paulbissett.com

The juxtaposition of several articles hit me all at once today.  The first was a great article by T. Friedman in the New York Times on the exaggeration of the “decline” of the United States.  It was a solid article on the ingenuity of the American people, as well as the advantages in US immigration and population demographics.  The economic possibilities afforded to the US by these advantages should lead to increasing economic growth in the coming decades.

This was balanced by the two articles in the Wall Street Journal that discuss youth unemployment and the current discussion in Washington, DC of a federal Value Added Tax.

Here’s the gist -

From Daniel Henninger’s article -

The U.S. unemployment rate for workers under 25 years old is about 20%.

This is similar to the perpetual unemployment rate for youth in old Western European nations.

These are the Western European nations that spent the postwar period free of Soviet domination. With that freedom they designed what came to be called the “social-market economy,” a kind of Utopia where a job exists to be protected and the private sector exists mainly to pay for the state’s welfare plans. … In the final month of 2009, these were European unemployment rates for people under 25: Belgium, 22.6; Spain, 44.5; France, 25.2; Italy, 26.2; the U.K., 19; Sweden, 26.9; Finland, 23.5.

Couple these unemployment statistics for youth with this tidbit from the WSJ Editorial Board -

“Answering a question at the New York Historical Society on Tuesday, Mr. Volcker said that a VAT—a consumption tax levied along stages of production—”was not as toxic an idea” as it has been, and that both a VAT and some kind of tax on energy need to be on the table. “If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes,” he said.

The VAT has been a staple of European taxation policies for decades, and high rates of taxation is one of the causal mechanisms of slow economic growth in the countries.

In the middle of the worst economic situation in nearly a century, we are building the economic policies that replicate the social welfare state of old Western Europe.  These policies have led to perpetual under-employment (particularly of youth and immigrants), low economic growth rates, and stratification of the economic classes (i.e. limited upward mobility amongst the economic classes).  Is this the future model of the US economic system?  I hope not.

Long-term economic survival requires a successful risk/reward system that provides opportunities for great success, and great failures.  Why?  Because without a risk/reward system (with both the highs and lows) you get a steady state society that eventually leads to stagnation.  And stagnation of an economic system will eventually lead to its demise.

In short, you can not (over) tax the system to reduce economic disparities; nor can you (over) regulate the economy, and the people, to keep bad things from happening them.  If you do, the system stops working.

Economic policies can be compared to forestry management policies.  Bad forestry management (as practiced in the middle to end of the last century) tries to put out all fires – everywhere – all the time.  The result is that when a fire eventually happens, the dead wood and scrub brush fuel load is so high that the fire burns too intensely hot and destroys the forest.  Good forestry management requires an occasional (small) fire to reduce the fuel load.

Adequate risks and rewards serve this same purpose in the economy.  You cannot reduce the risk of failure (or any other personal catastrophe) to zero.  If you do, the accumulation of bad (dead) wood will burn your (economic) house down.  In addition, a vibrant growing economy, like a forest, needs clear access to resources (like capital) without the choking over-growth of underbrush, deadwood, and over-regulation.

A new study from New Jersey suggests that wealth leaves when tax rates increase. New Jersey’s Chamber Chairman Dennis Bone says it is

crystal clear that the state’s tax policies are resulting in a significant decline in the state’s wealth.

A more insidious effect is that the study found a

less-robust “in-migration,” the study finds that people who are moving to New Jersey aren’t as wealthy as those leaving.

So why would one care about those wealthy people who want to “escape” paying their “fair share”.

Well for one thing, class warfare is bad. Nobody likes to be called a villain, particularly those who are working hard to be successful for their families, their co-workers, and their communities. Making people feel guilty for being successful is not conducive for a healthy community.

For another, you need a concentration of “excess” wealth to feedback into the local investment of new technology and jobs. Governments do not do this; they redistribute wealth. Individuals and corporations operating in their own self-interest invest in opportunities that create wealth, which as a by-product create additional goods, services, and jobs.

I am not suggesting that we “starve” schools. What I am suggesting is that if you chase out (or otherwise make the community unattractive for those who wish to immigrate into that community) those who are at the head of the bell curve in terms of success, the community will eventually suffer. All one has to do is look at the problems seen in New York, California, and New Jersey.