Taxation, capitalism, free enterprise and fair play

A lot to cover, and yes, politics.  But first ...

== Capitalism, democracy and fair play ==

Evonomics is on a roll. The site has become the central place where serious minds ponder how to revive a mixed economy that served us so well. The miracle that communists never understood and that oligarchs seek to destroy. 

In the lead article, zillionaire entrepreneur Steve Roth writes: “Democracy. Capitalism. Socialism. Choose Any Three of the Above. If you don’t have a big bathtub of oil in the ground, you need all three to deliver widespread economic well-being.” Showing the understanding that has made almost all of the rich folks who got it via innovation democrats, he discusses how each of these three legs supports a stable society.

My own metaphor: 
 . Marx wants me to amputate my right arm of competitive, individual or group ambition. 
 . Ayn Rand demands that I cut off my left arm of great projects we decide to do together, in research, infrastructure, space and making sure all children get to reify their talents in fair competition. 
 . Both simplistic prescriptions are monstrous and spectacularly stupid.  I will not amputate.  I need both arms.

David Graeber, a Professor of Anthropology at the London School of Economics, opines on “Why Capitalism Creates Pointless Jobs. It’s as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs just for the sake of keeping us all working.”  Graeber describes how many “bullshit jobs” there are in critical terms… 

...while I take a different tack: that all the nail salons and other — less than necessary — service jobs out there have been a blessing because people like to work!  They don’t want to live in the world of Kurt Vonnegut’s PLAYER PIANO (set in the Albany area where I just spoke (at GE's Whitney Symposium), wherein the only way most people can get work is via the state’s department of reconstruction. Far better to set up an economy in which people provide each other less-than-necessary services, and feel some pride. 

Still, interesting stuff.

Bob Atkinson, a very smart Washington think-tanker I know, argues that “Complexity and Evolution Need to Play a Foundational Role in the Next Economic Paradigm.”  He suggests that “a key focus for economic policy should be to encourage adaptation, experimentation and risk taking. It means supporting policies to intentionally accelerate economic evolution, especially from technological and institutional innovation. 

This means not only rejecting neo-Ludditism in favor of techno-optimism, it means the embrace of a proactive innovation policy. And it means enabling new experiments in policy, recognizing that many will fail, but that some will succeed and become “dominant species.” Policy and program experimentation will better enable economic policy to support complex adaptive systems.”

== Okay... politics... ==

Warren Buffet demolished Donald Trump's whine that he and other Clinton supporters 'do the same thing' avoiding taxes: " Buffet says, “I have paid federal income tax every year since 1944, when I was 13. (Though, being a slow starter, I owed only $7 in tax that year,)" Buffett wrote. “I have copies of all 72 of my returns and none uses a carry forward”

Buffet, the Greatest Investor and popular for his folksy brilliance, wants success for the middle class that has so benefited him and other democratic billionaires like Bill Gates. All agree that taxes on the rich should go back to pre-Bush levels, when we had surpluses, under another Clinton.  In 2015 alone, Buffet gave away $2.9 billion -- that's more than 75% of Trump's claimed net worth.... and twice what sober analysts figure DT owns...

... and as much as a million times what Donald Trump is estimated to give to charity, most years. (See below.)

 But then, we'd know -- (shouldn't we?) -- if those IRS returns got released. And let's be clear about that.  Those who are screeching about "emails" know that, at their very worst, HC's emails reveal nothing criminal, only a lapse in judgement. They do not compare even remotely to Trump's concealing 30 years of tax returns that (bet on it) would reveal conflicts and torts of towering magnitude.

The Trump Tax Return matter should not leave  anyone's awareness, this week.  Remind your crazy uncle.  It won't change his vote... but your aunt is listening.

== More on taxes ==

Moron taxes? Donald Trump's tax plan offers massive tax relief for the rich, which would add trillions to the national debt. In contrast, Clinton's proposal would increase taxes on the wealthy and lessen the burden on middle-class families, especially those with young children.

"A pair of new analyses published Tuesday afternoon by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center emphasize the extreme contrasts between the two candidates when it comes to taxes. In a campaign that has been defined by conspiracy theories, racial innuendos and sex scandals from decades past, the new data is a reminder that the election puts serious money at stake for many American households," writes Max Ehrenfreund in The Washington Post.

I will only add that this also distills the difference between confederates and americans. In 1861, a million poor, white southerners marched off to die fighting for a slave-owning aristocracy that had been waging economic war against poor, white southerners for two generations. Why would they do that, then? And why now? Because symbolism and cultural grievances trump self-interest. (Don't think for a minute this is about free enterprise, which always, always does better under democrats.)

America - the blue Union - is a pragmatic place where we fight for incremental reforms that maintain a healthy middle class.

== Don’t you dare claim the ‘high road’  ==

Donald Trump spent more than a quarter-million dollars from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses. Laws against “self-dealing” prohibit nonprofit leaders from using charity money to benefit themselves or their businesses.

Hence the chain of cheats, mafia dealings, bribing public officials (and bragging about it), lying to Trump University students and union workers and small businessmen and leaving them in ruins, and denigrating for 5 years the birth of the twice legitimately elected president of his country… 

...none of those matter to his followers. These merely exemplify his “strength.”  The fact that he’s actually a very poor businessman, who has not meaningfully enlarged his inheritance beyond what an index fund would have done? Shruggable. Racism and sexism are plus-points, as is participation in the War on Science. 

To the fundamentalist hypocrites who – unlike Jimmy Carter’s sincere Christians –pray daily for events that would end freedom, democracy, ambition and - yes - bring to an end the United States of America, there is no limit to the faults they will forgive in this predatory, philandering, twice-divorced, flip-flopping, charity-stealing, truth-spurning gambling lord.  

One trait absolves all of that and it is not having been washed clean by the blood of the lamb. It is sharing the same despised enemies.  All the college-smartypants. Those enemies.

== Hello Breitbart ==

Let's experiment: Compare side by side the very worst (non-tinfoil) allegations against Clinton and those assertions about Trump. 

Assume the very worst about Hillary Clinton and only include the Trumpist behaviors that are open matters of public record. Include none of the anti Trump assertions that we're merely 90% sure about, with tons of supporting evidence, but not absolutely proved.

Hers add up to zero years of actual jail time! At the very most? A few fines, and that is if all of the molehills are 100% true. (They aren't.)

On the other hand, Trump's openly admitted crimes - bribing public officials, lying in sworn testimony, slandering people then shrugging off disproof, fraudulently declaring bankruptcy... amount to potential maximum sentences approaching a thousand years. Sexual assault.

Again, only two 8-year presidencies ended with zero high officials sentenced or even indicted for malfeasance of office. Despite 24 years and up towards a billion $ in relentless investigations. Those two administrations are thus proved to have been the most honest in U.S. history...

...Bill Clinton's and Barack Obama's. 

Screech and howl over that. Summon incantation spells about how they managed to hide all the "proof" that endless hearings and $100 million in Koch-offered "whistleblower rewards" never found. But after 24 years of witch hunts and half a billion in largely taxpayer funds spent 'investigating' the most scrutinized couple in history... you bear the burden of proof for your paranoid ravings.

And that'll do, for a couple a days.

The True Origins of the American Revolution

A few weeks ago, I was one of the headlined speakers at Freedom Fest, the big libertarian convention in Las Vegas. Do I seem an odd choice, given my past thorough and merciless dissections of Ayn Rand?

In fact I’ve done this before, showing up to suggest that a movement claiming to be all about freedom might want to veer away from its recent, mutant obsession — empowering and enabling the kind of owner-oligarchy that oppressed humanity all across the last 6000 years. Instead, I propose going back to a more healthy and well-grounded libertarian rootstock — encouraging the vast creative power of open-flat-fair competition…

…a word that libertarians scarcely mention, anymore. Because it conflicts fundamentally with their current focus — promoting inherited oligarchy.

With that impudent, contrary attitude, would you believe I had a fine and interesting time? My son and I dined at the VIP table with publishing magnate and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes. Along with humorist P. J. O'Rourke and John Mackey (Whole Foods and an avid SciFi reader.) Also at the table? Grover (I kid you not) Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform and a guiding force beyond the American right’s current-central obsession — that government of/by/for the people must perish from the Earth.

Would you be surprised that I was the most-liberal voice at this gathering? And yes, I managed to poke without being rude. (I've been known to poke in other directions, too!) I even learned a few things. See an addendum, below, offering more about the Freedom Fest event.

Foremost, though, I want to focus on one piece of polemic that Grover Norquist thrust upon us over dinner, concerning the origins of the American Revolution.

== A different American Revolution... or it’s not easy being green ==

Grover N. asserted that, in 1770, the British people put up with being taxed above a 20% rate, while folks in the colonies were taxed at roughly 2% of their average income. Yet, those colonists reacted fiercely and rebelled when/because they saw that burden doubled to 4%!

What an interesting assertion. It turns out that the statistics are generally true, that is, when it came to taxes passed by Parliament - though Mr. Norquist leaves out levies enacted separately by colonial legislatures. But my real quibble concerns which word is correct in the preceding paragraph: “when” or “because.”

Norquist says “because.” Implying that American colonists - unique by their irascibly independent nature - were eager to shuck all old loyalties, to risk hanging, to endure devastating war and deprivation, because 4% was beyond all forbearance. And therefore, today’s American populace, enduring many times that rate of taxation must be inferior, devolved creatures, unworthy of such a founding generation.

May I be frank? That assertion is utter, howling malarkey. In fact, the Founder generation in the 1770s was willing to pay many times as much tax, if only they were treated as full citizens, with representation. The Tea and Stamp and other taxes were convenient ignition sparks, But the fuel for a real fire was far more significant.

==  True Grievances Behind the American Revolution ==

The American Revolution serves as a Rorschach test that reflects the obsessions of each succeeding generation. In the 1920s, Marxist notions of class struggle dominated and thus even anti-communist historians viewed the rebellion as a phase shift from monarchal domination to empowerment of the bourgeoisie. In the forties, literalist scholars started instead taking the Founders at their word — that the Revolution was an idealistic exercise in limiting the scope of government.

During the cynical 1960s, fashions changed again, to viewing the rebellion as a manipulative putsch that allowed local gentry — the caste of Washington and Jefferson — to displace others at the top of the heap. A lateral coup, with just enough populism to keep the middle class placid.

What these generations of scholars all seemed to agree upon was that the colonists weren’t rebelling over the raw magnitude of taxes. Indeed, many expressed puzzlement that there were any grievances worth fighting and dying over! Certainly it all seemed rather far-fetched, given how comfortable life had been for most American colonists, especially compared to the mountain of crimes committed against the people of France, by the Bourbon ancien regime.

In fact, despite the hairsplitting obsessions of academic scholars — and the puerile tendency of textbooks and politicians to mention only tea and stamp taxes — it is pretty clear in historical records that the colonists revolted for a host of genuine grievances:

1) Monopolies such as the East India Company had been granted exclusive trading rights, cutting out American merchants,crushing competition, funneling commerce through ports and markets controlled by the top one hundred British families -- the one-percent of one-percent of one-percent. Colonial goods had to be carried in cartel ships and sold through cartel agents. Thus Americans were viewed as cash machines for the Crown and nobles. Those who had the gold made the rules, and those rules ensured they would get more, an ancient and deeply human pattern that Adam Smith denounced with the publication of Wealth of Nations, in 1776.

2) The insanely destructive 1764 Currency Act, which forbade the colonies from issuing paper currency and required use only of coinage released by the cartel, in London. This devastated the velocity of money, making it difficult for colonists to pay their debts and taxes, even if they had plenty of non-liquid wealth, and forcing thousands into bankruptcy. Contemporary accounts tell that until the 1764 law, you could scarcely find a jobless or poor person in British America.  After the colonies were banned from printing money, the economy tanked. Suddenly there were homeless and beggars everywhere.

That’s a helluva lot less abstract than a tax on tea. Alas though, it does not suit today's tea-party narrative. Note also that there has always been an obsession, in society's aristocratic class, with lowering the velocity of money, a policy that always devastates the middle class. We'll get back to that.

3) Almost half of the land in the colonies was owned by absentee lords. The main reason Franklin was sent to London (around 1760) was to attempt persuading the Penn family (also later the Baltimores and other members of the aristocratic cartel) to allow themselves to be taxed, even at very low rates, so that the colonies could function. Their refusal to contribute (based on ancient feudal privilege) was identical to the rigid stance of the aristocratic First Estate in 1789 France. The “legal” basis was exactly the same.

(Note: those French nobles lost their heads because they clutched obstinate, unreasoning greed. In contrast, the Penns/Baltimores and other lordly families with vast American holdings merely lost their lands, which the Founders seized and redistributed, like the "socialists" they were!

(Hence let me put a side wager on the table: care to bet how the Kochs/Murdochs will behave, as they push exactly the same privilege-line to its inevitable conclusion? Never tax the “job creators!” Which of those two outcomes is likely to befall them, when that propaganda line finally loses its distraction effectiveness and America's lower middle class remembers their grandparents' tales of earlier phases of class warfare? Will the final outcome be the bloody French or Russian or Chinese result? Or the moderate-reformist American? Either way, these fellows are nowhere near as smart as they think they are.)

4) Coming in at number four, at last: taxation without representation! Yes, it is the classic. Only let's dive deeper into this one, because true history is nothing like what we’re told by the Norquist/Teaparty narrative.

The British Parliament was at that time hugely "gerrymandered,” to apply a modern term. There were many Rotten Burroughs where a lord and a few dozen tenants got to elect their own MP, while the masses in Birmingham and London were steeply under-represented… and Americans had no representation at all. Reforming this mess (it eventually happened) would have prevented the explosion, keeping the colonies loyal. But it would also hurt the short-term self-interest of those lords and MPs. So, the blatantly unjust system was maintained and American grievance ignored.

Did you catch the parallel? Today’s Republican Party relies utterly upon two kinds of gerrymandering. In red state legislatures and the U.S. House of Representatives, it is the blatant twisting of electoral districts. (Some blue states do it, too, but more of them are abandoning the foul practice; not one red state has.)

In the U.S. Senate, gerrymandered-unfair representation is even more deeply embedded. It derives from the cynical drawing of state boundaries, so that — for example — Dakota Territory was split in two and given four Senators, despite having minuscule population, then and now. That problem is much harder to fix and must await a truly angry era - one that is evidently coming.

An aside: just to make this perfectly clear — anyone defending this wretched cheat (gerrymandering) is - himself - thus proved to be a cheater and liar and an enemy of the Republic. There is no matter of ambiguity or opinion over that. No rationalization to save you from what you see in the mirror. Reform will happen (as it eventually came to the British Parliament, after the damage was done). Those who delay reform of this dastardly practice are little better than thieves, and stupid ones, blind to how much worse they are only making the inevitable backlash.

The crux: you claim the American people despise their government and taxation? How about letting our elections be fair and proportionately representative, then let the people decide. Because... eventually... they will.

5) British laws against settlement beyond the Appalachians. At surface, this rule was to protect native tribes. Indeed, resentment against this restriction, particularly by Scots-Irish immigrants and transports  arose because they wanted to go over the mountains to grab farmland from peoples already living there. But the Crown and Lords weren't doing this to be nice to the tribes. They had a real problem on their hands.

The frontier provided an easy haven to which tenant farmers, indentured servants and slaves might flee, and/or remake themselves. That escape option - unavailable in old Europe - made it very hard to maintain a bottom-caste peasantry. For all its faults, the frontier forged the deeply libertarian American soul.

(Again... I am talking about older libertarianism... not the weirdly-mutated thing the movement has become.)

Note that factor #5  came to roost in two of the most important battles of the Revolution, King's Mountain and Cowpens, when those Scots-Irish frontiersmen bloodied Cornwallis and helped take back the South from Charleston tories. (Note to nation. Please, next time, let Charleston secede!)

6) Egalitarianism. Some historians anchor the American Revolution upon a single day, when Ben Franklin was summoned before the King’s Privy Council for a public berating and humiliation… the day that the smartest man in a century was converted from an impudent-but-loyal subject into a dedicated conspirator for independence. The colonies were already home to a new spirit and ethos - part cantankerous, part ebullient and hopeful, and part-scientific, with all those portions combining to demand one core question:

“Why should I have to bow down, or be bullied, by another mere human… just because of who his father was?”

The irony is rich. Those today citing the Founders most often are folks who are most vigorously helping propel us back into a world of inherited status, dominated by clans and cartels of aristocratic families. 

(Indeed, this problem -- recreating feudalism -- is the reason why Ayn Rand never once portrays any of her several dozen beloved uber-characters reproducing or raising children. The reader would come to realize that her prescription is, after all, a very old story.)

Was egalitarianism as strong in reality as it was in the Founders' hifalutin documents? In his book, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, historian Gordon Wood emphasizes this aspect, pondering that the new idealism crystallized by Thomas Paine might have built into a breakthrough not seen since Periclean Athens — the invention of the dedicated modern citizen. Wood parses this idealism into many permutations, dissecting variations of republicanism, none of which matter to us here. Suffice it to say that a general quality of fervent belief in a New Man clearly did take hold, taking over from earlier grievances.

In Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality, Princeton professor Danielle Allen ponders every sentence of the seminal American document and sometimes every word, examining five facets that revolve around the notion of political equality, including, as Gordon Wood describes: “the importance of reciprocity or mutual responsiveness to achieving the conditions of freedom.”  In other words, providing the back and forth of accountability that no individual can apply to him or herself.  Our enlightenment "secret sauce": the reciprocal accountability that enables science, democracy and markets to function... and that was strenuously avoided and quashed by every ruling caste, in almost every other society that ever existed, and that is perpetually under attack, in our own.

Make no mistake. The Charleston tories became Confederate plantation lords, who aimed to re-establish inherited-landed-ownership nobility, the classic human pattern that ruined competition and freedom and social mobility in every society other than ours.

And that torch is now carried by hirelings of a new oligarchy, diverting libertarian passion away from flat-open-fair competition over to worship of absolute property rights, no matter how inherited or how much this re-creates the Olde Order that sparked our Revolution.

History rhymes.

== What about hatred of taxation? ==

Were there other reasons for rebellion? Sure. For example, as in all civil wars, many felt their blood boil over local and personal grievances, spurring groups of neighbors to call themselves “tory” or “patriot” while riding forth to settle old scores. But for our purposes here, it suffices to demolish the pat and absurd narrative of today’s right, that the rebellion was all about… or indeed had much of anything to do with… the basic amount of taxation.

Oh, sure, there were earlier versions of Grover Norquist, in those days. But few.

For example, take the Whiskey Rebellion, which is often cited by radical libertarians as a failed but glorious attempt to finish the revolution.

How inconvenient to point out that the Whiskey Rebellion was not against the Whiskey Tax, per se! Rather it expressed resentment that state authorities refused to let farmers pay the tax... in whiskey! Which was their only cash commodity. They had no silver, but were willing to pay... in 'shine!  (Which was freely traded about as currency, in those days.) Instead, domineering officials demanded coin, and thus bankrupted a number of farmers, driving others into a fury.

(Note the exact parallel with Parliament’s foolish 1764 Currency Act. Indeed, the very same principle was at stake in the much later Free Silver platform of William Jennings Bryan. And it is seen in those who urge us to “return to the gold standard." Indeed, this same effect is manifest in Congress's obstinate refusal to fund desperately needed infrastructure repairs that would have employed 300,000 Americans, saving thousands of bridges and highways while circulating high velocity money... a far better form of economic boost than the Fed's bond buying program, whose inefficient "stimulus" poured half a trillion dollars into low-velocity uses, like inflating asset bubbles.  Again and again, the pattern repeats: aristocrats use their political influence to bring down the velocity of money and to beggar the middle class.  An old battle, indeed.)

And yes, the Whiskey Rebellion was a case where state bureaucrats were genuinely bossy, insensitive, impractical and ruinous of the people they were supposed to serve. I told you, I have a libertarian streak! Government is a perpetual threat to freedom - even if today’s right exaggerates the current danger, a hundred-fold. Sincere civil servants can metastasize into overbearing bureaucrats! It isn’t only oligarchy that threatens us. All accumulations of power must have accountability!

The upshot of the Whiskey Rebellion was that Washington and his troops established the lawful power of the state to tax. But there also ensued hurried changes in law, easing the farmers’ debt crisis, based on a principle we should always remember. That the state’s power should never become destructive of its citizens.

== The Underlying Agenda of the Narrative ==

I will hand it to Grover Norquist. He is honest about his goal, which is to starve government, then strangle it and then bury it. (Did I leave out the step of incineration?) He makes no pretense otherwise. Reiterating: Norquist and his co-religionists precisely want “government of the people, by the people, for the people” to perish from the Earth.

Now, as a science fiction author… and as a child of Adam Smith and George Orwell and Robert Heinlein... I openly avow that overweening and over-reaching government can be one of the Great Failure Modes! We need an active libertarian side of the national and world conversation, focusing skepticism on the potential for bureaucrats and armies and police to betray and oppress the citizens who hire them! Just as we need others to remind us that the greatest enemies of markets and enterprise and freedom — across 6000 years — have far more often been cartels of owner-oligarch-lords.

Cheaters can arise from any direction, aiming to end our Great Experiment and return us to the old pyramid of privilege, and it does not matter much if the masters call themselves “civil servants,” “job-creators,” feudal lords or communist commissars. It is the same cheating impulse. And it may erupt straight out of genetic nature. Unless we constantly resist all would-be lords, whatever direction they come from and whatever rationalizations they offer.

Which is why we need moderate libertarians who will constantly demand proof that any statist “solution” will both solve the problem at-hand and not take us toward Big Brother. Just as we need moderate liberals to remind us that the best capitalism is one that is flat-open-transparent and broken into units that are small enough to fail. A capitalism that benefits (as Hayek preached) from maximizing the number of skilled, eager and ready competitors! And hence, a society in which all children grow up healthy, educated, well-fed, hitting age 25 prepared to… compete! From basically equal starting gates. Not based on who their fathers were.

(Competition. There’s that word again. If only it were, once again, a libertarian touch stone.)

A plague on both the simplistic, lord-loving entire-right and a patronizingly-bossy and pushy-PC far-left, both of which despise even the notion of flat-open-fair competition. Indignant dogmas are a plague, crippling our genius at negotiating an agile and sophisticated and wise civilization.

== We have a revolution to uphold… ==

As for Grover and his agenda. Sorry. Adam Smith and the Founders knew what our parents and grandparents in the Greatest Generation knew… that a government that is warily watched can serve us. And it can serve as a counterweight to other, older and just-as-dangerous centers of power. We remain free by siccing elites against each other! And that cannot happen if government completely vanishes. Or is neutered.

A lean and leashed government is the only tool citizens have to counterbalance the inevitable cheating by aristocracy that ruined every other human renaissance. Adam Smith And the Founders knew this. Every generation of Americans rebelled against cheaters... generally through calm reforms, but twice violently... though never falling into the intemperate rage of the Russian, French or Chinese revolutions.

Again I keep coming back to the 'greatest generation' -- that fought the Great Depression and crushed Hitler and made the flattest but most successful capitalist society… one that got rich so fast that it could then afford to start toppling ancient injustices, like racism, sexism and all that. Do you admire that generation?  Well, that 'greatest generation' revered and adored one man, above all others. He was the same man that the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation, the Koch brothers and Fox News all now want us to call Satan Incarnate.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Who spearheaded that generation's great work, saving America as a flat-fair-open market economy, from monsters of both left and right. (As his cousin - Teddy - helped us thwart another, earlier oligarchic putsch.)

And yes, many of FDR’s solutions were not appropriate for our era. I prefer looser approaches, that leverage on the vastly higher levels of education that our tech-savvy populace has achieved — in part because of what the Greatest Generation accomplished.

But I will proudly stand up for the founding father of both liberalism and libertarianism. Adam Smith, author of both Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments, was almost as smart as Ben Franklin! And both of them proposed that the future will be won by moderate, undogmatic people, who are passionately reasonable! Militantly moderate! Aggressively eager to negotiate. I preach relentlessly for agile, citizen-level power, a burgeoning Age of Amateurs, for Smart Mob ad hoc networks, and for local action.

I will continue preaching to liberals that they should rediscover their Smithian libertarian side.

Meanwhile, though, libertarians, you must stop the ranting and lapel-grabbing dogmas that were spoon-fed to you by "think tanks" operated by a fast-rising caste of oligarchic-feudal cheaters! The great enemy of freedom across 6000 years, returning with a vengeance. Escape your hypnotic, Platonic catechisms and realize… that the true, healthy heart of your movement is far more liberal than you ever realized.

We are still the rebels. So fill a glass and raise it high! Here is to ongoing, militantly-moderate Revolution, forever

=

See my collected articles: Libertarianism: Finding a New Path. 

** (NOTES ON THE FESTIVAL: My hosts, Mark and Jo Ann Skousen, were lovely, their Freedom Film Festival was intriguing/challenging, and the evening’s talent show, a libertarian re-telling of Camelot, was a hoot. Oh, and the Janis Joplin impersonator was terrific! Hey, it’s Vegas; you can hire anyone or anything.

(Clearly, the top organizers of FreedomFest wanted to toss a grenade at the Randians and Rothbardians, and I was that grenade, I guess. In fact, I found it all very interesting… and proof that I don’t need a political chiropractor! I can turn my head and look all ways, seeking value, and listening well enough to understand what I refute. (Can you?)

Are Taxes Historically High or Low? Chilling Secrecy, Clint Eastwood and the Rise of Common Sense

Okay, so it's 2012 and you can expect a regular rhythm of postings that are... well... political.

= THE GREAT FURY OVER TAXES =

To listen to Republicans, you would think we have the most oppressive tax rates ever, with the federal government hogging ever larger portions of the national economy.  Ever hear of Orwellian anti-truth?  That is where you repeat the exact opposite of the truth and people start believing it.

Top Federal Marginal Income Tax Rate from 1913 to 2011

But drop by and look at the actual facts. See this compilation of income tax rates.. Tax rates are at historic lows. And  this is for earned income. Rates for dividends and capital gains are even lower - by half - than what you see in the figure!

In the 99 years that we have had the income tax, rates for top earners were lower than they are today only twice: 

1)  during the 5 years before the US entry into the First World War in 1917, and

2) during the brief stretch from 1925 through 1930... when a massive asset value bubble pumped the economy into the Great Depression.

Also note this. They are LOWER for the middle class, under Obama, than they were under Bush. The "Obama tax hikes" are purely mythical.

That’s it. Today’s top rates are currently lower than at any time since 1930... and ironically that includes half of the HOOVER Administration preceding FDR. In other words, the hiking upward was first done by the same 1930 Republican Congress that brought us the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs!

Just to make this clear, so you rub it in your crazy-as-Fox uncle, income tax rates are lower than at any time in 80 years.

The other big fact is the fraction of U.S. national GDP taken by the federal government.  Fox’s uncles swear that this is at an all-time high. In fact, the federal share of GDP is at its lowest since 1950.

Be entrepreneurial.  Make Adam Smith proud and use all this to make money. Seriously. Lure your nearest Tea Partier to make grand declarations about the oppressiveness of recent tax rates and the growing federal share of the economy and then demand a wager!  Only... get it in writing.

== Chilling Effects ==

What exactly are your online rights? What protections are offered under the First Amendment and intellectual property laws? Here are details expanding on last time:  Chilling Effects offers an extensive database of info about copyright and trademark infringement, fan fiction, cease and desist notices, issues of anonymity and freedom of expression. A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Law Schools at Harvard, Stanford, ...Berkeley and the George Washington School of Law, Chilling Effects is a first stop to determine your legal rights in the on hot issues in the ever-evolving online world. 

I’ve been known to differ over matters of emphasis with my friends at EFF. I am far less worried about what governments and the mighty “see” about me -- and history shows little hope of stopping them -- while I am more vexed and angry over government and the mighty hiding from citizen supervision. Still this is a good and important move and I am glad these folks are doing things like this!

Most civil servants... and even a lot of politicians... are sincere. They believe they are protecting us and/or defending freedom. The problem (for now) is that they can be counted on - via human nature - to have the inherent reflex of rationalizing how they must wield power for the greater good and must evade (some) accountability of the kind that might hamper them in doing their jobs.

1) They (and we) must be convinced that what's important is to defend and promote... the secular trend toward a more open world. The reason is clear and it goes beyond mere "goodness" of openness. It is the simple fact that our type of society is invigorated by the effects of transparency (though individual leaders are often severely inconvenienced) while all the cultures that oppose our way suffer from severe-to-lethal damage when washed in light. That is too great an advantage to ignore, even if you are a realpolitik-cynic.

2) Given that this secular trend is essential... and that human nature works against it... are there forms of sousveillance - or shining light upward - that can be applied to our own elites that will still leave them unimpeded in the practical fulfilling of their duties? Short term tactical secrecy is still vital for the effectiveness of military, police and Homeland Security functions, among others.

In EARTH I portray the legal sequestration of information being limited to short, 5 year terms unless a longer term is purchased at considerable dollar cost. In other words, there is a built-in bite and disincentive to claiming longer periods of secrecy, and with most secrets kept at the shorter, 5 year term, you have a reflex to say "I'd better behave generally well... or at least well enough to be forgiven... since this will all come out."

3) As it happens, there are some lovely potential innovations that could increase our confidence in supervision while ensuring minimal interference in day-to-day operations. I talk about some of them elsewhere. 

== Clint Eastwood... Democrat? Or American? ==

Has there begun a jobs renaissance in America, especially in manufacturing?  There are definite signs of “in-sourcing” taking place.

Oh but that segues into Clint Eastwood's Superbowl Chrysler commercial... and the subsequent Republican fire storm against him, by Karl Rove and others, for daring to suggest that the "bailout" of Detroit was actually a resounding success. 

Rove sniped "... Chicago-style politics, and the President of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising and the best-wishes of the management which is benefited by getting a bunch of our money that they'll never pay back."

Say what? Except that we're getting every single penny back. Plus many millions more in taxes on now-profitable American companies that Rove and his ilk wanted to let go belly up? (After they did urge much bigger bailouts for their Wall Street friends.) Refusal to admit that the automaker loans were anything other than a towering, spectacular, 200% success is the act of a deranged mind.

Oh... BTW. Clint has said "I don't recall ever voting for a democrat." If a man like that has switched sides, it is because he has sanely realized that the GOP has "left him."

== Some Fascinating Political Miscellany ==

Here's a fascinating one: "The lesson of the Great Crash was that unequal enrichment provokes asset bubbles, excessive demand for debt and, finally, economic failure. Now we are painfully learning that again."  Read the whole article by Stewart Lansley.  But a key point.  The massive wealth that has been redistributed upward to a thousand or so billionaires and top corporations is not generating jobs or economic activity at anywhere near the same pace as the same wealth would have, if it remained with the middle class. Those “job creators are mostly sitting on mountains of cash.  Banks, flush with reserves, are lending very little. Cash-rich companies are neither building productive capital (supply-side’s justification) nor doing much hiring.

Sign the petition offered by Senator Bernie Sanders, for a Constitutional Amendment that declares that Corporations are not the same as people and can be regulated by Congress and the States.  I also recommend Kent Pitman’s blog on this topic.  

On the lighter side.... In New Hampshire there was an event carried on C-Span... the "lesser candidates' forum" featuring 13 Democrats running against President Obama (all it takes is $1000 in NH) and 25 or so lesser known Republicans. See an article... but it pales next to the videos, including one of the "very silly party" candidate wearing a boot on his head, named "Vermin" who promises every American a pony.

Look at how a transparency (and tech-empowered) citizen hero caught villains with his flying drone. Snapping aerial photos of an illegal river of blood pouring from a slaughterhouse into a river.   Exactly what I spoke of in The Transparent Society  and especially the citizen action smart mobs I portray in my next novel!  

Recall my earlier blog urging the establishment -- or rather RE-establishment -- of the 90 year old transaction fee for financial trades?  At 0.1% per trade, this would scarcely be noticed by you or I, but would lessen the huge advantage grabbed by giant Wall Street houses through massive computerized trading systems.  Well, things are moving fast.  The French are now siding with the Germans in enacting such a fee.  The British conservative government, protecting the “City” bankers who got western civilization into this fine mess, are balking hard.

Okay, I admit this is beneath me.  But does anyone remember the 1971 creepy rat movie “Willard”... or the even-creepier 2003 remake with Crispin Glover? Okay, so, now we’re supposed to elect a guy named Willard to be President?  Okay, I admit “Obama” was creepy too, in the context of 9/11.  So what does it all mean?  That “fate” is giggling and poking at us from behind the curtain? It gets weirder. But enough about that.

An interesting - if biased in-favor - article about President Obama does clarify matters as to whether he has either been a “socialist” or “betrayed liberals.” 

And again.... Nehemia Scudder supporters! Order your bumper sticker!  Seriously, get people talking. It is a meme worth spreading. 

== Finally... housekeeping ==

A quick check.  Folks have lately reported problems receiving RSS feed from this web-log. If you feel that’s been the case, go ahead and leaf through the last few entries to see what you’ve missed.  If you fall into that category... but the problem has been fixed, feel free to let me know (or that there’s still a problem) by making a comment, below.

==For more on the Economy: Past, Present and Future