An Op/Ed That Made Me Cheer! And You Will Too!
The Washington Post hit something of an op/ed trifecta this morning. Reason TV editor in chief Nick Gillespie just blogged Charles Krauthammer's "Don't Touch My Junk!" op/ed, but the one that got me cheering over breakfast was "Strangling innovation with redtape" by confessed Democrat and software entrepreneur Morris Panner. He points out that regulations and legislation emanating from Washington, and of which the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress are so proud, are stifling the true engine of economic growth, technological innovation. Some insights from Panner:
As the fall campaigns wore on, I had found myself listening closely to the Tea Party, nursing the hope that its message would push both major parties to change the way they do business.
To understand my motivation, pick up the November issue of Washingtonian magazine. The annual Salary Survey notes on Page 81 that top trade association leaders (industry lobbyists) make multimillion-dollar salaries to "keep tabs on what the federal government was doing or might do."
These outsize earnings are symptomatic of a disease that is slowly killing the American economy. We are creating so much regulation - over tax policy, health care, financial activity - that smart people have figured out that they can get rich faster and more easily by manipulating rules on behalf of existing corporations than by creating net new activity and wealth. Gamesmanship pays better than entrepreneurship.
As Reason has been pointing out incessantly, the jobs "created or saved" by the stimulus are basically government jobs or jobs in the ever metastasizing rent-seeking sector. Rent-seeking "occurs when an individual, organization or firm seeks to earn income by capturing economic rent through manipulation or exploitation of the economic or political environment, rather than by earning profits through economic transactions and the production of added wealth." This describes most of the activities that occur inside the capital beltway today. Panner continues:
Given the difficulty of starting a company from scratch, and how economic activity is generated today, you can start to see why, if you were a rational market actor, you would be trying to get a piece of the government action.
The combined expenditures of federal, state and local government are rapidly taking over our economy. At the beginning of President Obama's term, government spending made up 35 percent of gross domestic product. Now, it is up to almost 45 percent, which puts us seventh among advanced economies.
And the Obama administration's new regulatory initiatives make this considerably worse in subtle ways.
The two largest pieces of legislation enacted in the past two years - health care and financial reform - are very vague. Take the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It has a broad mandate to protect us from financial abuse, but when it comes to the actual implementation, the Brookings Institution wrote that unelected regulators will decide "almost everything" about how the organization works.
This is highly dangerous to innovation, which depends on clear and transparent rules. The more complexity, the more incumbents are favored. They have the capital to participate in complicated regulatory proceedings. They can hire high-priced lobbyists to present facts in a light most favorable to them. The more incumbents are favored, the harder it is for new companies to gain traction.
For a preview of what a complex regulatory process looks like, consider our tax system. The World Bank ranks the United States 62nd in the world in terms of how easy it is to pay taxes - and with a 16,000-page tax code, this is no surprise. In 2009 and 2010, Capital Tax Partners, a leading lobbyist representing Goldman Sachs, Apple and others, earned about $20 million in fees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Panner then forcefully advocates a campaign for transparency in legislation, regulation, and the tax code. Hopeless dreaming? Maybe not. President Ronald Reagan oversaw the adoption of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which dramatically simplified a similarly luxuriant internal revenue code. Was it just coincidence that the Long Boom began about that time? A good place to start might be Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wisc.) Roadmap for America's Future.
Panner's whole op/ed is well worth pondering.
Trifecta? Well, the subject of my next blogpost will be Congressman Sherwood Boehlert's climate change op/ed.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What is a softward?
I've argued to mnay friends, family and acquaintances that business' are not investing in themselves because of the uncertain tax and regulatory environment. Now I wonder if they are waiting to see what will generate a better return - R&D and capex or more rent-seeking.
These outsize earnings are symptomatic of a disease that is slowly killing the American economy. We are creating so much regulation - over tax policy, health care, financial activity - that smart people have figured out that they can get rich faster and more easily by manipulating rules on behalf of existing corporations than by creating net new activity and wealth. Gamesmanship pays better than entrepreneurship.
Welcome, Citizen!
Bask in the warm light of rationality.
I wonder if they are waiting to see what will generate a better return - R&D and capex or more rent-seeking.
We know what Jeff Immelt thinks.
Krugabe will be along to refute this.
No shit?
I wonder - does the phenomenon of rent-seeking make a compelling arguement for the exclusion of special interests (corporations, unions, trade associations, et al) from the status of 'individuals' with all the free speech and other priviledges that should probably be the sole provence of the electorate?
No. I argues for a small government so weak that it can't remunerate anyone or any organization that seeks to manipulate it.
It can't be done.
Are you suggesting that individuals can't be rent seekers? It calls for a separation of economy and state.
No, not suggesting that but it seems rent seeking might be more effective among like minded seekers?
Yes, and efforts to stop rent-seeking are more effective when coordinated among like-minded political activists. In general, people can achieve more, for better or for worse, working together in a well-organized group.
Rent seeking will happens so long as there are rules to exploit. The more complex the rules the worse it gets. Make a rule to stop rent seeking, and you just added the complexity and thus the rent seeking.
On a much more sinister note, I'm currently reading Three Felonies a Day by Harvey Silverglate. There are so many regulations and laws, and so many are so vague, that basically anyone can be investigated and indicted on something. Add to that the ambition of prosecutors, a lack of oversight by the ABA, and a federal bench mostly composed of former prosecutors, and the local U.S. attorney's office can ruin almost anyone at any time.
Economic growth is important, but not nearly as important as due process, clear law and rules, and a vigorous watch on prosecutorial misconduct. I propose that no prosecutor should be allowed to run for another office until s/he has spent an equal amount of time as a defense attorney.
Rent-seeking "occurs when an individual, organization or firm seeks to earn income by capturing economic rent through manipulation or exploitation of the economic or political environment, rather than by earning profits through economic transactions and the production of added wealth."
Ayn Rand called it "pull peddling" and fictionalized this activity in an obscure novel called Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957. Naysayers and partisans accused her then of gross exaggeration, heartlessness and cruelty and they continue to do so today, despite the evidence of their senses. If they refuse to acknowledge it, it can't be real. But a few of Rand's admirers have been elected to Congress and some of them are actually being heard. Will they be able to do anything about the pull peddlers? That remains to be seen, but there is cause for at least a morsel of optimism.
On a side note, was just watching Daily Show where Stewart was doing a parody of Glenn Beck. In one segment he was showing all of the media that is under Rupert Murdoch's "control". Reason.com was named as one of those.
I don't watch GB, so maybe it was part for the course. But his diatribe on Soros seemed WAAAYYYY over the top, fully justifying The Daily Show parody.
Yeah, I can't watch or listen to Beck. In the segment Stewart was making a counter-point to Becks claims about Soros controlling the liberal media by showing all of the media under Murdoch's control. I just thought it funny he listed Reason as one of those.
Sheesh. I thought I was supposed to be mindlessly following the insidious mandates of the Koch Brothers. Now I'll have to go in for rewiring.
Well, Mr. Panner's article does make me feel bad, but I'm not going to rethink any of my policies, which are totally based on science, because this guy is never going to stop voting for me and my party.
The World Bank ranks the United States 62nd in the world in terms of how easy it is to pay taxes
OTOH, the US is #14 in 'ease of closing a business.'
does the phenomenon of rent-seeking make a compelling arguement for the exclusion of special interests (corporations, unions, trade associations, et al) from the status of 'individuals' with all the free speech and other priviledges that should probably be the sole provence of the electorate?
No. Consider the Iron Law:
Money and power will always find each other.
Rent-seeking grows out the manure of State micro-management. Excluding various associations and entities from excercising fundamental rights is more State micro-management, and hence will result in more rent-seeking, not less.
The only cure for rent-seeking is a smaller, less powerful State.
As in ... maybe fucking eliminate the incentive for this behavior!
Eliminate the IRS, all taxes, and implement one single national sales tax. It's a start and an opportune time, damn it.
Boom. In a nutshell.
I guess I'm wondering if the very existence of these organizations enables rent-seeking. Banning them outright is problematic and not feasible, especially from a libertarian, freedom of association point of view. But the special protections they enjoy is maybe part of the problem, aside from the money-power confluence?
Good points, thanks for the food for thought.
RCD: Absolutely right.
I just read the exact same post with a different title about 10 minutes ago. Why the head games, Ron?
Maybe not. I take it back.
Com'on man: ?
Sorry, Ron, I was mistaken. I was so excited about some available time to read, and comment, that confusion set in. Hence, my "take back."
Authority is a hack we employ because we do not yet understand the nature of the algorithm.
Order is born not of careful coercion, but of unmolested chaos.