Tesla is now worth over $1 trillion. Not only is Tesla the first car company in the world valued at over $1 trillion, but Tesla is now worth more than twice the combined total of Toyota and Volkswagen.
Not bad for a car company that was only founded in 2003.
Tesla joins a string of companies, including Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet, worth over a $ trillion (Facebook is not far behind, valued at a mere $914bn.).
What is so striking about these firms isn’t just their astronomical value. It’s the fact that they are all relatively new companies. Microsoft and Apple were founded in the mid 1970s. Amazon and Alphabet in the 1990s.
What also stands out is that they are all American.
The largest companies in Europe today – Volkswagen, BP, Shell – were big companies a generation ago. Many of the largest firms in America hardly existed a few decades ago. New, too, is the underlying technology and economic activity on which they are built.
Perhaps any European reflecting on this should ask themselves where their Teslas and Apples are? Or perhaps, more important, ponder what their versions of Bill Gates or Elon Musk are up to? Working in local government, no doubt.
It seems extraordinary that any American politician should want to make their country more European.
What about Japan? I cannot think of a single significant consumer innovation to have come out of Japan since the Sony Walkman. Japan, which in the 1970s and 80s seemed so promising as a center of innovation and technological advance, has stagnated. Perhaps having an economy dominated by zombie companies, weighed down by debt but sustained by cheap credit, isn’t a recipe for success after all.
America has been the epicenter of innovation precisely because Microsoft, then Apple, were able to compete with IBM. Tesla with General Motors. Dozens of start-ups against AT&T. In Japan and Europe, the equivalents of IBM, GMs and AT&T were able to keep out the competition.
For America the lesson is clear; avoid becoming more European or more Japanese. Keep taxes and regulation low. Make sure that however economically important they might be, no big business is able to rig the market through the rule book.
Retirement is one of the critical financial elements in the lives of thousands of Mississippi. With many Mississippians being employed by the state and local governments, the status of the state’s Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) is extremely important.
According to numbers provided by PER, approximately 13 percent of the total workforce members in the state are active members of the PERS system. This equates to approximately 150,000 Mississippians. Additionally, the system has approximately 112,000 retirees. According to the United States Census Bureau, 488,000 Mississippians are over 65 years of age, and about 11 percent of them are PERS retirees. In all, about 1 in 10 Mississippians are either active members or retirees under PERS. Despite the importance that PERS carries for so many Mississippians, it has not done very well.
The structure of the Public Employee Retirement System is based on a system of Defined Benefit Plans. Under this structure, government employees have a defined percentage of their income directed to the PER system (currently 9 percent). The government entity the employee works for also contributes to the fund via a match that is calculated as a percentage of the employee’s income (currently 17.4). In return, PERS invests the funds and guarantees that the employee will receive defined retirement pension benefits, even if the funds do not provide a good return on investment.
From a limited viewpoint, it may appear that PERS is doing relatively well with its investment returns. The fund saw a 32 percent increase in investment value from June 2020 to June 2021. However, it is important to note that the stock market was in a rebound from the historic effects of 2020 Covid. Thus while the fund saw large increases in 2021, annual investment returns in 2020 were only 3 percent. Furthermore, these increases are not enough to fully address the systemic issues that have caused a gap between the fund’s obligations and actual investment returns.
According to PERS 2020 fiscal year report, the fund had assets with a market value of $28.4 billion and total liabilities of $47.4 billion. This means that the investments were only supporting 61 percent of the total retirement liabilities. According to a recent report issued by the American Legislative Exchange Council, the state retirement system is the 15th most underfunded in the nation on a per capita basis. The state also has the highest amount in the country for unfunded liabilities as a percentage of GDP.
Although the policy issues surrounding the system are extremely complex, some fundamental reforms could be made to help address the level of underfunded liabilities. In addition, the state should also consider reforms that will provide government employees with greater retirement flexibility.
In the first place, it is important to consider the issues surrounding the assumed rate of return utilized by PER. In states across the country, an increasing amount of retirees and major market fluctuations such as the 2008 Crisis and the Covid impact in 2020 have shown many of the assumed rates of return to be higher than the actual annual averages. In light of this, some have called for PER administrators to lower the assumed rate of return to better account for the element of investment risk.
This alternative model that directly factors in risk is known as “risk-adjusted discounting.” Indeed, most of the retirement systems in states across the country have been all but forced to lower their assumed rates of return due to volatile market conditions. However, best practices have these changes implemented in the assumed rate of return without being forced to do so by the market.
Furthermore, rather than centralizing all pension investments into one centralized state agency, Mississippi should consider implementing reforms that would allow government employees more freedom with their retirement contributions.
Some states, such as Utah and Michigan, allow their government employees to opt to allocate funds to a 401(k) style Defined Contribution Plan. This gives state employees flexibility on what they would like to invest in for retirement if they choose to opt out of the standard Defined Benefit Plan. While 401(k) type plans do not have the same guaranteed return, employees have the benefits of greater growth potential, more portability, and the ability to have more personal responsibility over their retirement future.
Fiscal responsibility, good government, and sound public policy are important in ensuring that the public retirement system can best serve government employees. By implementing balanced reforms, the state could see a healthier retirement system that can serve its employees for years into the future.
In 2019, the Mississippi legislature passed the Broadband Enabling Act. This legislation gave Electric Power Associations (EPAs) the legal permission to use their existing infrastructure to bring broadband service to their ratepayers. While this has seen some success in expanding broadband access in the state, some key accountability reforms could cause better outcomes.
To grasp how broadband services are being brought to citizens via the EPAs, it is important to understand how they are structured. Most of the EPAs in Mississippi were founded in the 1930s and 1940s to bring electricity to rural areas. These entities are non-profit organizations operating under the direction of elected board members. They are also known as “electric cooperatives” or “electric co-ops.” They have a monopoly over their service areas, and the costs of operation determine the electricity rates that members pay.
This provides the context for the broadband rollouts authorized by the Broadband Enabling Act. Before the Act, EPAs were not permitted by law to operate as broadband service providers for their members. In the wake of the law’s passage, several of the state’s EPAs began conducting feasibility studies to determine the cost of broadband integration and the effects of such integration on electricity rates.
Upon review of the cost, some of the EPAs opted not to integrate broadband operations directly within their organizations, many due to cost concerns. Instead, some EPAs opted to enter into collaborative agreements with private sector internet service providers that permitted the use of electrical infrastructure for broadband deployment.
However, some EPAs did decide to become internet service providers for those in their services areas. The funding for these operations has been provided through a combination of federal, state, and local grants, along with the revenues generated from the electricity rates themselves.
Because individuals within an EPA’s service territory are subject to potential rate increases because of broadband network operation costs, accountability is important. Unlike a typical free-market context in which there is the element of consumer choice, electricity is different. In Mississippi, the government permits consumers to acquire electricity only from the entity that has been granted that particular service territory.
Thus, in the case of EPAs operating as electricity providers and internet service providers, mismanagement of the EPA’s broadband program can lead to increased costs for electrical consumers if a broadband program cannot sufficiently pay for itself.
This establishes the necessity that EPAs are accountable in the way they finance these broadband operations. While EPAs are required to regularly report to the state’s Public Service Commission regarding the legal compliance and financial records of electrical operations, the law is less clear on the extent of oversight for broadband services. Broadband service is not quite the same.
The Broadband Enabling Act does require an annual compliance audit for broadband-offering EPAs. However, financial and performance audits are not currently required by law. This presents potential issues for the citizens in the service territories of these electrical cooperatives. An EPA might be technically in compliance with the law, but that does not fully account for the finances of the broadband program that could ultimately lead to higher rates for those in the service territory.
In order to see a more financially sustainable future for the citizens who live in service territories under EPAs providing broadband, the state should consider enacting broadband financial auditing policies that will ensure more accountability. Such reforms would help ensure that mismanagement does not lead to electrical consumers paying for unreasonable utility bill increases because of EPA broadband buildouts. Broadband growth has immense potential for Mississippians, and the state should ensure that this growth through EPAs does not lead to unreasonable increases when it’s time to pay the electric bill.
Despite being a fairly conservative state, Mississippi still spends a large amount of its state budget on welfare and entitlement programs. Many of the programs themselves have structural problems on a policy level. Yet, many have also managed to cheat the programs themselves and exacerbate the problems that systemically arise from welfare and entitlement systems.
In order to grasp the importance of accountability and verification with the use of state welfare dollars, it is vital to grasp the scale of welfare and entitlement spending in the state. The state budget allocates much of its budget to welfare and/or entitlement programs such as Medicaid, TANF, Division of Community Services, and others. There are really two main types of fraudulent activity that contribute to the waste of taxpayer dollars in this system.
The first is the more blatant type of fraud in which an individual utilizes the money in these programs without having ever qualified for them in the first place. This is the case with many of the recent high-profile scandals in the state in which millions of dollars were directly stolen from these programs. This is also the case when individuals submit fraudulent documents that allow them to “qualify” for state resources that they would not qualify for legitimately.
The second type of fraud is if an individual initially qualifies for a program and then attempts to hide a change in circumstances, such as an income increase. For most programs, state law requires individuals to notify the government if a change in circumstances has made them ineligible for the program. Such fraud goes against the allegedly temporary basis that these programs are designed for.
Both types of fraud have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars over the years. The systems themselves already have to deal with the challenges of managing the funds, and fraud adds an additional layer of complexity. In order to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being consumed by fraud, the state should take proactive measures that require more verification and accountability protocols for the use of these funds.
The state already has access to several levels of verification, including driver’s licenses, state income tax returns, unemployment records, and others. Rather than having vague rules that vary from agency to agency and have numerous administrative loopholes, the state should consider inter-agency identity and income verification procedures that fill in the gaps. In some cases, even a basic cross-reference of welfare applications with state income tax returns could provide documented proof.
Instead of having policies that allow fraud to slip through frequently, state leaders should consider leveraging every available tool to verify that state welfare dollars are not lining the pockets of fraudsters. This is a critical step to help cut down on the waste of funds that digs right into taxpayers' pocketbooks.
The conversation of race and social justice often becomes inextricably linked with the conversation of diversity. Despite this questionable emphasis on immutable characteristics such as race, the consistency of such an emphasis on diversity could be measured against other metrics that emphasize merit and actual viewpoint diversity.
The irony is that despite the emphasis on diversity and the desire to promote an atmosphere of acceptance, companies and agencies are quite selective in the metrics and categories of diversity that are evaluated and prioritized. They are required by law to practice equal employment practices. However, this simply means that they cannot refuse to hire an individual based on characteristics protected by law (including race, gender, and religion).
Beyond that, employers can prefer some diversity characteristics over others. This is why race and gender are always evaluated in corporate responsibility reports and almost never political affiliations or religions. In other words, America is pursuing diversity, the question still remains however, what kind of diversity?
The evidence is clear that diversity in the workforce is beneficial in providing innovative solutions. However, despite the present emphasis on immutable characteristics such as race, the data suggests that diversity benefits primarily come from diversity of thought rather than the amount of pigment in one’s skin.
People who think differently approach problems differently. Therefore, people proposing the same exact solutions to a problem will be less likely if the group consists of people from different backgrounds, experiences, and points of view. Companies and agencies that incorporate a diversity strategy are 1.7 times more likely to find innovative solutions to their respective problems. Companies that diversify their workforce see 1.4 times more revenue. Decision-making is two times faster in diverse teams. The obvious reason for these types of statistics is that diversity of thought provides an atmosphere in which group-think is minimized.
This is why viewpoint diversity, such as political or religious diversity, are important in assessing government and corporate pursuits of diversity as a whole. Without these metrics, government and corporate elites have the opportunity to dictate not only how diverse their teams should be, but also what groups they desire to leave out or minimize based on religious or political viewpoints. Not only does this not promote true diversity but it strays dangerously close to promoting social group-think of one particular ideology.
People often advertise that diversity as a concept means that when someone comes into work, they should bring their whole selves. Pat Gelsinger, CEO of Intel, said something quite interesting in that part of one’s whole self should be one’s religion, and that needs to be on the diversity radar: “If I can’t express my Christian faith in the workplace, [it’s] not a diverse workplace.” Promoting these ideals are required to ultimately promote true diversity. The problem is that the dominant view of diversity is defined by simply increasing minority representation. This is only one part of the puzzle of diversity and is short-sighted in scope to promote some alternative agenda. It is critical to cultivate an environment both inside government operations and in the corporate world to approach diversity in a way that dissuades the use of mechanical quotas: treating diversity as a quantity rather than a quality. Government policies that mandate such an approach to diversity discourage true diversity by viewing individuals in categories, rather than viewing them as individuals.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Jackson, MS): One of America’s largest conservative think tanks is partnering with the Mississippi Center for Public Policy to debate Critical Race Theory.
On Tuesday, November 9, the Mississippi Center for Public Policy will host Mike Gonzalez, a Senior Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and America’s leading expert on Critical Race Theory, at an event in Jackson.
“As the leading conservative advocacy organization in the state, we are delighted to be partnering with the leading conservative think tank in the United States,” said Douglas Carswell, President & CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
“Critical Race Theory is deeply divisive and risks reversing many of the advances made in America since the Civil Rights era,” Carswell added.
“Our recent report on Critical Race Theory revealed that this ideology is being advanced in our education system, perhaps most aggressively in public universities. While the education establishment often seeks to deny that they are pushing this radical, progressive agenda, we uncovered incontrovertible evidence that they are.”
Author of The Plot to Change America: How Identity Politics is Dividing the Land of the Free and, most recently, BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution, Mr. Gonzalez has crisscrossed the country, advising lawmakers and citizens alike on what we need to do to safeguard America from this Left-Wing dogma.
At the seminar, Mr. Gonzalez will present the audience a number of resources and evidence on Critical Race Theory to:
- Explain what it is and define the teachings and values behind it
- How it can and is destroying our society
- How to correctly identify it in academic curricula
- How to defeat it
For more information or to request an interview with Mississippi Center For Public Policy President & CEO Douglas Carswell, please reach out to Stone Clanton, [email protected].
Why is Bitcoin worth as much as it is? For the same reason that anything is worth what it is.
The price of Bitcoin reflects the extent to which people want it relative to the amount of it out there. With the total supply of Bitcoin fixed, the massive rise in the price of the world’s first cryptocurrency – from a few cents to over $50,000 in a few years - is a reflection of soaring demand.
The fact that one Bitcoin is worth tens of thousands of dollars, however, seems to offend some folk. Why is it, they want to know, that a piece of software code should be worth so much?
There are no shortage of those that have compared the Bitcoin boom today with the 17th century Tulip bubble in Holland. Tulip mania saw vast sums invested in tulip bulbs, which ultimately proved to be more or less worthless.
Bitcoin, the skeptics often point out, has little utility. It’s just a piece of code – you can’t use it for anything. So why are so many people pouring so much money into it? Its not even a very effective method of payment, given that the value of Bitcoin is so volatile.
But surely many of the same things could also be said about gold?
Gold, too, has limited utility. Beside jewelry and a little electronics, you can’t really do a lot with it.
Nor is gold, even in coin form, a very good way to pay for things.
Not so long ago, the economist John Maynard Keynes dismissed gold as a ‘barbarous relic’. It was, according to this Cambridge-educated technocrat, absurdly old fashioned that a base metal should serve as a reserve currency.
Twenty years ago, British finance minister Gordon Brown, thought something similar when he ordered the Bank of England to sell off its gold reserves.
But, of course, what Keynes called a relic retained its value long after he had passed on. When Brown began to sell off Britain’s gold reserves, he did so for $275 per ounce. Gold today is worth over $1,700 per ounce.
Gold, like Bitcoin, is not valuable because it does something. It is valuable because lots of people want it, and there isn't much of it about. That is all.
With neo-Keynesians running many of the world’s central banks, I suspect that demand for an alternative to their paper fiat currencies will only increase.
As the country continues to return to normal from the Covid pandemic, issues of public policy arise and call for the attention of lawmakers to address. School policy has become one of those issues.
John Kristof of EdChoice has released a report that offers insight into the opinions and attitudes of a nationally representative sample of parents regarding schooling and its relation with Covid currently.
For one, the data suggests that parents are becoming more comfortable with sending their kids back to school for in-person learning. According to the report, 63 percent of parents polled showed that they were either “very comfortable” or “somewhat comfortable” with sending their kids back to school in person. Moreover, that number has risen from the previous month by 6 points.
Two possible explanations can come from this. Either parents see that the Covid situation is improving and, therefore, are becoming more comfortable, or they see no change and are gradually becoming more comfortable with sending their kids anyway. While the former is more likely, either option demonstrates that government simply cannot stick with the status quo. Something has to change to promote the education of children. Therefore, this issue ought to be a top issue for state legislatures.
Additionally, the data shows that parents view government institutions as the worst entities to respond to the pandemic. Even state governments rank similarly with national institutions such as the federal government, media, and national corporations. A third of those polled found state government as an obstacle rather than an aid to an individual’s way of life.
As things gradually return back to normal, people as a whole may become impatient with the government education system's inability to get closer to normal as well. Unfortunately, government is often an obstacle to meaningful change, so the default should allow more individuals and their families to make their own choices. This promotes true educational freedom.
It is important to note that the slight increase in support of mandatory masks does not necessarily provide a direct correlation with support for government mask mandates in schools. As time moves on and children continue to remain either out of school or in some Covid-related alternative, parents are gradually going to show support for any requirement for in-school learn as their desire to return to in-school learning increases.
The prospect of masks protecting children at school is inconclusive at best, and some have suggested that they do more harm than good. However, if parents are given a choice between in-school learning with masks or some temporary solution that they think can no longer work, they will likely show support for masks. However, it is possible that such support is given as a concession rather than a preference.
The greatest takeaway from this report is that children have been severely affected by the pandemic. If a child was required to quarantine from school, most had to be quarantined from school multiple times. The average number of quarantines per child was about 2.54. This is a massive disruption to the development and education of the child.
Ultimately, as it approaches K-12 education policy, the state should adopt a philosophy of freedom and choice for families. Seventy-four percent of parents support school choice programs such as Educational Savings Accounts (ESAs). Additionally, parents desire to expand and promote programs such as school vouchers and charter schools to open up options for students as we exit the pandemic. These programs should be expanded to promote more options for families. Government often has a track record of inhibiting freedom. School choice reforms are an opportunity to change this trajectory and provide educational opportunities to families in the state.
Certifications and training are a key part of occupational regulations. Amid the pandemic, many occupational licensing authorities have allowed applicants to take required education courses online instead of exclusively in-person. While online courses are a good step in the right direction, additional technologies could also carry potential.
Many occupational licensing structures require individuals to take certain courses to get certified and then take additional continuing education courses. In the not-so-distant past, applicants would have to take required education and certification courses at the physical places and time determined by government authorities. In addition to the licensing fees and other burdens, such courses often required individuals to set aside time away from their usual course of business for travel. Sometimes they had to drive many hours to attend a class or take a test.
This can change in the context of online courses and certification. While some licensing, certification, and continuing education generally still occur in an in-person context, there has been an expansion in online courses, particularly after the pandemic. Facing the pandemic reality that many individuals would not be able to meet continuing education and/or licensing requirements without online accommodations, several regulatory boards were all but forced to allow for online integration.
These advances suggest that additional technologies could also carry the potential for occupational licensing reform. For instance, virtual reality (VR) headsets are already being used in a variety of extremely technical contexts, with a great degree of success. The military has used VR to prepare soldiers for the battlefield. The medical sector has used VR training for emergency scenario simulation. Industrial and manufacturing sectors have incorporated VR into technical training, and first responders have utilized it for emergency preparedness.
These technologies, such as online learning and VR have expanding adoption, and there has been real-world success -including in some high-intensity fields. It would make sense for government regulatory agencies to incorporate such technologies as an option in their approval processes. Of course, not all applicants would prefer to use such technologies for their licensing or continuing education requirements, and legacy options should remain available. Yet, having new technologies also approved as an acceptable option for occupational certification and education could encourage occupational participation from tech-savvy citizens -especially the younger generation. Mississippi and other states would do well to consider incorporating emerging technologies into its regulatory licensing systems. New technologies are continually proving their value for training and certification. Occupational licensing is already a big enough burden. The government should make every effort to incorporate effective technologies so that its citizens have greater flexibility in their occupational certification and education.