King Banaian putting truth to words.
Posted using ShareThis
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Protectionism in Our State Government
A key aspect to understanding why government action cannot spur meaningful economic growth and prosperity is to recognize the fact that politicians do not make economic decisions, they make political decisions.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune recently reported on a new state law that "prohibits cities, counties, the state and other 'public employers' from buying uniforms or safety equipment made outside the United States." The man behind this measure is Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia. Tom believes that a big reason we are not recovering from this recession is because we don't make as many "things" as other countries do. Other countries, Rukavina contends, "still make things" and he adds, "When you make things, turn natural resources into things, you also turn them into livable jobs."
Rukavina's measure may be noble in its intention, but as many of us know the road to hell is paved with, well, nevermind.
The idea that buying American will inherently spur economic growth is one posed with little intellectual investigation. Rep. Rukavina would be wise to read this article posted by Daniel Griswold, the Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute.
If free trade has truly resulted in the loss of American jobs, why did unemployment rise in the aftermath of NAFTA? While it may be true that America has lost manufacturing jobs as it has opened up trade with the world, it has grown in the service area of the economy. It is not so much that American has lost jobs, it is that demand has directed our economy to evolve and adapt to supply more service-related jobs.
I'll post a couple links and a rather funny yet informative video from reason.tv. I encourage Rep. Rukavina to visit these links and watch the video; not that he will. Heck, I doubt he will ever read this blog - as of this writing, I only have 3 followers, including myself.
Links -
http://www.cato.org/trade-immigration
"Mad About Trade" by Daniel Griswold
The Minneapolis Star Tribune recently reported on a new state law that "prohibits cities, counties, the state and other 'public employers' from buying uniforms or safety equipment made outside the United States." The man behind this measure is Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia. Tom believes that a big reason we are not recovering from this recession is because we don't make as many "things" as other countries do. Other countries, Rukavina contends, "still make things" and he adds, "When you make things, turn natural resources into things, you also turn them into livable jobs."
Rukavina's measure may be noble in its intention, but as many of us know the road to hell is paved with, well, nevermind.
The idea that buying American will inherently spur economic growth is one posed with little intellectual investigation. Rep. Rukavina would be wise to read this article posted by Daniel Griswold, the Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute.
If free trade has truly resulted in the loss of American jobs, why did unemployment rise in the aftermath of NAFTA? While it may be true that America has lost manufacturing jobs as it has opened up trade with the world, it has grown in the service area of the economy. It is not so much that American has lost jobs, it is that demand has directed our economy to evolve and adapt to supply more service-related jobs.
I'll post a couple links and a rather funny yet informative video from reason.tv. I encourage Rep. Rukavina to visit these links and watch the video; not that he will. Heck, I doubt he will ever read this blog - as of this writing, I only have 3 followers, including myself.
Links -
http://www.cato.org/trade-immigration
"Mad About Trade" by Daniel Griswold
QOTW
"Sometimes any issue that hits the television news seems to become an issue that must be addressed by the federal government. And like busybodies everywhere, Congress can't help peering in our windows and telling us how to live our lives." ~ Michael D Tanner
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
BOTW (Book of the Week)
For those of you interested in learning about alternatives to government "solutions" to our health care system I encourage you to check out "Healthy Competition" by Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute.
You can purchase it here.
You can purchase it here.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Dayton's Misunderstanding of Reversing Minnesota's Fortunes
Former U.S. Senator Mark Dayton announced Wednesday his DFL candidacy for governor of Minnesota, reported here by the Star Tribune.
In his speech Dayton said he would work to reverse Minnesota's fortunes and do whatever he could to bring new jobs to the state. To do this, he intends to increase state funding to K-12 education and tax the top 10% of Minnesotans which, he claims would raise $3.8 billion over two years.
Dayton's statements contain a bevy of items I could focus on; issues such as excessive government spending, class warfare, economic freedom, typical "Stage 1 Thinking", and choice in education. For now I will contain my statement to a few points.
I would like Senator Dayton to explain why he chose 10% as the cut-off for his tax increase. Was it because there is statistical evidence to support his assertion that this tax increase will necessarily result in increased revenues to the tune of $3.8 billion? Was it because 10% is a nice, round number to throw out? If so, should we choose to legislate and establish tax policy on such nice, round numbers? More to the point, is Senator Dayton suggesting the top income earners? Would this include income earned from a small business? Would this encompass business or corporate taxes? A more broad and, perhaps, philosophical, question; what makes someone "rich". More on that in a later blog post.
Furthermore, I would ask Senator Dayton for evidence that increasing taxes on the "rich" results in increased revenue to the government. Tax policy affects human behavior. The more you tax something, the less of it you will get. I.E. the more you tax cigarettes, the less people smoke; the more you increase say, the gas tax, the less people will drive; the more you tax income (in essence, work) the less people will work. Why would someone want to work and earn more, only to pay more in taxes? Simply put, it reduces the incentive to work and earn more.
The state of Maryland has tried this, increasing taxes on those it deemed "rich". When the state decided to increase the tax on millionaires - again, why just millionaires? Why not billionaires? Or, those making more than $500K? I'm stumped on this one - many of these millionaires decided to pack up and leave. Why stay and pay more when one could move to nearby Delaware or even Pennsylvania? Maybe because Delaware is, well, just Delaware. Though I hear nearby Pennsylvania has good cheese steaks, and that show "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" is filmed there. I like that show, it makes me laugh. Then again, "The Wire" was filmed in Baltimore and that may very well be the greatest show evah!
Anyway, I digress. The result for Maryland was that with the loss of all the millionaires, so went the loss in tax revenue. Now Maryland, like many other states, is facing a rather massive budget shortfall.
A more important point to be made is that these top 10% of income earners include business owners and employers. When taxes are increased on those who offer and supply various products and services, they will make the necessary adjustments to offset those additional taxes (or costs). These choices often include reducing in their workforce (lay-offs), the freezing or reduction of compensation to their employees, or perhaps reducing or eliminating certain benefits like reduced vacation time. Additionally, employers may choose to increase the price of whatever goods or service they provide in order to make up for the increased cost to them in form of taxes. Veronique de Rugy, a senior fellow at the Mercatus Center, touches on this in a recent article over at Reason.
Increasing taxes has a ripple effect. To simply assume that increasing taxes will result in increased revenue is short-sighted and ignores the effects it has on employment, as well as, the increase in the prices for various goods and services.
The bottom line is that increasing taxes on one group of individuals has an effect on all of us. If Senator Dayton intends to grab more money from those he considers "rich", he would be wise to consider the effects it has on the rest of the population, specifically those he claims to represent.
Posted using ShareThis
Dayton's statements contain a bevy of items I could focus on; issues such as excessive government spending, class warfare, economic freedom, typical "Stage 1 Thinking", and choice in education. For now I will contain my statement to a few points.
I would like Senator Dayton to explain why he chose 10% as the cut-off for his tax increase. Was it because there is statistical evidence to support his assertion that this tax increase will necessarily result in increased revenues to the tune of $3.8 billion? Was it because 10% is a nice, round number to throw out? If so, should we choose to legislate and establish tax policy on such nice, round numbers? More to the point, is Senator Dayton suggesting the top income earners? Would this include income earned from a small business? Would this encompass business or corporate taxes? A more broad and, perhaps, philosophical, question; what makes someone "rich". More on that in a later blog post.
Furthermore, I would ask Senator Dayton for evidence that increasing taxes on the "rich" results in increased revenue to the government. Tax policy affects human behavior. The more you tax something, the less of it you will get. I.E. the more you tax cigarettes, the less people smoke; the more you increase say, the gas tax, the less people will drive; the more you tax income (in essence, work) the less people will work. Why would someone want to work and earn more, only to pay more in taxes? Simply put, it reduces the incentive to work and earn more.
Anyway, I digress. The result for Maryland was that with the loss of all the millionaires, so went the loss in tax revenue. Now Maryland, like many other states, is facing a rather massive budget shortfall.
A more important point to be made is that these top 10% of income earners include business owners and employers. When taxes are increased on those who offer and supply various products and services, they will make the necessary adjustments to offset those additional taxes (or costs). These choices often include reducing in their workforce (lay-offs), the freezing or reduction of compensation to their employees, or perhaps reducing or eliminating certain benefits like reduced vacation time. Additionally, employers may choose to increase the price of whatever goods or service they provide in order to make up for the increased cost to them in form of taxes. Veronique de Rugy, a senior fellow at the Mercatus Center, touches on this in a recent article over at Reason.
Increasing taxes has a ripple effect. To simply assume that increasing taxes will result in increased revenue is short-sighted and ignores the effects it has on employment, as well as, the increase in the prices for various goods and services.
The bottom line is that increasing taxes on one group of individuals has an effect on all of us. If Senator Dayton intends to grab more money from those he considers "rich", he would be wise to consider the effects it has on the rest of the population, specifically those he claims to represent.
Posted using ShareThis
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Investors.com - How Chile Got Rich
What we as Minnesotans, and Americans, can learn from Chile. (The country, not the food).
Investors.com - How Chile Got Rich
Posted using ShareThis
Investors.com - How Chile Got Rich
Posted using ShareThis
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Our Duty To Mankind
Doctor Zero, in fine form as usual.
The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Our Duty To Mankind
Posted using ShareThis
The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Our Duty To Mankind
Posted using ShareThis
Brett Favre to Sidney Rice connection, relentless 'D' send Vikes to 34-3 win over Cowboys | StarTribune.com
I have to admit, being a lifelong Minnesotan has ingrained in me a certain amount of unhealthy skepticism in the success of the Vikings. The NFC Championship games in the '98 and 2000 seasons caused me to always pause before believing in the potential for the Vikes.
After today's victory I must admit I find myself now cautiously optimistic about this year's team.
Please Lord, let this year be different.
Brett Favre to Sidney Rice connection, relentless 'D' send Vikes to 34-3 win over Cowboys | StarTribune.com
Posted using ShareThis
After today's victory I must admit I find myself now cautiously optimistic about this year's team.
Please Lord, let this year be different.
Brett Favre to Sidney Rice connection, relentless 'D' send Vikes to 34-3 win over Cowboys | StarTribune.com
Posted using ShareThis
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Minnesota's Invasion of Our Privacy
The Star Tribune recently reported on the state of Minnesota's plan to establish a database of people who get prescriptions for painkillers such as Vicodin or OxyContin. The purpose of this database is to allow doctors and pharmacists to track and check on those who come to them for prescriptions to painkillers. The database will give them access to the patient's medical records and allow them to monitor the behavior of these patients.
Minnesota's own Ed Morrissey remarks on the potential problems with a database such as this over at HotAir.
Check out both articles. I for one am opposed to such a database for many of the reasons Mr. Morrissey mentions. Most of all is the invasion of privacy and intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship.
Minnesota's own Ed Morrissey remarks on the potential problems with a database such as this over at HotAir.
Check out both articles. I for one am opposed to such a database for many of the reasons Mr. Morrissey mentions. Most of all is the invasion of privacy and intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
A Possible Alternative to Health Insurance
In light of the recent health care reform passing through congress I thought it would be important to share this possible solution to those of you who may be without health insurance.
Medical sharing groups offer an alternative to those who cannot afford health insurance. In addition, these groups offer a greater sense of community and emphasizes free market values necessary for success.
Twila Brase of the Citizens Council on Health Care (CCHC) offers a great summary here:
http://www.cchconline.org/pdf/MEDICAL_SHARING-FINAL_JAN2010.pdf
Medical sharing groups offer an alternative to those who cannot afford health insurance. In addition, these groups offer a greater sense of community and emphasizes free market values necessary for success.
Twila Brase of the Citizens Council on Health Care (CCHC) offers a great summary here:
http://www.cchconline.org/pdf/MEDICAL_SHARING-FINAL_JAN2010.pdf
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Happy Birthday!
A happy belated birthday to Barry Goldwater, he would have been 91 on New Year's Day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)