Richard J Grant

Published in The Tennessean , Sunday, June 24, 2012 and Forbes with archives. by Richard J. Grant The mayor of a major Southeastern city recently asked for and got a substantial increase in property tax rates. The hoped-for revenue from the tax increase implies a transfer of $100 million from taxpayers to the local government. The mobilization of substantial public opposition to the tax increase tells us that many taxpayers felt that they could better use that money themselves and that the city government should make better use of the money that it already receives. But a majority of council members saw things differently. None of this is unusual. Different people are guided by different standards, and they also perceive costs differently. In this case, the relevant costs were those perceived by the city officials. They responded to the incentives that they face. Their decisions suggest that they imagine the world, or at least the city, being made better by redistributing the ...

Published in The Tennessean , Sunday, June 17, 2012 and Forbes with archives . by Richard J. Grant When unemployment rates are high, it is not difficult to find the real reasons. Once in a blue moon, we might have no other explanation than that it was a perfect storm of random events, such as technological breakthroughs or social transitions. But in a free society there is no enforced barrier to each person’s adaptation to changing circumstances. In the face of entrepreneurial innovation and energy, any such perfect storm would quickly disperse. The key phrase here is “free society.” Societies with chronically high unemployment tend to be those with governmentally induced disincentives to work or hire. Only government has the systematic power to thwart our natural proclivity to adapt and improve. Only government can subject all industries simultaneously to the effects of its macro policies, such as rising or falling interest rates, the general burden of taxation, the moral ...

Published in The Tennessean , Sunday, June 10, 2012 and Forbes with archives . by Richard J. Grant During much of the past four years, the conventional political narrative seemed to assume that Newton's First Law of Motion applies to the economy. The repeated insinuation was that, “An economy in recession will remain in recession unless acted upon by the outside force of government.” Such a belief on the part of the electorate serves well a president who takes office near the end of a recession. Even if that new president does nothing and manages not to create too much uncertainty, economic activity will recover naturally. The new president would then be associated with the recovery. But to be sure that political credit redounds to the president, a few innocuous policy actions – call it “stimulus” – could be enacted. That is what President Barack Obama threw away. Instead of doing as little harm as possible, or removing the already existing policies and regulations t...

Published in The Tennessean , Sunday, June 3, 2012 and Forbes with archives . by Richard J. Grant    When things have been done a particular way for a long time, it is often difficult to imagine them being done any other way. This was evident in the apparent amazement that a private company might be capable of successfully launching a spacecraft capable of docking with the International Space Station.     The private company, Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX), has now done just that. This is a great achievement for any organization, even for government agencies, which until now had an apparent monopoly on such missions. Clearly the founder and chief executive of SpaceX, Elon Musk, was able to imagine that things could be different. He also had the wherewithal and the will to succeed. The United States government, now burdened by other political priorities and the debt that it has used to finance them, seems to have lost that will. By out...