With regard to the CATO recommendations, I would add the radio spectrum to the list of federal assets that should be privatized. Public ownership of spectrum is a feature common to Western developed countries, but the US government (the FCC and, for spectrum used by federal government agencies like the Pentagon, NTIA) is arguably the most incompetent spectrum manager in the developed world. It is a fantasy proposal, of course, and public ownership of spectrum is such a sacred cow that even a libertarian think tank like CATO surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, didn't include it in the list of federal assets to be privatized.
My biggest gripe with academic economists is that the economy spits off an incredible amount of data (in the form of earnings, transaction data, scraped-price data, etc.) that they largely ignore. Investors are much better economists--in that they rigorously observe and model the economy--than economists are.
So the federal land that belongs to all, should be a free-for-all to provide a bonanza for a few (possibly not even them, if it’s not too gauche to look at history) while promised prosperity from such resource use continues, forever, to elude the local areas - which instead have seen their most sustainable economic success from tourism.
Meanwhile the guy who runs Cato chooses to live somewhere that will *never* be permitted to be anyone’s free-for-all, or prey to those with crass mercenary motives.
Years ago, I was attending a festival in the North End of Boston. Tiring of it, I walked toward the waterfront and the Coast Guard station. There was a big sign on it, saying, "Public Property, No Trespassing". A housemate had accused me of having Young Punk Syndrome, and I thought, "Hey, I'm a member of the public. I'm even a taxpayer (since I'd recently gotten job). I help pay to run it. I should go up to the guardhouse and say, "Hi, I'm one of the owners. I'd like to inspect my property.""
Of course, they would say no. And I would give them a hard time. "It's my property; I'm a member of the public. You have to let me in." Which would eventually lead to them putting me in the brig or calling the local police.
The public does not own the public lands. The federal government does. It decides who can go on them and under what conditions. It decides whether to keep or sell or gift them. It decides whether to build on them, and if so, what.
The federal lands do not belong to me any more than the water glasses at the White House belong to me. (I don't mean this as a criticism of you. It's just a figure of speech that makes me crazy :))
"Inflation" is no more problematic than real income or real GDP. Wages are even worse, as we do not even have wage indices, but remuneration unit value indices.
I think I agree with Cochrane, but he makes his point so tendentiously that it's hard to be sure.
As it applies to fiscal and monetary policy, fiscal policy shifts demand between consumption and investment, generally more by taxing investment and borrowing from potential investors and transferring resources to people for (mainly) consumption. [Some public expenditures are investment, but not most.] The central bank has to decide whether a change in fiscal policy will impact interest rates or inflation.
Increasing the "retirement" age is a good idea independent of any reduction in the deficit it might effect (and not just open room for more tax reductions for upper income people like Arnold and me). It could help undermine the whole idea of age-based "retirement."
With regard to the CATO recommendations, I would add the radio spectrum to the list of federal assets that should be privatized. Public ownership of spectrum is a feature common to Western developed countries, but the US government (the FCC and, for spectrum used by federal government agencies like the Pentagon, NTIA) is arguably the most incompetent spectrum manager in the developed world. It is a fantasy proposal, of course, and public ownership of spectrum is such a sacred cow that even a libertarian think tank like CATO surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, didn't include it in the list of federal assets to be privatized.
My biggest gripe with academic economists is that the economy spits off an incredible amount of data (in the form of earnings, transaction data, scraped-price data, etc.) that they largely ignore. Investors are much better economists--in that they rigorously observe and model the economy--than economists are.
So the federal land that belongs to all, should be a free-for-all to provide a bonanza for a few (possibly not even them, if it’s not too gauche to look at history) while promised prosperity from such resource use continues, forever, to elude the local areas - which instead have seen their most sustainable economic success from tourism.
Meanwhile the guy who runs Cato chooses to live somewhere that will *never* be permitted to be anyone’s free-for-all, or prey to those with crass mercenary motives.
Got it. Every damn time.
Years ago, I was attending a festival in the North End of Boston. Tiring of it, I walked toward the waterfront and the Coast Guard station. There was a big sign on it, saying, "Public Property, No Trespassing". A housemate had accused me of having Young Punk Syndrome, and I thought, "Hey, I'm a member of the public. I'm even a taxpayer (since I'd recently gotten job). I help pay to run it. I should go up to the guardhouse and say, "Hi, I'm one of the owners. I'd like to inspect my property.""
Of course, they would say no. And I would give them a hard time. "It's my property; I'm a member of the public. You have to let me in." Which would eventually lead to them putting me in the brig or calling the local police.
The public does not own the public lands. The federal government does. It decides who can go on them and under what conditions. It decides whether to keep or sell or gift them. It decides whether to build on them, and if so, what.
The federal lands do not belong to me any more than the water glasses at the White House belong to me. (I don't mean this as a criticism of you. It's just a figure of speech that makes me crazy :))
"Inflation" is no more problematic than real income or real GDP. Wages are even worse, as we do not even have wage indices, but remuneration unit value indices.
I think I agree with Cochrane, but he makes his point so tendentiously that it's hard to be sure.
As it applies to fiscal and monetary policy, fiscal policy shifts demand between consumption and investment, generally more by taxing investment and borrowing from potential investors and transferring resources to people for (mainly) consumption. [Some public expenditures are investment, but not most.] The central bank has to decide whether a change in fiscal policy will impact interest rates or inflation.
Increasing the "retirement" age is a good idea independent of any reduction in the deficit it might effect (and not just open room for more tax reductions for upper income people like Arnold and me). It could help undermine the whole idea of age-based "retirement."
I’m grateful to have these Cato recommendations for reducing the size and scope of government. Thanks to Cato and Arnold.