Is payday lending immoral?
ReasonTV makes the case that regulating payday lending out of business would hurt the very people that rich(er) liberals claim to want to help.
Regardless of what you think about payday lending, it's a great reminder that ideas, especially well-intentioned ones proposed by liberals, have unexpected consequences.
Read moreHayek on the unique perspective of Austrian economics
After reading former NPRI contributor Doug French's Mises Institute column today about Hayek's famous "Pretense of Knowledge" speech and how it applies to the contemporary debate over monetary policy, I was struck by a key passage from Hayek's original 1974 lecture. Hayek clearly delineates the key difference between the Austrian School of economics and all other schools of thought when he says:
It seems to me that this failure of the economists to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences - an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error.
While Austrian theory, in many cases, leads to conclusions about the appropriateness of particular public policies that are similar to that of the Friedmanites or the public choice theorists, the method of arriving at those conclusions is, for Austrians, dramatically different. The Austrian School is the only school of thought to recognize that the study of economics is a social science for which quantitative theorems might hold true in a general sense but not in an absolute sense. All other schools of thought treat economics as a "hard science" in which professionals can accurately predict future conditions simply by inputing data into an analytic software program.
This approach fails to view the study of economics for what it really is: the study of human action, wherein the actions of every individual are determined by a unique set of circumstances and an entirely unique set of noncomparable preferences and values. When this recognition is the starting point for economic analysis, it quickly becomes clear that the assumptions built into most econometric models are void from the outset. Hence, it is unsurprising when the models fail to accurately predict the impact of particular public policies.
Instead, the Austrian School teaches that the only truths to be known about economics are those that can be derived by logical inferrence or mathematical definition. Human action is based on the "axiom of action" which is that individuals will act in a manner that they believe will bring about their greatest happiness (irrespective of whether they incorrectly choose the means for attaining a specific end). When economic analysis begins with this aprioristic and irrefutable foundation, the conclusions which follow are equally irrefutable provided that the logic or mathematical proofs employed are performed without error. Other schools of thought can never legitimately make this claim because they are based on assumptions, such as the comparison and quantification of individual utility scales, that are fundamentally flawed.
Gansert: No new taxes or fees in Sandoval's budget
Heidi Gansert is the former Assembly minority leader who Governor-elect Brian Sandoval selected as his chief of staff.
Anjeanette Damon interviewed Gansert last week on her "To the Point" show. Damon got right to the point and asked Gansert if Sandoval's budget would include any fee increases.
Gansert was very clear in her response. She twice specifically said that Sandoval's budget would not contain any tax or fee increases.
Damon: Do you anticipate that fee increases will be part of the budget you submit?And just a few minutes later.
Gansert: I don't believe that fee increases or taxes will be part of this budget. I know they won't.
Gansert: Everything's on the table except for the taxes and the fees.See for yourself in the clip below. Gansert's comments are at 3:30 and 5:38.
Enjoy: 'I'm a Denier' music video skewers global warming
Is there a better way to celebrate the news that Al Gore's Chicago Climate Exchange is no longer going to be in the business of carbon trading than with a hilarious video skewering global warming alarmists?
I don't think so. Enjoy.
NPRI and the I-Team examine reimbursement claims
George Knapp interviewed me last night regarding what appear to be excessive travel and meal reimbursement claims within the governor's office. I've posted the interview below.
Clinger: Nevada's projected deficit is $1 billion
State Budget Director Andrew Clinger said Tuesday that Nevada faces a $1 billion revenue shortfall. He expects that about $5.4 billion will be available for the next two-year state government budget, compared with $6.4 billion in the current budget that ends June 30.Many of Nevada's top reporters and journalists have already accurately reported on Nevada's budget situation. For those who haven't, this clear statement from Clinger, the state's budget director, should set the record straight.
And props to Clinger for coming out with a clear and accurate statement on the state's budget situation. I had criticized him previously for causing the confusion over the budget numbers, but statements like this - true and direct - are exactly what's needed to set the record straight and correct the narrative.
Having the truth out there doesn't mean the hard work is over, though. Fiscal conservatives now need to make the case that it's better to decrease spending by about 16 percent and live within our means than to increase spending by up to 30 percent and continue Nevada's pattern of unsustainable spending increases.
Veterans Day: Thank you to all who served
Bonus: Soldiers singing the "Some say freedom is free, but I tend to disagree" cadence.
Sandoval hitting all the right notes on the state budget
Newspapers around the state reported yesterday that governor-elect Brian Sandoval is "very optimistic" about balancing the budget without raising taxes.
"The numbers look very good in terms of our being able to cut. It is not going to be a one-size-fits-all (cut). This is going to be a thoughtful discussion, a thoughtful approach in balancing the budget," Sandoval said.While I have a trust-but-verify attitude when it comes to policymakers, this isn't the only thing Sandoval's said so far that is very encouraging. Last week Sandoval was interview by Anjeanette Damon on her show "To the Point." On the show, Sandoval not only gave a spirited defense of a no-new-taxes budget, but he also articulated why Nevada doesn't have a $3 billion deficit. (Discussion starts at the 2:20 mark.)
Update: I'm having problems with the embedded video. Go here for the video or read the transcript below.
Damon quoting John Oceguera: "When the governor talks to the budget office, the fiscal guys, it'll take 20 minutes to realize what the problem is. When you take $3 billion out, even hard-core Republicans cannot stomach what those cuts are."What's important here is that Sandoval didn't just answer her question. He redefined the question to remove a false premise - that Nevada has a $3 billion hole. As Sandoval notes (and NPRI and many of the state's top political reporters have noted), the $3 billion figure is based on a spending increase of $2 billion, and Nevada's budget deficit is only about $1 billion.
Damon: So are you going to be able to stomach the cuts you're going to have to make?
Sandoval: I have a lot of respect for the speaker and we're going to work together on this. And that's his figure. That $3 billion figure is built on roll-ups from the last budget and that's not the way we can budget. We have to budget from the amount of money we have to spend, not the amount of money we'd like to spend.
Damon: But you still think the state will be able to function going back to 2007 spending levels?
Sandoval: Absolutely. It's been clear - our state population has actually decreased. Enrollment has remained very steady and is actually decreasing, so I'm very confident we can do it.
By removing the false premise from Oceguera's statement, Sandoval is not only able to accurately describe the budgetary reality, he is able to make the reasonable case that Nevada needs to live within its means: "We have to budget from the amount of money we have to spend, not the amount of money we'd like to spend."
Why is it so important that Sandoval is doing this? Because, despite the delusions of grandeur I have about this blog, only a high-profile elected official, like Sandoval, is going to be able to continually set the record straight about Nevada's budget situation and explain to the general public how Nevada needs to trim its budget by about 20 percent and not increase spending by $2 billion.
And this is going to have to be done again and again once the Left starts claiming that believers in limited government don't care about education or want to hurt disabled people.
As Chris Christie has shown in New Jersey, a charismatic governor has the ability to appeal directly to the people and explain things like how a baseline budget and roll-up costs work. This kind of appeal and leadership can thwart the typical lies of the Left and the soon-to-be-forthcoming cries of "Draconian" budget cuts.
Can I guarantee that Brian Sandoval is going to hold the line on taxes? No.
But if he intends to, he's off to a great start.
Murphy on dollar
Robert Murphy of the Mises Institute issues a warning today about the possibility of a pending collapse of the dollar in a very interesting article.
If taxes solved budget problems, California wouldn't be Lindsay Lohan
Listen up, California. The other 48 states - your cousin New York excluded - are sick of your bratty arrogance. You're the Lindsay Lohan of states: a prima donna who once showed some talent but is now too wasted to do anything with it.And what caused California's fiscal problems? Did California fall off the fiscal cliff because of a reluctance to tax - the same reluctance Nevada's leftists often accuse Nevada of having? Not hardly.
After enjoying ephemeral highs and spending binges, you suffer crashes that culminate in brief, unsuccessful stints in rehab. This cycle repeats itself every five to 10 years, as the rest of the country looks on with a mixture of horror and amusement. We'd feel sorry for you if you didn't constantly flip us the bird.
Instead, we're making bets on how long it will be before your next meltdown. Oh, wait - you're already melting down. Opinion Journal's Allysia Finley argues that California is suffering from spending addiction like starlet Lindsay Lohan.
You've racked up nearly $70 billion in general obligation debt, and that doesn't include your $500 billion unfunded pension liability. Your own analysts predict you'll face a hole of at least $80 billion over the next four years.
According to the Tax Foundation, California has the fourth-highest income tax rates in the country (top rate of 10.55 percent), the eighth-highest corporate income tax (8.84 percent), the highest sales tax in the nation (8.25 percent) and property taxes that are slightly below average.
What's the cause of California's fiscal woes? Unsustainable government spending.
The next time a leftist tells you that Nevada needs more taxes, remind him of the shape that California - or Lindsay Lohan - is in.
