This paper will describe the current dynamic provision of cybersecurity and explain how a technocratic solution like the Cybersecurity Framework could weaken this process and ultimately undermine cybersecurity.
Regulatory impact analysis (RIA) is a tool regulators use to help guide them through the decision-making process when promulgating regulations. The goals of an RIA are simple and straightforward: to assess whether a problem exists that is systemic in nature and therefore requires intervention, to define the desired outcome sought through intervention, to describe the various alternatives that might address the problem and bring about the desired outcome, and to compare the benefits and costs of each alternative.
This paper discusses arguments for and against a securities transaction tax (STT) and evaluates the pros and cons based on a review of empirical evidence concerning the impact of STTs on equity and futures markets (i.e., trading volume, bid-ask spreads, and price volatility) and market efficiency in various countries. I find that an STT would likely reduce trading volume and increase trading cost, but may not reduce price volatility. The size of potential STT revenue depends on the STT’s impact on market activity. A sizable STT on futures and equity markets would not only fail to generate the expected tax revenue, it would also likely hurt the international competitiveness of US equity and futures markets.
The Mercatus Center’s Regulatory Cost Calculator is a practical tool designed to help businesses and their trade associations assess prospective costs of individual proposed regulations before they become final regulations. Armed with this information, stakeholders can provide accurate and credible estimates of the costs of proposed regulations to regulators, legislators and their staffs, the media, and the public policy community.
Alternative presentations of the same budget data tend to offer very different impressions, creating opportunities for a deeper understanding of fiscal health. However, these measures sometimes reflect hidden assumptions about government finances, so even a seemingly neutral way of presenting data often isn’t so neutral. The ability to give different impressions with the same budget data creates the opportunity for policy mischief, as one can tell very different stories about fiscal policy depending on the measure used. We can assess the appropriateness of various spending adjustments by understanding the underlying assumptions in the measures, how to use the measures analytically, and how they might be used strategically. The paper looks at measures of government spending over time, as well as budget forecasts, to demonstrate this logic in practice. It concludes with a case study of President Obama’s fiscal year 2014 budget.
Quivering financial markets in a post-taper economy remind me once again to always follow the money when trying to predict where this world is headed. New Fed chair Janet Yellen spoke truth to power when she testified in February that the Fed had stopped watering the money tree and that US labor markets were a long way from normal.
The primer begins with a short discussion of criteria for evaluating tax revenue options (i.e., economic efficiency, equity, transparency, collectability, and revenue production). It proceeds to an overview of the different types of taxes employed at various levels of government and an evaluation of each tax
against these criteria. The tax categories included here are individual income taxes, consumption taxes, real property taxes, and corporate income taxes.
We argue that in order to answer the challenges that James Buchanan put to contemporary political economists, a reconstruction of public choice theory building on the work of Buchanan, F.A. Hayek and Vincent Ostrom must take place. Absent such a reconstruction, and the significant challenges that Buchanan raised will continue to go unmet.
Income inequality is often attributed to declines in income mobility following the Great Gatsby curve, but this relationship is of secondary importance in determining the factors of income mobility if one considers that changing rules is more important than changing outcomes under defined rules.
We present a short history of the Virginia School of Political Economy in its institutional settings of University of Virginia (UVA), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, or Virginia Tech (VPI), and George Mason University (GMU). We discuss the original research and educational project as envisioned by Buchanan at UVA, its maturity into a normal science at VPI, and its continuation at GMU.