This week’s episode dives into key election-related issues that could significantly impact Social Security and the broader economy. With projections indicating that the Social Security Trust Fund could be depleted in six years under another Trump presidency, while a Harris presidency may maintain the status quo, voters must consider the fiscal implications of their candidates' policies. Topics covered include the impact of tax exemptions, tariff policies, and entitlement expansion, all of which threaten the solvency of the nation’s mandatory programs. Watch the episode on YouTube below, listen to it on Apple Podcast or Spotify, and visit my website for more information.
0 Comments
Venezuela's Socialism, U.S. Immigration, & the Fight for Freedom w/ Daniel Di Martino | LPP Ep. 11810/17/2024 Join me for Episode 118 of the Let People Prosper Show with Daniel Di Martino, a PhD candidate in Economics at Columbia University and a graduate fellow at the Manhattan Institute, who shares his experiences living under socialism in Venezuela and its impact on his family. DiMartino discusses the current political landscape in Venezuela, the challenges faced by the opposition, and the implications of socialism on daily life. He also delves into immigration in the U.S., presenting research on immigrants' economic and fiscal impacts and the ongoing debate surrounding immigration policy. The conversation concludes with thoughts on the future of immigration reform in the U.S. and the importance of understanding these issues as the election season approaches. Please share and rate the Let People Prosper Show wherever you get your podcasts, visit vanceginn.com for more insights, and subscribe to my newsletter for show notes at vanceginn.substack.com. Thank you for tuning into the FINAL Let People Prosper podcast episode 76 of 2023! Today, I have a brief but informative podcast for you, recapping the highlights of the economy and my business, Ginn Economic Consulting, LLC.
As a Christmas gift, I am giving away a complimentary subscription to the paid version of my newsletter and a copy of Lexi Hudson’s fantastic book, “The Soul of Civility: Timeless Principles to Heal Society and Ourselves.” To enter this giveaway, simply fill out the information at the link and rate my podcast on either Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Is there anyone whom you would like for me to interview in 2024? Leave them in the comments. Today, I cover:
The Fraser Institute recently released its annual “Economic Freedom of the World” report. While the US inched up one spot from its previous ranking to fifth-best, this ranking remains below its peak of third-best in 2000.
A first-time finding not seen in any of 27 prior years: Hong Kong fell from first place. Singapore nudged out Hong Kong for the top spot by 0.01 points. While that rating may seem minuscule, the implications of how both countries got here are not. The report, which shows comprehensive data from 2021, assesses economic freedom among nations across five major areas: size of government, legal system and property rights, sound money, freedom to trade internationally, and regulations. According to the Fraser Institute’s Matt Mitchell, “The most important component of economic freedom…is the rule of law section…you need to be able to trust that the contracts you form and the property you acquire will be protected. We found that regulatory barriers and the rule of law matter more than taxes [for economic freedom].” Given these guidelines, Hong Kong’s fall isn’t surprising. China’s special administrative region allowed to manage most of its own affairs under the “one country, two systems” precedent since 1997, Hong Kong’s independence has been seriously threatened since 2020 with the passage of China’s new security law. Today, as a result, Hong Kong has one of the fastest-growing political prisoner populations worldwide. Although the protection of Hong Kong’s independence under the system was set to last until 2047, it seems unlikely that China will keep its promise. Over the past two years, Hong Kong’s economic freedom ranking dropped by a substantial 0.40 points, a total decline of 0.64 points since its highest rating of 9.19 in 2010. This is much steeper than the average economic freedom drop worldwide following the pandemic, which is the lowest average score since 2009, pointing to China’s harsh policies as a primary factor. China’s recent security law inhibits free speech and impartial justice, integral to the rule of law which is the foundation upon which individuals can construct their economic aspirations, with trust as the indispensable glue. But trust isn’t just a legal concept. It’s deeply interwoven with a nation’s cultural fabric. Trust is the bedrock upon which economic prosperity thrives, allowing individuals and businesses to engage in voluntary exchanges with confidence. Recent developments, including China imposing significant trade barriers, limits to foreign labor employment, increased business costs, and new attempts to restrict media, tarnished Hong Kong’s overall score. The lesson from the report rings loud and clear: A small government footprint in fiscal matters alone won’t guarantee economic freedom. What’s needed is a symphony of elements: the rule of law, property rights, stable currency, open trade, and sensible regulation. High-income industrial economies like now top-ranking Singapore shine in areas related to legal systems, property rights, sound currency, and international trade while keeping their government size compact. The report is a valuable tool for deciphering economic freedom’s complexities, and the factors underlying the success story of Singapore and Hong Kong’s decline drive home the point that tax rates don’t solely determine economic prosperity. It hinges on the quality of institutions, the rule of law, and the cultural values that champion trust and voluntary exchange. As the US strives to enhance its economic freedom, the country would be wise to heed the lessons offered by Singapore’s rise and Hong Kong’s fall. In particular, this should include removing government barriers so that there are more ways for free people to prosper. Originally published at American Institute for Economic Research. The Biden Administration’s Justice Department took Google to a civil trial on Tuesday, beginning the department’s first major monopoly lawsuit since it took on Microsoft in 1998. What’s the allegation? Google supposedly violated U.S. antitrust laws. But it seems the main “violations” are that Google is good at what they do, consumers love their product and Microsoft is mad.
Jonathan Kantor at the Justice Department (and Lina Khan at the Federal Trade Commission) have pushed an endlessly fruitless crusade against “Big Tech.” Now, it has taken issue with Google’s methods of becoming the default browser on popular devices, which they’ve done through legal means that more savvy people might just call “marketing.” Products like iPhones and MacBooks make it easy for consumers to change their default browser to whatever they prefer. Most of them favor Google because they believe it’s a better search engine. Herein lies the real crux of the lawsuit. Antitrust laws were created to preserve competition. The original laws were rightly deemed too broad and vague, so a new guiding principle of the consumer welfare standard for enforcing these laws was implemented to consider whether consumers are better or worse off from the actions of businesses. In economics, consumer welfare is defined as the “value consumers get from a product less the price they paid.” That value varies from person to person, which is what makes free markets work. Consumers have the ability and the sovereignty to decide which product or service is best for them. To violate the consumer welfare standard would mean moving toward a monopoly. This is when a business has a large market share, or even the market share, such that they can raise prices of their goods or services regardless of quality. The outcome would reduce consumer welfare and, therefore, contribute to potential antitrust law violations. Found guilty, a business could be broken up into smaller parts, forced to sell off part of it or face penalties. In other words, it’s another hindrance to productive activities as targeted employers are forced to beef up on lawyers to deal with federal pushback instead of allocating those resources toward productive means that would help their employees and customers prosper. Despite what the DOJ claims, antitrust laws are rarely enforced to protect consumer welfare, and this case is no exception. Google is not only Americans’ preferred browser, but the company is consistently rated one of the best places to work. So, it seems most of its consumers find value in the product. If they don’t, they can use Bing, Firefox, DuckDuckGo or any other search engine that competes with Google and is readily accessible. So, if this case isn’t centered around consumer welfare or targeting monopolies, what is it really about? If the DOJ wins, which is highly unlikely, American competition and innovation will be stifled. This rent-seeking behavior may win votes with folks on the Left concerned with restricted competition and those on the right concerned about censoring on popular platforms like Google and Meta, but at what cost? Inhibiting free markets with increased regulations is far more likely to drive up prices and decrease consumer welfare than any part of “Big Tech.” This pursuit wastes taxpayers’ dollars that would be better spent elsewhere or, better yet, for the federal government to spend less so people have more money in their pockets to improve their own welfare. At a time when inflation remains too high, the labor market is cooling and Americans are suffering from a bleak economy, this lawsuit is a frustrating misuse of government resources. Moreover, government attempts like this to manipulate markets will always fail due to what economist Friedrich Hayek identified as the knowledge problem. He argued that information (knowledge) is decentralized, dispersed across society and not contained within departments of power. Central planners, in this case the DOJ (and FTC), do not have all the knowledge necessary to designate market competition, and they never will. Free market capitalism cannot be manipulated but must be allowed to work through spontaneous order. This lawsuit attacks free markets and, thereby, free people. Not monopolies or consumer welfare violations, and it’s abundantly clear that neither of those are real problems regarding Google. It’s time for the DOJ to accept defeat and focus on things that actually matter. Ganging up on Google amid all the problems Americans face today, while understanding legitimate concerns with some of Google’s actions, is out-of-touch, to say the least. Originally published at Daily Caller. Today, I cover: 1) National:
3) Other: My thoughts on the DOJ lawsuit against Google for violating antitrust laws and why I believe it's an attack on consumers and capitalism. You can watch this TWE episode and others along with my Let People Prosper Show on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, or Anchor. Please share, subscribe, like, and leave a 5-star rating!
For show notes, thoughtful insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more, please check out my website (www.vanceginn.com) and subscribe to my newsletter (www.vanceginn.substack.com), share this post, and leave a comment. We discuss: 1) How antitrust laws harm capitalism, why free markets work better with less government interference, and how people misunderstand antitrust laws; 2) What people, especially younger generations, misunderstand about capitalism, what it is and isn't, and how most of us on either side of the political aisle have more in common than not; and 3) How Hannah believes the country could change for the better, and her fascinating background from being a singer/songwriter and interning for Taylor Swift's team to becoming a liberty warrior. Hannah’s bio:
You can watch this episode and others along with my Let People Prosper Show on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, or Anchor. Please share, subscribe, like, and leave a 5-star rating! For show notes, thoughtful insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more, please check out my website (www.vanceginn.com) and subscribe to my newsletter (www.vanceginn.substack.com), share this post, and leave a comment. In this episode, we discuss: 1) The importance of economic freedom, how it is measured, the rule of law, and the importance of protecting private property; 2) Myths about which European countries are socialist and the history of different economic institutions in Poland, including his latest work “The Road to Socialism and Back: An Economic History of Poland, 1939–2019”; and 3) A history of socialism and communism, what Marx failed to see in countries with capitalism or socialism, and reasons to be optimistic about economic freedom and prosperity worldwide. Matt’s bio:
For show notes, thoughtful insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more, check out my website (https://www.vanceginn.com/) and please subscribe to my newsletter (www.vanceginn.substack.com), share this post, and leave a comment. Oren Cass, founder of the think tank American Compass, presents a vision of the “new right” in his recently released book, Rebuilding American Capitalism. In it, he advocates for a top-down approach to governance in response to what he perceives as free-market failures.
He tends to believe that certain politicians can and should shape markets to achieve desired outcomes rather than letting free markets, which are free people, work. This attempt to rebrand not only the right but capitalism itself is flawed, as history and sound economics prove. Cass pinpoints growing concerns in the economy to help bolster his arguments, like poor inflation-adjusted wage growth and lack of strong social and family units. These are problems making it harder for people to prosper, but they are not, as he suggests, evidence that free-market capitalism has failed. But these problems–if they are problems, as Scott Winship and Jeremy Horpedahl recently found that people are thriving–aren’t the results of free markets but are driven instead by government failures. These failures include bloated government spending, restrictive regulations, high tax burdens, excessive safety net programs, costly tariffs, and other barriers to entry in the marketplace. They are imposed by politicians and government bureaucrats, hindering competition, disrupting entrepreneurial endeavors, impeding wage growth, and destroying human flourishing. Cass contends that capitalism only works under the right conditions, which must be facilitated by the government to keep the labor market and the economy strong. Rather than what he calls the “Old Right’s market fundamentalism” of fewer regulations and less government intervention being best, he welcomes more government with certain politicians in power. He proudly makes markets the scapegoat and, with it, globalization and financialization. In the book’s foreword, Cass writes: "Globalization must be replaced with a bounded market that restores the mutual dependence of American capital and labor and invites the trade and immigration that benefit American workers. Financialization must be reversed so that both talent and capital in pursuit of profit find their best opportunities in productive investment rather than extraction and speculation." Believing that more opportunities in the form of globalization inhibit rather than help Americans is the same faulty basis with which people discourage immigration and trade, which are central to thriving economies. But the crux of Cass’s theory is that he believes markets must be molded, even referring to work by the father of modern economics Adam Smith. Conveniently, he fails to cite the economist Frederick Hayek, who built on Smith’s ideas, to identify spontaneous order, the basis of free-market capitalism that argues economic growth and prosperity arise from voluntary transactions by free people, not government guidance and control. This “new right” idea was debunked long before Cass came along by Hayek (and others), who also highlighted the “knowledge problem” associated with central planning. He argued that no central authority can possess the information necessary to make efficient decisions for an entire economy. The complexity of economic interactions and the constant flux of information require decentralized decision-making and market mechanisms to aggregate and incorporate local knowledge effectively. Hayek’s insights emphasize the limitations of top-down control and the importance of allowing market forces and individual actors to shape economic outcomes based on their localized knowledge and preferences from the bottom-up. But Cass would have it that government is heralded as the keeper of knowledge and the arbiter of good decisions rather than encouraging freedom and liberty in individuals, i.e., the essence of capitalism. Capitalism allows individuals to pursue their economic aspirations and make decisions based on their knowledge and preferences through voluntary exchange within rules of the game set by limited government. Through this freedom, innovation, entrepreneurship, and competition thrive, leading to greater prosperity for all. History is full of successful economic transformations driven by leaders who championed limited government and free markets. Former President Calvin Coolidge cut government spending, cut taxes, and reduced the national debt, providing more paths for human flourishing. Likewise, former President Ronald Reagan cut taxes, tried to rein in government spending, and reduced regulations, unleashing economic growth and job creation. Both of them understood that cutting spending, reducing taxes, and removing excessive regulations create an environment where businesses thrive and workers can benefit. Their approaches embraced the power of individual freedom and self-determination, not top-down control that breeds the opposite. Oren Cass’s theory of the “new right” and its embrace of government fundamentalism misunderstands the principles of capitalism and human behavior. Top-down approaches, rooted in centralized control and regulation, do not lead to economic prosperity or personal freedom no matter who is in charge but do distort the efficient allocation of resources, undermine the adaptability of markets, and reduce opportunities to let people prosper. To achieve a thriving and prosperous economy, we must adhere to and strengthen the principles of free-market capitalism, which too much of our economy today is deprived of when considering healthcare, education, transportation, manufacturing, and the labor market. This should include embracing limited government, voluntary exchange, and individual freedom as the pillars of strong families, productive workers, and profitable employers. Economist Milton Friedman noted what this debate is about decades ago. “The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm; capitalism is that kind of a system.” And while “history suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom,” it’s clearly “not a sufficient condition.” But capitalism is the best system yet that has supported economic prosperity and political freedom. The problem is that we have had too little free-market capitalism for people to thrive because of too much government. There’s no need for a “new right” of big-government progressive policies offered by Cass and others when free-market capitalism of the “old right” is too often missing in our lives. Originally published at Econlib. On today's episode of the "Let People Prosper" show, which was recorded on March 6, 2023, I'm honored to be joined by Dr. Arthur Laffer, legendary economist and 2019 recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. We discuss:
Dr. Arthur Laffer’s bio and other info (here):
|
Vance Ginn, Ph.D.
|