Sunday, February 23, 2025

We Are Trading Dollars for Pennies

When I was in grade school I learned of a cruel trick that you could play on younger kids of about 5-6 years old. (I'm happy to report that I never tried to do this.) The trick was simply this: offer to trade them a few pennies for a dollar, with the explanation that the pennies are (numerically) more than a dollar. To a young mind that understands numeric values but doesn't yet comprehend the relative worth of units of money, this seems like a good deal. It is, of course, a dishonest and cruel exploitation of their naivety.

I keep thinking about this trick as a metaphor for this political moment. Voters have been bombarded for decades with messaging that tells them that their taxes are being wasted and that our country can't afford it's current services and the debt that it has accumulated. The solution Republican politicians have proposed has been to trade government spending for tax cuts [1].

The cruelty of this trick, as more people are beginning to realize, is that government spending is mostly "wasted" on...we the people. One way to see this is to look at how much states pay into the federal system vs how much they receive in benefits. It quickly becomes obvious that states like Washington, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and especially California are helping to fund everyone else, while virtually the whole southern United States receives more than it contributes.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the largest and most direct examples of how federal spending benefits citizens, but federal spending extends deeply into the national economy in less obvious ways and helps create demand for entire industries. Again, some of this is direct, but some of it is indirect and easily overlooked until it is gone. For example, Alabama is realizing that cuts to scientific funding could greatly damage one of the largest employers of the state (University of Alabama at Birmingham), the effects of which will ripple further into the Alabama economy. And all of this doesn't even consider the intangible benefits we all receive from federal spending--things that make our lives better without us knowing, or the fact that many government workers are actually underpaid relative to the services they provide. There is a real sense in which federal spending is like fertilizer to the soil of our economy.

The benefit we are to receive for trading these things away is lower taxes. This is a great deal for people like Elon Musk because they have very high income and therefore stand to save a lot in taxes [2]. But they can buy virtually anything they want anyway (including politicians). If you have the median household income, on the other hand, your benefit is a relative pitance. And even then you will likely end up spending it (and even more) on things like more expensive household appliances and cars due to the Trump tariffs, or more expensive tuition because universities have to make up for loss of federal funds, or specialized therapy for your disabled child because public schools have lost funding for those services. And if Social Security, Medcaid, or Medicare get cut, there's no making up for what you lose.

Moneyed interests and politicians are taking advantage of our naivety, having stirred us up to anger against a system upon which we all depend. As a result, the average person is trading dollars for pennies.

Notes:
1. Talking about the federal debt is complicated by the fact that there's not a known threshold above which it becomes a big problem. Even at current levels it doesn't seem to be causing much harm to our country, but that's not to say that it should be allowed to grow without restraint. Republicans have railed against federal debt for as long as I can remember (usually only when Democrats are in power), as if it violates some law of nature or offends God. However, cutting taxes gives away the game. If you truly care about the debt then it makes no sense to cut taxes. If anything, in times of prosperity taxes should be raised a little. And here again, most of that federal debt is owed to...we the people.
2. Financial commentator Ben Carlson once quipped that rich people hate paying taxes more than they like making money.


Continue reading...

Wednesday, February 19, 2025

Am I Allowed to Refer to Trump Supporters as King-men Now?

Now that Donald Trump is referring to himself as a king, and the White House X [Twitter] account is providing the imagery, am I allowed to refer to Trump supporters as king-men, or is that in bad taste (even though he is working to eliminate any checks or accountability on his power) [1,2,3]?


Notes:
1. For example, firing of Inspectors General, turning the Department of Justice into his personal protection/enforcement racket, firing prosecutors who worked on J6 cases, pardoning criminals (including but not limited to J6) for personal political advantage, indescriminate firing of federal employees in violation of law, blocking funding appropriated by Congress, getting the Supreme Court to rule that he can't be prosecuted for any "official actions", his Vice-President floating the idea of ignoring the courts, and more.
2. I'm not an expert, but I seem to remember the Book of Mormon taking a dim view on kings...hence the term king-men. Also I'm not a historian, but I remember that even in the pre-woke days America rejected the idea of kings and crafted the Constitution accordingly.
3. This is all just braggadocio you say? I would be more inclined to dismiss it as such if not for #1 above.


Continue reading...

Thursday, February 13, 2025

RFK Jr is the Health Leader America Deserves, and is Already Set to Fail

That a kook and con like Robert Kennedy Jr would be appointed to oversee the medical science agency that includes the NIH and FDA is abusrd on its face, and an insult to the medical science profession. But that's the America we live in now, so America deserves him. Republican Senators know better. Senator Bill Cassidy was a physician and knows full well that Kennedy is a ludicrous choice. But the MAGA pressure was too great, and after receiving unspecified assurances from Kennedy and the White House (that are likely worth less than Trump and Melania memecoins) [1], he folded along with the rest of the Republican senators (except McConnell).

Whether Kennedy will pursue his jihad against vaccines or not remains to be seen. Aside from fading into irrelevance, the best that one could hope for is that he focuses on advancing other health issues such as chronic diseases like diabetes. Even so, he is set to fail--assuming success means ACTUALLY improving the health of Americans. One reason is that he's obviously not an evidence-based thinker, which means that he's likely to charge down fruitless dead ends, dragging federal agencies with him. But beyond that, chronic diseases are complex, and a good chunk of Republican voters are, by temperment and ideology, ill equiped to address them. Consider the following:

- Republicans hate being told how to live or what to do by the government, even when it's just a recommendation. (See COVID; also when Michelle Obama tried to encourage healthy eating and exercise, Republicans told her to shut the @#$% up.)
- Republicans won't like having their favorite foods tampered with.
- Republicans hate government regulation (to the extent that it doesn't favor them, of course).
- The food industry, and by extention, farmers and the agriculture industry (represented by USDA), will not appreciate Kennedy's agency discouraging use of their products, and will act accordingly.
- Republicans hate any degree of socialzed health care, as well as spending tax dollars that benefit other people. That means that they will oppose helping to make drugs that actually work more affordable and available more broadly.

Furthermore, Kennedy is likely to preside over a disfunctional FDA that make new drugs more difficult to register, continue to demonize the pharmaceutical industry, and continue presiding over the broader damage being done to medical science through cuts to government funding via NIH.

In the end, even if Kennedy pours his heart and soul into chronic diseases, he's unlikely to make any positive contributions.

So good luck, America!

Notes:
1. And when those promises are broken, Cassidy will act shocked...and then probably lose to his primary challenger anyway.


Continue reading...

Saturday, February 08, 2025

A Brief Meditation on Large Numbers and Extreme Wealth: Let Us Weep for Elon

Large numbers are difficult for our brains to comprehend, and I think in some ways our language works against us. We have different terms for different orders of magnitude (thousand, million, billion, trillion), but they don't really help us in our mental comparisons of relative size. Ten billion dollars is a lot of money, but then so is 30 million. And things get even more difficult to comprehend when percentages get thrown around. Taxes, tithing, and other such things give us a gut-level feel for the magnitudes most of us encounter in our daily life, but those gut feelings don't apply as well to larger magnitudes.

Sometimes I like to fall back on scientific notation because it allows you to quickly understand differences in orders of magnitude when dealing with large numbers. For most people scientific notation probably brings back dreaded memories of middle school where you had to convert back and forth between normal numbers. I will spare you a lesson on how to do that. The key thing to understand is that each increase in the exponent means multiplying by 10. For example, you have to multiply 5x10^3 (i.e. 5,000) by 10 four times (e.g. (5x10^3) x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10) to get to 5x10^7 (i.e. 50 million). In other words, 5x10^7 is four orders of magnitude larger than 5x10^3. The following chart relates different orders of magnitude, as we describe them in English, with scientific notation. I have also included Excel's way of expressing scientific notation so that the calculations I show in a moment make sense.

Now let's turn to extreme wealth using Elon Musk as an example. As of this writing, he is reportedly worth about $420 billion (4.2x10^11). For reference, the median U.S. household income is approximately $80,000 (8x10^4). That's a difference of 7 orders of magnitude. On the other hand, the annual federal budget of the U.S. for 2024 was 6.8 trillion dollars (6.8x10^12). That means that the entire federal budget is only 1 order of magnitude larger than Elon's wealth. Also, the proposed 2025 budget for the state of California is just a little less than Elon's wealth at $323 billion.

Let's assume that the government decided to levy a one-time wealth tax on Elon of 50% (half of his wealth!). What would poor Elon be left with? $2.1x10^11 is the answer. No change in the order of magnitude. Let's assume instead that the tax was an agressive 99%. This would be an admittedly severe hit to Elon's wealth, but don't break out your violins yet. He would be left with $4.2 billion (4.2x10^9). That's a drop by 2 orders of magnitude, but still 5 orders of magnitude higher than the median household income. The following chart shows a few different tax rates and what Elon would be left with.
Now I recognize that most of Elon's wealth is in stock and other investments rather than cash. So let's imagine a different scenario. Suppose Elon seeks to just live off of the interest of his wealth. Let's further assume that he's only making 3% per year on his wealth. (For reference, 10 year Treasury bonds are currently at about 4.5%.) That means before taxes he is earning $12.6 billion (1.26x10^10) per year. Let's impose a severe tax of 99%. Now you can break out your violins, for Elon is only left with $130 million (1.3x10^8) per year to live on, which is a mere 4 orders of magnitude higher than the median household income [1].

I recognize that everyone has different opinions about how progressive our tax system should be, but at certain levels of wealth it just becomes a different reality. Yet the pity that the multi-billionare class is regularly able to drum up among us (relative) peasants on their behalf is really something to behold. Even more strange is that someone who doesn't financially need anything from anybody gets to decide what constitutes a good use of taxpayer money [2], and that people think that he has their best interest at heart [3].

Notes:
1. It's also less than half of what he spent to help get Trump elected. Another fun fact is that what Elon spent to get Trump elected ($288 billion) was 7 times more than the entire budget of USAID ($40 billion).[Oops.] Let's do this instead: The USAID budget was about what Elon paid for Twitter.
2. Just as the Founders intended, I'm sure.
3. He doesn't.


Continue reading...

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP