There Is No 1%

In a recent interview, the New York Times sat down with businessman Edward Conrad to discuss the merits of the American economic system. Conrad, a former employee at Bain Capital, friend of Mitt Romney, and author of the upcoming book "Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong," came out swinging with a powerful defense of the United States' capitalist economy and the so-called 1%.

Conrad must be given credit for both a sound economic defense of the American system and for unabashedly standing up to the onslaught against the core economic principles that have defined the United States for generations. In a financial and economic discussion that is defended as "genuinely fantastic" even by prestigious leftist economists, Conrad outlines how the accumulation of wealth allows investment that proportionally helps everyone.

Conard understands that many believe that the U.S. economy currently serves the rich at the expense of everyone else. He contends that this is largely because most Americans don’t know how the economy really works — that the superrich spend only a small portion of their wealth on personal comforts; most of their money is invested in productive businesses that make life better for everyone....Conard concludes that for every dollar an investor gets, the public reaps up to $20 in value. This is crucial to his argument: he thinks it proves that we should all appreciate the vast wealth of others more, because we’re benefiting, proportionally, from it.

Essentially, he argues that, despite much opposing popular sentiment, there is not anything wrong with the perceived wealth gap in the United States. In fact, it seems he argues the opposite.

A central problem with the U.S. economy, he [argues], is finding a way to get more people to look for solutions despite these terrible odds of success. Conard’s solution is simple. Society benefits if the successful risk takers get a lot of money.

While to the interviewer's chagrin, Conrad does not delve into some serious counterarguments, such as rent-seeking, his economic arguments are sound and convincing. If one buys his logic, as is hard not to do, the Occupy Wall Street crowd are simply fools who are naively injuring themselves.

Nevertheless, Conrad's argument implicitly accepts leftist (socialistic) assumptions through his defense of the so-called 1% by highlighting their provision of a social good. He attempts to refute the charge that the high income and wealth of the rich is somehow denying the poor of what they are due. However, despite the clearness of this analysis, he is making the wrong argument. He is battling the left (and the populist right) on their battleground—generally a woeful proposition—by accepting two significant, albeit it wrong, assumptions.

First, his argument accepts that the divide between the 99% and 1% is real, that there is some fundamental gap that separates the two groups. But such a contention is insupportable. What separates, for instance, the 2% from the 1%? Is everyone in the 99% in the same position? How about the 1%? The truth is that this divide is arbitrary, as any sensible person would acknowledge. It ignores myriad nuances—costs-of-living, family-size, personal goals, type of career, and others.

But the divide has powerful political ramifications, which is precisely why promoters of class warfare have seized upon it. It mobilizes people into an us versus them mentality, attempting to create an artificial camaraderie between the vast majority of Americans—an in-group—against some undeserving out-group. Worst of all, it ignores one of the founding principles of this country that all Americans are equal under the law. There is no 1% or 99%, but simply 100%, each trying to live their own life according to their own abilities, goals, and luck.

Second, by expounding these economic benefits Conrad is accepting the argument that in order for certain members of society to be able to justify high incomes or accumulated wealth, they need to be providing a social benefit. In other words, Conrad's formulation is identical to that of the far-left—individual success, at least for the wealthy, is only justified if the rest of society gains from their behavior. The flip-side implies that if high-income earners cannot convincingly highlight a social good, then their income is somehow illegitimate and possibly forfeit. Conrad only differs from the OWS thugs insofar as he believes that high-income provides such a social good, while those in Zuccotti Park do not.

But this argument is untrue and unjust. Individuals are entitled to the rewards of their work simply because they have been deemed valuable enough by the efforts and their employers to be compensated accordingly. No one, whether wealthy, poor, or middle-class, has to justify their compensation in any social context. Society seems to accept this logic for all but the rich. Very few people feel the need to justify their salary by citing a greater social good. Most feel entitled (and rightly so) to their income based on the hard work they put into their jobs. However, at some arbitrary point a sort of jealousy kicks in creating a scenario where certain Americans have to justify their incomes according to different standards.

This is profoundly un-American. A banker has no greater moral responsibility to justify a social benefit of his salary than a shopkeeper or mechanic. Every American is entitled to reap the rewards that come his way, in whatever form he desires. No one else has a claim to his income and no one else should arbitrarily define criteria to judge whether such wealth is deserved or not. To do otherwise opens a dangerous arena for improper abuse by the majority against the minority.

Newt Undermines GOP Arguments on Capitalism

A desperate and angry Newt Gingrich has relinquished his remaining grip on smart primary campaigning and unleashed an all out assault on Mitt Romney's economic record – and, by association, capitalism. Gingrich's attacks on Romney's experience, however, only serve to undermine Gingrich's stance as a responsible, non-negative campaigner and isolate him from the sensible Republican voters whom he needs to court to have any chance at receiving the GOP nomination.

However, aside from the damage that such attacks seem to be having on Gingrich's campaign, this anti-capitalist line of campaigning is causing monumental damage to the very economic basis that the Republicans are supposed to defend. In his quest to take down his rival, Gingrich is relying on the same Occupy Wall Street-style rhetoric that dominates the left. (To be fair, Governor Rick Perry has resorted to similar tactics, as the WSJ reports.)

The pernicious results are, at least, twofold. First, these attacks greatly help the Obama campaign. These are the precise attacks that the anti-freedom, anti-capitalist forces of the left will unleash on Romney come the general election. There could not be a better way to bolster their argument than by dishing it out for them. As the presumptive nominee, Romney will have an uphill battle to convince those who succumb to the easy anti-capitalist rhetoric that bashes the free market system. Obama can only be gleeful to have help in his mission in the form of Newt Gingrich.

Secondly, and arguably more importantly, Gingrich's attacks solidify misconceptions and distortions about how the free market works. The underlying assumption in his argument is the same as those held by the worst populists in OWS and the anti-Wall Street fringes of the Tea Party. The central argument is that somehow those who have money must justify their possession based on some social, communal good. This is simply false. The freedoms of the American political system guarantee that individuals have the right to their property. Provided they do not engage in illegal activities, individuals have no obligation to justify their earnings to the state in any regards. In other words, the rich, the middle-class, or the poor, need not demonstrate a social purpose or benefit from their occupation in order for the state to deem it acceptable. A free market functions precisely because no government body determines these things.

However many populists and the left implicitly rely upon this assumption when attacking the "rich." Accordingly, they argue that financiers cannot justify a socially-beneficial purpose and thus their "unjustly" earned wealth should be, at least partially, relinquished to the state. Gingrich has gone on record stating that the likes of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Sam Walton deserve their billions because they invented something real. By contrast, goes the argument, Wall Street is just a "handful of rich people [who] manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money...."

This is a gross distortion of the role that finance plays in a capitalist system. Finance is an essential service – it moves capital from those who possess it to those who can use it best. It allows entrepreneurs, who do not possess the needed resources, to obtain them fairly and efficiently. And like anything in business, sometimes it succeeds and sometimes it fails. Capitalism's success is not because it always creates jobs, but that it allows resources to be successfully and most efficiently allocated to the right places, something no one person or institution (government) could do alone. This inherently implies hiring and firing, buying and selling, and investing and divesting. Firing, for instance, moves labor from an area that does not need it and thus frees it up to be used in a more productive fashion.

But Gingrich's attack plays into the leftist and populist rhetoric that ignores the importance of finance. Not only does it confuse voters who are unfamiliar with finance, providing fodder for the left to continue the myth that finance and Wall Street are greedy robbers that need to be stopped by the government (Progressive blogs have jumped on this Gingrich quote.) but it does a great disservice to the purported Republican goal of changing the direction of this country.

Gingrich should be ashamed at such low-brow politics. As an academic and a genuinely smart guy, he must know that the quest to hold political office should not undermine the long-term goals of righting the direction of this country. Relying upon political expediency rather than education only reinforces the anti-free market myths that dominate the public sphere. Republicans have unfortunately excelled far too much at this game. They choose to battle on the Democrats' terrain, using leftist arguments and thus continuously fighting on the defensive. The GOP will only be able to transform this country if it starts to think for itself, if it directly targets these sort of implicit assumptions that underline much of the political dialogue and replaces them with truth. Gingrich's behavior flies in the opposite direction by not just failing to break down the "Wall Street" is bad assumption but strengthening it.

The Hypocrisy of OWS

NRO's Jim Geraghty points out just a touch of irony that exists in Occupy Wall Street (OWS). OWS cannot seem to avoid the fact that the very things it is supposedly protesting against, are essential aspects of human nature and society—characteristics even OWS cannot escape from demonstrating.

[The full text is not available online since it is an email newsletter, NRO's Morning Jolt. I have included the it below.]

---

I'm just fed up with the greed of the rich and powerful, man, like those Occupy Wall Street organizers. The New York Post offers us a great belly laugh: "Even in Zuccotti Park, greed is good. Occupy Wall Street's Finance Committee has nearly $500,000 in the bank, and donations continue to pour in -- but its reluctance to share the wealth with other protesters is fraying tempers. Some drummers -- incensed they got no money to replace or safeguard their drums after a midnight vandal destroyed their instruments Wednesday -- are threatening to splinter off."

One occupier laments, "The other day, I took in $2,000. I kept $650 for my group, and gave the rest to Finance. Then I went to them with a request -- so many people need things, and they should not be going without basic comfort items -- and I was told to fill out paperwork. Paperwork! Are they the government now?"

You can hear the laughter at UrbanGrounds:

The obnoxious drummers are upset that their vandalized drums won't be replaced from the $500,000 in the general fund nor will they be getting funds for infrastructure (a shed) to keep them safe. The money collected is actually sitting in a bank, that's right a BANK! Isn't this motley crew opposed to banks AND capitalism? What bank and what is the name on the account? Is it an individual account or is it a corporate account? Is the person or group that the account belongs to registered and is making required filings? The Schadenfreude is strong in this one!

When the "Parasites On Parade" finally ends, and it will, some one or some small group is going to have a lot of "walking around" money, while the smelly masses who panhandled for it will be in the same sorry condition they were in before, blaming unknown individuals and corporations for all their troubles.

The Post also shares:

Filth-ridden Zuccotti Park is a breeding ground for bacterial infection loaded with potential health-code violations that pose a major risk to the public, an expert who inspected the area warned.

"It's like Walmart for rats,'' Wayne Yon, an expert on city health regulations, said yesterday.

"There's a lack of sanitation, a lack of controls for hot and cold water," Yon said. He saw at least 15 violations of the city's health code -- the type that would easily shut down a food establishment.

He noted the lack of lavatory facilities, as neighbors repeatedly complain about protesters defecating in the area and the stench of urine.

A.J. Strata wonders if the Occupy Wall Street crowd understands that they are inadvertent advertisements for why their vision of the world can't work:

So when I watch a tent city culture play government and cry for equality I see [it] for what it really is. Look at these people living in tents, calling one a kitchen and one a counsel center, fighting law enforcement while crime runs rampant amongst them. It's a sad joke!

What, am I supposed to trade in my upper middle class home I worked a life time to obtain, turn in my cars and motorcycle, give up all I have to go play communist commune in a park somewhere?

Are they nuts? Herman Cain wants to change the tax code and is getting nervous ninnies taking shots at him from all sides. These silly people in these occupy zones want to replace our entire society!

Good luck with that one.

Why Warren Buffett is Wrong on Taxes

Former chairman and CEO of American Express, Harvey Golub, writes on why Warren Buffett and Obama are wrong when arguing for higher taxes on the rich.

What gets me most upset is two other things about this argument: the unfair way taxes are collected, and the violation of the implicit social contract between me and my government that my taxes will be spent—effectively and efficiently—on purposes that support the general needs of the country. Before you call me greedy, make sure you operate fairly on both fronts.

Golub highlights statistics that the top 3% of taxpayers pay nearly 50% of taxes.  He also cites the inefficient collection of taxes - namely due to tax breaks and loopholes given to all sorts of special interests - and inefficient expenditure of taxes - on wasteful and unnecessary programs - to drive his message home.  Golub concludes "Here's my message: Before you 'ask' for more tax money from me and others, raise the $2.2 trillion you already collect each year more fairly and spend it more wisely. Then you'll need less of my money."


But while Golub's argument is fair, there is a more fundamental issue in his essay.  In refuting calls by some of America's wealthiest, including Buffett, for higher tax rates on the rich, he writes:

Others could pay higher taxes if they choose. They could voluntarily write a check or they could advocate that their gifts to foundations should be made with after-tax dollars and not be deductible. They could also pay higher taxes if they were not allowed to set up foundations to avoid capital gains and estate taxes.

The issue here is one of coercion and choice.  Buffett might be right when he calls for the closing of loopholes that give special treatment to certain forms of income or certain individuals, but that does not translate into justification for increased tax rates.  If Buffett feels he owes something to the community, he is more than free to write a check to any institution he feels deserving - including the US Treasury.  However, to argue that tax increases on certain individuals are necessary, because one feels like he is paying too little, distorts the relationship between government and the individual in a dangerous manner.

Income is naturally the property of the individual who earned it.  The government only has the right to take from an individual in order to provide the appropriate services of the state.  In other words, government should minimize its burdens on individuals and should tax only to meet its essential and proper functions (what these functions are is a separate discussion but would include many tasks that cannot be provided by the private market, for instance, defense, security, certain infrastructure, establishing rules and laws, and other pure social goods).  Taxes are thus a pooling of individual property to provide for certain aspects of the common good.  In this manner, taxes could be perceived as establishing or investing in an institution (the government) that provides needed services that would otherwise be unavailable.  Accordingly, all should benefit from this system.

Buffett's and Obama's argument turn this conceptualization on its head, arguing that the appropriate level of taxes is rooted not in the need to pay for essential functions but in an arbitrary determination of what an individual should possess.  Under this understanding, income (or wealth) is not the natural property of the individual, but is awarded to them based on their need.  Any amount that surpasses this arbitrary definition of need does not rightly belong to the individual and must, to be fair, taken away.  Taxes are thus used to 'level the playing field'.  The individual, whether rich or poor, now lives at the goodwill of the state, allowed to possess only due to the graces of leviathan.  In fact, taken to the extreme this argument does not even require the government to provide anything.  If taxes are justified by taking 'excess' from those who have it, the government has achieved its goal of taxation (this is not to say the government does not have other goals) simply by taking the money.

Taxation is a tool needed for the government to achieve its proper functions.  It is not a goal unto itself.  To assume otherwise is to break down the very fabric of a capitalist, free-market, liberal society and sets dangerous precedents.  It is certainly appropriate to debate how tax burdens should be carried by different segments of society, but it is far too dangerous to allow such discussions to distort the purpose of taxation.  Taxes are a government's paycheck or its alms - not a tool for social engineering.

It's a Jungle Out There!

The left – environmentalists in particular – have long had an affinity for the jungle. The majesty and biodiversity of unmolested nature have inspired generations on the left to protect the jungle from man’s adulterous hands. In response, the right has often scorned such appreciation as the sentiment of mere hippies and tree-huggers. The jungle becomes a battleground between conservationists and capitalists.

But while the left claims the ‘righteous path’ of stewardship of the jungle, there is a lesson found in there that offers profound support to the beliefs of the right. If one spends a small quantum of time in a jungle, it becomes apparent that it is a prime metaphor for capitalism.

At first this may seem contradictory. After all, the common understanding the jungle is the epitome of nature, while the market is the embodiment of man’s conquest of nature. However, the fact often overlooked is that the market-system is nature. Men, in their hubris, often try to separate the world of mankind from the natural, forgetting that although humankind certainly has an inordinate power to alter his landscape, it still operates within the system of nature.

The beauty and biodiversity of the jungle arise from the same source that fosters the market-system – competition. Every actor in the jungle, whether plant or animal, is operating in its own self-interest, for its own survival. And while many environmentalists attempt to hang their hats on the concept of balance-of-nature, what is missed is that this balance comes spontaneously and is in no way planned. The panther is not a noble creature that consciously oversees the inner workings of jungle, but a selfish individual that takes what he can to provide for his own survival. If he fails, he dies; if he succeeds, someone else dies. There is no concept of justice, simply a self-correcting balance.

This leads to a high level of competition and subsequently specialization. This becomes abundantly clear if one looks at the profusion of wildlife and the niche roles that each species plays in the jungle system. Not only does competition develop this specialization, but it leads to a tangible wealth. The wealth of the jungle is a rich mosaic of life, of colors and of activity. In practice, the world of Charles Darwin is not that far from the market system of competition as elucidated by Adam Smith.

What is striking is that so many environmentalists stand against the notions of capitalism and never realize that they grow from the same source. This does not mean to disregard the natural competition in which environmentalists and capitalists engage over the use (or lack of use) of natural resources – which obviously puts them at odds. However, what is significant is that many can recognize the beauty of this natural, competitive process in the environment, while simultaneously dismissing it in the human environs of the world. In truth, those that appreciate this magnificence in nature should, at least in a philosophical sense, fall closer to the capitalists of the right, than the socialist planners of the left.

Give Me Healthcare, Or Give Me Death?

The state of US healthcare system is atrocious. It is in need of desperate reform. Unfortunately, the Republican Party lacks any coherent proposals to fix the broken system. This leaves the American people with a choice between the current unwieldy system or the big government, nationalized, nearly Socialist plan of the Left.

For years, the Democrats have been proposing state control of the healthcare system. They want to offer universal healthcare to every American on the taxpayers’ dime. While seemingly noble in aim, this is absolutely foolish. Not only will a government system crowd out the private industry, but it will be vastly inferior. As most know, the government does a substandard job at providing services, particularly services that can be supplied by the private sector.

Unfortunately, this is where the discussion stops for most Republicans. The criticisms of the Democrats’ model of universal healthcare are solid and well thought out. However, the Republican’s offer little in terms of a solution to the obvious problems in the healthcare industry.

A relatively clear-cut answer is to fall back on the free-market principles that form the base of American conservatism. While unquestioning defense of the healthcare industry often comes hand-in-hand with criticism of universal healthcare, this need not be the case. One of the bases of free market capitalism is the notion of competition. However, the current structure of the health insurance industry limits competition.

Contrary to other, non-health, insurance industries, the health insurance system is an employer-based system. This severely reduces the number of buyers of health insurance. A health insurance company only needs to pitch its product to a few large companies in order to capture a substantial portion of the market. This forces the insurance company to structure products that will appeal to HR representatives, not the insurance consumer. This limits the diversity of the products offered and gives the insurance companies greater market control. Health insurance consumers can veto bad insurance plans only by leaving their jobs. Certainly, this puts some limits on the downward movement of insurance quality- as competition remains at the firm level. However, it drastically reduces the specialization that would occur if each consumer were responsible for his or her own insurance.

The easy solution is to end the employer based health insurance system. Individuals would be responsible for finding their own health insurance. Companies, since they no longer have to pay for insurance, would increase salaries accordingly. This would leave individuals with the same amount of money as they previously had to purchase health care on the free market. Naturally, many new, specialized products would develop. This would allow individuals to spend more or less based on the type of care and services they want. Insurance companies would have to compete rigorously with each other to capture new, separate segments of the market. All this would lead to greater competition, lower prices, and increased services. Insurance companies that fail to deliver would find a swift exit from the market, thereby creating a marketplace of higher quality companies.

Critics of such a proposal argue that health insurance is far too complicated for the average American to purchase on their own. This, however, unfairly diminishes Joe Six-Pack’s ability to obtain the appropriate information that he would need. The average American is capable of doing their own taxes and finding homeowner’s or car insurance. For those that cannot, or do not want to be bothered, there are a myriad of brokerage services available. It is quite likely that insurance brokers would expand in scope as they aided individuals in searching for the right health insurance plan.

The answer to the health insurance issue is not increased consolidation and government regulation, but a move towards greater free market competition. Government controlled, universal healthcare will only deepen the systemic problems that already exist. A greater number of differentiated healthcare providers will facilitate cheaper, more universal healthcare, without sacrificing the quality of healthcare in America.