Man is ready to die for an idea,
provided that idea is not quite clear to him.
Paul Eldridge
Stats of the Day
Of the 112 academic studies we found on overall state or local tax burdens, for example, 72 of them-64 percent-showed a negative association with economic performance. Author James Hines of the University of Michigan found that "state taxes significantly influence the pattern of foreign direct investment in the U.S." A 1 percent change in the tax rate was associated with an 8 percent change in the share of manufacturing investment from taxed investors. Another study, published in Public Finance Review in 2004, studying 30 years of data, the authors concluded that states that raised their income tax rates more than their neighbors had significantly slower growth rates in per-capita income. Of the 43 studies testing the relationship between total state or local spending and economic growth, only five concluded that it was positive. Sixteen studies found that higher state spending was associated with weaker economic growth; the other 22 were inconclusive. Of the 84 studies examining infrastructure spending, most studies still found either inconclusive or negative relationships. Of 79 research findings on the relationship between education spending and economic growth, 34 findings of mixed or insignificant results and 15 negative. A 2012 study in the Southern Economic Journal found that countries with greater central-government involvement in schooling experience both lower student performance and lower economic growth. - John HoodPro-Liberty Thought of the Day
 |
| Via LFC |
 |
| Via the Independent Institute |
I think these are well-justified; I'm seriously baffled as to how they bypassed the three others I list below in FB Corner (two of them whom are usually rated among the highest by politically correct historians). Keep in mind my choices reflect a runaway federal budget, deteriorating individual rights, and military intervention.
Never Underestimate the Contribution of the Individual
 |
| HT Mikey McNiel |
Facebook Corner
(Tom Woods). Talking about the best (least bad) and worst presidents on the Tom Woods Show today at noon ET. What are your nominations?
Best/least worse: Calvin Coolidge (non-interventionist in post-war depression, cut government/debt/deficit)
Worst (excluding Obama, whose performance to date is competitive): tie, modern era: FDR and LBJ (entitlement expansion; military intervention). Overall, Lincoln (more Americans killed in war, tariff-monger, greenbacks, income tax, violations of the Bill of Rights, etc.)
(Reason). A new study confirms limited government is good for economic progress.
Why did there need to be a study done? Everyone knows this.
In theory. Theories need to be validated by empirical evidence. Take, for instance, the "progressive" hypothesis that government "investments" in education, infrastructure, etc., more than offset the loss of that capital alternatively deployed in the private sector. As this article points out, the data are, at best, mixed/weak over a number of studies.
(Ron Paul). Obama Incentives Only Create Dependency
Obamacare will reduce workforce participation by the equivalent of 2 million jobs. A $10.10 minimum wage increase will kill up to 1 million entry level jobs. RPC contributor Corie Whalen contends that Obama’s incentives only encourage government dependency while destroying wealth creation.
Watch Preview Here: http://bit.ly/1gcsGfm
raising the minimum wage means the middle class won't be subsidizing wages for the Walton family through food stamps, medicaid, and Earned Income Tax Credits. I bet my business would be more profitable if it was subsidized by gov't too. This is not capitalism, it's an oligopoly.
All in all, Walmart would be forced to raise prices less than 1%, about $12 a year to the typical shopper.
I think it's great that people won't have to keep a corporate clone job just to get health insurance. If all goes well it will mean more small businesses, the real backbone of America.
Ron Paul is becoming a real GOP shill.
"Subsidizing" wages of Walmart? What economic lunacy! First, only a tiny fraction of workers make minimum wage--like about 2%. Second, the safety net goes beyond minimum wage workers; nearly 70% of workers are net beneficiaries in our tax system.
But the talking point is incoherent: wages can only be understood in context of a free labor market, worker supply and productivity, and an employer's budget. A minimum wage does not force an employer to hire people at an artificially higher wage. And it's a mandate; the market wage is hardly "subsidized". What's relevant is the market clearing rate--not some arbitrary higher wage pulled out of some politician's ass. All a minimum wage does is raise a barrier of entry into the labor force; it strips away the right to contract between workers and employers
I'm sorry [discussant], but his work has been superseded by more recent studies, beginning with Card and Kreuger in 1995. You see, economics is a science, not a religion, and so new data, new methods of analyses, new experiments, reveal new knowledge over time.
Always expect "progressive" trolls to trot out the Card/Krueger garbage. It's what I call 'kaleidoscope economics'--ignore the basic concept of supply and demand, ignore dozens of studies showing when you increase the cost of labor without commensurate productivity gains, you get fewer jobs, just find an idiosyncratic study using dubious self-report measures and latch onto it...
Too many "progressive" trolls out there promoting rubbish. This insane talking point: "More money and less government assistance in the mix means better economic conditions over the long haul." Let us point out business and individual taxpayers are already paying costs for the morally hazardous safety net--it's called "taxes". Mandates are just a different form of taxation, and high taxation is inversely related to growth.
(LFC). Should state agents receive immunity by the state for killing people? I mean it only makes sense, right? [The context is whether there should be immunity for police whom gun down car chase drivers.]
What's next? They'll hunt them down in Black Hawks? What become of due process and the right to a trial?
Innovation in Medicine and Cancer Treatment
HT Libertarian Republic. The discussion of HIV in the film is somewhat imprecise: a more rigorous overview of what happened is available here.
The Westboro Baptist Church is Back in the News
I try to maintain a more positive tone in the blog; I don't like red meat politics or cheap shots. This does not I can't be critical, e.g., of Barack Obama, even testy at times when he seems to be in a state of denial, e.g., after 30 speeches on ObamaCare and its unpopularity, he concludes that the issue is not with the policy itself but his messaging. But mostly I focus on the issue, not the person, and try to use humor if I think Obama is getting a little too full of himself. I have significally cut down on my coverage of partisan politics.
I do have moments when my patience wears thin. This is particularly true of "progressive" trolls, say, on Facebook. I almost never engage in name-calling, but I am particularly annoyed about the Koch Brothers bugaboo. It's very predictable; to be clear, I have no ties or contacts with the Koch brothers. (I have a relative whom has worked for a Koch Industries subsidiary, but our contact has been minimal during the life of the blog and has not involved politics. And the relative is more of a political moderate whom has been known to forward a Gray Lady link or two.) In yesterday's post I reprinted a contemptuous response; what I didn't show was the troll's cartoon using a Coca-Cola facsimile (Coke=Koch, get it?) Actually David Koch was a 1980 Libertarian Party VP nominee, and their views are more libertarian than conservative; only a handful or so legislators are fusion libertarian-conservatives. It's very difficult to make the case they've had an outsized impact on politics; as I mentioned, nearly 60 entities contributed more than Koch over a decade or so, with unions contributing several multiples more. I don't mind people disagreeing with me over Koch, but at least make a constructive point; cheap shots are unacceptable.
It is very difficult for me to find something constructive to say about Westboro Baptist Church; they are notoriously anti-gay and anti-Catholic, but the issue of gay people is especially notable: they see American tolerance of gays as anti-Biblical and suggest any negative event, including the deaths of the military in the Gulf Region, is God's punishment for ignoring His Word. In particular, they have protested funerals (which I consider a violation of religious or other liberty).
A high-profile college football player and likely NFL draft choice Michael Sam (Missouri) recently came out of the closet, announcing that he is gay. WBC, from the neighboring state of Kansas, decided to protest Michael Sam on the Missouri campus, and some 2000 Missouri students showed up to express solidarity with Sam. Kudos to the students for exercising their freedom to associate.
Let me be clear: I have differences on the issue of "gay marriage", but I believe that gays have the right to pursue happiness, for the government and others to not interfere with their basic constitutional freedoms, and honoring certain basic rights, like inheritance and hospital visitation.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Michael Ramirez and Townhall |
Sheena Easton, "You Could Have Been With Me"
