Essential Economics for Politicians

Sheriff Joe said:
After 19 months of Trump, small businesses the most optimistic in 15 years
Andrew Malcolm Aug 08, 2018 11:21 AM
TrumpHardHatAlmostOn715.jpg

Small business jobs are big business
Click to expand...
This says it all.
 
No, 'Medicare for All' Is Still Not Plausible
Single-payer advocates are crowing that their plan would save money. They're also wrong.

Last week, Left-wing politicians, activists, and columnists gleefully rejoiced that they had unlocked the easy path to single-payer health care in America: Just cut reimbursement payments to health providers by 40 percent and then raise taxes by $32 trillion over the decade. You know, nothing difficult or controversial
 
Bruddah IZ said:
No, 'Medicare for All' Is Still Not Plausible
Single-payer advocates are crowing that their plan would save money. They're also wrong.

Last week, Left-wing politicians, activists, and columnists gleefully rejoiced that they had unlocked the easy path to single-payer health care in America: Just cut reimbursement payments to health providers by 40 percent and then raise taxes by $32 trillion over the decade. You know, nothing difficult or controversial
Click to expand...
Smart Power
 
Bruddah IZ said:
No, 'Medicare for All' Is Still Not Plausible
Single-payer advocates are crowing that their plan would save money. They're also wrong.

Last week, Left-wing politicians, activists, and columnists gleefully rejoiced that they had unlocked the easy path to single-payer health care in America: Just cut reimbursement payments to health providers by 40 percent and then raise taxes by $32 trillion over the decade. You know, nothing difficult or controversial
Click to expand...
Another great idea from the left..
 
The Accountable Capitalism Act Elizabeth Warren unveiled her new idea in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. It is her new bill, called the Accountable Capitalism Act. Of course, I have said this before, there is no truth in advertising when it comes to legislation. Whenever Congress passes a bill, the name of the bill is generally the opposite of what the bill actually does. So if they pass a bill called, "Tax Simplification", that means that they just complicated the tax code. But nobody wants to vote for a bill that's called "Tax Complication", so you can't label it "Tax Complication" when that's what we're doing, so you label it Simplification so everybody will like it. This is All About Socialism That's what Elizabeth Warren is doing in her Accountable Capitalism Act. This is not about Capitalism. This is about Socialism. The idea here is that Capitalism is not accountable, and so this act is going to hold Capitalism accountable. In reality, capitalism holds everybody accountable. Under a Capitalist system, everybody is accountable for their own actions. If you screw up, then you have to suffer the consequences. If you make a mistake, it's on you. If your business fails, there's not bail-out. Capitalism is the Ultimate in Accountability So Capitalism is the ultimate in accountability. It's fair and everybody is held accountable for their own decisions and their own actions. What Elizabeth Warren wants to do is to take that accountability away. She wants to have the government get in there and take away the accountability inherent in the Capitalist system. The Socialist Un-Accountability Act Not only is the act mislabeled, it is actually the Socialist Un-Accountability Act. It wants to take people who would normally be accountable and make them unaccountable. It's all Socialism wrapped up in a Capitalist bow. What she wants to do is: * She wants to force corporations with over $1 billion in revenue, regardless of their profit, to appoint at least 40% of their board from the ranks of their workers * She wants to re-install the stakeholder accountability that existed until the 1980's Warren: Profits have Screwed Up the Country I read the op-ed and I listened to her interview with Kramer on CNBC and according to Elizabeth Warren's revisionist version of American History, corporations cared about their stakeholders, meaning their employees, customers, communities up until the 1980's. Then all of a sudden, in the 1980's, everything changed. All of a sudden, it was all about profits. It was all about maximizing shareholder value. And that's what screwed up the country.,
 
This is about Socialism. The idea here is that Capitalism is not accountable, and so this act is going to hold Capitalism accountable. In reality, capitalism holds everybody accountable. Under a Capitalist system, everybody is accountable for their own actions. If you screw up, then you have to suffer the consequences. If you make a mistake, it's on you. If your business fails, there's not bail-out. Capitalism is the Ultimate in Accountability So Capitalism is the ultimate in accountability. It's fair and everybody is held accountable for their own decisions and their own actions. What Elizabeth Warren wants to do is to take that accountability away. She wants to have the government get in there and take away the accountability inherent in the Capitalist system.
 
The case for liberty is for a social process that is free to discover the best social institutions to enliven and realize human dignity through choice and with love. In order for that to happen, we need what might be called, in the tradition of C.S. Lewis, “mere liberty”: the freedom to own, act, speak, think, and innovate. The exercise of such rights is incompatible with government management of the economy and the social order.--Rob Koerner
 
In an earlier post, I noted that Senator Elizabeth Warren has introduced legislation designed to federalize the law of corporate social responsibility. Among other flaws with her proposal, a key one is the proposal to preempt state corporate law with a federal statute.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held repeatedly that the federal securities laws do not preempt state corporate law, but instead place only a limited gloss on the broader body of state law.[1] A fair rule of thumb is that state law is concerned with the substance of corporate governance, while federal law is concerned with disclosure and a limited number of procedural aspects of corporate governance (such as the solicitation of proxies and the conduct of a tender offer).[2]--Stephen Bainbridge
 
The basic case for federalizing corporate law rests on the so-called “race to the bottom” hypothesis. States compete in granting corporate charters. After all, the more charters the state grants, the more franchise and other taxes it collects. According to the race to the bottom theory, because it is corporate managers who decide on the state of incorporation, states compete by adopting statutes allowing corporate managers to exploit shareholders. As the clear winner in this state competition, Delaware is usually the poster-child for bad corporate governance. Interestingly, the two main corporate failures cited to justify the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Enron and WorldCom, were not Delaware corporations. (They were incorporated in Oregon and Georgia, respectively.)
 
Basic economic common sense tells us that investors will not purchase, or at least not pay as much for, securities of firms incorporated in states that cater too excessively to management. Lenders will not lend to such firms without compensation for the risks posed by management’s lack of accountability. As a result, those firms’ cost of capital will rise, while their earnings will fall. Among other things, such firms thereby become more vulnerable to a hostile takeover and subsequent management purges. Corporate managers therefore have strong incentives to incorporate the business in a state offering rules preferred by investors. Competition for corporate charters thus should deter states from adopting excessively pro management statutes. The empirical research bears out this view of state competition, suggesting that efficient solutions to corporate law problems win out over time.

 
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has one-upped socialists Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: She proposes to nationalize every major business in the United States of America. If successful, it would constitute the largest seizure of private property in human history.

Warren’s proposal is dishonestly called the “Accountable Capitalism Act.” Accountable to whom?you might ask. That’s a reasonable question. The answer is — as it always is — accountable to politicians, who desire to put the assets and productivity of private businesses under political discipline for their own selfish ends. It is remarkable that people who are most keenly attuned to the self-interest of CEOs and shareholders and the ways in which that self-interest influences their decisions apparently believe that members of the House, senators, presidents, regulators, Cabinet secretaries, and agency chiefs somehow are liberated from self-interest when they take office through some kind of miracle of transcendence.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/elizabeth-warren-plan-nationalize-everything-woos-hard-left/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top