New York and Virginia are the losers. Tim Carney writes that New York and Virginia would have been better off not giving Amazon subsidies to put new headquarters in each of the states:
One study of firm-specific subsidies in Kansas found that most subsidy recipients, in an anonymous survey admitted that they hired zero extra people thanks to the subsidies. A 2014 study of hundreds of studies on incentives found a slight negative effect on employment in the short term, and no effect in the long run.
The money Chicago spends to lure Boeing, or Maryland spends to lure Lockheed Martin, is money that the governments must make up for through tax hikes or cuts in spending for legitimate government purposes, such as schools, roads, and police.
Liberal Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday expressed outrage that New York had paid so much to lure into Long Island City a company owned by the world's richest man. The socialist politician was right.
Amazon is a for-profit company. It can fund its facilities through its profits or anticipated profits manifested in loans or investments from private lenders choosing to finance Amazon. Public funds, on the other hand, should be for public goods. An Amazon job is not a public good—it's payment in return for a private good. That a corporate headquarters might have positive spillovers into the surrounding community is not a reason to subsidize it. Capitalism, as a whole, has massive positive spillovers, but in America we generally think the government's job is to create a level playing field where the rule of law and a decent infrastructure allow companies to flourish—or not. [...]
A state would do better—in the long run for sure, but probably also in the short run—by offering a broad, level, open playing field. If Cuomo had $3 billion in tax cuts to give, why not reduce the state's 6.5 percent corporate tax or cut the sales tax?
[Timothy P. Carney, "The Amazon Headquarters Search Is Done: New York and Northern Virginia Lose," American Enterprise Institute, November 14]
The Trump administration's latest criminal justice reform proposals are a step in the right direction. John Malcom and John-Michael Seibler write:
In 2011, the House Appropriations Committee reported that, despite skyrocketing spending, "reincarceration rates for people released from prison are largely unchanged. This trend is both financially and socially unsustainable."
But that committee saw a silver lining: "[C]ase studies of innovative, evidence-based practices provide a strong indication that [the trend] can be reversed."
Now, the Trump White House and the 115th Congress are, to their credit, seeking out better policies and programs, which have been proven to reduce recidivism at the state level, to address these problems.
The thrust of the First Step Act is an attempt to reduce the high recidivism rates that currently exist—and they certainly are high. In 2016, the U.S. Sentencing Commission estimated that 49.3 percent of federal offenders who were released in 2005 were re-arrested within eight years, and a Bureau of Justice Statistics study of 30 states found that among offenders who were released from state custody in 2005, 76.6 percent were re-arrested within five years.
After all, 95 percent of all individuals who are presently incarcerated will eventually be released. They are going to be our neighbors, and we ought to be concerned about what kind of shape they are going to be in when they are released.
[John G. Malcolm and John-Michael Seibler, "Trump Is Leading the Way on Conservative Criminal Justice Reform. Here's the Proposal." The Daily Signal, November 15]
They're coming after red meat with bad calculations. A report by researchers at the University of Oxford claims that taxing red meat by at least 34 percent would save 52,500 American lives per year. The study purports to identify the tax level that reflects the costs that red meat consumption imposes on the rest of society. For a number of reasons, as Ryan Bourne details, the researchers' calculation is way too high. But even if it were not, sin taxes would still be a bad idea:
In his 1937 book The Road to Wigan Pier, George Orwell commented that the poor eat "an appalling diet, but the peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have, the less inclined you are to spend it on wholesome food … You want something 'tasty'." Meat is a tasty pleasure, and governments should be wary of policy demonizing it.
In reality, sin taxes are rarely "optimal" anyway. Taxes are applied uniformly. Yet those who eat meat in healthy moderation impose no costs on others, but see the same cost uplift for a sausage as someone at high risk of requiring taxpayer healthcare support. Truly efficient taxes would recognize the differences in risks of types of consumers.
This all suggests a more effective approach would be targeted dietary guidance at a personal level. But the history of food science itself is littered by examples of governments sharing subsequently mistaken advice. On that basis alone, it is far too soon for governments to tax a whole major food group on the basis of speculative modelling and disputed science.
[Ryan Bourne, "Against a Highly Regressive 'Meat Tax'," Cato Institute, November 12]
DeVos wants to bring back due process. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has proposed new rules for the adjudication of sexual assault allegations by institutions of higher education. David French writes that, if enacted, the proposals would bring important norms of due process back to such proceedings:
First and perhaps most important, the rules will not only require colleges to permit cross-examination of witnesses (including the accuser), but will also prohibit universities from relying on the statements of any witness who refuses to submit to cross-examination. [...]
In addition to mandating cross-examination, the proposed rules grant both parties "equal opportunity to inspect and review evidence obtained as part of the investigation that is directly related to the allegations raised in a formal complaint."
I know what you're thinking. "Wait. Not only did some schools deny cross-examination, but they also denied the accused access to the relevant evidence in his case, including exculpatory evidence?" Yes, they did deny access to evidence. It wasn't uncommon for accused students to walk into hearings with only a cursory understanding of the charges against them and partial access to evidence, and then have to respond — on the fly — without access to any legal help.
Yes, the kangaroo courts could be that bad. [...]
The rules also dispense with the single investigator/adjudicator model that allowed universities to place a single person in the position of investigator, prosecutor, and adjudicator. There were no safeguards against bias. Again, this requirement is so basic that it's simply stunning that it has to be articulated.
In a crucial change, the proposed rules protect the First Amendment by significantly tightening the definition of some forms of sexual misconduct. As Reason's Robby Soave explains, "Under the previous system, administrators were obliged to investigate any unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, which is a fairly wide swath of behavior. Some officials even interpreted this to include mundane speech that happened to involve gender or sex."
The new proposed rules, by contrast, apply controlling language from the Supreme Court to define sexual harassment as sexual assault, quid pro quo harassment, and "unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the recipient's education program or activity."
[David French, "Betsy DeVos Strikes a Blow for the Constitution," National Review, November 16]
Thankful for capitalism. "Obvious facts about socialism are not discussed enough," writes Charles Calomiris:
Socialism has been abandoned in virtually all of the developing world. Countries today do not seek to emulate the disasters of North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela. They also avoid high taxation of the rich. That reflects the recognition that countries compete with each other for capital. Expropriating the rich tends to make them leave, and when they leave they take their wealth with them.
This philosophical shift in the developing world is a major change since the 1980s when socialism was still fashionable among some. The shift away from socialist thinking was grounded in the growing body of empirical evidence about the kinds of policies that produced growth and poverty alleviation—that is, policies that used markets as a lever of economic development. Now developing countries such as Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, India, China, South Africa, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia are known as "emerging economies," a description that recognizes their need to emerge from state control of their economies through privatization, free trade, and the creation of viable private financial intermediaries to promote growth and poverty alleviation. All around the developing world, socialism is understood as a false promise, an ideological opium that repressive elites use to retain and expand power. Capitalism, in contrast, is seen as the force that has lifted over a billion people out of poverty worldwide since 1990. [...]
The facts about socialism and capitalism may shock the young people of America, many of whom lionize Bernie Sanders, an unapologetic socialist who honeymooned in the USSR, as the new conscience of our nation—and many of whom, 51% according to Gallup, now have a positive view of socialism. Only 45% have a positive view of capitalism. That represents a 12-point decline in young adults' positive views about capitalism in just the past two years. Many of these young people are thoughtful and intelligent—but they are also ignorant about the history and economics of the systems they favor or condemn.
[Charles W. Calomiris, "Socialism: The Opiate of the Corrupt and Ignorant," Economics 21, November 14]
-
Comments
Post a Comment