Tag: Capitalism

  • At Wichita city council, does the field tilt?

    At the January 12 meeting of the Wichita City Council, several citizens and one council member addressed the “unlevel playing field” and its implications for development in downtown Wichita.

    Speaking about the unlevel playing field, council member Janet Miller said: “My own philosophy on that would say that really, incentives are often used to actually level the paying field.” Referring to downtown Wichita, she said that there may be conditions that make development more costly, or there may be other conditions that make development more difficult.

    Miller didn’t name specific factors, but often land assembly issues are mentioned as an impediment to developing in downtown Wichita. A parcel may be owned by many parties, the story goes, and it can be difficult and expensive to contact all parties and come to agreement with them.

    But land assembly is not an issue with the proposed hotel in WaterWalk. There is no doubt as to land ownership. It’s just one party, and one who is willing to lease it for $1 per year.

  • Waterwalk hotel deal breaks new ground for Wichita subsidies

    On Tuesday, the Wichita City Council will consider an agreement with a hotel developer that, besides awarding the usual subsidies to politically-favored developers, breaks new ground in the use of subsidy. Additionally, the deal contradicts recent promises made by a top city official.

    The proposed hotel, a Marriott Fairfield Inn and Suites Hotel, would be located immediately south of the WaterWalk Place condominium building, at the northwest corner of Dewey and Main Streets.

    Site of proposed hotel at Dewey and Main Streets, Wichita 2010-01-10 02
    Site of proposed hotel at Dewey and Main Streets. View is looking northeast. WaterWalk Place is the large building at the left. The Intust Bank Arena can be seen in the distance.

    Information from the city’s Office of Urban Development indicates these subsidies are proposed for the hotel developers:

    • The city will provide a cash contribution of up to $2.5 million to help pay for building the hotel.
    • The city will create a Community Improvement District to benefit the hotel. Community Improvement Districts, which are a creation of the Kansas Legislature last year, allow a district to charge up to an additional two percent in sales tax. The proceeds from the tax are used for the exclusive benefit of the developers.
    • The project will use Industrial Revenue Bonds. The usual benefit of these bonds is the accompanying property tax exemption. But since the location of the proposed hotel is within a TIF district, this benefit doesn’t apply. Instead, in this case the benefit of the IRBs is that the hotel will escape paying an estimated $328,945 in sales tax.
    • The city will lease the land under the hotel for $1.00 per year, for a term of 99 years. There is a provision that if the hotel performs very well financially, the city will be entitled to additional rent.
    • The hotel will be able to use the WaterWalk Place parking garage for its clients. There is a provision to install a gate so that some parking spaces will be available only to hotel guests and condominium owners. The value of this parking to the hotel developers is huge.

    There is a contingency. The city will conduct a study to determine the impact of the proposed hotel on the financial performance of the city-owned Hyatt Regency Hotel that is located nearby. If the study shows a negative impact on the Hyatt, the city “may rescind the Letter of Intent and halt development of the hotel.”

    Analysis

    This proposal is perhaps the most egregious example of corporate welfare to be proposed to the city council, and one that should be rejected. There are many areas of concern.

    Holiday Inn and Suites, Wichita 2010-01-10 07The Holiday Inn and Suites near the proposed hotel. Will the city conduct a survey to see if this hotel will be harmed?

    Perhaps most important to public policy, the city has now recognized that when it provides subsidy to one business, it may harm other businesses. This is something on which I’ve written extensively, and I’ve spoken to the council several times on this topic. I’ve been concerned about the effect on privately-owned businesses. The city has shown little concern for this.

    But now that a city-owned business — the Hyatt Hotel — may be imperiled, all of the sudden the effects of city subsidy on competition is a concern. This is a slap in the face of all businesses in the city that have faced competition from a city-subsidized competitor. In particular, there is a Holiday Inn and Suites just three blocks away from the proposed hotel. Will the city survey to see if this hotel will be harmed by a subsidized competitor?

    There’s also the credibility of the people involved in this deal. The new owner of the WaterWalk development, Jack DeBoer, was quoted in a Wichita Business Journal article in November saying “I don’t want any more money from the city.”

    In the same month the Wichita Eagle quoted him saying “I’m not going down to City Hall with my hand out. I can’t. The city has put their money in it, and I’m happy with that. We’ve put a lot of our own money in and that’s OK. Now, time to deliver.”

    DeBoer isn’t going to own the proposed hotel. But it’s part of the WaterWalk development that he owns.

    More troubling is the turnaround by Wichita City Manager Robert Layton.

    In October the Wichita Eagle reported: “Layton was clear earlier this week: No more city money is available for WaterWalk.” Other Eagle articles quoted Layton stating “We don’t have any other resources to put in.”

    Now the city is proposing huge and unprecedented subsidies for this hotel.

    The cost of this hotel needs to be questioned, too. The projected cost divided by the number of rooms comes out to around $100,000 per room. I’ve been told that this is very expensive for a hotel of this type. While not a cut-rate budget hotel, this Fairfield Inn won’t have a restaurant. In my experience, they don’t have bars or comfortable lobbies.

    If we want to have robust development that has deep roots, grounded in solid finances and the discipline of free markets instead of crony capitalism, we need to turn away from highly subsidized ventures like this proposed hotel. Relying so extensively on public subsidy results in development with shallow roots. As an example, the city is currently facing a huge problem with the Broadview Hotel. This hotel was scheduled to be renovated by its new owners, the purchase and renovation made possible by large subsidies by the city. Tax credits from the state were to play a large part, too. But last year when the state realized that it couldn’t afford to be so lavish with tax credits and placed a cap on them, the Broadview renovations were put on hold.

    There are many questions about this project that need answers, and I’ve submitted a few to the city. From a public policy standpoint, the problem is that citizens have a very short time in which to ask questions and receive answers. The document that details the proposal appears to have been created at around 5:00 pm on Thursday January 7. The city council meeting is on the next Tuesday morning. There just isn’t time for citizens and journalists to submit questions and get answers. Performing any independent investigation in such a short time is nearly impossible.

    The developers who are in line to receive millions in subsidy, however, have been working with the city on this matter for much longer. There’s a reason why this work is done in secret: Citizens ought to be outraged at this deal. Better to give them little time to object.

    Letter of Intent Relating to Development of WaterWalk Hotel 2010-01-12

  • ‘Political capitalism’ explained in Wichita

    In Wichita this Monday, Robert L. Bradley, Jr. explained the state of capitalism in America today, using his experience working in a high-level position at the failed energy conglomerate Enron as a backdrop.

    Bradley asked: What happened to business prudence? What has happened to capitalism? The answer is that what we have today is not free market capitalism. Rather, it’s a very different type of capitalism: political capitalism.

    A common question today is has capitalism failed? Problems are automatically blamed on greed, self-interest, and profit maximization — in other words capitalism.

    Historically, robber barons have been condemned as examples of capitalism out of control. But many “robber barons” such as Rockefeller made money through voluntary transactions with their customers, Some, however, lived off special government favor such as tariffs. That’s political capitalism.

    Then during the Great Depression capitalism was blamed again. At that time, however, the Federal Reserve Bank was already in control, and this era saw the rise of other forms of government interventionism.

    Today our problems are commonly blamed on self-interest and capitalism rather than government.

    What is real capitalism vs. American-style political capitalism — the mixed economy where government intervenes heavily in business and the economy?

    Enron is still the premier example of political capitalism. But not many knew the full extent of Enron’s activities, or they though it was okay: “Enron was everyone’s favorite company.”

    But the company that everyone thought was the best turned out to be the worst.

    Bradley said the moral of Enron is deeper. There was a systemic failure surrounding Enron. All the gatekeepers — regulators, auditors, legal counsel, the business press, credit rating agencies, business professors — all failed at the same time.

    Many critics said that Enron refutes all that is good about free markets. Bradley quoted one business ethics professor: “The Enron value set was an extreme laissez faire ideology of absolutely free unregulated markets.”

    Bradley disagrees with this assessment, however. Enron was all about Ken Lay, “a master political capitalist.” Lay was a PhD. economist with a lot of Washington experience. His business model for Enron was regulatory change. If Enron could direct the change, it could gain the “first mover” advantage.

    Bradlet quoted a definition of political capitalism as “The utilization of political outlets to obtain conditions of stability, predictability, and security to allow corporations to make reasonable profits over the long run.”

    Socialists, he said, believe that when there is private property, its owners will be in bed with politicians in order to gain special favors.

    Enron’s profit centers had to do with regulatory change. Enron was the first major United States company to proclaim that the climate was in crisis and that government intervention was needed to reduce greenhouse gases.

    But it was a self-interested position. Enron rescued the domestic wind power industry by purchasing a company in that industry, and getting a mandate from the Texas legislature for renewable power mandate.

    Today, the Obama energy plan has a lot to do with Enron’s public policy thrust.

    Enron also gamed regulatory systems. By manipulating accounting rules, Enron could show accounting profits where there were no true economic profits.

    In the tax department, Enron used boutique accounting and legal firms to find niches in the tax code that could be exploited.

    The lesson is that these regulations may not be providing investors useful information and protection, although there may be an illusion created. A corporate report from the 1930s of just three pages gave investors more useful information, and held the firm more accountable, than did Enron’s last corporate report of 56 pages. The lesson, Bradley said, is “simple rules for a complex world.”

    So how did someone like Ken Lay get to the top of the business world? How did he fool everyone and bring down all the gatekeepers with him? Bradley said the government side of the mixed economy was the factor that created an environment that could be exploited.

    The lesson is that the rise and fall of Enron discredits the mixed economy and political capitalism.

    A question was asked: What should we do? Bradley said we should support public policies that are market-oriented, instead of supporting government intervention. But given the mixed economy, we need to watch out for artificial incentives.

    Afterwards, I asked Bradley about government intervention at a local level, such as in Wichita. Specifically, what about TIF districts and tax abatements? Are these examples of political capitalism? Bradley said yes, these are. A side effect is that a tax abatement does leave money in the private sector instead of the government public sector. But a special favor means an artificial stimulus that encourages malinvestment.

    I asked if we need more regulation to protect us, or is our current regulatory regime sufficient? Bradley mentioned that in the Bernie Madoff scandal, the defrauded investors are as mad, or more mad at the Securities and Exchange Commission, that they are at Madoff himself. Many figured that the SEC, with its thousands of regulators, had done their homework for them, and that Madoff’s company was safe. This represents a major unintended consequence of regulation.

    Much more information about this topic can be found at Bradley’s website Political Capitalism. His recent book is Capitalism at Work: Business, Government and Energy.

  • Defending insider trading

    Insider trading is almost universally judged to be bad. Company insiders, using information not available to the public, making stock trades and usually very high profits: Is that fair? How could allowing abuse like this be beneficial?

    But if you value the importance of prices as conduits of information, allowing insider trading makes a lot more information available.

    The Wall Street Journal article Learning to Love Insider Trading, written by Donald J. Boudreaux, makes this argument: “Far from being so injurious to the economy that its practice must be criminalized, insiders buying and selling stocks based on their knowledge play a critical role in keeping asset prices honest — in keeping prices from lying to the public about corporate realities.”

    Here’s an extended explanation from the article:

    Suppose that unscrupulous management drives Acme Inc. to the verge of bankruptcy. Being unscrupulous, Acme’s managers succeed for a time in hiding its perilous financial condition from the public. During this lying time, Acme’s share price will be too high. Investors will buy Acme shares at prices that conceal the company’s imminent doom. Creditors will extend financing to Acme on terms that do not compensate those creditors for the true risks that they are unknowingly undertaking. Perhaps some of Acme’s employees will turn down good job offers at other firms in order to remain at what they are misled to believe is a financially solid Acme Inc.

    Eventually, of course, those misled investors, creditors and workers will suffer financial losses. But the economy as a whole loses, too. Capital that would otherwise have been invested in firms more productive than Acme Inc. never gets to those firms. So compared with what would have happened had people not been misled by Acme’s deceitfully high share price, those better-run firms don’t enhance their efficiencies as much. They don’t expand their operations as much. They don’t create as many good jobs. Consumers don’t enjoy the increased outputs, improved product qualities and lower prices that would otherwise have resulted.

    It’s possible that scandals like Enron and Global Crossing might have been avoided if insiders were allowed to trade. Those who knew the true condition of these companies could have made a lot of money by trading on that information, thereby sending out price signals that these companies had serious troubles — information not known by the investing public.

    Yes, these insiders might have become rich — unjustly so, say critics — and that’s the reason why insider trading is illegal. But contrast that with the tremendous losses suffered by investors in these companies who didn’t know what the insiders knew.

    Boudreaux says that there are times when information should remain secret: “There are, of course, situations in which it is in the interest of both a company and the public for that company to delay the release of information. Such information should be protected as company property.”

    So what is the regulatory solution? Let each company decide how it defines inside information, and how employees are allowed — or not — to use it. Investors will factor these policies into their investment decisions: a company that prohibits insiders from trading will be judged as riskier than companies that allow insider trading. That’s because investors will have less information about the secretive companies.

    Because of the tremendous variety of companies and business strategies, corporations should be free to select their policies regarding insider trading. Realizing, of course, that all companies compete for investor capital, and a company’s information transparency is one factor in the competition.

  • Wichita universal tax exemption could propel growth

    Remarks to the Wichita City Council, October 20, 2009.

    Mr. Mayor, members of the council,

    I’m not here to speak as much to the specifics of the current case, but to the city’s policy of granting property tax exemptions and abatements, whether they are implemented through the economic development exemption program or through industrial revenue bonds.

    At the same time we’re told we must build up our tax base, we tear it down. Nearly every week this council grants tax exemptions or abatements to companies that meet the criteria of the several programs the city uses.

    These tax breaks are justified by benefit-to-cost analysis. I’ve been told that the modeling tools used to perform this type of analysis have no negative numbers in them, and that many people, myself included, believe that these tools are suspect.

    But there’s also the simple recognition that when companies make capital investment, more economic activity happens. In the case before you today, benefit-to-cost ratios range from a scant 1.06 to one up to 9.70 to one, depending on the local governmental unit.

    These numbers — especially the larger ones — sound like a good deal for citizens. But I think that what a lot of people may not realize is that the benefits to the various units of local government are in the form of the taxes they collect. After all, taxes are what constitute revenue to government. It’s not like a business making a capital investment and then gaining additional sales revenue. That represents, of course, voluntary transactions with their customers.

    Or if a business makes a capital investment and becomes more efficient, its increased productivity is a benefit. More capital will be available for investment somewhere else.

    Instead, the benefit to government is more tax revenue. That’s not really a benefit to citizens.

    The broader question is this: If it’s good for the city and other local governmental units to give tax exemptions or abatements to Company A, what about granting them to Company B? And Companies C, D, E, and F? It’s almost like a perpetual motion machine: The more taxes we forgive, the more we gain.

    Actually, the reality is not far removed. I spoke with Art Hall, Executive Director of the Center for Applied Economics at the University of Kansas. He suggested that we should grant all businesses an automatic property tax exemption for five years on new capital investment. That would generate a lot of new economic activity and jobs.

    The city’s own analysis hints at this when it states “Granting an ad valorem property tax exemption will encourage the business to create new job opportunities and stimulate economic growth for the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County.”

    The problem now is that a business and its capital investment must fit into a set of criteria in order to qualify for an exemption. There is a lengthy list of criteria. Some are objective. I am concerned that companies may find themselves formulating their capital investment plans so that they qualify for the tax exemption, rather than doing what makes the most sense economically for their unique situations.

    Other criteria are subjective, and that opens the door for decisions to be made for political rather than economic reasons.

    We have to wonder if these are the correct criteria. Are we smart enough to recognize the types of capital investment we want in Wichita? Have companies made investments, only to find they don’t qualify for tax breaks? Can very small businesses qualify? They create a lot of jobs, too.

    There also the issue that the city has not always applied its own policies. There have been several cases where a company did not meet the promised performance goals at the five year review time, but the city continued the tax exemption contrary to policy. In the case of one company last year, Mr. Bell said “I don’t think it would be productive at this time to further penalize them … by putting them back on the tax roles at this time.”

    In any case, if the city decides to forgo property taxes, the rest of the taxpayers in the city must step up to make the difference. This leads to resentment.

    A solution is this: If the city grants a tax exemption of a certain amount, it should, at the same time, cut city spending by the same amount.

    This would accomplish two goals. First, we’d be aware of the cost of granting these exemptions. Second, the rest of the taxpayers in the city — businesses, utilities, and homeowners — wouldn’t have to step up and pay the taxes that are exempted or abated.

    That’s important because these parties engage in economic activity too. When they have to pay more tax, they have less to spend and invest.

    Mr. Mayor and members of the council, instead of this city granting tax exemptions and abatements company by company, week by week, I urge that we consider a broad revision to our property tax policy that will stimulate investment across the city, for all businesses.

  • John Stossel urges reliance on freedom, not government, in Wichita

    John Stossel in Wichita, October 12, 2009John Stossel at Wichita State University

    Speaking at Wichita State University on Monday, former ABC News journalist John Stossel told a large crowd that free markets and limited government, not more government, are the best way to increase our wealth and prosperity.

    Speaking about his beliefs early in his career as a journalist, Stossel said, “By and large it’s [capitalism] cruel and unfair. We need government and lawyers to protect us from capitalists.”

    Eventually, he said, he began to realize the harm in excessive government regulation. Bureaucrats who propose licensing auto repair shops don’t do much to protect consumers. Instead, the cost of regulation and licensing makes auto repair a little more expensive — leading, perhaps to shops in poor neighborhoods going underground to escape regulation.

    So could trial lawyers do a better job of protecting the consumer? They have the ability to make bad guys pay. But Stossel said the best deterrent is the free market and competition. “Word gets out,” he said, and if you cheat your customers, they won’t come back. There’s also fraud laws.

    Stossel said that it’s easy for reporters to cover the victim who wins a large reward in a lawsuit. The unintended consequences, however, are harder to see. But they’re everywhere. He cited the reduction in the number of vaccine companies due to lawsuits, asking are we safer with five vaccine companies researching vaccines rather than 20? No, he said, we are less safe.

    Competition through free markets, he said, protects us all by itself without government intervention. There are exceptions — Bernie Madoff, for example — but the fact that these exceptions receive so much media attention is evidence of how well markets work.

    The way to get rich in America, Stossel said, is to serve consumers well, citing the example of Bill Gates.

    Stossel said that critics of free markets say that they don’t work for complicated things such as schools and health care. Don’t we need wise elites in Topeka and Washington to make decisions for us, he asked?

    The answer is no. Not everyone needs to be an expert. It’s sufficient for there to be a few “car buffs” — using the example of selecting an automobile — for free markets to work.

    We need some government, he said, to provide rule of law, to protect our property and person. But government needs to be limited. He showed graphs that illustrated the rapid growth of government spending since the presidency of Lyndon Johnson.

    “I’d say they were spending like drunken sailors, but that insults drunken sailors, who spend their own money.”

    He cited his own experience with his beach house, where government provides low-cost flood insurance. His beach house — right on the ocean, built on sand — was damaged. But the government insurance replaced it.

    The problem, he said, is that this insurance was not priced properly. Government ignored the price signals sent by the private market, which set high prices for this insurance, based on the risk they judged the properties faced. The below-market prices set by government have lead to a program that is billions in the read.

    Stossel said that in every newsroom he’s been in, and at all the elite universities he’s visited, people hate business. It’s intuitive, he said, to think of business as a zero-sum game. “If somebody makes a profit off me, I must be losing something.”

    But business is voluntary. Government is force. Business doesn’t happen unless both parties think they win, leading to the “double thank you” moment at the time of the transaction.

    Business is not like a pie, where if someone takes a big slice, there’s less for others. Business, he said, creates more pies. Entrepreneurship makes us all richer, but that’s not intuitive, he said.

    He also talked about his experience reporting on the risks we face in the world. He found that news media focused its reporting on sensational events such as airplane crashes that are actually quite rare. Flying takes an average of one day off each person’s life, statistically speaking.

    But driving takes an average of 182 days off of life. And because of the “hysterical coverage” of plane crashes, people are scared into driving instead of flying. Stossel termed this “statistical murder.”

    (Later, in response to a question, Stossel said that this type of reporting was difficult to get on the air. Two producers quit, saying this reporting was not journalism, but “conservative dogma.”)

    The most important danger to life, however, is poverty, taking over 3,000 days (about nine years) off a person’s life. “Wealthier is healthier,” he said. Regulation that prevents capital from flowing to its best use makes us poorer, he said, and fewer people get hired. Perhaps the headline should be “New OSHA rule saves four, kills ten,” he said.

    Our lack of perspective has made America fear innovation, Stossel said. He referred to Europe’s precautionary principle, which really means “don’t do anything for the first time.” He illustrated a mythical new product — a new fuel, domestically produced, but explosive, invisible, and poisonous, and would kill 200 people each year. And, he wants to pump it into your home. Would we allow that today? This product, of course, is natural gas.

    The innovation that we now fear has made our lives richer. Free people pursuing their own self-interest make America richer, and that saves lives.

    Questions in written form from the audience included one asking Stossel who in Washington he considers to be a leader in free market philosophy. He mentioned Ron Paul as a politician, and the Cato Institute as a leader in explaining the benefits of free markets.

    About the myths and lies of health care reform: Stossel said that President Obama is right, the current system is unsustainable, as it “promises everybody everything free.” The proposed reforms are likely to make the current situation worse. He mentioned that the rate of increase in spending on recreation is the same as the increase in spending on health care. No one complains about spending on recreation, though, because they’re spending their own money. It’s when government spends our money that problems arise. Also, other countries freeload off the innovation that happens in America, and they don’t bear that cost.

    At ABC News, Stossel said they rejected his stories about health care in favor of Michael Jackson stories. He believes this will improve at his new home at Fox Business Network.

    One of his favorite stories was “Stupid in America,” which took a look at public schools. American students do fine in fourth grade, Stossel said, but as time goes on, our students lag behind students in other countries. “The longer they are in our public school system, the worse they do.” The problem, he said, is that our public school system is a government monopoly. An important factor in the success of schools in other countries is that the money is attached to the student, not the school, as it is in America.

    In an interview session before his talk, I asked Stossel about the events of the past year: Is this evidence of the failure of free markets and capitalism? Referring to the rise in the Dow Jones average from 800 to over 9000 since 1982, he said that’s pretty good. “Perfect is not one of the choices,” and there will be booms and busts, he said. Plus, this bust was mostly a government bust, with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributing.

    I asked about regulation, and Stossel said that regulation increased greatly during the Bush administration. Republicans say they want to cut spending and rules, but they don’t do it, he said.

    About health care in Canada, Stossel said that Canadians like their system and think ours is horrible. But media reporting has exaggerated the defects of the American system, and most of the people surveyed in Canada aren’t sick. Also, Canada reduces their cost by freeloading off American innovation.

    At Fox Business Network, Stossel said he will have a show once a week “talking about the economic liberty that made American prosperous.” He also said that “I’m angry that smug people are claiming that central planning from government will make our lives better, despite the evidence in our face that it’s failed again and again.” He plans to confront these people.

    I asked if we in America are starting to look more to a European style of security, rather than relying on freedom. Stossel said yes, quoting Thomas Jefferson as “It is the natural progress of things for government to gain, and liberty to yield.” But it is a false sense of security to rely on government. Real security and what has made America prosperous is the innovation that comes from capitalism.

    Addional coverage from Kansas Watchdog is at John Stossel’s 20/20 Vision of Journalism and Free Markets.

  • AFP Defending the American Dream summit draws thousands to Washington

    Last Friday and Saturday over two thousand defenders of free markets and capitalism traveled to the Washington area to meet at the Americans for Prosperity Foundation’s Defending the American Dream summit. It was an action-packed two days, so I’ll report on just a few personal highlights.

    One of the speakers in the general session was Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal. He said that global warming is the “greatest hoax of the last century.” The cap-and-trade bill, besides not having an effect on global temperatures, should really be named the “China and India Full Employment Act.” Jobs will flee the United States for these countries, as they will not agree to reduce their carbon emissions.

    Our national debt is another grave concern. “What happens if the Chinese, Asians, and the Arabs stop buying our debt?”

    After Moore’s talk I asked if he agreed with the assessment of some economists that we’re coming our of the recession. He said that the national debt, the threat of higher taxes, the threat of cap-and-trade, plus the threat of government takeover of our health care system is crippling the jobs market. The real sickness in our economy, he said, is that small businesses have no incentive to grow. “We spent $3 trillion, but we have done nothing to help small businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They create 3 out of every 5 new jobs. So how are you going to get a jobs recovery if you don’t have small businesses that are healthy, vibrant, and growing?”

    I asked about the tone of the national debate, how the left uses ridicule instead of facing issues squarely. Moore said the we need to maintain the high ground. We have some big advantages over the left, including that we’re right. We have empirical evidence and the Constitution on our side. The left doesn’t want to debate the issues. They don’t want to post bills three days before they’re voted on because they don’t want people to know what’s in the bills, he said.

    He added that health care, cap-and-trade, and the budget are important issues we need to watch out for in the next eight weeks.

    The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund reminded us that most of the provisions of the current health care bill don’t take effect for four years. So why, he asked, must we pass it in the next four weeks? I asked him if we’ve seen the worst of the revelations we’re likely to see about ACORN. He replied no, there’s more — and worse — to come.

    After the closing reception, I spoke with AFP Foundation President Tim Phillips. He said that 2,100 people attended the summit. What’s the message the rest of the country should get from this summit? “It’s the determination and commitment of free markets and conservative folks to stay though this thing, to not lose interest, to not grow weary. We’re in it for the long haul. Today’s a good example of it. We don’t want to lose. This is not just gamesmanship — these are real issues.”

    I reminded him that opponents of capitalism and free markets point to the events of the last year as failure of these things. He said “Only in Washington would you have liberals like Barney Frank and other politicians run the housing market into the ground with federal regulation and then call it a free market failure. It’s obviously wrong.”

  • Star Parker delivers message in Wichita

    In an energetic message delivered to an audience at Wichita State University this Monday, author and columnist Star Parker spoke about breaking the cycle of poverty and other issues facing our country.

    Early in her talk, Parker noted the irony of the welfare office in Washington (the Department of Health and Human Services) being located on Independence Avenue. The approaches that have been tried over the last 45 years to conquer poverty haven’t worked and have led to two generations of government dependence with disastrous consequences, she said.

    Speaking of her own experience being on welfare, the rules of welfare are “don’t work, don’t save, don’t get married.” These rules are designed to keep poor people on welfare, not allow them to break out of poverty. There’s something wrong with our society, she said, if we allow this to continue.

    She believed the lie that “I was poor because rich people are rich.”

    There used to be a healthy black community, but the war on poverty has been very harmful to family life. Fathers used to be in the black home. But the government moved in and began to bankrupt family life.

    At the time, Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan looked at the plans for Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and recognized that it will hurt black families more than help them, Parker said. Then, black out-of-wedlock births was one in four; today it is three in four. Even though there was poverty and racism, black family life was largely intact.

    The ideas of the conservative right work for all Americans, including poor people, she said. Traditional values, including the duty to be self-sufficient and responsible in the choice they make, are an important factor in getting out of poverty.

    Who is in poverty, Parker asked? 53% of the poor live in families with only one parent. We need to “mention marriage every now and then,” she said.

    Developing a work ethic is also important, she said. “Work is how you get out of poverty.” But there is a hostile environment in Washington and elsewhere that says the wealthy need to be penalized. That means they can’t produce as many jobs as they could.

    The welfare state and moral relativism has caused harm to all of America, she said. The black family was most vulnerable, so it was hurt first. Now the rate of births out marriage for Hispanics and whites is higher than it was for blacks was when the war on poverty started.

    Regarding education and school choice, Parker made the point that the rich — even the middle class — already have school choice. It’s poor people that benefit most from school choice programs across the country. She told of the Washington, DC scholarship voucher program, where 1,700 poor children each year were able to attend better schools. Parents desperate to get their children out of DC schools applied, 40,000 of them, so there had to be a lottery to decide who would get the scholarship.

    But President Barack Obama canceled this program.

    Social security is another government program that is harmful to the poor, Parker said. The little that they might be able to save gets sent to Washington for something they don’t own, they can’t transfer, and on which they get a horrible rate of return.

    In response to a question about the redistribution of wealth through the tax system to provide basic needs such as food and shelter, Parker said that the best approach is to create an environment where people can provide these things for themselves.

    Answering another question, Parker said it’s important for youth to hear all sides. Most curriculum, she said, is slanted towards the left.

    A question about race and racism brought out Parker’s observation that whenever the left is losing on an issue, such as health care, they bring up the issue of race. This is the case even when the people on both sides are black. There’s an industry that benefits from racism, but “most of the barriers of segregation have been removed,” she said. The number one crisis facing African-Americans today is not racism, but sexual immorality, she said.

    Regarding the murder of Wichita abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, she said that people should not take justice into their own hands. The debate is intense, and we need to “take it down a notch.” The death of Tiller was a horrible thing, and it is also horrible to glorify the man and the things he did, she said.

    Additional coverage of Parker’s visit is at Kansas Watchdog.

  • John A. Allison: The current problem, and what to do

    Last Thursday, John A. Allison visited Wichita to address the annual economic outlook conference produced by the Center for Economic Development and Business Research (CEDBR) at Wichita State University.

    Allison is chairman and former CEO of BB&T Corporation, the nation’s 10th largest financial-holding company. Its headquarters are in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. His talk first diagnosed the cause of the crisis. You can read my coverage of it at Causes of global finance crisis explained in Wichita

    Having described the cause, Allison told what we need to do to fix the mess we’re in, and to avoid future crises like the present.

    One problem is the credit rating agencies and the functional oligopoly granted them by the government. These agencies — Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch — provide ratings for bonds. (These are the “AAA” and other ratings that many people are familiar with.) The oligopoly comes the fact that many institutional investors may purchase only those securities that have been rated by one of these firms.

    These rating firms made many mistakes, and not just small mistakes. These companies did a poor job of analyzing the risk of these securities. That lead to insurance firms, most notably AIG, becoming deeply in trouble. The justification for saving or bailing out AIG is that there was a systems risk. AIG’s relationships with other parties such as the investment bank Goldman Sachs lead many to believe that the fall of AIG would lead to the fall of these other institutions.

    Allison said that if you’re former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who was once chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, it’s easy to believe that if Goldman Sachs goes out of business, the world goes out of business. Allison asked: “Is that a systems risk or is that crony capitalism?”

    There was an irrational belief in mathematical models. There is the “tail problem,” which comes from models usually assuming a normal mathematical distribution (the familiar bell-shaped curve). The events out in the tails are usually discounted, as they are rare. But Allison said “For anyone who has built a house in a hundred year flood plain, I’ll give you the bad news: we’re going to have a flood.” Given enough time, these rare events become a certainty.

    Market corrections, Allison said, are healthy phenomenon. These events drive companies that are misallocating capital out of business, and the world is better for it.

    One of the little-known things is that part of the reason for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) was to bail out General Electric. GE had done a lot of risky long-term financing using commercial paper, and this lead to trouble.

    All the major banks participated in TARP, as there was huge regulatory pressure. There were four very large banks that were on the verge of failure. But the government didn’t want it to look like it was bailing out just those banks, so it forced all large banks to participate, even though many were healthy.

    In his career, Allison said. Citigroup has failed three times, and each time they emerged bigger and worse. That, he said, will also be the result of the current bail out.

    The five banks that are judged, as is Citigroup, as “too large to fail” will have advantages like lower cost of capital, and they’ll be able to engage in risky activities without the risk of going out of business if investments fail.

    Allison said the government should have let these banks fail. Alternatively, they should be broken up, so that none are in the “too large to fail” category.

    Going forward

    “We ought to cut government spending, not increase it,” Allison recommended. The belief that wasteful government spending on the wrong things can increase our standard of living is irrational. It’s based on the belief of the economist John Maynard Keynes. He recommended that we pay people to dig holes in the ground, and then pay them to fill the holes. Will that raise our standard of living?

    In the long term price instability is a major problem, as it leads to economic miscalculation.

    The biggest issue, Allison said, is the continued attack on capitalism. Related is the attack on the wealthy, in terms of both taxation and ethics. Most very productive people become wealthy. If we attack these people, they become more conservative and less willing to take risk.

    The government needs to privatize Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and let banks make mortgages the way the had for many years before the government became involved in the business.

    We also need a market-based monetary standard, probably based on gold. “You can’t just print gold,” Allison said. If we can’t do this, we need to do as Milton Friedman advocated, which is to grow the money supply at a slow and predictable rate, probably about 3% per year.

    There should also be less FDIC insurance, so that the shareholders of a bank bear risk, rather than the government.

    Free trade is also needed, even though many conservatives oppose this. One of the reasons for the Great Depression was trade tariffs. Other countries responded to ours, and there was less trade.

    Allison said that the most important problem we have is philosophical. Where does free medical care come from, for example? He said that the idea of rights on which the United States was built is that people have right to what they produce themselves, but not what others produce.

    Free medical care and affordable housing are a perversion of this concepts of rights. The right to free medical care, he said, is the right to enslave a doctor to provide the care, or to enslave someone else to pay the doctor. That’s the opposite of the American system of rights.

    Under such a system, no one has the right to their own life.

    He also addressed the difference between short-term and long-term thinking. Some things that work in the short-term are destructive in the long-term, such as the pick-a-payment mortgages.

    The “free lunch mentality” leads to a lack of personal responsibility, and that is the death of democracy. The “tyranny of the majority” — where a majority can vote a free lunch for themselves, eventually the providers quit.

    The cure is the opposite. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness demand personal responsibility. Each person has a moral right to their own life.

    “The United States is the only country founded on the concept that people should act in their rational long-term self interest, properly understood.” He said that you shouldn’t take advantage of other people, as it doesn’t work. You also shouldn’t self-sacrifice, as you have the right to your own life.

    Where do we go now?

    We are probably in the beginning of an economic recovery. Allison feels the most likely scenario is a period of stagflation — slow growth, high inflation, and higher unemployment than we should have — similar to the 1970s. This would not be a great time, but not a horrible time, he said.

    He is more concerned about the long term. The liabilities in the social security and Medicare systems, our huge operating deficits, a dysfunctional foreign policy, and a failed K through 12 educational system lead to the certainty that in 25 years, the United States will be broke.

    What we need to do, he said, is the opposite of what we’re doing. We need to return to individual rights, the incentives that free markets provide, and less regulation.

    The “American sense of life,” Allison said, means that we are a very individualistic nation and not collectivist.

    Business makes the world a better place to live by providing quality products and services. A primary difference between the United States and Africa is that we have better businesses.

    Allison mentioned two pillars that make the human mind productive. The first is Freedom and liberty. He drew a parallel between academic freedom and economic freedom. Those who believe in academic freedom, however, often want to restrict economic and business freedom.

    The second pillar is knowledge that comes from education, in the broadest context. We need an environment that encourages competition, discipline, and creativity in our educational system.

    Allison encouraged the audience to seek happiness through a “life well-lived.” Self-esteem is developed by doing your job the best you possibly can, he said. Depending on government for security is the European way, but not the American way.