by | BLOG
People laughed at Amazon’s Alexa when it was discovered that asking a question regarding Kamala Harris would give you a good positive answer, but asking about Trump would give you a negative answer. We were told that this was corrected, and in fact, if such questions are asked now, Alexa will simply reply that she cannot respond to questions of a political nature.
But what constitutes a political question? I decided to find out. So I asked Alexa to tell me about Kamala Harris‘s tax policy. She responded that she found the following information from a website. Alexa then proceeded for at least 2 1/2 minutes extolling the wonderful virtues of Kamala Harris‘s tax policy — except that it was blatantly partisan garbage and factually incorrect. For example, Alexa described how Harris strongly believed that lower capital gains rates are needed for economic growth. Therefore, she is proposing to reduce the capital gains rate from Biden’s proposal of nearly 50% to a mere 28%. But this is an utter lie! The Capital gains rate is currently 20% and has been since the Obama Administration. Harris’s proposal actually raises the capital gains rate to 33%, despite the fact that she knows it will hurt economic growth.
I then asked Alexa to tell me about Donald Trump’s tax policy. Alexa simply replied, “sorry I don’t have any information about that.” Nevermind the fact that he was a US President for four years and has been a candidate for President for two election cycles!
It is clear that Amazon is disingenuously building partisan politics into its Alexa app, despite its protestations that it is not doing so.
by | BLOG
Kamala Harris has just proposed a reduction in the capital gains rate increase that had been included in the Biden-Harris tax proposal. The reduction was from Biden’s 43.4% proposed rate to a 33% rate, both of which are ludicrous from an economic perspective. (Note that even the 33% rate is a 40% increase from the present rate of 23.8%!). A capital gain rate that high would severely inhibit people from selling assets at a gain. This would actually reduce the amount of revenue to be raised from this tax. Furthermore, the effect of higher taxes slows the economy because those paying the higher capital gains have less money to invest.
Back in 2008 when Obama was debating Hillary Clinton on national TV, Obama discussed with the moderator how raising the capital gains rate would likely reduce federal revenue collections, but he insisted it was good policy anyway — because it was a policy of “fairness”. Yes, knowledgeable people laughed at this, since fairness would actually have required a lower tax rate, and decreasing revenue by increasing taxes couldn’t be more stupid. And as Economics 101 would dictate, we actually experienced a sluggish economy after Obama raised the capital gains rate from 15%-20% (and then tacked on the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax).
I wouldn’t expect Kamala Harris, who is basically clueless on matters of taxes and economics, to have been aware of this. But one would think that her advisers would be.
It should also be noted that the capital gains rate, even at 33%% understates the actual tax burden. That’s because capital gains taxes on individuals is actually a second tax, this income having already been taxed at the corporate level. The effective tax rate is therefore in excess of 40%, and this doesn’t even include state taxes. The astoundingly negative effect of this tax increase on economic wealth can’t be overestimated.
The only saving grace is that this proposal is so economically counterproductive and stupid that it’s not likely to get any traction in Congress; Biden has been trying unsuccessfully to raise capital gains for years. It looks like we have another candidate who puts forth an initiative that she knows has very little chance of realization, but chooses to do so anyway so she can characterize the Republicans as protecting the wealthy while she can claim to protect the middle class.
by | BLOG
The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) have amassed ridiculous levels of control over U.S. ports, leveraging their historical influence, and union monopoly power to dominate port operations nationwide.
One of the most glaring issues with the ILWU and ILA’s monopolistic grip on U.S. ports is the staggering compensation packages their members receive, which are wildly disproportionate to the work performed. Longshore workers, particularly on the West Coast, often earn six-figure salaries, with some senior members making well over $200,000 annually, along with massive benefit and pension plans. This level of compensation, secured through the unions’ ability to shut down entire ports during negotiations, places a significant financial burden on port operations, driving up costs for businesses and consumers alike. The inflated pay and benefits, which far exceed those of comparable jobs in other sectors, are a direct result of the unions’ monopolistic control, creating an unsustainable system that prioritizes union interests over economic efficiency.
Another significant and damaging way the ILWU and ILA maintain their grip on U.S. ports is through their fierce opposition to automation. Despite the clear benefits of increased efficiency, lower costs, and improved global competitiveness, these unions staunchly oppose automation, because it weakens their power (Wikipedia) (APM Research Lab). As a result, U.S. ports are significantly behind their global counterparts in adopting advanced technologies, leading to massive disruptions that affect the entire economy. The unions’ resistance to modernization highlights a deeper issue: when union monopolistic power is left unchecked, it can bring progress grinding to a halt and hold entire industries back from necessary evolution.
If the U.S. wants to maintain its position as a global economic leader, it must address the stranglehold that the ILWU and ILA have on our ports. This is about ensuring that our ports can operate efficiently, compete on a global scale, and keep costs down for American consumers and businesses. We need immediate action to break the union monopoly, modernize port operations, and embrace automation. Policymakers must step in to introduce reforms that will bring balance to labor negotiations, promote technological advancement, and prevent unions from holding the entire economy hostage. America’s place in the global economy depends on it.
