There are a few irrefutable laws of basic economics that are understood by practically everyone. When the price of a good rises, people will buy less of it. This is common knowledge to anyone who has bought anything ever. There is also the law of unintended consequences which states that actions, laws, and policies often have secondary effects that differ from the original actions intentions. We have seen this inevitably played out in most laws passed by Congress. Both of these ideas have been around for thousands of years and the father of economics, Adam Smith, articulated them himself...
Gentle Readers, On the contrary: Ms. Pavlich is correct. If taxing sugary foods reduces the output and consumption of sugary foods, then logically, taxing capital, labor and other production inputs will reduce production and consumption in the economy generally. Her point here is that increasing marginal tax rates can have unforseen adverse economic impacts. She then points out that if liberals can understand how increasing taxes reduce consuption of their disfavored products, they should understand how that affects other economic actions. She is correct. Sincerely, John Lepant Brighton CO
- Video: Hot Air interview with Marco Rubio on border crisis, Hobby Lobby Ed Morrissey 16 minutes ago
- Quotes of the day Allahpundit 10 hours ago
- In Illinois and California, public servants skate in police abuse cases Mary Katharine Ham 10 hours ago
- Will Utah be ground zero for nationwide gay marriage? Noah Rothman 11 hours ago
- Virginia cops hoping to bust teen for child pornography by, er, taking photos of his erect penis Allahpundit 12 hours ago
- NYT: Chelsea Clinton gets $75K per speech Ed Morrissey 12 hours ago