Category: free trade & free markets

Categories
free trade & free markets insider corruption national politics & policies too much government

Self-Interest Wins Every Time

Incentives work. Because people are self-interested.

Even the seemingly altruistic protagonist played by Kevin Costner in the movie Field of Dreams exclaims, “I haven’t once asked what’s in it for me,” only to then ask, “What’s in it for me?”

That line comes to mind when I hear politicians and business folks talk about private-public partnerships, from subsidies for ethanol to billions in government loans to supposedly spur “green” technology.

The bankruptcy of the solar panel maker Solyndra cost taxpayers more than half a billion dollars. But it’s not merely that government is less than stellar at picking investment winners; it’s that the interests of politicians and businesspeople aren’t “the public interest.”

Never will be.

Sure, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told Congress yesterday, “I did not make any decision based on political considerations.” But internal company emails feature complaints about pressure from the Obama Administration to delay announcing layoffs until after the 2010 elections.

Whose interest did that serve?

Documents also uncover Solyndra executives hiding bad news the better to win additional federal funds and, alternatively, threatening that the company was about to go under hoping the potential bad press for Obama might shake down additional bucks.

Companies have an interest in the big money the federal government dangles before them. Politicians have an interest in appearing to be economic wizards creating jobs and spurring a new world with bright green hues.

Neither incentive promotes sound business behavior nor equates with the public interest.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

CreepOut-o-Meter Hits Red

If you are like me, you are not a monetary economist. I’m familiar with the main positions, I guess, and — if I dug information buried deep in memory — might be able to sound coherent on monetary policy when asked. And if given enough time to collect my thoughts. But you wouldn’t come to me to gain specific advice on specific issues relating to the Federal Reserve and money management at the rarefied level of the central bank.

Perhaps, like me, you’ve accepted or rejected positions based on analogous realms where you know much more.

And sometimes it all depends on The CreepOut-o-Meter.

My CreepOut-o-Meter just hit red.

Britain’s Business Secretary Vince Cable was recently quoted as saying, “If a monetary deal’s going to work, the central bank has to have unlimited powers to intervene to support economies, and indeed banks, to prevent collapse.”

Did he really say, “unlimited powers”?

That’s a long way from Milton Friedman’s reserved talk about a “monetary rule.” One of the biggest of Britain’s bigwigs isn’t talking about tinkering or refining. He’s pushing for an unlimited bailiwick to bail out Europe’s banks, credit, and the euro itself.

So you can see why I tend to promote old-fashioned money, money that wasn’t intimately controlled and bolstered-by-bailouts. Money like gold. Or silver. Or a set of commodities.

With that kind of money, it’s governments that are bound, limited.

It fits better with my idea of a free society.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Clunker Flunked

When the Obama Administration hit the ground running in 2009, one of its first “hopeful” and “audacious” programs was “Cash for Clunkers,” a sort of triple-action economic stimulus, carbon-emission reduction, and automaker bailout bill. Congress got on board, a lot of trades were made, billions spent. There was much brouhaha.

Skepticism should have been the order of the day, of course. So many things could have gone wrong.

And did.

Now, with the clarity of 20-20 hindsight, a consensus emerges: Cash for Clunkers was a clunker itself. An economic analysis from Resources for the Future is just the latest (mostly negative) judgment: “[T]he program increased new vehicle sales by about 0.36 million during July and August of 2009, implying that approximately 45 percent of the spending went to consumers who would have purchased a new vehicle anyway. Our results suggest no gain in sales beyond 2009 and hence no meaningful stimulus to the economy.”

Further, fuel economy gains and pollution reductions were minuscule.

The study is far from exhaustive. A lot of old cars were scrapped, recycled. Guess what this does to the used car and parts market? It’s been devastating.

Who’s hurt by supply reductions and consequent price rises? Cash-strapped folks, the kind of people who usually buy used cars, or keep old cars running — which is a lot of people during a depression.

I bet that Cash for Clunkers served, on net, to transfer wealth from the working poor to far wealthier individuals.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets video

Video: My Friend Sarah

The world’s a complex place, and it takes some thought to make sense of it. One of the more useful tools for understanding the social world is economics. And, once you begin thinking in economic terms, there are consequences, as this delightful video from a few years ago neatly shows:

I’m impressed how a simple story line and touch of whimsy helps get the ideas across.

Categories
free trade & free markets porkbarrel politics too much government

Strings of the Puppets

It’s hard to push string. That’s something the marionette masters in Washington are finding out. They’re used to dangling money in front of people. Watch the puppets leap!

But dangling money in front of folks in turn for votes and donations, that’s one thing. Investing in business? Quite another.

You see, businesses serve customers. While government can, indeed, invest in business, that investment doesn’t ensure success.

Developing and offering products on the market that people want to buy — that makes for success.

No matter how nifty something may seem to the investor, if it’s too costly for the targeted consumer — or simply fails to spark consumer fire — the company will not make a go of it, no matter how progressive the government doing the investing.

Sunday’s bankruptcy filing by Beacon Energy, a maker of an innovative flywheel electric energy storage system — energy storage being awfully important for that dubious future where we must rely more on unreliable and uncontrollable sources of energy, like wind and solar — is just another in a long history of failed government investments. In this case, other investors failed to come through.

On the bright side, this time the $43 million in loan guarantees, similar to those pushed to now bankrupt Solyndra, came with better collateral. Thus, this failure didn’t leave quite as big a hole for taxpayers.

Politicians like investing other people’s money (ours) . . . with their own political strings attached. But they hate that those strings lead right back to them when their corporate puppets wind up dead.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Got Jobs?

New jobs come from entrepreneurial insight into new ways of profitably producing goods; they are paid for with investments. After a bust, old ratios of prices and wages cease to work, requiring time for entrepreneurs to refigure. But capitalism’s basic scenario — savings, investment, productivity gains, trades — still applies.

Some folks prefer to short-circuit all this, simply robbing Peter to create a job for Paul.

They’re known as politicians.

President Obama proposes spending an additional $447 billion to create jobs, even though our economy is already gummed up with debilitating debt. The Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell argues that taking money from the economy’s right pocket (taxes) and putting it in the left pocket (spending) doesn’t create economic growth or long-term employment, but, for those who happen “to be sitting in the left pocket . . . [i.e.], a state or local politician that’s getting money from the so-called stimulus,” they think “it’s a good thing.”

Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Illinois) says that the “only way out” of our current mess is to offer every one of the 15 million unemployed Americans a $40,000-a-year job . . . with the federal government.

Most Republican presidential candidates pitch their (quite mythical) job-creating skills, too.

The Republican presidential candidate banned by the national news media — no, not Ron Paul, the other one, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson — put it best. “The fact is,” he said at the only debate he was allowed to appear in, “I can unequivocally say that I did not create a single job while I was governor.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets tax policy

An Embarrassment of Riches

Have you heard the terrible, awful news?

Over roughly the last three decades, specifically from 1979 to 2007, Americans across all segments of the economy — from the poorest to the richest — have seen their incomes rise.

It just doesn’t get any worse, eh?

If you haven’t committed hara-kiri, here are the cold, hard facts from the Congressional Budget Office report:

  • The poorest fifth of the population, on average, saw their inflation-adjusted incomes increase 18 percent.
  • The 60 percent of Americans in the middle earned nearly 40 percent more, after taxes.
  • Those of us from the 80th percentile to the 99th had income gains of 65 percent.
  • Incomes for the top one percent of earners were up a whopping 275 percent.

One might think that universally higher incomes are a good thing, but that depends on how you look at it.

“If you think of America’s total income as one giant pie,” an ABC World News Tonight report explained, “the richest one percent have seen the size of their piece double over the last 30 years. And everyone else has seen their piece get smaller.”

Well, I’m really hoping that we won’t start thinking of all our incomes as “one giant pie.”

What about this 99 percent versus 1 percent warfare?

That’s media slant. Most Americans don’t begrudge someone good fortune, and affirmatively admire those who grow wealthy in return for smarts and hard work.

But they do oppose bailouts.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets insider corruption too much government video

Saving “Capitalism”

Excellent testimony by Prof. Russ Roberts of George Mason University about the government bailout of the financial sector. Naming Bush, Obama and Congress, Prof. Roberts charges: “You’ve helped risk-takers continue to expect that the rules that apply to the rest of us don’t apply to people with the right connections. You’ve saved the system, but it’s a system not worth saving. It’s not capitalism; it is crony capitalism.”

Let’s keep this common sense in mind.

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture

Occupy X Percent

By all accounts I’ve read, the 99 percenters in the “Occupy X” (fill in the “X” with your nearest protest city) movement seem obsessed with income inequality.

I, too, am concerned with the very rich — the bailouts of the very rich. I was against bailouts from the start. The moral hazard of a bailout mentality is extremely dangerous, inimical to a free society.

But that doesn’t make me a 99 percenter.

Why? Well, protestors on the streets believe — well, 49 percent of them believe — that the bailouts were necessary!

How odd. They distrust the rich. They want to tax the rich more. And yet, when the rich fail, they think it vital to “help the rich out.” Is this a result of simply believing in “helping people out in times of trouble”? Or do 49 percent of 99 percenters believe that the wealth of the well-to-do is so vital to the economy that their status as wealthy folks must be guaranteed?

I think it’s probably the latter. Leaning left, 99 percenters are committed to government “management” of the economy. And that includes bailing out unsuccessful rich folks as well as the unsuccessful poor and middle-class folks.

Were they really against inequality, wouldn’t they be happy now that the wealthy have taken a hit, and income inequality has been reduced? At least to a small, Schadenfreude extent?

Apparently, government being in control is the real bedrock issue. For X percent, anyway — X representing a shockingly high number of protestors.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Nails & Ball-Peen Hammers

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. When it comes to “jobs,” our politicians prove the truth of this adage over and over. They think that they have to “do something,” or at least “look busy” providing “leadership.”

Wrong — unless they take the lead to get out of the way.

Alas, few have the courage for that kind of leadership.

Republican politicians — fearing “looking bad” — are, even now, floating various “plans” to create “jobs.”

“I thought it was incumbent on me to at least say . . . ‘We’re working on a plan,’” says one incumbent.

Trouble is, whatever plan he or his colleagues put up to counter the president’s absurdities, odds are that it, too, will not work.

Why?

The trouble with markets right now is uncertainty. Several sectors went bust, and it’s not easy to get progress started again . . . especially when the government keeps cooking up game-changers. Solutions. “Fixes.” Political machinations — subsidies or regulations or any of the usual tools in the politicians’ tool belt — just increase uncertainty, muddying up the recovery.

The neat thing about markets is that none of us need to know how, exactly, to order the “economy” for order to be discovered. It works out. This is old wisdom, but even actual experimentation has shown that this is the case.

The economy is not a mess of boards half-nailed down. The last thing it needs is more hammering from politicians.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.