Why Not Keep the Talented?

 | 

As we head into the New Year, there are signs that Congress may finally allow an increase in legal immigration. Specifically, it now appears that Congress is becoming increasingly aware that it is folly to kick out foreign students who achieve science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) degrees.

In fact, both Republicans and Democrats have now sponsored bills to reform immigration laws to encourage STEM workers to immigrate here. And a very recent report by the Information Technology Industry Council, the Partnership for a New American Economy, and the US Chamber of Commerce provides ample evidence that the time is ripe for reform.

The report, “Help Wanted: The Role of Foreign Workers in the Innovation Economy,” looked at three questions: Is there a STEM worker shortage? If so, how bad is it and in what fields is it the worst? Does hiring foreign STEM workers take jobs away from native-born workers?

Take the issue of whether there is a general STEM worker shortage. A number of the report’s findings indicate there is indeed such a shortage, and that it is pervasive across the various STEM fields. Remember that economists typically hold that an overall unemployment rate of about 4% represents essentially full employment (with people who are out of work being mainly in transition between jobs in a fluid market). Our current national unemployment rate has hovered around 8% for four years, which is high by recent standards (those of the 1990s and 2000s).

Well, the report notes that the unemployment rate for American citizens with STEM PhDs is only 3.15%. For those with STEM MS degrees it is only 3.4%.

As to whether foreign-born STEM workers are taking jobs from American-born workers, the data the report surveyed show no such effect. While only 6.4% of non-STEM workers with PhDs are foreign-born, 26.1% of STEM workers with PhDs are foreign-born. (For workers with Master’s degrees, the figures are 5.2% of non-STEM versus 17.7% of STEM.) But even though a higher percentage of STEM than non-STEM workers are foreign-born, STEM workers still have a lower overall unemployment rate.

The job market is not a zero-sum game. There is no set-in-stone number of jobs, so that if an immigrant takes one, there is one less for you or me.

In some STEM fields, the figures are especially dramatic. While 25% of medical scientists are foreign-born, medical scientists generally have a 3.4% unemploymnent rate. In fact, the unemployment rate is lower than the general STEM average of 4.3% in 10 out of the 11 STEM fields with the highest percentage of foreign-born workers.

Moreover, the data indicate that immigrant STEM workers on average earn $3,000 per year more than equivalent native-born workers, putting paid to the myth that they “drive down wages.”

The reason none of this should be surprising is that the job market is not a zero-sum game. There is no set-in-stone number of jobs, so that if an immigrant takes one, there is one less for you or me. No, talented immigrants create jobs, by starting new companies, creating new products, or making our industries more competitive than foreign ones.

In this regard, the study argues that every foreign-born student who graduates from an American college and stays here creates an average 2.62 jobs for native-born workers. At the top 10 patent-producing American universities, more than three-fourths of all patents awarded last year were invented or co-invented by an immigrant.

Why can’t the Republicans and Democrats at least agree on removing the obviously counterproductive caps on foreign students who graduate from American colleges with STEM degrees and who want to remain here to work?

In short — why send the most talented and innovative students home — to start businesses that will only compete with ours?




Share This


Democrat Rep. Chris Murphy: Obama's Measure Is "Revolting"

 | 

On January 16th, Obama released a slew of executive orders supposed to "fight gun violence." Most of these orders are either tepid measures begging bureaucrats to actually do their job, or pledges to provide more guidelines to said chairwarmers. A few represent more paperwork and hassle for legitimate gun buyers (background checks, mental health checks). One calls for predictably condescending, belittling propaganda targeting gun owners, called “national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.”

One order, however, stands out. It promises to give $150 million of taxpayers' money to school districts and law enforcement agencies so that they can hire "1000 new school resource officers, school psychologists, social workers, and counselors."

School psychologists, social workers, and counselors are just more of the nonteaching staff that inflates the US cost of education while doing nothing to raise the country's pitiful international ranking in standardized tests. However, the first category, "school resource officers," should catch the reader's attention. This, ladies and gents, is a euphemism for "armed guard." (Ominous thunder roll.)

If politicians surround themselves with Secret Service agents, it's presumed to be safer, and not just because they enjoy the sight of burly guys with dark suits, sunglasses, and a penchant for South American whores.

In case there is any doubt, Obama's press release helpfully explains that the term designates specially trained cops posted in schools — in short, armed guards in schools. This was a measure proposed by many, including the NRA, after the December Newtown school shooting. The general ideais only common sense. After all, if politicians surround themselves with Secret Service agents, it's presumed to be safer, and not just because they enjoy the sight of burly guys with dark suits, sunglasses, and a penchant for South American whores.

California and Ohio, to cite only two examples, already allow schools to employ armed guards, a measure that finds favor among the public. A December 18 Gallup poll shows that 87% of respondents think increased police presence in schools would be "somewhat" or "very" effective to deter shootings, while 64% support the idea of having one or more school officials in every school carry a gun. To support this notion, Larry Sand, a retired teacher and president of the California Teachers Empowerment Network, cites a couple of shootings which could have been much worse if not for an armed "good guy":

In 1997, at Pearl High School in Mississippi, 16-year-old Luke Woodham shot nine students and staff, killing two, before Joel Myrick, the school's assistant principal, confronted and subdued him with a pistol he retrieved from his truck. In 2001, senior Jason Hoffman opened fire on the attendance office of Granite Hills High School in El Cajon, California. Hoffman wounded five people before being shot and incapacitated by an armed school cop. (Source: City Journal)

We can add the aborted attempt of a San Antonio man who started shooting near a movie theater, then ran inside, where he continued to shoot. He was himself shot and wounded by an armed woman, a security guard who cornered him in the restrooms and took his gun. No one was killed.

In all these cases, police arrived and did their job, but for precious minutes, the armed "good guy" on location was the only help.

Naturally, it is absurd to start a new federal program to pay for these things. Schools can do it themselves, if they want to. But armed guards in school are a logical measure backed by cases proving its worth. It is thus unsurprising that Democrats howled and screamed at the proposition, calling the NRA "crazy" and frothing with outrage. Not that the NRA was the only outfit backing the idea, mind you, but the NRA is the target that the Alinskyites are currently trying to freeze and isolate. Connecticut Representative Chris Murphy went so far as calling the proposition "revolting" and "tone deaf" in a tweet.

That's a pretty hefty accusation. You see, Rep. Murphy is credited with helping the creation of the independent Office of Congressional Ethics, and claims to support "independent, non-partisan ethics." If such a paragon of ethical virtue calls an idea revolting, it must be quite loathsome, right?

Alas! As we have seen, Obama has now quietly endorsed the notion, even putting our money where his mouth is. So, Mr. Murphy, bad news for you: you have just called the Dear Leader revolting and tone deaf. But the Lightworker will forgive you. After all, you were just slavishly parroting the slogans of the day. Ethically and independently, of course.




Share This


Nude No More

 | 

The Transportation Security Administration announced Friday that it will begin removing the full-body X-ray scanners that have been in use at US airports for the past three years. It's about time. Europe outlawed them long ago for being too invasive. Overzealous TSA guards have used them as an excuse to get vicious with travelers who simply want to get to their planes on time, without having to provide a nudie show for the screeners hidden away in a darkened room somewhere with their hands on who-knows-what. I'm all for security when I travel, but these scanners have done little to thwart terrorism.

I love how the TSA announcement blames the decision on business instead of owning up to the fact that the things don't work and aren't necessary. Here's their official reason: "The maker of the scanner failed to meet a deadline for new software." Ha! It's never the government's fault.




Share This


More on Buying Votes

 | 

In a recent analysis of President Obama’s fabulous reelection victory, I argued that one of the reasons he won was his unprecedented use of existing (and new) federal governmental giveaway programs — he played the game of buying votes with taxpayer dollars like no one before him. But the extent of this gargantuan giveaway spree is only now becoming clear.

Take just two of the programs he expanded. First, food stamp programs exploded in size — by 15 million people. The record was set in the year of his reelection. During fiscal year 2012, the main food stamp program — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP” . . . a snappy name, indeed!) — spent a record $80.4 billion, up a whopping $2.7 billion from the year before. (SNAP was spending “only” $55.6 billion when Obama took control, so he raised it by nearly two-thirds.)

When you add in all the other nutritional programs — such as the $18.3 billion spent on the second main food stamp program, the “Child Nutrition Program” — total food stamp spending hit a total of $106 billion.

In the year before the election, the Obama administration aggressively advertised these programs, to increase the number of recipients — no doubt under the theory that people who get the freebies would gratefully vote for the regime that gave them. This was public choice economics of the crudest variety.

Left unexplained by the Obama administration is why such a massive increase in food stamp usage was necessary, given the vibrant, no, glorious economic recovery brought on by its stupendous spending programs.

Also left unexplained is why if people are really needy you need to advertise to them. Everyone has surely heard of food stamps, so is the advertising here intended to amplify the demand?

Another recent report out of New York informs us that at least our tax dollars are being well spent. Welfare recipients are using their Electronic Benefit Cards — really, they don’t so much get welfare checks anymore as pre-paid credit cards — at some fun places, such as bars, porn video stores, liquor shops, and strip clubs. Yes, the cash assistance program of the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program has a “cash assistance” program (programs within programs, like Russian dolls) that allows recipients to pull as much as $668 in food stamps, and $433 in cash, each month. The cash can be spent at bars, booze shops, and sex shops.

Finally, let’s turn to the Federal socialist student loan program, nationalized under the Obama administration, so that 93% of all student loans are in effect given out by this administration. The program ballooned by 4.6% in the last quarter before the election, a whopping $42 billion rise — in just three months. Now standing at over a trillion bucks, student loan debts exceed those for auto loans, credit cards, and home equity loans.

This debt is beginning to get problematic for those holding it — delinquency rates are way up. Loan payments that were 90 days past due recently hit 11%, higher than the percentage for credit cards.

But all this has served the purpose of electing Democrats, so the administration has good reason for its current fit of self-congratulation.




Share This


What Football Teaches about a Planned Economy

 | 

The growing gap between the poor and the rich (at least the very rich) is reason for concern. With wealth concentration at the top, and an apparently shrinking middle class, no nation can thrive economically, politically, or culturally. But the path forward is not through a centrally managed economy. An economy controlled by the government cannot eliminate economic disparity. If you don’t believe me, look at professional football.

This weekend we saw the divisional playoff round unfold. On the AFC side of the playoff bracket every team that appeared in the divisional round last year appeared this year, and three of the four teams — Baltimore Ravens, New England Patriots, and Denver Broncos — have been playoff regulars for more than a decade. A similar story is told on the NFC side. The Green Bay Packers and San Francisco 49ers were once again in the second round of the playoffs, and each is a storied franchise with regular appearances in the playoffs and Super Bowl. The Seattle Seahawks made their second appearance in three years, and the Atlanta Falcons made their third trip in a row to the playoffs — their fourth in five years.

The winners from this weekend further illustrate the idea that the best teams in the NFL remain relatively the same over time. The 49ers, seeking their sixth Super Bowl appearance, are in the NFC championship game for the second year in a row. The AFC championship game is a repeat from last year and it is the third time in four years the Ravens and Patriots have faced one another in the championship game.

We should not expect this sort of regularity in professional football, and we should see more parity — if centrally planned economies work as expected.

Professional football is a centrally planned economy, with rules to help the worst teams and keep the best ones from always winning. Two of these rules are especially obvious and powerful.

First, the worse a team is, the better draft picks it gets. It is thus, theoretically, able to improve at a faster rate than the teams that pick behind it.

Second, there is a salary cap that keeps teams from spending as much as they might on players. This keeps the most talented players from concentrating in the biggest markets, such as sometimes happens with the Yankees or Red Sox in baseball, where there is no salary cap. In football every team has the same amount of money to spend on players.

In the planned football economy, we should see a more random playoff picture year to year, but instead the gap between successful teams and unsuccessful teams is growing.

In football, then, we should see a more random playoff picture year to year, but instead we get regularity. Such teams as the Cleveland Browns and the Kansas City Chiefs find it difficult to win consistently — and the gap between successful teams and unsuccessful teams is growing. The reason: rules may not be crucial, so long as they are applied fairly. If rules are applied fairly, the better-run organizations will come out ahead on a regular basis. They will separate themselves from the pack. There will be aberrations, but over time, the best will win more regularly.

This little sports experiment indicates that if a centrally managed economy is installed, and rules applied fairly, there will still be winners and losers, and there will still be a disparity between the haves and have-nots. After all, the Dallas Cowboys are worth over $2 billion and the Jacksonville Jaguars just sold for $760 million. And this in a league that has rules aimed at producing competitive and economic parity.

But what we know of politics and business is that the rules don’t always get applied fairly. The more money and power one has, the more access and leverage one can get within the political apparatus. Just ask the National Rifle Association or AIG. Thus, it becomes paradoxical to think that government policy, shaped as it is by lobbyists and special interests, will be equitable and fair. Turning to government to fix economic disparity is turning to the proxy for those at the top of the economic food chain. Those who want the government to intervene in the economy to correct economic disparities miss this paradox.

We have seen the government play favorites during the 2008–09 Wall Street bailouts. We have seen it play favorites in the subsidization of companies such as Tesla and Fisker (makers of $100,000 electric sports cars). Smaller banks, and companies without political influence, are left to sink or swim on their own, while larger ones, and ones that promote a government policy, are naturally aided by the government and use it to maintain an advantage.

Ideally we would see a free market solution adopted because people recognized the paradox and the futility of relying on the government. But a wholesale remake of the political economy is likely not going to take place. This isn’t to say that people are right to compromise their principles, but like a good quarterback, people tend simply to take what the defense will give them and enjoy small victories along the way.

The only feasible solution to this problem is to have simple, transparent government policies for regulations and taxes. The complexity of the tax code and the policies regulating business make it nearly impossible for anyone without a team of attorneys and accountants to chart a successful path. The federal tax code alone is so complicated that it’s not clear whether the fiscal cliff bargain raised or lowered taxes.

If simplicity and transparency were instituted, however, anyone who cared to pay attention would be qualified to do so, thus making it far more likely that the rules would be fairly written and fairly applied. The average citizen would no longer be at the mercy of politicians or pundits when struggling to decipher what the government had actually done.

Of course, simplicity and transparency would not generate economic equality either; but that's not the goal. Inequality is going to exist. Our primary concern ought to be with inequality generated, or exacerbated, by government intervention.




Share This


More Ironies of the Left

 | 

As Gary Jason recently noted in his Reflection "Galt’s Gulch: Somewhere Near Moscow?", some high profile people are leaving France after the latest round of tax increases. In particular, the new 75% income tax rate created by President Hollande hit a nerve. Well-known actor Gerard Depardieu settled in Belgium, publicly denouncing this tax, which kicks in at about $1.2 million a year. He was offered a passport from Russia, and he expressed admiration for that country, which, incidentally, also offers a 13% flat tax rate.

But ironically, Depardieu has firmly rooted leftist opinions.

In the ’80s, he campaigned for François Mitterrand, the head of the French Socialist Party, who became president in 1981. In 1993, he publicly supported the French Communist Party, which was disintegrating after the end of Soviet Union. In 2002, he made a large donation to a fund created for rebuilding the Party — with little success, fortunately. Later, he supported president Sarkozy, a "conservative" who picked many socialists for key positions of his government and continued the statist policies of the Left.*

Depardieu more or less willingly cultivates an image of an uncouth, rustic drunkard, and is prone to excess that raises some eyebrows even in France. Especially in 2011, when he got kicked off a plane, charged with pissing on the carpet. Needless to say, this doesn't make him less popular; au contraire, the paparazzi love him.

However, the man isn't a simple-minded boor. A highly paid actor, Depardieu invested wisely and has enjoyed for years a sizable income outside of the movie industry. He owns vineyards, restaurants, a media production company, and other profitable assets.

It is therefore obvious that his sudden interest in low-tax countries is entirely because of his personal financial interests. Sadly, I didn't find any article pointing out Depardieu's hypocrisy. When they criticized the actor, journalists merely deployed a tired class warfare rhetoric.

Depardieu is not an exception. Other left-leaning French showbiz celebs have said adieu to France, which was a taxpayer abattoir even before Hollande took over. Their favorite destination is Great Britain, where PM Cameron has announced he will roll out the red carpet for this exile of French notables. Many of the French nouveaux riches already live in Switzerland or Monaco, where streets are safe and taxes are low — two things that are now a memory to Parisians. However, the discreet exile of all this French talent and money never really caught the attention of the media.

Depardieu is not a role model. But his noisy, cantankerous escape from overtaxed France had the merit of drawing attention on the disgusting duplicity of rich leftists who cannot stomach the policies they wished for. High taxes for thee, but not for me.

*See this report from the French desk of the Huffington Post, and also this from the newsmagazine L'Humanité.




Share This


The Tea Party House Roller Coaster

 | 

So Speaker Boehner decided that the danger of the fiscal cliff destroying the economy was a graver risk than letting Obama and the Democrats collapse America into a statist nightmare of never-ending deficit spending and ever-higher taxes. Tea Party darlings Paul Ryan and Grover Norquist both supported the fiscal cliff deal, and they had some legitimate arguments: taxes were permanently lowered for most Americans, taxes went up only on the rich, and the Tea Party House can use the automatic sequestration, in March, and the coming debt ceiling showdown in February, as leverage to extract spending cuts from the Democrat-controlled Senate and Obama.

But what does it all mean? I think there is no reason why the showdowns to come later this year will be any different from the fiscal cliff, New Year's Day drama. We are headed for a hellish roller coaster ride on which we face dangerous, potentially disastrous duels between the president and the Tea Party House over whether America is headed toward bigger or smaller government.

Obama's ultimate goal is a less free, more state-controlled economy, of which Obamacare was only the beginning. The Tea Party was our best chance at stopping his socialist agenda. But because anxiety and fear are always resented, and the Obama vs. Tea Party House confrontations are portrayed as scary by the mainstream media, the American public will probably come to hate the Tea Party House, and the Tea Party may pay a steep price for brinkmanship in the 2014 Congressional elections.

Who will win in deciding America's future? I think Obama has already won. The Democrats will always use the scarecrow of the supposed disaster that will happen if the federal government shuts down to pressure the House into raising the debt ceiling and ending sequestration. Speaker Boehner, by bringing the Senate deal to a floor vote over the Tea Party's objection, has already proven that he buys this argument. If the federal government's vastly bloated bureaucracy is viewed as "necessary," then the debate over America's future is over before it has begun. Look forward to a coalition of the House Democrats and the “moderate” House Republicans, with the Speaker's help, neutralizing the Tea Party-conservative alliance for the next two years, with truly disastrous results for the United States and our economic policy.

The Tea Party may be able to get some spending cuts, but can it seriously alter the structure of American statism? I doubt it. At this point only a series of electoral victories by the Libertarian Party to give the LP legitimacy would pose a true challenge to the dominance of the American Left, and that seems implausible. The Tea Party consists of good people, but the Republican Party as a whole is too soft to win this duel, and the Tea Party has not yet been able to realize its goal, taking control of the GOP from within.




Share This


Galt’s Gulch: Somewhere Near Moscow?

 | 

I confess that I have been following the saga of the great French actor Gerard Depardieu with considerable fascination. I won’t rehash the entire tale, as I have written about it at some length elsewhere, but it has reached a surprising culmination.

In brief, the outstanding (if controversial) actor, who has appeared in about 170 films, and was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar for his performance as Cyrano de Bergerac in the eponymous 1990 film, decided to leave his native country after the Socialist Party won the recent French elections. Specifically, the Socialist government carried through with its threat to hike the taxes on the rich from the current 41% to a staggering 75%. The Socialists also jacked up taxes on total wealth, on middle-class incomes, and on capital gains, and imposed an “exit tax” on any entrepreneurs — a group already not well represented in France — who are enterprising enough to flee the confiscatory taxes.

The Socialists obviously regret that they can’t build a wall and shoot citizens who dare to depart the New Socialist Paradise. When Depardieu announced he was leaving, he touched off a firestorm, with key Socialist government officials excoriating him, while other actors came to his defense. He sold his Paris mansion, returned his passport to the French government, and moved his possessions to a town in Belgium. But the question then was — what nationality would he adopt?

The most recent report is that he has decided to become — a Russian! Yes, just recently President Putin signed a citizenship grant giving the hefty star a new home.

Why would a French actor be drawn to Mother Russia?

Certainly, he has a huge following among Russian film-lovers. In 2011 he went to Russia as part of the filming of Rasputin (ever notice that the last part of the name Rasputin is Putin?), in which he played the lead. And he is a familiar face on Russian TV, famous for his commercials for Sovietsky Bank and various consumer products.

But I suspect that the fact that Russia has a flat income tax of a mere 13% may be part of the reason.

All this has led to some delightful tension between the French and Russian governments. The — what? defection? — of a French star to Russia has embarrassed France and allowed Putin to advertise the fact that Russia is a low-tax state. But the fact that Depardieu has been chummy with Putin has angered some Russians critical of Putin, and led the French Green Party to suggest that France grant honorary citizenship for the girls in the band Pussy Riot, who were thrown in the clink after criticizing Putin in a performance.

Now, as the neosocialist Obama jacks up taxes on the rich (on top of neosocialist Governor Jerry Brown’s increase in California), it may be that our own successful citizens may also start considering moving to Russia. My only warning is that they should be prepared to work hard to master the language. It is a notoriously complex tongue . . .




Share This


Democracy: A Western Religion

 | 

On November 21, a Mumbai political goon, Bal Thackeray, died. His party, or gang, is so formidable that the state has, for decades, bent its rule to accommodate its members. If they want the city closed, the police take the lead in closing it, to avoid violence. If you challenge the gang, the police put you under “protective custody.” For decades his gang has extracted protection money. You cannot speak his name without showing the highest possible respect, unless you want to get beaten up, sometimes very ruthlessly.

When Thackeray died, his gang instructed the city to be closed. Everyone who was someone in Mumbai — actors, sportsmen, businessmen, politicians (even of the opposing parties) — had to go to his funeral to pay his condolences. If any had not, he would have had to explain to the gang or leave Mumbai and see his career destroyed.

One girl posted this message on her Facebook page and another “liked” it:

With all respect, every day, thousands of people die, but still the world moves on. Just due to one politician died a natural death, everyone just goes bonkers. They should know, we are resilient by force, not by choice. When was the last time, did anyone showed some respect or even a two-minute silence for Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Azad, Sukhdev or any of the people because of whom we are free-living Indians? Respect is earned, given, and definitely not forced. Today, Mumbai shuts down due to fear, not due to respect.

The two Facebook girls were arrested, their faces covered by the police, and the court asked them to be imprisoned. Unless they want to be raped and then beaten up, they are unlikely to return to Mumbai. Even their extended families might have to leave Mumbai now. Not easily given to tears, I had some. These girls deserved the respect of society. For me they are heroes despite the fact that they erroneously believed they were “free-living Indians.”

These were two cute, educated, middle-class girls, so their case came out in public. In rural India, however, events like these are non-events. There the normal guy lives in utter fear of the police and the local strongman and must grovel. He talks with folded hands and bent head. He has no sense of his rights. He accepts what he can get away with. He concedes what the local strongman wants.

Those Westerners who visit only Mumbai and who can never stop comparing India’s democracy (with some mystical favorable connotations) to Chinese dictatorship (with only evil connotations) should have seen that India is not a country of the rule of law, unless you employ million-dollar lawyers.

Really we see what we want to see, what fits in with our pre-conceived notions. Given that Western people fanatically believe in their religion of democracy, they will rationalize the Mumbai incident as a case of India’s “aggressive” democracy. There are hundreds of recorded protests in China every year. The same people who have very romantic opinions about India call protests in China a sign of the fragile nature of its “dictatorship.” Then they proceed to contradict themselves by saying that there is no freedom of speech in China. They find reasons why China’s economic progress is not real or why China is not a free country, as it would be, were it a democracy.

Recently in China, a very well-known, successful businessman, who was taking me around rural places, told me why he did not want his country to become a democracy. He said that if local democracy were encouraged in China, it would very rapidly make China a place run by strongmen. He described how this would void whatever “rule of law,” predictability, and stability now exists. China is not a perfect country, and I do recognize that my guide wants dictatorship to continue for his personal interests, but I couldn’t agree with him more.

p




Share This


Main St. vs. Wall St.

 | 

The defeat of Romney and the victory of Obama in a disastrous economy which should have crushed the incumbent shows that most people still associate themselves with "Main Street" and view "Wall Street" as the enemy. Only an ideological movement to shift this perception can save the GOP — and such a shift could also help to empower the Libertarian Party.

So let me debunk the myth right now. A look at the Forbes annual list of the richest American and international people shows that many billionaires are not "old money." Many of them are "new money": either self-made rich or the immediate heirs (wives, children, grandchildren) of the self-made rich. Also, many billionaires are women or members of non-white ethnic groups — e.g. the Mexican billionaire Carlos Helu and the women billionaires such as Steve Jobs' widow, Laurene Powell Jobs, and the self-made billionaire Sara Blakely. Thus it is clear that the rich are not an "aristocracy" ruling over the poor and middle class, as leftists and Marxists assert. The rich are merely those people whose merit — hard work, intelligence, and good choices — earned them vast fortunes.

Let me also explain that trickle-down economics is not voodoo; in other words, why the rich being rich helps the poor and middle class. It helps because the rich do not spend all their money on yachts and mansions and caviar (although even their expenditures on luxury create jobs for other people). They need to make their wealth keep pace with inflation, which forces them to invest most of their money. Who do we want to make business decisions about investing in small businesses and entrepreneurs, to decide who receives society's investment capital: people who know finance and economics and take personal responsibility for their decisions, or government officials lost in a mess of bureaucracy and red tape, who experience no personal accountability from gains, losses, and the profit motive?

Capitalism is merely a system in which capital is invested by private people, as opposed to the state. "Wall Street," that much-maligned entity, is the process followed by rich people — and the financial managers who invest money for them — as they make decisions that fund the talented and hard-working middle class. Small businesses are carefully chosen by Wall Street’s investors because they have the capacity to succeed and expand, thus creating more jobs for the poor.

Wall Street is Main Street's best friend, even though most people don't see the complicated economic relationships that form the substructure of a trip to buy a loaf of bread at the local grocery store. Someone made a decision about which grocery stores to invest in, and which bakers to invest in, and the success of those decisions helps determine whether you pay $1.50 for bread, as we can today, or $15.00, as we might in the socialist nightmare of tomorrow. The socialist-leftist-modern liberal dogmas that the rich are a few crusty old white men locked away in the towers of distant mansions, counting gold coins like Scrooge, and that the corporations have enslaved us and the only practical thing is for “working people” to rebel, is totally contrary to the way the world works.

Shatter the leftist myth, and the people won't view another Republican nominee with envy, hatred, and malice, as they viewed the GOP candidate in 2012. It is too late to save the Romney campaign, but the Rand Paul 2016 campaign could benefit from the argument presented above.




Share This
Syndicate content

© Copyright 2013 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.