free market economics Archives - Page 8 of 9

Making the Income Tax Fair

submitted by jwithrow.

Well tax season is here once again and we have been hearing a lot about the need to make the income tax system more fair and equitable.

We couldn’t help but overhear a woman’s conversation the other day on the subject matter:

“Did you know that Mr. So-and-so’s tax refund was ten thousand dollars!? He doesn’t claim much of his business income but he claims all of his children, can you believe that!? It’s just not fair – that’s exactly what’s wrong with America!”

And that got us to thinking – maybe she is right.

Maybe we do need a more fair income tax.

After all, some people only pay 15% but some people pay 25% and even others pay 35%! And some corporations don’t even pay 10%!

You know what, we agree with our angry woman. We do need to have a more fair income tax!

We think the tax system should be structured based on our American heritage. Our income tax should foster liberty and justice for all. This is the land of the free, is it not?

Our income tax should make sure that every single American shoulders an equal burden, especially the rich! And our income tax should make sure that corporations pay the same amount as people!

Yes, dear friend, having thought it over more we are one hundred percent on board with a fair income tax.

Now we are not sure what our inspirational angry woman had in mind to make taxes more equitable, but we have thought of a pretty good solution.

Get rid of the income tax completely. Make it 0%.

Now it’s fair!

And now it’s modeled after our American founding principles. How can a man be free if he is not allowed to keep the fruits of his labor?

What’s that you say? How will we pay for all of our government operations?

Easy – we won’t. And we shouldn’t.

Oh, and it’s not ‘our’ government. If it were ours then we would be the boss. Instead, the government tags and monitors all of us at all times.

Mr. So-and-so has the right idea.

The Economy Can Never Fully Recover as Long as This Remains…

By Paul Rosenberg, Freemansperspective.com

When I was a young man, the older men I admired were the independent businessmen. Being a corporate suit issuing orders to underlings never appealed to me, but being a successful man who controlled his own life and business… that did.

Perhaps as a result, most of my friends are independent business people of one sort or another. Not long ago, I had a notable conversation with one of them, during which he said:

You know, Paul, business used to be fun. I’d take my children around and show them what we were doing, and explain the differences we’d make.

I waited just a beat as he winced and then continued:

Now, I don’t want to drag my kids into my business. Every time I move, there are regulations, permissions, forms to file. It takes up most of my time, for nothing. Business isn’t fun anymore. If I could find something else, I’d get out.

And this is a man who has been in his business since childhood, who loves to tell stories about it, and who used to enjoy his work immensely. If this guy is looking for the exit, the problem is dire.

It’s pretty obvious why

I have limited faith in government statistics, but there are a few informative ones on this subject:

The US Small Business Administration (SBA) recently reported that the annual cost of complying with government regulations is more than one trillion dollars per year and has been since 2005.

It goes on to report that big businesses (500+ employees), pay about $7,550 per employee to comply with the regulations. Small businesses, on the other hand (up to 20 employees) pay about $10,600 for every person they employ. And this is just one reason why small, independent businesses are being swallowed up by giant corporations.

Also bear in mind that this is just the cost of compliance with federal regulations. States also impose regulations on businesses. So do most of the county and city governments, especially large city governments.

New rules are produced constantly, and the cost of compliance rises constantly. In the US (and many other places), the cost of doing business has long since become prohibitive.

The Work-Arounds

Clever folks always find ways to get around this insanity, of course. But those ways are extra work and probably help relatively few people.

#1: They get rid of their employees

They find niches in their fields that allow them to escape the endless paperwork, penalties, and senselessly wasted time that comes with being an employer. (If you’ve ever had employees, you know what I mean.)

And what of the workers? Well, some get hired by the few related-industry employers that remain, while others have to take a mind-numbing mid-level corporate job just to pay the bills or get insurance. The rest are living on food stamps, disability, or a dozen other welfare programs.

#2: They go offshore

If your business is not resident where the regulators are, they usually can’t say anything about it.

Not many business people have moved abroad, but lots of them have set up offshore companies and are conducting business on the Internet. These people get their lives back… if they can find a way to make it work.

That is the dirty little secret of offshore companies, by the way: It’s not about escaping taxes; it’s about escaping all that ridiculous, insulting, pointless paperwork. No more spending days crunching numbers at tax time, no filing new reports every time you do something. You just take care of your customers and deliver good product. (Which ought to be enough.)

#3: They pay politicians for protection

Why would anyone donate thousands of dollars to a politician unless they expected to get something in return?

Big businesses pay politicians so that they can make a phone call to get problems that arise fixed. Small businesses can’t afford that, and most small business owners have moral problems with bribery.

Legit Is Dead

Unfortunately, the old “American way” of working hard, conducting honest business, and succeeding is gone, dead, and buried. It may still happen from time to time, but infrequently and off the beaten path.

Not long ago, I found this sign posted on a streetlight in Chicago:

The sign is right – the old “legit” way of doing business is dead. If you want to get ahead these days, you either try to play a game that is rigged against you, you pay politicians to bend the rules for you, or you avoid the situation entirely.

It seems that the best and brightest – the would-be drivers of the economy – are choosing the last option.

What does that say about where things are going?

Paul Rosenberg

[Editor’s Note: Paul Rosenberg is the outside-the-Matrix author of FreemansPerspective.com, a site dedicated to economic freedom, personal independence and privacy. He is also the author of The Great Calendar, a report that breaks down our complex world into an easy-to-understand model. Click here to get your free copy.]

What We Forgot About Free Market Capitalism Part Two

submitted by jwithrow.

Failure is just as much a facet of free market capitalism as success is.

In a free market economy, well managed businesses with desired products and services will succeed and poorly managed business with undesired products and services will fail.

Consumers, when well informed, will make decisions based on their individual preferences; they will either buy the highest quality product at the lowest price for which that product is available or they will buy a lower quality product for a price lower than the higher quality product. Consumers are typically not very interested in paying high quality prices for low quality products.

So, in the free market, businesses must constantly strive to either offer the best product at the lowest price or a suitable product at a very low price. This requires businesses to focus on improving efficiency and decreasing costs without sacrificing product quality. If a business cannot offer competitive products at competitive prices then it will not be in business for very long.

This model aligns the interests of both businesses and consumers and creates a self-regulating incentive structure.

In the free market system, businesses have an incentive to offer quality products to customers at the best price and they have a disincentive to offer poor products at poor prices. While this is a simple representation, the incentive structure is one of the core principals underlying the free market system.

But what happens if businesses are not allowed to fail due to government intervention?

We have seen numerous cases of this scenario in recent years. The “too big to fail” banks were propped up by the federal government when they came to the point of failure. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken under receivership by the federal government when they came to the point of failure. General Motors was temporarily taken over and propped up by the federal government when it came to the point of failure.

This is moral hazard.

Oh, and we should probably mention that the federal government cannot actually bail anything out with its own capital. To fund the bail-outs, the government has to appropriate capital from the private sector in the form of tax dollars and it has to borrow money from the Federal Reserve that was created out of thin air.

So the business losses were socialized but the profits remained privatized – this is fascism in action.

By creating moral hazard in this way, the disincentive piece has been removed from the system and the incentive model has shifted away from a consumer focus and to a focus on generating high profits with no regard for risk. Such a model is a win-win for the favored businesses and the government cronies that they support. The losers are everyone else as the economy turns to mush.

Coming full circle, failure is a welcome facet of free market capitalism. Maybe not for the companies’ doing the failing, but failure is a force for creative destruction that serves to weed out the businesses that cannot offer quality products at reasonable prices.

This is why it is ridiculous to claim that any company is “too big to fail” as justification for bail-outs. Sure there would be temporary hardship were the major banks to fail, but this would eventually free up capital and clear the way for sustainable banking practices to be implemented.

Feel free to read more on the matter here and here.

What We Forgot About Free Market Capitalism Part 1

submitted by jwithrow.

One of the most important elements of free market capitalism is the price system. The capitalist price system provides information on supply and demand in the marketplace and individuals make business and investment decisions based on this information.

The economic system that America now employs is not free market capitalism and there are legions of regulations in place that distort the market pricing system every step of the way.

The most insidious price distortion is the suppression of interest rates.

Interest rates are simply the price of money. Like everything else in the market economy, interest rates are self-regulated by the forces of supply and demand. If there is a high quantity of capital in the system available for lending then interest rates will naturally be low. Low interest rates will entice borrowers to engage in long term financing – purchasing homes, expanding businesses, etc. Interest rates will then naturally rise as the capital available for lending diminishes. High interest rates are not attractive to borrowers so individuals and businesses will focus more on short term projects. This will lead to increased capital formation within the system which will gradually trigger falling interest rates.

But what happens when a central bank suppresses interest rates and keeps them near zero for an extended period of time? Well, this destroys the entire pricing system and distorts the entire market system.

Artificially suppressed interest rates send a false signal – which is exactly why they were suppressed in the first place. Artificially suppressed rates still entice borrowers to take engage in long term financing but this is a Keynesian trap. The problem is that there is not sufficient capital formation in the economy to warrant the low interest rates and thus there is not a true demand for all of the long term projects undertaken.

This is called mal-investment.

“If you build it, they will come” is a great catch phrase in the movies but it’s just not how the real world works.

Despite what the economics textbook says, there is no such thing as a ‘mixed economic system’. There is simply no room for the suppression of interest rates or the distortion of prices in a capitalist system.

There are only two choices:

Free markets
Central planning

Free market capitalism presumes an honest and functional price system that is not manipulated by a central bank.

Oh, we should probably mention how interest rates are suppressed.

The Federal Reserve creates currency units out of thin air and uses them to buy long term Treasury bonds at low rates. What could possibly go wrong?

By the way, you can read more on this topic here, here, and here.

Non-Profit Skepticism

submitted by jwithrow.

We think that the idea of non-profit organizations, as the 501(c) code exists, is un-American.

Hold on! Hear us out on this one before you call us heartless capitalists – we have a good reason. Actually several reasons.

The non-profit structure as it currently exists violates the equality under law principle upon which America was founded. 501(c) organizations receive favorable treatment by law relative to for-profit organizations.

But the American vision of limited government was such that it should protect equality under law rather than promote inequality by law. Equal opportunity as we used to say.

Additionally, the 501(c) structure reinforces Marxist principles in the minds of Americans in a very devious way. This we really don’t like.

The Marxist ideology is opposed to profit because it violates their “from each according to ability, to each according to need” credo.

In granting favorable status to non-profit organizations the government is actually supporting the belief that non-profits are more desirable than for-profit organizations. Think about it – why else would 501(c)’s be granted privileges if they weren’t seen as deserving of such favoritism? So in a sneaky kind of way this sows the seeds of Marxism by silently stating that the profit motive is not to be commended while the non-profit motive is superior ideology.

Which brings us to our last point:

The whole non-profit part of 501(c) organizations is fraudulent!

Sure, the organization itself does not show a profit but have you ever looked at the executive salaries at these “non-profit” organizations?

We have.

They are systematically much higher than average wages. MUCH higher.

Sure looks like profit to us.

Now there are some very good non-profit organizations out there. We have donated to some good ones that we knew were good because we knew the people running the show and we could see the charitable work being done. But most of the giant non-profits are frauds and we would steer clear of them. A good rule of thumb is that if a non-profit has a commercial on television then it is probably not worthy of your attention. Otherwise it wouldn’t need a commercial on television.

Also, don’t get us wrong, we like the fact that non-profits are tax-exempt. The less money appropriated by the Feds the better, in our opinion.

But we think that a much better idea would be to get rid of the corporate income tax altogether. Then you wouldn’t have a need for special non-profit treatment. And you might even notice some jobs sneaking back into America also – as long as the corporate income tax was repealed and replaced with nothing.

Of course this is just our humble opinion. Maybe the bureaucrats know better than we do.

Distinguishing Wealth from Money

submitted by jwithrow.

At Zenconomics we feel like it is extremely important to differentiate wealth from money. Pop culture and mainstream personal finance relentlessly tell us that the two are one in the same but they are mistaken.

The key to differentiating wealth from money is to understand the difference between exchange value and use value. You already implicitly understand this difference but it is not immediately apparent in our culture today.

Money, by nature, holds an exchange value. You can exchange money for goods and services and the quantity of goods and services for which you can exchange money is determined by the value of your money. But this is all that money is good for – serving as a medium of exchange.

Wealth, on the other hand, holds both exchange value and use value.

You can exchange wealth for goods and services and the quantity of goods and services for which you can exchange wealth is determined by the accepted value of your wealth. Wealth in most forms, however, is not as easily exchanged for goods and services and this is precisely why money plays a vital role in a developed economy.

Unlike money, wealth also holds a use value. You can ‘use’ wealth in some capacity. Take real estate for example.

If you own residential real estate then you can either live in the home or you can rent the home out to a tenant to generate income. These actions both utilize use value. Of course, you can also sell real estate for money which utilizes exchange value.

Maybe your real estate consists of farm land which could be used to produce food. Now your real estate, which is wealth if owned outright, can be utilized to produce additional wealth in the form of food. Now your food has both an exchange value and a use value. You can take your fruits and vegetables down to the farmers market and exchange them for money if you want to utilize the exchange value. Or you can eat your fruits and vegetables if you want to utilize their use value.

It is important to point out that an asset must be owned free and clear of an attached debt in order for it to be considered personal wealth.

If you own a home with a big mortgage on it then you are one financial emergency away from losing the home and thus the case could be made that you do not truly own the home yet. This is not to say that taking out a mortgage to buy a property is a bad idea, but be cognizant of the fact that you will need to satisfy the mortgage before the property can truly be considered wealth.

It is also important to point out that some forms of wealth may hold better exchange value than others. A classic car collection may be extremely valuable to the owner but it may be difficult to find a willing buyer if the owner wished to exchange the collection for money in the future.

To reiterate, money is not wealth.

In fact, the only reason to hold money is to use it to purchase desired goods and services. There is no other use for money.

And if you want to maximize your own wealth, you must wisely use money as a tool to acquire wealth.

**For more of Joe’s thoughts on the “Great Reset” and personalized asset allocation please read “The Individual is Rising: 2nd edition” which will be available later this year. Please sign up for the notifications mailing list at http://www.theindividualisrising.com/.

The Stock Market Deception

submitted by jwithrow.

The stock market is comprised of numerous exchanges through which buyers and sellers can trade securities. The New York Stock Exchange is the world’s largest stock exchange followed by the NASDAQ. The Tokyo Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange are third and fourth in terms of market capitalization.

As we mentioned, the exchanges enable buyers and sellers to trade securities with one another.

We repeat this statement to emphasize the next one:

The exchanges are not where businesses raise capital unless an initial public offering (IPO) is taking place.

We think it is important to recognize this fact.

The vast majority of trades on a stock exchange are simply speculative – there is very little productive activity taking place. Even IPOs are usually not terribly productive as the intent is often not to raise capital for business operation but rather to enrich the owners and private investors.

So if most trades are just speculation then why do we view the stock market as a gauge of economic health? Why do we assume that the underlying economy is good when stock prices go up?

We do not assume that the economy is good when corn or oil prices go up. But corn and oil contracts are also traded on futures exchanges and there are speculators who profit when their price rises.

Conversely, why do we assume that the underlying economy is bad when stock prices go down?

Nothing real is destroyed when stock prices fall. Buildings don’t collapse. Equipment doesn’t break. Goods don’t go up in smoke. Engineers don’t lose their knowledge.

Maybe there was a time when stock prices somewhat reflected the financial health of individual companies, but those days are long gone. With mark to unicorn accounting, leveraged stock buy-backs, and all other manner of financial wizardry, CEO’s can and do manipulate stock prices regularly.

Additionally, the Federal Reserve has spent the past three decades ensuring that liquidity flows directly into the stock market so that equity prices continuously rise in unison over time.

The point is that there is a huge disconnect between the stock market and the productive sector that mainstream finance pays no attention to. In fact, mainstream finance has convinced most people that speculating in the stock market is the _only_ way to invest for retirement.

There may be a place for stocks within your asset allocation model, but it is important to recognize the stock market deception for what it is and understand the game you are playing if you do delve into the market. I would highly recommend enlisting the services of independent financial analysts if you do allocate some of your capital to the financial markets.

As we have touched on in a number of other essays here at Zenconomics, financial planning should be comprehensive and diversified according to your own unique circumstances. Simply amassing paper equities denominated in fiat currency is a very fragile plan.

As Nelson Nash says: “If you know what’s going on, you’ll know what to do.”

Be wary of the stock market deception and plan accordingly.

**Want more information on how to build a sustainable financial plan? Are you ready to turbo-charge your retirement portfolio? Do you yearn to exit the rat-race? Is financial freedom calling to your spirit?

Do not take a backseat when it comes to your own finances. Learn everything you need to know to master your finances in 30 days by enrolling in Finance for Freedom today!

Seven Reasons to Abolish the Federal Reserve System

submitted by jwithrow.

The following are seven reasons to abolish the Federal Reserve System.

This list is taken directly from G. Edward Griffin’s “The Creature from Jekyll Island”. If you are up to the task, read this tome for a thorough understanding of how the monetary system actually works.

1. It is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives.
2. It is a cartel operating against the public interest.
3. It is the supreme instrument of usury.
4. It generates our most unfair tax.
5. It encourages war.
6. It destabilizes the economy.
7. It is an instrument of totalitarianism.

A Frank Letter to the Homeless Man Under the Bridge

By: Paul Rosenberg, Freemansperspective.com

I see you standing here, asking for help, about once a week. You are always polite, and I respect that. I’d like to do something for you… something that would matter long-term. Giving you a few notes or coins now and then may be fine, but I’d really like to improve your situation more permanently.

In other words, I’d like to give you a job.

I used to hire people, and I especially liked hiring people who had been denied breaks. I did that whenever I could. If you and I could be transported back in time, I’d hire you. And I’d feel good about it, because I think having a job would do you a lot of good.

That fact is, however, that I can’t hire you, and I’d like you to know why.

I used to run my own contracting firm. I enjoyed the work and I liked being able to drive past a building and say, “I made that.” Having employees, however, was torture. I liked having them in some ways, of course – I liked the guys and it made me happy to see them take care of their families with paychecks that I signed. That was very gratifying. But it wasn’t enough, and there are three reasons why:

#1: Making Payroll

My first problem was simply cash flow. I was solely responsible for having enough money in the bank every week, and that could be nerve-wracking, especially when customers weren’t paying their bills on time. It’s not fun to think that a family won’t be able to buy groceries if you can’t collect your invoices.

Still, that part didn’t cause me to give up on employees. It was hard, but so long as my employees were working, we were making money, so there was always something coming in at some point. Somehow, I was able to pull it off.

#2: Being Hated

Over time, some of my employees became jerks. This seemed to grow from envy and from stupid ideas about labor versus management. These guys decided that I was getting rich off of them, and demanded I pay them more – more than they deserved and more than the company could afford.

And the really nasty part was this: It was always the guys I had done the most for who hated me most. And as soon as I sat down with them and explained why I couldn’t pay them more, they started stealing from me.

I fired the thieves, of course, but these experiences really soured me on employees. I had not only given these guys a job, but I had legitimately felt good about helping to feed their families. In return, they hated me, called me names, and stole from me.

By itself, that was almost enough to make me swear off employing people, but not quite.

#3: The IRS

What really drove me over the edge was dealing with the government and the IRS in particular. They were abominable.

I had to file forms with every payroll, and if anything on them was wrong, they penalized me – heavily. And if I paid them a single day late, they penalized me – heavily. And if they said I did something wrong – even if I didn’t – there was no way to change their verdict. Reason and evidence simply didn’t matter.

I eventually talked to a tax lawyer who explained the situation to me. He said:

Forget about fighting, Paul. There is no ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in tax court. You’re automatically guilty, and you have to try to prove yourself innocent… which is very hard and very expensive. Just pay them. I know you hate that, but you have no other choice. Fighting them would ruin you.

It wasn’t just the money that got me about this – it was that they were nasty, arrogant, heartless tyrants. Having the facts on my side didn’t matter. Intelligent arguments didn’t matter. Either I paid what they demanded or they would hurt me worse.

In many ways, it wasn’t much different than the local gang of street thugs demanding protection money.

So, that’s why I can’t hire you: Having employees locked me into a single role in life, that of a despised slave. When I finally realized that, I walked away.

I was lucky that I had the ability to move into specialties and to thrive in difficult niches; other guys probably couldn’t have.

So…

What I really want you to know is this:

I’d like to help you. You deserve a chance at a decent job. I’d like to be the guy who gave it to you, but the system demands that I must live as a slave in order to do so. And I won’t do that.

I very much wish that things were different, and I feel sorry every time I drive by that I can’t hire you. But I would never ask anyone to live as a slave, and I won’t live that way myself.

I wish you well, and if life in these parts should ever pull back from the present reign of oppression, I hope to run into you. And on that day, I hope to either hire you or do business with you.

We would both have much to gain from it.

Paul Rosenberg

The Wizards of Ozymandias

submitted by jwithrow.

“The Wizards of Ozymandias” by Butler Shaffer is a must-read for anyone who appreciates Percy Bysshe Shelley’s “Ozymandias”. The book is also a must read for anyone with an interest in the history of western civilization, social philosophy, free-market economics, or critical thinking in general.

A paperback copy of the book costs $16.85 and the kindle version costs $3.99. We will provide a link to the book at the end of this post.

In a nutshell, Shaffer spends 310 powerful pages exposing the fallacy of central planning and he does so in a common sensical way. There are no ideological theories or assumptions, just critical thinking and common sense – imagine that!

Coincidentally, critical thinking and common sense are two of the most important victims of central planning.

By the way, when we talk about central planning we are talking about the systems of societal control that have been gradually implemented over the past one hundred years or so. We are talking about socialism in general and all manner of destructive socialist policies. We are talking about organizations like the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the military-industrial complex (please, look this one up), the FDA, the EPA, all other alphabet soup governmental organizations, all other organizations whose name starts with “The Department of”, and countless other massive, unaccountable monsters of bureaucracy.

And yes dear friend, the Federal Reserve and the IRS are instruments of socialism (and fascism and perpetual war – nothing is ever cut and dry). They are the opposite of free market capitalism. In fact, the implementation of a central bank is one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto. We think it is the fifth plank but we are not sure exactly and we haven’t looked it up because we don’t want to send mixed signals to our friends at the NSA.

Anyway, the point is that human beings are not robots. Human interaction does not need to be scripted according to some jerk’s sociopathic ideals.

Governments are not people. Nations are not people. Corporations are not people. People are people. People are best when they are free from coercion to voluntarily interact with others for their own benefit as they see fit. The free market serves people in this fashion as long as they abide by two rules:

Do not infringe upon another person or his property (natural law). Do all that you have agreed to do and nothing that you have agreed not to do (contract law).

Mr. Shaffer is a little better written than we are so we highly recommend his book.