by | BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY
A company will try to use its available funds to best improve its business, such as by expanding its operations, hiring additional workers, opening new factories and offices, research & development including creating new products, paying down debt, or acquiring new companies. But when it decides that it has more money than it could put to good use in its business, it can use the money in various ways. It could pay dividends. But another option is to buy back some of its shares on the open market. But progressives somehow believe that they know better about a company than the company itself and want to dictate what a company can choose to do with its own cash, especially with regard to buybacks.
What seems like a rather mundane topic for the average person is actually very important, particularly because several progressive Democrats such as Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders are threatening to prevent buybacks and will soon be in a strong position to influence policy. Unfortunately, because they are so economically ignorant, their policies could have a negative impact on the broader economy.
In a widely-publicized NYTimes Op-Ed last year, Schumer and Sanders penned a missive against buybacks, calling them “corporate self-indulgence.” Their solution is a bill to forbid buybacks unless and until companies first do things such as “paying all workers at least $15 an hour, providing seven days of paid sick leave, and offering decent pensions and more reliable health benefits.” In other words, Schumer and Sanders openly demand these preconditions to be met before a company can even engage in a buyback program. They have decided that they know better about a company’s needs more than the companies themselves. The hubris here is astounding.
A company has a duty to use its money in the most responsible and productive way possible. Getting the most out of available resources creates the best possible outcome for the economy, the company, and its workers. For instance, if the best use of money is to expand and increase R&D in its industry or build more shops or hire more workers, they will do it. But if this option is not worthwhile, that is, will not produce an adequate return on investment – for reasons such as a lack of growth in the industry or excessive government regulation – then the best option may be to buyback shares or pay dividends. In doing so, they are taking cash out of the company to give to the shareholders who will look for better opportunities. Sometimes this option is absolutely necessary in order to make the company stay both relevant and solvent for the sake of the company and its workers.
Freedom is at stake here, both philosophically and economically. Not only should a company have the freedom to do what it wants with its own money, but it won’t have the freedom to grow if the government is interfering, rather than allowing the free market figure out where to go. This is the worst of both worlds. Buybacks are an important tool despite those who wish to restrict buybacks under some progessive bloviations not rooted in economic reality.
by | BLOG, COVID, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS
The current national moratorium on evictions (which is likely to be extended yet again) is problematic for several reasons. The CDC (of all agencies) issued its rule without any particular act of Congress granting it the power to do so under the auspices of a generic “public health and safety” threat. What’s more, the federal eviction ban essentially overtakes any and all existing laws between tenants and landlords at the state level.
Because of the moratorium, landlords are now unable to follow any due process it has with regard to removing a tenant who has not kept up his or her end of their housing contract. Furthermore, landlords have no recourse to replace or remove a tenant by legal means until the end of the moratorium, a date which keeps changing. If a landlord violates the moratorium, he faces fines and/or possible jail time.
But perhaps the most egregious aspect of the eviction moratorium is that landlords are still responsible for maintaining payments to their banks and mortgage lenders on their rental properties. In fact, in some parts of the country, lenders have the ability to foreclose on them because they are not owner-occupied residences. What if the government told grocery store owners they had to provide their food for free as a means to alleviate hunger? Or tell a doctor he has to treat people for free as a means to provide universal access to medical services. How is it that the government is allowed to tell one set of citizens that you cannot enforce your own contracts and must provide services for free, while simultaneously not providing any sort of restitution for the hardship?
This moratorium has created intense and immediate deprivation for property owners who now bear the burden of property ownership without means to carry out or modify existing rental contracts. Essentially, the government is engaging in a massive, unconstitutional wealth transfer from one constituent to another. The eviction moratorium is a blatantly unconstitutional abuse of power.
by | BLOG, ELECTIONS, HYPOCRISY, POLITICS
I was disappointed that a black socialist anti-Semite became a Senator of the United States. While it is well known that he is a progressive and socialist, it’s even more troubling that he is openly anti-Semitic.
In 2019, he signed a letter with other clergy members describing “the heavy militarization of the West Bank, reminiscent of the military occupation of Namibia by apartheid South Africa.” Likewise, during a sermon in 2018, he proclaimed, “We saw the government of Israel shoot down unarmed Palestinian sisters and brothers like birds of prey.” And yet, the very same time, Warnock has been virtually silent on Hamas.
To the extent that racial bias exists in our system today, one thing is clear: 92% of Georgia black voters supported this anti-Semitic socialist. This result would seem to be clear evidence of true racism – that voters can ignore the openly outrageous policies and positions of a candidate and support him solely based on his skin color. Otherwise, how could anyone actually support Warnock?
by | BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT
There is a renewed push for ending qualified immunity especially since the unrest earlier this summer. Qualified immunity affords police officers protection from litigation for their actions in pursuit of the law, while immunity is lost if an officer violates a citizen’s constitutional rights. At least, that is what qualified immunity was before it metastasized into a near entitlement shield for officers and other public officials. Qualified immunity does not need to be abolished but it should definitely be qualified. It needs to be turned around to what it originally meant, not what decades of SCOTUS rulings has made it to be.
by | BLOG, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM
When we have a generation of voters who take their policy lessons from a person who believes that billionaires shouldn’t exist, we are in trouble. What’s more, she boasts of having an economics degree but her ideas are not rooted in reality. Let’s take a look at some of her more unorthodox economic positions:
- Green New Deal: AOC created a sweeping bill that puts the environment impact as the basis for economic policy. Not only is this inherently anti-free-market, her objectives of addressing climate and economic inequalities are completely undermined by the staggering cost of her proposal. Estimates fluctuate wildly between a minimum $10 trillion and $93 trillion, which would obviously exacerbate economic inequality by massively increasing American’s debt load on the backs of the taxpayer.
- Socialism: While on the subject of the Green New Deal, did anyone notice 8B in her bill? “It is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal (8B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.” It is out-and-out socialism to insist that the government is the chief means of generating wealth and try to do so through policy.
- 70% Tax Rate: Shortly after taking office, AOC proposed a 70% tax rate on incomes over $10 million aimed at going after wealthy Americans for whom she has utter contempt. After all, during an interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates, AOC explained, “I’m not saying that Bill Gates or Warren Buffett are immoral, but a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong,” But she fails in understanding that Bill Gates or Warren Buffett has earned their wealth through the creation of millions of jobs and products that have improved the lives of Americans and lifted the economy. Yet a 70% tax rate will quite likely limit future entrepreneurs knowing that being successful results in confiscatory taxation.
- Rent Control: In an attempt to combat poverty through affordable housing, AOC has proposed a sweeping national rent control bill that would institute a cap of 3% or the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI), whichever is greater, for housing markets nationwide. But this is a classical example of price control; what’s more, it would exacerbate the problem of housing affordability that AOC purports to want to fix. Creating new housing (such as apartments) is the best way to help with affordability, but rent control would create scarcity; housing developers will certainly not build if there is a cap on the amount that could be charged to the consumer-renter.
- Investment tax breaks: AOC was viciously against tax incentives for Amazon when they attempted to set up a new, major headquarters in NYC. When New York offered a $3 billion temporary tax break that would result in the creation of 25,000 new jobs for New Yorkers, she proclaimed “If we’re willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district ourselves if we wanted to.” What AOC fails to grasp is that nothing was being given away as if there was $3 billion locked up somewhere. It’s merely taxes Amazon won’t have to pay on in the future, money that has yet to exist and now won’t at all. Even worse are the other benefits that won’t exist now that Amazon decided against New York: besides the 25,000 jobs (many likely going to people within her own district), there’s additional sales, income, and property tax revenue that would have been generated for New York. Of course, AOC later gloated about a “victory” when Amazon decided to simply expand some existing NY office space, adding about 1,500 new workers, as if that will grow the economy better than 25,000 would have.
AOC is indeed economically illiterate. The fact that so many people have such little understanding about economics themselves that they are not laughing her out of office for her ideas is even more troubling.
by | BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, HEALTHCARE, LAW
Certificate of Need laws, otherwise known as CON laws, are laws required in many states and some federal jurisdictions before proposed acquisitions, expansions, or creations of healthcare facilities are allowed. They are also absolutely ridiculous and entirely based entirely on cronyism. CON laws are irresponsible, damaging to the economy, and a prime example of an assault on economic liberty.
A recent report by Mercatus noted that “Nearly six decades ago, New York became the first state to enact a CON law for healthcare services. A decade later, the federal government mandated state implementation of CON laws in an effort to control healthcare costs, increase access to care, and improve quality. When early research suggested that CON laws were failing to meet these goals, the federal government repealed the mandate, but many states kept their CON laws on the books.”
The creation of CON laws themselves were supposedly based on some economic theory that restricting competition was going to be better for consumers, but in fact, it’s the opposite. This means that it’s cronyism, not economics that put these laws into place, and that it is cronyism, not economics, that is keeping these laws intact all these years.It’s worth noting that even the federal government realizes that CON laws are terrible. They ignore basic economic principles, that when you restrict competition you get higher, not lower prices. Even though the feds undid their CON laws, the states did not, which means that the states were bent on cronyism, which was the real reason for the laws in the first place.
Ultimately, CON laws are unconstitutional because of their inherent economic favoritism. There’s no reason why some liberties should be treated differently than economic liberty and the right to earn a living should not be considered as fundamental as other rights. CON laws and their cronyism should be eliminated.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, COVID, ECONOMY, POLITICS
Alan Blinder is a distinguished economist who insists on misleading the public about economic matters. The latest affair is found in Blinder’s Op-Ed, “A Speedy Recovery Depends on More Aid: Will Trump Deliver?” wherein Blinder deliberately misleads his readers about the economy and the road to recovery. Here are some of his statements:
- “Mr. McConnell is a roadblock to more relief funds.” It wasn’t McConnell, but Pelosi who refused to talk. McConnell put forth a relief package but because it did not include the extra state and local bailout funds desired by Pelosi, Pelosi would not even consider it. Yet, Blinder omits this. The assertion that McConnell is the one who is a “roadblock” is not only a difference of opinion, it’s an outright lie.
- “Senators and the public need to understand that it was CARES and the rest that propped up the economy “artificially” as the virus was pulling it down.” The economy is not artificially propped up. It is well on it’s way back to where it was prior to COVID. In fact, just a paragraph prior to this one, Blinder notes that the recovery has been V-shaped, yet he suggests here that the relief given by CARES somehow wasn’t real relief. And if relief packages are indeed “artificial props”, why does he want another one? But what’s even worse is that Blinder, an economist mind you, believes so much in the CARES Act, but if anything, CARES restricted economic growth in the economy by paying people not to work and reducing incentives to work, so the recovery that we have experienced is despite the CARES Act, not because of it.
- “Americans are suffering from the tragic results of the Trump administration’s malign neglect of the virus.” Nothing could be more politically upside down. Trump was the first to restrict travel while the Dems screamed it was wrong to do so. Likewise, his vaccine programs have been aggressive enough to produce multiple vaccines that are now being implemented in the public. Blinder puts the blame on Trump, yet it was the states, not Trump, who imposed the lockdowns — many excessive and some still ongoing — that have shuttered industries and businesses. Some of these will never recover, yet the economic consequences of prolonged shutdowns are real, and rest squarely on the shoulders of states.
- “State and local governments, which are on the front lines in the battle against the virus, urgently need several hundred billion dollars in federal aid. They must balance their budgets.” Here’s the biggest falsehood. Blinder fails to mention that many states and local governments were in economic dire straits prior to COVID as a result of profligate spending and fiscal mismanagement, and this irresponsibility directly affects those particular governments’ recovery efforts today. The states with the biggest budget problems pre-COVID are the ones begging for the biggest bailouts. They are also the ones who have implemented some of the harshest and irrational lockdowns that have made things even worse. What’s more, these same governments have steadfastly refused to institute common sense restrictions on themselves such as freezing pay, furloughing workers, etc. It’s egregious, but Blinder just wants to paper over that part by calling for “balanced budgets.” None of these people who spent recklessly never cared for balanced budgets prior to now. And without changing spending habits nor making drastic cuts to the budget in the future will go right back to being in the hole.
- “These folks have pretty straightforward needs: cash income, food, shelter and health care. The federal government knows how to provide these things.” This is cringe-worthy. Blinder forgets that it’s the American people who are the source of economic prosperity and he forgets that it is their taxpayer money earned through hard work and ingenuity.
This article reveals that Blinder really is a shill for the Democrats, and used his column to mislead people into believing that bailing out states and local governments is the only way our economy is to be “saved.” But it makes virtually no economic sense to spend massive amounts of taxpayer funds to cover up fiduciary irresponsibility. It would be reckless for Congress to commit any more money to such endeavors. McConnell knows this. We know this. Just about everyone knows this except for those leaders and governments who have never shown themselves to be accountable with someone else’s money — which is how they got in their financial budget shortfalls in the first place.
Those are not leaders. Blinder does a disservice to his readers by espousing some of the worst economic fallacies that will ultimately hurt, rather than help, fellow Americans.
by | BLOG, ECONOMY, TAXES
One of the most outrageous and economically stupid measures to pass on Election Day came out of San Francisco: a new tax called the “Overpaid Executive Tax.” It’s really as bad as it sounds. This law levies a .1% surcharge on any company in San Francisco whose top executives earn 100 times more than the “typical worker.” It was enacted as a means to fight against pay inequality, but all it does is show how incompetent its proponents really are.
It’s worth noting that this tax applies to both publicly traded companies and private companies within San Francisco and it ensnares both local companies and large companies that conduct business within the city. What’s more, it’s completely arbitrary. What are you comparing when you say 100x or 200x the typical local worker? Does that mean on an hourly basis? Does it mean a part time typical worker compared to a high level overtime executive? Do you include overtime? Do you include benefits? It’s a virtually impossible number to calculate. And even if you did have a number to calculate, why is it 100x and not just 50x? Let’s say you compare a high tech company with a retail company such as a supermarket. The supermarket will have a lot of lower wage workers, whereas a tech company will have a lot of higher paid workers. It’s comparing apples to oranges in an effort to get someone to “pay their fair share.”
I hope this has the economically expected effect of them losing a lot of money and business, which is obviously the opposite of what San Francisco probably wants during a pandemic. Current companies will likely change their hiring plans to eliminate or reduce the amount of lower-lever/lower paid workers. Likewise, companies considering doing business in San Francisco will undoubtedly hesitate or entirely change their mind. Why do business in a locality that is particularly anti-business with such ridiculous rules. Furthermore, this surcharge is basically not a tax, it’s a forced donation (because those affected have the option of leaving if they want to). It puts a responsibility on the company to leave San Francisco because the tax affects all the shareholders of the company. This also means that any company that doesn’t leave San Francisco because the tax applies to them is someone who is ultimately abusing their shareholders to whom they have a fiduciary responsibility.
This tax is utterly meaningless and it just shows that people proposing this are so economically ignorant that they should be embarrassed. The problem is that the people on the Left who come up with such ridiculous ideas are never actually embarrassed by that ignorance.
