Posts tagged with: economy

In a new article at The Stream, Acton Director of Research Samuel Gregg offers good reasons why a move toward economic nationalism is not in the best interest of America.  He starts with this:

Whatever the motivations for such policies, their costs vastly outweigh their benefits. In the first place, protectionism discourages American businesses and workers from focusing on producing those goods and services where they enjoy a comparative advantage vis-à-vis other nations. Not only does this undermine productivity, efficiency, and international competitiveness of American businesses. It also encourages American workers to enter industries that, no matter how much protection they enjoy, won’t be able to compete in the long term.

Gregg continues to give reasons against economic nationalist policies throughout his article, but one reason that seems to be quite relevant at the time is crony capitalism.  Gregg says this:

Yet another problem with economic nationalism is that it encourages a growing problem in American economic life: crony capitalism.

Giving certain American businesses subsidies or lumbering foreign products with tariffs may seem like economic questions, but in practice they are ultimately political. Such policies encourage companies prefer to seek profits by lobbying legislators and bureaucrats rather than serving customers and creating value.

(more…)

republican-powerBecause of the recent election, Republicans now control the White House, the U.S. Senate (51 percent), the House of Representatives (54 percent), 31 of the 50 state governorships (62 percent), and a record 67 of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers in the nation (68 percent).

What will they do with all that power and influence?

To predict what policies the GOP will champion over the next two to four years we can turn to the most recent party platform. Although the document is not binding on the presidential nominee or any other politicians, political scientists have found that over the past 30 years lawmakers in Congress tend to vote in line with their party’s platform: 89 percent of the time for Republicans.

Here are the agenda items that are related to issues covered by the Acton Institute. (Note: This level of government that would handle each item is not designated, so some issues may be handled at the state level and others by the U.S. Congress.)

(more…)

Blog author: jcarter
Monday, November 14, 2016
By

socialism-0916“In spite of socialism’s sorry track record, millions of well-meaning people think it’s a virtual synonym for compassion,” says Lawrence Reed. “But socialists themselves are constantly retreating from their own handiwork. It’s socialism until it doesn’t work, then it was never socialism in the first place. It’s socialism until the wrong guys get in charge, then it’s everything but.”

Socialism never seems to have any theory of wealth creation, only fanciful schemes for its reallocation after somebody goes to the trouble of creating it.

Oxford Dictionaries (whose slogan is “Language Matters”) defines socialism as “a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

What is meant by “the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole”? If you own a convenience store, are you supposed to put to some public vote the decisions about what to stock the shelves with or whom to hire for the night shift?

Read more . . .

As, no doubt, many readers are getting flooded on social media with think pieces and hot takes (not to mention apocalyptic worry or celebration), the point of this post is simply to look at what the data seems to indicate about those who voted for President-elect Donald Trump and his opponent, Sec. Hillary Clinton. I’ll add a few thoughts at the end, but I am mostly just fascinated with the result, which shows more diverse support for each candidate than I had expect. However, I am also, like many, disappointed at the passions, particularly anger, that motivated some voters and which will remain with us, no matter what our party preferences, if we do not make a point to address them.

That said, there is a temptation, especially as of late, to paint supporters of either candidate with broad brushes (often unfavorably but sometimes overly flattering too). Neither serves the virtues of wisdom, prudence, or love, which ought to be at the forefront of any Christian social engagement. So, with the encouragement of those virtues as my goal, lets look at that some of the most interesting demographic groups this year.

I’ll be using New York Times exit polling data throughout. You can view it all and compare with past elections here. (more…)

fairshare-taxesDuring her presidential campaign, Sec. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly said she’d implement a tax system in which the wealthy “pay their fair share in taxes.” Expecting the rich to pay what is “fair” is not asking to much of them. But one question that is rarely considered is, “What if they already do pay their fair share?”

Before we can determine whether the rich pay enough we have to first ask what would be “fair.” How much of total tax revenues should, say, the top one percent of households pay? Five percent? 10 percent? 20 percent?

According to new IRS statistics from 2014 tax returns, the top one percent of households paid almost 40 percent of all income taxes collected by the federal government.

In 2014, 139,562,034 filed an income tax return, putting just under 1.4 million people into the category of “one percenters.” They earned 20.58 percent of all income and paid 39.48 percent of the taxes. The average adjusted gross income (AGI) for the group was $465,626 (the “poorest” people in the group had an AGI of $257,110).

This chart by the Wall Street Journal’s Richard Rubin highlights that the top 25 percent (avg. AGI: $77, 714) paid nearly 86.78 percent of all income taxes.
(more…)

clinton-trumpImagine if Donald Trump made a campaign promise that he would lower the pay of every American, but would ensure that the poorest 10 percent have their pay lowered the most. Would you vote for him then? Or imagine if Hillary Clinton said she would increase inflation substantially to make the economy more “fair” for everyone. Would she win your support?

Neither candidate has made such a claim—at least not directly. The American people would immediate reject such harmful economic policies, and politicians know they’d be rejected for making such inane promises.

In reality, though, both Clinton and Trump (as well as the candidates for the Green Party, Constitution Party, and the American Solidarity Part) have promised to implement policies that would have the same effect as increasing inflation or reducing pay, for all have proposed a means of lowering purchasing power.
(more…)

Note: This is the seventh post in a weekly video series on basic microeconomics.

In previous videos in this series from Marginal Revolution University we learned how prices reach equilibrium and how the market works like an invisible hand coordinating economic activity. In the next couple of videos you’ll see why the equilibrium price (he market price where the quantity of goods supplied is equal to the quantity of goods demanded) is the only stable price and whether this model works in the real world.


(more…)