kevinhiggins.org

Posted by khiggins at 05:06 PM

March 16, 2011

Public sector unions, in my eyes, are often the epitome of corruption, and one of the prime examples of big special interests twisting government for its own ends, rather than looking out for the people in general.

I found this to be a treatise worth reading:

"A Principled Examination of Union Busting"

Bill Frezza argues that, "Civil rights comprise a 'broad range of privileges and rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and subsequent amendments and laws that guarantee fundamental freedoms to all individuals.' The key to this definition is that civil rights are recognized as belonging to individuals, not corporations. One of the tenets of a civil right is that the exercise of one person's civil rights must never impinge on another's. Thus I can enjoy the right of free speech but I cannot have a 'right' to make you shut up if I don't like what you're saying. True civil rights never conflict.

"Corporations are not people and cannot properly be said to have civil rights. On the other hand corporations, including unions, can and do have economic privileges granted to them by both the federal and state legislatures. Under our Federalist system of government these privileges may vary from state to state but in no case are they supposed to violate anyone's civil rights. Outside of that exactly which privileges a corporation or a union enjoys is a matter for the voters to decide."

But just as telling to me, Libertarian that I am, is that one of the worse infringements that Unions impose is coercion of the individual, often depriving individuals of their right to free association or, specially, the right NOT to associate. Read the article.

Posted by khiggins at 10:29 AM

February 28, 2011

Do We Still Need Public-Sector Unions?

I found this article remarkable for one reason: It appeared in Newsweek, a decidedly liberal news magazine!

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/27/do-we-still-need-unions-no.html

Lots of strong reasons why public-sector unions are no longer in the public's interest.

Posted by khiggins at 09:22 AM

January 14, 2011

The Dictator Fallacy

Do you . . .

* believe in our Constitution with its different branches and its separation of powers?
* support the idea that The State should be managed by elected representatives?
* oppose monarchies, dictatorships, and other authoritarian forms of The State?

I bet you'd answer "Yes" to all of these questions.

Despite answering yes, nearly everyone pretends, at some point, that they can design laws and programs that manage human behavior, leading to an ideal social result.

* Maybe even you believe you know the best way to solve a particular societal problem with a better organizational solution.
* Perhaps you admire and support a particular candidate who claims he has just the right incentive, program, or regulation that will do the trick.

Well, if you ever catch yourself (or another person), making such a pronouncement, then you can KNOW that either you (or they) are wrong. You see . . .

When you have "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people," YOUR "grand design" won't work. Why?

Unfortunately, other people will also be involved. This is, after all, a representative government with separation of powers. Your scheme will be touched and affected by lobbyists, legislators, bureaucrats, and judges. Then it will be imposed on a group of people, many of whom will NOT cheerfully cooperate because they do NOT appreciate your brilliance.

By failing to appreciate these events, you have fallen victim to the Dictator Fallacy.

Read the rest of the article here. Especially if you habitually fall prey to the lunatic's belief that the answer to failed regulation is simply MORE regulation!

Of course, if you're another one of *those* people who continue to believe that your politicians are brilliant geniuses, while mine are corrupt morons, as if there's really a difference in practice, there's probably little help for you.

Posted by khiggins at 05:38 AM

December 23, 2010

Taxes and the Top Percentile Myth

A 2008 study of 24 leading economies by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) concludes that, "Taxation is most progressively distributed in the United States, probably reflecting the greater role played there by refundable tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. . . . Taxes tend to be least progressive in the Nordic countries (notably, Sweden), France and Switzerland."

Read the full article to be better educated:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033861522959234.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion

Posted by khiggins at 07:13 AM

December 21, 2010

China and the Next American Century

Let's hope this Op-Ed by Bret Stephens isn't just whistling past the graveyard! It's one thing to recognize a market; it's another to be able to competitively tap it.

Bret opines:
"Our time" is supposed to be one of China's unstoppable rise and America's inevitable decline. Don't believe it. History is littered with the wreckage of regimes that thought they could create "consensus" by suffocating dissent and steal the intellectual innovation they could not generate on their own. China's bid to do just that merely compounds political error with historical ignorance.

Read the whole thing:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031332184760212.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond

Posted by khiggins at 11:35 AM

December 6, 2010

How raising taxes risks immedate damage to our economy. A small business finance primer.

Yesterday, I jumped into a discussion on the subject of the tax cuts that have been the primary topic of congress' and pundits' debate for the last couple weeks (fiddling while Rome is burning, if you will). Mostly I was having some satirical fun with that thread, because the comments were almost all emotional rather than logical or derived from any semblance of economic theory or critical thought. As is the case in most forums the debate content was comprised mostly of parroted bumper-sticker-simple arguments and unworkable suggestions.

In the course of the discussion one post stood out from the norm because it presented an innacuracy as fact as part of trying to discredit the argument that allowing taxes to climb back to their historic levels could hurt the economy.

Here's the relevant excerpt from the comment:
**************************
"The GOP argument that additional income taxes on income over $250,000 per year will hurt the economy doesn't make sense for 2 reasons:

1. As a whole, the wealthy aren't spending that money right now, they are saving it against "uncertainty"....

2. These are individual income taxes, so the only businesses affected are small businesses (like sole proprietorships, partnerships and LLCs) that just pass all tax responsibility on to the individual owners.

Sounds bad, right? Less money for them to hire people if their tax rates increase, right?

Wrong.

All business expenses, including money spent to hire and pay employees, buy equipment, expand facilities, etc are deducted from revenue before being considered as income and taxed. So investment in your business is NOT TAXED under this proposal.

Yet the GOP claims this tax hike on the wealthy would really hurt small businesses, and the economy as a whole. How exactly?"
**************************

Now, setting aside the argument in #1 above that the government should be justified in raising taxes on some people because they have the capability and/or discipline to put some of their income into savings rather than spending it immediately (!), it was the latter part of the comment (the statements under #2) that I'm compelled to answer. Those statements reveal such a complete lack of understanding about the interaction between the tax code and small business finance/investment, and thus the impact that a tax increase could make on the economy, that they deserve serious discussion/education.

Here's what you need to know about how small businesses manage their finance, business hiring, and investment decisions, if you're going to be factoring that into your opinion regarding tax law changes:

Read the entire article...