• Tag Archives news

  • The Anti-Capitalists Are (Still) Wrong about History—and Much More

    Posted on by Azrael Comment

    The [American] Dream is not dead, and we shouldn’t let a populist scream convince us otherwise. Americans living today have every reason to be optimistic—and grateful.

    – Michael Strain, American economist

    Capitalism has become the preferred whipping boy of those calling for more government involvement in markets. The statists love to begrudge it and the wealthy wokes love to downplay it. Whether it’s income inequality or the growing power of big tech, “late capitalism” is a term employed by those who would like to eliminate or greatly reduce private ownership and usher in an era of redistribution.

    But is capitalism really in its final gasps? And if so, where are we headed?

    The notion of late capitalism has been around since Karl Marx began his assault on free enterprise in the 19th century, although the term was officially coined by German economist Werner Sombart in his 1902 book Der Moderne Kapitalismus. Marx believed that the proletariat would eventually revolt against the bourgeoisie due to the angst created by inequality and exploitation. For him, one of the most egregious injustices was wealth inequality. He believed private property was a major driver of inequality, effectively insulating the wealthy from giving workers their fair share.

    Sound familiar? Senator Sanders has an entire policy trove of bad ideas built on the premise that wealthy Americans have exploited workers by weaponizing their possessions (property) for their own malignant greed.

    Those suggesting capitalism is in its final throes assume two things:

    1. Economic inequality equals injustice
    2. The existence of  economic inequality means that capitalism must be replaced

    Unemployment in the United States is currently at the lowest level it has been since the 1960s. Not only is the economy creating more jobs, but wages are growing. And consider this: “wages for the bottom third of workers have risen at a 4.1 percent annual pace over the past two years versus 3.3 percent for the middle third and 3.6 percent for those at the top.”

    Workers are in such demand, especially in industries like healthcare and education, that an increasing number of companies are offering incentive packages to defray the cost of moving to a new job. When we consider the income mobility of Americans, with 95 percent of those at the bottom 20 percent not being there in 15 years, it becomes clear that wealth is transient in a market economy, providing a pathway for many to pursue the American Dream.

    It’s important to note that regulatory and tax reform play a role in reducing wealth inequality. To be sure, nothing will create absolute wealth parity in a free market (nor should it), but the effects of deregulation and tax reform are instructive. Economist Michael Strain notes that from the start of the Great Recession until 2016, “inequality decreased by 7 percent” after accounting for taxes and transfers.

    As the government’s demands on business and personal wealth are reduced, employers feel more comfortable investing in expansion, leading to more jobs that in turn create a demand for additional labor. This makes workers more attractive to prospective employers, bolstering job seekers with a competitive environment that enables them to be choosier employees.

    Despite the free-market’s ability to create a more level playing field, however, some types of inequality will continue to exist. Economist Thomas Sowell notes that there are many contributors to inequality, saying, “there was never a reason to expect equality. [There are so] many different complicating factors, cultures matter, demographics matter, regions matter.”

    For example, the average life expectancy of a man that lives in the mountains is a decade less than one that lives in the Virginia suburbs. Inequality is even evidenced in seemingly superficial matters, such as physical attractiveness, athletic aptitude, and musical ability. Not everyone can play like Patrick Mahomes or sing like Adele.

    There are few things more professionally distressing than seeing your hard work and earnest efforts thwarted by a system designed to quash competition. Unfortunately, this is the type of approach many protectionists on both the left and right take when it comes to economic policy. Through onerous regulation, occupational licensing restrictions, minimum wage laws, price controls, tariffs, and more, it can feel like the deck is stacked against you.

    By contrast, free enterprise is liberating and creates opportunity. The spread of capitalism and the promotion of free markets has led to a substantial decline in extreme poverty. In the 1980s, approximately 40 percent of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. Today, that figure is 8.6 percent.

    Even authoritarian regimes, like China, recognize the importance of limiting government intrusion in markets if they hope to be competitive in an increasingly globalized economy.

    Capitalism has proven to be the best vehicle for economic justice for the marginalized and impoverished. Why would anyone want to deprive the poor of the mobility free enterprise affords?

    If we look to public trust as an indication of capitalism’s viability, look no further than business, which holds “a massive 54-point edge over government as an institution that is good at what it does,” according to the Edelman Trust Barometer. It’s also worth noting that US economic confidence is the highest it has been in nearly 20 years.

    No, capitalism doesn’t appear to be going anywhere anytime soon. Instead of statists thumbing their noses at capitalism–oftentimes suggesting governments intervene–they’d be wise to exhibit a little intellectual humility and take a lesson from the efficiency and dynamism of the private sector.

    The data is indisputable. Capitalism has been the primary driver of economic flourishing and innovation for nearly three hundred years, catapulting individuals, societies, and nations into levels of prosperity that were previously unfathomable. Capitalism respects the agency of people and communities, recognizing that they should be able to freely associate and trade as they see fit. Free market capitalism honors the natural right to private property.

    But, even beyond these principles and big ideas, the practical matter is that so long as humans value prosperity, opportunity and innovation, capitalism won’t fade away. Free enterprise offers technological innovation that make products smarter, lighter, cheaper, and use less material.

    Capitalism creates, socialism destroys.

    Moving from free market capitalism toward a command economy is neither moral nor responsible. So long as free people choose action over apathy and liberty over serfdom, capitalism will continue to offer individuals the opportunity to pursue the American Dream.


    Doug McCullough

    Doug McCullough is a corporate attorney at the Texas law firm, McCullough Sudan, and is a director of the Lone Star Policy Institute. Doug is a co-host of The Urbane Cowboys, a podcast on policy, society, and innovation. He is a National Review Institute Regional Fellow and Better Cities Project Fellow. He is a regular contributor to Foundation for Economic Education, and has been published in Entrepreneur, The Hill, Washington Examiner, Arc Digital, Houston Chronicle, and San Antonio Express.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


    📂This entry was posted in News and Politics 📎and tagged

  • 4 Questions You Probably Won’t Hear at CNN’s Climate Crisis Town Hall

    Posted on by Azrael 1 Comment


    Ten Democratic presidential candidates will square off in New York on Wednesday, fielding questions as part of a seven-hour telecast (yes, seven hours) that CNN is billing as an “unprecedented prime-time event focused on the climate crisis.”

    Though questions will come from members of the audience, CNN’s description of the event offers some indication of what questions viewers can expect.

    In his preview of the town hall-style event, CNN senior analyst Mark Preston writes that global warming “would cause coastal cities to disappear underwater, leaving hundreds of millions of people displaced and forced to migrate to dry areas.

    Because of this, Preston says, the UN warns that governments must take “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”

    Whether questions that do not accept these premises—that global warming is a crisis and only governments can fix it—will be entertained remains to be seen. But CNN’s description suggests the event may be closer to Greta Thunberg’s “I Want You to Panic” approach to climate change than level-headed analysis that explores the costs and benefits of inaction and action on climate change.

    Regardless of CNN’s approach to the issue, here are four climate change-related questions audience members should consider asking.

    Nuclear energy is safe, comparatively cheap, reliable, and generates zero greenhouse gasses. For this reason, the Union of Concerned Scientists has said nuclear energy is necessary to address climate change. It’s already a proven solution to CO2 emissions. France and Sweden, two nations that have far lower per capita carbon emission rates than the US, rely heavily on nuclear power, generating 72 percent and 42 percent of their energy from it, respectively. The US, on the other hand, generates just 20 percent of its power from nuclear energy.

    Despite its efficiency and low-cost, prominent Green New Deal plans from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders either reject expanding US nuclear capacity or propose phasing it out entirely.

    A new study in Science magazine says one solution to the fears surrounding CO2 emissions is surprisingly simple: plant more trees. The study says that increasing the planet’s forests by an area the size of the United States “has the potential to cut the atmospheric carbon pool by about 25%.”

    That is no small order since we’re talking about an area more than five percent of the Earth’s land surface area. Yet it’s likely far more achievable than becoming a CO2-free economy by 2050.

    Assuming it could be achieved, would an international policy dedicated to increasing forestation not be preferable to taxing CO2?

    The environmentalist Dr. Bjorn Lomborg points out that since the 1920s, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by about 30 percent to more than 400 ppm, and global average temps increased by roughly 1°C. Yet during that same timeframe, climate-related deaths plummeted by 99 percent.

    The reason for this is that people in wealthier nations are more resistant to climate-related deaths than people in poorer nations, and the 20th century saw an unprecedented increase in economic growth (see below). This suggests the best way to protect people from climate change is with economic growth, not austerity. As it happens, the “socio-economic pathways” (SSPs) literature makes it clear that the most abundant future is one that relies on fossil fuels and free markets.

    About 65 percent of all electricity in the US is generated by fossil fuels, according to the Energy Information Administration. This actually increases during the coldest months of the year. During cold snaps, according to the Department of Energy, independent system operators (ISOs) can depend on coal, nuclear, and natural gas for more than 80 percent of the electricity they generate.

    Most parts of the country, however, aren’t heated with electric power. Natural gas—a fossil fuel—is the primary fuel for warming homes in most parts of the country by a wide margin. Kerosene and fuel oil also account for a sizable portion in some parts of the country. On a continent of about 3.8 million square miles that sees temps reach as low as 13 degrees Fahrenheit in Atlanta and -4 degrees in New York City, fossil fuels are what fight the freeze, keeping hundreds of millions of Americans warm during the coldest months. 


    Jon Miltimore

    Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Washington Times. 

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


    📂This entry was posted in News and Politics 📎and tagged

  • Media Fail Marvelously in Mocking Rand Paul for Surgery in Canada, “Land Of Universal Health Care”

    Posted on by Azrael Comment

    Senator Rand Paul is no stranger to public criticism. As one of the few principled members of Congress and an heir to his father’s legacy of anti-authoritarianism, he has grown accustomed to falling under public scrutiny for standing up for his beliefs. But this week he isn’t being condemned for his foreign policy views or his stance on criminal justice reform. Instead, the progressives have chastised the senator from Kentucky for going outside of the United States for medical treatment.

    When Paul was attacked by his neighbor while doing yard work in 2017, he was left with six broken ribs, a bruised lung, and a hernia, which has since been left unresolved. Needing surgery and being well-versed in the atrocity that is our overpriced and overregulated American health care system, Paul decided to join the 150,000 to 320,000 Americans who travel abroad each year in search of lower costs and high-quality health care. But since the medical facility in question happens to be in Canada, Paul has suddenly found himself a target of those accusing him of utilizing the same socialist system he so fervently decries.

    It wasn’t long after Senator Paul announced his intention to travel to Canada for surgery that the accusations began to make their rounds on social media. Democratic Coalition tweeted, “Oh, the irony: Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, one of the fiercest political critics of socialized medicine, will travel to Canada later this month to get hernia surgery.” Likewise, Talking Points Memo also took a jab at Paul when it tweeted, “Rand Paul, enemy of socialized medicine, will go to Canada for surgery.”

    The media also had a field day attacking Senator Paul. Deceiving headlines intended to mislead the public read, “Rand Paul Heading To Canada, Land Of Universal Health Care, For Surgery” and “Sen. Rand Paul Is Having Surgery in Canada, Where Healthcare Is Publicly Funded.” But there is just one major problem with these tweets and headlines: They inaccurately assert that because the senator is traveling to Canada for surgery, he must be utilizing the country’s infamous socialized medical program. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Had any of these overzealous Twitter users bothered to do some research, they would have quickly discovered that contrary to their claims, Senator Paul was not being a hypocrite at all. In fact, staying true to his beliefs, the senator plans to go abroad next week to make use of a top-notch private medical facility that offers competitive rates to patients.

    The Shouldice Hernia Hospital is a private facility in Thornhill, Ontario, that prides itself on being “the global leader in non-mesh hernia repair.” It also offers competitive pricing for those paying out of pocket, which is a huge plus for the uninsured. And since it is private, the facility also has more control over its pricing structure, giving it more autonomy to work with health care consumers.

    Paul, who has likened socialized medicine to slavery and who himself is an ophthalmologist, has always been an advocate for private solutions to our health care woes. And while many would like to condemn this decision to go to Canada as hypocrisy, it is actually right on brand for the senator.

    Kelsey Cooper, a spokesperson for Paul, defended his decision and wrote in an email to the Courier Journal, which broke the story,

    This is more fake news on a story that has been terribly reported from day one—this is a private, world-renowned hospital separate from any system and people come from around the world to pay cash for their services.

    While the media and talking heads continue to waste their breath gossiping about Paul’s personal medical decisions, the senator is demonstrating what a truly free market health care system could look like.

    In an interview with Wave 3 News in Washington, DC, Paul commented on his decision, saying:

    I looked for a place that did primarily that type of surgery. A place that actually accepts Americans who pay cash. It’s a private hospital. The funny thing is, people had an agenda that wanted to attack me said, “Oh, you’re going to choose socialized medicine.” I’m actually choosing capitalistic medicine because they only take cash from foreigners.

    He continued:

    We have some centers like this. Oklahoma has a center like this but doesn’t specialize in the surgery I need. I chose (Shouldice) because they are good at it and actually the price is right.

    Once it was made widely known that Paul would not be partaking in Canada’s socialized medicine, the critics switched to condemning the senator for going outside of the US for treatment, as if doing so was somehow anti-American in nature. And while many are using this instance as a means of shaming Rand Paul, his actions offer a great teaching moment for the country.

    It’s a mistake to view health care as some sort of phenomenon unrelated and immune to the market process. Health care is a commodity just like any other consumer good. And when choice in medical treatment is limited, health care consumers suffer greatly.

    Keeping health care options confined only to one’s own country of origin is an outdated concept. Medical tourism is a booming industry that gives patients more control over their health care by giving them the opportunity to go wherever the best possible care is available at the lowest costs. This has resulted in a boom for countries like India and Costo Rica.

    As I have previously written:

    For anyone unfamiliar with the term, medical tourism is when someone chooses to travel outside their country of origin, usually to less-developed countries, in search of affordable, quality medical care. And it also happens to be one of the fastest growing global industries. In 2016, this burgeoning sector was valued at $100 billion and is expected to experience 25 percent year-by-year growth by the year 2025. And in an era of soaring medical costs, it is saving health care consumers thousands of dollars and providing them with the care they so desperately need.

    The thought of traveling abroad for health care might scare a fair number of Americans. After all, we tend to think our own medical system as more advanced than others. But the truth is that excessive government regulation has actually stifled medical innovation and caused the cost of treatment to skyrocket. And while American politicians argue about how to best fix this problem, other countries have been innovating and relaxing regulations in order to offer competitive care to medical tourists.

    In India, for example:

    [T]he critically acclaimed Narayana Hrudayalaya heart hospital offers cardiac surgeries from $5,000- $7,000. The same surgery in the US would cost a patient upwards of $50,000. And as far as other medical procedures are concerned, in Costa Rica, a knee replacement surgery can cost a patient around $23,000. However, the same surgery, obtained in the US can cost anywhere from $35,000-$60,000.

    The dramatically lower costs have encouraged some US employers to encourage their employees to seek treatment outside the country rather than use their insurance policies to see an American doctor. For employees who need knee replacement surgery, Hickory Springs Manufacturing began offering a choice: pay $3,000 dollars out of pocket and have the procedure performed in the United States, or opt to take an all-expenses-paid vacation to Costa Rica for the surgery instead. And on top of the free trip, you will also receive a $2,500 bonus check. Since switching to this model, the company has saved more than $10 million on health care costs.

    The free market is not constrained to the political borders of one’s own country. And in order to have a robust health care market full of choice, consumers need to be able to go wherever the best care is available. Senator Rand Paul’s decision to go to Canada for surgery should not be condemned; rather, it should inspire the rest of the country to take a look at all the medical options available to us.

    Source: Media Fail Marvelously in Mocking Rand Paul for Surgery in Canada, “Land Of Universal Health Care” – Foundation for Economic Education




    📂This entry was posted in News and Politics 📎and tagged