Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Wednesday, February 12, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 547)

Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party celebrates and poses for photographers as he leaves a "Leave.EU" organization party for the British European Union membership referendum in London, Friday, June 24, 2016. (Photo: AP/Matt Dunham)

Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party celebrates and poses for photographers as he leaves a “Leave.EU” organization party for the British European Union membership referendum in London, Friday, June 24, 2016. (Photo: AP)

What an amazing vote. The people of the United Kingdom defied the supposed experts, rejected a fear-based campaign by advocates of the status quo, and declared their independence from the European Union.

Here are some takeaway thoughts on this startling development.

1. The UK has voted to leave a sinking ship. Because of unfavorable demographics and a dirigiste economic model, the European Union has a very grim future.

2. Brexit is a vote against centralization, bureaucratization, and harmonization. It also is a victory for more growth, though the amount of additional long-run growth will depend on whether the UK government seizes the opportunity for lower taxes, less red tape, and a smaller burden of government.

3. President Obama once again fired blanks. Whether it was his failed attempt early in his presidency to get the Olympic Games in Chicago or his feckless attempt in his final year to get Britons to remain in the EU, Obama has a remarkably dismal track record. Maybe I can get him to endorse the Boston Red Sox, thus ensuring the Yankees make it to the World Series?

4. Speaking of feckless foreign leaders, but I can’t resist the temptation to point out that the Canadian Prime Minister’s reaction to Brexit wins a prize for vapidity. It would be amusing to see Trudeau somehow justify this absurd statement, though I suspect he’ll be too busy expanding government and squandering twenty-five years of bipartisan progress in Canada. Potential mea culpa…I can’t find proof that Trudeau actually made this statement. Even with the excuse that I wrote this column at 3:00 AM, I should have known better than to believe something I saw on Twitter (though I still think he’s vapid).

5. Nigel Farage and UKIP have voted themselves out of a job. A common joke in Washington is that government bureaucracies never solve problems for which they were created because that would eliminate their excuse for existing. After all, what would “poverty pimps” do if there weren’t poor people trapped in government dependency? Well, Brexit almost surely means doom for Farage and UKIP, yet they put country above personal interest. Congratulations to them, though I’ll miss Farage’s acerbic speeches.

6. The IMF and OECD disgracefully took part in “Project Fear” by concocting hysterical predictions of economic damage if the U.K. decided to get off the sinking ship of the European Union. To the extent there is some short-term economic instability over the next few days or weeks, those reckless international bureaucracies deserve much of the blame.

7. As part of his failed effort to influence the referendum, President Obama rejected the notion of quickly inking a free-trade agreement with the UK.Now that Brexit has been approved, hopefully the President will have the maturity and judgement to change his mind. Not only should the UK be first in line, but this should be the opportunity to launch the Global Free Trade Association that my former Heritage Foundation colleagues promoted last decade. Unfettered trade among jurisdictions with relatively high levels of economic freedom, such as the US, UK, Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand, Chile, etc, would be a great way of quickly capturing some of the benefits made possible by Brexit.

8. David Cameron should copy California Governor Jerry Brown. Not for anything recent, but for what he did in 1978 when voters approved an anti-tax referendum known as Proposition 13. Brown naturally opposed the referendum, but he completely reversed himself after the referendum was approved. By embracing the initiative, even if only belatedly, he helped his state and himself. That would be the smart approach for Cameron, though there’s a distinct danger that he could do great harm to himself, his party, and his country by trying to negotiate a deal to somehow keep the UK in the EU.

9. Last but not least, I’m very happy to be wrong about the outcome. I originally expected that “Project Fear” would be successful and that Britons would choose the devil they know over the one they don’t know. Well, I’m delighted that Elizabeth Hurley and I helped convince Britons to vote the right way. We obviously make a good team.

Joking aside, the real credit belongs to all UK freedom fighters, even the disaffected Labour Party voters who voted the right way for wrong reasons.

I’m particularly proud of the good work of my friends Allister Heath of theTelegraph, Eamonn Butler of the Adam Smith Institute, Dan Hannan of the European Parliament, and Matthew Elliott of Vote Leave. I imagine Margaret Thatcher is smiling down on them today.

Now it’s on to the second stage of this campaign and convincing California to declare independence from the United States!

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

A very happy Nigel Farage (front), the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) celebrates with supporters after the Brexit victory being the result of the EU referendum, outside the Houses of Parliament in London, Britain June 24, 2016. (Photo: REUTERS/Toby Melville)

A very happy Nigel Farage (front), the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) celebrates with supporters after the Brexit victory being the result of the EU referendum, outside the Houses of Parliament in London, Britain June 24, 2016. (Photo: REUTERS/Toby Melville)

The people of the United Kingdom defied

In this June 16, 2015 file photo, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Lauren Victoria Burke/AP)

In this June 16, 2015 file photo, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Lauren Victoria Burke/AP)

It sounds arcane and pedantic, but the United States has a democratic system of government but is not (or at least was not) designed to be a democracy. A democracy implies that 51 percent of the people have the power to elect agovernment with unlimited powers to exploit 49 percent of the people.

The United States instead is a constitutional republic. That means very clear limits on the power of government. And very clear limits, as George Will has properly explained and E.J. Dionne never learned, on democracy.

The bad news is that constitutional limits on the size and power of government have been eroding. The drift in the wrong direction began with Woodrow Wilson and the so-called progressives, accelerated during the New Deal (ratified by the horrible Supreme Court decision in Wickard v. Filburn), and has intermittently continued in the post-World War II era.

The laughable news (in a sad way) is that some politicians are willing to openly display their ignorance on these matters.

The Washington Examiner reports on (what has to be) the year’s most remarkable example of historical and legal illiteracy.

A House Democrat said Wednesday that it “really bothers me” when people claim the U.S. Constitution was designed to limit the federal government’s power. …Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the founding document of the U.S. was designed for the “opposite” purpose. …”The Constitution was enacted to strengthen government power to enable central government to lay taxes and to function effectively…” said Nadler.

Wow.

Talk about claiming that night is day and up is down.

Let’s look at the actual document. Article II of the Constitution makes the President the nation’s Commander-in-Chief, which obviously is important, but otherwise limits the office to an administrator role.

All law-making power is granted to Congress.

And if you read Article 1 of the Constitution, specifically the enumerated powers in Section 8, you’ll see the areas where Congress has the right to make laws. You get a very clear view that the Founding Fathers wanted very firm limits on the central government.

enumerated powers

 

Those “enumerated powers” include fewer than 20 specific items, such as “coin money” and “maintain a navy.”

There’s nothing in there about a Department of Housing and Urban Development. Nothing about Medicaid.

And, notwithstanding the elastic anti-constitutional gymnastics of Chief Justice John Roberts, nothing about mandating the purchase of government-approved health insurance.

To be fair, there’s a tiny sliver of truth to Congressman Nadler’s argument.

Compared to the Articles of Confederation (in effect from 1781-1789), the Constitution did give more power to the central government.

But that simply meant that the central government had a very small amount of power compared to a tiny amount of power.

Since I’m a thoughtful and helpful guy, here’s something I created to help Congressman Nadler understand constitutional restraints on the power of government.

Government-Power-Spectrum

 

This is just a back-of-the-envelope estimate, so I openly admit that I don’t know where to place the current system on this spectrum. We’ve unfortunately traveled a long way on the path to untrammeled majoritarianism in the United States. But voters and politicians haven’t chosen to translate their ability into an all-powerful central government.

In other words, majoritarianism can lead to pervasive statism (i.e., voluntarily electing a communist or fascist government).

But there also are majoritarian systems such as Switzerland where people vote to limit government.

Likewise, monarchies can be benign, such as in the United Kingdom or the Netherlands. Or they can be forms of absolute rule akin to communism and fascism.

For purposes of today’s discussion, though, all that really matters is that both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were explicitly designed to limit the powers of the central government.

And while it may upset people in Washington, that means the federal government should be much smaller than it is today. Not only fewer departments, agencies, and programs, but also no involvement in underwear, college football, Major League Baseball, condoms, birth control, or the National Football League.

P.S. Yes, the 16th Amendment (sadly) gave Congress broad powers to tax, but that’s not the same as giving the federal government broad powers to spend.

P.P.S. Republicans have actually endorsed language implying that most of the federal government should be dismantled. I wish they were serious.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the U.S.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump speaks in front of a lighthouse at Turnberry during a news conference. (Photo: Reuters)

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump speaks in front of a lighthouse at Turnberry during a news conference. (Photo: Reuters)

Presumptive Republican nominee for President Donald Trump said the Brexit vote is a “great thing” and that the people of the United Kingdom have “taken back their country” in voting to leave the EU. Mr. Trump’s comments came in Scotland as he arrived at Trump Turnberry for the reopening of the Open venue golf resort.

“I think it’s a great thing that’s happened. It’s an amazing vote, very historic,” Mr. Trump said. “People are angry all over the world. They’re angry over borders, they’re angry over people coming into the country and taking over and nobody even knows who they are.”

He also predicted more EU member nations will vote to leave, driven by voters who are angry with the global elite and globalism order.

“They’re angry about many, many things in the UK, the US and many other places. This will not be the last.”

Mr. Trump also gave a shout out to his mother by acknowledging his family connection to Scotland. His mother, Mary MacLeod, was born in Stornoway in the Outer Hebrides. He noted how his mother would often visit Turnberry for dinner with friends, though she never played golf.

“She loved Scotland, she would be here a lot,” Mr. Trump said. “She would come every year with my sister Mary and my sister Elizabeth and they just loved it. Her loyalty to Scotland was incredible.”

He also pushed back on the fear-mongering from those opposed to Britain leaving the EU and said trade for the country and its biggest trading partner will have a stronger, more prosperous trading relationship.

“Basically, they took back their country. That’s a great thing,” he added. “I think we’re doing very well in the United States also, and it is essentially the same thing that is happening in the United States.”

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump said the

consumer-spending-consumer-sentiment-reuters

(Photo: Reuters)

The Survey of Consumers, a closely-watched gauge of consumer sentiment from the University of Michigan came in at 93.5 in June from an initial reading of 94.3. May’s reading was 94.7 and economists anticipated a reading of 94.0 for the month.

Consumers were a bit less optimistic in late June due to rising concerns about prospects for the national economy,” Surveys of Consumers chief economist, Richard Curtin said. “While no recession is anticipated, consumers increasingly expect a slower pace of economic growth in the year ahead.”

More from Mr. Curtain:

Importantly, the persistent strength in personal finances will keep the level of consumer spending at relatively high levels and continue to support an uninterrupted economic expansion. Over the past 18 months, the Sentiment Index has shown only minor fluctuations about a very positive trend, with the June 2016 level a bit higher than the overall average (93.5 vs. 92.6).

This relative stability stands in sharp contrast to the much more volatile path of GDP. The stability in the overall Sentiment Index reflects a gradual improvement in assessments of current conditions being offset by a downward drift in the economic prospects. The Current Conditions Index reached in the June survey its highest level since January of 2007, while the Expectations Index declined a modest 9.5% from its January 2015 peak. Although the data are consistent with GDP growth falling slightly below 2.0% in 2016, real consumer spending can be expected to rise by 2.5% in 2016 and 2.7% in 2017.

Final Survey of Consumers Consumer Sentiment Results for June 2016

Jun May Jun M-M Y-Y
2016 2016 2015 Change Change
Index of Consumer Sentiment 93.5 94.7 96.1 -1.3% -2.7%
Current Economic Conditions 110.8 109.9 108.9 +0.8% +1.7%
Index of Consumer Expectations 82.4 84.9 87.8 -2.9% -6.2%
Next data release: July 15, 2016 for Preliminary July data at 10am ET

The Survey of Consumers, a closely-watched gauge

Taxi driver waves Union Flag. (Photo: Reuters)

Taxi driver waves Union Flag. (Photo: Reuters)

The people of Great Britain have voted in favor of Brexit, for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union (EU). The latest polls, at least relating to the aggregate, weren’t even close.

The latest poll conducted was a Populus/Financial Times survey, which showed a 10-point advantage for the “Stay” campaign, or those who wanted to remain in the EU. Of the last 9 polls conducted, which is a period beginning on June 20, six surveys ranging from +1 to +10 gave the Stay campaign the edge and only 3 gave the Brexit or “leave” campaign the edge.

However, the margins are notable. Only one of the nine polls, conducted by TNS UK, gave the “Leave” campaign a 7-point edge while the other two showed a statistically insignificant 1 and < 1 percent margin. PPD will be studying this disparity, but we suspect already it has to do with the Stay campaign’s motives, tactics and resulting social desirability bias, if not flat-out pollster bias.

If you wanted to leave the EU, you were labeled xenophobic, Islamophobic or a racist. That’s of course not fair, but was the reality.

In the end, the Leave campaign prevailed by a 52 percent to 48 percent margin in Thursday’s vote. That makes TNS UK, a member of the British Polling Council, the most accurate pollster for the UK European Union Referendum. They revamped their weighting methodology in their final poll and produced a far more accurate result.

The people of Great Britain have voted

British Culture Secretary John Whittingdale, Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Michael Gove, Leader of the House of Commons Chris Grayling, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith and Employment Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions Priti Patel attend the launch of the eurosceptic Vote Leave campaign at the group's headquarters in central London on February 20, 2016. (Photo: AFP)

British Culture Secretary John Whittingdale, Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Michael Gove, Leader of the House of Commons Chris Grayling, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith and Employment Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions Priti Patel attend the launch of the eurosceptic Vote Leave campaign at the group’s headquarters in central London on February 20, 2016. (Photo: AFP)

Great Britain, the British people voted to leave the 28-bloc European Union, with the “leave” side prevailing 52 percent to 48 percent in Thursday’s vote. Prime Minister David Cameron, who opposed exiting from the EU, said he will resign.

“[T]he British people have made a very clear decision to take a different path and as such I think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction,” Cameron said at 10 Downing Street. “I will do everything I can as prime minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months but I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination.”

Cameron himself called for the so-called Brexit vote, or the UK European Union Referendum as part of his campaign and government coalition promise. However, he campaigned against leaving. This makes Britain the first country to leave the now-27 member EU, and could lead to a wave of other countries, including France and the Netherlands, reassessing their membership. The decision to leave may also spark questions about the endurance of the United Kingdom, as voters in Scotland and Northern Ireland largely voted to remain in the EU.

Britain is set to be the first country to leave the EU since its formation. However, the vote does not mean that Britain will immediately lose its member status in the 28-nation bloc. In fact, the process could take a minimum of two years, with Leave campaigners suggesting during the referendum campaign that it should not be completed until 2020. Ironically, it is also the date of the next scheduled general election.

Once Article 50 has been triggered a country cannot rejoin without the consent of all member states. That really wouldn’t be an issue in reality. The EU needs Britain, not the other way around. Mr. Cameron previously said he would push Article 50 as soon as possible in the event a Leave vote was victorious, but others who led the campaign said he should not rush into it.

Boris Johnson, the former London mayor, is likely to take up the conservative mantle after Mr. Cameron departs. Mr. Johnson shocked Cameron and his allies by backing the Brexit movement.

Britain, the British people, has voted to

durable-goods-reuters

American workers at a manufacturing plant for long-lasting durable goods. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

The Commerce Department said Friday durable goods orders fell 2.2% in May from the prior month, a much larger decline than the estimate for a slide of 0.5%. Take out the transportation component and orders fell 0.3%. That component was estimated to be unchanged and the results suggest business spending will remain a drag on economic growth in the second quarter.

Business spending on equipment has declined over the last two quarters and dropped in the first quarter at its quickest pace since the second quarter of 2009.

Non-defense capital goods orders excluding aircraft, the so-called core capital goods orders and a closely watched proxy for business spending plans, fell 0.7% last month after a revised 0.4% decline in April. They were previously reported to have dropped 0.6% in April.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast core capital goods orders increasing 0.3%. Durable goods, or manufacturing products ranging from toasters to aircraft that are meant to last three years or more, were previously reported to have risen 3.4 percent in April.

The manufacturing sector, which accounts for roughly 12% of the U.S. economy and disproportionately contributes to wage growth, has been decimated by trade deals and further weighed down by lower oil prices, which have undercut profits of energy companies and forced deep cuts in capital spending budgets.

The Commerce Department said Friday durable goods

Condoms will be distributed at a Brooklyn school prom this year, but will it encourage safer teenage sex? Protesters demonstrate outside Philadelphia's City Hall on March 10, 2004. Public health advocates staged the rally to criticize President Bush's plan to expand abstinence-only education, which protesters said actually hurts sexually active teens. (Photo: AP)

Condoms will be distributed at a Brooklyn school prom this year, but will it encourage safer teenage sex? Protesters demonstrate outside Philadelphia’s City Hall on March 10, 2004. Public health advocates staged the rally to criticize President Bush’s plan to expand abstinence-only education, which protesters said actually hurts sexually active teens. (Photo: AP)

Remember when the left passionately insisted that public schools distribute free condoms to students on the bizarre theory that they were going to have sex anyway and we might as well make it safe? Well, the results are in, and the left isn’t looking too great.

When this nation was first experiencing the AIDS scare, liberals were adamant that we had to saturate the culture with condoms for teens to prevent the spread of the deadly disease. They ignored warnings that this massive giveaway program would publicly sanction and, thus, encourage teen promiscuity. They rejected reports that condoms are hardly fail-safe in preventing the spread of this disease.

They were not about to be deterred by such arguments because their single-minded focus was to distribute these condoms. They were certainly not moved by the moral argument that making condoms more available and showing students how to use them would increase sex.

The free-sex left has never been too concerned about the proliferation of teenage sex, which is one reason it irrationally opposes abstinence programs, even as part of a broader sex education curriculum. Who are we to judge whether kids have sex? Sex, after all, feels good, and feeling good is the endgame in our pursuit of happiness. Besides, if pregnancy occurs, it’s no big deal. The kids can just have an abortion, which, to the left, is a morally neutral act.

But can you imagine how cynical and hardened of heart you would have to be to be indifferent to the distribution of thousands of condoms to students — from nurses, counselors and vending machines — in school districts all over the country?

How about the argument that increasing (even “protected”) sex would increase pregnancies and also the spread of HIV? Don’t be silly. At the time, liberals cited isolated, localized studies concluding that increasing the availability of condoms to students would not increase sex — and certainly not pregnancy. They pooh-poohed valid concerns that condoms are not wholly reliable in preventing the transmission of the virus. But those truly interested in the science wouldn’t have relied on such a ridiculously small sampling of schools.

Though the left boasts about its overarching deference to science and empirical evidence, the reality is that for the left, politics trumps science. Like trial advocates, liberals present only evidence that supports their policy goal.

When their minds are set on a goal, dissenters must be passed over and even attacked. For example, with abortion on demand, evidence that abortion might cause physical and emotional damage to women must be ignored. In a classic case of projection, they charge anyone who cites such evidence with being motivated purely by politics.

The same thing is true with respect to their man-made global warming advocacy. They use fact-starved computer models to “prove” that dangerous warming is occurring. They distort surveys to legitimize their theories — such as their claim that vast majorities of scientists subscribe to their conclusions, willfully ignoring the thousands of scientists who disagree and all evidence that contradicts their theories.

Indeed, the left usually won’t give an inch when confronted with evidence that scientists in their camp have manufactured and doctored evidence and that scientists are pressured by their peers and grant monies to reach the “correct” conclusion. As they subscribe to an ends-justify-the-means philosophy, they’ll unapologetically dismiss such evidence and say it doesn’t matter anyway — because there is a scientific consensus on the question, so any distortion of the evidence is irrelevant. Never mind that there is no such consensus, and never mind that the very reason they manipulated their data is that the actual data didn’t support their theories.

As is so often the case with liberals, their real motives go beyond their public pronouncements. They refuse to consider information that counters their narrative because they believe that any limitation on their various crusades would produce a slippery slope that would ultimately result in the defeat of their goal. That’s why many liberals are so extreme on abortion that they even oppose the outlawing of partial-birth abortion. They substitute propaganda for rational argument and deceive the public about their true intentions, saying, for example, that they want to make abortion “safe, legal and rare” when they devote tireless hours ensuring that abortion is anything but rare.

Every once in a while, however, the left just can’t hide from the reality. A recently published study by the National Bureau of Economic Research reveals clear evidence that access to condoms in schools leads to a 10 percent increase in teen pregnancy and a rise in sexually transmitted diseases. Unlike the bogus studies the left relied on, this one involved thousands of schools.

Liberals are already tying themselves in pretzels to discredit this report, but once again, conservatives are vindicated. Liberals arrogantly depict conservatives as reality-challenged, but here again, that is nothing but projection from those who never let reality get in the way of their agenda.
[mybooktable book=”the-emmaus-code-finding-jesus-in-the-old-testament” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Remember when the left insisted public schools

A protestor rests next to their big government big mistake sign. (Photo: Reuters)

A protestor rests next to their big government big mistake sign. (Photo: Reuters)

The American economy is in the doldrums and has been for most of this century thanks to bad policy under both Barack Obama and George W. Bush. So, what’s needed to boost growth and create jobs? A new video from Learn Liberty, narrated by Professor Don Boudreaux (who also was the narrator for Learn Liberty’s superb video on free trade vs. protectionism), examines how to get more people employed.

[brid video=”43111″ player=”2077″ title=”2016 Presidential Election Job Creation Learn Liberty”]

A very good video. There are three things that grabbed my attention.

First, there’s a very fair compilation of various unemployment/labor force statistics. Viewers can see the good news (a relatively low official unemployment rate) and the bad news (a lowest-in-decades level of labor force participation)

Second, so-called stimulus packages don’t make sense. Yes, some people wind up with more money and jobs when politicians increase spending, but only at the expense of other people who have less money and fewer jobs. Moreover, Don correctly notes that this process of redistribution facilitates cronyism (the focus of another Learn Liberty video) and corruption in Washington, an issue I’ve addressed in one of my videos (below).

[brid video=”8397″ player=”2077″ title=”Mitchell Want Less Corruption Shrink the Size of Government”]

Third, free markets and entrepreneurship are the best routes for more job creation. And that requires less government. Don also correctly condemns occupational licensing rules that make it very difficult for people to get jobs or create jobs in certain fields.

The entire video was very concise, lasting less than four minutes, so it only scratched the surface. For those seeking more information on the topic, I would add the following points.

  1. Businesses will never create jobs unless they expect that new employees will generate enough revenue to cover not only their wages, but also the cost of taxes, regulations, and mandates. This is why policies that sometimes sound nice (higher minimum wages, health insurance mandates, etc) actually are very harmful.
  2. Redistribution programs make leisure more attractive than labor. This is not only bad for the overall economy because of lower labor force participation. This is why policies that sometime sound nice (unemployment benefits, food stamps, health subsidies, etc) actually are very harmful.

Let’s augment Don’s video by looking at some excerpts from a recent column in the Wall Street Journal by Marie-Joseé Kravis of the Hudson Institute.

In economics, as far back as Joseph Schumpeter, or even Karl Marx, we have known that the flow of business deaths and births affects the dynamism and growth of a country’s economy. Business deaths unlock resources that can be allocated to more productive use and business formation can boost innovation and economic and social mobility. For much of the nation’s history, this process of what Schumpeter called “creative destruction” has spread prosperity throughout the U.S. and the world. Over the past 30 years, however, with the exception of the mid-1980s and the 2002-05 period, this dynamism has been waning. There has been a steady decline in business formation while the rate of business deaths has been more or less constant. Business deaths outnumber births for the first time since measurement of these indicators began.

Why has entrepreneurial dynamism slowed? What’s happened to the creative destruction described in a different Learn Liberty video?

Unsurprisingly, government bears a lot of the blame.

Many studies have also attributed the slow rate of business formation to the regulatory fervor of the past decade. …in a 2010 report for the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration, researchers at Lafayette University found that the per employee cost of federal regulatory compliance was $10,585 for businesses with 19 or fewer employees.

Wow, that’s a powerful real-world example of how all the feel-good legislation and red tape from Washington creates a giant barrier to job creation.

And it’s worth noting that low-skilled people are the first ones to lose out.

P.S. My favorite Learn Liberty video explains how government subsidies for higher education have resulted in higher costs for students, a lesson that Hillary Clinton obviously hasn’t learned.

P.P.S. Perhaps the most under-appreciated Learn Liberty video explains why the rule of law is critical for a productive society. Though the one on the importance of the price system also needs more attention.

P.P.P.S. And I’m a big fan of the Learn Liberty videos on the Great Depression,central banking, government spending, and the Drug War. And the videos on myths of capitalism, the miracle of modern prosperity, and the legality of Obamacare also should be shared widely.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Job creation in the American economy is

freddie-gray

Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old man who died last week from a severe spinal cord injury he suffered before or during an arrest.

Officer Caesar Goodson, the Baltimore police officer who drove the transport van Freddie Gray rode in after his arrest was found not guilty on Thursday of all charges. The verdict marks the third out of six in the case went to go to trial, with the prior two cases ending with an acquittal and a hung jury.

Officer Goodson faced charges of second-degree depraved heart murder, manslaughter, second-degree assault, misconduct in office and reckless endangerment stemming from the spinal injury Gray suffered while in police custody and which eventually led to Gray’s death.

Prosecutors alleged that Gray sustained the injury because Goodson did not properly strap Gray into the police van and also gave him a “rough ride” on the way to the police station. Officer Goodson faced at least 68 years in prison if convicted on all counts.

Judge Barry Williams read the verdict on Thursday morning as protesters gathered outside the courthouse. Baltimore police said they are ready for possible protests and the Maryland National Guard is on standby.

Six officers have been charged in the Gray case, with Goodson facing the most serious charges. Goodson was the third person to go to trial in the case, with the prior two cases ending with an acquittal and a hung jury.

Officer Goodson chose a bench trial over a jury trial, as did Officer Edward Nero who was eventually acquitted of four misdemeanor counts in May. Officer William Porter’s December trial ended in a hung jury and mistrial. Lt. Brian Rice’s trial is set to begin in July, followed later in the month by Officer Garrett Miller, Porter’s retrial in September and Sgt. Alicia White’s trial in October.

Officer Caesar Goodson, the Baltimore police officer

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial