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!
Category Archives: Miscellaneous
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.
Federalist No. 11
In Federalist No. 11, Hamilton returns to the helm in addressing the people of the State of New York in the Independent on the utility of the Union in respect to commercial relations and a navy. Starting with this essay, we start to move away from generic advantages of a republic over a democracy and a Union over a confederacy to a specific set of advantages, of relevance to the people, possessed by a republic Union.
Even in 1787, global trade was critical to economic growth. (In fact, in 1817, Congress did away with all internal taxes and relied solely on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government. The first income tax was not enacted until 1862 to support the Civil War. Before this, taxes were limited to a few commodities, starting with sugar in 1764 and stamps in 1765.) In the 1600s and 1700s, European countries captured profits of 200% to 300% by way of long-distance trade with the Americas and the east. In fact, at one point in time, the British East India Company was an imperial power in its own right, with its own military! Thus, commercial relations would be critical to the rise, and acceptance, of America.
Hamilton starts off by noting that there are appearances to authorize a supposition that the adventurous spirit, which distinguishes the commercial character of America, has already excited uneasy sensations in several of the maritime powers of Europe. They seem to be apprehensive of our too great interference in that carrying trade. There is thus reason to believe that some countries may favour the policy of fostering divisions among us, and of depriving us, as far as possible, of an ACTIVE COMMERCE as this would prevent our interference in their
navigation, [prevent our interference in their] monopolizing the profits of our trade, and clip the wings by which we might soar to a dangerous greatness.
If we continue united, we may counteract a policy so unfriendly to our prosperity in a variety of ways. By prohibitory regulations, extending … throughout the States, we may oblige foreign countries to bid against each other, for the privileges of our markets. In addition, a further resource for influencing the conduct of European nations toward us, in this respect, would arise from the establishment of a federal navy. There can be no doubt that the continuance of the Union … would … create a navy which, if it could not vie with those of the great maritime powers, would at least be of respectable weight. This would create, since just a few ships sent to reinforce either side in a third-party maritime conflict, would be sufficient to decide the fate of a campaign and this creates a situation so favourable would enable us to bargain with great advantage for commercial privileges. Thus, by a steady adherence to the Union we may … become the arbiter of Europe in America. It is arguable that under a vigorous national government, the natural strength and resources of the country, directed to a common interest, would baffle all the combinations of European jealousy to restrain our growth.
In addition, an unrestrained intercourse between the States themselves will advance the trade of each by an interchange of their respective productions … and the veins of commerce in every part will be replenished. As a result, the aggregate balance of the commerce of the United States would bid fair to be much more favourable than that of the thirteen States without union. And, then, the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concurrent in erecting one great American system will be superior to the control of all transatlantic force or influence, and able to dictate the terms of the connection between the old and the new world!
Want to discuss? Join The Federalists on LinkedIn. The open group has been created specifically to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the governance of nations and their ramifications on the national and international economics and global trade.
Supply Chain Predictions are Becoming More Obvious by the Day …
but supply chains are not always predictable. So the question is, when are we going to see a completely non-obvious supply chain prediction that, in fact, is going to be reality in a few short years.
Or have we reached a point where supply chain technologies, methodologies, and development chonologies are completley predictable? Everytime I see a list of predictions these days, they are either obvious, generic, or, in the case of this recent article over on EyeForTransport on “The top 10 … or make that the top 12 thoughts for supply chain in 2012”, an updated list of supply management best-practices if you want to be considered a leader instead of a loser.
Don’t get me wrong — the article linked above is one of the best lists of the top 12 things you should be doing now that I’ve seen in a while, but I want to see someone take a step back, look way forward, predict where supply chain will be, and then come out and give what looks like a prediction out of left-field on what we have to do to get there. Of course, the risk of doing this is that you’re a futurist, and some of your predictions will be wrong (and might get you temporarily labelled as a crackerjack), but if even one is right, and spectacularly right, people will forget the mistakes and pronounce you as a visionary when your longer term prediction comes true.
So, with 2013 just around the seasonal corner, does anyone want to stand up, predict major unexpected changes in the supply chain in the next 5, 15, and 50 years, and roll the bones?