Order is to arrangement what the soul is to the body, and what mind is to matter.
Joseph
How Democratic Party Regulatory Zeal Hurts Your Bottom Line
The growth of federal regulations over the past six decades has cut U.S. economic growth by an average of 2 percentage points per year, according to a new study in the Journal of Economic Growth. As a result, the average American household receives about $277,000 less annually than it would have gotten in the absence of six decades of accumulated regulations—a median household income of $330,000 instead of the $53,000 we get now. - Ronald BaileyKeep in mind this doesn't include the adverse economic impact of state regulations....
Image of the Day
Not to mention unsustainable Dem social programs: "Yes, We Scam"....
 |
| Courtesy of an investment newsletter publisherr |
The Cafe Hayek free market economist points the contradiction of those whom argue an implicit subsidy of American consumers (by a pegged yuan) strengthens the Chinese economy but an implicit subsidy of immigrants (by a social welfare net) weakens the American economy. [The correct policy, of course, is for the government to embrace the free markets; for example, protectionist policies by putting say a quota on the import of Japanese cars is no less arbitrary, protectionist and anti-consumer than a quota on Japanese immigrants. What we need to do is to embrace the interests of the consumer whom benefits from low prices and ample supply and variety of goods and services.]
This is not to say that China should be pegging its currency to the dollar instead of letting it float. They import a lot of natural resources; an undervalued yuan makes imports more expensive, reduces already thin profit margins, exacerbates inflation (particularly food inflation, affecting lower-income citizens), and lowers the Chinese standard of living; in the long run, related political unrest poses a threat to the governing regime. More to the point, demagogues like Chuck Schumer (D-NY) fail to realize the enormous privilege the US has in having the de facto world reserve currency and why many governments holding dollar reserves may despise the Fed for debasing the currency. Many find it hypocritical that American politicians have the audacity to criticize the monetary policies of other countries while not saying a word about the Fed's easy money printing and ZIRP, which is the ultimate market manipulation.
Why do American voters often favor shoot-yourself-in-the-foot bad economic policies like farm subsidies, minimum wage, import quotas, etc.? Bryan Caplan wrote an interesting book on the matter: The Myth of the Rational Voter. Russ Roberts did an interesting relevant EconTalk with Caplan here.
Let's briefly look at one of those policies here: farm subsidies. The Freakonomics blog has an interesting relevant discussion:
[Daniel Sumner's] answer to whether there’s a good argument to be made for farm subsidies:
“No.”
Q: Is there any evidence to support the claim that agricultural subsidies contribute to obesity?
A: The short answer is no. There are lots of reasons for dissatisfaction with farm subsidies, obesity is not one of them.
The reasoning is that, although farm subsidies programs have made the price of corn and soybeans slightly cheaper for buyers in the U.S., the accompanying trade policies have raised the prices of sugar and dairy products. Furthermore, farm costs comprise such a small fraction of the retail price, the small farm price effects have tiny retail price impacts. Finally, in rich countries such as the U.S., buyers respond little to any food price declines or increases.
Q: If the U.S. were to do away with all agriculture subsidies (in a similar manner as New Zealand), do you think that we would be better off in the long run?
A: U.S. farm subsidies tend to kick in with the big government payouts when prices are low. Big subsidies last flowed in 2005 (in the range of $20 billion in government program crop payments). Much of this money goes to farm landlords and farm operators with some going to suppliers of other inputs or buyers who get lower prices for grains and cotton.
Clearly the U.S. economy is a loser from farm subsidies and most of U.S. agriculture (hay, fruits, tree nuts, livestock, vegetables) also gets nothing much from the programs.As someone who has to deal with weight issues, I found a Forbes article referencing a 2007 WHO study. The US made the top 10, at nearly three-quarters overweight, but even more free market New Zealand and Australia tip the scales at just over two-thirds. In fact, obesity is a rapidly emerging problem among poor people and emerging/developing countries like China and India. (The article author references low-fat foods, but I argue it's more high-carb foods, not to mention more common sedentary lifestyles.) Note that Sumner in the above interview cites a number of factors exacerbating food commodity price increases, many of them involving government subsidies and export/import policies.
One of the points I hope the reader picked up on is the observation I highlighted above; many food items not subsidized by American taxpayers can be found in plentiful supply at supermarkets; why, then, are products like dairy and sugar more equal? Americans enjoyed milk products and sugar long before politically connected farmers and governments formed an unholy alliance to manipulate the market at the expense of consumers.
"Gay Marriage" Rulings at SCOTUS: An Initial Reflection
I was not surprised by the rulings. This is from my March 29 post:
First, on the Defense of Marriage Act. I have already written I think if there is a substantive ruling, it will be that a state definition of marriage (including gay marriage) will take precedence over a more restrictive federal one. I don't think it will find a constitutional right to marry for nontraditional lifestyles.I was spot on: DOMA got overturned for overstepping on traditional state regulation. This is a really odd case to begin with: the lesbian surviving partner NY resident Edie Windsor was "married" in Canada and contested a related estate tax bill in 2009. New York state did not even legalize "gay marriage" until 2011. Granted, I am not a lawyer, but the whole reason the couple went to Canada in 2007 to get "married" was because they couldn't get "married" in NY. Even if you argue that the Feds cannot trump the state definition of marriage, Windsor's partner died years before legalization and would not be material from an IRS standpoint; what's relevant is the status at the time of death. It's bizarre to me that she had legal standing to challenge DOMA; Canada's idiosyncratic marriage policies do not supersede the state's. I also find SCOTUS' ruling puzzling because at the time of DOMA the traditional definition of marriage held in all 50 states. Why is it that the Feds couldn't define what it considers "marriage"? DOMA was not a ban on a state's ability to change marriage policies; it simply identified qualifications for certain benefits, just like it does for any number of federal programs. Congress could always change DOMA just like New York was able to redefine marriage.
The second decision, basically sustaining an overturn on California's Proposition 8 on a legal technicality, was an especially bad one, in the sense right after ruling the state definition has precedence, instead of upholding a proposition reinstating the traditional definition of marriage (recall the Governator and then attorney general Jerry Brown refused to defend Proposition 8), SCOTUS simply ruled the party subsequently representing state voters lacked standing. What's particularly notable is they did not rule that Proposition 8 itself was unconstitutional. That is, they sidestepped the so-called "constitutional right to marry". But why is it that states recognizing "gay marriage" are more equal?
I'm not particularly motivated to get all excited about the less than 5% of Americans whom are gay, a notoriously promiscuous group where only a few form sustained monogamous relationships. Unlike most libertarians, I view gay relationships as more about negative vs. positive rights; that is, I see a difference between the state meddling in the relationships of gay people (which I oppose) vs. conferring a special status.
I oppose socially experimental policies undermining traditional institutions thousands of years old; I am concerned about unintended consequences. That being said, as a libertarian-conservative like the Pauls and Justin Amash, I believe that marriage law comes under the Tenth Amendment, i.e., the principle of federalism. I don't like the federal government meddling in relationships, and to be honest, I would prefer marriage and related policies to be delegated to religious institutions.
What now? A constitutional marriage amendment? I think it would be difficult to clear the Congress (especially the Senate with the Democratic Party all but adopting "gay marriage" as a litmus-test issue) by the necessary majorities plus the necessary number of states. Our attention should focus more on morally hazardous domestic policies undermining marriage and family. To those of us of faith, marriage is not merely a civil procedure, but a sacrament; just because a state or court calls something a "marriage" doesn't make it so; you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Don't sweat the small stuff.
SCOTUS Gets One Right on Private Property Rights
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Michael Ramirez and Investors.com |
The Beatles, "All My Loving". A perfectly written, performed pop song; one of my all-time favorite love songs.
Political Humor
