Tyler Cowan utilizes Walt Whitman to condemn Protectionists, but does the effect really work? Why wouldn’t it work? I basically think the Whitman Quote would work equally well, if one substituted ‘Free Trader’ for ‘Protectionist’, and ‘Free Trade’ for ‘Protection’. Could it be that a normal Trade mix, coupled with suppression of economic corruption of Market forces by use of political corruption, might provide greater benefit than either extremism.
The Angry Economist has a short Post on faith in Markets, which may tie in with Tyler’s piece above. Why is there so much protection of business from taxation and Risk in the passage of law by the U.S. Congress? It is obvious that Congress has actual little faith in Markets, and even less faith that their own Incomes will be maintained without such regulation. The French Revolution, I actually took a Graduate level History course on it (can’t remember much of anything), occurred because of an aristocratical corruption of the royal Court, so they were free of taxation and of submission to the same laws as the Common people. Is the current structure so much different, though We may have to substitute ‘aristocracy’ with ‘Corporation’.
The basic fault evident in both discussion is the creation of a artificial Upper Class immune from the same difficulty as the general Polity. It is the very antithesis of free Markets, and cripples all efforts to improve the living standards of both the Poor and Middle Class. Question: What would be the effect of a law stating no one could get tax remissions greater than triple the Average tax remission Average of the lower half of Income Earners? I would suggest the National Debt would be paid off within the decade, Wages would rise dramatically while Prices would stagnate, and the net median Wealth of American Households would jump 20% within a decade as well. lgl
No comments:
Post a Comment