Category: Economy

What about us?

Bernie Sanders wants to wipe out all student college debt – amounting to somewhere in the vicinity of $1.6T. Mind you this is money owed to the American taxpayer, who only loaned the money to these students to assist them in their education – not to pay for it outright. Talk about “buying votes”; given the number of students with student debt (roughly 45 million), it seems that Bernie’s going to win in 202o…

But, wait! I have a few questions, Bernie:

1) What about the rest of us? What about those of us who responsibly attended college by choosing a useful (pronounced STEM) degree program, one where scholarships and fellowships were available, and who worked through school so as to not have any or minimal debt upon graduation? Is it our reward for being responsible citizens that we are saddled with paying the debt of those who weren’t?

2) Why not go further, as long as you are printing money, and pay off everyone’s mortgage, too? That will penalize us further, those of us who have lived within our means and scrimped/sacrificed/saved so that we could own our homes outright. Why not saddle us with the debt of those who partied, vacationed, and spent beyond their means rather than pay off their homes?

Somewhere I once read an unverified quote that seems to accurately describe what is happening in the United States. This unverified quote essentially made the claim that a democracy only remains viable until the people realize that they can write themselves a check out of the treasury. This appears to be what Bernie (and others) are attempting to do; the trick is to make sure that more people benefit from the giveaway of public funds than those who will suffer for it, thus insuring voter support.

It is the 16th amendment that is largely responsible for this dilemma, as until its ratification direct taxes were required to be apportioned based on population. With the advent of the progressive tax system the 16th amendment enabled, it became possible to provide the majority of people with a benefit where their contribution in taxes was far less than the benefit received.

The Constitution was designed to protect against the “…tyranny of the majority…” by including specific rights for the people and limitations on government. Unfortunately, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of our constitution just wasn’t clear enough, as evidenced by ratification of the 16th amendment. Hopefully, we’ll get it right next time.

Will someone please explain…

…why anyone should have to pay to raise someone else’s child?

Warren set to release $70B-per-year plan for universal child care, will tap wealth tax

Whatever happened to being responsible responsible for ones own actions? When debts incurred were our own, not our neighbors?

<rant mode on>
Government programs such as this only add expensive government overhead to our tax burden and increase the dependence of people on the government for their basic needs.

The end goal seems clear: by increasing dependence on the government, those who propound such dependencies control the vote of those made dependent. They are no different than drug dealers providing a “free” fix to secure a lifetime of addiction. What is truly sad is that the real victims – those dependent – are simply too ignorant to realize the trap into which they have fallen.

My argument against such socialist policies is that they remove the motivation and ability to contract on your own for better (and merit-based) wages, thus removing incentives to excel. We all just become another cog in the machine, striving to do the least work for the identical alms we are each provided by the state.

In addition, any time we create a government bureaucracy we add overhead that produces nothing of value. You cannot eat the product of wealth redistribution, nor can you drive it to work. You may have more money in your pocket from these policies, but the products available to purchase with it have not changed. There is nothing more to buy than there was before, and possibly less due to reductions in productivity that result from these socialist policies. The result of receiving unearned money will always be increased prices.

Our education system leans democrat 2:1, and this has a dramatic effect on what students learn. If we taught students critical thinking skills and basic economics instead of liberal politics they might actually understand why socialist math doesn’t work. But getting free stuff from the government? We teach them it’s a right… and that it’s OK to make someone else pay for it.
<rant mode off>

China and the Paris Climate Accord

The impact of the Paris Climate Accord on China’s carbon emissions has effectively been nil. It’s no wonder China has remained a proponent of the accord; it has no impact on them, yet shackles their competition. China’s terms under the agreement? Peak their emissions (without limit) by 2030. U.S. terms? Reduce carbon output by 26-28% of 2005 levels by 2025. Hardly seems fair, given that China is the world’s largest emitter of CO2.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Up Again. What Now, Climate?

Throttling our own companies with carbon emission regulations to the point where they shut down, then buying the same product from unregulated overseas manufacturers hardly seems prudent. It may cut our own carbon emissions, but will raise overall emissions while destroying our industrial base.

If we want to have an impact on carbon emissions, we should consider placing a tariff on imported goods based on their embedded carbon content. This will level the playing field and preserve fair competition among manufacturers while lowering overall world-wide emissions.

…in accordance to their needs…

From the Mayor of New York, the infamous “democratic socialist” Bill De Blasio:

“I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be,” de Blasio said in a wide-ranging interview with New York Magazine. “I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs.” [emphasis mine]

Who do you think will pay for these buildings, Bill? Working people who save their hard-earned money to invest in real estate so as to earn a return, only to have you essentially nationalize their holdings for the benefit of others who can not or will not pay their own way? How long do you think it will take these investors to realize that NYC is a bad bet, slowing development to a crawl? And who gets to decide who lives in the remaining buildings, and how much rent they will pay? You, Bill, and your followers? Is this what you are after, Bill? Control – not by virtue of your ability to produce jobs or housing, but instead by virtue of your control over those who do?

‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need’

There wasn’t a man voting for it who didn’t think that under a setup of this kind he’d muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself. There wasn’t a man rich and smart enough but that he didn’t think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his better’s wealth and brain. But while he was thinking that he’d get unearned benefits from the men above, he forgot about the men below who’d get unearned benefits, too. He forgot about all his inferiors who’d rush to drain him just as he hoped to drain his superiors.”

Jeff Allen, a fictional character in Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged”

The reality is that people support Bill De Blasio’s socialist credo not because it is right, but instead because they believe it will give them the ability to pick the pockets of their betters. Unfortunately, they forget two simple eventualities:

1) Their betters will abandon them, giving them nothing to loot, and
2) They, too, are someone’s better.

Good luck, New York. With the likes of Bill De Blasio at the helm, you’re going to need it.