Bloomberg on Physical Cash and Marvin Goodfriend

Bloomberg on Physical Cash and Marvin Goodfriend

12/06/2017Ryan McMaken

Bloomberg today notes that the Mises Institute isn't a big fan of Marvin Goodfriend's war on cash:

Goodfriend’s dislike for cash could become an issue in his confirmation hearings, which are not yet scheduled. Senators could soon be getting an earful from constituents who fear that taking away paper money is a step toward socialism or totalitarianism. Those voices are already being heard. “Is Marvin Goodfriend the Worst Fed Nominee of All Time?” asks a Dec. 1 post [by Tho Bishop] on the website of the Mises Institute, a think tank for the Austrian school of economics. An earlier Mises post in which Goodfriend’s name was first raised said, “Given his radical views on monetary policy, it’s not hyperbole to suggest that Goodfriend’s nomination would represent a genuine danger to the economic wellbeing of every American citizen—or at least those outside of the financial services industry.”

It’s not just the Mises people who want to hang onto paper money. “Cash Means Freedom, Which Is Why So Many Officials Hate It” was the headline on a post by the libertarian Reason Institute last year. Last year, in the Wall Street Journal, financial commentator James Grant attacked a book called The Curse of Cash by Harvard’s Kenneth Rogoff, writing, “The author wants the government to control your money. It’s as simple as that.”

Goodfriend is concerned that the existence of cash makes it harder for the Fed to lower interest rates below zero. In the next crisis, he says, the Fed might want to push interest rates into negative territory to prod people to stop sitting on their money and do something with it, such as consumption or investment, that would get growth going again. But today, the Fed would not be able to push interest rates on checking or savings accounts very far below zero because as soon as it did, people would simply withdraw cash from the banks and store it in the mattress or a vault. The European Central Bank and Swiss National Bank have managed to push rates only slightly negative.

[See David Gordon's review of The Curse of Cash.]

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

"New California" Seeks Two-State Solution to Too-Big California

11 hours agoRyan McMaken

For people who have spent little time in California, the metropolitan areas all look pretty much the same. Sure, they know that there are some rural areas of California that are unabashedly right-leaning, but the rest is all pretty much just like San Francisco. But, that's not quite true, though. As recently, as 2008, we saw that California isn't quite the uniform place many outsiders assume it to be. When we look at the voting patterns on Proposition 8 ( the gay-marriage ban) for example, we find some real regional differences:

prop8.png

With the exception of very wealthy Santa Barbara County, a majority of voters in every county in Southern California voted for the ban. Opposition to the ban was heavily concentrated in northern counties with high-income populations, with many of them in the tech industry. 

In other words, Silicon Valley and San Francisco are not Orange County or Riverside County or even San Diego County. True enough, none of those latter places are "right wing bastions" in the style of a South Carolina military town. But they're not exactly Nancy Pelosi country either. 

So, it's not surprising that the latest effort at breaking up California into smaller pieces, is focused on separating out just the portion of California that is most closely allied ideologically with the Northern California ruling class in the state. Here's the map (the blue parts are "New California"):

24174189_868040303373579_2389393690299339284_n.jpg

The San Diego Union-Tribune reports:

“New California is a new state in development by egregiously aggrieved Californians exercising our Constitutional right to form a new state separate from the tyranny and lawlessness of the state of California,” the group’s Facebook Page says.

The new state, as envisioned, would exclude parts of California along the coastline from Orange north to Napa counties; New California would include all other parts of California, including San Diego County, leaving the coastal stretch as California.

Little is likely to come of this in the short terms, of course. But, if California continues to move toward greater independence from Washington, the stakes will become higher and higher for those regions of the state that object to the current ideological zeitgeist in Sacramento. 

Certainly, the fact that California is seeking to separate itself, at least informally, from Washington's edicts hangs over the whole affair. As we've noted here at mises.org, the answer to secession in many cases is even more secession:

[S]ecession already brings with it a solution to the problem. That is, the problems caused by one secession are solved by more secession. 

As I've explained herehere, and here, a larger number of states is preferable to a smaller number. A larger number of small states provides more practical choices to taxpayers and citizens in choosing a place to live under a governments that more closely match their personal values. 

Thus, in considering the problems of an independent California, we find that the primary problem faced by taxpayers and productive residents in California is that the state is simply too large and contains too diverse a population within its boundaries. 

As noted by numerous commentators over the years — including supporters of the Six Californias initiative— California's population is quite politically and culturally diverse, although it has been dominated for decades by a hard-left coalition of voters based around the Bay Area. Compared to these voters, Southern California residents appear downright centrist, but one would not know this by looking at statewide politics because Northern California is so adept at throwing its weight around. 

The solution to this, problem lies in breaking up California into still smaller pieces. We can see many of these political lines ripe for decentralization in the voting patterns revealed by statewide votes such as those for Propsition 187 and Proposition 8. We can see it in the map of legislative districts. Nor is this just a matter of metropolitan areas versus rural areas. Many suburban areas within the metroplexes of California are quite right-of-center in their own rights, and would surely benefit from further political decentralization.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

More Gun Violence: Let’s Look Beyond Politics

02/21/2018Ron Paul

Another terrible school shooting took place in Parkland, Florida last week and unfortunately many politicians and pundits have used the tragedy – as they often do – to push their own agenda. Many will use the tragedy to argue that Americans should be prohibited from owning guns. As if anti-gun laws would dissuade a disturbed or violent individual intent on causing harm. Those intent on mass murder don’t obey gun laws.

For example, why do those calling for more gun control remain silent when armed federal agents raid Amish farms to stop them from selling raw milk? This shows the hypocrisy of those who call for restrictions on private firearms ownership while supporting the use of government violence as a means of controlling our lives.

Unfortunately there are many key questions lost in the race to score political points from the shooting.

Why does it always seem that the shooter in these mass killings has been on some kind of psychotropic drugs? As the New American magazine pointed out this week, at least ten high profile mass shootings have been committed by individuals who “were either on — or just recently coming off of — psychiatric medications.” The young killer in Florida was no different. According to his aunt, he had been on these medications to treat mental problems.

Why is no one questioning these medications – all of which come with labels warning of horrific side effects? Perhaps one reason they are ignored is that the pharmaceutical industry spends billions of dollars lobbying Congress.

Also, how is it possible that the FBI once again missed so many obvious clues that a violent person intent on causing massive harm to others was about to strike? Is the FBI actually this incompetent, or perhaps its focus was in other areas — like meddling in our own elections by presenting “evidence” they knew was flawed to the FISA court to get permission to spy on the Trump campaign?

We’ve heard many stories of how alert FBI field agents tried to alert their bosses before 9/11 that foreigners were taking flight lessons but were not interested in learning how to land the planes.

Is giving the federal government more power to spy on us – as they demand – the answer to stop these terrible crimes? Hardly!

Those who think that giving federal authorities greater surveillance powers might prevent mass shootings should consider that the FBI has been alerted that the latest school shooter had made Facebook posts and YouTube comments talking about his intention to be, as he put it, “a professional school shooter.” But the Bureau failed to properly investigate the tips. If the FBI fails to stop someone who openly boasts about their intentions on social media why should we believe that giving them the power to snoop on every American would increase our safety?

We cannot stop tragedies like this by banning guns. We need to look seriously into the psychotropic drugs that more and more Americans are being prescribed. We need to demand that our elected Representatives demand a real day of reckoning at the FBI. We need to keep focused and ignore those who politicize such events.

Reprinted with permission. 

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

The Economics of Peace and Abundance

02/21/2018Mark Thornton

From the "Living outside the Matrix" podcast: "Dr Mark Thornton helps bring some clarity to a subject shrouded in jargon and obfuscation. He illustrates the differences between mainstream (Keynesian) economics and the Austrian school."

Economics of peace and abundance with Mark Thornton - Living Outside the Matrix podcast episode 31

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

SCOTUS Is Right to Not Overturn California's Gun Waiting Period

02/20/2018Ryan McMaken

The Hill today reports that the US Supreme Court is refusing to hear a case challenging a California law prescribing a waiting period for gun purchases. In other words, the SCOTUS is allowing the California law to stand:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to hear a challenge to a California law that requires there be a 10-day waiting period after all gun sales, even if the person is already a registered gun owner.

California’s "cooling off period" is the second longest in the country, according to court documents, and was enacted to give state authorities time to run a background check and give individuals who might want the firearm to harm themselves or others an opportunity to calm down.

Only eight other states and the District of Columbia have any kind of waiting period.

Two California residents, Jeff Silvester and Brandon Combs, who already own guns legally, challenged the application of law along with two nonprofits: The Calguns Foundation Inc. and The Second Amendment Foundation Inc.

They argued the waiting period is unconstitutional when it’s applied to "subsequent purchasers" — individuals who already own a firearm according to California’s AFS database or have a valid concealed-carry license and individuals who clear a background check in less than 10 days.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. It said the 10-day waiting period is a reasonable safety precaution for all purchasers of firearms and need not be suspended once a purchaser has been approved.

Now, I am not supporter of laws such as these. On the other hand, I also am opposed to the federal government stepping in to overturn state laws. 

State autonomy in this matter is important from a decentralist and pro-federalism position. But it is also important from a legal position, because as Brion McClanahan has made clear in his work on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. 

Many gun-ownership advocates wrongly claim that the Second Amendment applies to the states, but this is not the case. In other words, they accept the legal doctrine of "incorporation" invented in the late 19th century which applies the Bill of Rights to state governments.

McClanahan notes, however, that not only is "incorporation" a faulty legal doctrine, but it was never applied to the Second Amendment until very recently. 

In this podcast [beginning around12:00] with McClanahon, he examines the historical realities surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights, and it is clear that the provisions of the Bill of Rights were intended as "restricting clauses on the general government" and that "these amendments were to apply only to the general government." 

There is a reason, after all, that nerly all state constitutions contain some provisions guaranteeing a right to bear arms. This was seen as the domain of the state governments. 

Federalism, properly understood, puts gun regulation in the hands of the state government. And while I am generally laissez faire on this issue, I agree with McClanahan that the federal government ought not to be the agency to which gun advocates appeal for protections of gun-ownership rights. 

More: Decentralize the Gun Laws by Ryan McMaken

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

Minimum Wage Advocates Set to Blame Lack of Results on Enforcement

02/20/2018Ryan McMaken

Minimum wage laws hurt the most unskilled and least experienced workers in society. They cut off the lower rungs of the ladder to that it becomes far more difficult to enter the workforce without substantial experience. After all, how many employers are willing to take the risk of hiring a workers at 8 dollars an hour when that workers has no references and no experience? Some would. But many more would be willing to do it for 5 dollars per hour. 

In practice, fewer than 3 percent of workers earn the minimum wage because as soon as most workers prove they can learn on the job and show up for work, they move above the minimum wage. But, it's that crucial opportunity to get the foot in the door and get a little experience that is hurt by minimum wage laws. Given that 97% of workers are already working above the minimum wage, this illustrates the key importance of allowing wages to be flexible for those not already in the 97%.

Entry into that 97% of workers making above-minimum wage is only hurt by minimum wages because the mandate erases opportunities for workers to prove themselves, even when they have zero experience. Thus, those who are the least promising prospects simply have no chance of getting their foot in the door because they are perceived as being too much of a risk when the employer must pay a minimum wage far above the worker's apparent value. 

Were wages more flexible, brining on an unskilled workers would be a far less risky proposition for employers. 

As a result of the minimum wage, however, unemployment rises among the least skilled, and income inequality grows. 

As we learn in Politico this week, however, supporters of the minimum wage have a ready scapegoat for the minimum wage's failure to bring the most vulnerable workers up to higher wage levels. They'll blame a lack of enforcement by government agencies:

This failure to enforce both the minimum hourly wage — $7.25 under federal law — and rules requiring higher pay for overtime distorts the economy, giving advantages to employers who break the law. It allows long-term patterns of abuse to take root in certain service industries, especially restaurants, landscaping and cleaning. Advocates for lowest-wage workers describe families facing eviction and experiencing hunger for lack of money that’s owed them. And, nationally, the failure to enforce wage laws exacerbates a level of income inequality that, by many measures, is higher than it’s been for the past century.

“Low-income workers are already in this fragile balance,” said Victor Narro of the UCLA Labor Center. “One paycheck of not being able to get the wages they’re owed can cause them to lose everything.”

Minimum wage laws increase income inequality by discriminating most against those "in the fragile balance," but when we fail to see that the least skilled workers are getting work, we will just blame enforcement instead.

This, it seems, is a variationon the "socialism has never been tried!" argument, in which if we just do socialism "harder," this time it will work. This appears to be the mentality in Venezuela right now. When we find that minimum wages don't actually put unskilled workers on the path toward high wages, we'll say "the minimum wage has never truly been tried" and we'll fix it by ramping up enforcement. 

In truth, these loophole through which many of these employers - mostly small businesses and other low-capital operations - are passing, are all that's keeping these workers employed at all. If forced to compete with workers at more reliable and highly capitalized operation, they may very well find themselves completely unemployed. Moreover, the small businesses that we're told are cruelly withholding wages are often not paying wages because they're missing payroll due to low revenues. Properly enforcing the laws will just drive these companies out of business. We might say "serves them right" when that happens, but the outcome will also be that all the workers lose their jobs. 

More: 

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low

02/19/2018Ryan McMaken

In Minnesota, the CBS 4 affiliate reports: "more people are carrying guns than ever before, but the crime rate remains low":

We took a hard look at the numbers, and found: Minnesota has a high rate of gun ownership, and a relatively low rate of violent crime.

homicde_canada_map_2_logo_0.png

Minnesota’s violent crime rate hit a 50-year low in 2016, according to the FBI.

And in 2017, the state set a new record for firearms background checks.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System reports it processed nearly 683,544 checks on gun buyers in 2017. That includes: 473,975 permits, 94,383 handguns and 125,516 long guns.

The State Department of Public Safety reports 283,188 Minnesotans now have permits to legally carry firearms in public...

There’s still a lot we don’t know about guns in Minnesota. An estimated 36.7 percent of Minnesotans own at least one firearm.

Like numerous northern states with fairly high rates of gun ownership, Minnesota also enjoys very low homicide rates. 

First of all, as noted here at mises.org, homicide rates in the United States vary considerably by state and region. Claims about homicide and violence "in the United States" are usually meaningless because of the large variations from place to place in the United States. 

In Minnesota, the homicide rate in 2016 was 1.8 per 100,000. That's about equal to the homicide rate in British Columbia, Canada. 

statesprovinces_0.png

Secondly, it is also true nationwide that homicide rates do not increase with increasing gun ownership. In fact, as we've shown here at mises.org, from 1994 to 2013, gun ownership increased substantially, while homicide rates fell. Moreover, homocide rates are now near 50-year lows, and have falled considerably from the 1980s and 1990s.

Unfortunately, many Americans think that crime has increased during that time. 

homicide1_0.png

Some observers might be quick to point out that Minnesota conducts background checks for gun purchases. This is true, although in 2016 the homicide rates were even lower in New Hampshire and Maine where there are no background checks. 

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

76th Anniversary of FDR's Prison Camps

02/19/2018Ryan McMaken

As Ryan McMaken noted in a 2014 article

February 19 is the Day of Remembrance for those who wish to recall that on February 19, 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 authorizing military personnel to lock American of Japanese descent in concentration camps that are often euphemistically called “internment camps.”

The internment of the Japanese Americans is one of our greatest examples of how majority rule functions in a democracy. Fueled by the usual war hysteria so often and enthusiastically propagated by the American voter, Roosevelt’s government was virtually unrestrained in its wartime powers, and it’s drive to jail innocent Japanese civilians was not just national, but international in scope.

As Rothbard noted in an article on Peru, the American government wasn’t content with merely jailing Americans. No, it was important to actually import people destined for the concentration camps:

The first Japanese were imported into Peru at the end of the 19th century to work as slaves on the coastal sugar plantations. The Japanese, however, rebelled within weeks, and moved to Lima, where they are now located. Fujimori’s parents emigrated to Lima in the mid-1930s where his father, along with other Japanese, created hundreds of successful small businesses.

After Pearl Harbor, the U.S. government pressured Peru to go to war with Japan, to confiscate Japanese-owned businesses, including the elder Fujimori’s tire repair shop, and to ship almost 1,500 Japanese to internment in the U.S. Hence, the Peruvian Indians’ embrace of Fujimori as a fellow non-white rising up against the Criollos. The fact that Fujimori’s immigrant mother does not speak Spanish works in his favor with the Inca masses, who don’t speak Spanish either; Spanish is the language of Vargas Llosa and the Criollo conquerors.

 

In California, where the Japanese Americans, like the Japanese Peruvians, were treated like dirt, they set up a large number of highly-successful small business (most notably in small-scale agriculture and plant nurseries). In both cases, the success of the Japanese merely made the whites jealous, and the middle-class Anglos in California decided to wage class warfare on the Japanese immigrants in the early 20th century and passed a series of laws designed to outlaw Japanese-owned businesses. Fortunately, many of their plans failed. But when the opportunity came to ship the competition off to concentration camps, who would complain?

Camps helped cripple Japanese business well beyond the end of the war, since as Douglas Carey noted: “Over 110,000 Japanese civilians were detained in this way. Not one of them had been accused of any crime. After the war was over, the majority of those detained went home to find their property looted and destroyed.”

In a democracy, this is of course a win-win situation for the majority. The democratic system ensured that the Japanese, as a small minority, possessed virtually no political power either on the West coast or nationally, and were therefore at the mercy of the state. The few politicians who provided even mild resistance to stripping the Japanese of all rights, such as Colorado governor Ralph Carr, were promptly voted out of office.

The U.S. Government has never repudiated the legal principle behind concentration camps, and maintains the legal right to use them again. Often, when libertarians or others point out that the United States is not a free country, the defenders of the status quo point to the fact that people can vote. This magical talisman held out by government apologists, known as “the vote” doesn’t seem to have worked out very well for the Japanese Americans during World War II, who also had “the vote.”

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

The FBI Caught Asleep at the Switch — Again

02/16/2018Ryan McMaken

Governor Rick Scott of Florida has called on the FBI director, Christopher Wray, to resign after it was revealed the FBI failed ot follow up on leads related to this week's school shooter. The FBI also failed to even follow its own protocol in terms of forwarding information to the local field office

Robert Lasky, FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Miami field office, said agents in the Miami field office were never notified about the tip.

"The FBI has determined that protocol was not followed. The information was not provided to the Miami field office and no further investigation was conducted at that time," Lasky said Friday at a news conference. "We will conduct an in-depth review of our internal procedures for responding to information that is provided by the public."

The FBI was also notified about a comment on a YouTube video posted by a "Nikolas Cruz" last year. 

"The comment simply said, 'I'm going to be a professional school shooter,'" Lasky said Thursday. "No other information was included with that comment, which would indicate a time, location or true identity of the person who made that comment."

Lasky said the FBI was unable to identify who made the remark.

A statement released Friday by the FBI said that the most recent tip should've been investigated thoroughly and forwarded to the Miami field office because it was a potential threat to life.

"We are still investigating the facts," FBI Director Christopher Wray said. "I am committed to getting to the bottom of what happened in this particular matter, as well as reviewing our processes for responding to information that we receive from the public. It's up to all Americans to be vigilant, and when members of the public contact us with concerns, we must act properly and quickly."

No doubt the FBI will "get to the bottom" of this just as it gotten to the bottom of how it failed to notice anything was amiss in the lead-up to 9/11. Perhaps the FBI will receive another big budget increase, as tends to happen after the FBI botches a major investigation. 

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

Federal Budgets are Meaningless

02/14/2018Jeff Deist

Reactions to presidential budget proposals generally run along predictable party lines: the party occupying the White House lauds it as a sober and responsible reflection of the nation's priorities, while the opposition party insists it will kill babies and bring about the general downfall of the nation. We might expect this political grandstanding to grow more intense in the Trump era, and so it has: the administration's new 2019 budget proposal has been met with howls of disapproval from many corners. 

american-budget-2019-reuters-650_650x400_41518484568 (1).jpg

 We alternatively are told Trump's budget fights repeals Obamacare, mandates a border wall, swells defense spending, privatizes space travel, "reforms" student loans and food stamps, fights the opioid crisis, creates huge deficits, and somehow manages to expand federal expenditures 13% while simultaneously slashing critical programs. It's a starvation budget! It's a bloated pork-barrel giveaway! It even threatens Meals on Wheels! The average American, tribally inclined to believe one side's hype over the other, hears all of these things and wonders whether they're true.

But they are not true. Trump's budget, like all presidential budgets, is a meaningless document full of trial balloons that serve current political purposes rather than determining future spending priorities. Budgets have no bearing on future actions by Congress or the president, they don't change substantive law in any area, and they don't create deterministic deficits in the future. They are political documents, and should be understood as such.

A few points bear mentioning: 

  • Presidents have no constitutional role in the budget process, other than signing or vetoing a budget bill crafted by Congress alone.
    Unfortunately, the lawless and relentless rise of presidential power during the 20th century did not spare the budget process. But the Constitution plainly and unequivocally grants sole authority over the power of the purse to Congress in Article I, section 9, clause 7. Presidents are charged with executing the spending priorities of Congress, not setting them in the Oval Office.

    The more modern "tradition" whereby administrations propose an annual budget to Congress in early February is entirely extra-constitutional: the legally dubious Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 created the Office of Management and Budget under the auspices of the president, when it fact such an office should fall under congressional control (as the later-created Congressional Budget Office does). It is a mistake to further entrench the harmful idea that presidents have any say whatsoever over the federal budget.
     
  • Budgets have nothing to do with taxes and spending.
    Congress funds all of the federal departments, agencies, and programs through the annual appropriations process. Technically there are 12 annual appropriations bills, one for each Congressional subcommittee with jurisdiction over particular funding areas (e.g. defense, transportation, agriculture). House and Senate committees each pass their version, then in theory they hammer out an agreement known as a conference report that both bodies pass and send to the President. This process has broken down mightily in the last 15 years, because the poisoned political atmosphere makes agreement on 12 huge bills (all full of tucked-away language from swarming but friendly lobbyists) nearly impossible. So in recent years Congress has passed overarching "omnibus" bills that fund everything, or packaged "minibus" bills that combine two or more appropriations bills.

    But nobody gives a moment's thought to the already-passed fiscal year budget during the summer appropriations process. The budget is like an old newspaper, a story that is utterly irrelevant to the appropriations process. The only numbers that matters are last year's appropriations spending; those numbers form the "baseline" from which the committees begin-- not those suggested in the White House budget. The priorities and initiatives outlined in the administration's budget proposal are never considered for a moment. 

    Tax bills similarly make their way through committees in the House and Senate, though they must originate in the House. Unlike appropriations bill, tax legislation is not particular to a single fiscal year, and remains in effect unless later revoked, amended, or subject to sunset periods. Tax proposals and revenue projections contained in the budget again are irrelevant and never considered by Congress. 

    So how much Congress spends each year, and how much the Treasury collects in taxes, is wholly a function of the appropriations and tax bills passed by Congress (again, save for a presidential veto). 
     
  • Budgets have no binding effect on Congress or the president in future years.
    All of the spending and revenue projections contained in the administration's budget will be utterly forgotten in a month or two. Even if passed into law, the budget bill has no legally binding effect whatsoever on future years, future Congresses, or future presidents. Nor does it have any institutional effect. Nobody in Congress ever says. "Gee, remember that budget we passed back in 2010? We projected spending only $15 billion every year for NASA. I guess we'd better stick to it since we promised... Sorry NASA."

    Nobody knows, or can know what Congress will spend down the road-- just look at "emergency supplemental" bills passed during the Bush and Obama administrations to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were passed without regard to presidential budgets, and completely apart from the existing appropriations/omnibus/minibus bills already voted on. What exactly is the point of a budget, if Congress simply can pass additional spending bills whenever it chooses? So when the New York Times breathlessly announces Trump's budget creates huge deficits in the future or increases poverty, it displays a profound ignorance of the two points above. The administration has no budget, and it doesn't ultimately control spending and tax bills. 

We all would benefit from jettisoning the presidential budget charade. It only creates more meaningless political theater, and diverts our attention from what really matters: the total amount Congress spends and the total amount it takes from the private economy in taxes.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

The Real Scandal in College Athletics

A star high school basketball player was incidentally mentioned in an FBI probe because he was allegedly paid $15, 000 for “committing” to play for the University of Arizona.  The student has recently committed to another university but may be ineligible to play college basketball next year. 

A study in 2011 estimated that the average college basketball player at a university in the top tier (FBS) of Division 1 athletics earned approximately $120, 000 including grants-in-aid to fund tuition, room and board, etc, coaching services, media and public relation services, free tickets, and other valuable services.   Another study in 2017 suggests that the average Division 1 player is worth $170,098  to their employing institutions.  However players on elite teams such as the Louisville, Duke, and Kentucky would be worth $1.72 million, $1.16 million and $1.02 million, respectively, on a free market. 

This raises a very serious question about college athletics—but not the one that you would expect.    Why is it that Federal police operate as an investigative and enforcement arm for the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the multi-billion dollar college athletics cartel whose main purpose is to ruthlessly suppress the wages of college athletes far below the additional revenue that they generate for the colleges and universities that employ them?

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here.

Shield icon power-market-v2