by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, TAXES
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. —
Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
- For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
- For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
- For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
- For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
- For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
- For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
- For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
- For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
- For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In Jefferson’s draft there is a part on slavery here
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
JOHN HANCOCK, President
Attested, CHARLES THOMSON, Secretary
- New Hampshire
- JOSIAH BARTLETT
WILLIAM WHIPPLE
MATTHEW THORNTON
- Massachusetts-Bay
- SAMUEL ADAMS
JOHN ADAMS
ROBERT TREAT PAINE
ELBRIDGE GERRY
- Rhode Island
- STEPHEN HOPKINS
WILLIAM ELLERY
- Connecticut
- ROGER SHERMAN
SAMUEL HUNTINGTON
WILLIAM WILLIAMS
OLIVER WOLCOTT
- Georgia
- BUTTON GWINNETT
LYMAN HALL
GEO. WALTON
- Maryland
- SAMUEL CHASE
WILLIAM PACA
THOMAS STONE
CHARLES CARROLL OF CARROLLTON
- Virginia
- GEORGE WYTHE
RICHARD HENRY LEE
THOMAS JEFFERSON
BENJAMIN HARRISON
THOMAS NELSON, JR.
FRANCIS LIGHTFOOT LEE
CARTER BRAXTON.
- New York
- WILLIAM FLOYD
PHILIP LIVINGSTON
FRANCIS LEWIS
LEWIS MORRIS
- Pennsylvania
- ROBERT MORRIS
BENJAMIN RUSH
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
JOHN MORTON
GEORGE CLYMER
JAMES SMITH
GEORGE TAYLOR
JAMES WILSON
GEORGE ROSS
- Delaware
- CAESAR RODNEY
GEORGE READ
THOMAS M’KEAN
- North Carolina
- WILLIAM HOOPER
JOSEPH HEWES
JOHN PENN
- South Carolina
- EDWARD RUTLEDGE
THOMAS HEYWARD, JR.
THOMAS LYNCH, JR.
ARTHUR MIDDLETON
- New Jersey
- RICHARD STOCKTON
JOHN WITHERSPOON
FRANCIS HOPKINS
JOHN HART
ABRAHAM CLARK
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, POLITICS, TAXES, TRUMP
There continues to be a notion that carried interest is something that needs to be fixed because of a seemingly unfair low-tax capital gains income rate.
It is true the rate is low. But so what? It’s not as though the income isn’t from capital gains. If the law was changed so that the operators were taxed at ordinary income only, it wouldn’t get rid of those gains — it would simply mean that the investors get the benefit of the capital gains lost by the operators. This fixes nothing.
Ultimately such a change –which is being proposed by President Trump like it was by President Obama — will merely shift the tax benefit from the operators to the investors. This takes a tax break away from people who are working for a living and gives it to millionaires who are just investing – pure hypocrisy from liberals who wish to inflict additional taxes on the wealthy at every step. It make compensation deals for hedge fund operators a bit more complicated (i.e. requiring more assistance from accountants), but the amount of compensation stays revenue neutral.
Therefore, it takes a whopping dose of either incompetence or disingenuousness from the many carried interest critics to look at the hedge fund industry and proclaim that “carried interest” is a problem that needs to be addressed.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FED
In an interesting move this week and true to the Fed plan to raise rates three times this year, Fed Chair Janet Yellen raised interest rates .25%. It’s worth it to note that at the same time, the Feds downgraded the forecast for inflation:
The central bank now believes inflation will fall well short of its 2 percent target this year. The post-meeting statement said inflation “has declined recently” even as household spending has “picked up in recent months,” the latter an upgrade from the May statement that said spending had “rose only modestly.” The statement also noted that inflation in the next 12 months “is expected to remain somewhat below 2 percent in the near term” but to stabilize.
At the same time, the Feds up the forecast for GDP growth slightly to 2.2%, up from a 2.1% forecast. They also anticipated a drop in unemployment as well, from 4.5% to 4.3%.
The Fed vote to go up a quarter-percent was not unanimous, however. “Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari on Friday said he voted against an interest-rate hike this week because he wasn’t convinced the recent spate of soft inflation readings was due to one-off factors…We should have waited to see if the recent drop in inflation is transitory to ensure that we are fulling our inflation mandate” to get inflation back to 2%, Kashkari said. Kashari was the only dissenting vote out of nine.
Earlier this year, the Federal Reserve tentatively planned three rate hikes in 2017 and three rate hikes in 2018. So far, they’ve completed two, and seem to want to stay on that track. Time will tell if this rate hike and pathway are good for the economy.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, TAXES
I always look forward to CNSNews each month when they do a roundup of the prior month’s spending and revenue. Their numbers come directly from the Monthly Treasury Statement released by mid-month for the previous month. Because they’ve been doing it for so long, they are able to often do comparison for previous months and years, which provide nice little tidbits of info.
The big takeaway from this month is, despite record revenue, the Trump administration still ran a deficit due to excessive spending. Their summary is reposted below in its entirety:
“The U.S. Treasury hauled in $240,418,000,000 in total taxes in the month of May, setting a record for inflation-adjusted tax revenues for that month of the year, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released this week.
Despite these record revenues, however, the federal government still ran a deficit of $88,426,000,000 in May—because it spent $328,844,000,000 in the month.
In the first eight months of fiscal 2017 (October through May), the federal government hauled in $2,169,160,000,000 in total taxes and spent $2,602,013,000,000—thus, running a deficit of $432,853,000,000. Fiscal 2017 will end on Sept. 30, 2017.
Prior to this year, fiscal 2006 held the record for most federal taxes collected in the month of May. That year, the Treasury collected $232,837,160,000 (in constant 2017 dollars) during May.
The third largest tax haul the federal government ever achieved in the month of May was last year (fiscal 2016), when the Treasury collected $228,814,030,000 (in constant 2017 dollars.)
While the $240,418,000,000 that the Treasury collected this May set a record for federal tax revenues in the month May, federal tax collections in the first eight months of fiscal 2017 (October through May) did not set a record.
That distinction is still held by fiscal 2016—the last full fiscal year of President Barack Obama’s tenure.
In October through May of fiscal 2016, the Treasury collected $2,179,362,400,000 in total tax revenues (in constant 2017 dollars). That was $10,202,400,000 more than the $2,169,160,000,000 that the Treasury collected in October through May of this fiscal year.
(Tax revenues were adjusted to constant 2017 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator.)
The $240,418,000,000 in taxes the federal government collected in the month of May 2017 equaled approximately $1,572 for each of the 152,923,000 people the Bureau of Labor Statistics said had a job in the United States during the month.
The $88,246,000,000 deficit the Treasury ran during May equaled approximately $577 for each of the 152,923,000 people with a job.”
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, TAXES
We’ve written about the collapse of many Obamacare markets as well as the removal of several insurers from the Obamacare system across multiple states and exchanges. Earlier this year Aetna Inc. and Wellmark Inc. announced that they would not participate in Iowa for 2018 due to unsustainable costs; only the insurer Medica would be available in the state.
In response, Bloomberg reports that “Iowa is asking the Trump administration to let it reallocate millions of dollars and create a stopgap program that would provide health insurance options for 72,000 Iowans covered by the Affordable Care Act.
Under the proposal made public on Monday, the state would use $352 million in federal money to provide backup funding for insurers and overhaul Obamacare’s subsidies for consumers next year. The state would also create a single standardized plan that insurers would offer.”
Iowa’s proposal has three main pieces:
- It would create a standard plan, pegged to Obamacare’s mid-level silver offering. Insurers and consumers who want the extra help would need to buy that plan.
- The state would use about $220 million of funding to provide the new subsidies.
- And the state would create a reinsurance program, funded with an estimated $80 million, to help insurers deal with high-cost claims.
The program needs to be approved by the Trump administration and would be known as a “Stopgap” measure while the future of Obamacare gets played out in Congress. Nonetheless, the current form of Obamacare is financially unstable; expect to see more of these types of proposals in the coming months.
by | BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
The idea of “disparate impact” holds that a defendant can be held liable for racism and discrimination for a race-neutral policy that statistically disadvantages a specific minority group even if that negative “impact” was neither foreseen nor intended. This tactic was increasingly used in recent years during the Obama Administration, most often by Loretta Lynch, Obama’s Attorney General, and Thomas Perez, his Secretary of Labor.
It follows then that minimum wage laws are racist and discriminatory. There’s no question that the effect these policies have on minorities are unfavorable. The citizens who are going to lose their jobs or will be unable to get jobs as a result of raising the cost of wages are disproportionately larger populations of minorities. If you can impute and infer racial bias because of an adverse impact and then use it to determine the legality of a law, it is unequivocally clear that minimum wage laws should be deemed unconstitutional.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
President Donald Trump told the American public that he wants to keep Obamacare, at least to the extent of the provisions that protect individuals with pre-existing conditions and allow 26 years olds to stay on their parent’s plan.
This is, in fact, a ridiculous comment. Most people (myself included) believe that a competent Health Plan would contain these provisions. And they will. But they will be part of a new plan which will be entirely rewritten. No part of Obamacare should be retained. It needs to be repealed in total.
The new replacement for Obamacare can (and should) have provisions for people with pre-existing conditions to get insurance and even keeping 26 year olds on the plan (possibly), but not in the way the law is currently written. Free market pricing will keep overall costs down, and with respect to individuals whose premiums become unaffordable (due to pre-existing conditions, low income, etc) there could be risk-pools and/or subsidies to deal with the issues. The Obamacare method of forced overpayments and intrusively detailed regulation with perverse incentives on every component of health care, has failed. That’s why we’ve been seeing an exodus of insurers; they simply cannot sustain their fiscal health they way the current system is.
Only by replacing the law with one that focuses on free-market solutions can we make progress in fixing our health system to actually help our citizens and in a fiscally sound way.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, POLITICS, TAXES
The National Review reprinted an article from their archives, first written on May 30, 1994. It recounts the media treatment of George Bush, Sr.’s tax returns from 1991. Not surprisingly, the analysis omitted certain facts from the return to make the Bushes appear to pay less income taxes for a high income earner, in order to satisfy a particular agenda.
It’s worth it to read the old article in its entirety to appreciate how such media manipulation has been going on for at least a generation.
“Donald Barlett and James Steele are two of the most successful journalists in the United States. As reporters for the Philadelphia Inquirer, they have won two Pulitzer Prizes. Their gargantuan nine-part series, “America: What Went Wrong?,” was published in 1992 and reprinted in numerous newspapers. The series became an immediate best-seller when it was turned into the book of the same name.
Barlett and Steele’s new book, America: Who Really Pays the Taxes?, has now been excerpted, syndicated, and run as a series in newspapers throughout the United States. It is undoubtedly destined for the same bestseller status. The authors’ answer to the question posed in the new book’s title is — not surprisingly, in light of their earlier work — that the tax system is rigged against average Americans, who pay more than their fair share of income taxes while higher-income Americans pay less.
This thesis is demonstrably false. Although average Americans are indeed overburdened by taxes, upper-income taxpayers are even more so. Furthermore, although Barlett and Steele have described themselves as supplying “detailed information” that their readers “can get nowhere else,” their economic journalism constitutes little more than slanted anecdotes mixed with statistical sleight-of-hand.
Every year, the Internal Revenue Service analyzes tax returns and publishes data showing how much income was reported and how much tax paid by taxpayers in various income groups. These IRS figures are widely distributed, and no one writing an entire book on the subject could possibly be unaware of them. Barlett and Steele’s avoidance of these hard data is easy to understand, however, because the IRS figures destroy their thesis. In 1991, the most recent year for which the figures have been compiled, the top 1 percent of tax filers reported 13 percent of the nation’s total adjusted gross income (i.e., before most deductions), but paid 24.6 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of taxpayers reported 26.8 percent of the income, but paid 43.4 percent of the taxes. And the top 10 percent — those earning over $61,952 — reported 38.2 percent of the income, but paid 55.3 percent of the taxes. The bottom 50 percent of tax filers, by contrast, reported 15.1 percent of the income, but paid only 5.5 percent of the taxes, leaving 94.5 percent of the tax bill to be paid by those with above-average incomes.
Barlett and Steele contrast the present day with what they view as the golden era of the 1950s, when the top individual and corporate tax rates were higher than they are today. They argue that in recent years higher-income taxpayers have successfully pushed tax burdens onto those who are less well off. What Barlett and Steele fail to mention, however, is that the tax code of the 1950s was so riddled with loopholes that those top rates collected virtually no revenue because hardly anyone paid them. IRS data show that the share of the total tax burden borne by upper-income individuals grew steadily from 1981 to 1991. It is particularly noteworthy that since 1982, when marginal tax rates were cut across the board, the proportion of taxes paid by upper-income people has increased. The share paid by the top 1 percent of tax filers rose from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 24.6 percent in 1991; the share paid by the top 5 percent went from 35.1 to 43.4 percent; the share paid by the top 10 percent rose from 48.0 to 55.3 percent. It is clear, therefore, that the central theme of Barlett and Steele’s book is simply false.
Upper-income Americans pay a disproportionate and growing share of the total tax bill. If middle-income Americans are overtaxed — and they are — it is not because those above them on the economic scale are getting a free ride. The Bushes’ Tax Return Shoddy and uninformed economic analysis is bad enough, but Barlett and Steele’s portrayal of George and Barbara Bush’s taxpaying record can only be described as maliciously misleading. The authors argue that there are “two separate and distinct tax systems,” one for “the rich and powerful” and one for “everyone else.”
The centerpiece of their argument is a comparison of the 1991 taxes paid by the Bushes and those paid by an Oregon resident named Jacques Cotton. Under the rubric of “The Privileged Person’s Tax Law,” they report that George and Barbara Bush earned $1,324,456 in 1991 and paid a total of $239,063 — 18.1 per cent of their adjusted gross income in taxes. They report that Mr. Cotton, on the other hand, paid a total of $6,618 in state, federal, and Social Security taxes on a gross income of $33,499. Barlett and Steele calculate that these tax payments add up to 19.8 per cent of Mr. Cotton’s income, a slightly higher percentage than the Bushes paid. This calculation is set forth under the heading “The Common Person’s Tax Law.” Barlett and Steele conclude from this comparison that the American tax system “responds to the appeals of the powerful and influential and ignores the needs of the powerless.” That’s a rather sweeping conclusion to draw from a comparison of two out of millions of tax returns. But is the comparison a fair one to start with?
It didn’t take much investigation to find out that it isn’t. The Bushes’ 1991 tax return was made public when it was filed, and a number of news stories were written about it at the time. That return was newsworthy because the couple’s income that year was three times as high as in any other year of Bush’s Presidency. Why? Because Barbara Bush earned $889,176 in royalties on Millie’s Book, a humorous look at White House life written from the point of view of the family dog. And why were the Bushes’ taxes relatively low, compared to their income?
Because Barbara Bush donated substantially all of the proceeds of Millie’s Book to charity — $818,803, or 62 per cent of the couple’s income that year. They contributed to 49 different charities, everything from Ducks Unlimited to the United Negro College Fund, but the main beneficiary was the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy, which received $789,176. After giving away more than 60 percent of their income to charity, George and Barbara Bush had $505,653 left, of which they paid $239,063 — 47 percent — in taxes.
Barlett and Steele must have known these facts, yet chose to mislead their readers by portraying George Bush as a greedy, tax-dodging rich person. We wondered why. In fact, we tried to find out why. We left numerous messages for Barlett and Steele, but they declined to return our calls. We faxed a letter to them asking a number of questions, including why they failed to disclose the Millie’s Book income and the Bushes’ extraordinarily generous charitable contributions. But they declined to respond. We also asked them for copies of their 1991 tax returns. Needless to say, we did not get them. But we think it highly unlikely that these tireless campaigners against greed have ever donated 62 percent of their very large incomes to charity.”
The same scenario plays out over and over again when we discuss marginal tax rates, tax cuts, and tax returns. The media plays upon the fact that most Americans don’t understand how everything works and uses that to stir the pot for class warfare. This article could have been written today, and serves as a reminder that these tactics are nothing new.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY
The Wall Street Journal recently published a discussion on the pros and cons of privatizing Social Security (“Should Social Security Be Privatized?”, March 27). Gus Sauter did a decent job outlining the positive aspects of this pathway showing that privatization is better for both retirees and taxpayers. On the other hand, Nancy Altman claimed that privatization would weaken people’s economic security, but filled her argument with erroneous information.
Nancy claims that Social Security is insurance and not a retirement savings plan — but that could not be farther from the truth. A retirement plan is exactly what it is, is how it was sold, and how it is even referred to on the government’s Social Security website. The problem is that the amounts paid in are not invested and therefore not sufficient to pay the promised benefits, which the federal government fraudulently hides by not recording the true cost of the program in the annual budget.
Therein lies the problem. By not doing that with their accounting, the federal government is able to simultaneously mischaracterize Social Security as a tax that is drafted from every wage earner’s paycheck. If wage-earners had been given the option to save and invest their own money instead, they could have easily earned a better return on it; if they wanted more fiscal security, they could buy an annuity.
Nancy goes on to describe Social Security more “universal, secure, fair and efficient — but at the same exact time, her article casually mentions “a projected shortfall.” In fact, the projected shortfall is some $30 Trillion – which in fact shows that it is not universal secure or fair (since it is in fact insolvent), nor it is efficient (it has lower costs because it does not invest the funds it collects). Her solution of making higher earners pay more is duplicitous – it simply has higher earners make pension contributions that inure solely to other people (this is known in the real world as embezzlement).
Nancy claims that a minimum-wage worker pays 6.2% of his income in Social Security taxes, but a person earning $1 million contributes “only eight-tenths of 1% of all their wages.” But this would only be a valid point if the retirement pension was based proportionately on income. And she certainly knows that it is not. As it is, social security is already a welfare system, with higher earners getting benefits much less than proportional to the amount they contribute.
Nancy’s entire rationale for supporting Social Security? “Government is permanent.” It’s too bad that the prior generation’s funding For Social Security has already been spent — the antithesis of permanent. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic. If we privatize Social Security, it would give folks at least a fighting chance with their own money.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM
In this morning’s Washington Post, George Will penned a column proclaiming, “[G]ood news: You are as rich as John D. Rockefeller. Richer, actually.” Will drew inspiration for his column from my good friend Don Boudreaux, who is an economist at economist at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center and creator of one of my favorite blogs, Cafe Hayek.
“Boudreaux asks if you would accept this bargain: You can be as rich as Rockefeller was in 1916 if you consent to live in 1916.”
At various times on Cafe Hayek, Boudreaux explores the grandeur of being a billionaire 100 years ago along with the living conditions of the time and finds a stark contrast. As Will concurs, “Having bestowed the presidency on a candidate who described their country as a “hellhole” besieged by multitudes trying to get into it, Americans need an antidote for social hypochondria. So, thank Boudreaux for making you think about this: How large would your net worth have to be to get you to swap the life you are living in “hellhole” America for what that money could buy in 1916?”
Will’s article is worth reading in its entirety, and Boudreaux’s blog is invaluable for any serious student of economics.
