing presses and is a tax on income. He writes that because inflation lessens the real value of debt, then only government benefits. Oh, others that borrow money don't benefit from inflation? And inflation is not caused by companies raising prices to increase profits? Or workers wanting higher wages? Or…
I won't go into his government section. Suffice it to say that he treats government as some foreign king that rules over us. He forgets that government is us, and we get only as good a government as we choose to elect. He does perpetuate the myth of "the expensive toilet seat". The toilet in question was a specialized toilet for a reconnaissance plane that would be aloft for 24 hours or more.
He thinks that customer feedback is sufficient regulation. Oh, and what customers were giving feedback to factories polluting air and water? And what customer regulation is going to prevent somebody putting a junkyard next to Beattie's house?
He looks as taxes as only something shifted from one group to another. Taxes are really a mixed bag. Without government investment in roads, schools, science, and many other things, much economic development would not have happened. Ironically, his article is available to the whole world at the click of a mouse because the military financed and promoted research into interconnected communications.
Finally, he writes, "The economics of Adam Smith, Fredrik Hayek and Milton Friedman are simple and straightforward…" Well, I haven't read much Hayek but I've read a couple of Friedman's books. These had much too praise, but also a lot of wishful thinking. If you've read any of my excerpts from the "Wealth of Nations" you know that Adam Smith is anything but simple and straightforward.
Sunday, September 04, 2011
Quote of the day – regulators and risk
"Isn't there something you can do to order us not to take all of these risks?"
- Chuck Prince, CEO of Citigroup, at a dinner of financial executives with Hank Paulson, Treasury Secretary, June 2007, quoted in "All the Devils Are Here", p. 344, Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera
If CEOs are asking for government intervention when corporations are getting over their head, why are so many Republicans complaining about excessive government regulation?
- Chuck Prince, CEO of Citigroup, at a dinner of financial executives with Hank Paulson, Treasury Secretary, June 2007, quoted in "All the Devils Are Here", p. 344, Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera
If CEOs are asking for government intervention when corporations are getting over their head, why are so many Republicans complaining about excessive government regulation?
Thursday, August 25, 2011
"The people" want town meetings?
"Duluth gets its wish…a meeting with [Rep.] Cravaack" - headline in today's Duluth News Tribune
Wait a minute! I'm in Duluth and I didn't really want a meeting with Rep. Chip Cravaack. OK! OK! I might have gone to yesterday's "Town Meeting" at the Duluth Airport if I hadn't had other things I wanted to do and other places I wanted to be. But even then, would I have gotten one of the 200 seats or would I have been one of the 12 speakers selected? In retrospect, why bother?
I don't understand this mania for having "Town Meetings" with constituents when such a small minority would be interested and be able to attend. Duluth has over 80,000 residents and only 200 attended the meeting yesterday. Granted, it was arranged on short notice after many complaints of Cravaack meeting with business groups but not the general citizenry. See Rep. Cravaack is in touch with his constituents?
http://magree.blogspot.com/2011/08/rep-cravaack-is-in-touch-with-his.html Even then, what would it been like if over 1,000 had showed up? How much true conversation will be going on between each attendee and the Representative.
Given all the communication means available to reach a politician, many better ways exist to express a view. The postal service is still working for those who want to write letters. Phone calls are cheap for those who want to leave a message or speak to a staffer. And every politician can be reached on the internet, either by email or by a web form.
What is missing? In a town meeting, those who do get to speak get an instant audience and may even get their question printed in the newspaper. They also get the politician to address their question in front of many other people.
I think the best way for a politician to communicate is through a newsletter to every household. The best of these I've seen is from Bill Frenzel, R., 3rd District, Minnesota in the 70s and 80s. He didn't tout what he voted for or what groups he had appeared before; he told what Congress was doing, sometimes in a straight-forward manner, sometimes in a bit of befuddlement as in "What were they thinking?" Bill Frenzel is one of a kind threatened with extinction, an independently-minded Republican.
OK, Mel, you really wanted to be one of the speakers, right? What would you have said that was so important?
Did Abraham Lincoln tax and spend to build the transcontinental railroad? Or did he tax and borrow to invest in transforming the country? Good paying jobs were created and fortunes were made in the new economic environment.
Did Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman tax and spend for the G.I Bill of Rights? Or did they tax and borrow to invest in increasing opportunities for veterans who got higher paying jobs and paid more taxes.
Did Dwight Eisenhower tax and spend for the interstate highway system? Or did he tax and borrow to invest in transforming the country? Good paying jobs were created and fortunes were made in the new economic environment.
Did John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon tax and spend to put man on the moon? Or did they tax and borrow to invest in transforming the country? New technologies were created, good paying jobs were created, and fortunes were made.
Now it seems we have a hard-nosed political culture that wants to cut taxes, eliminate regulations, and let Ponzi schemes destroy the investments of President Lincoln, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, President Eisenhower, and Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon.
Wait a minute! I'm in Duluth and I didn't really want a meeting with Rep. Chip Cravaack. OK! OK! I might have gone to yesterday's "Town Meeting" at the Duluth Airport if I hadn't had other things I wanted to do and other places I wanted to be. But even then, would I have gotten one of the 200 seats or would I have been one of the 12 speakers selected? In retrospect, why bother?
I don't understand this mania for having "Town Meetings" with constituents when such a small minority would be interested and be able to attend. Duluth has over 80,000 residents and only 200 attended the meeting yesterday. Granted, it was arranged on short notice after many complaints of Cravaack meeting with business groups but not the general citizenry. See Rep. Cravaack is in touch with his constituents?
http://magree.blogspot.com/2011/08/rep-cravaack-is-in-touch-with-his.html Even then, what would it been like if over 1,000 had showed up? How much true conversation will be going on between each attendee and the Representative.
Given all the communication means available to reach a politician, many better ways exist to express a view. The postal service is still working for those who want to write letters. Phone calls are cheap for those who want to leave a message or speak to a staffer. And every politician can be reached on the internet, either by email or by a web form.
What is missing? In a town meeting, those who do get to speak get an instant audience and may even get their question printed in the newspaper. They also get the politician to address their question in front of many other people.
I think the best way for a politician to communicate is through a newsletter to every household. The best of these I've seen is from Bill Frenzel, R., 3rd District, Minnesota in the 70s and 80s. He didn't tout what he voted for or what groups he had appeared before; he told what Congress was doing, sometimes in a straight-forward manner, sometimes in a bit of befuddlement as in "What were they thinking?" Bill Frenzel is one of a kind threatened with extinction, an independently-minded Republican.
OK, Mel, you really wanted to be one of the speakers, right? What would you have said that was so important?
Did Abraham Lincoln tax and spend to build the transcontinental railroad? Or did he tax and borrow to invest in transforming the country? Good paying jobs were created and fortunes were made in the new economic environment.
Did Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman tax and spend for the G.I Bill of Rights? Or did they tax and borrow to invest in increasing opportunities for veterans who got higher paying jobs and paid more taxes.
Did Dwight Eisenhower tax and spend for the interstate highway system? Or did he tax and borrow to invest in transforming the country? Good paying jobs were created and fortunes were made in the new economic environment.
Did John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon tax and spend to put man on the moon? Or did they tax and borrow to invest in transforming the country? New technologies were created, good paying jobs were created, and fortunes were made.
Now it seems we have a hard-nosed political culture that wants to cut taxes, eliminate regulations, and let Ponzi schemes destroy the investments of President Lincoln, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, President Eisenhower, and Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)