2 PARAGRAPHS 4 LIBERTY: #205 "LIBERTY IN ELECTION CONTRIBUTIONS"

     Okay, we now have passed all of these election maximum donation laws which have really not particularly helped things, but have made things much more confusing, bureaucratic and, in my view, more harmful to our system of democracy.  I start with the premise that wealthy people who want to donate money to their favorite candidates or issues will, as a practical matter, virtually always be able to do so.  Maybe not directly, but through PACs, (supposedly) independent expenditures or other means.  In addition, if wealthy people are candidates themselves, they can make unlimited contribute to their own campaigns.  So what have been the results?  Much chicanery by wealthy people, unfair advantages for the wealthy as candidates and it has required most candidates who are not wealthy themselves to spend much of their time trying to raise small donations from lots of people.  And how does one raise money?  Often by direct mailers that attempt to appeal to the recipients on one particular emotional issue and also to vilify their opponents on that issue.  And those approaches to fundraising have strongly contributed to the polarization that has now prevalent in our country.

       So what should be done?  If Bill Gates could spend as much money as he would want on his own election campaign, he should also be able to spend all he wants for other candidates or issues of his choice!  It is a matter of free speech – and Liberty!  However, all contributions above a certain threshold amount should immediately be disclosed both to the government election commissions and on the internet.  So then if voters think that a particular recipient candidate is in Bill Gates’ “pocket,” they can always vote for that candidate’s opponent.  But no non-human entities should be allowed to contribute to any candidates or initiatives whatsoever.  Why is that?  This is also a matter of Liberty.  If corporations contribute money, they should first get the unanimous consent of their shareholders because they are spending their shareholders’ money.  And often those shareholders do not support that particular candidate or cause.  Of course, corporations would always be free to appeal to their shareholders to contribute their own money if they wanted, but that would be all they should be able to do.  The same thing would be true for labor unions or any other entities.  This approach engaging Liberty would reduce the chicanery, unfairness, polarization and frustration that is heavily present in our elections at this time and increase freedom of choice.  So, once again, Liberty works!

Quote for the week:  “If you ain’t where you’re at, you’re no place.”  Colonel Potter in MASH

                                                                                                                                                    Judge James Gray (Ret.)

2012 Libertarian candidate for Vice President, along with Governor Gary Johnson as the candidate for President

                     

                                                                              

By the way, these columns are now on Facebook and LinkedIn at judgejimgray, Twitter at judgejamesgray, and wordpress at judgejimgray@wordpress.com.  Please visit these sites for past editions, and do your part to spread the word about the importance of Liberty.

2 PARAGRAPHS 4 LIBERTY: #204 "THE GREEN BOOK"

        Easily one of the best movies I have ever seen is The Green Book, and I strongly recommend you see it as well.  The story is about a working-class Italian fairly racist bouncer (Viggo Mortensen) who becomes a driver on a concert tour from New York City through the Deep South for a truly refined and gifted African-American classical pianist (Mahershala Ali).  The title comes from a book called The Negro Motorist Green Book, which listed facilities like motels and restaurants in the South that would accommodate African Americans and, by 1962, it had a circulation of 2 million people.  But, as one reviewer said, this movie has family, culture, honesty, dignity, genius, respect, stereotypes, racism, music, class, friendship and fried chicken.  What I say is that it has character development almost beyond belief, and that it is simply laden with human and socially-redeeming value.  And, by the way, I understand that the fantastic piano playing was actually all performed by Mr. Ali, and who was born in Oakland!

        But why talk about a movie in this 2 Paragraphs 4 Liberty series?  Because it simply would never have been made except in a free society.  Repressive regimes like in Cuba, China or the former Soviet Union would never have allowed a movie depicting their police or people acting in such a racist and inhumane fashion!  Only with Liberty can artists truly create, publish and thrive in accordance with their own inner drives and desires, and we are all so much better off for it.  Only with Liberty would a film like this ever be allowed to be shown and openly discussed.  I’m sure that each one of us could come up with other similar examples, but my strong example is “The Green Book.”  If you don’t see it, you are missing a rare masterpiece! 

Quote for the week on a Father’s Day Card sent to me by my daughter: “Dad.  No matter what life throws at you, at least you don’t have ugly children.” 

Judge Jim Gray (Ret.)

2012 Libertarian candidate for Vice President, along with

Governor Gary Johnson as the candidate for President

By the way, these columns are now on Facebook and LinkedIn at judgejimgray, Twitter at judgejamesgray, and wordpress at judgejimgray@wordpress.com.  Please visit these sites for past editions, and do your part to spread the word about the importance of Liberty.

2 PARAGRAPHS 4 LIBERTY: #203 "COMPENSATION PACKAGES FOLLOW-UP"

     Last week’s edition brought up the dilemma of the Increasing disparity of compensation packages of high-ranking executives of public companies as opposed to the company’s lowest-paid workers, and requested a response from our “2 Paragraphs” Family as to how to address it (if it should be addressed at all).  Several of you responded, and I am following up this week with some of the thoughts expressed.  For background, one reader pointed out that CEO pay in the US was documented in the year 2000 to be 376 times the pay of the typical worker. In 1995, the ratio was 123-to-1, in 1989 it was 59-to-1, in 1978 it was 30-to-1, and in 1965 it was 20-to-1.  So the disparities have increasingly been wider over time.  (See [https://www.forbes.com/sites/shelliekarabell/2018/02/14/executive-compensation-is-out-of-control-what-now/#754ff6c0431f]).  So what were the suggestions?  One was to have governments implement higher marginal income tax rates for the very top public company earners, which would have a dampening effect upon increasing packages.   A second was to set high corporate tax rates for firms that have very high CEO-to-worker compensation ratios.  A third was for shareholders themselves to vote upon the compensation packages of high-ranking executives.  A fourth was for the law to direct public companies to have these compensation packages set by truly independent boards of directors.  And a fifth was to require public companies to disclose the range of the highest and lowest compensation packages so that the customers could use their inherent power to decide whether to purchase that company’s products and services or not.

     Personally, I think taxes are already too high even for high-ranking executives, and increasing them further would both produce even more “creative” chicanery in the corporate world, as well as having more of our companies take their business operations off shore.  And besides, sometimes these packages result in more innovations and productivity for companies, so society does not want to discourage those results.  The third suggestion has some superficial attractiveness, but the problem is that shareholders would mostly both be acting upon imperfect and incomplete information, and would also be easily subject to manipulation.  So that option is more likely to hinder than help.  And, although it certainly would be a good idea to have a truly independent panel set these compensation packages, probably based upon comparisons with similar executives in other companies, implementing the appointment process would almost be impossible from a practical standpoint.  (Not only is every company different, but imagine how many lawsuits would be filed contesting whether the boards were really independent or not!)  So all of these four suggestions would result in major unintended consequences.  That leaves the fifth suggestion, which rightly relies upon the Free Market for relief.  But to a large degree laws and regulations already require these packages to be publicly disclosed.  The problem is that no one really is digging into and widely publicizing the information, so the beneficial effect of this approach has been minimal.   Accordingly, other than renewing attempts more broadly to disseminate this information in the marketplace, and even though the status quo does sometimes give us some obscene results, I recommend that we leave this problem alone.

Question for the Week: How do billboards communicate?  Answer: In sign language.

Judge Jim Gray (Ret.)

2012 Libertarian candidate for Vice President, along with

Governor Gary Johnson as the candidate for President

By the way, these columns are now on Facebook and LinkedIn at judgejimgray, Twitter at judgejamesgray, and wordpress at judgejimgray@wordpress.com.  Please visit these sites for past editions, and do your part to spread the word about the importance of Liberty.

2 PARAGRAPHS 4 LIBERTY: #202 "A COMPENSATION DILEMMA"

     One of the issues today that appears mainly unfixable but also eminently unfair and even infuriating is the disparity of compensation paid to the lower working classes versus that sometimes provided to some senior employees and officers of some public companies.  For example, when I read about severance packages in the tens of millions of dollars for some senior executives, it feels obscene.  Why should any such person ever be in the position to receive any such payout?  It is simply too much money!  I know that life is often unfair and it is certainly complicated, and that compensation is also often reduced by a progressive income tax system, but this still bothers me.  But the problem is, what can be done about it, if anything? 

       For the government to reach in and put limits upon compensation packages in the private sector both strongly violates my libertarian philosophy as a clear violation of Liberty, and is also impractical.  It is clear that private competing companies must be able to attract and retain gifted, experienced, creative and insightful leaders, and one effective way to do that is to offer attractive compensation packages.  For example, most people probably agree that people like Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Thomas Edison should be well compensated by their companies.  The problem is that the compensation packages of most CEOs and other high officials are mostly set by the board of directors.  But, as a practical matter, most of the members of the boards have their positions at the pleasure of those same officials.  So the relationship can be incestuous and often hollow.  An alternative would be for there to be a law that everyone’s compensation package be capped at something like ten times that paid to the lowest-paid worker.  But formulas like that can bring both substantial philosophical and practical problems of their own, depending upon many variables.  (Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences?)

         I don’t have a proposed resolution for this nagging and sometimes even galling problem, but instead bring it to you for your thoughts and suggestions.  Please respond as to those thoughts.  It is an important issue that bothers many people in our country in a time that we need both to heal many wounds and also have people believe that they are being addressed and healed.  Do you agree?  If so, what should be done about this issue, if anything?

Quote for the week:  “Dreams are not so different from deeds as some may think.  All the deeds of men are only dreams at first.  And in the end, their deeds dissolve into dreams.”                                                                                          Theodore Herzl:  Old New Land (1902)

Judge Jim Gray (Ret.) 

2012 Libertarian candidate for Vice President, along with

 Governor Gary Johnson as the candidate for President

By the way, these columns are now on Facebook and LinkedIn at judgejimgray, Twitter at judgejamesgray, and wordpress at judgejimgray@wordpress.com.  Please visit these sites for past editions, and do your part to spread the word about the importance of Liberty.