Tag Archives: public policy

Are the Olympics fair?

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

After watching the Olympics, I was blown away by the performances of the athletes from around the world. World records were broken and individual athletes brought home multiple medals.

I do, however, feel that in the presence of all these accomplishments, we may be overlooking something. What about all the countries that brought home only a few medals. Is it fair that some countries win so many medals, while others win so few? What are these successful countries going to do with all the medals? Why not allocate the medals to those who won less? Can you imagine being a country that received the least amount of medals?

Continue reading →

I have a trade deficit with Apple Inc., what should I do?

Posted on by razma766
1

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

I’ve always wondered why the words “trade deficit” carry a negative connotation. What it usually implies is that one party, through the coarse of a series of transactions, has acquired more or less monetary value (money) than it has received in goods and services.

When looking at a nation’s trade deficit, people tend to get concerned when more goods and services are acquired than monetary value. Look at the United States for example. People are concerned that the USA imports more than exports. This means that we have given foreigners paper, and in return have received goods and services such as food, gas, and cars.

Why choose geography as a determining factor in calculating trade deficits? What if we broke trade deficits down to into individuals or households? I bet individuals have trade deficits with other individuals, businesses, banks… Households have trade deficits as well. I would also bet that towns, cities, counties, and states have trade deficits. Is this really a problem?

I personally have a deficit with Apple Inc., which has been generated within the past two years. I have purchased two iPods valued at $600. I have also purchased a laptop valued at $2200. I have spent $2800 more dollars on Apple than they have spent on me. I have no problem with my deficit. In fact, I plan on increasing my deficit with Apple in the future.

Granholm and MEGA Announce 9,495 New Michigan Jobs

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

Yesterday, I came across this headline while reading a blog. The author of the blog post was so proud of the Gov. Jennifer Granholm for bringing all these great jobs to Michigan. I have no problem with attracting new jobs to Michigan, as long as no coercion involved. Sadly, in this instance, the government arbitrarily taxes businesses at different to create an uneven playing field.

Why allow government to decide which businesses will develop in Michigan? Why not allow the market and entrepreneurs decide? It seems odd that we accept the notion of allowing government to manipulate the business playing field, offering unfair advantages to selected businesses.
Continue reading →

Is Innovation an Inconvenience?

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

My business, XYZ Corp, produces cassette tapes.  In the past, my business has been a success.  It had the capability of taking $2.00 worth of raw materials and $6.00 worth of labor to create a cassette tape.  The market value for a cassette tape was $12.00, generating an average of $4.00 in profit per tape.

In recent years, there have been all sorts of innovations in production as well as new technologies like CDs, DVDs, MP3 players, and blue ray disks.  These new technologies are complicated, so I focused on producing cassette tapes.  Because of the fierce competition and innovation, the market value of a cassette tape has dropped to $3.00 per tape.  Due to high gas prices and minimum wage increases, it now cost XYZ Corp $14.00 per tape.

Continue reading →

Looking for help from Bombardier

Posted on by razma766
Reply

Published: Saturday, July 26

David Descôteaux
Le Gardeur

I have a project: to publish a book. I have talent and I’m certain it will be a success. I ask each of Bombardier’s 70,000 employees to lend me $25. I will repay the entire amount ($1.7 million) in 10 years. Of course, it will be a zero-interest loan. And I will pay you back only if I sell my books. If I sell nothing, you get nothing.

You refuse? But my project will create economic wealth. The publisher will earn a profit, I’ll buy writing software, hire a research staff, buy paper, eat at restaurants near my house, hire a contractor to build me a decent office. Add the income tax of all these workers to the taxes generated by the sale of the books, and the government will make a fortune.

Besides, our book industry must be competitive. I heard that a French author, who writes on the same subject as me, receives subsidies from his government. It would be unjust and suicidal for our industry not to subsidize me, too.

You still refuse? You prefer to put your $25 in a safe investment, earning an eight-per-cent compounded annual return that will add up to $54 in 10 years, instead of the uncertain $25 I’m offering you? You say it’s more important for you to keep this money for your daughter’s college tuition than to use it to make planes? I don’t get it.

But it doesn’t matter what you think. You have no choice. My good friend the politician will make you lend me the money. If you refuse, he’ll send you to jail. He thinks it’s a good project. After all, who are you to know what to do with your money?

I found this at cafehayek.typepad.com

Freedom vs. Security

Posted on by razma766
2

“People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” — Benjamin Franklin

This is an important quote which illustrates a point that is often overlooked. Most any law, regulation, or tax will diminish your freedoms in order to increase your security. It is a trade-off that has been in existence since the establishment of government. Laws, regulations, and taxes are all imposed by force and restrict the freewill of its people. This is not justification for the elimination government; it simply means that as the size of government grows, the freedoms of the people diminish.

The more insecure people feel, the more willing they are to give up their money and freedom. People fear insecurity by nature. Observe how the human population operates. People go to school and work hard to secure themselves for the future. It gives them a higher social status and the ability to live comfortably and eat well. If humans were not interested in security, we would still be hunters and gatherers (not caring about the potential harm of weather, predators, or famine). If security is taken away from people, they will either work hard or look to government to feel secure again.

Continue reading →