On the sixth of June, 2013, Asiana Airlines Flight 214 departed Incheon International Airport near the capital city of Seoul, South Korea. Its destination: San Francisco International Airport. Unfortunately for the crew and the passengers of Flight 214, that destination wouldn’t come without incident. On final approach, the aircraft would come up just short of the runway, the landing gear impacting the seawall, causing the Boeing 777 to tumble and the tail section to break off after impact. For the crew of Flight 214, this would prove to be the ultimate test and, for the total 307 souls on board, the most poignant lesson in the risks posed by misunderstood technologies, the dangers of unintuitive systems operated by fallible human beings, and the extreme costs incurred in matters of human life. In terms of numbers, for Flight 214 that cost begins at the three lives lost, the 187 who were injured, and all who suffered and who carry the trauma of the incident. As is the case in virtually...
The cost of government is the quantity it spends, not the quantity it taxes; that cost representing the financial burden imposed upon those who pay the taxes and all who transact within that economy or through its common currency. Therefore, the argument against tax cuts requires further context to appreciate why tax cuts have failed and will continue to fail to deliver economic growth, especially where those tax cuts promote or serve excess indulgence and cheap speculation. In short, it’s not that tax cuts are inherently destructive, or that reducing the tax liability of the wealthiest in society “doesn’t work”; rather, the fact is that the public debt is so high that the country simply cannot afford those tax cuts without defaulting on its debts or — which is the same — covering them through inflation. It’s not that tax cuts are inherently destructive to economic growth, but that the deficits run higher by profligate government spending, the protracted low interest rate policy, ...