Published: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 00:00:00 -0500
Last Build Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 14:17:14 -0500
Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:40:00 -0500How misinformed—delusional, even—is Donald Trump's understanding of the economy? Totally. Here's a key passage from his inauguration speech (full transcript after the jump): We've made other countries rich while the wealth, strength and confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon. One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores with not even a thought about the millions and millions of American workers that were left behind. The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world. Let's be clear: Manufacturing jobs (factory jobs) peaked as a percentage of the workforce in 1943 at around 40 percent, during the mobilization efforts for World War II. Since then, they have declined at a perfectly steady rate (red line below). In terms of raw numbers, manufacturing jobs peaked in 1979. The United States produces more stuff with fewer workers. Not only are these jobs never coming back, they disappeared from our shores decades ago. Only people who are wilfully naive or mendacious about basic economic reality and history can continue to assert that declines in manufacturing employment are recent or a major part of contemporary economic dislocation. FFS, I lived in Buffalo from 1990 to 1993 and even then people were saying the factories and the mills had just shut down, even though the big declines were already 20 and more years in the past. Of course, Donald Trump is not alone in constantly talking about bring factory jobs back to America. Bernie Sanders never stops talking about and it was a regular line in Hillary Clinton's stump speech, too. In his early years in the White House, especially while selling the stimulus, Barack Obama also pushed that line, along with a very Trumpian "buy American" provision in the stimulus. To paraphrase Bob Dylan paraphrasing Samuel Johnson, economic patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings. In today's global economy—a system that has not only lifted billions of horribly poor people out of extreme poverty but has delivered increasingly improved living standards for Americans—there simply is no such thing as "made in America." Or perhaps a bit less categorically, nothing good will come of increasing the price of imports, whether we're talking about finished goods or raw materials (such as steel). If Donald Trump thinks the "strength and confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon" due to, say, NAFTA, which increased the amount of U.S. good sold in Mexico, just wait until you have to buy a car built with steel only sourced from western Pennsylvania or made more expensive due to tariffs. One more point: The industrial Midwest (also known as the Rust Belt) was key to Donald Trump's victory. The region remains mired in a decades-long slump; states such as Ohio and Michigan have for years been at or near the top when it comes to job loss and population declines in percentage terms. They don't need less trade with foreign countries, they need more; they also need more in-migration from other states. Whether U.S.-born or foreign-born, an influx of people is a sign of a thriving economy. These states need to create better, cheaper business climates by reducing taxes and regulation if they want to have any chance of competing with parts of the country that have better weather and lower start-up costs. When Reason TV and Drew Carey looked at ways to save Cleveland and other once-great American cities, the comparisons between the Mistake on the Lake and Houston were incredibly telling. Cleveland had dozens of different types of business zones, for instance, while Houston had essentially zero. The paperwork to start a business in Houston took an afternoon, while in Cleveland it stretched on for weeks. These are the fixes that should be discussed and implemented, not cynical and utterly unrealistic appeals to xenophobia and trade wars. Here's a 2009 Reason TV video that is freshly relevant in the wake of Trump's inaugural address. I post it partly because it explains why free-er trade is good an[...]
Fri, 13 Jan 2017 11:45:00 -0500As Barack Obama leaves the White House, his supporters point to low unemployment rates and low inflation as proof that his economic policies were a smashing success that saved the United States from another great depression. Gene Epstein, columnist at Barron's and the author of Econospinning: How To Read Between the Lines when the Media Manipulate the Numbers, is having none of it. Pointing to historically low economic growth for the entirety of the 21st century, Epstein says, "I believe what explains the slowdown in economic growth since the year 2000—that is, under George W. Bush and Barack Obama—has been the fairly steady decline in the economic freedom index in the U.S. The bipartisan story in the '70s, '80s, and '90s is that economic freedom...generally rose. And those were eras of generally strong growth." Since 2000, he stresses, Democrats and Republicans have "layered on" all sorts of restrictions on and interventions in economic activity, from major regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank to TARP bailouts (where bondholders were stiffed at the expense of labor unions) to massive borrowing. Every time the government intervenes or restricts economic freedom, says Epstein, market forces are dampened or frozen, resulting in less activity and innovation. As the United States drops in freedom (as defined by the Fraser Institute), it's no mystery why economic growth is shriveling up. In a new Reason podcast, Epstein tells Nick Gillespie that he doesn't think Donald Trump will be much better, either. Despite deregulatory gestures in some areas (such as energy policy and finance), Trump is full-square in favor of trade protectionism and keeping immigrants out of the country. Free trade and a growing population, especially of immigrants who are ready, willing, and able to work and take economic risks, are vital to a flourishing economy, says Epstein. As important, he explains his (and Barron's) "prescription for U.S. economic growth" is built around cutting almost $9 trillion in planned government spending on the next decade. Born in 1944 and raised in the New York area, Epstein talks about his early years as a socialist who worked for progressive economist Robert Heilbroner at The New School before encounters with the work of Noam Chomsky and Murray Rothbard turned him toward libertarian thinking on economic, foreign, and social policy. Epstein also runs The Soho Forum, a monthly debate that meets in Manhattan's East Village. The next event takes place on January 17 and features Reason's Matt Welch debating Obama's presidential legacy with New York magazine's Jonathan Chait. For details, go here. In November, I debated economist Walter Block about whether libertarians should vote for Donald Trump (go here for a podcast of that). Produced by Ian Keyser. Subscribe to the Reason Podcast at iTunes and never miss an epsiode. Click below to listen now via SoundCloud. src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/302528694&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true" width="100%" height="450" frameborder="0"> Follow us at Soundcloud. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter. Subscribe to Reason magazine for just $15 a year![...]
Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:45:00 -0500The U.S. homicide rate peaked in 1980 at 10.2 per 100,000 Americans and the number of annual homicides rose to 24,703 in 1991. Since then U.S. homicide rates have been falling and reached 4.5 per 100,000 in 2014 (a rate not seen since the 1950s) and an annual toll of 14,249. Both the rate and number of murders ticked up in 2015 to 5 per 100,000 and 15,809 respectively. Lots of research has been devoted to trying to figure out why homicide rates fell over the past couple of decades. Some researchers focused on higher incarceration rates; others on more effective policing; still others cited the aging population; and some attributed lower homicide rates to better emergency medicine. Given the fact that the data on criminally inflicted gunshot injuries is not collected comprehensively, this this latter claim has been challenged. A fascinating new working paper, "Dial 911 for Murder," by George Mason University economists Thomas Stratmann and David Chandler Thomas argue that advances in the 911 emergency response system over time, combined with the advent of cell phones have contributed significantly to the lower U.S. murder rate because victims are receiving emergency medical care ever more speedily. The argument is that victims of violent gun firearms attacks are increasingly likely to be saved from death thus converting what would have been homicides into aggravated assaults. In addition, they find the establishment of 911 systems initially increased reporting of aggravated assaults and that the subsequent proliferation of cell phones seems to have had a deterrent effect on such assaults. The initial 911 system devised in 1968 connected to an operator who then transferred the call to the police, fire, and ambulance services as appropriate. In the late 1970s, dedicated 911 call centers were established with monitors that displayed the home number and address of callers and from which emergency services were dispatched by trained personnel. Now GPS 911 is rolling out enabling dispatchers to pinpoint callers and dispatch services to people using cell phones. The researchers suggest that "when potential violent street offenders know that cell phone users have a quick way to reach the police, via GPS 911, their incentive to commit a crime decreases." The researchers account for the lethality of weapons over time, socioeconomic changes, improvements in trauma care, and so forth. Once they've parsed the data, they report: While the level of violent crimes, measured as aggravated assaults, is 219 percentage points higher in 2014 than in 1964, homicides in 2014 are eight percentage points lower than in 1964. In this paper, we find support for the hypothesis that the introduction of 911 services explains much of the decrease in homicide rates. Moreover, the introduction of 911 provides an explanation for the divergence between aggravated assault and homicide rates that started in the early 1970s. ...The empirical results in this paper indicate that reductions in emergency response times played a significant role in reducing U.S. homicides over the past 45 years. .... The reported 911 effects are quantitatively important, suggesting more than a 34 percent to 56 percent decrease in homicides that can be attributed to the 911 systems and associated reductions in response times. One simple approach to illustrate the benefits of 911 is to use our estimates to quantify the lives saved by 911 innovations. Such an exercise shows that in 2014, without 911 emergency services, the number of homicides in our sample cities would have been more than 13,000 homicides, instead of the reported 5,872. Citing the trends in Mobile, Alabama they report that the introduction of basic 911 coincided with an immediate 29 percent drop in that city's homicide rate which continued to fall in the following years. However, after the introduction of enhanced 911 in the late 1980s, the city's homicide and assault rates continued to rise. They attribute that increase to the crack cocaine epidemic that drama[...]
Wed, 04 Jan 2017 18:05:00 -0500
(image) Tonight's Kennedy (Fox Business Network 8 p.m. ET, with a repeat at midnight) is a very funny and informative television program, full of side-lisps and brain holograms and policy experiments and celebrity ISIS poetry, not necessarily in that order (though pretty close).
Reason will be represented in three segments. I'm on the Party Panel, along with funny-talkers Anthony Cumia and Ben Kissel, yakking about the fraught politics of replacing or revising Obamacare, the political optics of Donald Trump's inauguration, Lindsay Lohan's plan to combat ISIS, and the virtues of making dunderheaded economic policy experiments temporary, and on as micro a level as possible.
And shampoo model Robby Soave (pictured) will be on to explain why giving free college to Buffalo residents whose families make twice the state's median income isn't necessarily the most Phi Beta Kappa of plans. A fun time is guaranteed for all!
Wed, 04 Jan 2017 11:30:00 -05002017 ushered in minimum wage increases in 19 states, some more reasonable than others, and some of which are just the start of a series of massive jumps. There will undoubtedly be "winners" and "losers" in these government-ordered increases, those who see actual raises vs. those who find jobs harder and harder to come by. And it's going to be a challenge to evaluate what truly happened. We are seeing increased automation of low-level low-skilled service jobs. Jacking up the minimum wage is going to increase the speed by which it happens, but it would be foolish to think it wouldn't eventually come regardless. Houman Salem, who owns a small fashion house in the San Fernando Valley out in Los Angeles, took to the op-ed pages of the Los Angeles Times to explain why he's packing up and moving out of California. Los Angeles famously decided to eventually jack up its minimum wages to $15 per hour and the entire state followed suit. Salem's commentary is particularly interesting because he writes about wages as a piece of a larger regulatory burden that affects his ability to do business. He explains that the minimum wage increase is the straw that broke the camel's back because of how difficult California makes it to operate a business: Here's what the math looks like: I pay my employees $10.50 an hour, plus productivity bonuses. In addition, I pay payroll taxes and one of the highest worker compensation rates in the state. Even still, I could likely absorb a minimum wage as high as $11.50 an hour. But a $15-an-hour wage for my employees translates into $18.90 in costs for me — or just under $40,000 a year per full-time employee. When the $15 minimum wage is fully phased in, my company would be losing in excess of $200,000 a year (and far more if my workforce grows as anticipated). That may be a drop in the bucket for large corporations, but a small business cannot absorb such losses. I could try to charge more to offset that cost, but my customers —the companies that are looking for someone to produce their clothing line — wouldn't pay it. The result would be layoffs. The irony here, Salem notes, is that because Nevada's regulatory costs are so much lower than California's, he may actually be able to pay his employees more by moving. Even though Nevada has a lower minimum wage than California, he'd be okay with Nevada raising it, because the overall cost per employee is lower there. (and it's probably also worth noting that the same amount of money goes further in Las Vegas than in Los Angeles, so employees making the same wages are actually wealthier) Salem's warning is a reminder that many of the states with the highest minimum wages also have the most oppressive regulatory atmospheres to do business. And that's naturally going to wreak havoc on businesses with smaller profit margins—anything retail. (Over contributing to Forbes, Tim Worstall blasts a New York Times editorial calling for a higher national minimum wage for not grasping what a small profit margin even large retailers operate on. Over at the Washington Examiner, Jason Russell slams the same editorial for not grasping that different communities have different costs of living.) Massachusetts officially has the highest minimum wage in the country right now at $11 an hour. And yes, it's hurting people. From The Boston Globe: The owner of two family entertainment centers in Massachusetts said she has reduced her staff to 20 people, down from 50, over the past two years, to counteract rising payroll costs. The employer, who asked not to be named because she feared repercussions from workers' advocates, said she and her husband have cut their hours of operation, replaced their DJ with canned music, and are working more themselves to stay afloat. They have also stopped hiring teenagers in favor of more experienced workers. Oh, and Massachusetts' labor laws require paying employees time-and-a-half on Sundays. For these left-leaning states where resi[...]
Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:15:00 -0500
(image) Higher campaign contributions by companies helps them to secure more federal government contracts at better terms that yield higher profits, says a new working paper from researchers associated with the Networks Financial Institute at Indiana State University. In "It's a Sweetheart of a Deal: Political Connections and Federal Contracting," economists Stephen Ferris and Reza Houston confirm earlier econometric findings that firms that make more contributions to politicians do better than companies that supply lower or no contributions. They measured political connections of firms by taking into account the size of political contributions made by each company's political action committee (PAC) to directly to Congressional candidates and political parties and to their associated PACs.
Looking at all of the firms listed on the S&P 1500 Composite Index, they find that companies that make above median political contributions received 6.1 to 8.6 times more federal contracts than those making below median contributions. In addition, larger contributors receive larger contracts that are together nearly 17-fold more valuable than the aggregate of those contracts made with companies whose contributions fell below the median.
Additionally, Ferris and Houston wanted to find out whether larger contributors got better contractual terms, that is, sweetheart deals. To probe this, they constructed a four-point Sweetheart Index based on contractual terms that are clearly advantageous to the contractor but not necessarily so for the government. Specifically, they scanned government contracts for no-bid, cost-plus, multi-year, and exemption from cost and pricing data provisions. Obviously, all four provisions enhance the profitability of the contracts. So what did Ferris and Houston find?
We observe that contract terms are consistently more favorable for firms with stronger political connections The overall sweetheart index across all measures of political connectivity is 1.12 for firms making below median political contributions. The corresponding value for those firms making above median contributions is 1.41. The difference in these index values is statistically significant.
So politically connected companies, that is, those make larger contributions to politicians and parties, are not only more likely to be awarded government contracts, they are also more likely to get sweetheart deals. President-elect Donald Trump says that he is going to "drain the swamp" that is Washington, D.C. His own career as crony capitalist and his Carrier intervention do not provide much hope that he will do more than change the denizens who inhabit that particular swamp.
Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:00:00 -0500For sheer accumulation of elite institutional prestige, it's hard to top Atul Gawande. He is a professor at both Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health and a regular contributor to the New Yorker magazine, where I've enjoyed reading and learning from some of his brilliant and fair-minded past work. Gawande greeted the news of Donald Trump's election and its impact on heath-care policy with this gem: "eliminating Obamacare isn't going to stop the unnerving rise in families' health-care costs; it will worsen it. There are only two ways to assure people that if they get cancer or diabetes (or pregnant) they can afford the care they need: a single-payer system or a heavily regulated private one, with the kind of mandates, exchanges, and subsidies that Obama signed into law." A few days later I was in the New York subway and saw a poster advertising plastic surgery. "Breast augmentation," the poster blared: $3,900. "Free consultation, 100% financing available—includes all fees." On the health care financing question, I think the New York subway ad is closer to the truth of the matter than the New Yorker magazine. If there's anything American capitalism is really good at, after all—for better or worse—it's figuring out ways for consumers to pay for things that they otherwise couldn't afford, and may not even need. That new iPhone? Pay for it over two years in connection with your cellphone service contract. A new house? How about a 30-year mortgage, or even an interest-only adjustable rate mortgage? A new car? Lease it for three years. College tuition? Try a section 529 tax-deferred savings account, student loans, and financial aid. Leave cancer or diabetes aside for the moment. With all due respect to Professor Gawande, Harvard, and the New Yorker, it's just hard for me to believe that in the absence of Obamacare, the expense of pregnancy will suddenly become out of reach to ordinary Americans. Somehow, hundreds of millions of Americans managed to become pregnant in the more than two centuries that the republic existed before 2010, when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed. If the law is repealed, we'll find a way to reproduce again afterward. If anything, pregnancy and childbirth are fine examples of the way that government involvement, regulations, and subsidies increase the cost of medical care rather than decreasing it. When someone else is paying, all of a sudden any personal financial incentive a patient might have had to see a cheaper nurse-midwife for routine prenatal care rather than a more highly paid obstetrician/gynecologist disappears. Likewise, if the government requires insurance companies to pay for a two-night hospital stay, why go home sooner? Much of the expense of modern pregnancy care—fetal echocardiograms, repeated sonograms, various other tests—relates to a policy agenda of preventing the birth of disabled individuals. That may or may not be a policy agenda worth furthering by making everyone's pregnancy more expensive, but if that is the tradeoff, let's at least be transparent about it, rather than pretending that it's the pregnancy, rather than the disability-birth-prevention, that is the expensive part. The most expensive part of health care is usually a doctor's time. The supply of trained physicians is artificially constrained by limits on how many medical students, residents, and fellows are accepted each year in American medical institutions. Even highly competent and experienced foreign-trained practitioners often are required to repeat their training if they want to immigrate here and practice in America. If Americans were paying directly for their own health care, you might see political pressure build to increase the supply of physicians (and drive down the wages). Or perhaps "medical tourism" would increase, with pregnant patients choosing to schedule their labor or delivery a[...]
Mon, 12 Dec 2016 00:01:00 -0500Opposition to free trade was to Donald Trump's campaign what burgers are to McDonald's: not the entire menu but the essence of the brand. His fabled appeal to rural whites and unemployed steelworkers arose largely from his vow to get tough on foreigners who have been flooding us with goods. It has never been clear whether Trump sincerely believes what he says—given his history of making products in other countries offering low-cost labor—but it's always been apparent that he has no real grasp of the subject. He doesn't know much, and he doesn't know what he doesn't know. When he bragged about the $50 billion the Japanese SoftBank Group plans to invest in the United States, Trump clearly had no clue that it will actually hinder his effort to curb imports. Before people in Japan can make such an investment, they need American dollars, which are not printed in Tokyo. How do Japanese get American dollars? By selling goods or services in the United States. Every increase in foreign investment or lending here has to be accompanied by an equal increase in our trade deficit. It's a simple accounting truism. A $50 billion increase in Japanese investment translates into a $50 billion increase in Japanese imports. Trump can boost foreign investment or reduce imports, but not both. His threat to hit China with stiff tariffs has had similarly self-defeating consequences. Worries he'll start a trade war have caused a sharp decline in China's yuan against the dollar—which will reduce the price of Chinese goods shipped here while raising the cost of American products sold there. After attacking the Chinese for lowering the value of their currency, the president-elect has driven it down for them. He exhibits scant knowledge even on his favorite topics. Though Trump denounces NAFTA as a disaster, I've never heard him cite a single provision he doesn't like. All he knows is that we run a trade deficit with Mexico, which he assumes is a terrible thing. When he visited the Chicago Tribune for an interview with the editorial board last year, he claimed to favor free trade but complained that Ford was building a plant in Mexico and employing Mexicans. Asked whether that isn't how free trade works, he replied, "What do we get out of it?" His answer: "We never get anything." What we get from plants in Mexico that ship goods to the United States is just that—goods Americans want at a price they are willing to pay. The chief benefit of international commerce is that it allows the people of a nation to consume more than they would be able to if they had to make everything for themselves. This proposition is one of the oldest and most durable insights of economics. Trump has the idea that he can save and add American jobs by discouraging U.S. companies from moving production to other countries. He's even threatened to punish those that do. But this is a futile remedy. If gas furnaces can be made at a lower cost in Mexico, it ultimately doesn't solve anything for Carrier to keep manufacturing them in Indiana. Why not? Because its competitors, foreign or domestic, can put their plants in Mexico, gain a cost advantage and take sales away from Carrier. In the long run, Indiana may find that these jobs won't move away; they'll just disappear. Trump assumes he can force companies to build more in the United States by imposing tariffs on goods they make overseas for sale here. It would surprise him to learn that such duties would harm not just American consumers but also American producers. U.S. automakers use a multitude of imported components. Most of the cars built on our soil, in fact, contain more than 25 percent foreign parts. A lot of other products assembled here include materials or pieces made elsewhere. As a result, any duties slapped on imports would inflate costs for American manufacturers, making it harder for them to sell both at home and abroad[...]
Fri, 25 Nov 2016 12:00:00 -0500Even as the mighty Statue of Liberty beckons the world's "poor and huddled masses" to America's shores, Americans themselves have been ambivalent, to put it mildly, about how many newcomers ought to be welcomed and from where. To the extent that a pro-immigration consensus has existed, it was always an uneasy one. But Donald Trump's meteoric political rise after embracing an extreme restrictionist agenda has shattered that fragile status quo, dividing pundits and public, academics and analysts throughout the 2016 election season. There's an absence of good polling data to shine a light on how immigrants themselves feel about this issue, but it's clear that even they don't all agree. George J. Borjas is a celebrated Harvard University economist who emigrated from Cuba to the United States with his mother at the age of 12, three years after Fidel Castro's regime took over the country and confiscated his father's garment factory. He has made vital contributions to many fields of economics, especially immigration, and has a new book, We Wanted Workers: Unraveling the Immigration Narrative, out this month. In it, he challenges the notion that immigration is "universally beneficial." Shikha Dalmia is a Reason Foundation analyst and a native of New Delhi, India, who came to America 31 years ago as an idealistic student looking to escape the corruption of a socialistic mixed economy. She writes extensively about immigration and firmly believes America shuts the door on outsiders at its economic and spiritual peril. What follows is a spirited exchange between the two on the empirical claims and proposed policy prescriptions in We Wanted Workers. Dear Professor Borjas:Let me congratulate you on a book that is a model of clarity. We Wanted Workers systematically walks readers through the immigration literature. Along the way, it offers a sense of the immensely knotty methodological problems that bedevil the dismal science. Also, I agree completely that the "overreliance on economic modeling and statistical findings" on this subject is a regrettable development that fosters the notion that "purely technocratic determinations of public policy" are possible. In fact, the scientific hubris underlying such efforts prevents a full airing of the normative and ideological commitments that ultimately do—and perhaps should—guide policy. That said, the more I read, the more despondent I got. The publisher's teaser promises that the book "takes a fresh and thought-provoking new look" that parses the claims on the "two extreme poles" of those calling for "tougher laws…in a racially tinged discourse" on one end and those pushing for "more open policies" on the other. But the book focused almost exclusively on the second target while largely ignoring the first, even when its own facts warranted a smackdown. You point out that the pro-immigration camp's claims that America is a magnet for the "best and brightest" are overblown because which foreigners—high-skilled or low-skilled—make a beeline for America depends on how well their skills are rewarded in their own country. Highly egalitarian countries such as Denmark lose their highly skilled workers because, relative to less-skilled counterparts, their labor is rewarded less well, whereas the reverse is the case in highly inegalitarian countries such as Mexico. That's an interesting thesis, but it doesn't explain India, my native country, which has extreme inequality and is among the biggest "donors" of high-skilled talent. It was odd that you shoehorned India into the same category as Canada and Australia as a country with "less inequality." But America's genius is not that it draws the best people but that it draws out the best from people, which is why even the world's "wretched" manage to make something of themselves here. Indeed, the essential thing for "success" is n[...]
Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:15:00 -0400The folks over at Wired invited President Barack Obama to guest edit the November issue of the magazine. The theme is Frontiers. I finally got around to reading the president's introduction to the issue, "Now Is the Greatest Time to Be Alive." I entirely agree with the president. In his essay, the president writes: Let's start with the big picture. By almost every measure, this country is better, and the world is better, than it was 50 years ago, 30 years ago, or even eight years ago. Leave aside the sepia tones of the 1950s, a time when women, minorities, and people with disabilities were shut out of huge parts of American life. Just since 1983, when I finished college, things like crime rates, teen pregnancy rates, and poverty rates are all down. Life expectancy is up. The share of Americans with a college education is up too. Tens of millions of Americans recently gained the security of health insurance. Blacks and Latinos have risen up the ranks to lead our businesses and communities. Women are a larger part of our workforce and are earning more money. Once-quiet factories are alive again, with assembly lines churning out the components of a clean-energy age. And just as America has gotten better, so has the world. More countries know democracy. More kids are going to school. A smaller share of humans know chronic hunger or live in extreme poverty. In nearly two dozen countries—including our own—people now have the freedom to marry whomever they love. And last year the nations of the world joined together to forge the most comprehensive agreement to battle climate change in human history. I reported on all of those positive trends and more in my book, The End of Doom. As a politician, President Obama will naturally hype policies like climate change regulation as part of his legacy. But setting that aside, all of his other claims about improvements in the human prospects are true. But where the president disappoints is when he tries to explain how all of this truly marvelous progress occurred. Consider: This kind of progress hasn't happened on its own. It happened because people organized and voted for better prospects; because leaders enacted smart, forward-looking policies; because people's perspectives opened up, and with them, societies did too. But this progress also happened because we scienced the heck out of our challenges. Science is how we were able to combat acid rain and the AIDS epidemic. Technology is what allowed us to communicate across oceans and empathize with one another when a wall came down in Berlin or a TV personality came out. Without Norman Borlaug's wheat, we could not feed the world's hungry. Without Grace Hopper's code, we might still be analyzing data with pencil and paper.... Because the truth is, while we've made great progress, there's no shortage of challenges ahead: Climate change. Economic inequality. Cybersecurity. Terrorism and gun violence. Cancer, Alzheimer's, and antibiotic-resistant superbugs. Just as in the past, to clear these hurdles we're going to need everyone—policy makers and community leaders, teachers and workers and grassroots activists, presidents and soon-to-be-former presidents. And to accelerate that change, we need science. We need researchers and academics and engineers; programmers, surgeons, and botanists. And most important, we need not only the folks at MIT or Stanford or the NIH but also the mom in West Virginia tinkering with a 3-D printer, the girl on the South Side of Chicago learning to code, the dreamer in San Antonio seeking investors for his new app, the dad in North Dakota learning new skills so he can help lead the green revolution. That's how we will overcome the challenges we face: by unleashing the power of all of us for all of us. Not just for those of us who are fortunate, but fo[...]
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 09:30:00 -0400If man-made global warming produced by rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels poses a significant problem, then most economists think that a revenue-neutral carbon tax imposed at the minehead and the well-head is the cheapest and most efficient solution. So too should most environmental activists who are concerned about climate change. However, many environmentalist groups are surprisingly opposed to just such a proposal in Washington State. Ballot Initiative 732 (I-732) would establish a tax on carbon emissions at $15 per metric ton of emissions in July 2017, $25 in July 2018, and then 3.5 percent plus inflation each year until the tax reaches $100 per metric ton. The tax would be phased in more slowly for farmers and nonprofit transportation providers. If adopted, I-732 could cut the state sales tax by one full percentage point from from 6.5 to 5.5 percent. It would fund the Working Families Rebate to provide up to $1,500 a year for 400,000 low-income working households to counter their increased energy expenditures. And it would essentially eliminate the Business and Occupation Tax for manufacturers, thus encouraging them to remain in the state. I-732 aims to neither increase nor decrease state revenues; the new carbon tax would offset other taxes and there would be no additional revenue left over for Washington State politicians and bureaucrats to spend. The goal of the tax is to lower greenhouse gas emissions by incentivizing people to switch to low- and no-carbon based fuels. One would think that environmentalists would cheer and be urging Washington State residents to support I-732. However, a remarkably interesting article, "The left v. a carbon tax," over at Vox explains how many Washington State environmentalist and progressive groups came to oppose I-732. One huge reason for their opposition is that the left-leaning groups against I-732 are against to revenue neutrality; they want to use climate policy as a way to increase tax revenues in order to "invest" in clean energy and to support "climate justice" redistribution programs. Consequently, as Ramez Naam, who has worked with the group CarbonWA to get I-732 on ballot, emailed me that its progressive opponents are essentially arguing, "Let's make the perfect the enemy of the really extremely good." He added, "On its merits, I-732 would be the strongest climate policy in North America, extremely market based, and the most progressive change to the tax code in Washington State (and possibly the biggest anti-poverty initiative here) in 40 years." Actually, it is highly debatable that the revenue increasing proposals that Washington State's soi-disant climate progressives would prefer to enact are in any sense more "perfect" than I-732. Jerry Taylor, the president of the Niskanen Center libertarian policy shop, favors a revenue-neutral carbon tax as a way to address concerns about climate change. When asked what he thought of I-732 Taylor responded in an email: I-732 gets it right for the state of Washington. The initiative make polluters pay for the risks and damages they are imposing on the rest of us...and then turns around and gives that money (in the form of a sales tax cut) to those they are putting at risk. Even if corporations passed all of the tax on to consumers, a majority of the citizens of Washington would gain more in tax reduction than they would pay in higher energy prices. It is not a perfect model for federal action in that existing regulatory authority to address greenhouse gas emissions would continue to exist, but it is nonetheless a very good start. Unfortunately, the opposition to I-732 by progressives is proving the salience of Cato Institute senior fellow Patrick Michaels' tart observation: "Do you really think $3 trillion w[...]
Sun, 18 Sep 2016 08:00:00 -0400Democratic politics makes savvy people stupid, at least when they act politically. This has long been demonstrated, and it applies both to voters and policymakers. Several things account for it: the impotence of one vote, the consequent futility and hence wastefulness of acquiring information, the dispersal of the costs of government, and the resulting theatrical mood-setting farces called election campaigns. Outside politics life is rather different. Our actions have a reasonable chance of making a difference to ourselves and those we care about; the costs of our actions fall largely on ourselves; and acquiring information in order to act more intelligently is thus worthwhile. As a result, those who try to sell us goods and services have an incentive to behave responsively and responsibly, unlike candidates for political office. That's why, by and large, people act smarter in the personal realm than they do in political realm. To see the difference, think about the saving of labor. Normally we see this as a good thing. We buy electric toothbrushes, power lawnmowers, dishwashers, clothes washers and dryers, and self-cleaning ovens, among many other things, precisely to save labor. Why? Obviously because labor is work—exertion. Most of what we think of as work we would not do if we could have the expected fruits without it. (Of course we sometimes are paid to do things we'd do anyway, but then it is something more than mere work.) Saving labor through technology not only relieves us of particular exertion; it also frees us to obtain other things we want but would otherwise have to do without—including leisure. Thus labor-saving enables us to have more stuff for less exertion. Time and energy are scarce, but our ends are infinite. That's why no one in private life fails to see labor-saving as good. Frederic Bastiat captured this in a fable about Robinson Crusoe. Crusoe had a two-week project planned: making a plank. This would require many days of labor, cutting down a tree, trimming the trunk, and fashioning the plank just so. Next he would re-sharpen his tools and then replenish the provisions he would consume during the project. As he prepared to start the job, Friday excitedly delivered the news that a piece of wood, well suited as a plank, had just washed up on their island. Terrible news, Crusoe said. Friday didn't understand, so Crusoe explained: obtaining the plank without effort—that is, for free—would cost him weeks of labor. He said: Now, labor is wealth. It is clear that I shall only be hurting my own interests if I go down to the beach to pick up that piece of driftwood. It is vital for me to protect my personal labor, and, now that I think of it, I can even create additional labor for myself by going down and kicking that plank right back into the sea! The genius of Bastiat's fable is that people will readily spot Crusoe's foolishness. But it is equally certain that few will apply the lesson to the "national economy," which is nothing more than a lot of people, arbitrarily grouped into a "nation," who produce and trade, when permitted, with other people arbitrarily grouped into other "nations." When Bastiat's interlocutor calls Crusoe's reasoning "absurd," Bastiat replies: That may be. It is nonetheless the same line of reasoning that is adopted by every nation that protects itself by interdicting the entry of foreign goods. It kicks back the plank that is offered it in exchange for a little labor, in order to give itself more labor. There is no labor, even including that of the customs official, in which it does not see some profit. It is represented by the pains Robinson Crusoe took to return to the sea the present it was offering him. Consider the nation as a collective entity, and you will not find an [...]
Fri, 16 Sep 2016 14:50:00 -0400
(image) What is the attraction of socialism? The Cato Institute held a policy forum Wednesday to consider that question, featuring talks from the moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt and the evolutionary psychologists Leda Cosmides and John Tooby. Cosmides pointed out that human beings evolved to handle the social challenges encountered in small bands of 50 to 200 people. Globe-spanning market economies strain our brains. The chief problem, Tooby suggested, is that many people are beguiled by "romantic socialism"—that is, they imagine what their personal lives would be like if everyone shared and treated one another like family. Left-leaning people, observed Haidt, endorse a story he calls "Capitalism is Exploitation"; "Capitalism is Liberation" is the story told by many conservatives and most libertarians. Ultimately, Cosmides argued, those of us who want to preserve liberty and prosperity need to understand how human psychology has evolved and understand why evolved attitudes are so hostile to modern free market societies.
Mon, 05 Sep 2016 16:00:00 -0400America can return to prosperity and robust economic growth by looking to the Kennedy-Reagan model of income tax cuts and a strong, stable dollar, a new book argues. JFK and the Reagan Revolution: A Secret History of American Prosperity, by Lawrence Kudlow and Brian Domitrovic, will be published this week by Penguin Random House's Portfolio imprint. It tells the story of how the tax and monetary policies of Presidents Kennedy and Reagan triggered impressive economic growth. As Kudlow and Domitrovic describe it in their introduction, "the combination of a strong and stable dollar with big, permanent, across-the-board tax rate cuts" can lead to a near-utopia. "Budget deficits, the retirement crisis, student loans, unaffordable health care, poor schools, [problems of] inner cities—all these things will fade away as lasting economic growth takes hold." Kudlow couldn't have been more gracious three years ago when my own book JFK, Conservative was published, and part of what I want to do here is repay the kindness. My own suggestions that the Kennedy tax cuts might be a useful model today have been met consistently and predictably by liberal objections that today's top income tax rates are considerably lower than the 91 percent top federal rate that obtained before Kennedy won a reduction to 70 percent. There's less room to cut now, the argument goes, and the effects on incentives and growth would be concomitantly less powerful. What's more, neither the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, nor the Republican one, Donald Trump, has been campaigning on a Kennedy-Reagan-Kudlow-Domitrovic platform. Clinton, while talking some about both economic growth and tax simplification, has also been calling for increased taxes on top earners and on some capital gains. Trump, while proposing some substantial income tax rate reductions, has also threatened to increase tariffs on imports. If that is more than just a negotiating threat, it would create a sharp contrast with Kennedy, who, Kudlow and Domitrovic write, "spurred the biggest round of tariff reductions of modern times." So are the Kennedy and Reagan examples irrelevant? Not quite. JFK and the Reagan Revolution doesn't really get into it, but it's worth mentioning that both presidents also spent heavily on arms buildups, pursuing a peace-through-strength approach to national security. They were fighting a Cold War against the Soviet Union, but some might argue that a similar strategy is in order now against the Islamic State or other manifestations of militant Islam. As for the argument that marginal rates today are lower than the ones that either Reagan or Kennedy began paring, I'd argue that there's still plenty of room to cut. State and local income taxes piled atop the federal ones mean marginal top rates for Californians or New York City residents are more than 50 percent. That means various governments take more than half of every additional dollar earned. At lower levels, phase-outs of benefits and subsidies create even steeper effective marginal rates. At 39.6 percent, the top federal rate is considerably higher than the 28 percent rate that Reagan left it at. Remember, too, the Sixteenth Amendment that gave the government the power to levy a federal income tax was only ratified in 1913, well more than a century after the country was founded. One useful contribution of JFK and the Reagan Revolution is to remind readers that Kennedy and Reagan didn't necessarily start off as tax-cutters, either. Reagan raised taxes as governor of California. When he ran for president in 1976, he insisted that tax cuts needed to be offset by spending cuts. As a congressman, Kennedy voted against tax cuts championed by Senator Robe[...]
Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:01:00 -0400For the past year, the Republican Party has behaved as though it is determined to abandon its best principles and alienate voters for years to come. The derailment has been so spectacular that it's easy to miss that Democrats are also veering in a direction that is ominous for both themselves and the country. Though Bernie Sanders lost the presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton, her victory came through capitulation. On issue after issue, she did her best to defuse his appeal by embracing his ideas and his rhetoric. That strategy worked in the primaries and, thanks to the self-destructiveness of Donald Trump, probably won't keep her from winning in November. But it promises to be a burden on her presidency and her party's future. It also neglects the lessons taught by another Clinton, Bill. Partly because his administration was so successful, Democrats have won the popular vote in four of the five presidential elections since his 1996 re-election. The thriving economy of his era created nearly 23 million jobs, cut the unemployment rate below 4 percent, kept inflation low, rescued 6.3 million Americans from poverty and set a record for the longest peacetime expansion in U.S. history. Clinton knew that a booming economy is the closest thing to a cure-all. He pursued it with a combination of fiscal discipline, free trade and a light regulatory hand. Jimmy Carter, a Democratic president synonymous with economic chaos, had proved the folly of federal interference in wages and prices. A big part of Clinton's wisdom lay in what he didn't do. But Hillary Clinton, pushed leftward by Sanders, has forgotten what fueled that prosperity. Her husband signed NAFTA, reached free trade agreements with Israel and Jordan, induced Beijing to submit to the rules of the World Trade Organization, and rebuffed demands for new import restrictions. Hillary opposes the trans-Pacific free trade deal—but it was Bill who originated the idea, over objections from the leftists of his day. He thought global integration would foster global growth, and he was right. During his first term, Clinton resisted demands to increase the minimum wage. In 1996, he acceded to an increase of 21 percent—but when Democrats led by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., proposed another 40 percent increase, the president helped scotch it. He feared that even with the economy humming, a boost of that size would destroy jobs. Hillary Clinton, however, is willing to sign a bill raising the minimum wage to $15, more than double the current $7.25—at a time when the economy is less robust than when her husband balked. She also shows no inclination to restore the balanced budget that Bill did so much to attain. It was an achievement that had not been realized in nearly three decades—and has not been duplicated since. Although her fiscal plans are much more restrained than her opponent's, she would raise the total federal debt by 50 percent over the next decade, according to the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. (Trump would more than double it.) It's not just her specific policies that would hobble growth; it's also her broad approach and her eagerness to indulge the Sanderistas. The Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank once known as "Bill Clinton's idea mill," has warned of the dangers of depicting "working Americans as pitiful victims of stock villains like Wall Street, giant corporations, China or illegal aliens." In a report published in March, PPI urged Democrats to "reject magical thinking," as well as European-style fixes. "A progressive government's job is not to direct the private economy or shield people from market competition—from which ma[...]