Utopia, Do Not Enter

People who claim to know the ultimate, perfected state of society are dangerous maniacs.  This claim is in the same category as perpetual motion and quack cures for cancer, only more dangerous.  The patient may choose his own treatment, but a utopian will foist his delusion on us all.

Obviously, if you are working to bring about paradise on Earth, you have a license to kill.  Utopia is worth any sacrifice of human dignity.

This has been going on from Aristotle to Marx, and the victims never wise up.  When Plato writes about his “philosopher king,” whom do you suppose he has in mind?  We must have the gold people to rule over the bronze people, the shepherds to lead the flock.  That’s right – the flock.  Sheep.

Marx claimed that his utopia was the inevitable result of inexorable “laws of history” that he, alone, had discovered.  LOL.  Gee, Karl, if it’s inevitable, maybe we don’t need to put quite so many people in the gulag!  Utopia probably doesn’t need a barbed wire fence to keep people from escaping.

Perfect societies like Aristotle’s usually depend on a caste system, which the inventor has to justify.  In fairness to Marx, he was hoping for some kind of self-organizing collective.  In practice, though, you get the Party, and the Party rules just like any other despot.

The needs of society outweigh the rights of the individual.

The first thing to consider when you read this stuff – especially if you are reading it in school – is the plight of someone not born into the ruling class.  Would you have any kind of social mobility?  Would you have any free will at all?  Often, the answer is simply “no.”

Individuals exist to serve the greater good.  The metaphor of a beehive is invoked, which sounds lovely until you actually think about it.  Fascists love to say that “the needs of society outweigh the rights of the individual.”  This is great if you are the one implementing the needs of society – not so great for the individual whose rights are outweighed.

Individual freedom must be the basis of any just society.  Beyond that are philosophical questions about where individuals’ rights may conflict, how much power to delegate to the government, etc.  The real work lies in creating institutions that appropriately safeguard the rights of the people, joint and several, and then revising the institutions over time.

This is an incremental, and difficult, process wherein society may improve steadily over time.  Anyone who has worked at it will tell you that “better than before” is sufficiently grand.  Someone claiming to know the ultimate answer is either clinically insane – or a charlatan.

Leave a comment

Filed under Liberty

Allegiance to the Flag

Nationalism is on the march, and not only in America.  Britain wants to leave the EU, and Scotland wants to leave Britain.  Across Europe, nation states are erecting barriers as they come to disagree with immigrations policy made in Brussels.

It’s nice to see the nationalists have their day, if only because the globalists have been on top since the Clinton administration.  To be honest, nationalism has a poor record.  It is associated with ugly tendencies like xenophobia and war.  On the other hand, globalism is the enemy of democracy.

The larger any government’s span of control, the less responsive it is … and the sums available for graft are larger.

You can see undemocratic processes at work today in Brussels and Washington.  Now imagine if the whole world were ruled out of Davos.  The policies go by different names, but globalism is a coherent movement with its own leaders and institutions.  The Council on Foreign Relations thinks that Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. should be a single administrative unit.  That’s no secret.  They published a white paper, and then we got NAFTA.

It is important to understand the tension between globalism and nationalism.  President Obama is on the record as a globalist.  This is why he recently visited London and advocated for Britain to stay in the European Union.  It is also why The Economist always, always labels nationalist parties in Europe as “racist,” “neo-Nazi,” or at least “far right extreme.”

Jeremiah, as you know, eschews labels and generalizations.  There is a balance to be achieved between national sovereignty and global institutions.  Free trade, for example, has lifted millions out of poverty.  Even as Americans have lost jobs and earning power, we have gained access to cheap foreign goods.  The right balance is one struck by negotiation among self-interested leaders of sovereign states.

Democracy works better at smaller scales.  British voters can be reasonably confident of influencing policy in London.  In Brussels, not so much.  Not only immigrations policy, but monetary policy, environmental and trade regulation, and foreign policy are made there, “one size fits all,” for Europe.

The larger any government’s span of control, the less responsive it is.  Leaders are physically more distant, and the sums available for graft are larger.  The right solution is smaller units of government, delegating strictly limited responsibilities to a federal system – kind of like our Constitution.  Does anybody still read that?

Leave a comment

Filed under Liberty

The Panama Papers

713a3bf3b4f11189c343857ff640f697There is much to be learned from the famous “Panama Papers,” both in their content and in the manner of their disclosure.  The superficial reading, widely published, is that lots of bad people used a certain Panamanian law firm to help hide their ill-gotten wealth.

Naturally, we presume that everyone with a foreign bank account is at least engaging in criminal tax evasion, and probably stole the money to begin with.  The presumed criminals in this case include, not Russian President Putin himself, but his “close associates.”

One theory is that the attempt to smear Mr. Putin was so amateurish that it must have been planned, counterintuitively, by Russian intelligence.

Bank accounts not readily available for confiscation (remember Cyprus) are always in “offshore tax havens,” which has that wonderful Pirates of the Caribbean ring to it.  The mere fact of Mitt Romney owning a blind trust in the Caymans was enough to smear him as a tax dodging fat cat.  A blind trust, hello!  Does anybody on CNN even know what that is?

Here is an editorial in the Wall Street Journal reminding us that, for many of the nationalities featured in los papeles, honest people move their money offshore because their government is corrupt.  Simon Black takes this a step further, warning ordinary Americans to take their money offshore.

Last year, the US government stole more money and private property from its citizens through civil asset forfeiture than all the thieves and felons in the country combined.

The legal issue in each case is whether any tax laws were broken.  The more interesting issue, especially for public figures, is where they obtained the money in the first place.  This may also involve illegal, or at least suspicious, activity.

Oddly, few Western politicians have been implicated.  This could be the result of Western media controlling the disclosures, or our own crooks could simply be using a different law firm.

Some have suggested that this firm was targeted specifically because of its client list.  It is a referral business, after all.  One theory is that the attempt to smear Mr. Putin was so amateurish that it must have been planned, counterintuitively, by Russian intelligence – a “false flag leak,” if you will.

The one indisputable victim here is Panama itself.  The EU and the IMF have long wanted to crack down on Panama as a “tax haven,” as they have previously cracked down on Switzerland.  Financier George Soros supports global tax regulation, and he also supports the agency that broke the story, the ICIJ.

You know this was the motive because the first thing printed in The Economist was a call for – get this – a global registry of beneficial owners.  Do you really think the global tax police will be looking for their own masters’ money?  No, no, no, querido.  They will be looking for your money.

See also:  New World Currency

Leave a comment

Filed under Justice

Alien Invasion

You fled the daily dangers of a threadbare dictatorship – the violence, the corrupt officials, and the armed factions. You came here in search of a better life, to find work, and safety, and a future for your children. No one can blame you for that. We welcome you, but with some trepidation.

Immigration without assimilation is just another name for “invasion.”

We fear that you will import the very attitudes and beliefs that made a wreck of your former home. Maybe not you, personally, but many of your kind seem to reject our culture and our way of life. Worse, they affect a moral superiority, as if they are the righteous ones and we are somehow evil because we have been successful.

We fear that, once you have the numbers, you will recreate your native laws and institutions. Stop and think about that, for a moment. It will not serve your interests to make in our home a replica of the very system which you have fled. You would only be carrying the seeds of your own (and our) destruction. If you can’t grasp that, maybe you don’t belong here. Maybe you should go back to California.

Leave a comment

Filed under Liberty

Dependency Ratio

Jeremiah sees red whenever he reads about the dependency ratio. China must engineer a baby boom, so that they will have enough young workers to support a billion retirees. Europe must admit hordes of migrants, in hopes they will pay into the retirement fund. Economists talk about the dependency ratio as if it were an iron law of demographics, and it’s not. It is merely the artifact of a badly designed retirement program.

Despite the term “trust,” the Social Security system contains nothing that remotely resembles the common law trust. It is merely a system of taxation and appropriation sprinkled with trust terms – John Attarian

The dependency ratio only matters because Social Security, and other systems around the world, are passthru systems. Workers paying into it today are paying directly to those who have already retired. These retirees, in turn, have spent their working lives supporting someone else. The system needs at least two workers for every retiree, which means an ever-expanding workforce.

This is an absolutely insane proposition on which to base a retirement system. If the workforce actually doubled every generation, the population boom would overwhelm the planet. More likely, some generation soon will decide to stuff it. That will leave Jeremiah, having paid into the system all his life, holding the bag. It is literally a Ponzi scheme.

The correct design, of course, is to accumulate the contributions over time, so that the cohort drawing benefits in any given year is roughly the same cohort that paid in. This decouples the system from the vagaries of demographics. Whatever boom or bust in the workforce today, will be matched to the later demands of their retirement.

Retirement2

This design would also allow the fund to invest in high yielding projects over long timeframes. A national retirement program should be a big winner, not the bankrupt loser we have. For comparison, look at Singapore’s Temasek, the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, or Berkshire Hathaway.

Far from being “worthless IOUs,” the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government – Social Security Administration

The solution for China, just starting down the slope with a 1:3 ratio, is to implement an accumulating system instead of a passthru one, and not plan on a workforce of 3 billion. For our Western welfare states, the old system must be phased out – so as not to strand Jeremiah – and replaced with a new one.

This means America will need political leaders who can handle a trillion dollar fund, and resist the temptation to pillage it for “emergencies.” Our track record is not promising.

See also: For the Last Time, the Social Security Trust Fund is Real

Leave a comment

Filed under Economy

Demonize Sloppy Accounting

The Economist describes Bernie Sanders’ candidacy as the biggest-ever student prank. It was certainly amusing watching his interview with Bill Maher, wherein both tried heroically to “undemonize” socialism. Regular readers know that Jeremiah takes a nuanced view of socialism, allowing for redistribution but debunking the statist agenda.

Mr. Maher made the point that Social Security, Medicare, et alia are “socialist” programs – and we like them, so socialism is groovy, right? Well, no. These programs have epic problems, which could be fixed using free market methods. See How to Control Health Costs, for example.

bad_math

The important thing is to talk about specific policies, regardless of the demonic label, and this is where Sen. Sanders went badly wrong. He repeatedly used the charlatan’s formula, “we can pay for X by taxing Y,” where X is a free pony and Y is something we don’t understand. Like, we can pay for free college by taxing speculation on Wall Street. Yes, he actually said that. Cue cheers from the college kids (except the finance majors).

The right way to analyze this proposal is by splitting it, just as you would split a transaction in double entry accounting. If free college is a good idea, then the funding side can be considered separately. If taxing “speculation” is feasible, then we should do it anyway and reduce the deficit.

Free college might not be a good idea, if costs continue to rise and quality continues to fall, as they have been doing under the current subsidized (but not free) system. The likeliest outcome is that employers will respect a state college degree even less than they do today, if such a thing is possible. This is not to pick on free college, but merely to show that universal free stuff is not always a good idea.

Turning to the funding side, we should definitely tax those bad speculators on Wall Street. They’re the folks who make the price of heating oil go up in the winter. We should put a big fat Tobin Tax on them. What could go wrong?

2 Comments

Filed under Economy

Eating the Golden Goose

SwedenThe Mises Institute has a rundown on Swedish socialism. It’s a good example of why policy should be informed by the whole picture, and not tabloid stereotypes. The article shows that the Swedish economy had historically been very successful, and was harmed by its socialist policies.

It is a mistake to draw conclusions from any nation’s experience at a point in time, without considering the trend. Sweden’s past success carried it for many years after the fatal policies were implemented. The comments to the article are good, too, from many people with firsthand experience.

Nordic Socialism has frozen a once entrepreneurial and prosperous people in time.

This line about freezing the economy at a point in time is reminiscent of Jeremiah’s Freeze-Frame Economics. Socialists implicitly believe that the nation’s productive capacity will run on unchanged, and unimpeded by their redistribution program.

Leave a comment

Filed under Economy