Economics

Ending the Wal-Mart Subsidy

This entry was posted in Economics Health Care on by

Toward the end of a discussion of Wal-Mart’s profits and its worker’s wages Donald Johnson, posting at Body and Soul, makes an important point:

Reductio ad absurdums aside, maybe it is possible that there’s a multiplier effect of some kind here, but it apparently involves government social programs stepping in to take care of Wal-Mart’s inadequately-paid workers. So again, should the government go into the business of picking out efficient businesses and subsidizing them, or should it give health benefits to everyone?

Well, it should do neither.
First, if folks are choosing to stay employed at a low wage operation like Wal-Mart because, inter alia, the sum of their wages plus health maintenance provided by Medicaid disincents them to find more remunerative work then end the subsidy. You and I should not be supporting Wal-Mart’s low wages via tax supported health maintenance programs.
Second, Wal-Mart is not the only business receiving this wage subsidy they just happen to be the large easy target. Others are both small and large. In addition, there are plenty of other business subsidies many of which are much more direct such as sugar price supports, import restrictions, tarriffs, etc.
Third, government should not be taking the fruits of your or my labor and using it to subsidize either directly or indirectly any business using any criteria.
So let’s stop it now: no more sugar subsidies, no more tarriffs, no more Medicaid, real free trade, and so on.
Surely all those highly paid K-street folks who now make their living persuading our elected represrentatives their minions that their business should be subsidized with money that would be better used buying food, shoes and health care for our families can find useful work elsewhere at a wage appropriate to their productivity.

Bow Down to Leo?

This entry was posted in Constitution Economics Libertarianism Supreme Court (US) on by

Feddie at Southern Appeal argues that this endorsement by Leonard Leo should resolve the issue:

Dear Ann Coulter and all other Roberts doubters: If the following statements by Leonard Leo don’t make you feel extremely secure with President Bush’s nomination of John Roberts to the SCOTUS, then nothing will:

Well, I’m a cipher roberts doubter and this surely doesn’t make me reconsider. Amongst other things Leo argues that:

Even though Roberts has never ruled on an abortion issue, Leo says Roberts opinions on other hot political topics show “a respect for the text and original meaning and a presumption of deference to the political branches of government.”

Seems a bit oxymoronic and certainly the last thing I want to see from the court is a presumption of deference to the political branches of government. An independent judiciary that properly recognizes the restrictions that must be put on government action if life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and, yes, our economic well being are to survive is just fine, thank you!

Shouldn’t We Quit Interfering in Religion?

This entry was posted in Constitution Economics Religion Taxation on by

Yep, we should!
It is time to take religious institutions off the public dole and remove all their tax exemptions. You should not need any more justification than this but in addition there is no good reason why your and my taxes should be higher just so these folks don’t have to pay their fair share.
And if this means removing tax exemptions from non-profits so be it.
Via Pandagon and Norbizness.

Religious Inflation

This entry was posted in Economics Journalism Religion on by

Tyler Cowen notes this Denver Post article which states that:

In 2004, … Translated into consumer spending, readers spent $3.7 billion on religious books, a category that includes Christian books. That is an increase of nearly 285 percent from 1983.

This is impressive but perhaps not quite as impressive as it looks.
There is no indication in the article that the author made any adjustment for inflation so let’s do it for her. First, by her numbers sales of religious books in 1983 would be $1.29 billion ($3.7 B/2.85). The CPI inflation index for the period 1983 to 2004 is 1.897, i.e., 1 1983 dollar equals 1.897 2004 dollars. Therefore 1983 sales of religious books in terms of 2004 dollars would be $2.447 billion and the increase in sales from 1983 to 2004 is about 51% not the 285% stated in the article.
Impressive? Yes! But not near as impressive as the article would have us believe.