Atlas won’t Shrug?

Share

Referring to Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Picketty are arguing that higher tax rates does not cause Atlas to shrug. That is, high tax rates do not cause the wealthy to work less hard.

As evidence, they cite the Reagan tax cuts, which reduced the top marginal rate from 70 percent to 28 percent:

The economy actually grew faster in the 30 years before that tax cut than it did during the following three decades, according to Diamond and Saez. Gross domestic product per capita advanced at an average annual 2.2 percent rate between 1950 and 1980, compared with 1.7 percent between 1980 and 2010, their calculations show.

Taken out of context, these statistic might seem to prove Diamond and Saez correct. But tax cuts do not occur in a vacuum. Other factors impact economic growth (further, economic growth is a misleading and essentially useless statistic). For example, regulations can have a huge impact on economic growth.

Regulations divert resources from production to compliance. Regulations force businesses to meet the demands of bureaucrats rather than the demands of the market. Instead of producing goods and services, regulations force businesses to produce government forms and secure government permission.

In the thirty years since the Reagan tax cuts, the number of regulations has exploded. In 1960, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) contained 22,877 pages. By 2007, the CFR had swelled to 145,816 pages, an increase of more than 530 percent. A report by the Competitive Enterprise Institute found that the cost of meeting federal regulations was $1.751 trillion in 2008. State and local regulations add another $446 billion in expenses to Americans each year. In total, the various federal, state, and local regulations impose on each person more than $6,600 per year in regulatory compliance costs.

Statistics can be useful. But statistics taken out of context are misleading and intellectually dishonest.

Minimum Wage: A Weapon of Massive Job Destruction

Share

On CNN.com, Christine Ownes claims that raising the minimum wage will create jobs. Of course, she doesn’t explain how coercively imposing additional costs on businesses will lead to job creation, because no explanation is possible. The fact is, the minimum wage kills jobs on a massive scale.

One example of the job-destroying nature of minimum wage laws occurred in July 2009 when the minimum wage was increased from $6.55 to $7.25. A month before the increase, economist David Neumark wrote in The Wall Street Journal: “The best estimates from studies since the early 1990s suggest that the 11% minimum wage increase scheduled for this summer will lead to the loss of an additional 300,000 jobs among teens and young adults.” Nine months later, another economist, Casey B. Mulligan, wrote in The New York Times, that “part-time employment would have been about 500,000 greater in the last couple of months of the year if it hadn’t been for that last increase in the federal minimum [wage].”

By making it illegal to pay a wage below the minimum, minimum wage laws price many workers—particularly those with few job skills and less education—out of the labor market. Simply because Congress mandates a particular wage as a legal minimum does not miraculously endow workers with the skills that businesses need. If this were the case, then why doesn’t Congress mandate a minimum wage of one hundred dollars per hour and legislate the nation into prosperity?

Property Rights in Outer Space

Share

Last week’s announcement by Planetary Resources to eventually mine near-Earth asteroids has unleashed a controversy over property rights in space. There is some dispute as to whether the 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits private ownership of celestial objects.

I won’t comment on the legalities, as I am not well versed in the Outer Space Treaty. But morally, the answer is quite clear. Those who extract minerals from asteroids are the rightful owners of those materials and the area in which they are mining. But this does not give those entrepreneurs ownership of the entire celestial body.

For example, if a private company began mining on the moon, others would remain free to mine other areas of the moon. The first company could only claim ownership of that area necessary for its operations and others could not interfere with their enterprise.

The US government should nip this controversy in the bud by defending private property rights in space. Of course, this is highly unlikely, since the government fails to do that here on Earth.

HT: Rob Abiera