British Government Takes the Next Logical Step
You know how a lot of libertarians think a good reform would be for workers to get their full paychecks, and then write a check to the IRS? Well they’re proposing this–Bizarro-style–in Great Britain:
The UK’s tax collection agency is putting forth a proposal that all employers send employee paychecks to the government, after which the government would deduct what it deems as the appropriate tax and pay the employees by bank transfer.
The proposal by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) stresses the need for employers to provide real-time information to the government so that it can monitor all payments and make a better assessment of whether the correct tax is being paid.
Currently employers withhold tax and pay the government, providing information at the end of the year, a system know as Pay as You Earn (PAYE). There is no option for those employees to refuse withholding and individually file a tax return at the end of the year.
If the real-time information plan works, it further proposes that employers hand over employee salaries to the government first.
The Empirical Case Against Government Stimulus
Details here. Seriously, did I bust Krugman or did I not? I think the most a Keynesian could say after reading this is, “We have never really had a good test of our policy recommendations, in all of recorded history. But we still cling to the theory that government deficits are good for economic growth.”
European Data Bask
I am working on an op ed talking about fiscal austerity. I referred to the ECB’s June bulletin, which had listed several countries that improved their government debt position (through spending cuts) while experiencing even short-run economic growth.
The editor of Reuters wants to run the piece but asked me to give more specifics about the success stories, which the ECB bulletin–and even the paper it cites–doesn’t do.
I have looked at Eurostat but as far as I can tell, the data only go back to 2000.
Any ideas? At the very least, if I could get data (on GDP growth and government spending, by country) back to 1999, then I could focus on the Irish 2000 story. (Right now I can’t show how its spending changed, because I don’t have the 1999 base year.)
Truth Is True
I am finally back to Nashville after being away a week (in Vegas and then La Jolla). So this post may be a bit chaotic.
In the hotel in La Jolla I opened up the Bible conveniently placed in the drawers near the bed to find what is currently my favorite passage in the whole book (Job 28: 28): “And to man He said, ‘Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to depart from evil is understanding.'”
I have mentioned this passage in the past. It strikes me as utterly profound, for it links knowledge with morality. Although Hume’s fact/value dichotomy seemed obvious to me for more than a decade after I first heard it, I no longer think it’s correct–in fact I think “it comes from the devil” literally. (I’m not saying Hume was trying to deceive anybody, just saying that I think it is a pernicious doctrine.)
What’s really ironic about the alleged fact/value dichotomy is that it’s a mere assertion; the way you “blow it up” is simply to ask, “Says who?” (I am pretty sure David Gordon gets into all this stuff in his review of Philippa Foot, but I can’t find it now.) It’s akin to the falsifiability criterion for “scientific” statements. It sounds very plausible, but it’s an assertion.
I don’t have this fully fleshed out yet, but I think this ties in with the recent controversy over Stephen Hawking’s new book. The more I think about it, the more I really like what he (and his co-author) claim. It is really “neat” if the laws of physics themselves can’t help but birth the physical universe as we know it. That sounds very consistent with the notion that God spoke the universe into existence, and that the Word of the Lord is itself Truth.
The difference between my view and that of Hawking, is that Hawking thinks that these particular rules of quantum mechanics are one of an infinite set. The only reason we are standing around pondering, is that this is one possible universe out of an infinity, where the laws happen to be such as to allow the evolution of intelligent beings.
In contrast, I think that our universe is “fine-tuned” to support human life, because God designed it to support human life. On this score, both world views have the same explanatory power, and I’m not sure how to judge them vis-a-vis Occam’s Razor. Yes, it’s assuming a lot to say, “Suppose there is an omniscient, omnipotent, intelligent Being.” But by the same token, it’s assuming a lot to say, “Suppose there are an infinity of alternate realities with every conceivable set of laws of nature, even though in principle we can never observe any of them.”
But I think my theory has more explanatory power. Even if we just so happen to live in one of the infinity of universes that supports intelligent life, why is it that people think “there’s something out there that’s bigger than me”? Plenty of the wisest–note that I didn’t say smartest–humans who have ever lived, have been very spiritual.
In the conventional, rationalist atheist tradition, that seems like an anomaly. It’s like C.S. Lewis observed in his book Surprised By Joy. I’m paraphrasing from memory, but I am pretty sure Lewis said something to the effect that when he was an atheist, he found himself drawn to the great thinkers who had all been Christian. He loved everything about them, except of course for their “irrational” Christianity.
So I want to make a similar point about, say, novelists and film makers. Whether it’s Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, the author is trying to get something across–and the “something” is that there are powerful forces of good and evil that are above us, working through us. Evil is very seductive and on the surface appears stronger, but ultimately it is both moral and wise to side with good, for in the end it will triumph.
As I write this, I can imagine some explanations coming from the rationalist camp. You could say, for example, that this all makes perfect sense–“good” is simply defined as that which brings long-run satisfaction, and it’s more entertaining to embed this definition into a story involving orcs and magic, even though these aren’t real. Fair enough.
Still, there is no instrinsic reason that we should even have a concept of morality. Yet we all perceive it. And most of us at least perceive that there was something very special about Jesus and Buddha and Confucius. I think it is easier for the God hypothesis to explain that than the Hawking story. (And by all means in the comments feel free to argue that Confucianism is a reflection of humanism more than deism.)
A Pleasant Stroll in La Jolla
We are in the middle of a long break period at this Liberty Fund conference in La Jolla. Our hotel (which shall remain undisclosed so as to foil the FBI) is close to the ocean.
I took a stroll down to the beach and took a picture of these seals:
(BTW I obviously need to clean off the lens on my Blackberry’s camera.)
I was about to start a discussion with the California locals about the importance of developing private ownership of the seals, in order to protect them. I was quite offended that there wasn’t a publicly posted market price for the noble creatures, but instead there were all kinds of government signs warning of the penalties for messing with them.
But then I thought better of it.
“It’s Not About Personnel, It’s About Power”
[UPDATE below.]
My “current events” article yesterday at Mises.org, on the Elizabeth Warren brouhaha. An excerpt:
By focusing on the “controversial” pick of Warren, the government and its media accomplices subtly shift the fulcrum of the debate. People aren’t questioning whether the government should be seizing vast new powers to regulate the financial markets, even though its last expansion — in the wake of the Enron and other accounting scandals — did nothing to prevent the shady practices of the housing bubble years.
Instead of that substantive and crucial debate, Americans are led to fret about which person will head the new agency. American children learn in civics classes that this country is a land of laws, not men. Yet the financial press disproves that myth daily.
In fact, as the Reuters article demonstrates, the spectrum of debate is actually even narrower. Rather than listing several candidates for the job, and discussing their pros and cons, we are supposed to get worked up over whether Obama will appoint Warren on an interim basis (which can last up to five years!) or whether he will go through the conventional channels and subject her to a confirmation process. Thus the media skillfully distract the public away from the important issues, and entertain them with inconsequential fluff.
Incidentally, I am still in the midst of a two-day Liberty Fund conference in La Jolla. Stamina permitting, later tonight I will have a super geek post clarifying a controversial point that came up during the discussion of Guido Hulsmann’s paper.
UPDATE: In the original version of this post, I included some very generic references to the argument that took place this morning. Although I am sure the participants wouldn’t have objected to my remarks, I took them down because I wouldn’t want people to be hesitant to talk about juicy gossip in front of me. In other words, even though I know I would never post something that someone had mentioned in confidence, other people might not have been sure. Hence, the veil of secrecy is once again raised on our meeting…
Fiscal Euphemisms
This was my Mises Daily on Monday; because I’m still in Vegas I haven’t had much spare time to blog… In any event I was shell-shocked by a Martin Feldstein op ed, which (naturally) Greg Mankiw loved. An excerpt:
“But once we run Feldstein’s prose through the Orwellian Translator, we realize what he’s actually saying: The government needs to raise taxes on households and businesses right now, so that it won’t have to do it later.”
This Guy Hates Pennies
I was hoisted onto the anti-penny bandwagon by my intermediate econ professor in undergrad, Lee Coppock. (At least, that is now my recollection.) I think the simplest argument for getting rid of the penny is this: Surely we can all agree that it would be dumb to introduce a new coin that was worth, say, 1/200th of a dollar, right? So then going the other way, are we certain that the current denominations are j-u-u-u-s-t right? Or is it possible that if we started out (this year) with a nickel being the lowest denomination, that somebody who tried to introduce a coin worth 1/100th of a dollar would be viewed as a fool?
Jeff Hummel passes along this video. You might think it’s too long to start, but the guy keeps it pretty entertaining throughout–though there is a commercial he smuggles in at the end. Capitalist pig.
Recent Comments