While Obama tours the country promoting his personal donation plan, the Republican Presidential hopefuls are in a pitched battle for the nomination and arguing which tax simplification plan is best. Threatened with the possibility of rate cuts, the Media and politicians trot out the usual suspects of lies about tax hikes and tax cuts.  This is a battle Republicans must win and, to do so, they need to expose those lies.

Keep in mind that the battle between those who create wealth and those that want to redistribute it, mainly politicians, is as old as civilization itself.  We read of tax battles and even reform in every age, like Urukagina’s tax reductions in Babylonia/Sumer in 2350 BC.  Equally venerable are the constant set of demagogic lies by those against tax cuts and simplification.  It is important to note that politicians like complicated tax codes and high tax rates because they control those rates and dispense the loopholes and regulations that complicate the tax code.  Tax simplification means they lose power.  As a result, resistance to tax reform is more often the rule than reform. As for the lies, they abound, so let’s consider just a few:

Lie # 1: Tax cuts cause deficits/Tax hikes balance the budget.  The Media and the Left often say that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts led to deficits while Clinton’s tax hikes led to a balanced budget. In truth, according to the IRS, federal tax revenues rose dramatically after the overall Reagan tax cuts/reforms (98%) and the Bush tax cuts (a record $700+ billion). This is just as they did after the Harding/Coolidge cuts (61% revenue increase) and after the Kennedy/Johnson cuts (62% revenue increase).  Those are the four major income tax reductions we have had since the inception of the income tax in 1913 and every time revenues rose after they were in place – every time.

So did the tax rate cut cause a deficit? The lie, of course, is to blame the revenue gathering mechanism (tax code/rate cut) instead of the revenue spending mechanism, i.e. Congress/Presidents.  The spenders kept spending – often at an accelerated rate when they saw the new revenues.  Thus, the fault for continuing deficits lies not with tax rate cuts, which produced higher revenues, but with politicians who spent too much.

(more…)

As an economist, I eschew the soft-headed convenience of ready-made ideologies, together with their carrying rationalities, turning upon intellectual vulgarities I haven’t the stomach to bear. But even when we look askance at ideologies, focusing instead upon flinty economic facts evidenced in history, a certain resolve may be expressed without overstatement:

1. Markets are the best means to capture the wisdom of individuals acting in their own interests.
2. Taxes should be moderate, clear and specific, to afford business and individuals the most efficient options for planning investment and economic activity.
3. Regulations should be specific and not speculative; written with sufficient flexibility to address new situations, with a clear, speedy review process to put right such anomalies as may arise from human action.
4. Under this framework, capitalism provides, not merely, the most efficient means of producing prosperity for the largest possible number of persons, but also the best means by which those without it may acquire capital, by which they too can become more direct authors of their won prosperity.
5. So long as the above is true, the well-off, the well and the not-so-well-off can co-exist in social harmony, because there is the belief that with application and diligence anyone who is not well-off may become so, within the system as described.

There are further elegant truths in history offering wisdom by which clear thinking on these questions may be maintained, advanced and reinforced:

1. Too aggressive a tax rate offends the sense of accomplishment of those who toil for their own prosperity; increasing the feeling that the fruit of their labours is being apportioned by an unaccountable few for the sake of an increasing many.
2. The habitual debasement of the currency undermines the assumption of value, which instigated the resolve to labour for oneself, in the first instance.

(more…)

Winston Churchill warned; “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last”. Churchill would understand the dynamics of the European and American sovereign debt crisis. Modern warfare is not about a blitzkrieg of panzers, dive-bombers, and storm-troopers swarming across borders to over-whelm patriotic defenders. Today’s world dominators sucker their prey into financially destroying themselves from within. Once the quarry is crippled; the invader walks in and takes control of the victim’s economy on the cheap.

Recently bureaucrats from Austria; Belgium; Cyprus; Estonia; Finland; France; Greece; Ireland; Italy; Luxembourg; Malta; Netherlands; Portugal; Slovakia; Slovenia; and Spain quietly surrendered their sovereignty to Germany. In contrast, Americans stand alone as the only nation on earth in full rebellion against their government’s dangerous addiction to deficit spending.

Hitler slyly wrote: “How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.” Most Europeans did not question the too-good to-be-true claims of the euro when it was first introduced in 2002 as the continent’s common currency. Overnight, serial debt-defaulters were granted unlimited power to raise huge volumes of cheap capital in the untested euro-bond markets. Fans boasted the new currency created the largest economic trading group in the world; with 332 million direct users and another 175 million people worldwide who pegged their currency exchange rate to the euro.

Thomas Jefferson cautioned: “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies”; but Europeans don’t study American history. Germans designed the euro to be dominated by the Frankfurt-based European Central Bank (ECB); who control all money printing and operate the eurozone electronic payment systems. Member central banks are allowed to sit on Eurosystem Board, but only as junior members. With their supremacy of ECB rule-making, Germans implemented banking regulations eliminating reserve requirements for loans to euro members; while increasing collateral requirements against loans to the private sector. Goldman Sachs and other camp followers gave the local banks access to derivatives; which allowed for astronomic leverage of euro member loans.

(more…)

In the 1930s, John Maynard Keynes, the most influential economist of the last century, and future Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek engaged in a legendary battle of ideas about the role of the government in ending and causing economic downturns.

Last year, George Mason University economist Russ Roberts and director-producer John Papola retold that debate in the form of a rap video, “Fear the Boom and Bust,” in which Hayek and Keynes fight it out over the causes of the Great Recession.

In a new video, the battle continues: Should government juice spending via massive stimulus or “do nothing” once a recession is underway? And did World War II end the Great Depression? Whatever side you take, the video, which pulled over 500,000 views in its first week, is sure to entertain and edify.

(more…)

Politicians, being what they are, tend to have an inflated view of what they can do. Some claim to create jobs while others claim to raise taxes. In truth, they are limited to passing political laws. Once enacted, those laws run into the laws of economics – which have never been repealed and have been largely the same since the beginning of time. The results are often different than those intended – and so it is for Jerry Brown, whose policies fly in the face of economics and Californians are paying the price.

Few can doubt the magnitude of the economic problems facing our once Golden State. Unemployment is above 12% and underemployment is above 20%. Over 1.3 million less people are employed today than a decade ago. California homeowners have lost over $1.7 trillion in equity in the last 4 years – an amount nearly equal to the entire state economy. That combination has resulted in California suffering the worst of the nation’s foreclosure crisis including startling figures such as in Fresno, where 46.7% of the mortgages are under water, i.e. the mortgage is larger than the home value.

California businesses face taxes among the highest in the nation, even higher regulatory burdens and, just around the corner, potentially large workers’ compensation rate increases. It’s no wonder CEO Magazine ranks California 51st in the nation (behind Puerto Rico) as a place to do business.

All combined, these economic problems have resulted in revenue problems for California governments because people without jobs don’t pay taxes; homeowners without equity spend and borrow less; and businesses with mounting costs have lower profits. That’s economics – not politics.

For Jerry Brown, however, economics remains a mystery to say the least.

(more…)

The Great Depression has been a deeply contested subject from the very beginning. After John Maynard Keynes’s General Theory became sacred writ for most mainstream economists, Keynesian interpretations generally prevailed, notwithstanding pockets of resistance among older economists, in general, and Austrian school economists, in particular. Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s monumental Monetary History of the United States eventually helped to displace Keynesian interpretations with a monetarist interpretation, especially after the stagflation of the 1970s worked to discredit Keynesian macroeconomics.

Nevertheless, in part because mainstream macroeconomics never settled into a fixed orthodoxy for very long, competing interpretations of the Great Depression continued to attract adherents and to incorporate new elements of analysis during the past thirty years. The Austrians, once again attracting young economists to their ranks from the 1970s onward, persisted in waging guerrilla warfare against Keynesian, monetarist, New Classical, and other varieties of interpretation of the Depression.

With the onset of the current economic troubles—what some call the Great Recession—the debate about the Great Depression flared up anew, because many commentators began to compare these two episodes of exceptionally subpar overall economic performance. In 2008, an article by Gauti Eggertsson, “Great Expectations and the End of the Depression,” was published in the leading mainstream journal, the American Economic Review. This article advances a variation on one of the leading themes among mainstream economists, attributing the U.S. recovery after 1933 to a regime change associated with the New Deal’s abandonment of the gold standard and its commitment to active intervention in the private economy, allegedly in sharp contrast to the Hoover administration’s hands-off policy stance.

Steven Horwitz has taken issue with Eggertsson’s article in an important critique published in 2009 in the online journal Econ Journal Watch, edited by Daniel B. Klein. Eggertsson replied to Horwitz’s critique in 2010. Now, Horwitz has rejoined this back-and-forth in a new contribution to Econ Journal Watch titled “Unfortunately Unfamiliar with Robert Higgs and Others: A Rejoinder to Gauti Eggertsson on the 1930s.” No one will be surprised if I recommend Horwitz’s original critique and his follow-up piece as important contributions to this highly significant debate.

(more…)

Economists and pundits, who contend that the Federal Reserve System has little room to maneuver in using monetary policy to jump-start our anemic economy, often have claimed that America is mired in a Keynesian “liquidity trap”, a situation in which the demand for money is unresponsive to changes in market interest rates.

After all, those commentators emphasize, the Fed has adopted a target for the federal funds rate (the interest rate charged on overnight interbank loans) of between zero and 0.25 percent. The implication is that further reductions in that rate will have little or no effect on the incentives of businesses to invest in new plant and equipment or of consumers to borrow in order to finance the additional spending necessary to raise GDP growth above the (recently downwardly revised) estimate of 1.6 percent during the second quarter of 2010.

But those commentators overlook or ignore the easily verified reasoning of John Maynard Keynes, who defined a liquidity trap in terms of long-term rather than short–term interest rates. The long-term (ten- or 30-year) rate on Treasury securities now runs at about three percent, meaning that the Fed still has arrows in its quiver. Unfortunately, however, those arrows, the use of which would demand the central bank engage in further “quantitative easing”, requires it to purchase more under-performing, “toxic” assets from banks and other financial institutions that lent money to homeowners who could not repay their mortgages. Engaging in such transactions places more bad debts on the Fed’s balance sheet, constrains its ability to conduct monetary policy in the future and raises the specter of higher rates of future price inflation.

In his recent speech at Wood’s Hole, Wyoming, Fed Chairman Bernanke was right to say that economic recovery cannot depend solely on the policies of the central bank over which he presides. But the fiscal discipline (spending and tax cuts) required to achieve that goal is incompatible with the vote motives of incumbent politicians or their challengers for political office.

(more…)

I pose this question seriously, not as a physiologist, but as an economic historian. I am provoked to raise the question by an advertisement that Amazon sent me recently, calling my attention a book titled Can Capitalism Survive? Creative Destruction and the Future of the Global Economy. Seeing this sales pitch, my immediate reaction was my usual sadly amused reply to such a question: Can capitalism survive? What an odd question! Assuming that capitalism ever existed at all, it has been dead for at least a century.

At first glance, I did not recognize that the book being advertised is one for which, in a sense, I am responsible. It turns out that the “new” book is only an old (portion of a) book, now adorned by a new subtitle and two new introductory paragraphs by the Newsweek columnist Robert J. Samuelson. If I reveal that the book’s author is Joseph A. Schumpeter, many readers will recognize it immediately as Part II of that famous economist’s best-known work Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, first published in 1942, with subsequent editions in 1947 and 1950.

The new book’s front cover has a blurb from Fortune that declares Schumpeter to have been “the most influential economist of the twentieth century . . . a major prophet.” The back cover has an embarrassingly superficial blurb by publisher Steve Forbes that, among other things, describes Schumpeter as “the twentieth century’s foremost economist.”

I do not consider Schumpeter entitled to be called the most influential economist of the past century―that distinction unfortunately belongs to John Maynard Keynes, and Milton Friedman surely deserves the second place. As for Schumpeter’s rank as a prophet or as the intellectually foremost economist, I would place him below Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek.

Nevertheless, Schumpeter was unquestionably one of the most important economists of his day, and his work has continued for good reason to attract readers ever since his death in 1950.

(more…)

In what is becoming a perennial affair, the California budget deficit is projected to be over $21 billion in the coming year – including a $6 billion hangover from this year.  With the same degree of regularity, in pursuit of stable education funding (a good idea), educators in California are calling for tax rate increases (a bad idea) and blaming Republican legislators for blocking those increases (an unproductive idea).   Rather than call for more tax rate increases – one of the causes of our current problems –educators should call for policies that will increase private sector jobs so we have more people paying taxes – not less.

At first blush, it may be hard to believe that we have another deficit.  After all, in 2008, expenditures were far in excess of $100 billion.   Expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year were just over $90 billion.  With all that cutting, shouldn’t we have a balanced budget?  The answer is no – because budgets are a two-part equation: deficit/surplus = spending – revenues.  In California’s case, revenues have plummeted faster than expenditures – and continue to do so at a perilous rate.  Worse yet, California’s Legislative Analysts Office projects huge deficits for years to come.

Nevertheless, Democrats and many educators are calling for ever more tax rate increases in a dangerous game of economic roulette with California jobs.  Keep in mind that California already has the 6^th highest tax rate in the Country.  Why not shoot for number #1?  Three reasons:

(more…)