Ed,
Interesting reply, but you failed to deal with the 3 items I listed, instead choosing to talk about various straw men which don't have anything to do with my 3 examples. Also, although I use the terms anti-democratic and anti-capitalist, I don't use the term "un-American"--that's your term. Don't ascribe it to my prose, but feel free to use it yourself about whomever you wish.
Do you believe that drug companies, as opposed to other innovative and inventive sorts, should not get the patent protection afforded to those who create video games? Do you think that capital isn't free to choose its best locale for growth and profit? Do you think people will continue to fund pharma and medicine to the same extent as other areas if their returns are artificially restricted?
Do you think a property owner (the cemetery owner) should have the value of his property regulated away by the majority? There is a simple, constitutional solution for the property owner, of course: to have the town float a bond issue, raise money from all the participants (and beneficiaries) of a 50 acre public park and take it in an eminent domain condemnation proceeding. Why do you think that the town greens are not pursuing that avenue? I'll answer it for you: nobody really wants this guy's 50 acres if they have to pay for it, but they are happy/neutral to have it if they can steal it.
As to some of your list of issues:
What about tax breaks for capital expenditures? Which tax break? Immediate expensing? I'm generally in favor of costing out over a very conservative (short) useful life of anything. Many things have very short useful lives on a liquidation basis, and depreciation schedules should reflect that.
What about farm subsidies? Against them. But this is a political issue, not an economic one, right? Iowa and Vermont, in our system, have more clout on some issues than others. Conservatives actively dislike farm subsidies; I for one would reduce the Dept of Agriculture to a marketing group with about 80 employees, max.
What about regulation of securities on the exchanges? Sales and trading should be regulated--it's like driving on highways; it's unclear whether all the gazillions of dollars spent on registration (33 Act) stuff ever made or saved anyone a dime. Except for the plaintiffs lawyers; they have made a killing.
What about "oil incentives" for our large oil concerns?
Which incentives, how are they handled? In general, I'm against social policy being made by the tax code (including home mortgage deductions). I'm also against double taxation, and for simplicity of taxation: flat rate of 12% on all income, very few deductions, etc.
What about the whole federal reserve system of tinkering with the economy on a daily basis? The fed went off the reservation with AG trying to step in and band-aid every domestic and international issue that arises. When economic historians can finally get a view on 1995-2005 I believe they will see a tremendous amount of the pain came from Fed tinkering. The Fed was set up to preserve the integrity of the banking system, not to guarantee soft landings for the stock market.
The liberal solution to most issues has been, for about 40 years, to try to whip up their base against the demon of capital and capitalists and tax them into submission. Just check out the collected speeches of Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Tom Daschle.
The liberals were very surprised to find, in the Reagan years and after, that a huge part of their base had turned into mutual fund owning and stock owning and home owning capitalists, and that the rhetoric of class warfare would no longer play very far or very wide. The only card that still plays, at least with the right candidate, has been the race card. Maybe the power of that play is fading as well?
Kb |
