travisthornton.net

Documenting history as it happens.

Archives for Ideology

The Importance of Monetary Freedom

1 Comment

To understand the scope of our economic crisis, we must understand the degree of departure from sound money.  The American economy was founded upon the idea of natural law, actually, where the free exchange of goods and services occurred in the marketplace.  The father of capitalism, Adam Smith, called this the “obvious and simple system of natural liberty.”  An obvious and simple economic system requires an obvious and simple currency; I generally believe precious metals are ordained as currency, as these elements have little industrial superiority over others, other than their perceived inherent value.  All Western empires grew based on sound currency - the US Dollar, the British Pound (and silver Sterling), and the Roman Aureus (and silver Denarius) - and subsequently died when they departed from the set standard.

Like the British and Roman empires, America departed from an obvious and simple system, adopted a fiat currency, and embarked on a journey which placed democracy before freedom.  In all things, spreading the costs and minimizing the risks dampens rewards, as profits are smaller, and produces little incentive to succeed; social democratization of our institutions undermines natural liberty.  Our monetary system and our fiscal policy are not exempt from the laws of nature.

History of the Crisis

Business cycles in the market are as normal as the consumer trends – or “animal spirits” – that keep it afloat.  Realizing this, our founders established a dollar as equal to 371.25 grains of fine silver; this economic law was adopted by the Continental Congress in 1787 and formally signed into law as the Mint Act of 1792 by President George Washington.  This effectively tied the hands of the US Mint by prohibiting the printing of money not backed by silver.

Over time, this law was altered to accept gold – and occasionally, foreign currency – in place of silver, effectively providing currency competition within our borders.  America went completely off a precious metal standard from 1863 to 1878 to accommodate spending for the Civil War; we fully instated the Gold Standard in 1900.

But it didn’t last long.  Although more destructive business cycles began with the conception of the Federal Reserve (1913), our modern fiscal crisis began with the Bretton Woods agreement (1944), which established a nominally gold-backed US Dollar as an international monetary standard, managed by the International Monetary Fund.  I say “nominally,” for this standard was susceptible to manipulation:  In 1933, FDR issued Executive Order 6102, which made the possession of gold bullion illegal until 1974.  This confiscation obscured the actual effects a global monetary system - defined at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire – had on the Dollar.

It cannot be emphasized enough how important the Bretton Woods agreement was to world history, and not just for monetary reasons.  Empire status was, for the most part, thrust upon us as a repayment for the blood we shed for our Allied partners in World War II.  Deferring to the International Monetary Fund for control of the Dollar, however, has not aided these partners, as our ignorance of the IMF has allowed for the clandestine support of military dictatorships worldwide with our printing of fiat currency.

From its inception, the Bretton Woods system was doomed to fail:  Over time, the global use of the US Dollar stressed the Gold Standard to the point where we had to abandon it for fiat currency in 1971, which began the Nixon Shocks, and allowed the Treasury to print as much money as it needed, therefore increasing the magnitude of the booms and busts created by the artificially low interest rates held by the Federal Reserve.  Consider the fact that when Nixon announced our departure from the Gold Standard, gold was $40/oz; today it is near $1,700/oz.  Gold is not up; the dollar is down, as a result our debt.  Today, the US Dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power since the Fed’s inception; that is, a dollar today buys what 5 cents bought in 1913.

Since Bretton Woods, America has assumed the risks of the world: Through wide-scale cost-cutting business practices, we have relied on foreign nations, first for labor, and then for capital by monetizing debt, thereby slowly gutting the workforce, and the the economy.  With our new-found – albeit temporary – wealth, our government approved unsustainable – and untouchable - welfare and warfare states.  Through the maintenance of these empirical federal programs, we are forfeiting the greatest experiment in freedom the world had ever seen.

Mechanics of the Crisis

Because our government has been uwilling to rein in spending, and unable to raise taxes any further on American productivity, it has relied on the Federal Reserve to distribute more money and push interest rates lower for borrowing purposes.  Interest rate manipulation leads to destruction of the economy, in which good people get hurt.  Artificially low interest rates promote banks to lower lending standards, creating malinvestment in the market, which creates a moral hazard for both parties of the transaction.  When the market exposes these investments as flawed, the entire society experiences the bust – that is, the consequences of the actions of a few.  Therefore, through market interference, the Federal Reserve violates the economic liberty of all Americans.

We are taught that prices should slowly rise in a “normal” economy, at a low single-digit annual rate; we are also taught deflation is a bad thing, as if falling prices is harmful.  The price of a particular good should fall until it is improved upon, the way flat screen televisions and Smartphones do.  New products entering the market are priced high and then fall, until they either reach a level of sustainment or exit the market, with annual inflation for the entire economy equal to zero.

For some reason, we don’t expect a gallon of gas, a gallon of milk, a carton of eggs, or a loaf of bread to behave similarly; we somehow expect annual inflation.  Therein the Federal Reserve has perpetrated the greatest conspiracy – unknown to most Americans – that inflation is necessary, when indeed, it is not.  But inflation has a purpose for the political class, for it allows them to spend without limit.

While the American public is focused on rates of taxation, they fail to recognize that overspending is a tax itself.  It does not matter what the tax rate is.  Whether our government taxes, borrows, or inflates the monetary base, the public will pay for its government’s overspending eventually.  By delaying the inevitable, and not addressing our debt drivers – Defense, Social Security, and Medicare – our correction is going to be sharp, and will hurt the savings and investments of millions of good people, while rewarding those in control.

Investment research expert Charles Biderman offers this:

“Debt has to be reckoned with one way or another. It either has to be repaid, or someone has to bear the losses on what cannot be repaid, either through default or inflation and currency debasement. If it were otherwise, everyone could be rich.”

Similarly, but from another angle, the now infamous economist John Maynard Keynes:

“By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.  By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some.”

Is it any wonder we now have billionaire career politicians, considering it is they who write the rules for banking, the stock market, and the economy largesse.  In his controversial new book, Throw Them All Out, Peter Schweizer reports on how the median speculator loses in the options market, while industry insiders beat the market by 5%, hedge fund managers by 8%, and US Senators, astonishingly, by 12%.

With inflation, politicians have fleeced the citizenry of their covert actions; this period of American history may be ending.  Through what psychologists call the normalcy bias, our society believes since an occurrence has not yet occurred, it will never occur.  This fallacy is rampant across demographics: Our large elder generation – “Baby Boomers” – long ago voted themselves welfare-state benefit, is now seeking retirement, and expects to reap their just rewards.  The next generation is riddled with protesters – or protester sympathizers – who demand their generation be shackled with more debt.

So, like the empires before us, we are slowly committing national suicide, with a debt-laden poison pill.

Scope of the Crisis

Both America and the world are buried in debt:  just as America’s debt reached 100% of GDP at $15 trillion last month, the world did the same, at $195 trillion of debt.  To put this in perspective, Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff, the authors of This Time It’s Different (2009), found (by studying 22 global economic crises) that when government debt-to-GDP ratio rises above 90%, it lowers the future potential GDP of a country by at least 1%, and begets a slow-growth, high unemployment economy; our unemployment rate is stuck at the socialist nations’ average of 9%.  After a crisis, public debt soars to an average of 86%, whereas our is, as stated, currently over 100% of GDP.  Nations that cannot pull out of the debt crisis often experience sovereign debt default.  An American default would lead to a collapse of the global currency system.

The source of our debt concerns, deficit-spending, is now an epidemic.  Our last budget surplus occurred during the Clinton Administration, with ballooning debt spiraling out-of-control during the Bush Administration.  Today, a wholesale abandonment of fiscal responsibility has allowed President Obama to run monthly deficits greater than Bush’s annual deficits.  Artificially-low interest rates beget loose lending standards, incentivizing people to make money during the boom, before the “necessary bust” punishes everyone.

We have avoided this bust with Federal Reserve policy, but we are merely delaying the effects, and intensifying the pain to come.  Through “Quantitative Easing” - QE1 and QE2 - the Federal Reserve surpassed China as the majority owner of our Treasury Bonds.  Through a money-laundering scheme, we are both debtor and lender.

With the imminent collapse of the Euro, the world is painfully realizing the facts: the world economy is bankrupt, and the IMF looks to the U.S. to bail out Greece, when, in fact, the U.S. is only one to two decades from becoming Greece.

Conventional wisdom says that when – not if – the Euro collapses, it will strengthen the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency, as there will be no other global alternative.  I believe the opposite, that the Euro collapse expose the US Dollar as being just as weak as the Euro, as our debt is at similar levels; the bond rates will go up, credit will dry up, business will fail, and prices will rise, thus commencing the global currency crisis some have been predicting for years.

Future of the Crisis

History shows what awaits if we don’t get our debt under control: First, a sharp period of hyperinflation, and then, a sovereign debt default.  With the facade gone, we will also experience a currency collapse, followed by a painful, deliberate return to a precious metal standard.  How this will happen, and who will be controlling it, is yet to be seen.

The collapse of the Roman Empire was predicated by inflation; to combat the effects, Rome used price controls to drive prices below their market value, sapping all profit and killing the economy.  Similarly, the US has monetized and securitized the debt, auctioning cheap Treasury Bonds to overseas bidders to prevent inflationary effects.

Here’s the kicker: Treasury Bonds, seen as assets on multiple nations’ balance sheets, are essentially worthless, for if they were to be leveraged as capital during the collapse, it would further undermine the unit of currency upon which it rests, quickening the collapse.

Contrary to popular belief, the Federal Reserve does not print money to make up the balance; rather, it transfers it electronically, and accordingly, has been able to covertly manipulate markets – both foreign and domestic – for years.  These actions are finally catching up to us.  While Congress approved a $700 billion Bank Bailout, followed by a $700 billion Stimulus, the Federal Reserve was delivering 10 times that amount of cash - $7.77 trillion – to the financial industry through the back door, all in an eight month period.  The total amount of cash lent in the financial crisis was $16 trillion, a truly inconceivable amount of money.  In perspective, $7.77 trillion is more than half the US production capacity last year; GDP in 2011 was a little bit shy of $15 trillion.  I believe this action will be remembered as the “nail-in-the-coffin” for the US Dollar.

What will a currency crisis look like?  As the US Dollar crumbles, we will export our inflation to other nations (as it is the reserve currency of the world), destroy their economies, and create a “Weimar Republic” situation around the world.  How the world will reckon with this is uncertain, but America will receive much of the blame from the rest of the world for its woes.  How will these nations react?  What coalitions will be formed to fill the power vacuum?

Ask yourself:  What happened to the British and Roman Empires when their currency collapsed?  The end of the British Empire brought the First World War in Europe, which eventually precipitated into the Second World War at the end of Germany’s currency crisis.  When the Roman Empire collapsed, the world plunged into a 600-year economic doldrum known as the Dark Ages.  Of course, America wouldn’t let that happen; no, I’m sure we’d go out with a bang.

Alternate History

This could unfurl differently.

By restoring the US Dollar as sound currency, on a precious metal standard, combined with a laissez-faire economic approach – that is, a severe downsizing of our federal government – would let a correction take place, and would be the quickest way to spur innovation in the private sector and unveil a new economy, dependent on individual action, and not the collective.

Of course, a sharp self-correction of this type, like that of 1920-21, would mean a number of firms that could not survive without federal injections of cash would go bankrupt.  A positive externality of wide-scale bankruptcy would mean an influx of skilled labor entering the job force, creating the new economy.  Restoring the US Dollar to a precious metal standard would, in turn, restore confidence in the American monetary system, and would no longer allow our government to destroy the economy and our standards of living with inflation.

As only an extremely slim minority would favor this sharp self-correction, the status quo decides there are only two ways out of this: war or inflation.  I disagree.  Restoring the fundamentals would allow the nation to find the new economy, while allowing competing currencies in the marketplace as not to burden the US Dollar and worsen the impact of recession.

If left alone, the market would rebound and define itself, the way it has centuries before.  From 1750 to 1850, America was an agricultural society; 1850 to 1950 marked the industrial society; and 1950 until now, America has been a technological society.  Our wholesale abandonment of the agricultural and industrial sectors for the technological sector has left us vulnerable, as we are unable sustain our own demand for food or manufacturing.  This situation undermines our national security.  We need to leverage our new technologies into these antiquated sectors, the way oil companies have with oil exploration, or BMW has with automobile production.

Demand is there for new innovations and new approaches, shrouded beneath layers of government intervention and stimuli.  In attempts to choose winners and losers in a market, government destroys entire sectors, a fact I discussed back in October.  The green movement comes to mind: Considering the fact that food travels an average of 1500 miles to get to your plate, and that food travels away from you before it travels toward you, it’s high time to overhaul inefficient supply chains, before the currency crisis empties store shelves faster than they can be restocked.

Ending this mess begins with reinstating sound currency, and ensuring the rest of the world the US Dollar can be trusted again.  Although we haphazardly began our empire with Dollar hegemony, it will take deliberate steps to end it and restore the republic.

That is the choice we now face, as we did in September of 1787:  republic or empire.  It’s important to remember the ominous nature of the answer given when Ms. Powell of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, exiting the Constitutional Convention, “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”

Dr Franklin replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

It is now ours to restore.

Share on Facebook
Filed under Ideology
Jan 10, 2012

Freedom First

1 Comment

The world misunderstands the relationship between political freedom and democracy.  Even Wikipedia contorts its definition of “political freedom,” saying it is “one of the most important (real or ideal) features of democratic societies.”  The relationship is actually the inverse; political freedom must exist for democracy to withstand the test of time.

Democracy is necessary, but not sufficient, for a free society.  Whether in the Arab Spring or Nazi Germany, democracy was placed before freedom, and look what democracy hath wrought.

A free state, on the other hand, provides legal protection of the civil rights and ensures the free will of its citizens.  These individual rights, seen as “natural,” or given by God, were formalized by John Locke, stating in his 1689 Two Treatises of Government:

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”

This idea – which drove our nation’s founding documents – is based on centuries of work to overthrow tyranny, whether with the Magna Carta in England, 1215, or in 35 A.D, when Jesus Christ said, in Matthew 7:12, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

This is, in essence, a libertarian’s only charge.  All other freedoms are defined negatively.  The less the state tells its people what they cannot do, the more free they are.  Turns out, citizens whose state has minimal control over them have more control over their state; therefore, freedom begets democracy, and not the other way around.

Maintaining freedom in a society is difficult: governments around the world often devolve from democracy into a natural state of dictatorship, due to the “tyranny of the majority.”  As opposed to a dictatorship – where one identifiable individual takes the blame for the ills of a nation - in a democracy, everyone is to blame, and recovery takes much longer.  Unable to accept blame, a democracy often targets specific segments of society, as we’ve seen recently with the Occupy Wall Street movement and the London Riots.

America has experienced significant loss before – loss of separation of powers, rule of law, the respect for life, liberty, and property – but now, it’s different, as the crisis is more globalized, and I’m unsure we have the willpower to change course.  In the midst of a global insurrection, I believe the United States of America is leading the world’s recoil into a dictatorship, under the disguise of democracy.

What we sought at our nation’s conception was not a democracy, but a republic; what we had was a republic; it was bound together by the values prescribed in the Constitution.  These values made us supreme, and by relying upon our values, we could have weathered any storm, even when challenged by the mongrels of the world.

But we chose a different journey.

When the Roman Empire - a previous global democracy – fell to tyranny, the entire world plunged into two centuries of Dark Ages, due to not one, but many causes.  I will have two follow-up posts covering the two most prevalent reasons for the decline of Rome, and now, America:

1) Economic Collapse – a crippling debt and the debasing of the currency;
2) Incoherent Defense – a large military budget and the loss of military principle in warfare.

I believe America – and the world – is teetering on tyranny, and there is no use in denying the truth, for freedom depends on truth, and from the truth, we can regain our strength and restore a once-great nation.

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
~ John 8:32

Share on Facebook
Filed under Ideology
Nov 22, 2011

On the Brink

1 Comment

As the #OccupyWallStreet crowd takes over American cities, it seems prescient to disambiguate some misconceptions.  There exists – at some of the highest levels – a fundamental misunderstanding of both how and why the economy works.  Seeing as how we’re teetering on the brink of social revolution, with the Tea Party on one side and these guys on the other, (although the Occupy Wall Street is 1% of the Tea Party crowds), America is fed up with fill-in-the-blank, and I thought I’d throw some facts out there before it all goes down.

There is one point of agreement between the two factions: Overhauling the tax code to ensure equality.  This would tax all corporations at the same rate as all people.  On this point, Left and Right are not far apart.  Our decisions moving forward past that point will lunge the nation one way or another, with the American dollar suffering as the hardest hit victim, as our debt continues to pile up and productivity continues to plummet.  Pure capitalism will produce winners and losers in the marketplace; pure socialism will take wealth from the private sector, kill prosperity, stagnate unemployment at about a ten percent average, ultimately destroy all freedoms, and kill the American dream.

What’s on the Table?

There are two proposals from the Left to “fix” the economy: The Jobs Bill and the Revenue Package.  First, Obama’s Jobs Bill will never pass.  It was never meant to.  Some legislation is likely to evolve from Congress to build bridges, roads, while padding the pockets of their corporate and labor buddies, now standing with the Jacobins.  The #OccupyWallStreet crowd would have you believe all corporations, profit, and capitalism is the enemy; I’ll cover that shortly.

Obama’s Revenue Plan, however, may come to fruition.  To appease the population, we will be given, again permanent spending programs, paid for with temporary tax breaks for the middle class, and permanent tax hikes on the wealthy.  I have gone to great lengths (here, here, and here) to spell this out, but I’ll do it again:  According to IRS figures, a 45% rate on incomes of more than $1 million would generate $31 billion, while an even more progressive tax, with rates of 50%, 60%, 70% on incomes of $500,000, $5 million, $10 million respectively would generate an added $133 billion.  That is roughly 10% of  the current annual budget deficit.

As 42 cents per dollar spent by the federal government is borrowed, we are careening off the track, the dollar is tumbling, and won’t be the world’s economic superpower a decade from now.  So let’s get some facts straight before it’s too late.

Big vs. Small Business

First of all, about half of all American employees work for companies of 500 employees or greater.  Although other guidelines exist depending on the industry, I would consider this 500-member thumbrule the SBA’s dividing line between the half of us that work for “corporations” and the other half that works for “small businesses.”

We know what the Obama Administration thinks of corporations.  To be more specific, as CNN points out in their interview piece, we know what Obama thinks of certain corporations:

“If you tell me that corporations are vital to American life, that the free-enterprise system has been the greatest wealth creator we’ve ever seen … that I absolutely agree with.  If, on the other hand, you tell me that every corporate tax break that’s out there is somehow good for ordinary Americans … then that I disagree with.”

What qualifies Obama to divide Americans into the “ordinary” versus “extra-ordinary?”  Regarding tax breaks, I would submit that all tax breaks are bad for America.  We are a nation of laws; tinkering with the tax code to reward the few undermines the rule of law and increases cynicism with capitalism, when corporations are to blame.  If you are a small business, odds are you won’t get the sweetheart deal that Jeff Immelt’s GE did, paying $0 in taxes in 2010.

The Administration is not trying to assist corporate America largesse, just his buddies.  He says, however, he is trying to assist small businesses.  According to a recent poll, however, 70% of small businesses say the President’s Jobs Plan will not change their hiring practices.  Why is that?

Excess Profits and Job Creation

For both corporations and small businesses, excess profits is the reason they exist.  What is remarkable in the free market is that both parties in a transaction believe they are the one benefiting from the transaction.  While profit is the reason for these corporations of individuals to go into business, it is not the reason why businesses hire.

This escapes most people, including some of the most influential among us.  On Bob Schieffer’s Face the Nation, President Bill Clinton – while simultaneously congratulating himself – offered some advice to President Obama:

“I don’t believe America can return to the full employment days of the ’90s until we clear this bank debt over the mortgage crisis. And I hope that will be done. Meanwhile, I think a combination of payroll tax changes that Obama recommended, setting up an investment bank and doing more in infrastructure and then looking at areas of specific opportunities to put people to work can really create millions of jobs and get us out of the worst of this doldrums and that’s what I’d like to see America focus on.”

Clinton’s assessment of how the economy works is completely absurd.  Cash on hand has absolutely nothing to do with the hiring practices of businesses.  To speak in legal terms, cash on hand is necessary for hiring, but it is not sufficient.  This is demonstrated by the approximately $1 trillion on corporate balance sheets inside the United States, with another $1 trillion overseas.  Note: on the balance sheets, not in the pockets.  It’s sitting there, waiting to be leveraged.

In a recent interview on Paul Gigot’s Journal Editorial Report, Harvey Golub, retired CEO of American Express, executive committee member of the American Enterprise Institute, and chairman of Miller Buckfire, gave one of the best synopses I’ve heard:

“The view that people are hired because a company has cash to hire them reflects an ignorance about how businesses and people actually are motivated and work that is–that is astounding. People–businesses hire people when they have more business and they need the people to conduct that business. If they don’t have the business to conduct, they’re not going to hire the people.”

Let me put it to you another way:  if you produced widgets from the comforts of your home at a cost of $5/widget, spent three hours a day making as many widgets as you could sell, and you sold these widgets as a price of $20/widget, would you necessarily be incentivized to hire another employee?

The answer: maybe.  Considering rising health care costs among the many liabilities associated with hiring someone, you might not.  Now, Obama introduces another disincentive for hiring:  Subtitle D of the American Jobs Act, Page 129, is entitled “Prohibition of Discrimination on the Basis of an Individual’s Status as Unemployed.” If a business does not hire someone who has been unemployed for six months, they can be prosecuted for discriminating against a protected social class. Solution for businesses? Don’t interview unemployed people.

The reason businesses aren’t hiring is simple: Uncertainty. Businesses are uncertain about the future, because government keeps jacking with the outcomes of the market, opposing freedom, in favor of control over the economy and the individual.

Why Government (Always) Fails Business

When government directs funds to a company, as it did to the solar company Solyndra with $535 million of taxpayer’s funds, it distorts the market in three ways: first, the aided firm avoids the cost-cutting measures necessary for its own fiscal solvency; second, it hurts the aided firm’s competitors, as those without additional funds are having to compete with an enhanced firm; and third, the funds eventually hurts the firm itself, when the illusion of revenues dries up.  This does not include the ever-present unforeseen consequences of ham-handing the market.

Whether it’s general with federal Broadband subsidies, or specific like Government Motors Chevy Volt funding, there are consequences to market interference.  Keeping these “too big/significant/special to fail” firms funded is not capitalism; it’s lemon socialism, and is ultimately not good for jobs.  This reminds me of the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek, observing the digging of the Panama Canal, looked down on the work being done.  He asked, “Why are they doing this with shovels?  Why not heavy equipment?”  The answer was simple: “It’s about jobs.”  His reply: “Then why not use spoons instead?”

Funny, but this is how government works: it creates yesterday’s jobs, and never answers to demand projections.  Government cannot create permanent jobs.  Due to an illusion of revenues, jobs may be created for a period, but they are not permanent.  A business must, eventually, answer to the demand (or lack of it) that exists in the market.

Apparently on the Road to Serfdom, Solyndra’s failure has not averted the Administration from trying to dump another $9.2 billion into wind and solar companies.  These interventions are stagnating the American economy.  One has to wonder, as I have since this Administration took office: are they that dumb, or are they deliberate?  Does the emperor have no clothes? Does the empty suit have no emperor?  Or does the emperor know exactly what he’s doing?

“A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well.  It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want.  Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
~ Milton Friedman, 1962

Share on Facebook
Filed under Ideology, News
Oct 5, 2011

Decoding the Buffett Rule

0 Comments

For a similar piece with a different focus from last month, see my post On Corporate Taxation.

Decoding Buffett

The 2012 election season officially began at the White House this morning, where President Obama began stumping for his $3.6 trillion deficit reduction plan, of which, nearly $1.5 trillion consists of new taxes.  In his War on Wealth, Obama has found an unlikely ally: America’s richest venture capitalist, Warren Buffett.

In a New York Times piece last month, Warren Buffett requested, ”Stop coddling the super-rich,” and called for “shared sacrifice.”  Additionally, he argued his federal tax bill last year was not enough:

“Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.”

Buffett went on to imply this tax advantage is due to the capital gains tax rate, in paragraphs 7 and 8 of his Opinion Editorial.  This is incorrect.  Buffett is paying a 15% carried interest tax on his investment income, which has already been taxed once, at a 35% rate.  He then takes that money and squirrels it away in the Buffett Foundation.  Furthermore, Buffett never sells stock, therefore avoiding the capital gains tax altogether.  He is paying a 35% tax on income on only $300,000 a year, the salary he pays himself from his investment earnings.  If Buffett wants to pay more in taxes, he should do so now.  Why wait until he dies to contribute 55% of his wealth to the feds (compliment of the Death Tax, 2011)?

Instead of paying more to the federal government, Buffett contributes freely to charities, an act he should be praised for.  Ask yourself: why would he contribute to charities, as opposed to the federal government?  Perhaps he knows the federal government spends other people’s money much less efficiently than a charity does.

President Obama was quick to use Buffett’s understanding of the federal tax system – and his proposal – as his own.  Before his Martha’s Vineyard trip, Obama cited Buffett’s Op Ed, telling Minnesotans:

“Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than anybody in his office, including his secretary.  He figured out, from his tax bill, that he paid about 17 percent.  The reason is, most of his wealth comes from capital gains.  You don’t get those tax breaks.  You’re paying more than that.  I may be wrong, but I think you’re a little less wealthy than Warren Buffett.  That’s just a guess.”

The President, like Buffett himself, is wrong: Buffett’s earnings are from carried interest.  Details, I know, but important.  Nevertheless, after three years as President, Obama turns to the broken tax code, albeit not in an objective manner.  Obama’s Jobs Act/Deficit Plan is laden with benefits for cronies in both unions and business alike, the true personification of Milton Friedman’s warning:  ”Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned.”

Decoding Obama

Using Buffett as the proverbial “bad cop,” President Obama this morning proposed the “Buffett Rule.”  This proposal is not intended to grow the economy by bringing the middle class tax rates down to Buffett’s, but to raise taxes on those who make over $1 million, targeting a meager 0.3% of the population.

I’ll quote the President directly in what, I think, is the most important aspect of his proposal:

“It comes down to this:  We have to prioritize.  Both parties agree that we need to reduce the deficit by the same amount — by $4 trillion.  So what choices are we going to make to reach that goal?  Either we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in taxes, or we’re going to have to ask seniors to pay more for Medicare.  We can’t afford to do both.

“Either we gut education and medical research, or we’ve got to reform the tax code so that the most profitable corporations have to give up tax loopholes that other companies don’t get.  We can’t afford to do both.

“This is not class warfare.  It’s math.  (Laughter.)  The money is going to have to come from someplace.  And if we’re not willing to ask those who’ve done extraordinarily well to help America close the deficit and we are trying to reach that same target of $4 trillion, then the logic, the math says everybody else has to do a whole lot more:  We’ve got to put the entire burden on the middle class and the poor.”

Problem is, there’s not $4 trillion available from those that earn more than $1 million a year.  There’s not even $1.5 billion he’s asking for; not even close.  As I’ve pointed out in 2 of my last 3 posts, heavier taxation on this 0.3% of the population will not fill the deficit hole.

I’ll spell it out again:  According to IRS figures, a 45% rate on incomes of more than $1 million would generate $31 billion, while an even more progressive tax, with rates of 50%, 60%, 70% on incomes of $500,000, $5 million, $10 million respectively would generate an added $133 billion.  That is roughly 10% of  the current annual budget deficit.  That, I would submit, is math.  We know taxing businesses will weaken the economy; as Winston Churchill said, “For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”  A higher income tax will not solve our fiscal problems, either.

But that’s not what this is about.  What seems to be a fiscal issue is indeed about politics, or more specifically, rooted in power, and control.  Call it what you want to:  this obsession with money, this focus on the supposed greed of others, is based on a combination of greed and jealousy that defines the Left.  I’d call it class warfare.

We are being divided, using a crayon box of names to call each others (and ourselves) politically.  It’s really much simpler than that.  Robert Heinlein, author of Starship Troopers, wrote in 1973:

“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”

Make no mistake:  With his deficit reduction plan, Obama aims not to balance the budget or reduce the deficit, but to punish his enemies with controls, and to reward his buddies, whether they are at AFL-CIO and the Teamsters Union, or at General Electric and the now-bankrupt Solyndra solar company.  We are, as a nation, learning the hard way that government does not create wealth, prosperity, jobs, or even progress, at the dismay of so-called Progressives.  With these failures, we move closer to debunking Keynesian economics once and for all.

Still, however, the Jacobins are at the door.  Class warfare is being stoked to keep these sentiments alive, to divide us, to punish some and to reward few.  Obama has moved to the front of this parade, lambasting millionaires, billionaires, and corporate jet owners alike, all research-tested buzz words.  Left alone, the Left will win the sentiments of the ignorant; only reason can save us from ourselves.

“Through wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established: And by knowledge shall the chambers be filled with all precious and pleasant riches.”
~ Proverbs 24:4

Share on Facebook
Filed under Ideology, News
Sep 20, 2011

On Corporate Taxation

0 Comments

It is often assumed that those who defend corporations and the free market while opposing taxation are “coddling the super-rich,” and therefore, must be super-rich themselves.  This is false:  True free-marketeers are often not super-rich, as the free market produces both success and failure.  On occasion, those that succeed try to guarantee their future success in market, not by their own merit, but by their connections to government.  This system is no longer capitalism.  It is crony capitalism, or corporatism, or lemon socialism.

Before the peasants decide to destroy the engine of the economy, let’s set some things straight.  The American economy became the world leader through free market principles, but there is a clear distinction between the free market and what the American economy is now.  Let’s go after the source of our malaise: our 65,000-page tax code.  Generally speaking, and sans sweetheart deals, corporations pay a 35% tax on their profits; corporate taxes, however, comprise only 15% of federal tax revenues.  This disparity shows the absolute inefficacy of the corporate tax.

I support full-scale repeal of the corporate tax.  I know I’m mostly alone on that.  Abolishing the corporate tax would provide the proverbial “shot in the arm” this country needs.  To accomplish this, I believe the burden should eventually be shifted to a flat sales tax; on that point I know I’m not alone.  In the meantime, I believe America is ready for an overhaul of our tax system; I also believe, on this point, both Left and Right can find points to philosophically coalesce.  First, let’s establish some maxims.

Corporations ARE People

Last week on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney got himself into a bit of trouble by proclaiming, “Corporations are people.”  Text of the encounter is below, with video here:

ROMNEY: We have to make sure that the promises we make — and Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare — are promises we can keep. And there are various ways of doing that. One is, we could raise taxes on people.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Corporations!

ROMNEY: Corporations are people, my friend. We can raise taxes on—

AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, they’re not!

ROMNEY: Of course they are. Everything corporations earn also goes to people.

AUDIENCE: [LAUGHTER]

ROMNEY: Where do you think it goes?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: It goes into their pockets!

ROMNEY: Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People’s pockets! Human beings, my friend. So number one, you can raise taxes. That’s not the approach that I would take.

I’m no Romney fan, for various and unrelated reasons.  On this issue, however, Romney is spot-on.  According to the 1819 Supreme Court case Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, and upheld in the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, corporations have the same rights as people and are protected equally by the Fourteenth Amendment.  There should be no other way here; otherwise, the government could run over the rights of corporations by fiat, letting some businesses fall while supporting some arbitrarily, nationalizing them as they see fit.  Oh, wait.

Essentially, Romney channeled the economist Milton Friedman, who famously asked:   ”Can you tax business?  What’s business?  There’s no business to be taxed.  There are people; only people can pay taxes… So when you talk about a tax on business, it has to be paid by somebody.  Either it’s paid by the stockholder, or it’s paid by the customer, or it’s paid by the worker.”  Due to this “hand-me-down” economic effect, it has been found that “Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes.”

Efforts to squash both corporate free speech (1st Amt.) and equal protection under the law (14th Amt.) have ramped up in recent years, culminating famously with the Citizens United case, in which freedom won.  Class warfare of this kind is typical in a recessionary period, but let’s be equal in our judgement:  If corporations aren’t people, then neither are unions.  Furthermore, it is counterintuitive for pro-labor protestors rally in favor of corporate taxes, when corporate taxes punish labor the most; economists Kevin Hassett and Aparna Mathur compute, “A 1 percent increase in corporate tax rates is associated with nearly a 1 percent drop in wage rates.”

Just as corporations have the same rights as people, corporations are subject to the same laws as people.  They should be treated freely and equally; their rights should be respected, but when they break the law, they should be punished.  On this, both Left and Right can agree.  It is important to remember that, under a free society, the outcomes are not going to be equal, or freedom does not exist.  Channeling Benjamin Franklin, Milton Friedman once said, “The society that puts equality before freedom will have neither.  The society that puts freedom before equality will have a great measure of both.”

A Free Economy Benefits Us All

This is painfully obvious to anyone who has observed the history of nations.  A consequentialist view of the economic systems of the world’s most successful nations will find they were rooted in freedom.  All socialist nations eventually end at the same place.  Few American politicians would call themselves socialists, although many policies they support are exactly that.

A transaction-based view also proves the virtue of the free market:  The free market is not a zero-sum game.  People exchange money for goods and services freely, both believing they got the better deal at the end of the day.  As much as I hate paying $4 for a gallon of milk, I’d be hard-pressed to find a cow, milk it, pasteurize the milk, and bottle it for less than $4.  Nobody forced me to buy the milk, and nobody forced the farmer to sell it.  Transactions taking place within the free market benefit us all.  Interventions in the free market, however, do not.

Common Ground

Which brings us back to corporate taxation.  It may seem there is no common ground to be reached between the Left, who forever want to raise taxes, and the Right, who never do.  I even wrote about the importance of not compromising over tax increases, particularly during an economic recession, in my last post.  Let me highlight some points the Right could concede over to lower or abolish the corporate tax:

1.  Close loopholes and end subsidies. This is not for revenues, but for principle.  Equal protection under the law means equal treatment under the law.  We have no kings, neither in government nor in corporate management.  Corporate favoritism swings Left and Right depending on who’s in charge.  That’s how Obama’s Czar-CEO buddy Jeff Immelt’s GE paid $0 in taxes in 2010; he helped write the 2009 Stimulus Bill.  Both Left and Right ignore corruption when their issues are at stake; to be consistent, the Right must simultaneously stand up against subsidizing the oil industry and green energy initiatives.  These benefits create distortions and false incentives for shell firms that contribute little to the actual economy.

2.  Normalize the income tax rates. Again, this is not for revenues, but for principle.  Raising taxes is unnecessary:  According to IRS figures, a 45% rate on incomes of more than $1 million would generate $31 billion, while an even more progressive tax, with rates of 50%, 60%, 70% on incomes of $500,000, $5 million, $10 million respectively would generate an added $133 billion.  That is roughly 10% of  the current annual budget deficit.  A higher income tax will not solve our budgetary problems.

Furthermore, taxing productivity, and punishing investments in American business, will not get our economy moving again nor bring jobs back to America.  The income tax, to be discussed in my next post, must be addressed.  The income tax is separate from the corporate tax, capital gains tax, tax on charitable donations, and the carried interest tax.  These additional taxes are in fact “double taxation,” as income has already been taxed once; therefore, these earnings (and donations) should not be taxed at or above the same rate as income, if at all.  A net-zero income tax, without loopholes and benefits, would provide a predictable – and equitable – playing field for all wage-earners.

Share on Facebook
Filed under Ideology, News
Aug 19, 2011

Discovering My Perspective

All of my past posts are archived below. Feel free to comment to any post by clicking the "Comments" link at the bottom of each post.

I have no rights to the photos used herein. Most were found online through a simple Google search. If a copyright issue exists, please message me and I will eradicate the problem. Thank you!

My Twitterfeed

Follow @travisthornton on twitter.

Categories