Last night was obviously Snowmaggedon, and I hope everyone is staying safe out there as some of the roads are still nasty. The previous night, Wednesday, we hosted the second Show-Me Institute Saint Louis Book Club meeting of the year. We discussed the classic The Road to Serfdom, by Friedrich Hayek. The central theme of the book is that fascism is a natural outgrowth of socialist central planning. Hayek’s desperate wish was to warn the western nations, especially England and the U.S., not to pursue the path of central planning. Hayek believed that a descent into fascism was more likely than it seemed to his audience: the citizens of non-fascist western nations in 1944.

But all that just makes the book sound like a dated warning against something no one really advocates anymore, right? Well, the book has staying power because of two timeless features which are perhaps separate sides of the same coin: Hayek explains why the price system not only works, but is the best system possible for maximizing individual welfare while also making a strong case for individual liberty and limited government, which Hayek calls (using the connotation of his time), liberalism.

It was a wonderful meeting and a rousing discussion. Book club meetings start at 7 p.m. and usually wrap up about 8:30 or 9 p.m. But Wednesday’s meeting did not end until shortly after 9:30 p.m. — we all had so much to discuss. Here are some of the topics and ideas we discussed:

• Whether a person’s concept of what is possible constrains their action.
• The important distinction between freedom and power: what it is and why it is important that they not be confused.
• This wonderful quote from Adam Smith (introduced roughly by Hayek): “[the regimentation of economic life puts governments in a position where] to support themselves they are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”
• Where Hayek drew the line on the proper role of government and how that might undermine his overall message of liberty.
• Whether market competition is inherently violent (hint: it is not).
• Whether a legal system is necessary for competition, and David Friedman’s “the discipline of constant dealings.”
• The contradiction and ugliness of “competitive socialism.”
• An extended interlude about “Little House on the Prairie.”

The reading for next month is The Machinery of Freedom, by David Friedman, another classic. Friedman is an economics and law professor with a Ph.D. in physics, and the son of free-market titan Milton Friedman. From the Amazon description: “This book argues the case for a society organized by private property, individual rights, and voluntary co-operation, with little or no government.” I am looking forward to some excellent discussion on this one at our March meeting, so please join us if you can (date of meeting to be announced, check here).

The post February Book Club Recap – The Road to Serfdom appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Our discussion started with introductions around the table. Among our 10 attendees, some have been attending book club regularly for years, some have come in the past and had not attended in a while, and one person had never attended. Former Show-Me Institute intern Mary Chism gave a synopsis of the story for the few people who had not read it. Next, I gave a brief summary of the history of intellectuals’ views on the concept of value, from Aristotle’s “value for use”/”value for exchange” dichotomy, to the Labor Theory of Value, to the modern marginalist conception of value, attributable to Alfred Marshall.

We then started addressing the discussion questions I had prepared in advance (with Mary’s help). Leading from those questions, here are some of the topics we discussed:

• Whether anything can be exchanged for anything else
• The how and why of international currency exchange
• Government policy relating to the supply of money and exchange rates
• Whether sweatshop laborers, especially children, are making a free choice to work where they do
• The opportunity cost of reckless behavior
• Risk aversion and diminishing marginal utility of income
• A question from one attendee: “When a participant in a market has more resources, how does that affect that party’s ability to make beneficial exchanges?”

Some topics were discussed on an introductory level and others on a very high level. Many questions were asked and much knowledge shared. In addition to the lively discussion of economics and such, we talked about what our next reading selection should be and when we should meet again. The respective decisions were Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” and Wed., Feb. 20. If you are interested in the book or related topics, stop by our office at 7 p.m. on that evening for pizza, soda, and interesting discussion. See ya there!

The post January Book Club Recap – The Cambist and Lord Iron appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

More background on Hadley Township

More videos in this series
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

The post Who is Hurt by Eminent Domain Abuse and TIF in Richmond Heights? – Part 4 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

More background on Hadley Township

More videos in this series
Part 1
Part 2
Part 4

The post Who is Hurt by Eminent Domain Abuse and TIF in Richmond Heights? – Part 3 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

More background on Hadley Township

More videos in this series
Part 1
Part 3
Part 4

The post Who is Hurt by Eminent Domain Abuse and TIF in Richmond Heights? – Part 2 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

More background on Hadley Township

More videos in this series
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

The post Who is Hurt by Eminent Domain Abuse and TIF in Richmond Heights? – Part 1 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In New York, the city’s chief actuary, Robert North, has proposed lowering the assumed rate of return for the city’s five pension funds to 7 percent from 8 percent, which would be one of the sharpest reductions by a public pension fund in the United States. But that change would mean finding an additional $1.9 billion for the pension system every year, a huge amount for a city already depositing more than a tenth of its budget — $7.3 billion a year — into the funds.

And:

Ailing pension systems have been among the factors that have recently driven struggling cities into Chapter 9 bankruptcy. Such bankruptcies are rare, but economists warn that more are likely in the coming years.

These problems are not confined to New York City. As the New York Times article says, this is a near-term problem for “public retirement systems from Alaska to Maine.” This expensive problem is manifesting in Missouri, and in particular in Saint Louis with the recent discussion of firefighter pensions.

Public employee pensions tend to use an outdated benefits structure that relies on growth assumptions that are unrealistic in the current climate. Public employee retirees are receiving pension benefits that assume growth rates that just do not match reality. This means that current employees are paying into a system that, in its current state, cannot afford to pay them when they retire. Something has to give. Either their benefits will be reduced, the current employees will be asked (or required) to contribute more — taking a salary cut to support their retired peers — or the taxpayers will be tapped year after year to plug the holes in the broken pension system.

Lowering the forecasted growth rate from 8 percent to 7 percent per year is not enough to improve this serious problem. And the longer Missouri policymakers wait to make politically unpopular decisions that will improve the long-term picture, the worse the finances become. Let’s not be like Greece and curry favor with unrealistic future promises to pay. Instead, let’s lead the way on substantial public pension reform at the state and local level by switching all public employees to defined contribution 401(k) retirement plans.

The post Will Missouri Taxpayers Have To Bail Out Public Pensions? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Jennifer Bukowski Is a Show-Me Institute Supporter: Here’s Why appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post An Ellisville Business Owner’s View of the Walmart TIF appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post What Does the Ellisville Mayor Say About the Potential Walmart TIF? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post One Ellisville Citizen’s Take on a TIF for Walmart appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The state legislature is currently considering legislation that would create a land bank in Kansas City with much the same power and authority as the Saint Louis land bank, the Land Reutilization Authority (LRA). Audrey’s policy study on the LRA, “Standstill: Is Saint Louis Hindering Development by Waiting for Large-Scale Miracles?” (published last April) provides important insight into the potential pitfalls of a land bank with expansive authority to acquire and hold property.

The lessons of the LRA are well worth considering for any proposed land bank. Lofty public policy dreams often run afoul of the law of unintended consequences, and the long history of the LRA may serve better as a cautionary tale than an achievement to be repeated.

The post Standstill Part Two? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A couple recent videos:

• Are Missouri Public Schools Failing to Make the Grade? Saint Louis Public Schools Superintendent Kelvin Adams and University of Missouri Professor Michael Podgursky have the scoop.
• If You Play, You Pay I-70 in Missouri may be switching to a toll road, and Show-Me Institute Policy Analyst David Stokes thinks this sounds better than raising gas taxes for everyone.

Both videos are embedded below.

The post Are Missouri Public Schools Failing to Make the Grade? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I have been reading quite a bit about the protests going on in New York City, in the rest of the country (my cousin participated in Occupy Omaha, he’s the one in the suit near the center) and even around the world. The protests and the protesters are not totally united in their goals or their beliefs, but there are certain common threads that bind the movement and represent a shared objective. One of the most common complaints you’ll hear is anything along the lines of “get Wall Street out of Washington.” This is an expression of the idea that business and government should not have such cozy relationships. The word for this concept in popular usage is “corporatism,” and although the protesters may not realize that a free-market think tank represents an ally in their fight, we have published countless studies and commentaries asserting that government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace.

We oppose tax credits such as the Aerotropolis subsidy package, film tax credits, and other publicly-funded business incentives. Indeed, so strong is our stance against corporate welfare that it’s one of our six main policy areas.

The Occupy protests and the people calling themselves the 99% are fired up and out on the streets for a reason. H.L. Mencken said “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under,” but when left and right are aligned in opposition to pervasive policy that hurts all but a very few well-connected people, and when thousands take to the streets to voice their disillusion, there’s a glimmer of hope for real change to the status quo.

The post We’re Not All That Different appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes. The price of legally imported tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act of 1773.

Wait, what?

Let’s go back a bit. For years, the British East India Company enjoyed a monopoly — granted by the British crown — on importing tea to Britain. Because the American colonies were under British rule, this also meant that all their tea had to come from the East India Company — first imported to London, then shipped to America by a third party. At the time, Britain had high import tariffs, which raised the price of all East India Company tea. Colonists could buy Dutch tea smuggled into the colonies  much more cheaply because it never touched a port with high tariffs. In 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act, which allowed the East India Company to import tea to the colonies duty-free. Suddenly, all the people who imported tea to the colonies, legally and illegally, were priced out of the market by a competitor that received special government favors. Some of the people on the boats in Boston Harbor the night of December 16 were concerned about overreaching government authority and a pattern of abuse, but lots of them were smugglers or legal shippers who were rebelling against the loss of their livelihood to a government policy that favored one business at the expense of others.

Here’s another quote from Wikipedia:

In 1772, legally imported Bohea, the most common variety of tea, sold for about 3 shillings (3s) per pound.^[33] After the Tea Act, colonial consignees would be able to sell it for 2 shillings per pound (2s), just under the smugglers’ price of 2 shillings and 1 penny (2s 1d).^[34]

So the colonists got their tea cheaper than before. Where’s the problem? Well, in addition to the problem of taxation without representation, competing businessmen lost out under the new tariff regime. There were other losers as well — namely every British citizen who paid higher taxes because the East India Company had this duty-free dispensation.

My co-workers at the Show-Me Institute have talked about targeted tax credits before. Targeted tax credits are just one way that governments pick winners and losers in the marketplace. When this happens, the logic of the market is overturned and almost everyone suffers — except those the government selects to receive its largess. It’s easy to point to these people and conclude that the tax credit was a success, but maybe that’s because the injured parties so seldom throw a historic party to make their plight known to the world.

The post The Boston Tea Party and . . . Targeted Tax Credits? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Property taxation levels — along with the quality of public services they support — affect the value of houses and other property through a process known as capitalization. All else being equal, a house with a higher property tax bill will sell for less than a similar house with a lower tax rate because the buyer will include the cost of higher future taxes in the offer. On the other hand, people are willing to pay more for a home in a good school district than for the same home in a poor school district. Both cases are examples of capitalization, and the purpose of this case study is to examine its effects on housing prices in the municipality of Richmond Heights, Missouri.

There are two categories of taxable property in Missouri: “real” and “personal.” Real property is land and buildings. Personal property is vehicles and equipment.  Real property is subdivided into three subclasses: agricultural, residential, and commercial. Both the method of assessing real property and the taxation levels levied upon it depend on the subclass.

The assessment of real property is divided into the value of the land itself, and the value of the improvements (e.g. the house or office building) on the land. The values of the land and improvements are added together to form the appraised value. An assessment ratio is then applied to the appraised value to determine the assessed, or taxable, value. The assessment ratio is the multiplier applied to the three subclasses of real property. The ratios are 32 percent for commercial property, 19 percent for residential property, and 12 percent for agricultural property.

However, Missouri law dictates that both the assessment ratios and the tax rates be uniform for the land and the improvement. For example, take two neighboring homes, each with a total appraised value of $200,000.  If one has land valued at $80,000 and a house valued at $120,000, and the other has land valued at $60,000 and a house valued at $140,000, the total taxes paid will still be exactly the same. Please see Table 1 in the appendix for an example of how various appraised values translate first to assessments and then to tax dollars.

Related Links

Companion Policy Study

Commentary: A $ 109,000 School “Voucher”: A Story of Tax Rates and School Districts

Commentary: Changes to Property Assessment System Would Improve Fairness

Video: Property Taxes in Missouri: Police, Fire, Municipal Bands?

The post Homes, Taxes, and Schools: The Effects of School District Rankings and Property Tax Rates on Property Valuations in Richmond Heights, Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Related Links

Show-Me Institute case study on virtual schools.

The post The Future is Here Today appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Transcript

Audrey Spalding: [testimony]

John Lamping: The name of your organization again?

Audrey Spalding: The Show-Me Institute

Bob Dixon: I was just curious in listening to your testimony there about the cost … if you did any sort of analysis with respect to the opportunity cost of — let's say we don't do it, and it goes somewhere else.

Audrey Spalding: I have not done that study. We haven't had time to do that study given that the ”Aerotropolis” tax credits, the amounts in particular, were recently agree upon. I think, I would assume: 1) that the tax credits are necessary to the creation of an international hub; and, 2) that such an international hub would be successful. Regardless, I think anyone can agree upon the fact that there is at least a possibility that this is not successful.

Eric Schmitt: I have a follow-up. Mr. Dixon?

Bob Dixon: I would be interested to, if you're going to present a study like that, I'd be interested to see some sort of analysis on that. Because a lot of times we do things, recently we sent to the governor's desk a phase-out of the corporate franchise tax, but I don't think that your organization was here to testify against that because of the cost. I realize it's a different issue, but it seems to be an opportunity that, if it's lost, we could certainly lose out, and I'd like to see us calculate that cost. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Eric Schmitt: Thank you. And I want to, first of all I want to thank you for coming up here and testifying. I totally disagree with your analysis. You made reference to the $480 million. Are you aware of how long it would take for the $480 million, if everything hit, how long that would take?

Audrey Spalding: Yes, I realize that would not hit immediately.

Eric Schmitt: Do you know how long of a period of time it is?

Audrey Spalding: I believe that it's more than a decade.

Eric Schmitt: Fifteen years. So, if everything hits, if we hit the freight-forward piece, if we're building facilities, if we have industry that we don't have in our state right now, and the only way that they get any of the credit is: they invest in a $20–25 million building, they're operating, they've created jobs, we have the kind of economic activity that we were seeking with the legislation that we don't have, I do not understand how an organization that seems to at least state that they're for economic growth cannot get behind an idea of incentivizing people to come and do things that we just don't have. So, my question is, if this is a real possibility, is it worth doing? If China, which is first-in, is gonna move, and wanna have the ground, which they don't have in Chicago, is that worth having in our state?

Audrey Spalding: Well, I think perhaps we approach this from a different, each from different standpoints, obviously. Now, we're talking here about this proposed international hub, and of course there have been talks of a China hub in other countries, so this would be a wonderful idea. Given that those talks are occurring, isn't it also at least possible that Saint Louis–area developers and other such entrepreneurs would be entrepreneurial enough to seize upon such an opportunity without state help?

Eric Schmitt: But if you don't have, my question to you is, if it doesn't happen, and I know you're seeking some sort of letter of, memorandum of understanding or something. If it doesn't happen, none of this revenue that we would be foregoing — because that's what it is, we're foregoing revenue — which I find it interesting, actually, as a Republican, I hear a lot … really, what we're doing here is we are reducing the tax liability to create and to have an industry in our state that we don't have. I don't find that offensive in any way. People campaign a lot about this, about job growth, about opportunities, about having and creating an economic environment in our state that's conducive to the creation of quality jobs — well, here it is. And being critical of a new idea that's bold isn't anything new or isn't anything unique. I'm sure the steamboat captains of the late 1800s thought that the railroads were something that threatened their interest, or that people would be inconvenienced as their homes or property might be bought out to make way for the new mode of transportation. But guess what? One city got it right. Chicago got it right and Saint Louis was standing on the sidelines. I don't want to be remembered … there's a mural in the Senate, I spoke of this last time, of the first senator, Sen. Benton, who was talking about having that westward expansion of the railroad from Saint Louis to the west coast, and we missed it, OK? What I'm saying this session is: This is important enough that I think we need to stand up for growing the pie. And I know there's going to be plenty of people that poke holes and have criticism, but that's what critics do, OK? It's our job, up here, to seize on an opportunity to grow our economy, and there couldn't be anything more real or more immediate than being in the center of an international trade hub. Any great civilization, any great city has been at the confluence of routes, of commerce, of industry. That's what we have an opportunity for, here. And just because we want to live in an ivory tower and we want to give great speeches about what things might look like if we lived in some utopian world — we don't live in that world. We don't live in that world. So we can choose to compete, or we can be economic isolationists and we can build a great wall around our state. I think it's our job in this committee and in this Senate in this session to break down those walls, to open up trade routes, to create opportunity for Missouri businesses, the ag community. We heard from the pork producers today. This is an opportunity that we haven't seen in this state. So I appreciate, I really do appreciate you coming up here. I appreciate your different point of view. I've seen some of your articles. I haven't had a chance to visit with you; we haven't had a chance to talk about the legislation. I'd be happy to do that with you more. I know that you were probably coming in to a room where there's a lot of support, so I do appreciate that, but I respectfully disagree. Thank you. Any other questions?

Victor Callahan: Railroads were federal stimulus.

Eric Schmitt: Any other witnesses in opposition?

Christine Harbin: [testimony]

Eric Schmitt: Before I go, I just want to make note that it sounds like you're advocating more money for social spending, and, if I recall correctly, the Show-Me Institute was against the autism bill last year.

Christine Harbin: I'm sorry?

Eric Schmitt: The autism bill. I believe the Show-Me Institute had an editorial piece against the autism legislation last year, so I'm glad to see that the Show-Me Institute is advocating more money being spent on social programs now.

Christine Harbin: That wasn't my implication and I didn't work on that particular thing.

Eric Schmitt: Any questions? Sen. Dixon.

Bob Dixon: Earlier in your testimony, you referenced my question of the previous witness, and then in your reference to the St. Louis Business Journal, I believe in their editorial, before I ask you a question I'll just mention: I probably take greater offense at being called "out-state." I'm from Springfield, and I don't have … you know, I'm not in the Saint Louis area, and I support this legislation wholeheartedly because I think it's good for the entire state. But that, I'm more concerned about that mentality that we're not in-state, we're out-state, than I am anything else, because we don't need those kind of divides in Missouri, and that's part of what has hampered progress in the past. But my question specifically is, going back to what I asked of the previous witness, if you would please clarify what you said pointed to that question, because I still don't see anything where we're talking about the lost opportunity, and where that cost has been calculated. And then, specifically what services — and you used the word "services" — would be. That also is a concern, but I won't go into a big statement about that, because I don't believe the state provides "services," or if that fits. But if you could enumerate on what services you think we need to be funding with those "opportunity dollars," if you will, and then, also, how that testimony would have addressed my previous concern.

Christine Harbin: Sure. When I say "services," I just mean other government programs. I'm speaking in very general terms. I'm talking about education …

Bob Dixon: Bureaucracy.

Christine Harbin: Yeah, building roads, fixing potholes, stuff like that.

Bob Dixon: Those basic things I can agree with are functions, but if we're talking about "services," there's a lot of people roaming these halls talking about benefits for this that and the other, which, in my opinion, are not a function of state government. To that point, that answers that question. Specifically to the lost opportunity cost, if you could address that.

Christine Harbin: Certainly. Well, I would say that it's impossible to calculate with certainty what could have been in the absence of this policy. However, what I described in my testimony is … When you have a large public works program like this, when you have a large tax credit program like this, people are forced to, taxpayers contribute more of their earnings, a greater percentage of their earnings towards the program. And so, as a result, it means that they have less money to spend in the private sector.

Bob Dixon: Potentially.

Christine Harbin: Potentially. Because otherwise, they could see a reduction in services, too. It's some combination.

Bob Dixon: Some of that, though, I would have to say, and I'll yield back to the chair, but some of that also comes from the concept that any money not collected by government is actually just tax money that we didn't collect, which I fundamentally disagree with that whole mindset. A tax credit is not, and the courts even have ruled on that in various cases, one in particular, but those are not state dollars.

Christine Harbin: Agreed. I agree that it's not state dollars. I'm just saying that, as a consequence of programs like this, Missourians, taxpayers, have less money to spend themselves.

Bob Dixon: Potentially.

Christine Harbin: Potentially. It's difficult to calculate with certainty how much is taken out, but they're going to eat at fewer restaurants, they're going to spend fewer nights in hotels …

Bob Dixon: The very strong likelihood also exists that, in the long term, because of the economic growth, we could see substantially — and perhaps exponentially — more.

Christine Harbin: Agreed.

Bob Dixon: OK. I just wanted to make sure that, and again, I would like to emphasize that I would love to see some sort of a more exhaustive study on that end. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Eric Schmitt: Sen. Richard.

Ron Richard: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, as someone who's done in Joplin, the lady mentioned my city, who's done most of the economic development for the Saint Louis region, us poor people that are barefoot and corncob pipes have done more to back up Saint Louis and the community in Kansas City than frankly some of the Saint Louis–elected people. And the reason we have is because we understand what's at the other end of the highway, which is Saint Louis. And as they progress and do well, the rest of us will, too. Everything that the Show-Me Institute is for, I'm against, and everything they're against, I'm for — and we're both conservatives, I don't understand that. I mean, we fought for organization on the Bombardier in Kansas City, and it was a stretch, didn't work. This may be a stretch, but I've been to Saint Louis somewhere almost twice a month, as in Kansas City, and I've got business people and friends of mine that live in Saint Louis that are begging for something new and creative. So we take a chance. And I think the chairman has a great opportunity here to take a chance on something. If it doesn't happen, nothing is given away — no tax credit. Granted, the lady's right, tax credits may be a little overwrought, and I think there's a mechanism to address that, and the chairman has a plan for that. But I will say that, until Missouri is ready to take a chance on something new, we'll just be a lackluster state. We will have all our kids move away, our universities will disintegrate, our highways will disintegrate, our schools don't have to worry about opening ‘cause there'll be no one going to school, ‘cause there won't be tax money one of these days. So, I respect the lady's opinion, again I think we take a chance, I think we move forward, and I support the chairman and I will support Saint Louis every time I get a chance.

Eric Schmitt: Thank you. Any other questions? Sen. Lamping.

John Lamping: I'm curious about a couple things, actually. First of all, you were kind enough to quote the St. Louis Business Journal, and I'm curious to know what the Show-Me Institute's opinion would be on their proposed outcome, which is, we simply offer $60 million tax credit to freight forwarders. So what's your opinion of that idea?

Christine Harbin: I didn't study that particular proposal.

John Lamping: Well, that was the second half of the editorial you just quoted.

Christine Harbin: Yeah, sorry. Similar to how you said earlier in response to the question and answer session with Audrey: You're either for it or you're against it. I testified in front of the Tax Credit Review Commission last September. And I have been a very vocal supporter of the total elimination of targeted tax credits in Missouri. And that holds true here, too. I think that Missourians would be better off if they were able to keep their earnings and spend it themselves in the private sector. So, I do not support kind of a halfway …

John Lamping: So you like the idea of suggesting that some of the Business Journal editorial is correct in pointing out the fact, in your opinion, that the rest of the state subsidizes it, but you disagree with the conclusion they come to — you don't support.

Christine Harbin: I agree with their criticisms of the project. I don't fully support their policy recommendation.

John Lamping: Second thing, probably unlike most of the members of this board, I appreciate you coming forward today. As someone for who economics is kind of a hobby, I study … I'm a member of the Show-Me Institute, as well as many other think tanks, as I like to stay abreast and current of different thoughts and ideas. But one of my favorite economic terms that all my teachers used over and over again, and us in business and finance always laughed when we think about this, is this concept of all things being equal. And that's something that, your study of economics sounds like from school. And that's where the theoretical world comes in and they say, "Well, all things being equal, then, well, here's our supply line, here's our demand line, we're going to now go forward with our great discourse and our great study, assuming all things are equal." I think what the chairman spoke to today is the reality that the world, all things are not equal. There's the theoretical and there's the reality. And as much as I enjoy sitting down and going through the theoretical. I think that it helps for, and again, maybe that's your role. Maybe that's your role in the discourse: It's to be the theoretical go-to. Unfortunately, in this capitol building, it's all about the reality and the real, and all things are not equal. And when it comes to economic development in and around this region, clearly all things are not theoretically perfect. So, I appreciate you coming forward, it's a really interesting part of the testimony, and I look forward to your next publications.

Christine Harbin: Can I respond to that?

Eric Schmitt: Sure.

Christine Harbin: To that last point, I agree that economics is separate from natural sciences because it can't really be studied in a laboratory, we're kinda going through it, you know, as we are. However, I think that my focus here is very reality-based. I think that the idea of this particular policy awarding close to half a billion dollars in tax incentives to a small group that is … The hope is that it will encourage trade, but I think the reality is that it won't.

Eric Schmitt: OK, let me follow up on that. If it doesn't, do we expend any tax credits?

Christine Harbin: If it doesn't encourage trade?

Eric Schmitt: Correct.

Christine Harbin: You mean after we go through the policy? After we enact it?

Eric Schmitt: Look, I do want to — and I do appreciate you coming out — I just want to make, I want to understand, know that you understand the bill …

Christine Harbin: Oh, I read it.

Eric Schmitt: So what is your understanding of how the tax credits are awarded for facilities?

Christine Harbin: It was what Audrey outlined. We offer tax credits to support the subsidization of these warehouses.

Eric Schmitt: But how does that work? How does that work?

Christine Harbin: I don't have the text of the legislation in front of me.

Eric Schmitt: Well, you're testifying against the bill. OK? And I'll just explain how it works, which is, you build a building. It's a $25 million building, you operate it, you get a portion, it's screened over five years, each year you have to prove that you're getting the economic activity and the jobs. So, if those buildings never get built, my point is, if the buildings never get built, and we don't have the trade, there's never any tax credit. So, it's a very different reality from what you're explaining, which is, we're spending 500 million and hoping that people come. The reality is, if they come, at that point we have the infrastructure because of the trade. So it's just a, it's different, it's a different sequence of logic here.

John Lamping: Mr. Chairman, my guess is, what she really means to say is that she's against the Business Journal's recommendation to just do the freight-forward piece. ‘Cause that would then show no evidence of successful …

Ron Richard: [Sen. Richard's microphone was turned off, so this portion is inaudible]

John Lamping: Maybe we'll find out in Friday's edition.

Christine Harbin: Well, my response is: If it's such a great idea, then there's a lot of entrepreneurs in Saint Louis with great ideas, with multiple skills — let them take risks and bear the burden.

Eric Schmitt: So, it'll just happen?

Christine Harbin: Yeah, incremental change.

Eric Schmitt: Sen. Dixon.

Bob Dixon: Yeah, I just want to follow up on the comments from earlier, I wanna make it very clear. I failed to thank you for coming. I want to make it very clear that I really do appreciate you coming, as several others have said, and I appreciate the Show-Me Institute for the stands they've taken on several things, principled stands. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, but it takes a lot of courage to come and testify in a room full of people that are in favor of something, testify against it. And I do appreciate it.

Christine Harbin: Thank you.

Eric Schmitt: Any other questions? Thank you again. And I really, I do appreciate it. Obviously I have … I believe in it. You're passionate; I'm passionate; that's what this process is all about. So, I do appreciate you taking the time to come up to Jeff City; it's not easy to come in and express at one of these.

Christine Harbin: Thank you.

The post Testimony on the ‘Aerotropolis’ Bill appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• The afternoon of April 21, from 2:00 to 3:30 p.m. at the University of Missouri–St. Louis, in the James S. McDonnell Conference Room (331 SSB) (building 11 on this map). This lecture is free.
• The evening of April 21, at the Discussion Club. This lecture includes a dinner beginning at 7:00 p.m., which costs $37.00 for those who are not already Discussion Club members. For those who wish to attend the lecture only, beginning at 8:00 p.m., it costs only $5.00. The Discussion Club has provided more information about the speaker, as well as general club information.

I’m excited about these events. I watched this video a few days ago, and discovered that, as speakers go, Caldwell is a delight. I never wasted an opportunity in school to write about Hayek, so I can’t wait to see this speaker live.

The post Bruce Caldwell – the Hayek Expert – to Speak in Saint Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Food Trucks and the Free Market: What are People Saying? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.