Back to Top

Center for Freedom and Prosperity (CF&P)

Subscribe to Center for Freedom and Prosperity (CF&P) feed
Updated: 15 min 8 sec ago

Singapore Flirting with Class-Warfare Tax Policy

Thu, 04/11/2019 - 12:33pm

Singapore is routinely ranked as the world’s 2nd-freest economy, trailing only Hong Kong.

The nation’s laissez-faire approach has yielded big dividendsSingapore is now über prosperous, richer than both the United States and United Kingdom.

But there are problems in paradise.

Advocates of class-warfare policy (see here and here) are urging higher tax burdens. And even though there’s no reason to raise taxes (Singapore has a huge budget surplus), politicians have catered to this noisy clique in recent years (see here and here).

In a column for the Straits Times that I co-wrote with Donovan Choy of Singapore’s Adam Smith Centre, we explain why the government should slam the door on all tax hikes, especially proposals targeting entrepreneurs and investors.

Singapore has shown that conventional theories about economic growth need to be updated to reflect that growth doesn’t necessarily need to weaken once a nation becomes prosperous. Singaporeans should be thankful for the sensible governance that has made the nation a role model. Unfortunately, some people are willing to threaten the country’s prosperity by urging higher tax burdens on the wealthy. They risk national competitiveness by advocating additional layers of tax on income that is saved and invested. This “class warfare” approach is deeply misguided, especially in a globalised economy.

We list six specific guidelines for sensible policy.

Two of them are worth highlighting, starting with the fact that Singapore so far has avoided the trap of “Wagner’s Law.”

What makes Singapore special is that it avoided the mistakes other nations made when they became rich. Countries in North America and Western Europe created costly welfare states once they became relatively prosperous. This is known to academics as Wagner’s Law, and it has serious consequences since larger public sectors reduce competitiveness and lead to less growth.

We also explain that discriminatory taxes on saving and investment are the most destructive method of collecting revenue.

Proponents assert that dividend and capital gains taxes are needed so that upper-income people pay tax. But this line of thinking is misguided. Such income is already subject to 17 per cent corporate income taxation in Singapore. Imposing dividend and capital gains taxes would mean such income is subject to increasing layers of discriminatory taxation. The result is to discourage capital formation (savings and investment) – the very essence of entrepreneurship. And that approach is economically foolish, since all economic theories – even Marxism and socialism – agree that saving and investment are key to long-run growth and rising living standards.

Since today’s topic is Singapore, let’s look at some additional material.

We’ll start with two articles that Donovan wrote for the Foundation for Economic Education.

The first column explains a bit of the history.

The country’s first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, is often recognized as the father of Singapore. If that is so, then the grandfathers of Singapore would rightfully be three men: Sir Stamford Raffles, who founded the trade settlement, William Farquhar, whom Raffles put at the helm of Singapore in his periodic years of absences, and John Crawfurd, whom Raffles appointed to succeed Farquhar. …Raffles’s intentions were plain as he wrote in a letter in June 1819: “Our object is not territory but trade; a great commercial emporium…,” and to develop “the utmost possible freedom of trade and equal rights to all, with protection of property and person”. …Like Farquhar, Crawfurd shared Raffles’s strong free-market beliefs and pushed his laissez-faire policies even harder… The common denominator of the grandfathers of Singapore was their economic philosophies – capitalism and free enterprise were at the root of their beliefs. The first leaders of colonial Singapore were staunch classical liberals who professed strong beliefs in economic freedoms

You probably won’t be surprised to learn that this is somewhat similar to Hong Kong’s economic history.

Donovan’s next column looks at how Singapore has wisely limited redistribution.

The Singapore welfare system is considered one of the most successful by first-world standards. World Bank data shows that Singapore’s government health expenditure in 2015 is only 4.3 percent of GDP, a small fraction in comparison to other first-world countries…while achieving comparatively equal or better health outcomes… While most of Europe, Scandinavia, and North America spend 30-40 percent of GDP on social welfare programs, Singapore spends less than half as much… qualifying for welfare is notoriously difficult by the standards of most of the developed Western world. The Singapore government’s position on welfare handouts is undergirded by a staunch economic philosophy of self-reliance and self-responsibility where the first lines of welfare should be derived from one’s individual savings, the family unit, and local communities before turning to the government. …This philosophy of self-reliance and responsibility is prominent not only in social welfare but is also replicated in the Singapore government’s approach to retirement savings, health care, education, and housing. For instance, the state’s preferred policy of ensuring individuals have sufficient resources for a rainy day is via the Central Provident Fund, a government-mandated savings account.

Again, much like Hong Kong.

Singapore also has what is probably the most market-oriented healthcare system in the world.

Here are some excerpts from a story in the New York Times.

…it achieves some outcomes Americans would find remarkable. Life expectancy at birth is two to three years longer than in Britain or the United States. Its infant mortality rate is among the lowest in the world, about half that of the United States…about two-thirds of health care spending is private, and about one-third is public. It’s just about the opposite in the United States. …What also sets Singapore apart, and what makes it beloved among many conservative policy analysts, is its reliance on health savings accounts. All workers are mandated to put a decent percentage of their earnings into savings for the future. …why is Singapore so cheap? Some think that it’s the strong use of health savings accounts and cost-sharing. People who have to use their own money usually spend less.

The country is also remarkably free of crime, as noted by CNBC.

Singapore was recently ranked second on the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Safe Cities Index for 2017, coming in just behind Tokyo. In 2016, the island nation’s police reported 135 total days without any crimes including snatch-theft, house break-ins and robbery. That low crime rate means many small businesses enjoy little concern about shoplifting. …local businesses take few precautions when closing shop at night. For instance, in the ground floor lobby of a mixed-use building in the downtown business district, many shops don’t have windows, locks — or even doors.

Though it is not a total libertarian paradise.

column in Bloomberg warns the Brexit crowd that there are statist components to Singapore’s regime.

Over 80 percent of the population lives in public housing… In industrial policy, the government oversees a plethora of schemes targeting mostly off-budget public funding to particular sectors such as biopharma and aerospace, as well as activities such as R&D and skills training. Government-linked companies, whose controlling shareholder is the sovereign wealth fund Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd., are the dominant players in transport, communications, real estate and media.

Let’s close with a column Professor Steve Hanke authored for Forbes.

Singapore validates Adam Smith’s counsel on economic development: “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice.” …Singapore, Hong Kong, and even the Cayman Islands exemplify commerce-oriented city-states. How can such a small player, like Singapore, achieve prominence on the world’s stage? …acting as a commercial republic and embracing a regime of entrepreneurial public finance. …the culture of an entrepreneurial inclined city-state – like Singapore – differs significantly from that of a parasitical state that feeds on tax extractions.

Here’s his comparison of a predatory government compared to a pro-market government.

Singapore is a successful example of the right column.

Sounds like a model the United States should follow.

Assuming, of course, Singapore retains good policy.

P.S. I’ve also had to explain why the Cayman Islands should retain good policy.

P.P.S. Regular readers won’t be surprised to learn that the OECD tries very hard to overlook the success of Singapore’s low-tax model.

P.P.P.S. Singapore is in first place in my “laissez-faire index.”

———
Image credit: Merlion444 | CC0 1.0.

The Heavy Cost of Czechoslovakian Socialism

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 12:53pm

I was in Bratislava earlier today as part of the Free Market Road Show, where I spoke about how European nations are in trouble because of excessive spending and aging populations.

But I’m not going to write about my presentation because Peter Gonda of the Konservatívny Inštitút M.R. Stefánika shared some data on the post-World War II economic performance of Czechoslovakia that is far more interesting.

As you can see from his chart (the English title would be “The Economic Reality of Socialism”), Czechoslovakia, West Germany, Austria, and Finland all had very similar levels of income in 1948. But over the next 40 years, the socialist Czechoslovakian economy (CZ) fell further and further behind the market-oriented economies of those other countries.

Indeed, after just four decades, the market-oriented nations averaged twice as much per-capita economic output at the beleaguered Czechoslovakian economy.

By the way, things have improved since the collapse of communism.

Czechoslovakia in the early 1990s peacefully split into two nations, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. And both of them have since adopted a decent amount of pro-market reforms and have begun to converge with Western Europe.

So our story has a semi-happy ending (though I wrote last year that I’m worried about Slovakia backsliding a bit).

P.S. If you want other compelling examples that show – over multiple decades – the superior performance of market-oriented nations, click here and here.

P.P.S. Under Soviet rule, Czechoslovakia was genuine socialism (i.e., government ownershipcentral planningprice controls), which obviously is more damaging than what many people think of today as socialism (i.e., punitive taxes and a big welfare state).

P.P.P.S. Ludwig Erhard deserves much credit for West Germany’s post-war recovery.

The Case for Tax Competition

Tue, 04/09/2019 - 12:17pm

Why do I relentlessly defend tax competition and tax havens?

Sadly, it’s not because I have money to protect. Instead, I’m motivated by a desire to protect the world from “goldfish government.”

Simply stated, politicians have a “public choice” incentive for never-ending expansions of government, even if they actually understand such policies will lead to Greek-style collapse.

Speaking at a recent conference in Moldova, I explained why tax competition is the best hope for averting that grim outcome.

In my remarks, I basically delivered a results-based argument for tax competition.

Which is why I shared data on lower tax rates and showed these slides on what politicians want compared to what they’ve been pressured to deliver.

Likewise, I also talked about reductions in the tax bias against saving and investment and shared these slides on what politicians want compared to what they’ve been pressured to deliver.

There’s also a theoretical side to the debate about tax competition and tax havens.

In a 2013 article for Cayman Financial Review, I explained (fairly, I think) the other side’s theory.

…there also has been a strain of academic thought hostile to tax competition. It’s called “capital export neutrality” and advocates of the “CEN” approach assert that tax competition creates damaging economic distortions. They start with the theoretical assumption of a world with no taxes. They then hypothesize, quite plausibly, that people will allocate resources in that world in ways that maximise economic output. They then introduce “real world” considerations to the theory, such as the existence of different jurisdictions with different tax rates. In this more plausible world, advocates of CEN argue that the existence of different tax rates will lead some taxpayers to allocate at least some resources for tax considerations rather than based on the underlying economic merit of various options. In other words, people make less efficient choices in a world with multiple tax regimes when compared to the hypothetical world with no taxes. To maximise economic efficiency, CEN proponents believe taxpayers should face the same tax rates, regardless of where they work, save, shop or invest. …One of the remarkable implications of capital export neutrality is that tax avoidance and tax evasion are equally undesirable. Indeed, the theory is based on the notion that all forms of tax planning are harmful and presumably should be eliminated.

And I then explained why I think the CEN theory is highly unrealistic.

…the CEN is flawed for reasons completely independent from preferences about the size of government. Critics point out that capital export neutrality is based on several highly implausible assumptions. The CEN model, for instance, assumes that taxes are exogenous – meaning that they are independently determined. Yet the real-world experience of tax competition shows that tax rates are very dependent on what is happening in other jurisdictions. Another glaring mistake is the assumption that the global stock of capital is fixed – and, more specifically, the assumption that the capital stock is independent of the tax treatment of saving and investment. Needless to say, these are remarkably unrealistic conditions.

Since economists like numbers, I even created an equation to illustrate whether tax competition is a net plus or a net minus.

Basically, the CEN argument is only defensible if the economic inefficiency associated with tax minimization is greater than the economic damage caused by higher tax rates, plus the damage caused by more double taxation, plus the damage caused by a bigger public sector.

Needless to say, honest empirical analysis will never support the CEN approach (as even the OECD admits).

That being said, politicians and special interests are not overly sympathetic to my arguments.

Which is why I very much identify with the guy in this cartoon strip.

P.S. If you want more information, about 10 years ago, I narrated a video on tax competition, a three-part video series on tax havens, and even a video debunking some of Obama’s demagoguery on the topic.

Defuse the Obama-Era EB-5 Immigrant Investor Time Bomb

Tue, 04/09/2019 - 12:04pm

Originally published by Inside Sources on April 8, 2019.

President Trump’s advisers have an opportunity to protect him from a time bomb set to go off soon, and they can benefit the U.S. economy at the same time. All they must do is put a stop to an Obama-era regulation that would undermine the job-creating EB-5 investor immigrant program.

Trump confidants Larry Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council, and Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget while also serving as acting chief of staff, have always been strong supporters of the president’s push to increase American competitiveness. They must recognize that the EB-5 program is consistent with Trump’s push to convert our current broken immigration laws to a merit-based system and is a magnet for billions in foreign investment that creates thousands of good-paying American jobs.

During his recent State of the Union address, Trump offered as one of his signature ad-libs that he wants immigrants to come “in the highest numbers ever,” with the stipulation that they do so legally. To some this statement might have come as a surprise, but it’s in keeping with the president’s distinction between immigration that he considers detrimental — including illegal immigration, chain migration, and the diversity lottery program — and the merit-based approach he prefers.

The EB-5 investor immigrant program fits neatly into the latter camp. And key advisers to the president, like Mulvaney and Kudlow, have similarly long been supporters of merit-based immigration. In his role at OMB, Mulvaney also has the power to protect the president’s interests and send the regulation back to the Citizenship and Immigration Services where it originated.

It’s not even necessary to share the rest of the president’s immigration views to appreciate EB-5’s benefits.

The fundamental purpose of the EB-5 program is to make America an attractive destination for mobile investment funds. Many of the world’s most successful individuals are nevertheless trapped in countries that lack our nation’s essential liberties and want a way out. America is just one of many nations competing for these individuals, which EB-5 accomplishes by offering up to 10,000 permanent resident visas per year, a fraction of the more than 500,000 immigrant visas granted annually, for those who invest in the U.S. economy and create American jobs.

A new coalition letter warning against enactment of the Obama regulations from 15 free-market organizations, led by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, spelled out the program’s benefits: “The EB-5 program has attracted a significant amount of foreign investment to the U.S. to date. A study from the American Action Forum found the program increased foreign investment in the United States by $20 billion since 2008. A 2017 Department of Commerce report similarly found that the EB-5 program increased investment in the U.S. by $5.8 billion in 2012 and 2013 alone. Using data from FY12-FY13, these projects were expected to create an estimated 174,039 jobs for American workers.”

Additionally, the benefits come not just from the influx of investment, but also the types of projects it funds. Thanks to EB-5 investments, projects otherwise overlooked by traditional financing are being successfully completed and leading to urban renewal.

Unfortunately, these benefits are now in jeopardy. A last-minute regulation from the Obama administration is still winding its way through the regulatory process and threatens the viability of the program. In fact, the uncertainty it is creating is already doing damage as investors begin to look elsewhere to more hospitable nations.

Rather than undermining the EB-5 program, it should be expanded and made more efficient. A huge backlog currently discourages many investors from the program, while bureaucrats are wrongly limiting its potential by counting family members against the 10,000-visa cap despite Congress’ original intention for it not to work that way. Fixing these problems requires Congress to step in, but in the meantime regulators can refrain from making things worse.

The Trump economy has experienced solid growth thus far, and a large reason is the competitive improvements made to the tax code that have caught the United States up to the rest of the world when it comes to reducing burdens on business investment.

But that’s not enough. There should be no question that the United States is the premier destination for investment regardless of the source, be it business or individual, and the EB-5 program is an integral component of that strategy. The Trump administration shouldn’t let his predecessor’s lack of appreciation for merit-based immigration thwart that objective.

Venezuela’s (Hopefully-Ending-Soon) Statist Nightmare

Mon, 04/08/2019 - 12:14pm

I listed the collapse of Venezuela’s socialist dictatorship as one of my “hopes” for 2018.

That didn’t happen, so I included the same hope in my list for 2019.

But will it happen? David Asman seems very confident in this clip from a recent interview.

I was a bit less hopeful. Or at least more guarded in my ability to predict.

But one thing I can state with full certainty is that I hope it happens as soon as possible.

Though I have become a bit jaded. I no longer share lengthy compilations of everything that is going awry in the country.

As far as I’m concerned, the real debate is now whether a new government will adopt the right policies when Maduro is finally evicted (in other words, is there any hope for Chilean-style economic liberation?).

But there are a couple of stories and columns about the ongoing crisis that caught my eye.

Especially ones written by Venezuelans.

Andres Malave wrote for Investor’s Business Daily about what has happened to his country.

Hugo Chavez took power, promising to usher in shared prosperity for all with his “21st century socialism.” …So, when Teen Vogue tweeted recently, “Can’t #endpoverty without ending capitalism!” my initial reaction was, “Let them come to Venezuela.” Venezuela was once the most prosperous country in Latin America, but today almost 90% of its population lives in poverty. Venezuela’s economy is in shambles. …Venezuela’s misery means that it is not uncommon to see children rummaging through the garbage for food. And as basic medical supplies and medicine run dangerously low, newborns and the elderly die unattended in Venezuelan hospitals. …In a 2006 column, Sen. Sanders wrote: “These days, the American Dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina,” all practitioners of 21st century socialism. …What’s particularly galling about Sen. Sanders waxing poetic about the virtues of socialism is that he looks the other way as socialist leaders live in opulence while the masses starve.

A retired professor who still lives in Venezuela explained the wrenching descent of his nation in the U.K.-based Spectator.

The descent began in the early 2000s when the Hugo Chavez government began to take control of…private companies, the judiciary and the police. The descent turned into a nosedive when Nicolas Maduro came to power and the state tightened its grip on oil production, our country’s main source of revenue. Investors fled and skilled workers emigrated. As living standards plummeted, the response was to print more money. Hyperinflation has been the result. …my friends and relatives have lost a lot of weight. We call it the ‘Maduro diet’. …Not so long ago, I lived as you do. I would have thought it impossible that my country, with its hard-won progress, could fall so quickly into the abyss. The wrong politicians with the wrong ideas can have a bigger effect than anyone can imagine.

I don’t want to discriminate against non-Venezuelans, so let’s look at excerpts from some other authors.

In a column for CapX, Kristian Niemietz points out that Venezuela was supposed to be an example of modern “democratic socialism.”

Chávez fans frequently emphasised the many ways in which Venezuela differed from the old Eastern Bloc. They were especially proud of the fact that there was no apparent conflict between socialist economics and political democracy. They also pointed out that the Chavez government, rather than just nationalising lots of big companies like the socialists of yore, was experimenting with lots of different models of social ownership, looking for alternatives to both private enterprise and conventional state-owned enterprises. And they were right. Chávez and Maduro never tried to imitate the former Soviet Union or any of its allies. They tried, really hard, to build something new. And look how that turned out. …Previous socialist experiments have gone through the same honeymoon period as Venezuela, during which they were widely and enthusiastically praised by Western intellectuals.

Notwithstanding, I’m sure we’ll still hear about how “real socialism hasn’t been tried.”

Actually, I’m open to the argument that what happened in Venezuela was a different form of statism.

Though the end result is always the same.

In the case of Venezuela, it’s like Atlas Shrugged in real life.

Francisco Toro opined in the Washington Post about the recent collapse of Venezuela’s power system.

In a country already trudging through a serious humanitarian crisis, the collapse of the electric grid is a final catastrophe. Venezuelans were already chronically hungry, with large numbers reportingthey lost weight because they could not afford enough food. …The stories coming out of hospitals up and down the country have been harrowing. Only some had working back-up generators, and virtually none were designed to carry a whole hospital over many days. A video of a nurse using a hand pump to try to keep an infant alive has been circulating on social media. Thousands of kidney dialysis patients, unable to receive treatment, may face a slow and agonizing death. …the Maduro government has blamed U.S. sabotage for the power crisis. …sabotage accusations against the United States lack any semblance of credibility: Venezuela’s power grid has been in gradual decline for over a decade. …over the past 12 years, the government has run the grid into the ground. After nationalizing the utility companies, the government simply stopped investing in routine maintenance of power stations or transmission lines, setting off a slow deterioration that has made the grid unstable for years.

story from Fox looks at the wretched circumstances of ordinary Venezuelans.

Thousands upon thousands of Venezuelans pour into Colombia over the crowd cross-country bridge, their faces gaunt, carrying little more than a backpack. Rail-thin women cradle their tiny babies, and beg along the trash-strewn gutters. Teens hawk everything from cigarettes to sweets and water for small change. …the Venezuelans – many with university degrees or decent jobs in what was once the wealthiest nation in Latin America – are now resorting to whatever it takes to survive. …Women sell their locks to local wigmakers in Colombia for around $10-30, depending on length and quality. Other women sell their bodies. Girls as young as 14 line the Cucuta streets available “for hire,” earning around seven dollars “per service.” …more than 55 percent of the healthcare professionals – doctors, nurses, and others – have left the country. Resident doctors who have stayed in Venezuela earn the equivalent of $24 a month, while specialists make just a little more, at $30.

I’ve saved the worst for last.

BBC reports that Venezuela has become such a basket case that graves are being robbed.

At Caracas’s largest cemetery, Cementerio del Sur, most of the graves have been looted, for jewellery, gold teeth, or even bones, which can be sold for use in rituals. For grieving relatives like Eladio Bastida, who checks on his wife’s grave every week to make sure it’s not been looted, the situation is a metaphor for that of embattled Venezuela as a whole.

As far as I know, Venezuela has yet to experience cannibalism, so I suppose things can still get worse.

But that begs the question. Why did Bernie Sanders and other leftists and socialists lavish so much praise on Venezuela?

And now that the chickens have come home to roost and the economy has collapsed, why are they dodging questions about their past support?

Most important of all, why do they want similar policies for the United States?!?

———
Image credit: ZiaLater | CC BY-SA 3.0.

Trump’s Keynesian Monetary Policy

Sat, 04/06/2019 - 12:51pm

Being a policy wonk in a political town isn’t easy. I care about economic liberty while many other people simply care about political maneuvering. And the gap between policy advocacy and personality politics has become even larger in the Age of Trump.

One result is that people who should be allies periodically are upset with my columns. Never Trumpers scold me one day and Trump fanboys scold me the next day. Fortunately, I have a very simple set of responses.

  • If you would have loudly cheered for a policy under Reagan but oppose a similar policy under Trump, you’re the problem.
  • If you would have loudly condemned a policy under Obama but support a similar policy under Trump, you’re the problem.

Today, we’re going to look at an example of the latter.

The New York Times reported today on Trump’s advocacy of easy-money Keynesianism.

President Trump on Friday called on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates and take additional steps to stimulate economic growth… On Friday, he escalated his previous critiques of the Fed by pressing for it to resume the type of stimulus campaign it undertook after the recession to jump-start economic growth. That program, known as quantitative easing, resulted in the Fed buying more than $4 trillion worth of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities as a way to increase the supply of money in the financial system.

criticized these policies under Obama, over and over and over again.

If I suddenly supported this approach under Trump, that would make me a hypocrite or a partisan.

I’m sure I have my share of flaws, but that’s not one of them.

Regardless of whether a politician is a Republican or a Democrat, I don’t like Keynesian fiscal policy and I don’t like Keynesian monetary policy.

Simply stated, the Keynesians are all about artificially boosting consumption, but sustainable growth is only possible with policies that boost production.

There are two additional passages from the article that deserve some commentary.

First, you don’t measure inflation by simply looking at consumer prices. It’s quite possible that easy money will result in asset bubbles instead.

That’s why Trump is flat-out wrong in this excerpt.

“…I personally think the Fed should drop rates,” Mr. Trump said. “I think they really slowed us down. There’s no inflation. I would say in terms of quantitative tightening, it should actually now be quantitative easing. Very little if any inflation. And I think they should drop rates, and they should get rid of quantitative tightening. You would see a rocket ship. Despite that, we’re doing very well.”

To be sure, many senior Democrats were similarly wrong when Obama was in the White House and they wanted to goose the economy.

Which brings me to the second point about some Democrats magically becoming born-again advocates of hard money now that Trump is on the other side.

Democrats denounced Mr. Trump’s comments, saying they showed his disregard for the traditional independence of the Fed and his desire to use its powers to help him win re-election. “There’s no question that President Trump is seeking to undermine the…independence of the Federal Reserve to boost his own re-election prospects,” said Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee.

Notwithstanding what I wrote a few days ago, I agree with Sen. Wyden on this point.

Though I definitely don’t recall him expressing similar concerns when Obama was appointing easy-money supporters to the Federal Reserve.

To close, here’s what I said back in October about Trump’s Keynesian approach to monetary policy.

I also commented on this issue earlier this year. And I definitely recommend these insights from a British central banker.

End Obama’s Midnight Regulation Attacking Merit-Based Immigration

Fri, 04/05/2019 - 12:47pm

Originally published by the Washington Examiner on April 4, 2019.

The rancor in Washington over how to deal with illegal immigration is understandable given conflicting attitudes about labor markets, rule of law, crime, and other issues. What’s harder to understand, though, is why anyone would object to merit-based, legal immigration.

There is a sizable wing of both parties that is hostile to merit-based programs, even though they can both help grow the US. economy and create new jobs. The EB-5 investor visa program, for instance, brings in billions in investment while creating thousands of jobs for Americans in need of work.

The EB-5 program allows foreign-born investors to pledge a certain amount of cash for domestic projects that will result in the creation of American jobs in exchange for permanent resident status. That’s the good news. The bad news is that this program was not favored by the Obama administration. And so in the waning days of former President Barack Obama’s tenure, he started the process of promulgating a regulation that would sabotage the program.

The Trump administration has not stopped this “midnight regulation,” despite President Trump’s support for a merit-based approach.

Numerous pro-market groups have signed on to a letter to the Trump administration urging them to kill this Obama-era regulation. Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, Andrew Quinlan of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, my group, and a number of other prominent pro-merit-based immigration groups make the case to the acting White House budget director that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services “is proposing to dramatically increase the financial burdens placed on EB-5 investors and would raise these amounts to levels that far exceed those that have been proposed and are under consideration by Congress.” These are decisions that clearly are in the domain of legislation and should be dealt with by Congress, not through executive rulemaking.

Although the program is capped at 10,000 people, and family members of investors are currently (erroneously) counted toward that cap, there exists a demand in the U.S. for investor visa resources to fund new projects. The letter cites the American Action Forum statistics that found “the program increased foreign investment in the United States by $20 billion since 2008. A 2017 Department of Commerce report similarly found that the EB-5 program increased investment in the U.S. by $5.8 billion in 2012 and 2013 alone. Using data from FY12-FY13, these projects were expected to create an estimated 174,039 jobs for American workers.” Those numbers speak to the idea that this program is a merit-based immigration success story.

One of the problems with the regulation is that Congress is abdicating its responsibility to make law in this space. Just as Republicans complained about Obama expanding power and undermining the separation of powers, the same is true about this proposed regulation that will remake the law during the Trump administration.

Current Trump administration officials understand the need for Congress to pass laws while supporting the idea of merit-based immigration proposals. Trump’s current chief of staff and Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney has been a consistent supporter of merit-based immigration proposals, as has the director of the National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow. They understand that the EB-5 program is unique in that there is no case of its visa holders competing with Americans for jobs, traditionally the political obstacle for other immigration programs. Furthermore, there is no legitimate fear that these wealthy visa holders and their family members would ever become wards of the state.

The EB-5 visa program promotes America as an attractive destination for foreign investment with the result that foreign investors come to the U.S. to create American jobs. When they invest, they are insourcing foreign cash into large infrastructure projects that benefit people living in the cities hosting those projects. Instead of restricting the program, the Trump administration should expand it to incentivize wealthy foreigners to create jobs while bringing needed billions in investment to American projects. It’s a program worth preserving, consistent with an “America First” economic policy because it creates American jobs while increasing foreign investment in the U.S. economy.

“Medicare for All” Would Copy the Bad Features of the U.K.’s Government-Run System

Fri, 04/05/2019 - 12:20pm

The so-called Green New Deal is only tangentially related to climate issues.

It’s best to think of it as the left’s wish list, and it includes a paid leave entitlementgovernment jobsinfrastructure boondoggles, and an expansion of the already bankrupt Social Security system.

But the most expensive item on the list is “Medicare for All,” which is a scheme concocted by Bernie Sanders to have the government pay for everything.

Would this be a good idea? In a column for Forbes, Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute explains that government-run healthcare in the United Kingdom has some very unfriendly features.

Nearly a quarter of a million British patients have been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment from the National Health Service, according to a recent report from the Royal College of Surgeons. More than 36,000 have been in treatment queues for nine months or more. …Consider how long it takes to get care at the emergency room in Britain. Government data show that hospitals in England only saw 84.2% of patients within four hours in February. …Wait times for cancer treatment — where timeliness can be a matter of life and death — are also far too lengthy. According to January NHS England data, almost 25% of cancer patients didn’t start treatment on time despite an urgent referral by their primary care doctor. …And keep in mind that “on time” for the NHS is already 62 days after referral.

If this sounds like the VA health care system, you’re right.

Both are government run. Both make people wait.

And both produce bad outcomes. Here’s some of the data from the British system.

Unsurprisingly, British cancer patients fare worse than those in the United States. Only 81% of breast cancer patients in the United Kingdom live at least five years after diagnosis, compared to 89% in the United States. Just 83% of patients in the United Kingdom live five years after a prostate cancer diagnosis, versus 97% here in America.

Just like I told Simon Hobbs on CNBC many years ago.

The best part of Sally’s column is that she explains how the flaws in the U.K. system are being copied by Bernie Sanders and other supporters.

Great Britain’s health crisis is the inevitable outcome of a system where government edicts, not supply and demand, determine where scarce resources are allocated. Yet some lawmakers are gunning to implement precisely such a system in the United States. The bulk of the Democratic Party’s field of presidential candidates — including Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren — co-sponsored Senator Bernie Sanders’s 2017 “Medicare for All” bill. That plan would abolish private insurance and put all Americans on a single government-run plan… Britons face long waits for poor care under their country’s single-payer system. That’s not the sort of healthcare model the American people are looking for.

The bottom line is that Medicare for All would further exacerbate the third-party payer problem that already plagues the health care system.

And that means ever-escalating demand, rising costs, and inefficiencies.

There are only two ways of dealing with the cost spiral. One option is huge tax increases, which would result in a massive, European-style tax burden on the lower-income and middle-class taxpayers.

Taxpayers in the U.K. endure higher burdens than their counterparts in America, But they also suffer from the second option for dealing with the cost spiral, which is rationing.

Some of the data was in Ms. Pipes’ column.

If you want more examples (and some horrifying examples), you can click stories from 20172016201520142013, and 2012.

———
Image credit: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade | CC BY 2.0.

Foreign Aid Won’t Reduce Illegal Immigration from Central America

Thu, 04/04/2019 - 12:24pm

Even though I (correctly) doubted the Trump Administration’s sincerity, I applauded proposed reductions in foreign aid back in 2017.

I very much want to reduce poverty in poor nations, of course, but the evidence is very strong that government handouts don’t do a very good job.

Moreover, we also have lots of data showing poor nations can enjoy dramatic improvementsin living standards so long as they adopt good policy.

Hong KongSingaporeChile, and Botswana are very good examples.

Yet some people haven’t learned this lesson. Consider the current debate over Trump’s threat to end aid to Central America if illegal immigration isn’t reduced.

column in Fortune makes the case that handouts to Central America are necessary to reduce human smuggling.

President Donald Trump ordered the State Department to cut funding for Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador this weekend in retaliation for the recent influx of migrants from these nations, reversing a longstanding policy that saysaid helps abate immigration. …According to Liz Schrayer, president and CEO of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition—a nonprofit coalition of businesses and NGOs dedicated to American development and diplomacy—pulling back aid “exasperates the exact root causes that are creating the migration numbers’ increase.” …“It will only result in more children and families being forced to make the dangerous journey north to the U.S.-Mexico border,” said the five Democratic lawmakers in a statement.

A piece in the New York Times makes the same argument.

The Trump administration’s decision to cut off aid to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras to punish their governments for failing to curb migration is a rash response to a real policy dilemma. …it will exacerbate migration from the region without twisting Central American politicians’ arms. …The decision to cut off aid is bound to drive up migration numbers.

Ironically, the author admits that aid is ineffective.

…we shouldn’t pretend that the aid itself was doing much good… it is mostly distributed inefficiently in large blocks by foreign contractors.

Though he seems to share the naive (and presumably self-interested) arguments of international bureaucrats about the potential efficacy of aid.

Central American governments and elites have gotten away with abdicating their fiduciary, social and legal responsibilities to their citizens. They have failed to collect tax revenue and to invest in social programs and job creation that alleviate the plight of their poor.

Even some small-government conservatives seem to think that more aid would make recipient nations more prosperous and thus reduce illegal immigration.

What President Trump is doing now — cutting aid — is wrong. …As former White House Chief of Staff and SOUTHCOM Commander, General John Kelly, has noted, “If we can improve the conditions, the lot in life of Hondurans, Guatemalans, Central Americans, we can do an awful lot to protect the southwest border.” …We risk undermining our longterm national interests by cutting foreign aid. We should, instead, spend it wisely in those countries to ensure stable governments that view us as allies and work with them to root out crime, corruption, and cartels. The present policy to cut foreign aid cuts off our national nose to spite our face.

This is not an impossible prescription.

But it’s also the triumph of hope over experience.

In the real world, we have mountains of evidence that foreign aid weakens recipient economies by subsidizing corruption and larger burdens of government.

Let’s look at some analysis on this issue.

In a piece published by CapX, Matt Warner recommends less redistribution rather than more.

…the poor know how to get themselves out of poverty. They just need more opportunity to do it. The question we must ask ourselves is: to what degree are our current development aid strategies aligned with this insight? …If the intervention itself is part of the problem, what can outsiders really do to help? Today there are at least 481 research and advocacy organisations in 92 countries pushing reform agendas to provide more economic opportunity and prosperity for all. The “Doing Business” report provides a blueprint for change. Local reform organisations, supported by private philanthropy, provide the leadership to achieve it and the world’s poor will show us their own paths to prosperity if we will all just learn to get out of their way.

Writing for Barron’s, Paul Theroux notes that Africa regressed when it was showered with aid.

Africa receives roughly $50 billion in aid annually from foreign governments, and perhaps $13 billion more from private philanthropic institutions… Africa is much worse off than when I first went there 50 years ago to teach English: poorer, sicker, less educated, and more badly governed. It seems that much of the aid has made things worse. …Zambian-born economist Dambisa Moyo calls aid a “debilitating drug,” arguing that “real per-capita income [in Africa] today is lower than it was in the 1970s, and more than 50% of the population — over 350 million people — live on less than a dollar a day, a figure that has nearly doubled in two decades.” The Kenyan economist James Shikwati takes this same line on aid, famously telling the German magazine Der Spiegel, “For God’s sake, please stop.”

Brad Lips of the Atlas Network explains why aid often is counterproductive.

The international community has donated more than $1.8 trillion to poor countries since 2000 – but this development aid hasn’t lifted many people out of poverty. Arguably, it has made some recipient nations poorer. …the aid has bred corruption, fostered dependence and impeded reforms that deliver sustainable economic growth. …Between 1970 and 2000 – a period in which aid to Africa skyrocketed – annual gross domestic product growth per capita on the continent fell from about 2 percent to zero growth, according to a study by an economist at New York University.

column in the U.K.-based Times is very blunt about what all this means.

…the international development secretary should have abolished her department as soon as she was appointed to it… We kid ourselves that this aid works, to salve our consciences about being better off. But as we know, the money benefits charities, quangos, bureaucrats, tyrants and the predatory elite, and all these years later your average African is no better off.

Let’s close by looking at a thorough 2005 study from the International Policy Network. Authored by Fredrik Erixon, it documents the failure of foreign aid.

…the ‘gap theory’…assumes that poor countries are trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty because they are unable to save and hence have insufficient capital to invest in growth-promoting, productivity-enhancing activities. But there simply is no evidence that this savings/investment ‘gap’ exists in practice. As a result, aid has failed to ‘fill the gap’. Instead, it has, over the past fifty years, largely been counterproductive: it has crowded out private sector investments, undermined democracy, and enabled despots to continue with oppressive policies, perpetuating poverty. …The reason countries are poor is…because they lack the institutions of the free society: property rights, the rule of law, free markets, and limited government. … many studies point to the fact that government consumption in SubSaharan Africa has increased when aid has increased.

Here’s the evidence showing has more development assistance is associated with weaker economic performance.

By the way, the International Monetary Fund deserves unrestrained scorn for recommending higher tax burdens on Africans, thus making economic growth even harder to achieve.

Now let’s look at how two Asian regions have enjoyed growth as aid lessened.

Last but not least, here’s some very encouraging data from Africa.

I already mentioned that Botswana is an exception to the rule. As you can see, that nation’s success is definitely not the result of more handouts.

The bottom line is that President Trump is right, even if his motives are misguided.

Foreign aid is not the recipe for prosperity in Central America.

———
Image credit: geralt | Pixabay License.

Senator Wyden Shows that It Is Possible to Worsen Capital Gains Taxation

Wed, 04/03/2019 - 12:53pm

President Kennedy’s tax rate reductions were a big success. Sadly, very few modern Democrats share JFK’s zeal for pro-growth tax policy.

And there’s another arrow in the class-warfare quiver.

The Wall Street Journal reports on a misguided new idea from Ron Wyden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.

The top Democrat on the Senate’s tax-writing committee proposed taxing unrealized gains in investment assets every year at the same rates as other income…an idea that would transform how the U.S. taxes the wealthiest people. …Under Mr. Wyden’s concept, capital gains would be taxed annually based on how much assets have gained in value. Now, by contrast, gains are taxed only when assets are sold and at a top rate of 23.8% instead of 37% for ordinary income.

There are two big reasons why this is a terrible idea.

First, the right policy is to abolish any tax on capital gains. Drop the rate to zero.

Simply stated, there shouldn’t be an added layer of tax on people who earn money, pay tax on that money, and then buy assets with some of the remaining after-tax income.

Especially since the income generated by that additional investment already would be hit by the corporate income tax and the extra layer of tax on dividends.

This system is also very bad for workers because of the long-standing relationship between investment and employee compensation.

Second, levying such a tax would be a logistical nightmare. Here’s another brief excerpt from the article.

Mr. Wyden’s concept would present logistical challenges. He would need to figure out how to value complex assets, handle declines in value, deal with people without enough cash to pay the tax and address illiquid investments such as closely held businesses and real estate.

So why would Sen. Wyden propose such a clunky class-warfare scheme?

Because it would generate (at least on paper) a lot of money that could be used to buy votes.

This mark-to-market tax concept…could raise substantial money. A similar proposal…would generate an estimated $125 billion in 2025 alone… Democrats, who are campaigning on wide-ranging and costly ideas for more spending on health care, infrastructure and education, can point to plans by Mr. Wyden and others to explain how they would pay for policy proposals.

Of course, no amount of tax increases would generate the revenue to finance the so-called Green New Deal.

In reality, a major reason for Wyden’s plan is that the left is motivated by class warfare rather than revenue collection.

Democrats have frequently found unfairness in the different ways that the U.S. tax system approaches wage and investment income. They have focused their response, in part, on the “Buffett Rule”, inspired by Warren Buffett’s claim that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

I added this final excerpt simply so I can point out that Buffett’s claim is utter nonsense.

And so is the “Buffett rule” that some folks on the left have proposed.

I’ll close by noting that the United States has one of the world’s least friendly tax codes for investment.

The lower corporate rate in the Trump tax plan was a step in the right direction.

But even with that positive reform, the overall tax burden on capital gains is very high compared to America’s major trading partners.

And now Senator Wyden wants to make a bad situation worse.

For further information, here’s my video explaining why there shouldn’t be any tax on capital gains.

P.S. Uncle Sam also forces investors to pay capital gains tax when assets rise in value because of inflation.

———
Image credit: geralt | Pixabay License.

Brexit Humor

Tue, 04/02/2019 - 12:42pm

I’ve been waiting anxiously to write about Brexit, either to celebrate a “Clean Brexit” or to castigate Theresa May and the other politicians for a “Brexit in Name Only.”

Except Members of Parliament can’t make up their collective mind. They’ve been voting against good options and also voting against bad options.

So while we’re waiting for some sort of resolution, I’m going to augment our 2016 collection of Brexit-themed humor with some new items. We’ll start with this nice meme about the Queen deciding it’s time for a royal coup de grâce.

Next we have a new word for everyone’s dictionary.

One of the options being discussed in London is having another vote, which would be very consistent with the European tradition of requiring people to vote over and over again until they give the result desired by the elites.

At which point, as shown below, there are no more votes.

And I’ve saved the best for last, A satirist put together a clever song about the message British voters sent to the elite back in 2016 (warning: PG-13).

I especially like the references to the establishment’s hysterical doom-and-gloom predictions about what would happen (“Project Fear”) if voters opted for independence.

P.S. The supposed Conservative government in the United Kingdom is doing a terrible job of delivering Brexit, even though they should be embracing independence so they can reduce the burden of government.

P.P.S. Here’s my 2016 pre-vote column on the economic case for Brexit, and here’s my post-vote column on the hoped-for implications of the upset victory.

———
Image credit: stux | Pixabay License.

The Federal Reserve and Boom-Bust Monetary Policy

Mon, 04/01/2019 - 12:25pm

Back in January, I spoke with Cheddar about market instability and put much of the blame on the Federal Reserve. Simply stated, I fear we have a bubble thanks to years and years (and years and years) of easy money and artificially low interest rates.

To be sure, I also noted that there are other policies that could be spooking financial markets.

But I do think monetary policy is the big threat. Mistakes by the Fed sooner or later cause recessions (and the false booms that are the leading indicator of future downturns).

Mistakes by Congress, by contrast, “merely” cause slower growth.

In this next clip from the interview, I offer guarded praise to the Fed (not my usual position!) for trying to unwind the easy-money policies from earlier this decade and therefore “normalize” interest rates (i.e., letting rates climb to the market-determined level).

For those interested in the downside risks of easy money, I strongly endorse these cautionary observations from a British central banker.

My modest contribution to the discussion was when I mentioned in the interview that we wouldn’t be in the tough position of having to let interest rates climb if we didn’t make the mistake of keeping them artificially low. Especially for such a long period of time.

My motive for addressing this topic today is that Robert Samuelson used his column in the Washington Post to launch an attack against Steve Moore.

Stephen Moore does not belong on the Federal Reserve Board… Just a decade ago, the U.S. and world economies suffered the worst slumps since World War II. What saved us then were the skilled interventions of the Fed under Chairman Ben S. Bernanke… Do we really want Moore to serve as the last bulkhead against an economic breakdown? …as a matter of prudence, we should assume economic reverses. If so, the Fed chief will become a crisis manager. That person should not be Stephen Moore.

I’ve been friends with Steve for a couple of decades, so I have a personal bias.

That being said, I would be arguing that Samuelson’s column is problematic for two reasons even if I never met Steve.

  • First, he doesn’t acknowledge that the crisis last decade was caused in large part by easy-money policy from the Fed. Call me crazy, but I hardly think we should praise the central bank for dousing a fire that it helped to start.
  • Second, he frets that Steve would be bad in a crisis, which presumably is a time when it might be appropriate for the Fed to be a “lender of last resort.”* But he offers zero evidence that Steve would be opposed to that approach.

For what it’s worth, I actually worry Steve would be too willing to go along with an easy-money approach. Indeed, I look forward to hectoring him in favor of hard money if he gets confirmed.

But this column isn’t about a nomination battle in DC. My role is to educate on public policy.

So let’s close by reviewing some excerpts from a column in the Wall Street Journal highlighting the work of Claudio Borio at the Bank for International Settlements.

In a 2015 paper Mr. Borio and colleagues examined 140 years of data from 38 countries and concluded that consumer-price deflation frequently coincides with healthy economic growth. If he’s right, central banks have spent years fighting disinflation or deflation when they shouldn’t have, and in the process they’ve endangered the economy more than they realize. “By keeping interest rates very, very, very low,” he warns, “you are contributing to the buildup of risks in the financial system through excessive credit growth, through excessive increases in asset prices, that at some point have to correct themselves. So what you have is a financial boom that necessarily at some point will turn into a bust because things have to adjust.” …It’s not that other economists are blind to financial instability. They’re just strangely unconcerned about it. “There are a number of proponents of secular stagnation who acknowledge, very explicitly, that low interest rates create problems for the future because they’re generating all these financial booms and busts,” Mr. Borio says. Yet they still believe central banks must set ultralow short-term rates to support economic growth—and if that destabilizes the financial system, it’s the will of the economic gods.

Amen. I also recommend this column and this column for further information on how central bankers are endangering prosperity.

P.S. For a skeptical history of the Federal Reserve, click here. If you prefer Fed-mocking videos, click here and here.

P.P.S. I fear the European Central Bank has the same misguided policy. To make matters worse, policy makers in Europe have used easy money as an excuse to avoid the reforms that are needed to generate real growth.

P.P.P.S. Samuelson did recognize that defeating inflation was one of Reagan’s great accomplishments.

*For institutions with liquidity problems. Institutions with solvency problems should be shut down using the FDIC-resolution approach.

———
Image credit: Rdsmith4 | CC BY-SA 2.5.

To Improve Transportation, More Private Sector or More Federal Involvement?

Sun, 03/31/2019 - 12:12pm

There are some remarkable stories of the private sector showing initiative when governments fail to maintain infrastructure.

  • In response to dithering by government, residents and businesses in Hawaii put up $4 million to fix an important community road.
  • Smugglers in Russia repaired a road to facilitate untaxed trade between Russian and Belarus.
  • also wrote about a guy in England who was fed up with the slow pace of road repairs and built a private toll road.

Regarding the final example, here’s a video on his project.

I’m particularly amused that this example of practical libertarianism (I’m guessing without the cost overruns that are inevitable with government) was made possible because zoning laws (normally an obstacle to sensible land use) basically allowed the organizer to ask for forgiveness afterward rather than permission beforehand.

To be sure, these isolated examples are hardly a sign that infrastructure is going to be privatized in the United States.

But maybe we can at least learn a lesson on whether we should have more centralization and control from Washington, versus more decentralization and private-sector involvement.

Regarding the former, Chris Edwards explained for FEE that the federal gas tax should not be increased since politicians impose taxes for the ostensible purpose of building and maintaining roads, but then they divert the money to other programs that buy more votes.

…a federal gas tax increase makes no sense. State governments own America’s highways, and they are free to raise their own gas taxes whenever they want. Indeed, 19 states have raised their gas taxes just since 2015, showing the states are entirely capable of raising funds for their own transportation needs. …Also consider that gas taxes used to be a more pure user charge for highways, but these days gas tax money is diverted to inefficient nonhighway uses such as transit. …About 20 percent of those funds (about $8 billion) are diverted to transit and other nonhighway uses. …In 2016, state governments raised $44 billion from fuel taxes, and they diverted 24 percent—14 percent to transit and 10 percent to other activities. …The states also raised $38 billion from vehicle fees. They diverted 34 percent of those funds—13 percent to transit and 21 percent to other activities.

Regarding the latter, the City Manager of Milford, Delaware, wrote a column for the Washington Post about benefiting from private financing for road repairs.

…when I heard that a Domino’s marketing campaign was paying municipalities to repair potholes in return for credit for the work, I quickly responded. …Our role was easy. In exchange for a $5,000 check, Domino’s wanted its logo and a tag­line saying “Oh yes we did” in spray chalk on the road next to each repair. …In two weeks, they fixed more than 40 potholes of different sizes — about 20 to 25 percent of the potholes that appeared after the winter. …The program has elicited some complaints about what it means that a pizza chain is funding basic government projects. …But we saw this as a great idea for our community. …In many communities, there’s a constant competition between paying for police and paying for everything else. …if we demonstrate good stewardship of our resources, then hopefully fewer people will complain about paying taxes. …sometimes that means letting Domino’s pick up the tab.

Incidentally, sometimes “anarchists” decide to fix potholes without even waiting for permission.

Let’s close with some libertarian-themed humor.

Some people apparently thing that roads wouldn’t exist in the absence of government. This is an anti-empirical sentiment since many of the first main arteries in America were private roads. And we still have private highways being built today.

Not to mention plenty of neighborhood developments and office parks (or even stairs) that are examples of privately financed and privately maintained infrastructure.

Yet there are still doubters, so this sarcastic image is for them.

Speaking of sarcasm, this next image is a clever combination of two concepts.

First, politicians have an insatiable appetite to tax us over and over again.

Second, they don’t fulfill the responsibilities that they claim only government can handle.

The bottom line is that Washington should have no role in infrastructure. And even if you think infrastructure should be handled by state and local government, that definitely does not (or should not) imply a large public sector.

P.S. Here’s some more libertarian-themed infrastructure humor.

P.P.S. To be balanced, libertarians can be mocked because of our disdain for public goods.

———
Image credit: sm-ekb2005 | Pixabay License.

Young People Reject Socialism in the Classroom

Sat, 03/30/2019 - 12:15pm

Redistribution has a corrosive impact on both ends. Recipients are harmed because they get trapped in dependency, and workers are harmed because taxes discourage productive behavior.

Yet young people seem susceptible to this ideology, even when they are among the main victims.

While it might be tempting to shrug and assume they’re hopelessly clueless, this video shows young people are quite capable of grasping why redistribution is a bad idea.

I’ve previously shared a similar video, as well as a couple of written versions of this redistribution challenge.

In this case, though, we have some additional analysis.

Here are some excerpts from the accompanying article.

…for the first time ever, more young people say they’d prefer to live in a socialist country over a capitalist one. Whether it’s free healthcare, free college tuition, or universal basic income, students around America increasingly support higher taxes on the wealthy in order to pay for these progressive policies.  But would they support similar policies if they had skin in the game? …Campus Reform‘s Cabot Phillips went to Florida International University in Miami to test the waters on a “Socialist GPA” policy in which students with higher GPAs would be forced to “spread the wealth” and give some of their GPA points to students with lower GPAs. Despite the overwhelming number of students who initially said they’d support socialist policies, few agreed to go along with such a plan.

Interestingly, the students actually are quite perceptive when they apply incentives in their own lives.

“I’ve lost a lot of sleep so I don’t know if that would be fair,” one student said, while another answered no because “I like, study all day for my grades.” Yet another student, after expressing her support for socialism in America conceded, “I guess it would be kind of hypocritical for me to say no.” Another student, trying to justify his refusal to abide by such a policy, said, “you study for your grades, and they reflect how much time you’re studying.”

As a wonky economist, the first thing I wondered about is how young people would react if they were asked about a small amount of redistribution (say 1/10th of a point of a GPA) compared to a large amount of redistribution (a full point of GPA).

I’m guessing they would realize that the damage of the latter would be more than 10 times the damage of the former – which is exactly the same thing you find when you examine the deadweight losses of ever-higher tax rates.

Two final points.

  • First, many young people don’t understand socialism. They think it’s just a proxy for caring. Or even for being sociable. It’s incumbent on advocates of freedom to help them understand the adverse implications (i.e., redistributing money is just as bad as redistributing GPAs).
  • Second, it won’t be easy to make an ethical appeal to young people if they perceive (and many do) that capitalism is the same as cronyism. Which is why self-styled conservatives (or Trumpians) who support favors for special interests do a lot of damage to the cause of freedom.

P.S. Since they are huge net losers from the current system, young people should be very amenable to a message of genuine entitlement reform.

———
Image credit: Max Pixel | CC0 1.0.

Budget Dishonesty in Washington

Fri, 03/29/2019 - 12:52pm

Let’s look at an article that combines two things – wasteful spending and Washington dishonesty – that I don’t like and which was published in The Hill.

The Senate Budget Committee on Thursday approved a GOP-backed budget resolution that would allow for draconian spending cuts by reducing both defense and nondefense spending for 2020. …The Senate’s budget sticks to the legal caps for defense — falling from $716 billion to $643 billion, including off-book funds — and nondefense, which would drop from $640 billion to $542 billion. …The spending blueprint also would decrease spending on Medicaid, children’s health insurance and Affordable Care Act subsidies by $281 billion, and on Medicare by $77 billion. “…this is a disastrous budget for the middle class and working families of this country,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders(I-Vt.), the panel’s ranking member.

I was initially semi-excited when I read the story.

After all, we desperately need “draconian spending cuts” in Washington.

But I was only “semi-excited” because I feared – based on past experience – that these supposed reduction were fake.

So I decided to look at the actual numbers in the Senate’s proposed budget.

Lo and behold, my skepticism was warranted. There are zero genuine cuts. Instead, spending increases by an average of 3.5 percent annually under the Senate’s “draconian” budget plan.

Politicians claim there are “cuts” because spending levels in the Senate plan (orange line) don’t rise as fast as what would happen if spending was left on autopilot (blue line).

But this simply means that the burden of government spending won’t grow as fast as previously planned. I’ve exposed this scam in discussions with John Stossel and Judge Napolitano.

And I’ve condemned the Washington Post for playing this dishonest game as well. You also won’t be surprised that Obama used this dodgy approach.

The political elite like this dodgy game because they can pretend they are fiscally responsible while simultaneously making government bigger.

The bottom line is that politicians should be honest. If they want to argue that spending should grow 3.5 percent yearly (or even more), they should explain why Washington deserves more money.

But don’t lie to us about supposed spending cuts when the budget is expanding.

P.S. Remember the “sequester”? Politicians and interest groups squealed that the world was going to end because of an automatic spending cut that wasn’t even a cut.

———
Image credit: Martin Jacobsen | CC BY-SA 3.0.

Coalition Calls for Obama-era EB-5 Regulation Withdrawal

Thu, 03/28/2019 - 4:34pm

For Immediate Release
Thursday, March 28, 2019
202-285-0244
www.freedomandprosperity.org

Coalition Calls for Obama-era EB-5 Regulation Withdrawal

(Washington, D.C., Thursday, March 28, 2019) A coalition of 15 free market organizations, led by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, today called on the Trump administration not to finalize Obama-era regulations that would undermine the EB-5 immigrant investor program. The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Modernization (82 Federal Register 4738) would dramatically increase the investment thresholds required for foreign investors to participate in the program, while failing to address inefficiencies in the program that have led to significant backlogs.

The coalition letter reads, in part:

EB-5 investment provides alternative sources of funding for worthwhile projects that may otherwise go overlooked. Urban areas often struggle to secure development investment despite significant interest, but now, for instance, dilapidated parts of the nation’s capital are being revitalized thanks to EB-5 investment and the hard work of an American entrepreneur.

Global competitiveness has been a top objective of the Trump administration. Tax reform and efforts to streamline government regulations have contributed to historic lows in unemployment numbers and made America more competitive for business. Furthermore, many countries seek to attract foreign investment through economic citizenship programs. The EB-5 program allows for the U.S. to compete for mobile foreign investment and the jobs that these funds bring.

The full letter is available here.

For additional comments:
Andrew Quinlan can be reached at 202-285-0244, [email protected]

###

———
Image credit: Vinícius Pimenta | Pexels License.

Coalition: Withdraw Obama-era EB-5 Regulations

Thu, 03/28/2019 - 4:07pm

[PDF Version]

The Honorable Russ Vought
Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget
725 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20503

Dear Acting Director Vought:

On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write to oppose promulgation of Obama-era regulations regarding the employment-based fifth preference (EB-5) visa program. Undercutting the EB-5 program is a mistake that will hurt the U.S. economy by limiting the program’s ability to create jobs and fund infrastructure projects.

We urge you and your designees to withdraw this EB-5 “midnight rule” proposed by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on January 13 (see 82 Federal Register 4738).

USCIS is proposing to dramatically increase the financial burdens placed on EB-5 investors and would raise these amounts to levels that far exceed those that have been proposed and are under consideration by Congress. If implemented these changes will chill EB-5 investment into U.S. companies indefinitely.

A sharp increase in eligibility requirements as proposed is unnecessary and counterproductive. EB-5 visas are currently capped at 10,000 per year and are available for individuals who invest at least $1 million in a U.S. business, half of that for economically depressed areas, that create at least 10 full-time American jobs.

In recent years, the total number of EB-5 visas issued to investor immigrants has approached the 10,000 cap. However, that is due only to the fact that visas for family members are being erroneously counted toward the cap. Otherwise, there would be ample room to meet demand at the current investment threshold.

Despite the backlog this practice has created, the EB-5 program has attracted a significant amount of foreign investment to the U.S. to date. A study from the American Action Forum found the program increased foreign investment in the United States by $20 billion since 2008. A 2017 Department of Commerce report similarly found that the EB-5 program increased investment in the U.S. by $5.8 billion in 2012 and 2013 alone. Using data from FY12-FY13, these projects were expected to create an estimated 174,039 jobs for American workers.

EB-5 investment provides alternative sources of funding for worthwhile projects that may otherwise go overlooked. Urban areas often struggle to secure development investment despite significant interest, but now, for instance, dilapidated parts of the nation’s capital are being revitalized thanks to EB-5 investment and the hard work of an American entrepreneur.

Global competitiveness has been a top objective of the Trump administration. Tax reform and efforts to streamline government regulations have contributed to historic lows in unemployment numbers and made America more competitive for business. Furthermore, many countries seek to attract foreign investment through economic citizenship programs. The EB-5 program allows for the U.S. to compete for mobile foreign investment and the jobs that these funds bring.

Congress must reauthorize and reform the EB-5 “regional center” program—which allows for pooling of capital from multiple investors—before it lapses. Moving ahead on regulations now puts the cart before the horse.

Enacting the Obama-era regulatory proposal would undermine the Trump Administration’s economic policies and greatly reduce foreign investment in the U.S. economy. Even the rule’s consideration has created uncertainty and rendered the program less effective. For these reasons, we urge that the Obama midnight regulation be abandoned immediately.

Sincerely,

Andrew F. Quinlan ~ President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Grover Norquist ~ President, Americans for Tax Reform
Iain Murray ~ Vice President, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Jason Pye ~ Vice President of Legislative Affairs, FreedomWorks
Tim Andrews ~ Executive Director, Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Jerry Taylor ~ President, Niskanen Center
Thomas A. Schatz ~ President, Citizens Against Government Waste
George Landrith ~ President, Frontiers of Freedom
Karen Kerrigan ~ President & CEO, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
Tom Giovanetti ~ President, Institute for Policy Innovation
Charles Sauer ~ President, Market Institute
Steve Pociask ~ President, The American Consumer Institute
Norman Singleton ~ President, Campaign for Liberty
Lew Uhler ~ President, National Tax Limitation Committee
James L. Martin ~ Founder/Chairman, 60 Plus Association

Cc:

The Honorable Mike Pence, Vice President of the United States
Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney
Director of the National Economic Council Lawrence Kudlow
Senior Advisor to President Donald J. Trump Jared Kushner
Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Kevin Hassett

Banging the Drum for Tax Increases at the International Monetary Fund

Thu, 03/28/2019 - 12:05pm

It’s not easy to identify the worst international bureaucracy.

Some days, I’m tempted to pick the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. After all, the Paris-based bureaucracy is infamous for pushing bigger government and higher taxes.

Other days, I want to select the International Monetary Fund, which leverages its bailout authority to relentlessly coerce governments into imposing higher taxes to finance bigger budgets.

At least for today, I’m going to argue that the IMF wins the dubious prize of being the worst.

That’s because the bureaucracy is doubling down on its ideological zeal for bigger government. Here are some excerpts from a speech earlier this week by the organization’s top bureaucrat, Christine Lagarde (who, incidentally, receives a lavish tax-free salary).

Our issue today is international corporate taxation. …I believe we need new rules in this area. …reasons why a new approach is urgent. …the three-decade long decline in corporate tax rates, undermines faith in the fairness of the overall tax system. …New IMF research published two weeks ago analyzes various options in…better addressing profit-shifting and tax competition.

Ms. Lagarde wants to boost the tax burden on business, and she complained about the fact that corporate tax rates have come down in recent decades.

What she cleverly didn’t acknowledge, though, is that the IMF’s own research shows that lower rates have not resulted in less revenue.

But you have to give Lagarde and her minions credit. They act on their beliefs.

The IMF has been pushing for big tax increases in Bahrain.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has called on the Bahrain government to take further action to shore up its shaky financial position, saying a large package of revenue and expenditure measures – including new taxes – is “urgently needed”. …the IMF set out a number of policy ideas – including the controversial tax proposal – in a statement… Bikas Joshi, the official who led the IMF team that visited Bahrain…went on to say that a “large fiscal adjustment is a priority” for the country…he said. “The implementation of a value-added tax, as planned, would be important. Additional revenue measures—including consideration of a corporate income tax—would be welcome.”

The IMF has been warning against tax cuts and instead pushing for tax increases in Ireland.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has urged the Government not to cut taxes in the upcoming budget, warning it risked “over-stimulating” Ireland’s fast-growing economy. …The fund recommended boosting housing supply through State-backed social housing projects… It recommended the Government pursues a small budget surplus in 2019… To achieve this, it advised broadening the tax base. One way this could be done was by increasing the tax on diesel… In addition, the IMF recommended getting rid of various tax exemptions and preferential rates such as the lower 9 per cent VAT rate for the hospitality sector.

The IMF has urged so many taxes that it created a backlash in Jordan.

Thousands of Jordanians heeded a strike call…to protest at major, IMF-guided tax rises they say will worsen an erosion in living standards. …warning the government that sweeping tax amendments…would impoverish employees already hit by unprecedented tax hikes implemented earlier this year. …tens of thousands of public and private sector employees accused the government of caving in to International Monetary Fund (IMF) demands and squeezing a middle class… The amendments, which would double the income tax base, are a key condition of a three-year IMF economic program that aims to generate more state revenue… Jordan earlier…raised taxes on hundreds of food and consumer items.

The examples are part of a pattern. I’ve also written about the IMF pimping for higher taxes in big countries, in small countries, and even entire continents.

Needless to say, the IMF also agitates for tax increases in the United States.

And it’s even specifically targeted poor nations for tax increases! Maybe now you’ll understand why I joked about nations not allowing IMF bureaucrats to visit.

I want to close today’s column by returning to Lagarde’s speech because there was another part of her speech that belies belief. She actually wants people to think that higher taxes and bigger government are a recipe for more growth.

…the current situation is especially harmful to low-income countries, depriving them of much-needed revenue to help them achieve higher economic growth.

Yes, your eyes are not deceiving you. The IMF’s top bureaucrat made the absurdly anti-empirical argument that higher taxes are good for growth.

Even though that’s directly contrary to evidence on the factors that enabled North America and Western Europe to become rich.

Sadly, this is now a common rhetorical tactic by international bureaucracies. The OECD does the same thing, as does the United Nations.

I guess they all think if they repeat nonsense often enough, people will somehow conclude up is down and black is white.

For what it’s worth, I’ll wait for them to name a single country that ever became rich by imposing higher taxes and bigger government.

P.S. There are some good economists working in the research division of the IMF, and they periodically publish good research on topics such as spending capsdebtdecentralization, the size of governmentdemographicsgovernment spending, and taxation. Too bad the bureaucrats working on policy never read those studies.

P.P.S. My favorite IMF study was the one that accidentally provided very compelling evidence against the value-added tax.

P.P.P.S. My least favorite IMF studies were the ones that actually suggested that it would be desirable if everyone had lower living standards so long as rich people disproportionately suffered. Disgusting.

———
Image credit: MEDEF | CC BY-SA 2.0.

Fiscal Policy Lessons from Iceland

Wed, 03/27/2019 - 12:28pm

Iceland is a tiny little country with just 338,000 people (about the population of Santa Ana, CA), but that doesn’t mean it can’t teach us lessons about public policy.

I wrote about the nation’s approach to fisheries in 2016, and explained that the property rights-based system is the best way of protecting fish stocks from over-harvesting.

And in 2013, I wrote about how modest spending restraint was helping to solve fiscal problems created by the financial crisis.

Today, I want to further explore Iceland’s fiscal policy, largely because of this remarkable chart that accompanied a Bloomberg report on the country’s budget strategy.

As you can see, debt skyrocketed during the financial crisis and has since plummeted at a very rapid rate.

This shows debt reduction is possible. Indeed, there can be huge reductions in a very short period of time.

So there may be hope for nations that are in the midst of fiscal crisis (such as Greece), nations that are about to suffer fiscal crisis (Italy is a prime candidate), and nations that will suffer a crisis if there isn’t reform (most developed nations, including the United States).

But what are the specific policy lessons?

Here are some excerpts from the accompanying article, which basically tells us that the government is focused on spending restraint.

Iceland will continue to reduce public debt and sustain a budget surplus even as it lowers taxes in the next five years, Finance Minister Bjarni Benediktsson said. The plan is part of a financial road map… The balancing act between austerity and the proposed fiscal concessions means less room for the government to…step up other spending… “We will need to impose certain measures of restriction,” Benediktsson said. The government may have to seek cost savings of as much as 5 billion kronur ($42 million), he said. …The financial plan projects a decrease in taxes as well as the Treasury’s debt levels and interest burden. It also expects the bank tax to be lowered in four steps.

But the article didn’t tell us why Iceland’s debt fell so quickly.

So I dug into the IMF’s World Economic Outlook database and crunched some numbers. I specifically wanted to find out why debt fell, both before and after the 2008 crisis.

And I focused on three sets of numbers.

  • Annual inflation rate
  • Annual growth of government spending burden
  • Annual increase in nominal gross domestic product

Here are those numbers, both for the years leading up to the 2008 crisis, as well as what happened starting in 2009.

For both the 2001-07 period and 2009-19 period, Iceland followed my Golden Rule. Government spending (the orange bars) grew slower than the economy (the grey bars).

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that debt fell during both eras.

But debt fell much faster starting in 2009 for the simple reason that the gap between spending growth and GDP growth was very significant over the past 10 years. This is the reason for the big reduction in debt.

And this spending restraint also generated some data that’s even more important– the burden of government spending has dropped from more than 48 percent of economic output in 2009 to less than 41 percent of GDP this year.

During the 2001-2007 period, by contrast, Iceland only barely satisfied the Golden Rule. Indeed, one could argue that spending was growing much too fast since the economy was in an unsustainable boom (Ireland was similarly profligate during the same period).

P.S. I recently shared an excellent IMF study showing three examples of big debt reductions in the pre-World War I era.

P.P.S. Unsurprisingly, the OECD has been pushing for higher taxes in Iceland.

P.P.P.S. If you want to read about all of Iceland’s pro-market economic, Prof. Hannes Gissurarson has a must-read article in Econ Journal Watch.

P.P.P.P.S. Voters in Iceland had an opportunity to vote on bank bailouts and 93 percent said no.

———
Image credit: 12019 | Pixabay License.

Nazis, Communists, Fascists, Socialists, and other Flavors of Collectivism and Authoritarianism

Tue, 03/26/2019 - 12:55pm

I’ve written about how totalitarian ideologies such as communism and Nazism have a lot in common. Both subordinate the individual to the state and both give the state power over the economy.

And both slaughter millions of people.

My buddy from grad school, Matt Kibbe, has a great video on this issue.

Needless to say, I agree with Matt’s characterization.

The battle is not right vs. left. It’s statism vs. individualism.

Let’s look at some writings on this issue.

We’ll start with an article by Bradley Birzer, published by Intellectual Takeout. He worries that totalitarianism on the left is making a comeback.

In 1936, you had three choices: National Socialism, international socialism, or dignity. In 2018, we find ourselves in similar circumstances… Why is this happening now…?  First, we scholars have failed to convince the public of just how wicked all forms of communism were and remain. …Almost all historians ignore the most salient fact of the 20th century: that governments murdered more than 200 million innocents, the largest massacre in the history of the world. Terror reigned in the killing fields, the Holocaust camps, and the gulags. …Second, an entire generation has grown up never knowing such things as the Soviet gulags or even the Berlin Wall. …most younger defenders of communism buy into the oldest propaganda line of the Left—that real communism has never been tried.

He explains that fascism and socialism are two sides of the same coin.

That the National Socialists embraced socialism is factually accurate. …they did nationalize very vital industry in Germany, even if by outright intimidation rather than through the law. In his personal diaries, Joseph Goebbels wrote in late 1925: “It would be better for us to end our existence under Bolshevism than to endure slavery under capitalism.” Only a few months later, he continued, “I think it is terrible that we and the Communists are bashing in each other’s heads.” Whatever the state of the rivalry between the two camps, Goebbels claimed, the two forces should ally and conquer. …The Italian fascists had even closer ties to the Marxists, with Mussolini having begun his career as a Marxist publicist and writer. A few Italian fascists even held positions in the Comintern.

Richard Mason makes similar points in a piece he wrote for the Foundation for Economic Education.

…how do we react to the hammer and sickle? I don’t have to write an article explaining the millions of deaths that occurred at the hands of communist regimes; like the Holocaust, the gulags of the Soviet Union and killing fields of Cambodia are widely known. Yet journalists in the UK openly and proudly advocate communism. Statues of Karl Marx are erected. …there is no justifiable way a fascist could argue ‘That wasn’t real Nazism.’ The same is not true for communism. …Since Karl Marx never implemented communism himself, the leaders of communist states always have that get-out-of-jail-free card. Any shortcomings, tragedies, or crises a communist regime faces can always be blamed on a misapplication of Marx’s infallible roadmap… The communist ideology in its purest form might be separated from its implementations, but at what point does its awful track record discredit any attempts to advocate it? …The history of communism is as bloodstained as that of Nazism; much more so, actually. It’s time we treated it as such.

Amen. I’ve weighed in on that issue, and I strongly recommend what Jeff Jacoby wrote on the issue as well.

And Sheldon Richman expands on this theme.

…fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax… Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. …Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

He explains the vast gulf between capitalism and fascist economics.

…Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions. …Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. …Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. …“excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” …since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled…fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation.

These are not new observations. Here’s what Ludwig von Mises wrote on this topic back in the 1940s.

The Marxians have resorted to polylogism because they could not refute by logical methods the theories developed by “bourgeois” economics, or the inferences drawn from these theories demonstrating the impracticability of socialism. As they could not rationally demonstrate the soundness of their own ideas or the unsoundness of their adversaries’ ideas, they have denounced the accepted logical methods. …The German nationalists had to face precisely the same problem as the Marxians. They also could neither demonstrate the correctness of their own statements nor disprove the theories of economics and praxeology. Thus they took shelter under the roof of polylogism, prepared for them by the Marxians. Of course, they concocted their own brand of polylogism. …Neither Marxian nor Nazi polylogism ever went further than to declare that the logical structure of mind is different with various classes or races. …Polylogism is not a philosophy or an epistemological theory. It is an attitude of narrow-minded fanatics.

And those fanatics are motivated by hate. The Nazis hate people of different races and religions, while the Marxists hate people of different incomes and classes.

Given the various articles cited above, this meme from The Matrix is spot on.

Well, we now know what happens when someone learns about the common characteristics of statist ideologies. The Daily Caller has a report on a student who got very upset after learning that the National Socialist Workers Party was…yes, socialist.

Social justice warrior and history major Shelby Shoup was arrested for throwing chocolate milk at a fellow student and College Republican tabling at Florida State University while saying “nazis weren’t socialists.” She has been charged with battery.

Since we’ve detoured into humor, this is a good opportunity to share this satire from the clever folks at the Babylon Bee.

At a press conference on Thursday, American Nazi Party leader Emmett Scoggins told reporters that his group is not trying to instate full-on Nazism, but a much better system called “democratic Nazism.”…Scoggins was questioned about the use of the word “democratic” and how democratic Nazism was any different from plain-old Nazism. “The main difference is we add the word ‘democratic’ on there because people like that word a lot more than just plain ‘Nazi,’” Scoggins said. …The conference ended with a long speech from Scoggins about…how “real” Nazism has never been tried.

I’ll close with my amateur attempt to classify various ideologies.

In the above video, Matt used a circle.

I’m wondering if a triangle makes more sense, with freedom at the top and totalitarianism at the bottom.

Here are a couple of additional observations on the triangle.

  • Back in 2017, I differentiated between liberal socialism and Marxist socialism. The same is true across the board. We could add a line right above authoritarian, collectivism, and socialism and assert that ideologies above the line are democratic and that ideologies below that line are dictatorial.
  • Given the difference between the technical definition of socialism (government ownershipcentral planningprice controls) and the everyday definition (lots of redistribution), I’m wondering whether I should use “welfare state” rather than “democratic socialism”? The end result isn’t pretty, regardless.
  • If we just focus on economic policy, I think my “statism spectrum” suffices.
  • If we just focus on the left, my Bernie-inspired classification system still holds up.

P.S. I like to think that there aren’t any civilized people willing to tolerate the Nazi ideology. But I do worry the same can’t be said about communism. The head of the European Commission recently helped celebrate Marx’s birthday, companies like Mercedes-Benz glorify racist murderers in their advertising (part of the Che death cult), and even symphonies use communist symbols.

How high does the death toll need to get before people realize that communism, like its sister ideology of Nazism is despicably evil?

Pages

Donate to Tea Party Manatee





Follow us on social media

About

If you have Constitutional values, believe in fiscal restraint, limited government, and a free market economy - then join us or just come and listen to one of our excellent speakers. We meet every Tuesday from 6-8 pm at Mixon Fruit Farms in the Honeybell Hall, 2525 27th St. East, Bradenton, Florida. Map it

Tea Party Manatee welcomes all constitution loving Americans.

Our core values are:

  • Defend the Constitution
  • Fiscal Responsibility
  • Limited Government
  • Free Markets
  • God and Country

Read more