I have been asked to comment on the Republican debate. I will do so, but only from an economic standpoint. I will try of summarize the Republican stand point by the remarks of a couple candidates.
Let’s start with Jeb Bush’s comments on Planned Parenthood. Bush favored to end federal funding for PP, but to fund other organizations. In other words, in Bush’s world, like most Republicans, redistributing wealth to one group that he disapproves is bad, but redistributing wealth to another group he favors is good.
This philosophy of “good” wealth redistribution can also be recognized by Kasich’s answer to his expanding Medicaid in his State of Ohio, even though it is over budget. He defended his actions by stating: “when we get to Heaven, St. Peter is not going to ask them how small they kept government, but what they have done for the poor.”
This is just another weak attempt to invoke God in order to justify wealth redistribution. What is omitted is the “we and them” refers to his taking money out of other individual’s pockets, transferring it to Washington, which takes out 80% for administration costs, and redistributes the wealth to the states. This is forced charity.
If we are looking at this from a moral standpoint, ask the question, who is being moral in a forced charity scenario?
Is Kasich being moral by forcing his citizens to pay for other’s health care? Are the citizens who do not contribute voluntarily, but rather have their earning forced from them in the form of taxes being moral? Or how about voters who use the ballot to vote for wealth redistribution programs; are they being moral?
From a philosophical point of view, charity is voluntary action, not forced compliance.
A better scenario with Kasich at Heaven’s Gate would be for St. Peter to ask, “Why did you forcibly take property that did not belong to you and redistribute it to others invoking God’s name, then claim you are being moral and good. Don’t you know that theft is a sin?”
His final statement of justifying using tax payer’s money to fund medical care of others is the epitome of the faulty reasoning of a health system based on wealth redistribution.
Kasich stated, “Everybody has a right to their God-given purpose.” (Speaking of those who receive health services at the expense of tax payers). His “goodness” is misplaced. Kasich is implying that a sick person’s plight or misfortune gives Kasich the right to lay claim to another person’s life to finance the sick person’s God-given purpose. The moral question has to be asked, “Does a system based on laying claim to one person’s life so that another person can fulfill his/her God-given purpose morally justified?”
We are back to old Note Professor Newsletter observation that both Republicans and Democrats believe in wealth redistribution. The Democrats justify it by claiming “We care”. The Republicans counter claim is “We have good intentions and can do it better”.
Which brings us to what Kasich completely ignored? His program, no matter how well intended is going broke. I suggest it might be “God’s purpose” to remind us that consumption cannot exceed production.
Ok. Ok. Let’s get to Donald Trump. Does Donald believe in free markets? Not even close. Remember that individuals trade with one another, not countries. Trump’s assertion that he can negotiate better than anybody in the universe with the Chinese, begs the question: For whom is he negotiating? The manufacturers(which manufacturers?), the consumers, the workers, the unions, the banks, the State Department, the EPA, the Defense Department, his business cronies, the farmers, the retailers and a host of other entities that goes into a simple trade.
The fact is nobody can negotiate for all the entities involved in a simple trade, much less a complicated one. (For insight into what it takes to “negotiate” a simple product, I suggest you read “I, Pencil” by Leonard Read.
All that Trump, or any president can do is to gain power by granting favors or punishment to those he wishes to reward or penalize. Is this not really the objective of all “free trade” agreements?
As for the illegal immigration issue, all have overlooked the real cause. Mexico and Central America have a more corrupt system of government and economics than does America. It is no wonder individuals are willing to risk life and limb to come here. Economic Axiom: Immigration always flows from a less free market system to a more free market system. Addressing this reality would go a long way to finding a solution. Do I have a solution? Yes, but we are getting into the realm of politics and leaving the sphere of economics. I try not to do that.
As far as China “stealing” American jobs, I have explained in back issues of The Note Professor Newsletter how China’s selling a shirt in America cheaper than an American manufacturer does not cost jobs. You can look for it, or if you want me to discuss it again, Contact Me and I will go over the subject again. I do not have space in this issue to cover this subject and I want to get to Mike Huckabee and Carly Fiorina.
Huckabee is classic illustration of the illusion held by many that if we change the tax system to the “Fair” (put your hand on your billfold when you see this word) Tax, all ills would be solved. Why is the Fair Tax an illusion? All that is being changed is the method of taxation, not the problem of embracing a collectivist system of economics and wealth redistribution programs.
If the government spends the same amount on wealth redistribution programs, how is a Fair Tax going to eliminate the problem?
It is like taking a bucket of water from the deep end of a swimming pool, and pouring it in the shallow end.
Let’s get to Carly Fiorina. She comes the closest to understanding our economic problems. However, her big mistake is she is addressing the results of a statist/collectivist system of economics, not the cause. It is true that government has put regulations and taxes on small businesses that not only inhibits growth, but also discourages individuals even entering the market. Yes, removing regulations and taxes from the equation would promote the start of new enterprises, yet in the background, we still have a collectivist system of economics. It does no good to cut taxes from one group, only to have to raise them on another group. The wealth redistribution programs must be funded by someone. Collectivist systems are not sustainable.
While I believe she thinks she could reign in the bureaucracies and make them accountable, she will at worse be fighting a losing battle because they are too massive, and at best have no effect.
The size and scope of government bureaucracy is out of control. It is just too big. Sadly, she does not realize that the problem is the collectivist system that allows all these agencies to exist . The bureaucracies are but a result of almost a century of decay from a more free economic system to the chaos we have today. I would have liked her better if she would have said she wanted not to reform, but to eliminate all wealth redistribution programs and agencies. With that being said, of all the Republican candidates, from an economic point of view, from what I heard from all the candidates, she would be least harmful.
Conclusion: Not addressing we do not have a free market system, but rather a more statist/collectivist system is the Republicans main downfall. In fact, I contend they are more dangerous than the Progressives. At least the Progressives admit they favor a collectivist system over free markets, while the Republicans tout free markets, while continually favoring and funding collectivists programs they deem “good”.
DO NOT look for a knight in shining armor from this bunch. It is not there.
If I did not get to your favorite candidate, I am constrained by space in this newsletter forum. I am sure if you will find your candidate making similar statements.
If you have a comment or a topic you would like discussed, CONTACT ME It is from your input I get many of my topics.
Copyright © H&P Capital Investments LLC
All rights reserved
a.k.a. THE NOTE PROFESSOR