Monthly Archives: October 2012

Federalist No. 13

In Federalist No. 13, after addressing the utility of the union in respect to commercial relations and a navy in Federalist No. 11 and the utility of the union in respect to revenue, Hamilton then approaches the broader subject of the advantage of the union in respect to economy in government. Since we all want a more economical government, this is definitely one of the series’ must reads.

Hamilton starts off by noting that, if we have an efficient government, the money saved from one object may be usefully applied to another, and there will be so much the less to be drawn from the pockets of the people. Is it just me, or have governments around the world forgotten this? Let’s look at North America. Every state and province has their own Department of Motor Vehicles, and every state and province issues their own licenses. And while this is probably as it should be, they all use their own, custom, systems instead of using one, common, system (or at least one system that uses the same APIs and same protocols) so they need to do extra work to get driver history data from drivers who move into the state or province. In addition, many are not able to automatically suck the basic information of the individual in from a Federal database, and we have a duplication of data that leads to propagation of errors. One system, individually administered by each state, would be much more efficient. As prove, look at multi-tenant SaaS, which is gaining traction in enterprise software. Every improvement is able to be immediately leveraged by all for one development cost. But I digress, back to one of Hamilton’s key points:

If the States are united under one government, there will be but one national civil list to support; if they are divided into several
confederacies, there will be as many different national civil lists to be provided for. The whole point of a union is strength and efficiency. Since it is true that when the dimensions of a State attain to a certain magnitude, it requires the same energy of government and the same forms of administration which are requisite in one of much greater extent, efficiency can only increase with size and scale (provided such size and scale is properly administered). The advantage of civil power is that properly organized and exerted, [it] is capable of diffusing its force to a very great extent; and can, in a manner, reproduce itself
in every part of a great empire by a judicious arrangement of subordinate institutions.

Hamilton’s final words deserve to be etched in stone:

If, in addition to the consideration of a plurality of civil lists, we take into view the number of persons who must necessarily be employed to guard the inland communication between the different confederacies against illicit trade, and who in time will infallibly spring up out of the necessities of revenue; and if we also take into view the military establishments which it has been shown would unavoidably result from the jealousies and conflicts of the several nations into which the States would be divided, we shall clearly discover that a separation would be not less injurious to the economy, than to the tranquillity, commerce, revenue, and liberty of every part.

Walmart is Supposed to have been the Retail Leader since at least 2002

… when it was listed for the first time as America’s largest corporation on the Fortune 500 list, and it’s only now understanding that if you want a sustainability initiative to take hold, you have to focus on the people and give them the right incentives.

As per this recent piece over on Bloomberg which notes that “Wal-Mart’s Green Performance Reviews Could Change Retail for Good”, Walmart’s efforts to green its supply chain are about to get much more effective because sustainability will now play a role in its merchants’ performance reviews, which help determine pay raises and potential for future promotion.

If you really want to be green, you have to put your money where your mouth is and pay for it. You have to give buyers incentive to consider sustainability, suppliers incentive to be sustainable, and everyone incentive to encourage sustainability. And, as SI has written many times, while their might be some up front costs to switch to sustainable sources, over time, sustainability will generate double-digit ROI any way you look at it.

Why The Republican “Trickle Down” Platform Won’t Fix the U.S. Economy

While a recent video uploaded to Youtube on Why Obama Now didn’t do the greatest job of explaining why you should vote for Obama, it did do a great job of why you shouldn’t vote for any republican who still believes that if you lower tax cuts for the rich, the “trickle down” effect will save the economy. This is one video worth checking out for that reason alone!

Thank You Japan For Proving that LOLCats ARE Good For You!

I know some of you are probably thinking that LOLCats are dominating too many Saturdays on SI, but I’m glad to say that they’re actually not dominating enough Saturdays! It seems that the Japanese, with ever too much time on their hands, have recently completed a groundbreaking study that proved that looking at pictures of cute animals can boost your work performance. And since nothing is cuter than LOLCats, as usual, SI had it right.

So here is yet another LOLCat to boost your work performance.

You’re welcome!

Federalist No. 12

In Federalist No. 12, Hamilton writes on the utility of the union in respect to revenue as a follow up to his piece on the utility of the union in respect to commercial relations and a navy. Given that all organizations require revenue to function, this is an important topic, especially since everyone disdains taxes and wants to know that their tax dollars will not be wasted.

Hamilton is right when he notes that The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. If taxes are too high, it will create too high a burden on the population, but if they are too low, the government may not have enough revenue to effectively function and provide needed services. In addition, commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier. Taxes are a necessary burden, but paying them shouldn’t be burdensome. Too bad we’ve forgotten this with tax codes so convoluted that five accountants can do the same return and arrive at a different conclusion for the same household!

Hamilton said a great thing when he said that it is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation. Tax laws have in vain been multiplied; new methods to enforce the collection have in vain been tried; the public expectation has been uniformly disappointed, and the treasuries of the States have remained empty — as this is another point that needs to be remembered. The more convoluted the tax code, the more ineffective and inefficient it gets. For example, in Return to Prosperity, Arthur B. Laffer, a noted economist, argues for a flat tax. He notes that if we implemented such a tax across individuals and businesses, not only could we simplify the tax return to a single page, but we could reduce the tax rate to about 13% and collect about the same amount of taxes as we do now! 13%! Given that, in some states, some residents pay over 30% in sate and federal income taxes, many people could see their taxes halved and the government could still collect the additional dollars it needs to operate effectively. If that’s not a win-win, I don’t know what is!

The primary argument he puts forth as to how a Union would be better, and fairer, than a collection of states with respect to the collection of revenue is the following:

The relative situation of these States; the number of rivers with which they are intersected, and of bays that wash there shores; the facility of communication in every direction; the affinity of language and manners; the familiar habits of intercourse; – all these are circumstances that would conspire to render an illicit trade between them a matter of little difficulty, and would insure frequent evasions of the commercial regulations of each other.

But if, on the contrary, there be but one government pervading all the States, there will be, as to the principal part of our commerce, but ONE SIDE to guard—the ATLANTIC COAST.

In other words, there would be no illicit trade between the states, and the only worries with respect to duty and tax evasion would be in global trade, with respect to goods originating from Europe or India. With only one border to patrol (with the unified navy that would be obtained as per the previous argument for a Union), we would be able to stop the smugglers and impose fair taxes across the board. Because ocean going vessels would have to dread both the dangers of the coast, and of detection, as well after as before their arrival at the places of their final destination if they attempted to unlade prior to entering port, an ordinary degree of vigilance would be
competent to the prevention of any material infractions upon the rights of the revenue.

It is therefore evident, that one national government would be able, at much less expense, to extend the duties on imports,
beyond comparison, further than would be practicable to the States separately, or to any partial confederacies.