John Tamny remains as confused as a thinker and as obtuse as a writer as he has ever been

John Tamny has made some progress, however.

He now admits that some of his views are "fringe".

Which is amusing, since we've known that since Russell Kirk demonstrated long ago how the libertarians have always been "chirping sectarians".

A case in point of the continuing confusion:

Tamny expresses fawning admiration for George Will's latest collection of his columns, which opens asserting the priority of the study of history.

But Tamny later avers without the slightest awareness of self-contradiction that "The talented people, the unequal people, have a tendency to run from the present and past."

Nostalgia is "dangerous".

Do make up your mind for once, John.

The seemingly interminable review is here.

It's the libertarian crazies among us who are clueless and spoiled, not the cooks, servers and dishwashers

"In other words, if they’re farming or working in a mine, they’re doing so by choice. This should be remembered the next time some spoiled or clueless American politician, economic thinker or worker yearns for a return of the jobs of the past. ... Increased devastation in the U.S. born of lockdowns will be cruel, and if not arrested through a cessation of lockdowns, will reduce Americans to work they previously wouldn’t have been caught dead doing".

-- John Tamny

Libertarian kook John Tamny of Real Clear Markets twists himself into a pretzel about Katie Hill, writes a convoluted mess about it, as usual

Rep. Katie Hill recently resigned her congressional seat after, among other things, a romantic relationship with a junior male staffer was revealed. ... [C]onservatives should stand their ground by defending Hill.

See here.

Never mentions the throuple. Never mentions the abuse of power by one in authority over younger subordinates, both male and female. Never mentions she broke her marriage vows to her husband in the process. Never mentions she and her husband used Congressional staff as a hunting field for their personal kinky sexual predation. Never mentions some of it must have occurred at taxpayer expense, etc., etc., etc.

Libertarian John Tamny displays the anti-intellectualism characteristic of the breed

Here in "The Beatles And Wealth Inequality: A Reminder That Education Is Irrelevant To Success".

It's a veritable cornucopia of wrong, sentimental tosh in pursuit of a thesis.

It ignores the fact that George Harrison went to a pretty good school in Liverpool. It doesn't understand that Ringo was prevented from making academic progress as a child by recurring severe illnesses. It is unaware that Ringo actually was punching a time clock at a day job when he became interested in the drums, and that though it was his life's work he didn't play when the band wasn't recording.

Tamny also makes a mountain out of the molehill of Ringo Starr's two-week hiatus from the Beatles in 1968, which supposedly showed the rest of the Beatles how much they needed him. They didn't. Ringo spent much of his time in studio playing cards while the others whacked out their tracks as the group headed for a breakup.

Tamny would have made a better case using Rush Limbaugh as his example. The man's made piles and piles of dough but routinely slaughters math, attacks college education and has a lazy mind.

Real Clear Markets tonight recycles John Tamny's nonsense about gold and the dollar being related

Hey, if it wasn't convincing six days ago at Forbes, give it another try at Real Clear Markets. That's the meaning of libertarian ideology, as with all ideologies: Repeat until it becomes the truth.

Occasionally gold and the dollar do seem to track each other. This has been so recently under elevated gold prices and repressed dollar prices. Perhaps that's what one should expect when conditions are being manipulated and price discovery is difficult because it is being deliberately obscured. But the so-called correlation between gold and the dollar doesn't hold up over the longer term.

For example, tonight the dollar is trading near its recent closing high, at 91.86. The last time the dollar was near this level was on 11 November 2005, closing at 91.98.

The gold price then in 2005 was not quite $467 an ounce, but tonight gold is nearly $1,218, over 2.5x higher even though the dollar price is nearly identical to what it was almost 10 years ago.

The dollar and gold are not correlated, sorry. 

John Tamny of Forbes spends four pages trying to convince us falling oil prices are always due to a rising dollar

Here, in Forbes:

"Falling crude prices ... were a function of a rising dollar that revealed itself in a major decline in the price of gold that is and was priced in dollars."

I don't know. Maybe he's trying to convince himself, not us. Reminds me of listening to a religious fanatic who can't stop talking. You know the kind. They usually get older and eventually think the better of it and move on. But not John Tamny.

The idea that a falling dollar produces higher oil prices is a nice theory occasionally supported by the data. The trouble is, there are too many examples of the correlation breaking down.

Crude oil prices from the mid-1980s to 2004 were remarkably range-bound between $12 and $35 a barrel despite the huge drop in the dollar from 1985 and its subsequent rise through the early 2000s. The dollar's rise in the late 1990s did nothing to change this. In fact, oil rose in tandem with the dollar then, as it did marginally after 1995 and as it did at the end of the late recession.

The sheer scale of the moves in oil prices is not commensurate with the relatively small moves in the dollar since 2005, nor is the relative tranquility of oil prices before that explained by the out-sized moves in the dollar.

The case is similar with gold, which at the current price of the dollar is still much, much higher than a dollar at this level in the past would indicate is called for. Gold was quiescent for 20 years and a lot lower than now all the while the dollar moved dramatically down and up again and down, off the 85 level. Contrary to Tamny, the recent decline in the price of gold has hardly been major, and hardly enough to convince that it is hewing to the performance of the dollar.

To illustrate how little gold has cared for the dollar's level, just look at how long it took for gold to peak after the 2008 all-time low in the dollar: over three years. And there is also that roughly 13 point rise in the dollar during the late recession when gold also began its long and biggest leg up.

That's not supposed to happen.

Sorry!

John Tamny's Libertarian Myopia On The Plan B Pill

John Tamny, libertarian ideologue extraordinaire, asks us to join him in complete denial about reality, here:

"[G]overnments don’t nor can they exist as our Nanny."

An awful lot of people chafing under Nanny Bloomberg in NYC would beg to differ with that statement.

Does it really need to be pointed out that the mayor of New York routinely acts like he's everyone's mother? I think Bloomberg would be just as amused as we are to learn that his own perception that he even exists is as mistaken as is our perception that he exists. The man does exist, and gets away with what he does because there are plenty of people in the world who want him to, at least in New York City. The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of people just like Bloomberg who are all too happy to accomodate those who want to be ruled. Lately these characters also want in the worst way to be president of the United States for some reason. Just because we wish these things were not so doesn't mean that they are not so. The assertions of success of five-year-plan after five-year-plan in the Soviet Union eventually bowed to reality, as must we.

This sort of denial of reality is what lies behind Tamny's analogy between teen use of alcohol and teen use of the plan B pill, which he evidently advocates not because it is necessarily good but because it is not preventable for the same reason we cannot prevent teen use of alcohol. But this is not the proper analogy. The proper analogy is between the alcohol and the sex, both of which are desirable for the sensations which they provide, which is why it is difficult to regulate them. The reality is that a profound difference exists between the alcohol and the plan B pill: the pill is designed to kill, while the beer is not.

The plan B pill provides no pleasure analogous to beer which makes us desire it, except of a psychological sort such as any medication or placebo may provide. For that reason alone it should be as easy to regulate as any other medication. It alleviates a condition like an aspirin does after too much beer, but it does so by taking a human life. The utility of it masks its gravity.

Deregulation of the plan B pill for minors stands in stark relief against the FDA's own labeling regulations: Warnings "to keep product out of children's reach" must appear on over-the-counter medications like aspirin bottles, they say. My bottle says,  for example, "Reye's syndrome: Children and teenagers who have or are recovering from chicken pox or flu-like symptoms should not use this product." My aspirin bottle even comes with a child-thwarting cap in compliance with the FDA regulations: "Many OTC medicines are sold in containers with child safety closures. Use them properly.  Remember—keep all medicines out of the sight and reach of children." Contrary to its own stated mission, the FDA will be placing the plan B pill in plain sight of them.

One would think that a libertarian, being consistent, would be calling also for the abolition of all such age restrictions on medications and on alcohol, if the plan B pill is to be allowed to minors. But that, too, is conspicuously missing from Tamny's argument, which is sort of what one would expect of the perpetual childishness of the libertarian. Johnny still can't tell the truth. 

If government really no longer has any interest in preventing young girls from murdering their unborn children, which is what the plan B pill debate is really all about, then we might as well disband police departments everywhere.

No wonder gun stores are running empty. The people know too many of us have given up just like Tamny.

Josh Brown Doesn't Think Too Much Of Your Paper Gold

Oliver Cromwell

And he's not too fond of the real thing sitting right in front of you, either, here:

'It is utterly uninteresting to me and gold equity investing - things like paper ETFs and the shares of horrible gold miners - seems to defeat the whole purpose of an end-of-the-world asset class in the first place. I promise, should a torrent of plague and genocide wash across the land on a roaring floodtide of blood and economic catastrophe, your stupid-ass "stock market gold" shan't be left unscathed.  And if I am dismissive of it as an investment, you can imagine how I feel about it as an actual real-life medium of exchange - I live in the United States of America in the 21st Century and I have no interest in exchanging dollars in my savings account for something that hedge funds and sovereign governments can pump and dump at will.'

Well, they can pump and dump worthless paper currencies, too, and are. That's the problem. But as I pointed out here last year, gold has been on a tear ever since paper gold in the form of GLD made its appearance in November 2004. At the time, the US Dollar Currency Index opened the month at 81.82, just a little under where it is today, and then promptly rose, but gold closed that year under $440 the ounce, as it had the year before. After dropping about 4% on Friday to $1,501 the ounce, gold today is presently down another 6% to $1,404, but even that is a price which is much too high even though gold is now technically in a bear market, down over 26% from the September 2011 highs around $1,900.

They have made a market of gold which didn't exist before, and the price went up, up, up, just as they have made a market of mortgages and of houses through securitization and commoditization, and the price went up, up, up, until it came down, down, down.

I'd say gold has about another $1,000 down to go to get to fair value, but if you follow Louis Woodhill a price in the $200s is more like it, and John Tamny rather likes it at $800. Which is to say, there is lots of distortion in markets generally which is preventing price discovery.

Time will tell. So keep your powder dry as they say, if you've got any left. If you don't, maybe you'll have to sell some gold.

I Don't Call Sen. Jim DeMint "Demented" For Nothing

Here he is in all his confused glory:

"I think the new debate in the Republican Party needs to be between conservatives and libertarians. We have a common foundation of individual liberty and constitutionally limited government, and we can rationally debate some of the things we disagree on. I don’t think the government should impose my morals or anyone else’s on someone else, but at the same time I don’t want the government purging morals and religious values from our society. We can find a balance there. It really gets back to decentralization. The tolerance is going to come from decentralization and letting people make their own decisions, but we have to be able to put up with societal stigma of things we don’t like."

No, we don't have a common foundation.

Libertarians believe in freedom as license. Conservatives believe in ordered liberty, that there cannot be true freedom unless we respect the transcendent moral order. In recent times libertarians were easily allied with Democrats on social issues, and finally gave up on that and moved rightward on economic concerns. In doing so they demonstrated their unprincipled shape-shifting for what it is, and that Republicans have been too stupid to reject them. For example, I can't recall a single prominent Republican or so-called conservative descrying the many Republican victories spoiled by libertarians in either of the recent elections in 2010 and 2012. What is more we have idiot conservatives like Sarah Palin telling us we must make room for libertarians in the Republican Party while the Libertarian Party itself is encouraged by the races it has spoiled for Republicans by electing Democrats. This from the woman who vigorously supported John McCain and TARP.

Libertarians are not natural allies of conservatives, but they are of Republicans just as they are of Democrats, because the Republican Party has been liberalized beyond recognition. That a so-called conservative like Jim DeMint is friendly toward libertarianism tells you all you need to know about the state of conservatism in America. Conservatism in America is really and truly dead.

One of the favorite ideas of libertarians illustrates my point. The idea comes by analogy from Adam Smith's invisible hand at work in economics, namely, that the electorate always gets it right (Jude Wanniski). Is there a Republican who voted for Romney saying any such thing anywhere in the country now that Obama is re-elected? I doubt it. But that is the position of John Tamny and his ilk at Forbes Magazine. John Tamny, by the way, would like you to be a completely rootless person, with no house, no wife, no children, paying no property taxes for good schools and contributing no commitment to church and community but owning just two bags and a passport so that his beloved capitalist boss can send you wherever and whenever he needs you.

Good government, as the Scriptures teach, is a terror to bad behavior, not to good. That means there are moral absolutes, against which all libertarians do chafe, now more, now less, starting with "It is not good that the man should be alone."

To Demented Jim there are no such absolutes. He's a moral relativist who doesn't have the courage of his own moral convictions. "My morals" he says, as if they belong only to him and didn't come from the Author of Life. St. Paul, I remind you, ridiculed the Corinthian Christians for such an attitude, saying "What do you have that you did not receive?" Our faults are as ancient as the way of escape.

The Heritage Foundation had become reprehensible enough for having embraced Reagan liberalism, which contributed materially to what became the tyranny of the ObamaCare mandates. Now Heritage is to be headed up by the confused conservative DeMint, if he really isn't just a stealth libertarian. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about Heritage, that it remains to this day so intellectually confused about the meaning of conservatism that it welcomes a libertarian sleeper?

Conservatives should revolt against Heritage's choice of Sen. Jim DeMint, but don't count on it. I reckon there are only 500,000 of us in the whole country, and that's being generous. In the end, Sen. DeMint and Heritage will come to nothing, and the Republicans too if they are not careful.

"SAVE YOURSELVES FROM THIS CROOKED GENERATION!"

"The Electorate Always Gets Things Right", Illustrated From The Bible

"The wisdom of crowds", according to Jude Wanniski, John Tamny and the libertarian quacks of Forbes Magazine, illustrated from the Bible:

"And all the people brake off the golden earrings which [were] in their ears, and brought [them] unto Aaron. And he received [them] at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These [be] thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." -- Exodus 32:3f.

Hey John Tamny! Did The Electorate Get It Right Last Night?

The invisible hand of the electorate and the invisible hand of capitalism cannot be falsified by anything, because they are, well, invisible, here:

Put plainly, Wanniski argued that the electorate always gets things right, or in his words:

“…the electorate as a whole is wiser than any individual member in understanding its interests, it is wiser than any economist or group of economists.”

No doubt many readers are scratching their heads in response to the above, but as Wanniski put it to the late William F. Buckley (paraphrase), “You’re likely smarter than every individual inside a packed football stadium, but collectively those individuals are smarter than you are.” The wisdom of crowds….

We may not have always liked the end result, but the electorate has always been right. ...

The electorate unhappily gave [George W. Bush] another shot; one it presumably came to regret. ...

Obama ... [i]s as a result presiding over a sick economy that should be strong, and as the electorate dislikes failures, Obama’s days in the White House are numbered. ...

The electorate is dying to fire Obama, history says it will given its aversion to failures, yet Romney’s timidity with regard to policies actually meant to grow the economy point to a close win for Romney when it should be a rout. Wanniski’s electoral model says so.

The libertarians are as bat-shit crazy as the Keynesians.

This Is How Democracy Ends Up

"The correct decision, what's best for the masses," democratically elected.

Why is it that someone always must die for the sake of the masses? Jesus had to die for the sins of the whole world. The Jews had to die in the shtruggle for Lebensraum. 50 million abortions have had to be sacrificed for the American way of life.

It would be nice for a change if someone had to live.

Libertarianism is as insanely dangerous as any ideology:

[F]or all of the criticism the Right makes of Leftist-Statist-Big Government ‘knowing what’s best for the masses,’ there does exist a virulent strain of the same arrogance within its own ranks which is totally inconsistent with Wanniskian thinking, which as John Tamny beautifully points to in his piece, can be summed up as the electorate always makes the correct decision and/or the electorate as a whole is smarter than any individual (“…the electorate as a whole is wiser than any individual member in understanding its interests, it is wiser than any economist or group of economists.”).  Overt or subtle as it may be, the belief of most Conservative intellectuals I have met is that they (or their ‘bundle of ideas’) are wiser than the American electorate which suffers from liberal media bias or systemic ignorance.

I'll take my chances alone.

Mitt Romney Reaps What He Sows, Or Something

The liberal President Ronald Reagan once handed down an 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

He learned this rule from his life among the Democrats, whence he came to the Republican Party after he realized his former pals were getting cozy with the commies. To this day it takes forever for the Democrats to abandon one of their own to the wolves, even when they deserve it. Recent cases include Charley Rangel and that wiener guy from New York.

But Republicans still haven't learned this rule, proving the other one about old dogs. One whiff of trouble and a fellow Republican drops you like a hot potato. Hence the Rep. Todd Akin affair, even whose money they've cut off and would cut off his nuts if they could (a little Rev. Jesse Jackson humor there). Mitt Romney, being more at home with liberal Democrats, waited while everyone else piled on Akin before he decided to do so. Not exactly a profile in courage. More like a man torn about what he believes and which party he belongs in. As a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, he really is a fish out of water, seeing that the Democrats are the former and the Republicans are neither.

So it's not a little amusing to see the Republican establishment and Romney's other would be supporters now crucifying Romney for his 47 percent remarks last May, only just recently made public. If anyone will be to blame for Romney's loss in a few weeks' time, it will be the Peggy Noonans, Bill Kristols and John Tamnys of this world, not the conservatives. Rush Limbaugh rightly points out the irony that the conservatives, Romney's fiercest critics during the primaries, are his defenders today against his critics who were his liberal supporters yesterday, who insisted at the time that Romney was the only candidate who could win.

Meanwhile the clerisy rallies round the redistributionist, under whom income inequality has only increased. Spreading the wealth around all right . . . among the wealthy.

Same as it ever was.

Make No Mistake: The Libertarians Are The Enemies Of Humanity

the ideal state of labor under libertarianism

Libertarians are the very enemies of living, especially the likes of John Tamny, who doesn't want you to live in a place for long, have a job there, a house, a family, friends, roots or a history. In short, no country, no patrimony, just rootless searching for the next dollar, until you drop:

Along the lines of the above, Moretti makes the essential observation that quite unlike Italians (Moretti grew up in Italy) who tend to live where they grew up, Americans are constantly moving. Absolutely. Americans are “restless amid abundance” to quote De Tocqueville (as Moretti does), and they are because they’re constantly in search (I would argue this a function of Americans descending from restless immigrants, hence the need for more of them) of better opportunities. If so, the last thing our federal minders would want to do would be to subsidize a stationary state. Housing subsidies are just that, so let’s abolish them in order to facilitate what makes us so great. End of story.

Libertarian John Tamny Excuses LIBOR Low-Balling Because It Didn't Hurt Anybody

John Tamny's logic fails on two counts.

Throwing out low-balled LIBOR rates along with the high rates, to achieve the average reported, misses the fact that the low-balled rates would have been higher if accurately reported, thus aggregating all reported interest rates paid on the low end higher up the ladder, necessarily boosting the level at which the lowest rates were thrown out and skewing the average higher.

Here he says it:

As readers are aware, the banks that participate submit what they estimate to be their cost of credit, and the 4-5 highest and lowest estimates are thrown out. ...

Of course assuming Barclays truly lowballed the number in question, its false estimate wouldn't have factored into the calculation. And if it did, as in if Barclays' estimates actually worked to lower various Libor-informed interest rates, then the borrowers on whom lenders allegedly predate would have been made better off.

No, false low estimates most certainly would have factored into the calculation precisely because their input at their true higher level was missing. 

But the real kicker is, so what if they succeeded at cheating! Big deal! At least borrowers got a better deal!

I don't know how much more morally obtuse you can get.

For some people, nothing more than materialism can be imagined, and they're usually either communists or libertarians. For both of them, the end justifies the means.

John Tamny Exposes National Review's Conservatism As Monetarist Currency Devaluation

For Forbes.com, here:

Beckworth and Ponnuru . . . seek money creation to achieve economic growth, or to quote them directly, “central banks would be required to try to keep nominal spending growing at a certain rate” through 5% annual money growth. They bemoan “nominal spending” that “is currently far below the pre-crisis trend”, and remarkably they believe the Fed can remedy this by virtue of gunning the money supply.

Of course missed by the writers is that all demand in any economy results from the provision of supply first (Say’s Law, as one would expect, merits no mention in their manifesto), so to boost the demand, you don’t devalue the currency as they would like to; instead you stabilize the currency so that liquid investors feel comfortable offering up capital to producers. Schumpeter understood that there are no entrepreneurs (and no production) without capital, but if the desire is to devalue the currency then investable capital is naturally going to dry up; that or migrate toward the inflation hedges of yesterday as it did in the ‘70s and since 2001.

Returning To The Gold Standard, But At What Price?

John Tamny argues here for the ten year average price of about $800 the ounce, against Nathan Lewis who would prefer something closer to the current market price, $1,500 the ounce.

The 1933 US ten dollar gold coin pictured is worth about $300,000.00 in a recent valuation.

Safely Out of the Way, John Tamny Decides to Attack Rick Santorum

In the special pleading voice of one for whom conservatism is only conservatism when it is libertarianism:

"Santorum’s candidacy should have horrified conservatives."

Here, in Forbes.

The problem with libertarianism as argued by Tamny ("as human beings our natural rights are infinite and extend right up to when our freedom of action hurts others") is that both reason and nature tell us that it is not true.

Reason tells us that rights which extend only up to a certain point cannot be infinite.

And Nature teaches us that rights are not infinite. Otherwise the right to life would not end with the grave.

Thus the basic insight of conservatism is metaphysical: life has its limits, a man's got to know his limitations, government which governs least governs best, life is a mixture, into every life a little rain must fall, if it's got tits or testicles it's going to cause you trouble, simul justus et peccator.

John Tamny Believes The Mad Dream of Libertarian Ideology

Briggs forgets his limitations

"[A]s humans we’re free to do anything we want so long as our actions don’t infringe on the freedoms of others. ... [W]e as Americans have infinite natural rights."

-- John Tamny (link)

Just taken at face value the statements are a self-contradiction because the first logically excludes the second.

To qualify the range of permissible action is to limit the range, which therefore cannot be infinite, by definition. In fact, the very resort to so qualifying the range in the first place is a sort of back-handed compliment to the limitations which the underlying order places on all the constituent elements of the world.

Conservatives recognize in the underlying order the divine, which is the basis of the rights. Accordingly the rights themselves have limitations, just as also do we. As surely as our common end is the grave, no one is at liberty to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and to hope to escape arrest. The right to free speech is not absolute.

And to qualify infinite natural rights as somehow American reminds one of nothing so much as the unreflective boosterism of the by-gone era of manifest destiny.

Conservatives recognize their own limitations. Libertarians do not. Therefore the latter are dangerous, especially at the movies.

The Broadest Tax Base Which Can Possibly Be Imagined Implies a Tax Rate of 6.2%

Herman Cain's 999 Plan is focusing attention on the perennially perplexing problem of taxation for the American electorate in 2012. His plan has brought questions about broadening the tax base for tax reform front and center, including: What tax base is large enough to generate adequate federal revenues? and: What rate of taxation is fair?

Herman's big idea is to scrap the entire tax code and start over with three new bases taxed at the same low rate for a temporary period of time, eventually transitioning the country permanently to just one of these bases, taxed at a much higher single rate.

His scheme is quite conventional in that it looks to the existing traditional bases of taxation with which we have been familiar for decades: corporations and individuals.

What is new, however, is the national sales tax, the base for which was fairly sizable in 2008 at $10.1 trillion in personal consumption expenditures [PCE], and running at almost $10.8 trillion annualized through August 2011.

Currently the overwhelming burden of taxation falls on the individual filer whose personal income is taxed in order to provide Social Insurance and Federal revenues, which in 2011 are currently running at an annualized rate of $2.3 trillion, as shown here by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Corporations, excises and tariffs provide puny sums by comparison: less than $500 billion in 2008.

This means that in 2011, Herman Cain's ultimate idea of taxing consumption to replace current revenues of approximately $3 trillion would imply a national sales tax rate of 28 percent on $10.8 trillion in goods and services expenditures this year. That's a pretty hefty rate by comparison with present conditions.

Currently the personal income base on which we exact that $2.3 trillion in Social Insurance and Federal taxes is just over $13 trillion. This implies an overall tax rate of 18 percent. If personal income in that aggregate amount had to do all the pulling to generate the full $3 trillion in revenues, personal income would have to be taxed at a rate of 23 percent to do the same thing as the consumption tax. Not as high, but still much higher than the 9 percent Herman Cain has called for currently, if only temporarily, in deference to the God of the Bible who asked for just 10 percent from his chosen people.

By way of comparison, if there were some way to easily tax GDP, currently running at $15 trillion, the effective tax rate would have to be 20 percent.

So is there a tax base which is broader still, from which we can derive the necessary sums and get that rate even lower?

Given that people by definition receive income in consequence of the conduct of business of one kind or another (aside from gambling, prostitution and bank robbery), it seems reasonable to look at the size of the various tax bases available strictly from businesses, without whom none of the other tax bases would exist in the first place. If we really mean it when we say we want to tax income only once, we need to go to its source, and for nearly everyone in our society, that source is business.

Corporations in 2008 had total receipts of $28.5 trillion, 2.8 times the size of Herman Cain's PCE tax base. It would have taken a gross receipts tax of merely 10.5 percent on this sum to have generated $3 trillion in tax revenue in tax year 2008, a year when revenues were actually lower at $2.5 trillion. That implies a gross receipts tax of only 8.8 percent on corporations in 2008.

In such a world, there would be no more income taxes on individuals, no Social Security or Medicare taxes either, and no capital gains taxes nor taxes on investment income or savings of any kind, and government would not go wanting. Nor would business be constrained by other taxes and fees imposed on it if we were to throw out the current code and replace it with this simple levy.

But the base could be made broader still in order to lower the effective rate even more.

Add in partnerships, which had $5.9 trillion in total receipts in 2008. And S corporations, which had $6.1 trillion in total receipts in 2008. Both of these added to corporation total receipts yields a gargantuan tax base for 2008 of $40.5 trillion in gross receipts.

All of that could have been taxed at a mere 6.2 percent to meet the federal revenue of $2.5 trillion collected in 2008.

No more talk of a flat income tax, nor of a progressive income tax, nor of a consumption tax. No more compliance costs of $450 billion because of the current code. No more lost time equivalent to 3 million full time jobs.  Just one, low, simple, rate on business. That's it.

In addition to God, John Tamny might go for it, too:

"The answer as always is for the government to simply get out of the way. If it must tax corporations, its taxation should be blind in the way that justice is. A flat gross receipts tax would make all corporations equal before the IRS. That would ensure the most economic allocation of capital on the way to rational, market-driven growth."