How to make layoffs a good thing

 Tax policy, Welfare-police state  No Responses »
Dec 062008
 

Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek makes the case for layoffs on NPR’s Planet Money. More specifically, he explains how restrictive labor laws that make it harder to fire employees or lay them off also make it too expensive and too risky to hire employees in the first place. If there is anyone unfamiliar with that argument, now there is no excuse not to get familiar with it.

I certainly buy it, but there is also the matter of making it politically palatible. Too many libertarians make the argument, which is fine as far as it goes. But they don’t go the next step, which is to argue that we need to make an economy in which job loss is not so devastating, in which people can pick up and carry on.

The left of course has its own ideas on how to do that, mainly through social-welfare programs. There is a place for their safety nets — I for one would not advocate abolishing them — but the way they’re usually implemented makes them more like a trawler net than a safety net. And of course the motives of the left are less than pure when it comes to these things. Leftish minds concentrate wonderfully when it comes to designing programs to grow the government and make people dependent on their tender mercies. They go blank when it comes to ways to allow people to maintain their dignity and make their own choices.

Here are a few areas in which conservatives, libertarians, and non-leftish liberals could make a society in which job loss would not be so terrible:

  • Remove zoning regulations that make it hard for laid-off workers to start their own home-based businesses.
  • Remove the type of small-business regulation that almost requires specialists to deal with — including the kind of time-consuming, mind-numbing paperwork and kissing up to government officials that is so distasteful for independent-minded people. Again, this is so people can run their own businesses on the side or to provide an outlet when jobs are lost elsewhere.
  • Income tax cuts
  • Change the tax laws to foster portable benefits programs. And yes, maybe there is a place for a greater government role in paying for catastrophic or chronic health care (which could be done while reducing government involvement in other health care).
  • Property tax cuts
  • Change the tax laws that encourage people to get up to their eyeballs in debt, and instead make it worthwhile for them to save for a rainy day.

There are others that might come under the category of “A more equal capitalism” but I’ll stop here for now.

Quotes for 6 December 2008

 Regulation, Separation of powers  1 Response »
Dec 062008
 

Civil Service Reform

Yet during the past 60 years, it has been the civil service (viewed as professional and technocratic) and not political appointees (seen as corrupt or unqualified) that has gained the upper hand in public opinion. Indeed, many senior officials in the federal government would view the very term political as pejorative.

— Paul Musgrave in Slate, 2 December 2008

Have the courage of your inconsistencies

So I say to Americans: if you want your young people to develop character, have the courage of your inconsistencies! Excoriate sin, especially in public places, but turn a blind eye to it when necessary.

— Theodore Dalrymple at City Journal (h/t Arts & Letters Daily)

Joe Biden’s economic advisor

He holds a Bachelors Degree in Fine Arts from the Manhattan School of Music; a Masters Degree in Social Work from the Hunter School of Social Work; a Masters Degree in Philosophy and Ph.D. in Social Welfare from Columbia University.

— Quoted by Banion King at SCSU Scholars

Industrial policy: GM’s magical plan

Now, the most obvious response to all of this is to say that I’m the fish at this table, because this is not a real business plan, but simply a political document. It exists to provide political cover to members of Congress. But if that’s the case, it’s an unintentionally beautiful illustration of why industrial policy fails. It’s both economically crucial and very hard to allocate capital well; that’s why people who are good at it make so much money. Businesses struggle to do this well, and they’re really trying. What do you think the odds are that this is a wise use of money, when the people involved are barely pretending to try?

— Jim Manzi at The American Scene

Others fear this

 Uncategorized  No Responses »
Dec 042008
 

This is obviously a media campaign more than news reporting. a) There has been a sudden spate of stories like this — obviously part of an orchestrated campaign. b) A crack investigative reporter would have learned that large numbers of students already go to community colleges because of economic pressures.

Some observers contend that most state schools are unlikely to adopt enrollment caps… But others fear that amid economic turmoil and declines in state tax revenues, the schools will have no choice. Would-be students would be forced to either forgo higher education or attend two-year community colleges, many of which face the same economic pressures.

— Reporter Robert Tomsho on page one of the Wall Street Journal, 3 December 2008

This suggests that the Big Three auto makers are missing out. They ought to threaten that if they don’t get a bailout they will be forced to put a cap on the number of cars they will allow people to buy.

But if the auto manufacturers and university administrators really want to put the fear of God into Congress, they should threaten that if they don’t get a bailout, they will campaign for a sustainable economic environment in which people can afford their products.

Quotes for 5 December 2008

 Bash the Messenger, Free markets  No Responses »
Dec 042008
 

Bailing the bailout

If he was serious about this, Hank Paulson would be escorted from Washington by U.S. marshals. … Mr. Bush, I had thought you were actually going to do what you said you were going to do with the $700 billion. You did not do it; your Treasury Secretary continues to audible at the line of scrimmage.

–Economist King Banion of SCSU Scholars, 13 November 2008

Interactive learning

How does “a virtual learning environment” differ from “interactive learning” (what learning isn’t “interactive”, come to that)…

—Sam Leith at Telegraph.co.uk 25 November 2008

Upcoming fad: blogs without headlines

The judge ruled that since the blog had a headline, that made it an online newspaper, and brought it within the law’s remit.

— John Ozimek at The Register, 26 September 2008

We’re up against 2-year-olds

…we have to start thinking about changing everything we’re up against….especially adults who use the word “safety” the way 2-year-olds use the word “No!”

— Free Range Kids

All the News that Fits

 Bash the Messenger  No Responses »
Dec 032008
 

Earlier today there were Google Top Stories about some substantial gains for Franken in the Minnesota recount. This had followed a long drought of Top Stories about the recount, ever since the news started turning sour for Franken. But tonight on Drudge I found a link to a story about some even more recent gains for the Coleman side. There is not a peep about that one in Google’s Top Stories.

For those who like parades, this is great. There are two competing parades, each with its own bandwagon.

Bailouts for mainline churches

 First Amendment  No Responses »
Dec 032008
 

Michelle Malkin says there is bipartisan talk of a bailout for the newspaper business in Connecticut. No, really. Yes, there have been spoofs about the need for newspaper bailouts, but in this case they really mean it.

What next? Bailouts for mainline Christian churches whose fat endowments are getting skinny? All in the spirit of the same First Amendment that covers the church as well as the press?

I wonder what these people think about the principle that there is no such thing as federal aid without federal control. But who knows, maybe that’s exactly what they want.

More campaign slogans

 Bash the Messenger  No Responses »
Dec 022008
 

I get a kick out of those people who say our presidential campaigns are too long, that they get tired of all the campaign ads. If anyone still thinks the campaign ever ends, s/he should read the campaign advertisement for Obama in today’s Boston Globe.

Headline: “Diverse security team is united in fighting terrorism“

Diverse. United. The modern versions of Motherhood and Apple Pie!

Revitalization = death watch

 Uncategorized  No Responses »
Dec 012008
 

Say, what? Why is a government corporation with murky ties to tax dollars spending money to build office space for a profitable corporation? (URL here.)

Battle Creek Unlimited announced today revitalization plans for downtown Battle Creek, which could amount to $86 million dollars.

Plans include a LEED-certified office building adjacent to Kellogg Company’s headquarters. The building, developed by McCamly Office and leased to Kellogg Company, would relocate approximately 600 Kellogg employees from the company’s Porter Street location to downtown by late 2010.

Other potential plans include infrastructure improvements, a research center, relocating and expanding the Battle Creek Area Math and Science Center downtown and a downtown fitness and recreation center. BCU is pursing public and private funding to support the revitalization, and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation could contribute up to $35 million to various aspects of the effort.

“Revitalizing our cities is a key component of our strategy to grow Michigan’s economy and create jobs, but it requires a strong partnership between public and private sectors,” Gov. Jennifer Granholm said in a statement. “I applaud Kellogg for its vision and generosity to make Battle Creek a dynamic city of the future.”

Why does a successful company like the Kellogg Company need to get into a “partnership between public and private sectors” to build office space? Why can’t it just build or lease its own office space like everyone else does? That kind of partnership is just a recipe for corruption. In fact, it is corruption on the face of it.

I’ve lived 30 years just outside of Battle Creek. There have been revitalizations of the downtown for as long as we’ve lived here, and the place is still dead. It’s been cleaned up a little since 30 years ago, and you no longer get quite the sense that it’s a ghost town with tumbleweeds blowing across the downtown mall, but there are now fewer places to shopping down town than there used to be. My hunch is that as long as there exists such an entity as Battle Creek Unlimited getting involved in revitalizations, it’s going to stay dead.

Finally, some election results!

 Bash the Messenger, Term limits  No Responses »
Nov 302008
 

I see from Google News that Al Franken isn’t doing so well in the Minnesota recount. There used to be a lot of recount stories in Google’s “Top Stories.” But when they dried up I suspected it was because Franken’s cause had taken a turn for the worst. Sure enough, a little digging behind the “Top Stories” showed that indeed, that’s what happened.

Similarly, you can know from the absence of any “Top Stories” about it that term limits did very well in referrendums in the last election. The ruling class doesn’t like term limits, which means Google isn’t going to do anything to call attention to the fact that the people like them. But Paul Jacobs gives us the information that the MSM doesn’t publish.

A more equal capitalism

 Regulation  1 Response »
Nov 302008
 

I don’t know if it’s allowed to blog about an article that’s over 10 days old, but I just came across one by Jim Manzi called “Factory Guy.” In the comments Jim in turn links to an article he wrote earlier this year: “A more equal capitalism: preserving the free-market consensus.” He summarizes the dilemma thusly:

So here we have our current economic situation: We are rich and economically successful, but increasingly unequal. If we give up the market-based reforms that allow us to prosper, we will lose by eventually allowing international competitors to defeat us; but if we let inequality grow unchecked, we will lose by eventually hollowing out the middle class and threatening social cohesion.

Conservatives and libertarians understand the first part of this, but have their heads in the sand about the 2nd. Because they won’t face reality, leftwingers eat their lunch at the polls, and then join with rich businesspeople in making the situation worse by enacting regulations and controls that make the rich richer and the poor poorer. (Milton Friedman explained how that part works.) Liberals have nothing to say about it, because there are no liberals.

Manzi explains the social cohesion part:

Absolute income equality, a.k.a. communism, is a poor goal, but if inequality becomes sufficiently extreme it undermines the social support required for a democratic and capitalist society to flourish. To take only the most obvious example, how much do you think high-income Americans would make in the absence of our armed forces? All of the material delights that we enjoy ultimately require men to stand watch all night looking through Starlight scopes mounted on assault rifles, and die if necessary, to protect the commercial, law-bound society that provides those delights. Would you do that for a millionaire hedge-fund manager who happens to live within a country that he considers some lines on a map, and who considers you a sucker for doing it? The United States is nowhere near such a dystopia, but it’s generally not a good idea to keep pulling bolts from an airplane in mid-flight just because it hasn’t crashed yet.

I’m not sure about the few suggestions Manzi gave for what to do about it, but I am extremely pleased that somebody who appreciates markets is discussing it at all. I have a few ideas of my own, but I don’t have the resources to give them the study they would require, and I have found nobody with whom to discuss them.

Conservatives and libertarians are hopeless. They won’t admit that there is a problem. And leftwingers fear and loathe markets so much that they can’t hear anything except reasons for why markets (i.e. choice) need to be shut down and control turned over the state.

You can’t get a discussion going of good vs bad regulation. All you get is regulation vs deregulation. At least that’s what I’ve been saying until now. But Manzi is providing a small ray of hope that it doesn’t need to be that way.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries