Capitalism for Dummies (and Socialists)

The whole notion of capitalism is that those with capital are incentivized to invest it in order to obtain a profit. If profits are outlawed or significantly reduced through confiscatory taxation, the incentive to invest is reduced or eliminated. If profit is forbidden, I have no incentive to invest rather than consume. Why would I delay gratification and take on risk to plant a field or build a factory if I don’t stand to make a profit by doing so?

Tariffs, Pickpockets, and the Nationalist Snake in the Moral Grass

Protectionism, as it is misleadingly known, has always been an insider’s game, a political gambit aimed at enriching those to whom the government is especially beholden or seeks to seduce at the expense of other people. Incumbent producers who produce products on which tariffs are imposed succeed in repelling competition by force of the government’s customs officers, which is to say that they succeed in increasing their profits by force, not by offering consumers a better deal.

Do Two Wrong Taxes Make a Right?

Imposing tariffs in order to protect domestic producers who are unjustly harmed by taxes or regulations, as Bastiat noted, simply shifts the harm done by these taxes and regulations from producers to consumers. But why should consumers rather than producers suffer this harm? Some people must suffer it, and it’ll be either the unjustly taxed and regulated producers (in the case of no protective tariff) or their consumers (in the case of a protective tariff).

Cognitive Bias #1 — Anchoring

Anchoring is a cognitive bias that we encounter in every negotiation, even with the snooze bar on our morning alarm clock. A common example would be the case where an employee asks her boss for a raise. The negotiation will then take place in the range between the current compensation and the ask or the offer, whichever comes first. Politicians take advantage of this cognitive bias among their constituents.

Lock Up Young Men for Safety

Allowing young men – let’s say age 18 to 23 – to be free increases the crime rate, as young men commit a disproportionately high percentage of violent crimes. Doesn’t that fact justify locking up all men between the ages of 18 and 23? If it would dramatically reduce violent crime, and therefore reduce overall aggression, wouldn’t that mean that such an action constitutes moral defensive force?

Coffee and Markets

Why is it that in Ireland, the UK, and Western Europe you can buy coffee in a jar, whereas here in the USA you can only find ersatz coffee in a jar? For once, I am not going to blame the state (although I suspect it is behind this somewhere). The market is here, it’s just not evenly distributed, to paraphrase William Gibson, the cyberpunk writer.

Rule Yourself

Recently another sociopath took power of the greatest criminal institution in the world, the US federal government. Another megalomaniac sits on the throne and will attempt to dictate how you can live your life. The problem is not whether this person is black, white, male, female, Christian, Jewish, rich, poor etc. The problem is that the throne and the institution exists at all AKA the State.