DRI-313 for week of 3-24-13: The Power to Tax

An Access Advertising EconBrief:

The Power to Tax

The long-running economics news story of 2013 has been the budgetary battle between the Obama Administration and Congressional Republicans. The most recent skirmish featured a clash between Senate- and House-approved budgets – that is, between Democrat and Republican pretenses to reform.

Both sides are pretending because neither side really wants to abandon big government and out-of-control spending. The Republicans are harder pressed because they have long given lip service to concepts of limited government and budgetary control. But both sides want to make a political show of deficit reduction. The Democrats are wedded to their political constituencies unto death and must fund the spending that supports them.

The Republican approach is to cut spending in order to lower government expenditures closer to revenue. The Democrat philosophy is to raise taxes to raise revenue to meet expenditures. The failure of either side to change their position significantly is presumably what the public means when it charges individual legislators with deliberately promoting gridlock and refusing to compromise.

Republicans are adamant in their unwillingness to raise taxes. This attitude has won them a public reputation for being unwilling to compromise. In recent years, the Republican reaction to public disapproval has been to retreat in confusion and dismay. This time, though, they remain intractable. Why are they so unwilling to raise taxes? What is the overarching purpose of a tax, anyway? How do taxes affect economic welfare and growth?

Taxation

Taxation is as old as civilization. Before democratic government, monarchs used it to extract wealth and income from their subjects. It has taken numerous forms, but the underlying principle invariably requires an involuntary levy or exaction paid to government by the governed.

One traditional form is a tax on either the production or consumption of a good or service. This is called an excise tax. This tax may consist of a fixed amount per-unit (a specific tax) or an amount expressed as a percentage of the selling price (an ad valorem tax, where the Latin phrase means “to the value”). It is a good place to start looking at taxes because its simplicity gives us a good look at the general principles of taxation.

The basic economic effect of a tax is to drive a wedge between the price paid by the buyer of the good and the price received by the seller. The result applies regardless of whether the tax is levied on the buyer or the seller. In fact, the resulting market price and quantity are the same regardless of who bears the nominal impact of the tax. This is referred to as the equivalence theorem; it is a fundamental principle of Public Finance, the economic sub-discipline under which taxation is studied.

The words “nominal impact” imply that the people who pay the tax may not necessarily be the ones who bear its real economic burden. This is correct. The ultimate end-in-view behind all economic activity is consumption, now or in the future. Only human beings can consume in this meaningful economic sense. Only human beings can suffer a loss of current or future consumption (e.g., savings). While a non-human entity like a corporation – recognized by law as a “fictitious person” – may pay a tax in the legal sense, it cannot bear the true economic burden or incidence of the tax.

Because both short- and medium-term market demand and market supply are each a function of price, an excise tax affects both the quantity buyers wish to purchase and the quantity producers wish to produce and sell. This means that the incidence of the tax is shared by consumers and business owners.

Consider first the case in which buyers pay the tax. If the tax is (say) $2 per unit of the good, the market price (net of tax) that buyers are willing to pay for every quantity of the good is now $2 less, since their total outgo will include the market price plus the tax. That is, their demand for the good will fall. This will lower the market price, forcing producers to produce and sell a lesser quantity. Alternatively, suppose that producers are liable for the tax. Now their costs will rise by $2 per unit, decreasing supply and increasing price. Consumers will pay a higher price for the decreased quantity.

In either case, consumers will pay more than before the tax – in the first case, a lower market price plus the tax; in the second case, a higher market price inclusive of the tax as reflected in producers’ costs. In either case, producers will receive less than before the tax- in the first case, a lower market price; in the second case, a higher market price whose value is reduced by their higher costs due to the tax they owe. The equivalence theorem states that the buyer and seller pay and receive, respectively, exactly the same in the two cases no matter who “pays” the tax.

In the long run, there is sufficient time for business firms to enter and (in this case) leave the market. Exit of firms tends to increase price by the full amount of the tax and drive profit toward the so-called “normal” level, at which owners receive a return just equal to what they could earn in the best alternative investment of equal risk. Thus, the long-run incidence of the tax may be shared by consumers and suppliers of inputs to the industry, or it may be borne by consumers alone.

Our excise-tax example illustrates general principles applicable to all taxes. Taxes discourage economic activity. They harm people on both sides of the market. Over and above this harm, they distort the prices faced by buyers and sellers, creating what public-finance economists call the “excess burden” of a tax.

Because taxes have these adverse effects, economic textbooks deem them a tool of limited resort. Some goods and services, such as national defense, cannot be produced and sold in private markets. These “public goods” must be produced and administered by government. To finance this activity, taxes are considered expedient.

In practice, however, public goods are very few in number, while government is pervasive. Taxes are numerous and lucrative sources of government revenue. Instead of a necessary evil, taxes have become a threat to our well-being. America today has become a locus classicus of the aphorism “the power to tax is the power to destroy.”

In the United States, the most familiar excise taxes have long been specific taxes on gasoline, cigarettes and alcohol. At the federal level, gas tax proceeds are devoted to maintenance of federal highways. Or rather, that was the original intention; today, about 40% of proceeds are diverted to general revenue for earmarked programs. Meanwhile, our roads and (especially) bridges have deteriorated markedly.

Maintaining vital infrastructure with a funding mechanism that is both ineffective and harmful to growth and prosperity seems quixotic. Recently, some state legislatures have begun to make long-term lease contracts with private firms who operate and maintain roads in exchange for the right to charge tolls and book the revenue. The companies have the strongest possible incentive to keep the roads in good condition and maximize their use. Other countries have already seized this chance to improve their transportation network by relieving government of a responsibility it handles badly.

We now shift from general principles of taxation to evaluation of particular types of tax.

Excise vs. Ad-valorem Taxation

A longstanding source of periodic irritation to Americans is the retail price of gasoline. The usual focus of anger is “the oil companies,” who are popularly supposed to possess monopoly power with which they earn “obscene profits” – modified to read “windfall profits” whenever an increase in gasoline prices accompanies an oil-related event on the national or international scene or “record profits” whenever a quarterly release of income statement date from Exxon Mobil reveals that the company’s total net income has exceeded its previous high.

The complete lack of cogency in these complaints has been demonstrated time and again. Another recurring gripe, however, bears on the issue of taxation. Talk-show callers often gripe that gasoline sellers are quick to raise prices but slow to lower them – even when this appears justified by events. If price increases are merely supply and demand at work, they inquire heatedly, why does the process only work in one direction? Shouldn’t prices be just as quick to fall when supply increases, when costs decrease, when Middle-East tensions dissolve, when demand goes slack?

Nearly fifty years ago, the distinguished specialist in international trade and industrial organization, Richard Caves, pointed out the role played by specific excise taxation in pricing. To modify his example using fictitious numbers for convenience, suppose that the retail price of gasoline is $2 per gallon and the excise tax is $1. Now ponder the effects of a 10 cent price reduction by a seller. In actual fact, sellers pay the tax, so the seller’s gross receipts fall by 10% (10 cents as a percentage of $1). But the price faced by buyers falls by only 5% (10 cents as a percentage of $2). Thus, the purchasing response to a price reduction will be depressed by a price reduction, compared to the case where taxation is absent.

Now consider the opposite case, where price is increased. A 10-cent price increase will increase gross margin by 10% while increasing the price faced by buyers by only 5%. It is the opposite situation to the price-decrease case. Specific excise taxation increases the incentive to raise the price of the good while reducing the incentive to lower price. In other words, it tends to create just the short of world complained of by gasoline consumers – one in which sellers are relatively quick to raise price but slow to lower it!

As Caves mentioned, this flaw could be remedied by changing the specific excise tax to an ad-valorem tax, in which the tax is comprised of a fixed percentage of the good’s selling price. But this hasn’t happened in the 49 years since Caves wrote.

The excise taxes on cigarettes and alcohol have created additional problems by encouraging smuggling and illegal production to avoid payment of the taxes. Unlike the fuel tax, those taxes do not have a clear-cut rationale other than the raising of revenue. Lip service is given to the goals of discouraging smoking, but a prohibitive tax would be high enough to persuade all smokers to quit. Since the tax is set well below this point, its purpose is presumably to raise revenue instead. Another oft-stated goal is to use tax proceeds to defray medical expenses attributable to use of the products, such as medical bills of lung cancer sufferers. Again, this ambition has not been fulfilled. The only reasonable explanation for the persistence of these taxes is to support government – not for any productive or valuable purpose, but merely to provide income for officials and employees.

Income Taxation

This year, the federal income tax celebrates its centenary. From its miniscule beginnings, the federal income tax code has grown into a monstrosity fed and cared for by a huge federal bureaucracy, the Internal Revenue Service. The top marginal tax rate began at 7%, has grown as high as 92% and currently resides at 39.6%.

But the most destructive thing about income taxes is not their height but the indirect costs they impose on all of us. These include the impossibility of definition, verification and collection. The continual additions and modifications to the tax code have made it a byzantine nightmare for preparers; it is proverbial that even pre-eminent experts cannot warranty their interpretations of its provisions. Each year, Americans spend a chunk of Gross Domestic Product on federal tax preparation. This calculation includes the time and effort devoted to tax avoidance.

The biggest irony associated with the income tax is that its central logic was developed by a free-market libertarian economist, Henry Simons of the University of Chicago, while working for the federal government during World War II. In particular, it was Simons who developed the definition of “income” that had made the tax code so baffling and infuriating to subsequent generations. In fact, Simons sought to make the income tax consistent with the concept of real income or utility as defined by economic theory. Alas, his efforts demonstrated that the precise theoretical categories beloved of economists all too often lack real-world referents.

The clearest demonstration of the damage done by income taxation may be migration by high individual earners and businesses away from high income-tax rate habitations. Over the years, some of the world’s wealthiest authors, movie stars, athletes and moguls have become tax exiles. Among the historical sufferers of this brain drain have been Great Britain (movie stars Anthony Hopkins and Michael Caine), Italy (movie mogul Carlo Ponti and star Sophia Loren) , France (movie star Gerard Depardieu) and Sweden (tennis great Bjorn Borg).

Apart from revenue, the other claim made in behalf of income taxes is fairness. For over a century, the Left has maintained that progressive income-tax rates are necessary to insure an equitable distribution of income. The most recent rhetorical recurrence accompanied the Occupy Wall Street movement. The counterarguments, marshaled concisely by authors Blum and Kalven in The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation, are convincing on a theoretical level. Empirically, the utter failure of regimes such as Soviet Russia and Communist China to achieve distributional equality suggests that government power is either inappropriate or insufficient for the task – even assuming it is worth doing.

Property Taxation

Property taxes have long been the primary source of income for local governments and schools in the United States. That constitutes a recommendation only to those employed by governments and schools. The assessments used to determine the property values to which the property-tax rates apply are notoriously inaccurate when compared to actual market values. For years, local politicians used rising property values and the prestige associated with education as levers to ratchet up property taxes and continually increase education funding.

In the late 1970s and early 80s, this gravy train came to a screeching halt. It became clear that continually rising taxes were funding an education system that was failing its customers. Despite fivefold spending increase in real terms over the previous three decades, average test scores were flat or falling. California taxpayers felt so thoroughly victimized that they approved the landmark tax-limitation measure Proposition 13. Other state-level tax limitation measures, such as Missouri’s Hancock Amendment, accomplished the same goals through less direct means.

The concept of property taxation bears at least a family resemblance to the form of taxation most admired by economic students of the subject. Henry George’s “single tax” on land was based on the premise that land is the only resource in completely inelastic supply. Given this, a tax on land cannot discourage its supply. George became the most popular economist of the 19th century by promoting this program of public finance.

Unfortunately, his view was simplistic. While the physical supply of land is indeed in fixed supply, the economically valuable and available supply of land is not. To achieve its goals, the single tax would have to apply only on the undeveloped component of developed land. It is not commonly feasible to sort out this datum and property taxes in reality do not even make the attempt.

Sales Taxes

Just as water seeks its own level, taxation tends to follow the path of least resistance. In recent years, this has been traced out by the sales tax. A tax on retail commercial transactions is easy to implement, verify and collect. This gives it a big advantage over other forms of tax that can be avoided legally, evaded illegally and put off indefinitely.

Ironically, the sales tax has also become popular with the organized anti-tax movement, many of whom have proffered it as a composite replacement for virtually all other forms of taxation. A flat sales tax of X%, where X might be some number between 10 and 25, could substitute for all other taxes by providing government with roughly the same amount of total revenue it currently collects, but without the tremendous costs of collection, verification and monitoring it now incurs. Similarly, citizens would be spared the tremendous burden of preparing, calculating and worrying over the taxes they now pay. And they could fight one single battle against future tax increases rather than having to fight on multiple fronts simultaneously.

One counterargument, perhaps the most telling, is that government cannot be trusted to first pass an omnibus sales tax, then repeal other taxes. We might well be stuck with a vastly higher sales tax on top of our current tax burden. From the Left comes the objection that sales taxes are highly regressive, falling much more heavily on low-income taxpayers whose annual retail transactions form a large part of their incomes and wealth.

Taxes and Economic Growth

In the late 1970s and early 80s, the economic philosophy of “supply-side economics” drew attention to the effect of taxes on economic incentives and growth. Federal tax-rate reductions in the U.S. and Great Britain, followed by the revival of growth and retreat of inflation in both countries, preceded tax-rate reductions in dozens of other countries around the world. To this day, economists argue about the effects of this revolution. The argument centers mainly on the sensitivity of households and business to tax-rate changes, with left-wing economists seeing little reaction and right-wingers finding great responsiveness.

One way to break this logjam would be to examine state-level U.S. data. Policy studies by think tanks like the Heartland Institute, American Legislative Exchange Council, Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation have all found in-migration toward, and higher rates of economic growth in, states with lower tax rates and downward tax-rate trends. These states have also tended to be the so-called “red states,” which have voted Republican in national elections.

The Power to Tax

There is simply no doubt that the incentives created by taxation are perverse; that is, they tend to discourage economic value, welfare and growth. The arguments for taxation are twofold – first, that its undesirable effects are quantitatively small; second, that it is necessary to support activities that would otherwise go begging and needs that would otherwise go unmet.

Both these arguments are remarkably weak. Given the omnipresence of taxes, their aggregate impact can hardly be weak. The case for a tepid reaction by individuals to changes in tax rates does not accord with everyday life or historical experience. And the Left has done nothing at all to convince the public that government programs are necessary, successful and responsive to consumer wants.

It is no wonder that Republicans in Congress are drawing a line in the sand on taxation. The wonder is that they have waited so long. Doubtless their reluctance reflects their unwillingness to face the implications of this decision. The welfare state has come to a dead end. It survives in an artificial atmosphere oxygenated by spending pumped in by government. We can no longer borrow or print the money to spend. Opposition to taxes implies opposition to spending. And that requires a political will that Republicans have not had to summon for many decades.

DRI-285 for week of 11-18-12: Twinkie Recipe: Separate Politics from Economics, Bake Cheaply and Deliver Efficiently


An Access Advertising EconBrief:

Twinkie Recipe: Separate Politics from Economics,

Bake Cheaply and Deliver Efficiently

Contemporary economic theory is now so heavily formalized by high-level mathematics and statistics as to be inaccessible to non-specialists. This has many drawbacks. Among them is the difficulty of integrating the effect of politics on markets. This is one of the few points of agreement between left- and right-wing commentators, who insist that we have a system of political economy rather than a system of markets as such.

Both sides are correct. Unfortunately, this realization causes them to neglect economics rather too much and concentrate on politics too heavily. Faced with a controversy, they tend to choose sides as if engaged in a war – by looking at the political uniform worn by the participants. Their most recent skirmish has attracted national attention. The baker, snack-food and confectioner Hostess, Inc. has filed for bankruptcy after a protracted dispute with its unions. One union in particular, the bakers’ union, has drawn the focus of attention.

The Decline and Fall of Hostess

Hostess was formerly Interstate Brands Corp., of Kansas City, MO, producer of over 30 brands of breads, cakes and snacks. These include legendary names like the Twinkie, Wonder Bread and Hostess Ding Dongs. The current dispute between Hostess and its unions is only the terminal event in a decades-long history of gradual decline. Hostess’s bankruptcy is its second; the first resulted in reorganization and the name change from IBC to Hostess. How could a company with such a distinguished roster of popular brands have fallen so low?

Some of the decline is due to a change in consumer tastes. High-calorie, high-fat, high-sugar snacks have lost favor. The realization that carbohydrate consumption carries just as much danger as fat consumption, if not more, has dampened the American enthusiasm for bread and cake. This is only part of the explanation for Hostess’s problems, though.

The longtime popularity of brands like Twinkies and Ding Dongs allowed the company to endure some highly uneconomical labor practices. The Teamsters Union – one of 12 unions operating under more than 300 collective-bargaining agreements with Hostess – forbade drivers from helping to load and unload their trucks. A stocker had to be employed to drive to the store and stock retail shelves with products transferred from storage. Some brands, such as Wonder Bread, could not share space on trucks with others.

When the falloff in brand popularity hit, Hostess could no longer subsidize this sort of inefficiency. The company has operated in bankruptcy reorganization for most of the preceding decade. The final crisis occurred within the last week, when Hostess announced that it had asked for contract concessions from the baker’s union, having already received concessions from the other 11 unions. It could not operate under the current contract and the law forbade operation without a contract. Thus, it announced that unless the bakers agreed to a deal, Hostess would once more file for bankruptcy and this time would proceed to liquidate the company’s assets.

The bakers refused. The company filed for bankruptcy. A federal judge intervened with by demanding that the parties undergo mediation. That process failed, and the bankruptcy and liquidation will now proceed.

The Left-Wing Reaction

The response on the hard left-wing, particularly among union proletarians, is that once more a company was undone by “vulture capitalism.” Private-equity firms took over the firm and ran roughshod over the rights of honest workers, raping and pillaging the firm’s assets. These commentators are doubtless fortified by the election returns, which suggest that the campaign of career-character assassination against former Bain Capital CEO Mitt Romney worked well enough to secure re-election of a fairly unpopular President.

The commentators looked at the day-to-day uniforms worn by the managers of Hostess and saw “venture capital” emblazoned thereon. Had they looked behind the scenes, however, they would have noticed that many of the particular venture capitalists involved with Hostess were closely associated with the Democrat Party. That’s right – the party of compassion, of equality and fairness, of comparable worth and social justice and the 99% and share-the-wealth and soak-the-rich. How could this be?

Actually, the real question is: How could it be any other way? Take-over artists and private-equity managers are primarily engaged in turning around businesses, not liquidating them. A liquidation is a fire sale, in which assets are generally sold at rock-bottom prices. That is why potential buyers tend to wait out dramas like the Hostess episode rather than riding to the rescue like the Lone Ranger. The rate of return on an asset depends crucially on the price paid for it. Who wouldn’t rather pay a low price rather than a higher one? Private-equity managers are business experts, right enough, but there’s no such thing as an expert in getting a high price at a close-out sale. Ask any business owner who ever went bust or any grieving son or daughter who ever liquidated their parent’s possessions at an auction. It’s pretty tough to profit from this process and it’s just as tough to earn fees from producing outcomes like this, since nobody has an incentive to pay the fees.

No, the people who bought Hostess bought it in order to run it, not break it up. Their record shows they usually succeed in doing that. They’re liquidating Hostess now because they failed this time and there’s no point in throwing good money after bad by failing to play their hole card. That card is the fact that Hostess’s 30+ brands still have considerable market value. In fact, their individual market value – outside the company and freed from the dead weight of union presence – probably exceeds its collective value inside Hostess.

The link between private-equity and the Democrat Party is eminently logical. It is economic, not political; that is, it has no necessary connection with the political sympathies of the vulture capitalists involved. Takeover targets are failing companies that have the potential to succeed. Why does a potentially successful company fail? Answer: it is being dragged down by unions, just as Hostess was. How to overcome this roadblock? Answer: persuade the unions to cease and desist from their uneconomic practices for their own good as well as the good of the shareholders. The best people to do this are not card-carrying Republican Party members or Ayn Rand sympathizers. They are fellow Democrats, who can at least gain the ear of the union bosses and perhaps retain a shred of credibility with the rank and file. And look what happened here – Hostess’s managers succeeded in keeping the company going for over a decade and persuaded 11 of the 12 unions to sign off on their latest resuscitation plan.

So much for the standard left-wing boilerplate view of the Hostess affair. Alas, the view from the right wing is not much more cogent.

The Right-Wing Reaction

Somewhat surprisingly, the right-wing view has gained considerable momentum even in mainstream media. The baker’s union suffers from false consciousness, say the mavens of talk radio. They stubbornly cling to their high union wages and benefits at the cost of their own jobs – and the 18,500 other jobs at Hostess in the bargain! How selfish can you get? Just one more case of what “union bloody-mindedness…at work.”

Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins (11/21/2012) provides a refreshing antidote to the stereotypical thinking of both right and left. He reveals that the Hostess story is a tale of two unions, not just one. It is the Teamsters who are the stereotypical hard-liners, insisting on featherbedding work rules that have driven Hostess’s product distribution costs into the stratosphere. The bakers (the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union) have made repeated concessions, to the point where production costs hardly exceed industry norms.

From the bakers’ standpoint, they are being asked to make even more concessions now in order to protect the current status of the Teamsters, whose work rules are still hamstringing the company. No matter what you may have heard, solidarity is not “forever” – that is merely a song lyric.

As organized under laws mostly passed in the 1920s and 1930s and reinforced by labor regulations handed down for decades by the federal government, a labor union is a cartel. It is analogous to cartels set up by businessmen who sell products and services. Cartels strive to emulate the outcome of a monopoly, which is to thwart the competitive process and attain the same collective profit-maximizing outcome theoretically open to a pure monopoly seller.

In practice, a pure monopolist cannot even approach that theoretical outcome without the aid of government in restricting competition. That is even truer of cartels and much truer of labor unions. That is why the federal government has conferred their coercive powers upon unions. Unions operate to raise wages above the level that would otherwise prevail in a free labor market. The only ways to do that are to artificially hold wages high or to artificially restrict the supply of labor to the market. Unions do one or the other, depending on circumstances.

Both of these practices reduce employment in the unionized sector. This drives workers into unemployment and/or into non-unionized sectors, thereby driving down wages there. Union workers have no particular incentive to sacrifice on behalf of other union workers, who are after all merely workers like the ones whose interests have already been harmed by the union cause.

Jenkins points out that the bakers had a strong case for not agreeing to Hostess’s offer. Why not “hold back further concessions, let the company liquidate, and try their luck with a new owner or owners who might materialize for its bakery operations. These new owners presumably would be in a position to invest cash in marketing and promotion… They would benefit from the deluge in free media that has befallen the Twinkies brand this week. All the more so given that Hostess plans to close or sell some of the bakery plants anyway, that unemployment benefits are generous, that bakery jobs have become crummy-paying thanks to previous givebacks, that the government-run Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. will be assuming the Hostess pensions in any case.”

So it seems that the bakers are not dumbbells after all. They are pursuing their own interests rationally given the cards they were dealt under a system they didn’t design. The right wing is repeating a frequent mistake of blaming victims of progressive socialism for acting in their own behalf. The right should instead expend all its energies working to change the system.

Jenkins observes that “one could always ask about the wisdom of a labor-law structure that causes companies like Hostess to drag on for decades without adapting to their marketplaces.” Indeed. This is a structural consequence of the substitution of politics for economics.

The Vocabulary of Political Theater

The medium of political theater employs a vocabulary of perception rather than one of real meaning. Words are assigned a political meaning unrelated to their substantive economic impact. One such word is “corporation.”

A corporation is a set of meanings that assign claims to various assets. But the political meaning of the word “corporation” describes a personified entity that is “large,” “wealthy,” “powerful,” “insensitive,” and “evil” when remotely viewed, or “paternalistic,” “secure” and (still) “wealthy” when viewed up close – say, from the perspective of an employee. All these traits are those of individual human beings; the political view of a corporation equates it to a person.

When a corporation goes out of business, it closes – often declaring bankruptcy – and its assets are liquidated. When a person goes out of business, he or she dies. A person cannot undergo “asset liquidation” even though a person’s assets can be liquidated. Thus, a person is not a corporation. But because politics views a corporation as a person, bankruptcy is viewed as akin to human death, even though it is not.

Bankruptcy is a process of evaluating the business to determine whether, and in what form, the business should go forward. That evaluation will gauge whether the business’s assets are worth more in combination or singly. This determination is a vital social process because your welfare and mine suffers if business assets are misused. True, we may not be owners of the business, but the real beneficiaries of a business are consumers, who benefit from what the business produces. That, after all, is the whole purpose of businesses – to produce goods and services for consumption.

When companies like Hostess die lingering deaths of a thousand union and bureaucratic cuts, all of us experience imperceptible losses. We pay more for government regulatory and bureaucratic functions. We pay more for the goods and services those businesses produce and we get less. Perhaps we are able to buy less in the coin of a depreciated currency.

Bankruptcy is in no sense analogous to human death. If an analogy is absolutely necessary, the “burnoff” of dead, accumulated brush that occurs in nature would be a good one. This pruning away of dead, useless stuff enables the remaining ecosystem to thrive.

One of the most destructive of all political terms is “economics,” which means “macroeconomics.” Currently, there really is no such coherent economic theory. Even less is there a set of valid, generally recognized policy prescriptions that could be grouped under that heading. The only valid meaning for the term “economics” would be described by the sub-head “microeconomics,” with the proviso that this would include the specialty of monetary theory and the study of business-cycle dynamics. One of the two sub-disciplines of microeconomics is the theory of the firm. That logic is of more help in understanding Hostess than anything provided by the Council of Economic Advisors.

A politico-economic term that has no meaningful economic referent is “job creation.” The purpose of economics is not to create jobs but to create value. Human labor is the key means of doing that, but it is the value, not the labor itself, that is the desired end product. Totalitarian regimes are wonderful job creators; there was no unemployment in ancient Egypt or in Soviet Russia or Communist China under Mao. The trick is not putting people to work; it is getting the most out of the work they do. That is what the “labor-law structure” referred to by Holman Jenkins completely overlooks.

Whither Twinkies, et al?

A few observers are sheepishly acknowledging that maybe we haven’t seen the last of Twinkies after all. The current owners of Hostess intend to sell the rights to produce all those branded products, which portends a bright future for any brand not encumbered by the same union rules that felled Hostess. And it may well mean a brighter future for many of those in the baker’s union as well.