There’s a petition going around to phase out the earnings tax in St. Louis and replace it, presumably, with a land tax. There was a debate on the issue on a local KC show, Up to Date. See the March 10th episode here: http://www.kcur.org/uptodate.html

Well, according to Beck, I guess we’ll have to find a new church.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/08/glenn-beck-urges-listeners-to-leave-churches-that-preach-social/

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003110017

Interesting post on Health Care Reform…

Honest Statism Beats a Fake “Free Market” Every Time – by Kevin Carson

“The point…is not that a socialized system is better than a private system. The point is that their honestly socialized system is better than our socialized corporate system masquerading as a “private” one.”

“Consider this [the public option] in light of the principles of dialectical libertarianism. A particular government measure is not to be evaluated on an atomistic basis, but in light of its contribution to the level of statism in the system of the whole. As Brad Spangler pointed out, when you’re held up at gunpoint the bagman who collects your money is just as much a robber as the guy holding your gun. The corporate bagmen who lobby for government intervention and profit from it are, therefore, part of the government. And when government intervenes to grant special privileges for nominally “private” actors, that is a net increase in statism. On the other hand, when a second government intervention qualifies or limits the exercise of this grant of privilege for the sake of ameliorating the worst effects of privilege, it is a net decrease in statism.”

Now has its own thread.

My premise for supporting a monarchy over a republic is as follows:

1) The Church has held, by (arguably non-binding) tradition that Monarchy is the best form of government. Monarchs are used as symbols in the bible. God instituted the ancient line of Hebrew kings, and Jesus was born, quite significantly, of the house of David. Christ is the King of kings, not of presidents and prime ministers.
2) modern liberal democratic republics justify themselves by claiming that the power to rule is derived from a mandate of the masses. We know, as Christians, that this is not so. Power comes from God, and God alone. To reject this is offensive.
3) A proper Catholic monarchy is held in check by the church. For instance, the election of the Holy Roman Emperor can be vetoed by the pope. In many kingdoms, the monarch would be deposed if apostatized or excommunicated, thereby giving the bishops authority to keep the monarch in check.
4) Monarchies tended to be smaller governments that taxed it citizens less than republics. Even if the monarch and his family were greedy, it doesn’t take nearly as much theft from the populous to satisfy his ambitions, compared to the ambitions of the president, his cabinet, 104 Senators, 500+ congresscritters, their staff, lobbiests, etc., etc., etc.
5) Monarchies tend to have very little control over the day-to-day lives of its citizens. Society was very tiered; a monarch didn’t directly tax his citizens, but instead demanded tribute from his dukes, who demand it from the tier under them. Life from one community to another could be vastly different; if one marquis was charging too much in taxes, they could move over to the next town.
6) In hereditary monarchy, the most important unit of government is family. This communicates to society, by example, the importance of the nuclear and extended families, from the top down.
7) The fact that rule monarchy is de jure exclusive, rather than de facto in a republic, it quells political ambitions of men. Peasants know that they can never be king, and thus will not try. This quells the problem of an ever-growing leech-like political class we see in modern republics.
8] Hereditary monarchs are typically on the throne for life, and thus can make real, meaningful changes to the long-term benefit of his people. He has a strong vested interest in leaving the nation in a better state than he received it, because his family’s name is synonymous with the nation.
9) Most monarchs actually have less real power than modern bureaucrats, even though they had real authority. To get anything big done, like a war, they would have to convince the nobles under them, who in turn would convince the peasants to follow them. Thus, the monarch needed a fair degree of consent to get anything really big done.

There’s many more points that favor monarchy, but that’s on the top of my head.

Bravo to Elinor Ostrom, the first women to win the Nobel Prize in economics. Paul Romer offers these thoughts on her ideas – ideas that are very fitting to our discussions here.

Most economists think that they are building cranes that suspend important theoretical structures from a base that is firmly grounded in first principles. In fact, they almost always invoke a skyhook, some unexplained result without which the entire structure collapses. Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize in Economics because she works from the ground up, building a crane that can support the full range of economic behavior. [...]

Not only has it been a surprise to have such an extended lull on this blog, but it is even more surprising that no one here has brought up the most debated and controversial subject being addressed in the media today: health care.

Well, I’d like to play some catch up today. I’ve been dialoging/debating on a mass email with my wife’s family on this issue for the last month or so. The topic of health care reform has proven rich in bringing up all kinds of underlying presuppositions that I am ashamed we haven’t yet hashed out here.

The issue as I see it is that a type of reform is needed (few seem to argue that point), some are concerned that having a national option would increase the government’s role in our lives, and some think the current administration isn’t going far enough and should develop a single-payer plan.

So what say you?

If you haven’t discovered TED, you’re missing out. In this lecture Paul Romer discusses his idea for Charter Cities, a modernized construction of Garden Cities, in which land somewhere is separated out from the mother country and given an independent government structure known to work (think Hong Kong) via a charter with the mother country. The beauty of it is that the success of the city will bring reform to the mother country and it forces no changes on anyone. People from the mother country are not forced to move to the new city, they go on their own free choice.

As it turns out, many willing government leaders can’t bring the liberating reform needed to their country due to the power of interest groups seeking to keep the present system in tact – a system which benefits them in particular (the opposite is true as well). But if a leader creates a Hong Kong, there is a possibility of reabsorbing the city at a later time, reaping the economic benefits that entails and providing a model for reform in other cities. It also provides competition as non-reforming cities will lose population to reforming cities. Thus reform can be self propagating. Charter cities creates a rule for changing rules.

Paul Romer also mentions the possibility of self-financed city services, such as police, healthcare, infustructure, by capturing increasing land values – again, like Hong Kong. Such common sense reforms are nearly impossible in existing cities due to special interests but could be extremely beneficial to all if set up correctly from the beginning.

Food for thought…

Why markets can’t cure healthcare

Judging both from comments on this blog and from some of my mail, a significant number of Americans believe that the answer to our health care problems — indeed, the only answer — is to rely on the free market. Quite a few seem to believe that this view reflects the lessons of economic theory.

Not so. One of the most influential economic papers of the postwar era was Kenneth Arrow’s Uncertainty and the welfare economics of health care, which demonstrated — decisively, I and many others believe — that health care can’t be marketed like bread or TVs. Let me offer my own version of Arrow’s argument.

There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care. One is that you don’t know when or whether you’ll need care — but if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the doctor’s office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.

This tells you right away that health care can’t be sold like bread. It must be largely paid for by some kind of insurance. And this in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care. And you can’t just trust insurance companies either — they’re not in business for their health, or yours.

This problem is made worse by the fact that actually paying for your health care is a loss from an insurers’ point of view — they actually refer to it as “medical costs.” This means both that insurers try to deny as many claims as possible, and that they try to avoid covering people who are actually likely to need care. Both of these strategies use a lot of resources, which is why private insurance has much higher administrative costs than single-payer systems. And since there’s a widespread sense that our fellow citizens should get the care we need — not everyone agrees, but most do — this means that private insurance basically spends a lot of money on socially destructive activities.

The second thing about health care is that it’s complicated, and you can’t rely on experience or comparison shopping. (“I hear they’ve got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary’s!”) That’s why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code, why we expect more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.

You could rely on a health maintenance organization to make the hard choices and do the cost management, and to some extent we do. But HMOs have been highly limited in their ability to achieve cost-effectiveness because people don’t trust them — they’re profit-making institutions, and your treatment is their cost.

Between those two factors, health care just doesn’t work as a standard market story.

All of this doesn’t necessarily mean that socialized medicine, or even single-payer, is the only way to go. There are a number of successful health-care systems, at least as measured by pretty good care much cheaper than here, and they are quite different from each other. There are, however, no examples of successful health care based on the principles of the free market, for one simple reason: in health care, the free market just doesn’t work. And people who say that the market is the answer are flying in the face of both theory and overwhelming evidence.

Jealous? My library is so great.

Intro to Ideas about Globalization

Globalization is fodder for no casual opinions. Loved by most economists and loathed by many (most?) politicians and social thinkers, globalization is a phenomenon that affects everyone. I put opinions about globalization into these categories.

1) Maximizing wealth argument (Free-trade)
2) America supremacy argument (GM style protectionism)
3) Local supremacy (Michael Pollen consumer choice protectionism)
4) Third-world sweat shop argument (Fair-trade)
5) Third-world sweat shop argument (Marxists anti-corporation)
6) Third-world sweat shop argument (Free-trade)
7) Ecological argument (semi-protectionism)

I don’t think I need to put too much explanation into these given that many are likely familiar with most of these arguments and talking points. The first is the unsalable idea that each nation is better off through free trade , though certain individuals and groups may not be. The second is the backward idea all too present in modern politics to “protect American jobs” by subsidizing American companies through tariff privileges. The third argument is an interesting approach in which consumers preference local over global according to personal social and sustainability concerns, instead of cost or technical quality.

Arguments 4-6 are based on a talking point used to defend a spectrum of political and economic starting points. Fair Trade says the workers of the world are often paid too little and consumers should choose goods produced by companies that pay their workers a decent wage. The Anti-corporation argument says that corporations are using their power to extract a surplus from the proletariat of the world. The Free-Trade argument says only by trading with these companies will the poor of the world have the jobs they need to claw out of poverty. Last of all, the ecological argument says that corporations seek out nations with lightly regulated natural resources they can plunder and sell to other countries with highly regulated natural resources.

I personally see categories 1, 3, 6, and 7 as valid arguments or concerns. Category 2 is rightfully shunned by most economists, 4 is like putting duck tape on a broken table leg, and 5 needs some help. The Marxist argument and the ecological argument will come into play with my argument showing how wage slavery is related to globalization.

Wage Slavery and Globalization

My argument is that globalization makes third world countries richer but less sustainable while exacerbating class separation. The proletariat are only marginally better off or, in some cases, worse off.

Third world countries are richer because category 1 above is valid. Due to comparative advantages, countries that trade are better off than countries that don’t trade in net aggregate wealth. This is a fact and essentially uncontested by professional economists.

Countries that trade freely tend to be less sustainable because category 7 is valid above. Free trade is not ecologically neutral. Country A may levy any number of fees or regulations to normalize ecological externalities from business activity, all of which come at a cost to businesses in country A, but if Country B does not keep the same level of fees and regulations, then free trade between countries A and B will cause country B’s natural resources to be plundered for the benefit of country A in so far as there is marginal benefits to doing so. In short, free trade is just like removing boarders. If west Canada prohibits logging while east Canada does not, you can be assured that logging from the east will move west. Likewise between Canada and the US if no tariffs are levied. In this regard, nations with strong environmental laws effectively force the increase of environmental degradation in other countries – third world countries in particular.

Class separation follows from category 1 above due to the rent argument I laid out in the original post. As nations grow wealthier, property is bid up such as to eat up the lion’s share of the increase in wages to the proletariat. The proletariat is often marginally better off in the long run and may be exceptionally better off in the short run depending on the situation and the culture. China, for example, had a booming middle class through the early 2000’s followed by exploding rents. Those lucky enough to have locked in rents early via 30year mortgages and the like will be better off in the long run. Late arrivers will be worse off even if their wages are comparable or better. In the end, though, early owners of capital, real property in particular, will be overwhelming better off by large margins compared to the proletariat. Hence the class separation. Hence the “wage slavery”. Though the proletariat may very well be producing exponentially more than before industrialization, their net wages after rent will likely only be marginally better. Like slavery, they are not able to free themselves from these chains of injustice.

15 Ways to Fix the World

Idea #8 – End All Taxes, Except One

An interesting blog post by my pastor on a disturbing topic: http://unexpectedemergence.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/the-american-patriots-bible/

I think the idea of wage slavery is fascinating. How could it be that free individuals in a society defined by laws protecting individual freedom could find themselves enslaved? Many argue that this state of being has in fact arrived in part in America but more clearly on the shores of many of our trading partners. Is this really happening? If so, what is the cause of such an off phenomenon? How is it that freedom might beget slavery?

Well, I’m in no position to answer these questions adequately at this moment but I believe it is a worthy study. I hope to consider in more depth and post my thoughts as I learn more.

My starting position is that wage slavery does, in fact, occur in all capitalistic countries to varying degrees depending on the negotiating power of the proletariat. I differ from socialists, however, in that I do not blame the inner workings of capitalism, or class struggle, for the phenomenon. It is common because the common people have been systematically ripped off by capitalism – trading means of production for temporal gain.

The root of wage slavery is power and property. Insofar as workers have an alternative to their wage labor for subsistence, than wages will be justly regulated by market forces. If, for example, your name is Branden and you rock at backyard gardening, then you won’t put up with Wal-Mart only paying you beans. You’ll grow your own food and sell the surplus at the farmer’s market. Your refusal to work at such low wages, due to the alternatives available to you, will drive wages up. Hence, the power you have to supply your own means of subsistence is the antidote to wage slavery. And power is only made effective through property. Branden needs a backyard. And once he has his backyard, the wage Wal-Mart offers will be what is necessary to tempt Branden back into the workforce. Wages, then, will be based on freedom as Branden will only choose to work for a wage if he wants – not because he must.

But is it wrong that Branden must work for a wage? Say Branden’s landlord refuses to let him garden. What then? Well, my position is that Wal-Mart must drive his wage down to subsistence, not because they “want to” but because competition forces them to.

And what do I mean by subsistence? In short, it is defined by society and is different for each society. In America it is the “poverty level”. The wage is set as the “minimum wage”. In China, “subsistence” is far lower. It’s not that the mechanisms of capitalism wouldn’t force the wage lower in America, it’s that there is both taboo and legal restrictions against doing such – the later being a enforced form of the former. On this front there is in fact a class struggle and it might be beneficial to discuss further.

How is it that the working class, the proletariat, doesn’t have an alternative to wage labor? Why do they not have power and property? The answer, I believe, lies in history and will fill another post.

And what of other questions? Is it true that globalization creates wage slavery? Are whole nations enslaved because of poor negotiating power? It is certainly food for thought and future posts.

From Readers Digest:

We raise 60 billion animals for food each year – 10 animals for every human on earth. If you grow corn and eat it, you expend 2.2 calories of energy to yield 1 calorie of protein.

But if you process that corn, feed it to a steer, and take into account the other needs that steer has in its lifetime – land use, chemical fertilizers (largely petroleum based), pesticides, machinery, transport, antibiotics, and water – you’re responsible for 40 calories of energy to get that same 1 calorie of protein.

A steak dinner for a family of four is the rough energy equivalent of driving around in an SUV for three hours while leaving all the lights on at home.

The average American meat eater is responsible for one and a half tons of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gase – enough to fill a large house annually – than someone who eats no meat.

Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism.