05
Dec
2017
Potpourri
==> An economist and the Pope walk into a finance class…
==> Wind and solar fans admit awkward fact about tax code.
==> My interview with David Gornoski concerned liberty and Christianity. It was not your typical discussion.
==> Richard Ebeling on neo-liberalism and then on communism.
==> Brad Birzer vs. the Senate.
There’s a popular misconception that giving tax breaks to industries is the same as subsidizing them. Sadly, like many economic myths, this one just won’t die.
Decades ago, economists like Mises and Rothbard were already arguing that tax breaks are not economically or ethically equivalent to receiving subsidies. Simply put, being permitted to keep your income is not the same as taking it from competitors. Exemptions and loopholes do not forcibly redistribute wealth; taxes and subsidies do, thereby benefiting some producers at the expense of others.
Yes, entrepreneurs who take advantage of tax breaks will incur fewer costs than entrepreneurs who don’t. But this doesn’t show that exemptions or loopholes provide unfair advantages; in fact, just the opposite — it shows that taxes penalize entrepreneurs unlucky enough to be left holding the bill.
However, fossil fuels receive a different type of tax benefit, $775 billion to $1 trillion annually in subsidies taken from taxpayers around the globe, according to information provided by Oil Change International. Additionally, fossil fuel companies benefit from eminent domain, another form of forcible wealth redistribution. So, a great deal of fossil fuel projects occur not because the projects make economic sense on their own terms, but because the government aids the fossil fuel industry in forcibly redistributing wealth from taxpayers and landowners.
The landtheft and the taxpayer subsidies are bad of course, but you didn’t mention the bloodpayer subsidies.
For example, in Nigeria:
https://imgur.com/a/DjuNc
And also Ecuador:
Ecuador
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0OtHAQtlzs
I see people protesting Shell, but not the Nigerian government.
Their governments are the ones responsible for those violations. And there’s no way to involve the government in the economy *without* rewarding the rich. Impossible.
Because after all is said and done, consumers have to want, on some level, to buy the product being sold. Only those businesses that are rich enough to have the resources to supply economies of scale are going to be worth subsidizing.
(Not that there’s anything wrong with how big a business gets.)
Again, your very own philosophy is responsible for the things you complain about.
It’s like with the Blood Diamonds issue that Rothbard delt with.
If you’re curious, there’s a book that goes through the disasterous policies of government over the past 4,000 years, and you can read for yourself that these are policies that you strongly believe in:
[PDF and EPUB available]
Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls: How Not to Fight Inflation
[www]https://mises.org/library/forty-centuries-wage-and-price-controls-how-not-fight-inflation
I haven’t read the whole thing, but I recommend the part about the Edict of Diocletian in Chapter 2, and the Controls in Belgium in Chapter 3.
Under the Edict of Diocletian, everyone was so “greedy” that they chose to be slaughtered by the government rather than have their wealth redistributed to end poverty (rolls eyes).
And with regard to the Controls in Belgium, they tried it your way, failed miserably, then tried it the free market way and succeeded.
Your philosophy is what’s destroying Nigeria and Ecuador, not the richness and greed of Shell. Greed has a natural check when government gets out of the way, called “competition”.
Neoliberal is frequently a term used to apply to Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, for example in this satirical song:
Brazil’s land distribution problem is rooted in historical slavery and continues to be an issue aggravating contemporary slavery.
“The harsh social consequence of neoliberalism’s free-market economics propels social movements in Latin America into the forefront of resistance.”
Corporatism Is Not the Free Market
[www]http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/03/corporatism-is-not-the-free-market
February 3, 2012
There is an interesting critique of standard neoliberal views of wealth creation here.
https://medium.com/@joe_brewer/the-real-story-of-wealth-creation-350038296e3