Central Planning Never Works

Why do we never learn?

Tax breaks for companies to relocate to another state always sounds good.  Promises of jobs are plentiful which in turn creates a larger tax base.  More jobs means more money for people to re-invest in the local economy, which in turn creates more jobs.

Doesn’t work.  Never has.

This article is about a data center company with plans to relocate to Grand Rapids, MI.  One catch, they want some serious tax breaks from the State of Michigan.

Four reasons why Central Planning is a bad idea:

  1. It never works – in the history of the world no economy was centrally planned well.  Or said another way, the economy is too sophisticated and dynamic for a group of people to be able to manage it, grow it and regulate it.
  2. It requires picking winners and losers – Winner (in this case) the entity receiving the tax breaks.  Loser – everyone else.  No one else is getting tax break (thus far) and in all likelihood Joe Q Taxpayer is going to have pay for those tax breaks.
  3. Creates unintended consequences – Putting together points 1 and 2, the economy is dynamic and will surely respond to this type of central planning.  In fact, according to the article, it has begun to respond.
  4. Creates more Central Planning – Building off of point #2 and #3, the central planners will respond with more planning.  They will want to compensate the losers (who wouldn’t?) and make sure they correct some of the unintended consequences.  However, by planning more they continue the cycle, only bigger and more pervasive.

It just doesn’t work.  Why not lower taxes for all?  Make it more attractive for all to relocate to Michigan?

Advertisements

Carly is not in trouble…..

Yet.

The beauty of having 3 people manage this site is we do have differences of opinions. While I share my cousin’s sentiment for last night, I do disagree with him on one point.

Carly isn’t in trouble.

It’s early.  These things still ebb and flow.  She didn’t damage herself and she stayed steady and true to her message.  Big gov’t is oppressive, it doesn’t work well and we’ve been talking about the same issues for 30 years.

I understand what DCuz is saying.  She didn’t land any punches and she won’t likely be in many soundbites for the next week.

However, before last night, Chris Christie was in trouble.  Ted Cruz was in trouble and that seemed to turn around in one night.  It’s still early.  There are more debates coming.

For me, Carly’s closing comments were spot on.  I would love to see her go toe to toe with Hillary because deep down I know she would clean Hillary’s clock.

KCuz

Some people just don’t get it.

Interesting article here about the Bush campaign and the rivalry with Marco Rubio.

Some people just don’t get it.

While I am not a fan of the politics of Obama, I do understand his appeal.  In 2008, he was young, fresh and free from the grind of Washington D.C.  He wasn’t “one of them”.  He was an outsider.  Someone with admittedly limited experience.

What people don’t understand is that is a plus.

Politics may have turned in 2008.  “Experience” doesn’t matter as much.  Experience is just a code word for establishment and establishment is out.

New faces are in.  There’s a reason the GOP polls include names like Trump, Carson, Rubio, Cruz and Fiorina.  These are people we largely hadn’t heard of 8 years ago (at least not in politics).  Names like Santorum, Bush, and Kasich are less appealing because they’ve been in politics for too long.

Some people just don’t get it.

Respect for Bernie Sanders

If you haven’t figured out by now, we here at cuzliberty tend to be conservative bordering on libertarian.  We love free markets, we love personal liberty and all that goes along with those things.

We tend not to like government regulation.  We tend not to like government programs aimed at social issues.  We tend to believe that people (via free markets) can decide what’s best for them.

That said.  Huge respect for Bernie Sanders.

Why?

He’s principled if nothing else.  I don’t agree with much of anything he has to say, but he’s consistent.  He believes in using government to provide for the general welfare of citizens.  He believes government through taxation, regulation and legislation can help shape society to solve problems and outcomes for people.

Like I said, I do NOT agree with any of it, but he’s steadfast in his approach and he doesn’t compromise or deviate from it.

So for that I respect him.  It’s too bad he’s just plain wrong.

John Kasich’s Biblical position is immoral.

So I ran across this article today.  In it, candidate John Kasich makes the argument that expansion of Medicaid is a Biblical principle.

Look at Medicaid expansion. Do you know how many people are yelling at me? I go out to events where people yell at me. You know what I tell ‘em? … I say, there’s a book. It’s got a new part and an old part; they put it together, it’s a remarkable book. If you don’t have one, I’ll buy you one. It talks about how we treat the poor. Sometimes you just have to lead.

And…..

Now, when you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor. You better have a good answer.

How’s this for an answer.

That isn’t moral and I don’t think it’s what God intended us to do for the poor.

I’ve made this point about redistribution of wealth in the past and it applies to most other social programs as well.  Assume Bob breaks into Marvin’s house and steals $5,000 by use of force.  Bob makes a clean getaway and takes the $5,000 to provide health insurance to Sally.  Is Bob acting morally?  Is Bob being charitable?  Is Marvin being charitable?  Is Marvin taking care of Sally?  Is Sally acting morally by accepting the $5,000?

Same story.  Now substitute Bob for the government, Congress, IRS or any other agency and somehow this all becomes a good thing?  Somehow when the IRS (by use of force) takes money from Marvin to give to Sally it is now charitable.

Really?

How is legislation, through the use of force, that takes from one person and gives to another noble or charitable?  How is it Biblical?  Is that really want the Bible calls for?  Does the Bible really call for us to be charitable using other people’s money?  Do really want an environment where A and B decides what to take from C to give to D? (Friedman)

I don’t think that’s Biblical at all.  I would argue that the Bible calls for individual people to care for individual people of their own free will through voluntary sacrifice.  That’s love.  That’s caring for others.

Here we go again….

So we have decided to start and stop this thing so many times, but we are going to attempt it again.

Three cousins who love to agree and argue on the issues of the day.  We don’t always agree, but in general we all value liberty and the freedoms guaranteed by America’s founding documents.

This is an interactive blog that encourages you to spout off with your opinions and thoughts.  We can learn from each other and have fun doing it!

DCuz

KCuz

MCuz