Responsibility to the Poor
Reply
Tag Archives: public policy
Politics and Theatre
Here is a letter I recently sent to the Midland Daily News:
John Burke writes in his recent letter that: “[U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak should] also remember that health care reform is a moral issue in itself. That thousands are dying every year because of the lack of affordable health care is also a call to provide help “to the least of these” (Matt 25:40)” (“Stupak Admired,” Nov 18).
I agree 100% that thousands of people dying every year due to lack of health care is awful. Unfortunately, it does not logically follow that government is the most effective tool for alleviating this problem. Even if it were possible to accurately communicate the desires of the public to congress, it is highly unlikely that congress would fulfill the desires of the public over the desires of special interest groups.
The current health care proposals are no exception. Although health care reform has been sold to the public as a solution to the suffering illustrated above, behind the scenes, it is nothing more than a power grab by big businesses that have effectively used special interest groups to rig government policy in their own favor at the expense of American consumers.
Kurt Bouwhuis
All For One And One For All!
Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern
I recently reread this old blog post by Mario Rizzo at ThinkMarkets and found an excerpt that is very insightful:
Do we, as a Nation, “think” that We ought to save more? Or that We ought to increase public borrowing for economic stimulus? Do We believe that government (taxpayers’) resources ought to be injected into failing American automobile manufacturers? Should more money go, instead, to save homeowners from foreclosures? Should more money be sent to save starving children in Africa?
The simple answer is: The questions are senseless. We all don’t have the same priorities. The idea of a Nation’s priorities among these options is a fiction designed to give the impression that the political system expresses some inner national character or some rational assessment of alternatives…
…Once we leave the realm of those relatively few rules that sustain social cooperation – those that benefit each and all – we enter a world in which political priorities are set by special interests motivated by their partiality and avidity. In this world what counts is the political manipulation of the hapless guy.
The Government Can!!!
Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern
What Is the Foundation Of Your Economic Beliefs?
Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center intern
Here is a great piece I found online that explains the importance of morals when holding and pursuing economic beliefs. It is a little long but well worth the time.
By Bill Frezza
What is the moral foundation of your economic beliefs? Do economic beliefs even require a moral foundation?
Do you find it natural to accept the varied religious beliefs of others even if they contradict your own? On the other hand, are you often at odds with people who espouse different economic beliefs and policies? Why, especially if the former forms the foundation for the latter?
Would you ever use the ballot box to force others to practice your religion or make them pay to build you a church? Why do you find it easy to do this with your economic beliefs, compelling others to foot the bill for the public policies you promote?
Do you believe that wealth is prima facie evidence of thievery? Of privilege? Do you think wealth can only be created off the backs of the poor? Is there a fixed amount of wealth in the world for all to share? If so, where did it come from and how has mankind been getting richer for the past 200 years? And if the poor wish to escape exploitation by the rich, why do they keep sneaking in to our country rather than out?
Think Before You Take Action
Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern
Here’s a letter I sent to the Midland Daily News today.
Dan Foster recently stated that decreasing our consumption of foreign oil by increasing fuel efficiency and utilizing alternative energies “…will improve our national security, revive our economy and clean the air” (Take Action, Aug 3). Although I wish this assertion were entirely true, I find it hard to believe that such a beneficial venture would pass by entrepreneurs unnoticed.
First off, artificially decreasing the importation of oil from abroad would likely worsen our national security, not improve it. If a foreign nation is generating wealth by trading with the United States, that same foreign nation would have no incentive to attack the source of its prosperity. If, on the other hand, trade was cut off for political reasons – there would likely be conflict proving Frédéric Bastiat’s point – “If goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will.”
Second, if reducing the consumption of oil truly helps “revive the economy” – Why not pass a law banning the use of oil in all automobiles? This would really stimulate the economy! It would divert resources from the productive sectors of the economy and place them in the automotive sector.
Lastly, I do agree with Dan that a decrease in the consumption of oil leaves the air cleaner. Unfortunately, since air is owned by no one, it is impossible for any individual to place a value on slightly cleaner air for society. In fact, any commodity not owned privately will become victim to what Garrett Hardin called tragedy of the commons. Pollution of the air is a perfect example.
In short, the reason we use oil to fuel our automobiles is to give individuals what they want – Cheap transportation. If an individual truly shared Dan’s desire for fuel efficiency, they would pony up the extra dough to purchase the same hybrid he just purchased. A well functioning economy should fulfill the desires of each unique individual consumer, not the desires of one individual.
Kurt Bouwhuis
Dynamic Interventionism
Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern
One would have to put forth much effort to find a year in history in which any government lessened in size. A significantly less amount of effort would have to be applied to find any government that increased in size in the same year.
There are several reasons for the steady growth of government – Among them is mans natural pursuit of power, concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, increases dependence on government, politicians tailoring their efforts to please the median voter, etc… One reason that is often overlooked is what I would like to call dynamic interventionism. Dynamic interventionism can be thought of as intervention in market “a” breeding interventions in markets “x,y, and z.”
A simple example from the United States today can help illustrate this point. Suppose I am a politician who advocates free immigration on principle. I may not decide, however, to vote for free immigration under the United States current political structure because immigrants tend to use government benefits and drain taxpayer money. The same benefits that alter my voting pattern on immigration may also make it more difficult to empirically speak of the merits of private charity (as it is being crowded out by government charity).
In short, the more government grows, the more justification there is for government to grow.
Hmmmmm…..
Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern
I was recently reading the Michigan Liberal blog, and came across an interesting sentence: “I just became aware of this, but it’s worth thinking about while also remembering that the construction of the other proposed coal plants likewise will get passed right along to customers.” Eric B. at Michigan Liberal
I think Eric is on to something. When profitable businesses incur additional expenses, the costs are passed on to the consumer. I wonder if high taxes on businesses have the same effect?
I Feel Safer Now
Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern
From Reason.com
“In an apparent crackdown on Internet gambling, federal authorities in New York have frozen or seized bank accounts worth $34 million belonging to 27,000 online poker players, according to representatives for the players and account holders.”
It’s nice to know that at any time, the Federal Government can seize entire private accounts when ever they feel like it. I was beginning to feel unsafe knowing that crazy online poker players were making money. They were probably having fun at the same time. We need to put a damper on that!
Regulating Systemic Risks
To the Editor:
Peter Wallison masterfully exposes the pitfalls in Rep. Barney Frank’s proposal to create a “systemic risk regulator” (“Congress Is the Real Systemic Risk,” March 17). But it’s worth emphasizing that we already have an excellent regulator of systemic risks: the market. Because participation in any aspect of the market is voluntary, each individual – risking only his or her own assets – chooses how, and how much, to participate. The competition, personal responsibility, and inherent decentralization characteristic of the market keep systemic risks small.
Large systemic risks are created only when competition is replaced by monopoly power, when decentralization is supplanted by centralized decision-making, and when personal responsibility gives way to socialized ‘sharing’of costs and benefits. Government is the one institution capable of achieving this troika of troublesomeness. Monopoly control over the money supply is only the most devious of the countless ways that government dangerously intrudes itself systemically, and with no competition, into market transactions.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Comments regarding Stimulus from Cafe Hayek
Sinkorswimulus–we just had to pass it. We didn’t have a choice
Head-I-win-tails-u-lus–if the economy gets better—it was because of the stimulus. If it tanks further, the stimulus just wasn’t big enough
Grimulus–what I’m worried we’re in for
Grimmulus–the fairy tale that spending a dollar produces $1.50 of wealth.
GM and Chrysler Go To Washington, Hat In Hand
Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern
General Motors and Chrysler requested a combined $21.6 billion Tuesday [February 17,2009] on top of existing federal loans due to worsening demand for cars and trucks. – CNN.com
Go to 1:30. Peter Schiff continues to layout precisely what is going to happen. (Clip from December, 2008)
This is Spectacular
These are the concluding paragraphs of Bill’s op-ed in the Washington Times. Enjoy!
“The truth is: It is not government’s function to create jobs. Putting people to work is easy, as demonstrated by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Depression-era Works Progress Administration (WPA), more accurately known as “WPA: We Piddle Around.” The bigger challenge is to create wealth. Toyota failed to foresee the economic events that caused its expansion plans to unravel.
Keep this in mind when Congress and the White House are selecting economic stimulus projects to fund this year. If highly successful private firms like Toyota – with their extraordinary market research and years of savvy and experience – sometimes embark on projects that turn sour, how can we expect politicians, most of whom have no such business know-how, to pick winners? There is a difference, however. Companies usually risk their own money. In Washington, the politicians will be risking ours.” – Bill Shughart
Peter Schiff Predicted Housing Bubble
Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern
In this video, Peter Shiff projects a huge devaluation of the dollar and a lack of confidence in foreign lenders.
The Free Market is Smarter than I
Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern
I find the free market fascinating because, many times, it offers valuable solutions that we are difficult to see. I was introduced to yet another great free market solution when I read an essay written by Peter Leeson titled Do Markets Need Government? The essay illustrates a true story that takes place in pre-colonial Africa.
Angolia, in the late 19th century, was a large exporter of beeswax, ivory, and wild rubber. The trade consisted of two groups, the buyers and sellers. The buyers were the European middlemen who hired agents to collect the goods. The sellers were the local Angolians. The European agents were armed and traveled in large caravans while the local producers lived in small villages and were often unarmed. Despite the fact that the Europeans had a power advantage over the locals, trade still existed.
There were times, however, that the European agents would kill off villages and steal all of the goods rather than paying. At this point in time, there was no government to intervene in these affairs. How could the free market solve a criminal problem such as this without a court system or police force? The free market solution happens to be very simple and does not require huge monetary costs. A typical government solution requires large sums of monetary value to create courts, jails, and police.
Continue reading
