Was the American Revolution Really about Taxes?

Anti-Statism, War
By / / 3 Comments / 6 minutes of reading
Share

Albert Esplugas blogs the following magnificent quote from Niall Ferguson’s Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power:

Schoolchildren and tourists are still taught the story of the American Revolution primarily in terms of economic burdens. In London, the argument runs, the government wanted some recompense for the cost of expelling the French from North America in the Seven Years War, and of maintaining a 10.000 strong army to police the disgruntled Indians beyond the Appalachian mountains, who had tended to side with the French. The upshot was new taxes. On close inspection, however, the real story is one of taxes repealed, not taxes imposed.

(…) In January 1770 a new government in Britain, under the famously unprepossessing Lord North, lifted all the new duties except the one on tea. Still the protests in Boston continued.

…

Was the American Revolution Really about Taxes?Read More »

Was the American Revolution Really about Taxes? Read Post »

America’s ‘Lost Decade’ continues

Business Cycles, Statism
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

I was looking at the new earnings data released by the BLS this morning, which shows real average income for all workers declining 0.6 percent year over year. Realistically speaking, this means that earnings are flat for people with jobs. People without jobs, who aren’t included in the survey, are likely much worse off in general.

We might also keep in mind that when making year over year comparisons, that March 2009 was just a few months after the panic of 2008, so to have had so little improvement compared to the early months of 2009 is a grim commentary indeed.

Also, when thinking about household debt, unemployment, and continued increases in the price of gasoline (which rose 15 percent over the last 6 months), household budgets in America are in extremely dire straits.

If this were only a short term phenomenon, it would be one matter, but when looking at what has happened over the past decade, the continued malaise is really just more of the same in spite of the fact that it was masked by a brief bubble in the middle of the decade.

For example, American median household income in 1998 (adjusted for inflation) was $51,295. Ten years later, in 2008, it was $50,303. Over the same period, household debt increased 139 percent.

Now come the years of de-leveraging with stagnant incomes, which will be painful.

America’s ‘Lost Decade’ continues Read Post »

Gene Patent Absurdity

IP Law, Science, Technology
By / / 5 minutes of reading
Share

Those without any sound principles about rights and economics are totally confounded by the issue of gene patents. The author of “The absurdity of patenting genes,” in The Guardian, for example, first observes, “Patents are a sensible idea, because people are more likely to invest in innovation …”. But on the other hand, “patents also act as a barrier to innovation, and gene patents bring these disadvantages into stark relief.” So, patents are sensible, because they stimulate innovation … yet they also hamper innovation. Mmm-hmm.

Libertarians, however, having a better understanding of the nature of property rights, are increasingly recognizing that all patents are unjust (see my The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide). And something about gene patents–having the state grant monopolies on the way our genes are configured–is especially galling. Thank goodness this is being fought by the heroic David Koepsell, who is producing the anti-gene patent documentary Who Owns You? (see also Koepsell – Quinn “Debate” on Gene Patents; David Koepsell: Another Austrian-Influenced IP Opponent). And it’s also good that a federal trial court recently ruled against gene patents, in Association for Molecular Pathology and ACLU v. USPTO and Myriad (see Federal Court Invalidates Breast Cancer Gene Patent, Ronald Baily, Reason‘s Hit & Run; Court: Essentially All Gene Patents Are Invalid, Patently-O). …

Gene Patent AbsurdityRead More »

Gene Patent Absurdity Read Post »

Name That Principle

Anti-Statism
By / / 4 Comments / 4 minutes of reading
Share

It’s not merely important to have principles, it’s important to name them.

Name them well.

One of the central insights of the French Liberal School of economics — and, since that school’s heyday, all of free-market economics — has not, to my knowledge, been given a technical name. Or, at least, a technical term that’s good enough. The principle in question is that of overlooking the unseen effects of an event or a policy in favor of the immediate, positive effects on the chief beneficiary. Bastiat wrote about it in “That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen.” Classic essay.

The basic notion has been recently described in a fairly rigorous way as the problem of dispersed costs and concentrated benefits. Surely someone has called this The Principle of Dispersed Costs and Concentrated Benefits, or somesuch. But I’m not aware of a pithier academic formulation that sticks. In my head, anyway.

And, getting it to stick is important. People forget, otherwise. And what’s the use of a principle that people forget?

So I’ve reformulated the problem as a cognitive bias …

Name That PrincipleRead More »

Name That Principle Read Post »

The Perils of Giving Presidents Credit

Science, Taxation, Technology
By / / 1 Comment / 2 minutes of reading
Share

Co-blogger Ryan McMaken is quite right to give President Obama credit for cutting the space program.

Sadly, however, it looks like Obama is already backing down on those cuts.

No surprise there. If Obama thinks it’s okay to spend trillions on everything else, how can he justify cutting this? It’s not like budget constraints have meant anything to him otherwise. In Obama’s world, if something is important, then you spend government money on it without regard for the budget (much less the impropriety of spending other people’s money). So when he comes under fire, what can he do? Say that he doesn’t think space travel (or science) is important? Of course not.

Under a new proposed compromise, the government will still build the Orion rocket that it had intended to use for new moon missions — it just won’t send it to the moon. Instead, the Orion will go to the space station and then just sit there in case we ever need it as an “escape pod.” (Really.) That way we can still show our commitment to space and science and stuff, and the military-industrial complex and NASA employees will still get paid.

But what about all the expense? Not to worry. The WSJ informs us that by not scrapping the Orion program, Obama “will help Lockheed and the government avoid significant termination costs associated with shutting the Orion project down.”

Phew! Glad we taxpayers (and especially Lockheed Martin!) will now avoid all those costs of… not spending anymore.

(Cross-posted at LRC.)

The Perils of Giving Presidents Credit Read Post »

Scroll to Top