Week in Review
Living in New York City is expensive. High taxes. And high property values. But people want to live in the city. And will pay very high rents to do so. Which landlords can charge because there are people willing to pay them. It’s the basic law of supply and demand. It’s the same reason why beachfront property is so expensive. There’s so little of it and so many people want to live there. So the property goes to the highest bidder. Which is why some of the richest movie and television stars own the best of these properties. Because they are willing to pay the highest price.
Of course that’s all right for the rich. But what about the poor and middle class? Who can’t afford to live like rich movie and television stars? Well, there has long been a cry for affordable housing for the less affluent. And price controls. To keep rents affordable for those of more modest means. There have been various forms of rent control in New York City. To make housing more available to the less affluent. Which actually reduced the number of apartments available to them. How, you may ask. Well, when it comes to rent there are two parties. A buyer and a seller. We know why buyers are buying. They want a place to live. But why do sellers want to rent out apartments? To make a profit. And because rent control made it more difficult to make a profit landlords went elsewhere to make a profit. Thus reducing the number of rental units available.
New York City still has rent-controlled apartments. And people desperately want to live in them because rent everywhere else (at market prices) is so expensive. So there are often battles between rent-control tenants and landlords who want to rent at market prices. Like this (see Brooklyn landlords illegally harassed, targeted rent-stabilized tenants: suit by Erik Badia, Ginger Adams Otis posted 4/15/2014 on the Daily News).
The landlords targeted longstanding black tenants who lived in rent-stabilized apartments, the suit contends.
The plaintiffs pay anywhere from $600 to $1,400 a month for 52 three-bedroom units in the three buildings, according to the lawsuit…
The group claims the landlords, who bought the buildings in 2009, have neglected to do repairs in black-occupied units…
Approximately 15 new tenants have moved in since then, paying market rents as a high as $2,500, the plaintiffs claim…
Pilgrim, who pays a stabilized $950 rent for his apartment, said he has talked to new tenants who had told him they are paying more than double that rate…
“How can you go from paying $687 a month to $2,500 a month? They’re also taking advantage of these young kids,” Bell said.
The tenant sees the landlord as being greedy. While the landlord sees that apartment being rented 72.5% below what it could be renting for. If the roles were reversed the tenant would probably do the same thing. Because people want to make money. And people want to be rich. That’s why they buy lotto tickets. And try to make it in movies and television. To be rich and famous. They don’t buy properties to see how little money they can make with them. They buy them to see how much money they can make with them. Movie stars would never put their mansions up for sale at 72.5% below what other rich people would pay for them. Just as a middle class homeowner would never sell her home for 72.5% below what someone would pay for it.
The law of supply and demand bring buyers and sellers together at a price they both agree on. Making both parties happy. When laws interfere with market prices (such as rent control) both parties are seldom happy. Buyers tend to be happier. But because sellers are so unhappy they stop selling. Thus reducing the number of apartments available to rent. Which is why rent control doesn’t work. It actually reduces the amount of affordable housing. So that only a very lucky few can enjoy life in a rent-control apartment.
Tags: affordable housing, apartments, buyer, high rents, landlords, law of supply and demand, market prices, middle class, New York City, poor, profit, rent control, rents, seller, supply and demand, tenants
Thomas Jefferson wanted to keep the New Federal Government and Money Apart
Thomas Jefferson did not trust government. And he didn’t trust moneyed men. Because when the two come together they cause nothing but trouble. That’s why he hated and distrusted Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton wanted a strong central government. A central bank. And an economic system favoring merchants and bankers. With big city moneyed men financing the government in return for special favors.
This is why the nation’s capital isn’t in New York City. It once was. But one of the first deals the Hamilton and Jefferson camps made was the relocation of the nation’s capital to a mosquito-infested swamp on the Potomac River. A long, long way from the moneyed men in New York City. To try to keep the new federal government and money apart. To restrict the influence of the moneyed men on the government. And to prevent the government from having easy access to big money.
Why did Jefferson want to do this? Well, they fought for their independence from Great Britain. Which was a constitutional monarchy. Where some in Parliament were no friends of British America. And got the king to agree with them rather than the pro-British America faction in Parliament. Ironically, the Americans got help in their War of Independence from France. Which had an absolute monarchy. Whose king ruled with no check on his power. Both governments were in the big cities. London. And Paris. Where the moneyed men were. In the big cities. Allowing these monarchies to do a whole lot of mischief all around the world. And a fair amount of mischief inside their own countries. Because the money and the government were in the same city.
Government + Money = Corruption
Great Britain and France were forever at war with each other. And with other countries. Requiring a lot of money. Which they got from the moneyed men. In return for special privileges that allowed them to get ever richer. Of course the mischief grew greater as they fought a world war or two. Requiring ever more money. Which they got from, of course, taxing the rest of the people. Even those who could little afford it. And once this starts, once the government starts accumulating debt, that taxation will only get greater.
This is what Jefferson was worried about. And why he so distrusted Hamilton. The Founding Fathers were all gentlemen of the Enlightenment. Disinterested public servants. Honorable men who would never take advantage of their position in government for personal gain. Because for these men honor was everything. Some even fought duels to protect their honor. As Hamilton did. And died. Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Jay and Franklin were men of exceptional integrity. Men who could be trusted. But here is where Hamilton and Jefferson differed. Hamilton believed only men like them would ever enter government. While Jefferson believed that government service would one day attract mostly scoundrels and knaves.
Of course, Jefferson was right. For as the nation grew so did the size of government. And the need for great big piles of money. Which the moneyed men provided. In exchange for special privileges. Patronage. Lucrative government contracts. Etc. Big piles of money flowed into Washington. And favors flowed out from Washington. With many a politician getting rich in the process of getting rich moneyed men richer. Politicians who used their position in government for personal gain. Corrupted politicians. As government + money = corruption. Which is why politicians always leave office richer than when they entered office.
Power + Corruption = Tyranny
This is how it started. As the size of government grew corruption grew. Just as Jefferson feared. All that money flowing into Washington corrupted ever more politicians. Who were not gentlemen of the Enlightenment. But the scoundrels and knaves Jefferson knew would come. Who used their position in government for personal gain. Whose corruption grew so great it exploded federal spending. So great that taxes from the moneyed men AND the middle class were unable to fund it. So the taxation grew more aggressive.
The government created by the Founding Fathers had no income taxes. They funded the few things the new national government did with tariffs for the most part. People lived from day to day without any fear of the taxman. The United States even did away with debtors’ prison. Prison where people were sent who could not pay their debts. A relic of the 19th century. Sort of. For there is one debt people can still go to prison for not paying. Past-due taxes. For the IRS can take everything you have and imprison you if you don’t pay your taxes. And those taxes have grown great as of late. As the tax code has grown convoluted. Requiring businesses to hire armies of accountants and lawyers to comply with. So the government can help the moneyed men who help the government. In return for special privileges, of course. Leaving the masses dreading April 15. As they dread opening any letter from the IRS.
If you want to know what it was like living under an absolute monarchy just think of the IRS. People fear the IRS. Just as people feared the arbitrary power of an absolute monarchy. A king could take your property and lock you away. Just like the IRS. And if you spoke out against the monarchy the king could make your life really unpleasant. Just like the IRS. During the 2012 election the IRS targeted conservative political groups to stifle their free speech. Delayed their tax-exempt status approval. And harassed them with costly tax audits. And now their tyranny has extended to people in the middle class. Who unbeknownst to them had a family member owe the federal government. Years earlier. Even a generation earlier. And the IRS is arbitrarily seizing the tax refunds from these debtors’ distant relatives to pay these debts. Even though they are in no way responsible for these debts. And the government has no documentation for this debt. Doesn’t matter. Because they have the power to do this. And these people are powerless to stop them. Just like people living under an absolute monarchy were powerless to stop their king from doing anything to them. And this is what Jefferson feared. For after corruption comes tyranny. For power + corruption = tyranny. (Just look at every tin-pot dictator that has oppressed his people). Which is why people fear the IRS. And the federal government the IRS is beholden to. Because they have become everything Jefferson feared they would.
Tags: absolute monarchy, Alexander Hamilton, British America, central government, corruption, debt, Enlightenment, favors, federal government, Founding Fathers, France, gentlemen, Great Britain, Hamilton, honor, IRS, Jefferson, king, knaves, middle class, monarchy, money, moneyed men, Parliament, personal gain, politician, power, privileges, scoundrels, special favors, special privileges, tax refund, taxation, taxes, Thomas Jefferson, tyranny, Washington
Rich People become Liberals so People don’t Shame them for their Obscene Wealth
Rich people love being rich. They love their mansions. Their expensive cars. Eating at the finest restaurants. Drinking the finest wine. Going on lavish vacations. Going to the best parties. Hanging with the beautiful people. And rich men especially like the sex with beautiful young women their wealth can make happen. To quote the Eagles song Life in the Fast Lane rich people love having everything all of the time.
Some of the richest people in the United States are liberals. Yes, those same people who argue for income and wealth equality. Hollywood stars. Televisions stars. Authors. And music stars. Who are everything they stand against. They’re part of that evil 1%. And they live very ostentatious lives. Their wealth is over the top. Bling. Cars. Cars with bling. Nothing but the best. And then some. This wealth is okay, though. But those in the 1% other than them? Government should raise their taxes to take as much of it away as possible. And we should all shame them for daring to have such obscene wealth.
Of course, rich liberals like their obscene wealth. They want to keep it. And they want to continue their lavish lives. But they don’t want people shaming them. They want people to love them and adore them. So they buy whatever they’re selling. Movies, televisions shows, books or music. They don’t want anyone shaming them for their obscene wealth. So they do something very simple to avoid that shame. They become public liberals.
Only those Businesses that Continually Please their Customers Succeed
Liberals can have the most obscene amounts of wealth without anyone shaming them for that obscene wealth. Why? Because they belong to the ‘right’ political party. The one that argues against income and wealth inequality. So they get a pass. Which is why so many rich people are liberals. They want to be left alone. And their call for higher taxes on rich people? Well, they’re so rich that they can hire the best accountants and tax attorneys to help them shield their wealth from the taxman. There’s a reason why the tax code is so convoluted and not a simple flat tax like conservatives want. To help rich liberals keep their money.
Then there are rich liberals who have too much of a conscious. And they feel guilty for having obscene wealth. But not guilty enough to give their wealth away. These liberals are vehemently pro big government. They want a massive welfare state. To assuage their wealth guilt. So they can continue to enjoy their obscene wealth. Their 1% wealth. Without having to feel guilty about it. Such as, presumably, The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart.
Jon Stewart is a very well-read and intelligent man. He knows a lot of stuff. Unfortunately, though, he draws many wrong conclusions with that knowledge. He favors big government. And a vast welfare state to help those in need. He trusts government while distrusting corporations and businesses. Because, as he has said, we have no vote with corporations and businesses like we do with government. Via elections. But he’s wrong. We do have a vote with all corporations and businesses. The moment they stop treating their customers right those customers go to other corporations and businesses. Most new businesses fail within 5 years. And some big companies that have been around for years fail and go out of business. Why? Because their customers DO have a large vote in whether they succeed or not. And only those businesses that continually please their customers succeed. Something you just can’t say about government. For no matter how much they anger the people little ever changes.
Not only is there Income and Wealth Inequality there’s also Income Tax Inequality
Fox News has been talking about people scamming the welfare state. Highlighting a surfer dude in California as a typical welfare cheat. Stewart lambasted Fox News for that. Saying one person (or two or three, etc.) does not mean all people on welfare are gaming the system. Although he uses that very logic to point at corporations caught in wrong-doing. Saying they represent all corporations and businesses. And he joins the choir about how rich corporations and rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes. And how some of these rich corporations and rich people are hiding their income and wealth from the taxman. Despite their paying the lion’s share of all taxes.
According to the National Taxpayer’s Union, when it comes to income taxes it’s rich people paying the most. So not only is there income and wealth inequality. There’s also income tax inequality. Through recent years the top 1% of income earners has paid approximately a third of all income taxes. The top 5% has paid more than half of all income taxes. And the top 10% of income earners has paid about 70% of all income taxes. While the bottom 50% of income earners, the people rich liberals want to help, pay about 3% (or less) of all income taxes.
You don’t have to raise tax rates on the wealthy. They’re already paying a disproportionate share of all income taxes. In fact, if you cut tax rates and cut business regulations to help rich business and rich people get even richer more tax revenue would flow into the treasury. This would be a good thing. Rich people getting richer. And more people becoming rich. This should be what everyone wants. Based on the amount of taxes rich people pay. So we should stop trying to help the less fortunate by raising taxes on the rich. And creating more onerous regulations for businesses that benefit the less fortunate. Like Obamacare. For it hurts the profit incentive. Which prevents rich people from getting richer and paying more income taxes. As well as dissuades people from becoming business owners or expanding their businesses. Which means fewer jobs. Fewer hours in those jobs. And the replacement of costly people with machines. It’s because of these things that median family income has fallen under the Obama administration. Which is the last thing any good liberal should want. This is why rich liberals have got to stop supporting a large welfare state to assuage their wealth guilt. It’s killing the middle class. And destroying the jobs that could pull the less fortunate into the middle class. And beyond.
Tags: 1%, businesses, corporations, guilt, higher taxes, income, income and wealth inequality, income tax inequality, income taxes, jobs, Jon Stewart, less fortunate, liberals, middle class, obscene wealth, rich, rich liberals, rich people, shame, taxes, wealth, wealth guilt, welfare state
Week in Review
The left hates Wal-Mart. Because they are nonunion. And their low prices make it difficult for small mom & pop shops to stay in business charging their customers higher prices. But being nonunion lets them hire more people. And their low prices allow people to buy more with their paychecks. Good things. Yet the left hates Wal-Mart. Because they would rather have union jobs even if it means fewer jobs. And higher prices. Despite Wal-Mart being the best thing for the middle class since General Motors (see Walmart and the middle class, sinking together by Rick Newman posted 2/21/2014 on Yahoo! Finance).
It was once General Motors (GM) whose fortunes reflected those of the middle-class Americans who bought its products. Now, that bellwether Goliath is Walmart (WMT)…
A chronically weak job market is pinching lower-income consumers — some of whom can’t even afford to shop at Walmart anymore.
The digital revolution has left Walmart at a disadvantage against etailers such as Amazon (AMZN), which has 7 times’ Walmart’s online revenue, and a much smaller physical footprint to manage.
With Walmart tied so closely to the fortunes lower-middle-class Americans, it’s no exaggeration to say that, as goes Walmart, so goes America. And vice versa…
A century ago, Henry Ford famously doubled the pay of his workers — to $5 per day — to reduce turnover and make his production lines more efficient. That move had the added benefit of raising living standards for Ford workers and helping establish the modern middle class.
Even though Walmart is the nation’s largest employer — with 1.3 million U.S. workers — it seems highly unlikely it could achieve anything similar to what Henry Ford did. Global competition gives retailers little room to raise costs without giving away pricing advantages. And fading demand for lesser-skilled workers lacking a college degree leaves few companies with a real incentive to raise wages, aside from earning a bit of public goodwill. Before Henry Ford doubled wages, his workers often left for other blue-collar jobs in a booming industrial economy. Most Walmart workers lack such options.
Amazon is nonunion, too. But Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos, donated $2.5 million to support gay marriage in Washington State. Donates primarily to Democrat candidates. And supports an Internet sales tax (see What Are Jeff Bezos’s Political Leanings, and How Might They Shape the Washington Post? by David A. Graham, The Atlantic, posted 8/5/2013 on the National Journal). So there are things the left likes about Amazon. But they only have about 100,000 employees to Wal-Mart’s 2.2 million. Which is why the left has an all out assault on Wal-Mart. Because they want to unionize those 2.2 million. For 2.2 million people would provide a lot of union dues.
Unionization or a higher minimum wage does not build a strong middle class. A strong economy does. That’s what helped Henry Ford raise his wages. To keep his best workers from quitting so they could take higher paying jobs elsewhere. Which is how people earn more money. When an economy is so robust that there are more jobs than people to fill them. Requiring employers to pay more to attract workers. Not by forcing employers to pay more. Especially during a weak economy. When a business’ margins couldn’t be thinner. Leaving them unable to raise wages without cutting workers. Which the left will be glad to see. Lost jobs. As long as those remaining are union jobs.
Tags: Amazon, economy, Ford, General Motors, Henry Ford, low prices, middle class, nonunion, union jobs, wages, Wal-Mart
(Originally published May 21st, 2013)
The DJIA and the Labor Force Participation Rate tell us how both Wall Street and Main Street are Doing
Rich people don’t need jobs. They can make money with money. Investing in the stock market. When you see the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) increasing you know rich people are getting richer. Whereas the middle class, the working people, aren’t getting rich. But they may be building a retirement nest egg. Which is good. So they benefit, too, from a rising DJIA. But that’s for later. What they need now is a job. Unlike rich people. The middle class typically lives from paycheck to paycheck. So more important to them is a growing job market. Not so much a growing stock market. For the middle class needs a day job to be able to invest in the stock market. Whereas rich people don’t. For a rich person’s money works enough for the both of them.
So the Dow Jones Industrial Average shows how well rich people are doing. And how well the working class’ retirement nest eggs are growing for their retirement. But it doesn’t really show how well the middle class is living. For they need a job to pay their bills. To put food on their tables. And to raise their families. So the DJIA doesn’t necessarily show how well the middle class is doing. But there is an economic indicator that does. The labor force participation rate. Which shows the percentage of people who could be working that are working. So if the labor force participation rate (LFPR) is increasing it means more people looking for a job can find a job. Allowing more people to be able to pay their bills, put food on their tables and raise their families.
These two economic indicators (the DJIA and the LFPR) can give us an idea of how both Wall Street and Main Street are doing. Ideally you’d want to see both increasing. A rising DJIA shows businesses are growing. Allowing Wall Street to profit from rising stock prices. While those growing businesses create jobs for Main Street. If we look at these economic indicators over time we can even see which ‘street’ an administration’s policies favor. Interestingly, it’s not the one you would think based on the political rhetoric.
Wall Street grew 75% Richer under Clinton than it did under Reagan while Main Street grew 65% Poorer
Those going through our public schools and universities are taught that capitalism is unfair. Corporations are evil. And government is good. The Democrats favor a growing welfare state. Funded by a highly progressive tax code. That taxes rich people at higher tax rates. While Republicans favor a limited government. A minimum of government spending and regulation. And lower tax rates. Therefore the Republicans are for rich people and evil corporations. While the Democrats are for the working man. Our schools and universities teach our kids this. The mainstream media reinforces this view. As does Hollywood, television and the music industry. But one thing doesn’t. The historical record (see Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate and Recessions 1950-Present and Dow Jones Industrial Average Index: Historical Data).
The Democrats hated Ronald Reagan. Because he believed in classical economics. Which is what made this country great. Before Keynesian economics came along in the early 20th Century. And ushered in the era of Big Government. Reagan reversed a lot of the damage the Keynesians caused. He tamed inflation. Cut taxes. Reduced regulation. And made a business-friendly environment. Where the government intervened little into the private sector economy. And during his 8 years in office we see that BOTH Wall Street (the Dow Jones Industrial Average) and Main Street (the labor force participation rate) did well. Contrary to everything the left says. The DJIA increased about 129%. And the LFPR increased about 3.4%. Indicating a huge increase of jobs for the working class. Showing that it wasn’t only the rich doing well under Reaganomics. The policies of his successor, though, changed that. As Wall Street did better under Bill Clinton than Main Street.
Despite the Democrats being for the working man and Bill Clinton’s numerous statements about going back to work to help the middle class (especially during his impeachment) Wall Street clearly did better than Main Street under Bill Clinton. During his 8 years in office the LFPR increased 1.2%. While the DJIA increased 226%. Which means Wall Street grew 75% richer under Clinton than it did under Reagan. While Main Street grew 65% poorer under Clinton than it did under Reagan. Which means the gap between the rich and the middle class grew greater under Clinton than it did under Reagan. Clearly showing that Reagan’s policies favored the Middle Class more than Clinton’s policies did. And that Clinton’s policies favored Wall Street more than Regan’s did. Which is the complete opposite of the Democrat narrative. But it gets worse.
The Historical Record shows the Rich do Better under Democrats and the Middle Class does Better under Republicans
The great economy of the Nineties the Democrats love to talk about was nothing more than a bubble. A bubble of irrational exuberance. As investors borrowed boatloads of cheap money thanks to artificially low interest rates. And poured it into dot-com companies that had nothing to sell. After these dot-coms spent that start-up capital they had no revenue to replace it. And went belly-up in droves. Giving George W. Bush a nasty recession at the beginning of his presidency. Compounded by the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The LFPR fell throughout Bush’s first term as all those dot-com jobs went away in the dot-com crash. Made worse by the 9/11 attacks. As all the malinvestments of the Clinton presidency were wrung out of the economy things started to get better. The LFPR leveled off and the DJIA began to rise. But then the specter of Bill Clinton cast another pall over the Bush presidency. Clinton’s Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending forced lenders to lower their lending standards to qualify more of the unqualified. Which they did under fear of the full force and fury of the federal government. Using the subprime mortgage to put the unqualified into homes they couldn’t afford. This policy also pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy these toxic subprime mortgages from these lenders. Freeing them up to make more toxic loans. This house of cards came crashing down at the end of the Bush presidency. Which is why the DJIA fell 19.4%. And the LFPR fell 2.1%. Even though the economy tanked thanks to those artificially low interest rates that brought on the subprime mortgage crisis and Great Recession both Wall Street and Main Street took this rocky ride together. They fell together in his first term. Rose then fell together in his second term. Something that didn’t happen in the Obama presidency.
During the Obama presidency Wall Street has done better over time. Just as Main Street has done worse over time. This despite hearing nothing about how President Obama cares for the middle class. When it is clear he doesn’t. As his policies have clearly benefited rich people. Wall Street. While Main Street suffers the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression. So far during his presidency the LFPR has fallen 3.7%. While the DJIA has risen by 86%. Creating one of the largest gaps between the rich and the middle class. This despite President Obama being the champion of the middle class. Which he isn’t. In fact, one should always be suspect about anyone claiming to be the champion of the middle class. As the middle class always suffers more than the rich when these people come to power. Just look at Venezuela under Hugo Chaves. Where the rich got richer. And the middle class today can’t find any toilet paper to buy. This is what the historical record tells us. The rich do better under Democrats. And the middle class does better under Republicans. Despite what our schools and universities teach our kids. Or what they say in movies and television.
Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, bubble, Bush, Clinton, corporations, Democrats, DJIA, dot.com, Dow Jones Industrial Average, economic indicator, Great Recession, interest rates, jobs, Keynesian, labor force participation rate, LFPR, Main Street, middle class, Reagan, Republicans, rich people, Ronald Reagan, stock market, subprime mortgage, tax rates, Wall Street, working class, working man, working people
Week in Review
President Obama’s new message is the horror of income inequality. As his friends on Wall Street and in Hollywood make so much more money than the ‘folks’ do. Of course, if it weren’t for his abysmal economic policies the ‘folks’ would be able to get a better-paying job. Since he’s been president his policies have destroyed some 11,301,000 jobs (see The BLS Employment Situation Summary for December 2013 posted 1/13/2014 on PITHOCRATES). The Affordable Care Act, new taxation, costly regulatory policies and his support for union labor all help to kill jobs. Forcing a lot of people to work a couple of low-paying part-time jobs to pay the bills. While his friends on Wall Street and in Hollywood have never been richer.
The economy wouldn’t as bad as it is if President Obama didn’t attack business so much. And, instead, embraced it. Like Henry Ford (see The Internet Is the Greatest Legal Facilitator of Inequality in Human History by Bill Davidow posted 1/28/2014 on The Atlantic).
In the past, the most efficient businesses created lots of middle class jobs. In 1914, Henry Ford shocked the industrial world by doubling the pay of assembly line workers to $5 a day. Ford wasn’t merely being generous. He helped to create the middle class, by reasoning that a higher paid workforce would be able them to buy more cars and thus would grow his business.
Yes, Henry Ford did want to pay people enough so they could afford to buy his cars. But this did something else. It attracted the best workers to his company. Because of the incentive of the higher pay. And if they were lucky enough to have gotten hired in they busted their butts so they could keep those high-paying jobs. It was a meritocracy. If a worker wasn’t performing they got rid of that worker. And offered that job to another person willing to bust their butt to keep that job.
Of course, the unions changed all of that. The Keynesians will point to Ford to justify their consumption policies (putting more money into consumers’ pockets as the be-all and end-all of their economic policies). And NOT on how attracting the best workers with the best pay helped make Ford the most efficient. Allowing Ford to produce cars at prices working people could afford. Once the unions came in they decreased efficiencies. Slowed down those assembly lines. And raised the cost of cars. So only unionized working people could afford them. While most other working people had to settle on used cars. Unless they had a relative that worked for one of the automotive companies that could give them a car at an automotive worker’s discounted price.
Surprisingly, the much-vilified Walmart probably does more to help middle class families raise their median income than the more productive Amazon. Walmart hires about one employee for every $200,000 in sales, which translates to roughly three times more jobs per dollar of sales than Amazon.
Why do some vilify Wal-Mart? Because like Henry Ford was in the beginning they are nonunion. Helping them not only to hire the best workers but to provide goods at a lower price so those not in a union can afford to buy them. So Wal-Mart helps middle class families in two ways. They help to raise the median family income. And they allow that median family income go further. Perhaps the greatest weapon in the arsenal to fight income inequality. As they help those not in privileged jobs (such as a UAW job or a government job) to live as well as someone in those privileged jobs.
Tags: efficient, Ford, Henry Ford, Hollywood, income inequality, jobs, median family income, middle class, nonunion, union, union labor, Wal-Mart, Wall Street, workers
(Originally published July 9th, 2012)
The Beatles fled Britain to Escape a Confiscatory Top Marginal Tax Rate of 95%
George Harrison wrote Taxman. The song appeared on the 1966 Beatles album Revolver. It was an angry protest song. For George Harrison was furious when he learned what exactly the progressive tax system was in Britain. In the song the British taxman is laying down the tax law.
Let me tell you how it will be
There’s one for you, nineteen for me
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don’t take it all
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah I’m the taxman
That’s one for you, Mr. Harrison. And nineteen for us. The government. Meaning that for every £20 the Beatles earned they got to keep only £1. This is a 95% top marginal tax rate. A supertax on the super rich imposed by Harold Wilson’s Labour government. So if the Beatles earned £1 million because of their incredible talent and hard work touring in concert, working on new albums in the studio and making movies, of that £1 million they got to keep only about £50,000. While the government got £950,000. If they earned £10 million they got to keep about £500,000. While the government got £9,500,000. As you can see 5% is a very small percentage. Which is why George Harrison got so angry. The harder they worked the less of their earnings they were able to keep.
Is this fair? George didn’t think so. Nor did his fellow Beatles. For they fled Britain. Moved to another country. Becoming tax exiles. For they were little more than court minstrels. Who the government forced to entertain them. Earning a lot of money so they could take it away. To help pay for an explosion in social spending Harold Wilson unleashed on Britain. Socializing the UK like never before. And all those social benefits required a lot of taxes. Hence the progressive tax system. And marginal tax rates. Where the super rich, like the Beatles, paid confiscatory tax rates of 95%.
The Top Marginal Tax Rate was around 70% under President Carter and around 28% under President Reagan
As social spending took off in the Sixties and Seventies governments thought they could just increase tax rates to generate greater amounts of tax revenue. For governments looked at the economy as being static. That whatever they did would result in their desired outcome without influencing the behavior of those paying these higher tax rates. But the economy is not static. It’s dynamic. And changes in the tax rates do influence taxpayer behavior. Just ask the Beatles. And every other tax exile escaping the confiscatory tax rates of their government. Because of this dynamic behavior of the taxpayers excessively high tax rates rarely brings in the tax revenue governments expect them to.
Even when it comes to sin taxes government still believes that the economy is static. Even though they publicly state that taxes on alcohol and tobacco are to dissuade people from consuming alcohol and tobacco. (The U.S. funded children’s health care with cigarette taxes clearly showing the government did not believe these taxes would stop people from smoking). Perhaps some in government look at sin taxes as a way to discourage harmful habits. But the taxman sees something altogether different when they look at sin taxes. Addiction. Knowing that few people will give up these items no matter how much they tax them. And that means tax revenue. But unlike the progressive income tax this tax is a regressive tax. Those who can least afford to pay higher taxes pay a higher percentage of their income to pay these taxes. For sin taxes increase prices. And higher prices make smaller paychecks buy less. Leaving less money for groceries and other essentials.
Most income taxes, on the other hand, are progressive. Your income is broken up into brackets. The lowest bracket has the lowest income tax rate. Often times the lowest income bracket pays no income taxes. The next bracket up has a small income tax rate. The next bracket up has a larger income tax rate. And so on. Until you get to the high income threshold. Where all income at and above this rate has the highest income tax rate. This top marginal tax rate was around 70% under President Carter. Around 28% under President Reagan. And 95% under Harold Wilson’s Labour government in Britain. An exceptionally high rate that led to great efforts to avoid paying income taxes. Or simply encouraged people to renounce their citizenship and move to a more tax-friendly country.
When the Critical Mass of People turn from Taxpayers to Benefit Recipients it will Herald the End of the Republic
Progressive taxes are supposed to be fair. By transferring the tax burden onto those who can most afford to pay these taxes. But the more progressive the tax rates are the less tax revenue they generate. What typically happens is you have a growing amount of low-income earners paying no income taxes but consuming the lion’s share of government benefits. The super rich shelter their higher incomes and pay far less in taxes than those high marginal tax rates call for. They still pay a lot, paying the majority of income taxes. But it’s still not enough. So the middle class gets soaked, too. They pay less than the rich but the tax bite out of their paychecks hurts a lot more than it does for the rich. Because the middle class has to make sacrifices in their lives whenever their tax rates go up.
As social spending increases governments will use class warfare to increase taxes on the rich. And they will redefine the rich to include parts of the middle class. To make ‘the rich’ pay their ‘fair’ share. And they will increase their tax rates. But it won’t generate much tax revenue. For no matter how much they tax the rich governments with high levels of spending on social programs all run deficits. Because there just aren’t enough rich people to tax. Which is why the government taxes everything under the sun to help pay for their excessive spending.
If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.
If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
Don’t ask me what I want it for
If you don’t want to pay some more
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman
And you’re working for no one but me.
This is where excessive government spending leads to. Excessive taxation. And confiscatory tax rates. Taking as much from the wealth creators as possible to fund the welfare state. And as progressive tax systems fail to generate the desired tax revenue they will turn to every other tax they can. Until there is no more wealth to tax. Or to confiscate. When the wealth creators finally say enough is enough. And refuse to create any more wealth for the government to tax or to confiscate. Leaving the government unable to meet their spending obligations. As the critical mass of people turn from taxpayers to benefit recipients. Heralding the end of the republic.
Tags: Beatles, Britain, class warfare, confiscatory tax rates, George Harrison, Harold Wilson, income bracket, income taxes, marginal tax rate, middle class, President Carter, President Reagan, progressive income tax, progressive tax, progressive tax system, regressive tax, rich, sin taxes, social benefits, social spending, super rich, tax burden, tax exiles, tax rates, tax revenue, taxes, Taxman, taxpayer, top marginal tax rate, wealth creators, welfare state
Week in Review
James Cameron is going to make 3 Avatar sequels. Three big block buster movies. Generating a lot of economic activity. Something the United States can generate a lot of tax revenue from. To fund all those programs that liberals love so much. Especially Hollywood liberals. For those in the movie industry tend to be far left. Cameron himself was applying for U.S. citizenship. But when Republican George W. Bush won reelection in 2004 he chose to remain a Canadian. You just can’t get much further left than that. But how can you fault him? Just look at all the taxable income he will create for the IRS with those three Avatar sequels (see James Cameron says he will shoot 3 ‘Avatar’ sequels in New Zealand by the Associated Press posted 12/15/2013 on CP24).
Director James Cameron says he plans to make three sequels to his 2009 sci-fi blockbuster movie “Avatar” in New Zealand…
Cameron says he plans to complete principal shooting on the three movies at one time, perhaps over a period of about nine months.
New Zealand’s government has agreed to a 25 per cent financial rebate. Cameron didn’t disclose an exact budget although he says he expects economies of scale will help the three movies together cost less than $1 billion.
Guess there will be no taxable income generated from filming these movies. Forcing the IRS to squeeze more from those who don’t export American jobs.
Filming in New Zealand? Shooting three movies at one time for economies of scale? A 25% financial rebate? Amazing, isn’t it? The left does everything within their power NOT to use costly union labor or work in locations with costly regulations in the United States. Yet they champion union labor and costly regulatory policies. They are all for them. As long as they can escape their costs by filming in a foreign country. To satiate their greed. Putting more money into their pockets instead of paying a living wage to an American.
And it’s the Republicans who have a war on the middle class? Go figure.
Tags: Avatar, Avatar sequels, Cameron, export American jobs, Hollywood, James Cameron, liberals, living wage, middle class, New Zealand
Week in Review
Large governments like to control their economies. And their people. Because those in power always want one thing. More power.
The United States became the world’s number one economic power before the federal government grew into the thing it is today. Way too big. Reaching way too far into the private sector economy. Before Keynesian economics became all the rage to empower the growth of governments there was classical economics. With simple principles. Thrift. People thought long-term and saved their money instead of buying everything they wanted today. Banks collected their savings and transformed them into investment capital. The more people saved (i.e., the thriftier they were) the more capital there was available to loan to entrepreneurs. Thus lowering interest rates. There was also sound money. Backed by gold. In various forms of the gold standard. That held the value of money over time. And the federal government taxed little. Regulated little. And spent little. These classical economic principles stimulated strong economic growth. (Principles similar to the Austrian school of economics championed by Friedrich Hayek.) And it is these principles that we have moved away from as we turned to Keynesian economics. And a form of state-capitalism that we have today.
During the Nineties China turned to classical economic principles. As they slowly allowed people some economic liberty. But just a taste of it. For the ruling Chinese communists did not want what happened during the collapse of the Soviet Union to happen in China. The Chinese Communist Party would not collapse like it did in the former Soviet Union. While there were free thinkers that embraced the principles of Friedrich Hayek the state kept them on a short leash. A leash that appears to be even shorter these days (see A Lonely Passion: China’s Followers of Friedrich A. Hayek by DIDI KIRSTEN TATLOW published 10/30/2013 on The New York Times).
Hayek believed that economic planning by the state leads to a loss of individual liberty, and that a private economy run by people whose rights are protected and enlarged by good laws delivers the best life.
‘‘There is some distance between Hayek and the current realities’’ in China, Gao Quanxi, a prominent Chinese Hayekian and law professor at Beihang University in Beijing, said in an interview this week.
Mr. Gao was probably choosing his words carefully. The gap is enormous, as he explained last Friday in a talk at the Unirule Institute of Economics, a think tank in Beijing…
In his talk, titled ‘‘Reconsidering Hayek’s Theoretical Legacy,’’ Mr. Gao did not mince words: China is less free now than 10 years ago, at the end of the Jiang Zemin era. There is no ‘‘free market of ideas’’ in universities. Publishing on topics the authorities disapprove of has become more difficult. The state is on the march…
Capitalism, several participants said, functions in China according to the unwritten rules created by the power holders, not by good laws, as Hayek urged.
‘‘Communism has failed. Socialism has failed. What we have here is statism. And Hayek really opposed that. So how should we understand Hayek in the context of today’s China?’’ asked Mr. Gao…
Many economists, scholars and politicians believe that China is facing deep challenges to its economic model, that it needs to shift from a fixed investment-fueled economy, where the hand of the state is heavy, to one with more private enterprise and market forces.
President Obama and the Chinese communists share something in common. They both are trying to move their economies in the same direction. Only the Chinese communists don’t publicly bash capitalism as much as President Obama and his fellow Democrats do.
When China was enjoying double digit GDP growth the liberals in the United States wanted to do what the Chinese were doing. To manage the economy more. As they thought they were even more brilliant than communist state planners in China. And could even outperform the Chinese economy. If they could only control it. Decide what we make. Like solar panels. And electric cars. Of course, most of China’s economic growth produced exports. And they sold well because of China’s low wages. Which is pretty much all they had going for them. Their middle class did not grow. And with the worldwide decline in economic activity thanks to Keynesian economic policies by state planners everywhere who think they are smarter than the market their export market cooled. As it cooled so did their GDP growth.
China is suffering a little economic malaise now because they don’t have a thriving middle class of entrepreneurs starting small businesses. All they have are large state-run factories. That produce exports. Because they don’t have a thriving middle class to buy these products. Which is what happens when you don’t have individual liberty. Friedrich Hayek understood this. Pity the Chinese communists don’t. Or President Obama and his fellow Democrats. Then again, perhaps they do. But they know the price of individual liberty is less government power. And that’s just something anathema to communists. President Obama. And Democrats.
Tags: Austrian school of economics, capital, capitalism, China, Chinese communists, classical economics, Democrats, economic liberty, entrepreneurs, Friedrich Hayek, gold, Hayek, individual liberty, investment capital, Keynesian economics, middle class, money, power, President Obama, savings, Soviet Union, thrift
(Originally published October 24th, 2011)
The Division of Labor gives us our Houses, Food, Cars, Televisions, Smartphones, Laptops and the Internet
We can’t do everything ourselves. It’s not efficient. And most times not even possible. We don’t build our own houses. Grow our own food. Build our own cars. Manufacture our own high-definition televisions. Smartphones. Laptops. And we don’t build our own Internet. No. Instead, people everywhere across the economy specialize in one thing (i.e., work for a living). And together these specialists fit into the big economic picture. Which gives us our houses, food, cars, televisions, smartphones, laptops and the Internet.
It started with the most basic division of labor. Prehistoric women raised their young. While prehistoric man hunted. Which was necessary for the propagation of the species. And us. For if they all hunted and no one nursed the young the young would have died. And with them the species of man. For there was no formula back then.
The next great leap forward on the civilization timeline was the indispensible plough. The prime mover of civilization. With the food problem managed, famines were more the exception than the rule. And with fewer people needed to produce a food surplus, people could do other things. And they did.
The Division of Labor let us Create Surpluses in Food, Ploughs, Shoes, Tools, Harnesses, Etc.
The division of labor gave rise to artisans. The first skilled trades. Made possible by a food surplus. As other people grew the food the artisans made the tools and crafts the farmers used. They specialized in plough making and designed and built better and better ploughs. Lots of them. Shoemakers made shoes. Lots of them. Metal workers made tools. Lots of them. Leatherworkers made harnesses. Lots of them. See the pattern?
The food surplus gave us surpluses in ploughs, shoes, tools, harnesses, etc. The division of labor let us create these surpluses. Specialists made continual improvements in their areas of specialization. Producing better things. And more of them. Which led to another key to the advanced civilization. Trade.
The shoemaker didn’t have to grow food. He could trade shoes for food. Ditto for the plough maker. The metal worker. The leatherworker. And the farmers didn’t have to make any of these things because they could trade food for them. So we became traders. We created the market. And traders took their goods and/or services to these markets to trade for other goods and/or services. First by foot. Then by animal. Then by boat. Then by train. Then by truck. Then by airplane. Artisans (i.e., workers) traded their specialization for the product and/or services of another’s specialization. Then. And now.
The Division of Labor made the Complex Simple and our Lives Rather Comfortable and Fun
The division of labor gave rise to the artisan. The skilled trade worker. The middle class. People who can specialize in one thing. And trade that one thing for the other things he or she wants. Whether it be a skilled blacksmith hammering out farming tools. A tool and die maker working in a factory. An accountant. Or a software engineer. We have a skill. Our human capital. And we trade that skill to get the other things we’re not skilled in. The end result is a modern, bustling, free market economy. An advanced civilization. And a high standard of living.
All thanks to the division of labor. Which made the complex simple. And our lives rather comfortable. And fun. Unlike prehistoric man. Who knew of no such things as iPhones. Indoor flush toilets. Movie theaters. Or restaurants. No, he didn’t do much other than survive. Which was no easy thing. But he did. And for that we are grateful.
Tags: advanced civilization, artisans, civilization, division of labor, Economics, economy, farmers, food, food surplus, free market, free market economy, market, middle class, plough, skilled trades, specialists, specialization, specialize, trade, traders
« Previous Entries