The Free Market

Why do some economists oppose tax reductions?

"Forget the minimum wage," says Nate, a dishwasher and cook's helper at our restaurant. "It's taxes that are killing me." He is a college student by day, washes about 1,000 dishes during the dinner rush, and stuffs and rolls grape leaves until midnight.

A year ago January—what a moment!—the two parties were in a tax cut bidding war. Each side was attempting to gain political advantage by trumping the other guy's proposal. Everything was on the table: capital gains tax cuts, income tax cuts, inheritance tax cuts, and every manner of tax credit.

Two years ago, the Clinton administration fell into near total disrepute among the public. The primary reason was its plot to socialize and nationalize the entire medical industry and conscript doctors and patients into a central plan.

The death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown in a Balkans plane crash exposed the real reason President Clinton sent American troops to Bosnia: to make the world safe for corporate welfare.

 Yet despite aggressive marketing and loads of free PR, neither Honda nor Chevrolet (which sells the Geo line) could give these pint-sized Edsels away. It turn out that the views of the fuel-efficiency killjoys and the general population sharply diverge.

Government bureaucrats look out for their own kind. Entrepreneur John Shanahan, the man behind "Hooked on Phonics," found that out the hard way when he developed a program that taught his son how to read after the California public schools could not. 

One school of thought—Public Choice—says that statesmen can't exist in a democracy. Politics consists of vote trading, logrolling, rent seeking, and legislated looting. Politicians buy and sell favors, lobbyists act as middlemen, and the public gets fleeced. It can be no other way, say these theorists.

It wasn't the free market, consumerism, or capitalism that killed the movies. It was antitrust regulation, as enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. This government intervention in the 1940s radically altered the structure of the film industry for the worse. The direct and immediate result was a decline in acting, scripts, scores, content, and the cultural contribution of films. 

To the outside world, it appears that all economists agree: free trade can never be compromised. Inside, the picture is far more complicated. Good economists, preeminently the Austrian School, favor liberty across the board. Yet among the mainstream, economists who favor big government at home likely reject free trade abroad.

It was November 25, 1945, and the overpaid workers at General Motors were striking, again. Their gripe? Company profits were up, but wages were not. They demanded a shorter workweek and higher pay. Then as now, this government-backed union was using its legal privileges to stick it to consumers and employers. But there was one voice of sanity. 

The 1996 blizzard dumped three feet of snow on the Washington, D.C., area. The event proved once again that statist economists, armed with their "market failure" theories, perceive reality exactly the opposite from the way it is. It is government, not the free market, that is inherently plagued with inefficiency, fraud, and corruption. Private property and competitive markets provide citizens with the superior alternative—not the other way around.

The Federal Reserve is the most powerful yet least questioned of all Washington institutions. It can make or break elections, bail out entire governments, send the stock market to the stratosphere, or bankrupt whole industries. Yet it operates with less oversight than the CIA.

Extremes like bloody backs distract from the main issue, which is not whether taxpayers should subsidize grotesque performance or perverse photography, but whether they should subsidize art at all. Market theory, of course, follows one simple rule: those who want something should be the ones to pay for it. In particular, those who want art, or a specific kind of art, should put up the money, whether by purchasing tickets or becoming a generous benefactor.

Well, the Nissan Motor Corporation just proved that it can be every bit as shortsighted as any American company by giving $150,000 to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. According to the new NAACP president, ex-Congressman Kweisi Mfume, the money will be used for "voter registration and education," presumably to elect more left-wing ideologues like himself.

Gus Stelzer, a retired General Motors senior executive, is on a rampage against free trade. It makes sense from his point of view. Like most big business, GM does not welcome competition from abroad, however much it's spurred product improvements over the years. It turns to the government to tax imports that consumers desire more. 

There it is, on the cover of Newsweek, in thick, blood-red letters: "Corporate Killers." What follows is mug-like photo after photo, some of them grainy, of rich white men, all menacing and "greedy." They are the CEOs of America's top corporations. The story's thesis is simple: they are destroying the country. 

Should free enterprise stop at the border? Of course not, and the attempt to make it so can drive us to ruin. Yet politicians are hammering free trade. Long-refuted myths are back in full force, and the voters are getting a miseducation in the economics of autarky.

In the welfare debates, Congress spared what is perhaps the most objectionable part of the welfare state, cash subsidies for illegitimate children. The opponents had committed a terrible error early in the debate. They granted the first philosophical assumption of the program's supporters: that we all should take responsibility for America's children. But should we?

Look at the back of your computer monitor, the bottom of your table lamp, or the label on your hair dryer. Chances are you will see the symbol "UL" with a circle around it. It stands for Underwriters Laboratories, a firm headquartered in Northbrook, Ill., and an unsung hero of the market economy.