What would happen if the federal government opened up federal lands to energy exploration? Kevin Dayaratna and Nicolas Loris run the numbers of find we'd be a lot more prosperous:
The dramatic increase in oil and natural gas production drives down prices, putting money back in the wallets of Americans. Cheaper energy lowers the cost of living. After accounting for inflation, overall energy expenditures in 2015 were the lowest since 2004, driven in large part because of increased supplies. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, "In constant 2015 dollars, average annual household energy expenditures peaked at about $5,300 in 2008. Between 2008 and 2014, average annual household energy expenditures declined by 14.1%."
Increased energy supplies will drive prices down further, generating significant cost savings and overall economic gains to households. […] [T]he average family of four gains over $27,000 by 2035. In terms of total gross domestic product, these gains translate to an increase of over $2.4 trillion.
Our analysis also computed the changes in annual electricity expenditures for a family of four. Annual electricity expenditures will decline, resulting in a total savings of nearly $1,000 for such a household. These savings are particularly important for low-income families and seniors on fixed incomes where energy costs represent a larger portion of their budget.
When low-income households are making difficult decisions regarding health care and access to food, the additional energy savings are essential to a better quality of life. [The Heritage Foundation]
Has the world reckoned with communism's failure yet? Communism, which came to power 100 years ago this week, ended up killing 100 million people. Yet, the defenders of the idea still insist that communism could work without being oppressive. They're wrong. Ilya Somin explains why:
To this day, defenders of socialist central planning argue that communism failed for avoidable contingent reasons, rather than ones intrinsic to the nature of the system. Perhaps the most popular claim of this sort is that a planned economy can work well so long as it is democratic. The Soviet Union and other communist states were all dictatorships. But if they had been democratic, perhaps the leaders would have had stronger incentives to make the system work for the benefit of the people. If they failed to do so, the voters could "throw the bastards out" at the next election.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that a communist state could remain democratic for long, even it started out that way. Democracy requires effective opposition parties. And in order to function, such parties need to be able to put out their message and mobilize voters, which in turn requires extensive resources. In an economic system in which all or nearly all valuable resources are controlled by the state, the incumbent government can easily strangle opposition by denying them access to those resources. Under socialism, the opposition cannot function if they are not allowed to spread their message on state-owned media, or use state-owned property for their rallies and meetings. It is no accident that virtually every communist regime suppressed opposition parties soon after coming to power.
Even if a communist state could somehow remain democratic over the long run, it is hard to see how it could solve the twin problems of knowledge and incentives. Whether democratic or not, a socialist economy would still require enormous concentration of power, and extensive coercion. And democratic socialist planners would run into much the same information problems as their authoritarian counterparts. In addition, in a society where the government controls all or most of the economy, it would be virtually impossible for voters to acquire enough knowledge to monitor the state's many activities. This would greatly exacerbate the already severe problem of voter ignorance that plagues modern democracy. […]
It is equally difficult to credit claims that communism failed only because of defects in the culture of the countries that adopted it. It is indeed true that Russia, the first communist nation, had a long history of corruption, authoritarianism, and oppression. But it is also true that the communists engaged in oppression and mass murder on a far greater scale than previous Russian governments. And communism also failed in many other nations with very different cultures. In the cases of Korea, China, and Germany, people with very similar initial cultural backgrounds endured terrible privation under communism, but were much more successful under market economies.
Overall, the atrocities and failures of communism were the natural outcomes of an effort to establish a socialist economy in which all or nearly all production is controlled by the state. If not always completely unavoidable, the resulting oppression was at least highly likely. [Washington Post]
Cheap information is the cure for bad information. Sheldon Richman:
To grow up is to cultivate methods of separating the wheat from the chaff in what we see and hear. Early on we learn to discount—if not disbelieve—the claims we hear in television commercials because we understand the role interest plays in describing goods and services. We also learn (one hopes) to treat the claims of politicians, the traditional targets of American ridicule, the same way.
There is no substitute for this sort of skepticism; it's is a sign of maturity. A government effort to protect us from misinformation in the name of preserving "our democratic institutions" would be a contradiction, not to mention a "cure" far worse than the alleged disease. The best protection against one-sided, erroneous, even dishonest assertions is competition, the universal solvent.
Most people understand this but in too narrow a way. In every election season we are deluged with questionable, false, and even crazy claims. This didn't start with the internet. It's as old as politics. In fact, most campaigns today are more civil than in the past, when candidates' alleged extramarital affairs and illegitimate children were fair game.
We have all heard of—or looked at—fringe websites that traffic in political stories even the National Enquirer might reject. But a call to shut down those sites would be rejected by most people—unless the sites were suspected of being Russian.
Why should that make a difference? If a story is true, who cares who tells it? And if it is exaggerated or false, can't the people be trusted to exercise the same skepticism they are expected to exercise when the source is American? If not, why does anyone praise democracy? Isn't it odd for proud small-d democrats to lack that confidence in the people? [Reason]
The tax reform bill could be improved. Adam Michel identifies some things to fix in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act:
Tax reform should lower the top marginal tax rate and eliminate the new "bubble rate."
The House plan would raise income brackets and lower marginal tax rates for all Americans making below $200,000. A significant portion of upper-income earners, however, would face higher marginal tax rates and could face higher tax bills. […]
Tax reform should allow all business expenses to be written off in the year that they are made.
The most pro-growth component of tax reform is permanent, full, and immediate expensing of all business costs. This provision alone could allow the economy to grow 5 percent larger and create 1 million jobs over the next decade.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would leave most, if not all, of the benefit of this provision behind by pursuing expensing as a temporary, five-year policy and limiting it to new equipment. […]
Tax reform should move to a territorial system that does not introduce new burdens on global business.
The proposed tax reform plan promises a territorial tax system, but then walks back many of the new territorial system's features by imposing various new rules on international activity. […]
Tax reform should fully repeal the state and local tax deductions and use the savings to lower tax rates.
The proposed tax plan makes huge strides in eliminating state and local tax deductions for income and sales taxes. The bill would cap the deduction for property taxes at $10,000. […]
Repealing the individual mandate would provide significant tax relief to working-class Americans who can't afford the rising costs of Obamacare insurance. [The Daily Signal]
Which country has reduced CO2 emissions the most? The United States, of course. From Mark Perry:
-
Comments
Post a Comment