The Flat Tax Is Still Not Flat
An expanded version for The New American of my recent article on the Flat Tax is now available online here.
An expanded version for The New American of my recent article on the Flat Tax is now available online here.
For months Alex Tabarrok has being doing a great job yelling to all the world that this “credit crunch” is bogus. What’s hilarious is that even his critics--see this post by Mark Thoma--rely on evidence that actually proves Alex’s case. I summarize the relevant findings in this blog post. An excerpt:
The news media are in the process of creating a great new historical myth. This is the myth that our present financial crisis is the result of economic freedom and laissez-faire capitalism.
The attempt to place the blame on laissez faire is readily confirmed by a Google search under the terms “crisis + laissez faire.” On the first page of the results that come up, or in the web entries to which those results refer, statements of the following kind appear:
“The mortgage crisis is laissez-faire gone wrong.”
Three economists for the Minneapolis Fed have written a paper called “Myths about the Financial Crisis of 2008.” The myths they refute: 1) Bank lending to nonfinancial corporations and individuals has declined sharply, 2) Interbank lending is essentially nonexistent, 3) Commercial paper issuance by nonfnancial corporations has declined sharply and rates have risen to unprecedented levels, and 4) Banks play a large role in channeling funds from savers to borrowers.
[From a talk given to a Memphis-area discussion group on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.]
In another thread here, a commentor asks, “What, exactly, is un-libertarian about “loser pays” laws in civil suits?” This sentiment is common among libertarians who seem to assume that the “loser pays” rule is preferable, from a libertarian point of view, to a system in which each side pays its legal costs.