The proto-communists that seem to run the show whenever the economy hits a speedbump have been talking up a “windfall profits” tax for BigOil. I suppose this is a punishment for the oil companies… a victory for the proletariat over the evil empire.
The country has had a previous bad experience with “windfall profits taxes” on oil companies. In 1980, as a parting gift, President Jimmy Carter and Congressional Democrats imposed just such a tax.
The Congressional Research Service had “…found the windfall profits tax had the effect of decreasing domestic production by 3 percent to 6 percent, thereby increasing American dependence on foreign oil sources by 8 percent to 16 percent. A side effect was declining, not increasing, tax collections.”
While I am certainly not as concerned about “energy independence” as it seems that everyone else in America is, it certainly is not within America’s best interest to artificially increase our dependence upon oil imports.
Further, the revenues drained by these taxes handcuff the domestic oil industry’s ability to invest in exploration and development of new sources of oil (or potentially alternative energy sources).
According to Don Boudreaux,I probably have more change in my pocket than either major-party candidate would actually be able to bring to government. He argues that people’s fears and/or hope of “change” are ultimately irrational, and predicts that neither candidate will ultimately effect much of it.
I agree with him. Any “change” that results from this election will be minor and incremental, and there is unlikely to be much change from a Republicrat administration anyway. Even the GOP rallying cry of judicial appointments is something of a non-argument, as two full terms of an Obama presidency would be unlikely to shift the balance of the Supreme Court. The most likely Justices to be replaced are all from the liberal wing of the court, Stevens and Ginsburg.
Our friends in Canada have finally put the last nail in the coffin. While it is still legal to “sell” cigarettes, you’re no longer allowed to advertise that they are for sale. Under new regulations, harcore porn will have more visibility in the average convenience store than cigarettes.
Shop owners in a number of Canadian provinces are now required to completely hide tobacco products from their customer’s view. Keep reading →
He was apparently going to vote for his sister if she had obtained the Democrat’s nomination. Now that she is out of the picture, however, he is not necessarily going to support Obama.
Does that mean, Fiore asked, Rodham would vote for Republican John McCain?
“I didn’t say that. It could be Bob Barr,” he said, referring to the Libertarian presidential candidate who, as a House member from Georgia, was a prime player in the impeachment of Rodham’s brother-in-law, Bill Clinton).
On econlib.org, Benjamin Powell discusses sweatshop labor:
Contrary to his assertion, anti-sweatshop laws would make third world workers worse off by lowering the demand for their labor. As his testimony alludes to though, such laws would make some American workers better off because they would no longer have to compete with third world labor: U.S. consumers would be, to some extent, a captive market. Although Kernaghan and some other opponents of sweatshops claim that they are attempting to help third world workers, their true motives are revealed by the language of one of these pieces of legislation: “Businesses have a right to be free from competition with companies that use sweatshop labor.”
Ultimately Powell argues that sweatshops are better than many of the less-grueling alternatives, and that they are no different than the conditions in western countries during the industrial revolution.
Recently former-footballer (ok, Soccer…) and TV-Chef Gordon Ramsey demanded that real chefs and their real restaurants be forced to sell only locally-produced foods. Citing both a need for artistry in cooking (What could be more artistic than relying on whatever you can grow in Ramsey’s native Scotland in January…), as well as environmental concerns.
If diners cared much for artistry (and at the high-end, I suppose they would), then they would refuse to pay the high-prices of eating out at a restaurant with anyone less than a culinary Michelangelo. Making that concern, ultimately irrelevant.
…two Carnegie Mellon researchers recently broke down the carbon footprint of foods, and their findings were a bit surprising. 83 percent of emissions came from the growth and production of the food itself. Only 11 percent came from transportation, and even then, only 4 percent came from the transportation between grower and seller (which is the part that eating local helps cut).
Like the vast majority of Arizonans, I’m not a payday loan customer. But so long as payday loans are basically a commercial transaction between mutually willing parties, government’s first reaction should be to leave them alone.
A typical payday loan is short term and high risk. Someone with an urgent need for cash will borrow, say, $100 for two weeks and pay back $105. That’s an annualized interest rate of about 130 percent, which is what policymakers find repugnant.
But the transaction may make sense from the borrower’s perspective. He may need the money to repair his car, to keep up on child support payments, or who knows what. His options for loans are limited. Commercial banks aren’t interested in his business. Family may be tapped out.
As Byron Schlomach (also from the Goldwater Institute) points out:
While I agree with the Star that it’s not good for people to be using payday loans on a regular basis, I think the choice should be left to individuals, not government. Generally, it’s a bad idea to finance a business startup with credit cards. But I know a millionaire who did exactly that to get started in the highly competitive restaurant business. Just exactly what similar opportunities might be lost if payday loans are made illegal I can’t say. I can say with certainty, however, that they’re out there.
Why is it the government’s job to keep people from making bad decisions? And why should we forclose the opportunity to take such a risk when absolutely necessary?
While Barry Goldwater died in 1998, more than a few of us had hoped that a part of him would live on forever in the GOP’s platform.
As noted by E.M., there is a certain anti-libertarian movement growing in the GOP. With Rick Santorum as well as Mike Huckabee, vocally denouncing “this new-fangled libertarianism” that formed the basis for Goldwater’s conservative revolution, and inspired Ronald Reagan’s own brand of conservatism. Libertarianism is nothing new for the GOP, a party that was once proud to call Barry Goldwater “Mr. Republican.” Keep reading →
"No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" - United States Constitution, 5th Amendment.
The right to Life, Liberty and Property is the foundation of a free and prosperous society. By allowing a government to disregard those rights in any of it's endeavors we undermine our freedoms and often our economy.
