There
is always Joker to see through the delusion.
― Jostein Gaarder
Delusion:
a false belief or opinion.
Same old same old every day
if things don't change you're just gonna rot
Cause if you do what you've always done
you'll always get what you always got
Uh could that be nothin'
Delusion: Psychiatry.
A fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual
fact.
With that as foundation…
A
Six-Point Plan to Restore Economic Growth and Prosperity, By John Mauldin
and Stephen Moore
Mauldin and Moore offer their prescription for economic
growth, via this op-ed for the Investor’s Business Daily. I probably would not have bothered to
comment, except that Stephen Moore represents (I think, but I am not sure) the
“freedom” position in the Dream Debate of the Century (as Paul
Krugman represents the other half of this mainstream-allowable festival of
freedom).
Introducing the characters: why jokers, and why
delusion? Let me explain….
Austrians, and their close cousins the libertarians, are
considered jokers; living in a land of utopia, liquidationists, don’t they know
the world is full of bad guys, it has never worked anywhere before, blah, blah,
blah.
The delusionists?
Anyone who believes that playing with the fringes of the current system
will change anything; further delusional, that anything meaningful can change
within the current system. This has been tried before, and failed
spectacularly every time.
David Stockman, Jim Grant, and Peter Schiff can be
considered jokers; call Mauldin and Moore delusional.
For
me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in
delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
― Carl Sagan
From the op-ed:
The dismal news of 0.2% GDP growth
for the first quarter only confirmed that the US is in the midst of its slowest
recovery in half a century from an economic crisis.
The two of us have met with several
[presidential] candidates and discussed tax reform and other economic growth
issues. We offer here some solutions of our own for them to consider.
The authors offer their prescription for a cure. In this will be found the delusion.
First:
Streamline the federal bureaucracy….
The president, with some flexibility, should require each agency to reduce the
number of regulations under its purview by 20%, at the rate of 5% a year.
In the history of the United States government, such a thing
has never come close to happening. Take
the Federal
Register:
…the Federal Register is the
official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies
and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential
documents.
Go ahead and click
on any one day of any one month of any one year. Get an eyeful. Not only does the Federal Register increase
daily, it is increasing
at an increasing rate.
Mauldin adds some thoughts not in the original op-ed:
Let’s be clear: in a society as
complex as ours, we need regulations.
Of course we do. The
question is, regulations provided and enforced how and by whom? The market can be quite effective at
regulation – it does this daily via the system of prices and profit and loss;
it does this through gain or loss of reputation. And it is not subject to regulatory capture.
It was the banks – perhaps the most highly (government) regulated
industry in the United States – that had to be rescued from the brink beginning
in 2007. This is typical of government
regulation.
Try the market; see if we end up in a situation of too big
to fail.
Delusion
detests focus and romance provides the veil.
― Suzanne
Finnamore
Second:
Simplify and flatten the income
tax. Make the individual income rate 20% (at most) for all income over $50,000,
with no deductions for anything.
Reagan tried this. Even granting a streamlining and efficiency
effect (which I do not), it didn’t last very long.
My
reality is it’s nighttime. The truth is I’m just blindfolded. How many people
live like me, in self-deluded darkness?
― Jarod Kintz
Third:
Replace the payroll tax with a business
transfer tax of 15%, which will give lower-income workers a big raise.
Companies would pay tax on their gross receipts, minus allowable expenses in
the conduct of producing goods and services.
They want to introduce a new tax, a type of value-added tax.
Now, instead of being taxed only on
profits, all enterprises will be taxed whether profitable or not. They do not suggest that a consumption tax is
introduced only if all other taxes are
removed (not that I would feel any better about this); they suggest it in addition to current tax schemes.
From Mauldin, when considering a consumption tax rate high
enough to eliminate other taxes:
No income taxes, no corporate
taxes, no Medicare taxes, no Social Security taxes. No tariffs. Nothing. In a perfect economic world, I would adopt
that plan. Consumption taxes are far more economically efficient than income
taxes.
But in our discussion with a
variety of players, we found that the appetite for getting rid of all income
taxes is just not there. So we opted for a flat tax.
Consumption tax and
a flat tax; the worst of all worlds.
People
need to be educated so that they can make intelligent moral choices.
― Gary L.
Francione
Fourth:
Provide certainty by keeping tax
rates low through a tax-limitation constitutional amendment that would require
future tax increases to be passed by 60% of the Congress, in combination with a
balanced-budget amendment.
The root of the issue isn’t taxes, it is spending (and not
one item on the list addresses spending); every dollar spent by the federal
government is a wasted dollar, a dollar taken from the productive economy. Wages are stagnant, disposable income is
stagnant, job growth is stagnant – all with the same root cause: investment has
shifted away from the productive sectors of the economy and toward the
non-productive sectors of the economy via government largesse. This shift has been uncontrolled ever since
1971.
As to a balanced budget amendment, whatever exceptions that
the amendment offers (and rest assured, there will be exceptions) will suddenly
become a permanent condition of America.
There will certainly be an exception for “time of war.” Guess what will be a permanent
condition? Well, nothing new – in other
words, no balanced budget amendment.
My
father taught me that you can you read a hundred books on wisdom and write a
hundred books on wisdom, but unless you apply what you learned then its only
words on a page. Life is not lived with intentions, but action.
― Shannon L. Alder
Fifth:
Roll back the regulatory state.
Recognize that many federal agencies are still mired in the mid-20th century if
not the 19th. It's time to design a regulatory system that fosters jobs and
growth while protecting citizens.
This isn’t much different from the first
recommendation. Other than a couple of
moves by Jimmy Carter, I don’t think anything like this has happened in the
adult lifetime of any living American. And
maybe not in the life of any dead American either.
Mauldin adds:
I am most definitely in favor of a
drug regulatory authority. It is absolutely critical to the safety of the
public.
America is perhaps the most chronically over-drugged society
on earth. This is a result of the belief
in drug regulation (in all of its forms) by government.
But we need to design one from
scratch that is capable of functioning in today’s scientific world and
delivering drugs and therapies in a timely and cost-effective manner.
Government regulation can never a) keep up with market
developments, and b) be more effective and efficient as market regulation.
I
beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
― Oliver Cromwell
Sixth:
Drill for America's domestic energy
and use the royalties on federal lands to retire the debt and/or fund needed
infrastructure repair instead of raising taxes.
No need for the “and/or.”
The “or” will suffice – there will be no retiring the debt until the
markets force this action. Anyway, tried…and
failed:
After the 1973 oil crisis, the
United States Department of Energy and Synthetic Fuels Corporation were created
to address the problem of fuel import dependency.
Setting aside the foolishness of such an objective, just one
more failure on the infinitely long list of government failures resulting in
perpetual funding for the bureaucracy in question. Nice incentive system.
When
enough insane people scream in harmony that they really are healthy, they can
actually start to believe themselves. Or put even more simply: people with
overlapping delusions get along wonderfully.
― Daniel Mackler
Murray
Rothbard rightly describes the libertarian (and I suggest this applies to
the Austrian as well) as realistic and the delusionists as utopians:
The libertarian is also eminently
realistic because he alone understands fully the nature of the State and its
thrust for power. In contrast, it is the
seemingly far more realistic conservative believer in “limited government” who
is the truly impractical utopian. This
conservative keeps repeating the litany that the central government should be
severely limited by a constitution…. The idea of a strictly limited
constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most
favorable and propitious circumstances….No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist,
the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands
of the central government and then says, “Limit yourself”; it is he who is
truly the impractical utopian.
The delusionists are those who believe that the current
system can be reformed, made more efficient, streamlined. The delusionists believe that government
bureaucracies act on market-like incentives.
The delusionists believe that those in government bureaucracy can be
convinced to reduce their role and influence.
The delusionists believe that the president is in control of the bureaucracies. The delusionists believe that government
bureaucracies are led by good people just trying to do the right thing. The delusionists believe that individuals,
acting as central planners, are even capable of identifying the right thing to
do.
God, give us more jokers.
(Source for all quotes regarding delusion)
I posted your link in comments as it relates.
ReplyDeleteSTAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Fishermen Flout Law, Save Lives
By Philippe Gastonne - June 05, 2015
- See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/36336/Fishermen-Flout-Law-Save-Lives/#.dpuf
Thankyou.
I posted in two places in link I sent you. One pertains to brain drain opportunities that are squelched, response to latest comment and second as it relates to my unidentified misgivings on the Swiss model until now!
ReplyDeleteThankyou Bionic
AtlasAikido
Thank you!
DeleteJokers, or Cassandras. We always know what the results of any government policy will be, but no one ever believes us.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you, PB. Even when our predictions come to pass, they do so most times at such a slow pace and with such minimal disruption that no one seems to mind the changes. The Fabians were oh-so-savvy in choosing the turtle as their symbol, relying on the normalcy bias within most of the population to just sit there and shrug at the latest affront. Honestly, if the nation were stopped at the tracks by Jefferson's "long train of abuses", it would be generations before they saw the caboose, and then they'd cheer and go on their merry way!
DeleteOn the occasion that I offer up to others a dire prediction for ourselves or our posterity, I usually get the "I'll be dead by then" response, which succinctly sums up a candid look into the human condition, wherein those freedoms to be cherished turn out to be a sort of bargaining chip for the advancement of goods and services while the gettins' good.
When will they wake up? Well, let’s look at the now defunct Soviet Union. The people there would sit around their ramshackle abodes, wallowing in paranoia, listening to the latest promises and 5-year-plans over their radios and TVs, if functioning, and head out to stand in long lines for the occasional nonspecific freebie. The whole thing came crashing down and STILL there were those who wanted it back. As Gerry Spence put it, "Faced with the pain of freedom, man begs for his shackles." Better the devil you know, right?