The Wild West ... the outback ... The new world of the 1800s was a time of true liberty. People stood on their own merits. They won or they lost and they reaped the rewards or swallowed the consequences. There were no cubicle dwelling civil servants hell bent on saving you from yourself. No planning permits no licenses no permissions no heritage overlay no bylaw no regulators no inspectors. And guess what ... it worked

This site is set up to provide a forum for a number of like minded professional economists to post and comment on contemporary issues. There are a number of regular contributors whose bios are made available on the site. Most if not all of these contributors use a pseudonym for the simple reason that they are practicing economists who must take into consideration the commercial implications of posting their opinions.

While some may feel that this is a bit of a gutless approach it is the only way we can ensure free and open discussion without jeopardising our paycheques.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Foreign affairs submission 2261 (Lone Ranger)

This is an excerpt from the book that never was "Carpet Baggers, Nutjobs and Happy Clappers".

10% tax on both sides of all international transactions and printing of an internationally transferable currency, to bring in $2 trillion per year to fund international military [NATO] aid [United Nations], Including a small amount of welfare provided to any person in the world becoming sterile by injection [Gonex].

A 10 per cent tax on both sides of an international transaction is what we call (a) tariffs for the importing country and (b) export taxes for the exporting country. The effect of these taxes would be to decrease international trade and make imported goods more expensive, thereby making all people in all countries worse off.

This would be problematic, as we would need every cent we could get to pay for the “$2 trillion per year to fund international military [NATO] aid [United Nations]”. $2 trillion would buy a lot of international armed forces. But what would they do? Who would the enemy be? Some of us are still quite attached to the idea that the military is answerable to, and takes orders from, elected Governments, at least in democratic nations. Last time we checked, NATO was not a democratic nation state. Who would control it? We suspect that the Chinese may be less than enthusiastic about NATO control over a world army partly funded by their own taxes.

In any case, “international armies” have not exactly got a great track record. Heard of the UN army raping the unfortunate women of Darfur? Is that what our $2 trillion would pay for? What about the UN “peace keeping mission” (we use the term loosely) in Bosnia? The Bosnians would have been better off arming themselves with pitch forks than relying on the UN.

And where did the sterilisation comment come from? Who funds the “small welfare payment”? If I have 10 kids and then get sterilised, do I get a payment? Half the nations on earth now have below replacement fertility – we should be offering to pay anyone who will churn out a kid or two, not sterilise them. Still, if sterilisation is going to attract a payment, it is a shame that the mother of this submission’s author did not think of this option prior to having children.

Back of the envelope:
  • Cost: $2 trillion (at a minimum). Pricey, given that this is around 2.5 times the size of Australia’s GDP
  • Expected impact on average earnings: Negative
  • Expected impact on economic growth: Complete disaster
  • Impact on incentives: Negative
  • Impact on government spending: We would need to print money 24/7
  • Impact on taxation: See all of the above
  • Winners: A handful of meglomaniacs at NATO
  • Losers: Every man, women and child living in Australia


Post a Comment