Capitalism and Taxes

While people are generally governed to a large extent by self interest, it isn't often that self interest and the good of the country don't go well together.

It was called the invisible hand of economics and the idea is that everybody pursuing what is best for them will result in the overall best result.

There are some problems with that, the different level of power and influence being the main one, but generally it works pretty well and is to a large extent the basis of capitalism.

No other system has in fact produced greater economic well being than capitalism.  We do have to remember that capitalism is in fact an economic system, not a social one.

Since it does in fact generate the most wealth it provides the greatest tax base.

This is where capitalism as an economic system needs to serve the greater needs of society.

It is never generally in anyone's best economic interest to fund social programs, at lest not directly.  Of course it does help stabilize society and make economic pursuits safer.

This leads to the question of what tax levels should we have to fund social programs?

Well economically it should be the largest amount that doesn't impact economic growth.

Since economic growth is the engine that drives the economy we don't want to kill it, but a tax rate is a funny thing as far as motivation goes.

At every tax rate, a capitalist will engage in activities that are profitable.

We hear some proposals talking about Tax rates as high as 70%.  We had those during some of our most prosperous times.  We have now made it possible for those who have been helped the most by this country to pay a much smaller share in the name of tax relief.

Creating an environment for success is essential but tax rates are seldom much of a factor.  Funding the programs that promotes the good of the many over the few is the role of government.

News?

Sometimes we give coverage to stories that really don't deserve any.
 
Often assumptions are made about the motivations that are purely speculative and usually wrong.

For example there was a short to do in some papers over a picture of Prom going boys, some of whom looked like they were giving a NAZI salute.  Of course it was also a good interpretation that they froze their arms in the picture when they were just waving.

Looking for the worst in things has become a universal occupation, as people hunt and hope to find something that gets them a few minutes of fame on social media.

Once in a while they find something legitimate but much of the time it is simply a misinterpretation.

Must of what you see on the Internet is simply wrong.

It is simply not held up to any particular standards unless of course it is published by one of the traditional media sources.

Its not much different than it always was, when rumors would get circulated that had little or no basis in fact, sometimes to promote a cause, except that with social media, word of mouth is so much faster.

Its basically how the Russians influenced the last election by posting purely fictitious items and having them spread rapidly without any verification.

This does create a lot of fake news, but not the fake news that the President talks about, he wants to categorize legitimate news as fake news.

In fact, he spreads a lot of fake news himself as much as he lies.

Unfortunately determining what is and what isn't fake becomes our responsibility and we are simply not very good at it.

There are real facts out there, just might be hard to find them.

The Power of the Purse

I find it very hard to understand anyone who thinks we have a crisis or emergency at our southern border.

Yes some migrants try to cross illegally, generally to then claim asylum after they surrender.

No documented terrorists have been found to cross that way, although of course the possibility can't be ignored.  Still we don't have instances of terrorist acts committed by people crossing that border illegally.

There have been some crimes, and sometimes violent crimes committed by undocumented aliens, but these are actually pretty rare and the fact that they people were undocumented aliens is not much of a factor.

We have plenty of news coverage of what is going on at the border and the main issues concern the safety of people trying to seek asylum and a better life in this country.

The problem is that we have a chief executive who was searching for some excuse to grab some money to build a useless wall and is misusing an act meant to facilitate action in real emergencies.

This needs to be fixed, because that is Pandora's box once it is opened.

The constitution requires appropriations to be made by the congress, because the power of the purse strings is the best way to control a wayward executive.

If that line is crossed we may find ourselves going further and further into tyranny.

It has happened, unfortunately, many time throughout history and we need to nip it in the bud.

There are simple solutions that would allow quick response in real emergencies and still preserve the constitution.  Simply requiring any such declaration to be ratified by congress within a reasonable time would do the trick.

It obviously isn't something they can pass right now, but it needs to happen.

President's Day

February has a National Holiday honoring our first President, George Washington, although it is called President's Day by most people.

The holiday is most closely associated with Washington and Lincoln, although to some degree we celebrate all the Presidents.

To most Americans, the past presidents are not very memorable with a few exceptions.  Many of them are hardly remembered.  At the time of his election William Henry Harrison was a war hero but he only served 31 days before dying of pneumonia and is best remembered for that.

Each of the Presidents rose to the highest office in the land based on accomplishments, but those actions are generally forgotten with a few exceptions.

What did happen, over the years, is that the President was given more ability to act by the Congress because of the potential need for quick response in emergencies.

This accretion of powers has to some extent changed the balance of power in America from what was originally intended.  While different in form, most of the founding fathers probably had something like Parliament in men.  In England the executive power is almost totally subjugated to the Parliament.

We have evolved differently here, and not necessarily in a good way.  The current President is clearly abusing some powers granted to his office and while it is offensive to see the powers abused, it may result in a needed correction to the proper balance.

The power of the people is inherent in the Congress where many more diverse viewpoints exist.

Survivors

There are some quite popular shows about events that basically destroy civilization as we know it and highlight the difficulties faced by the survivors.

The event causing the apocalypse are varied from a zombie apocalypse to an pandemic that wipes out most of the population.

The shows focus on the survivors and ignores the billions who perished.

The popularity of these shows varies and some actually have approached the issue from a comedic point of view.

Watching these shows is pretty entertaining, but I would like to note that we also have access to the real thing in some places.

Consider Syria where war has reduced much of the country to a post apocalyptic wasteland creating refugees and ongoing atrocities.  Not entertaining and all too real.

Or places devastated by natural disasters like Puerto Rico or Haiti.

If you watch news coverage of those events you might notice being a survivor is generally not as adventurous as depicted on some of these shows.

There are actually plenty of people who could help the refugees and victims in other parts of the world.

Some do of course but most don't.

In fact we are almost as invisible as the billions wiped out in our popular shows.

To the extent we are not zombies trying to eat their brains I guess its better.

Not much though.

Incentives

Sometimes I hear well meaning people talk about things that they obviously don't understand.  They make statements such as "That money should be used for community incentives instead of a corporate incentive".  Of course this implies that the money actually exists.  Almost all incentives are a reduction of taxes or fees that would otherwise have to be paid.  If the project doesn't happen there is no money at all, in fact there is less money.

Take the Amazon deal that is now not happening in New York.  It would have created about 25,000 jobs and would have redeveloped an area that is currently underutilized.  Yes to some extent it would have led to some disruptions of people living there, but it would have provided a strong tax base in the area, created all those jobs, created all the secondary jobs, increased the need for housing and in exchange they would have received about $3 billion in incentives.

Yes they are a rich company and maybe they don't need incentives but now that they cancelled the deal, the incentives won't happen, but neither will all the other things.  So New York doesn't have $3 billion to spend, they have less taxes and less income taxes for the indefinite future.

It means there is less money to spend on schools, and other priorities as well as less jobs in general.

Is this a better outcome than having a thriving business in Long Island City that would employ tens of thousands and pay direct and indirect taxes for the foreseeable future?

That is probably a matter of opinion, but what is clear is that the incentive money actually doesn't exist without the deal.

There are no spoils from this victory.  Just less all around.

National Emergency?

There is a situation on the Southern Border that has been going on a long time.

It isn't really getting worse, in fact by most accounts it has been getting better.

Still the dontard is determined to act like this is an emergency and try to use money intended for other purposes to build a silly wall.

To the extent this is likely to fail, it is probably just a stunt to fire up the anti-immigration part of his base.

These are the people convinced that having Spanish as an option on automated phone systems is somehow a threat to their liberty.

This is not something new in American history.

From the earliest times there were people who decried how new immigrants were destroying the American way.

Wave after wave of immigrants were greeted by some with distrust and hate even as they built this great country to what it is today.

We wouldn't have settled the west or built our great cities without them, but each wave was going to destroy our values.

Oddly, the immigrants we object to now actually share a lot with us already, at least historically, being from American countries that revolted against a European master and who won their freedom.

In some ways they aren't much different than the waves of poor Americans who fled the dust bowl and southern poverty over the years

They are just on the other side of a border created by events they had nothing to do with.

Emergency?  The only thing that comes close is our failure to act like good neighbors and extend a helping hand.