This is the myth of the Free Market Fairy - https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/The-Free-Market-Fairy
And the ways that "everything is a market" distorts and destroys are covered in this long read: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-t...
A mathematical market doesn't need to have your political sentiment attached to it. The reality is that there are markets for pretty much everything and we can better analyze many systems by evaluating them as such (including governments), especially as it pertains to supply, demand, and incentives. Don't shut your mind out to different ideas (or try to validate your own incorrect oversimplified world view) just because you heard a teenage libertarian make an incorrect oversimplification of free markets.
But since you brought it up, it seems like you don't understand that a strong legal framework is necessary for a free market -- only the misinformed argue otherwise. In your article's example of global warming, for instance, externalities need to be captured and property rights need to be applied broadly and equally, which they are not in our current system. Most Republicans don't realize this. And most Democrats ignore all the realities and benefits of a free market economic system because the Republicans (and some libertarians) misrepresent it.
But they'll move across borders because of the effects of politics. My parents are looking to move from NJ after they retire due to the high tax obligation- not just income, but gasoline, tolls and property taxes as well. It's more tolerable when you're working but a little less so when your income stream isn't as high.
Perhaps in the EU or some other part of the world, but in the United States, the population is fairly mobile.
People move from state to state all the time because of job opportunities, taxes, family, healthcare, etc...
I saw a statistic while ago that said that something like 30% of Americans moved in the last five years.
It's one of the few ways a government can be kept in check for excessive spending.
Same thing happened with me. I moved my company from Illinois to Washington because of Illinois' draconian taxes and Washington's comparatively business-friendly atmosphere.
Of course, then things started changing in Washington and I've since moved my company to Nevada. But then, that just proves the point about American mobility and state government competition.
Every time you see a trailer registered in Maine there's a very good chance that it was registered there to skirt high registration prices and onerous requirements in it's own state. Maine's making money because other states are such a pain to deal with that people would rather skirt the law.
Google "NH state liquor store" for another good example.
Our state struggles to pay for road upkeep. Obviously we are not making that much money on trailer registrations. Also, IIRC, we were the first state with trailer weight limits and similar laws, meaning we couldn't possibly be THAT concerned with stealing business from other states on trailer registration.
Maybe Maine's lax trailer laws come from everyone and their mother owning a trailer for camping, ATV's and the like? No average Mainer wants to pay huge fees just so they can hit the trails on the weekend.
Well at ~$10/trailer/yr you're not making much money but it's not nothing. The point is that other states make trailer registration such a hassle that people would rather skirt the law in their own state and pay $20/yr to have some shell corp in Maine register their trailers than do it locally. As an aside this is particularly ass backwards when you consider that those states tend to be the states that would benefit most from people buying lighter vehicles for daily use and covering the edge case with a trailer instead of buying a heavier vehicle (pickup, van, etc) for daily use.
IMO the roads are in perfectly good shape for the number of mile/person or miles/tax dollar.
>Maybe Maine's lax trailer laws come from everyone and their mother owning a trailer for camping, ATV's and the like? No average Mainer wants to pay huge fees just so they can hit the trails on the weekend.
Is this the chicken or the egg?
Local businesses like Boeing have been begging Olympia to invest, better maintain infrastructure (for as long as I remember). But those efforts are always rebuffed by the anti-tax jihadists.
Per Logic of Collective Action, the reason tax regimes should be normalized (local, state, national, international) is to minimize cheating (defecting).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action
Supply and demand does not care whether your state votes red or blue. You've put forth two common misconceptions here -- one stems from a lack of economics training (that increasing prices always increases revenue), the other is naive (that the more money the government receives, the better the results).
If WA raised taxes (analog -- prices), demand decreases and fewer people like me move there for the tax benefits. More immediately, fewer large businesses headquarter there. Residents spend most of their money in WA so this reduces sales tax receipts, and transitively, the entire WA money supply. In the immediate term, it's obviously going to raise their tax receipts significantly. But in the long term, the effects could be quite negative, eventually even reducing inflation-adjusted tax receipts, if they really mess things up.
> Per Logic of Collective Action, the reason tax regimes should be normalized (local, state, national, international) is to minimize cheating (defecting).
Exactly what I disagreed with in my original post, but I guess we can agree to disagree... I do not think it is cheating to go somewhere that more efficiently spends your tax dollars. I suspect you think you would rather live in a society where you do not have as many choices.
Just curious- how does Washington get funding without income tax?
Even the american post-problem lawsuit culture will fail to hold internationals accountable, once the managed to get that part of law as negotiatable into arbitration courts.
How somebody can willingly sew on the branch he sits upon- and declare that reasonable- can you expalin this to me?
> recursions
Probably meant "repercussions"
> beeing
being
> obsticle
obstacle
> once the managed to get that part of law as negotiatable into arbitration courts.
Not sure of intended meaning, but "the" is probably "they"
> negotiatable negotiable
> sew saw
> expalin explain
I have nothing to say specific to this case, but there is a market for governments (very distorted since options are very practically limited for most people, although corporations have an advantage here), and we should encourage competition in this market, as well as political markets. Competition results in better products. Washington already won me over [partially] due to not having a state income tax and yet having infrastructure comparable to my previous high-tax state, although Seattle is working hard to change that. I think the US being a federation of states that compete at some level (since it's relatively easy to move between states) is a large reason that the country has been so successful.