To contact me please email:
andrew at mightyheaton dot com
I am working for the Salzburger Nachrichten – a daily newspaper in Austria. I am in charge of the travel departement and this saturday we will publish an atricle about Hutt River. The problem: I have nearly no pitures! So I searched …. and found your picture of the prince in the meadow. Would you provide us the photo and if yes, on what terms?
Thnaks already for your answer.
I love the graphic with:
“This woman expressed an opinion. Witch! Witch!”
May I use it with your permission for a blog I am starting?
Hey Andrew; I’m trying to contact you regarding your work w/ Econstories, but your contact form is broken. What is the best way to get a hold of you?
Pingback: 006: Andrew Heaton on Using Comedy to Explain Economic Concepts - Economic Rockstar
Are you doing stand-up acts for private affairs. We’re having a political fundraiser in May 2015 in CT and wanted to find out your rates and terms.
Love your podcast, keep it up with all of your good work.
I love Econ Stories and your work. I posted the Keynes – Hayek raps on my site.
I wanted to let you know that I have a contest ongoing in which I offer $100,000 CDN to any person able to find the flaw in a proof of mine. It calls for the abolition of all Taxation and for full government borrowing from the public. You may think you already know what this is about, but I would caution you that it isn’t.
Below is an intro that I have sent out to the economists at the top 20 economics universities in the world as well as those at every economics and business department at universities in Canada. So far, no refutation. All you ask for is contained within that simple proof.
I thought professors and students of the Department of Economics of the University of … may be interested in reading some very unusual material in public finance theory, and perhaps taking up the challenge presented.
An errant premise has long marred the thought and theories of economics, especially Public Finance, perverting conclusions and siring practices laden with squander and corruption. In Economics, it is accepted with a facility unknown in scientific enquiry that Government funds Government. Yet, the evidence confirms in abundance the very opposite.
Below is a terse 15 line economics proof demonstrating that it doesn’t matter whether a community funds public expenditures by Taxation or by Borrowing. I offer CDN$100,000 as a reward for the flaw in my reasoning. Also attached are two explanations: one examining the implications of abolishing all forms of Taxation, and the second answering the question of how a community or nation would then repay debts when it apparently has not the means of doing so.
As of this date none of the many business and economics professors, practitioners, researchers, thinkers, and students to whom the challenge has been made has found the flaw. The offer still stands.
This is not an exposition of Ricardian Equivalence. That concept possesses the errant premise mentioned above, and it also fails to account for the vast increases in worthy economic activity and vast declines in unworthy public expenditures that would accompany the abolition of Taxation. A more illuminating examination of this poorly constructed Theorem may be found here: http://www.economart.ca/the-shameless-blunders-within-the-ricardian-equivalence-theorem/
I have created a website with a more detailed explanation and analysis of this perplexing idea and proof for the abolition of Taxation. The site also provides those desiring to make inquiries or post comments a measure of anonymity, or complete anonymity if they should wish. The website is found at http://www.economart.ca.The actual page on the site for the $100,000 Economics Challenge with detailed explanation and commentary is found here: http://www.economart.ca/find-the-flaw-2/.
The site is still in its infancy and subject to numerous updates and revisions.
Mr. Tim Worstall, a prolific Forbes contributor, recently wrote an article on the $100,000 Economics Challenge on the Forbes website in the Op Ed section. You may find it here http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/12/29/exploring-gary-marshalls-100000-economics-challenge/
In reading through the proof and explanations, one must hold one thought in high regard: that Government does not fund Government. Government does not provide the funds to pay its bills, does not settle its debts, and does not fund public investments. It never has and it never will. Government has not contributed 1 dollar to its expenses since its inception. If one were to account the finances of Government, it would show full indebtedness to the Taxpayer for all funds expended and debts incurred from day 1. Once the reader accepts this clear and irrefutable fact, the rest of what I argue follows logically and soundly.
The task of funding government has always fallen to the Taxpayer. So, in order to fully understand public finance, one must apply this long neglected fact. Given that a community of Taxpayers funds government, it is their finances: their assets, incomes, property, and money, one must look at and examine in order to answer basic questions about funding public expenditures.
That is all I have done with the proof, And one easily discovers that it makes no difference whether a community taxes its citizens or borrows from its citizens to fund public expenditures. If one should add to the assets of community residents whilst simultaneously creating an equivalent liability or claim against said assets, then one has not altered the aggregate finances of the community’s residents. Nor are they altered if one should simultaneously extinguish an asset and equivalent liability. So if a community has its government issue a bond to fund a public expenditure, that bond will add an equivalent amount to the community residents’ assets, specifically the assets of those who lend, and to the claims upon those assets. If a community has its government extinguish that bond through repayment, the action will erase not only the asset held by community residents, but also the liability claimed against the assets of community residents.
If this is agreed, then it is easily conceded that Taxation, a penalty, and Borrowing, an inducement, possess little equivalence between them, Ricardian or otherwise, as a means of raising funds for public expenditures, though both may yield the same result. Taxation bears immense costs in Government squander and in deterrence that disappear under full Borrowing. So why does a community tax with all its inherent and punishing costs to fund public expenditures when it can borrow, escaping these financial ills, and unleash great wealth for its citizens?
I promise to disturb you only once with this email. With my website in place, exchanges initiated by you or your colleagues may occur there. There is no further need for direct communication unless one invites it. I look forward to hearing what you have to say, yea or nay.
If unable to discover the elusive flaw, perhaps the idea will be of some service in rendering the stagnant field of economics once again fertile.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
A nice revamping of Sandbox theme for WordPress