Category: Government gone wild

Government land ownership vs. community collection of land rent

Bloomberg’s report on land taken for the new Shanghai Disneyland tells us something about how people may fare under government ownership of land. One retailer, whose land was taken last year for an unspecified project, still hasn’t gotten compensation:

“All I care now is how much compensation we will end up getting after layers and layers of government officials get their share,”

I don’t see why Disney should get government help in assembling land for their project– it’s not infrastructure–, tho such assistance is routinely provided in the US too. Under a geoist system, where the community collects the land rent and uses it to fund governmental services, landowners would have strong incentive to sell and little incentive to hold out.  Disney could buy land cheaply but would pay substantial rent (in the form of land tax) to retain it. Those relocating could buy land cheaply elsewhere, and if in a less desirable location would find their land tax reduced.  Folks would also, of course, have no other taxes to pay and would receive a share of the rent collected in excess of governmental needs.

Inflation or Deflation?

That was the title of a talk this evening by UCGSB Booth School prof John Cochrane.  “I don’t make forecasts,” he said, “but I can offer scenarios.”  He actually offered only one scenario, which is basically one of inflation.  We are all aware of the huge and growing federal debt, but it’s much smaller relative to GDP than it was in 1945.  So how have the feds paid off big debts?  Thru growth.

But we’re not growing, and future growth will be difficult if taxes are increased.  And it seems the bailout pattern is continuing, so who knows how high the debt might go? So inflation seems more likely than the opposite.  Cochrane pointed out that inflation is based on what people anticipate rather than actual events, and noted that Japan continues to experience little inflation despite a large debt.

Of course, he apparently didn’t consider the possibility that taxes might be raised on things not produced by people.

Also:

(1) He acknowledged that the Phillips Curve, the alleged inflation-unemployment tradeoff, isn’t supported by actual data over the past several decades, and showed a couple of charts illustrating this.

(2) Why he isn’t making a forecast: “I’m an economist; I don’t know anything about political will.”

(3) “Every economist I know [apparently including himself] is buying TIPS [Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities].” If that turns out to have been a smart strategy, I guess we should assume that economists are able to advise themselves better than they can the rest of us.

(4) Reportedly, the talk will be posted somewhere, probably around here, in a few days.

Remember the Laffer Curve?

As a result of high taxes on cigarettes, UIC economist David Merriman estimates that “75 percent of cigarettes smoked in Chicago come from packs that don’t bear city tax stamps.”  Many, of course, also lack county and state stamps. And according to the Tribune.

In 2006, city revenues from cigarette taxes came in at a little less than $32 million. By 2008, they had declined to about $25 million. This year, they’re projected to drop again.

Helluva way to run a railroad

According to the November issue of Trains Magazine (not on the web afaik):

[T]wo key players …on the Amtrak board, Federal Railroad Administrator Joe Szabo and Amtrak president Joseph Boardman, cannot have any contact or even be in the same room together for one year due to federal ethics rules, because Boardman was the previous FRA administrator.

Couldn’t they just hire a lobbyist, or maybe get one of BHO’s Chicago buddies,  to contrive a way around the ethics laws?

Global climate data disappeared?

That’s the inference from this article. The original global climate data compiled in the 1980s seems to have been lost.  Adjusted data remain, but the adjustment methods apparently aren’t fully documented.

I doubt that this development is going to change anybody’s mind, especially because it originated in National Review. But it will be interesting to see whether it even gets much media coverage.

Wealth stolen thru privilege

We already know this in general, that government-protected privilege is used to steal wealth from the public.  An outrageous specific example appears to be Goldman Sachs, as profiled in Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi. The text seems to be here and a pdf scan here.

Tho especially aided by a revolving door between GS and regulatory agencies, none of this could happen under a government which sought to eliminate privilege where possible and tax it where it cannot be avoided.   Taibbi doesn’t seem to be aware of this latter point, or maybe it just isn’t as interesting to focus on policy solutions as to discuss evil persons and their organizations.

A rather weak response from Goldman Sachs is reported here, the good news being that

in the wake of the events of the past year or two, Goldman’s partners have pretty much lost their appetite for going into public service.

But as long as privilege thrives, some will find ways to manipulate it to their advantage.

Climate change uncertainty

It seems the Obamatons are much like the Bushies in their ideological approach to scientific issues, just using a slightly different ideology. This story, which I found on slashdot, made it into the New York Times, though not onto NPR nor what’s left of the Chicago Tribune as far as I can tell. The suppressed paper is here.  I’m not qualified to evaluate it, but it does support my doubts that restriction of greenhouse gas emission will prevent undesirable climate change.

According to the Times article, it was released thru the “Competitive Enterprise Institute,”  which hardly enhances its credibility, but probably helped get it some attention.