Archive for ‘Economic Development’

July 2, 2026

In Defense of Capitalism: Blaming the Engine for the Road Government Built

by Steve Dana

Young people today often say capitalism has failed them. They look at the cost of rent, groceries, gas, tuition, insurance, health care, and vehicles, and they conclude the system is broken. Then they look at Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, and the rest of America’s billionaire class, and they decide they have found the villains.

It is an understandable reaction, but it is the wrong conclusion.

Capitalism did not make ordinary life unaffordable.

Government distorted capitalism until ordinary life became unaffordable, and then taught people to blame capitalism.

That is the point we need to recover.

Capitalism does not operate in a vacuum. It operates inside a framework created by government. Government controls the money supply. Government influences interest rates. Government taxes income, property, fuel, payroll, investment, business activity, and consumption. Government regulates housing, energy, transportation, labor, health care, education, banking, insurance, construction, and nearly every other sector of the economy.

Then private businesses are expected to function inside that framework, absorb those costs, comply with those rules, pay those taxes, survive those mandates, and still keep prices low enough that customers do not revolt.

When they cannot, capitalism gets blamed.

That is dishonest.

A restaurant owner does not set the price of a hamburger in a vacuum. He looks at beef, buns, cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fryer oil, paper goods, napkins, cleaning supplies, rent, utilities, insurance, wages, payroll taxes, workers’ compensation, credit-card fees, repairs, equipment, spoilage, licensing, bookkeeping, regulation, and debt service. He adds all those costs together, hopes customers will still walk through the door, and tries to make enough profit to survive.

If the hamburger that used to cost five dollars now costs sixteen, the lazy explanation is greed. The real explanation is cost.

And where do many of those costs come from? Inflation, regulation, labor mandates, taxes, energy policy, insurance mandates, compliance costs, permitting delays, and the steady destruction of the dollar’s purchasing power.

That is not Bill Gates’ fault. That is not Warren Buffett’s fault. That is not capitalism failing. That is government interference showing up on the menu board.

The same is true of housing. Builders did not forget how to build houses. Developers did not suddenly decide to make starter homes unaffordable. Government made land use more complicated, zoning more restrictive, permitting more expensive, environmental review more time-consuming, infrastructure fees more burdensome, and construction compliance more costly. Then people look around and wonder why young families cannot buy a house.

The answer is not capitalism. The answer is artificial scarcity created by government policy.

If government restricts where housing can be built, what kind of housing can be built, how dense it can be, how long approvals take, what fees must be paid, what materials must be used, and what conditions must be satisfied before a shovel hits the dirt, the result will be fewer homes and higher prices.

That is not a market failure. That is a government failure.

Energy is another example. Fuel is not just something we buy at the pump. Energy is embedded in everything. It is in farming, trucking, refrigeration, construction, manufacturing, shipping, warehousing, heating, cooling, and retail. Raise the cost of energy and you raise the cost of everything.

When government restricts supply, discourages investment, blocks infrastructure, mandates preferred technologies, or punishes certain fuels before alternatives are ready, the cost does not stay in the energy sector. It spreads through the entire economy.

The customer sees the price of groceries. The business owner sees the fuel surcharge.

Again, capitalism gets blamed for a cost structure government helped create.

Money is the deepest layer of all. When government spends more than it takes in, borrows endlessly, and depends on monetary policy to keep the whole machine moving, the dollar loses value over time. That loss of purchasing power is not dramatic in a single year. It is devastating over decades.

A little inflation sounds harmless when politicians and economists talk about it. Two percent here, three percent there. But inflation compounds. Given enough time, it changes civilization. A five-dollar hamburger becomes sixteen dollars. A five-thousand-dollar truck becomes fifty thousand. A fifty-thousand-dollar house becomes a million-dollar house in some markets.

People then ask why everything costs so much.

The answer is simple: the dollar buys less.

Private business did not create that cycle. Government did.

Businesses respond to the value of money. They do not create the value of money. A business owner charging more dollars for the same product may not be making more real profit at all. He may simply be trying to keep up with a currency that has been weakened beneath his feet.

This is where the attack on capitalism becomes morally backward. Capitalism creates goods and services. Government debases money. Then capitalism gets blamed when goods and services require more dollars.

A free market creates abundance. Bad policy makes abundance harder to afford.

Consider the smartphone. Many of capitalism’s loudest critics complain about capitalism on thousand-dollar phones using private-sector technology, private-sector platforms, private-sector networks, private-sector software, private-sector logistics, and private-sector innovation. They carry in their pockets a device more powerful than anything kings, presidents, or generals possessed for most of human history.

Capitalism made that possible.

And yet they say capitalism failed because rent is too high, tuition is impossible, health care is unaffordable, and wages do not stretch far enough.

They are right that life has become too expensive. They are wrong about why.

The real problem is not that capitalism cannot produce. The problem is that government has made the basics of life too expensive by manipulating, regulating, subsidizing, restricting, taxing, borrowing, and inflating.

That distinction matters because a wrong diagnosis produces a destructive cure.

If young people are taught that capitalism is the problem, they will demand more government control over the very sectors government has already distorted. Housing is too expensive, so they demand more government intervention. College is too expensive, so they demand more government money. Health care is too expensive, so they demand more government control. Wages are tight, so they demand more labor mandates. Energy is expensive, so they demand more centralized planning.

Then prices rise again, shortages grow worse, small businesses disappear, choices narrow, and the same voices say, “See? Capitalism failed.”

No. Capitalism was never allowed to work honestly.

That does not mean every business is virtuous. It does not mean every wealthy person earned wealth honorably. It does not mean corporations never behave badly. Some companies exploit government favors. Some lobby for regulations that crush their smaller competitors. Some use political influence to protect themselves from competition. Some enjoy subsidies, bailouts, tax preferences, and regulatory barriers that ordinary entrepreneurs could never access.

But that is not capitalism. That is cronyism.

There is a vast difference between a free market and a rigged market. In a free market, businesses win by serving customers better. In a rigged market, businesses win by influencing government. In a free market, profit is earned by creating value. In a rigged market, profit is protected by political power.

The answer to cronyism is not socialism. The answer is less favoritism, less manipulation, less central planning, and more honest competition.

The local business owner understands this better than most politicians. He lives in the real world. He knows he cannot mandate a profit into existence. He cannot raise wages beyond what the business can sustain. He cannot sell a product for less than it costs to produce. He cannot keep the doors open by pretending arithmetic is unfair.

Labor matters. Employees matter. Good workers are valuable. But wages have to fit inside the value customers are willing to pay for the product or service. Government can mandate a wage, but it cannot mandate customer demand. It can raise the cost of labor, but it cannot force customers to buy a sixteen-dollar hamburger.

When no one applies for a job at ten dollars an hour, the market is speaking. The employer must raise the wage, improve conditions, change the work, or go without help. That is a market signal. But when government imposes wages without knowing the margins, the customer base, the cost structure, or the survival point of the business, it is not wisdom. It is political theater with someone else’s money.

And when the business fails, the politician does not lose the house. The owner does.

That is another truth our culture forgets: ownership is risk. Employees sell labor for wages. Owners buy risk with their lives.

The owner signs the lease, borrows the money, buys the equipment, hires the staff, pays the insurance, manages the taxes, satisfies the regulators, and lies awake wondering whether payroll can be met. If the business succeeds, people complain that the owner made too much. If the business fails, the owner absorbs the loss.

Employees may lose a job. That is serious. But the owner may lose the business, the savings, the house, the credit, the reputation, and years of work.

A society that resents reward while depending on risk-takers is living off capital it no longer understands.

There has to be the possibility of great reward because there is the possibility of great loss. If the upside is capped while the downside remains unlimited, rational people stop taking risks. They stop opening restaurants. They stop building companies. They stop hiring workers. They stop signing notes. They stop betting on themselves.

Then everyone has less.

That is why defending capitalism is not about defending billionaires. It is about defending the right of ordinary people to create, build, risk, serve, profit, fail, recover, and try again.

It is about defending the system that allows a poor person to become middle class, a middle-class person to become wealthy, and an idea in a garage to become a company that changes the world.

The tragedy of our time is that too many people have been taught to envy the builder rather than become one. They have been taught to look at wealth and assume theft. They have been taught to see profit as exploitation rather than the oxygen that keeps a business alive.

They see capitalism’s storefront.

They do not see government’s machinery behind the wall.

So when prices rise, they blame the merchant. When rent rises, they blame the landlord. When wages disappoint, they blame the employer. When billionaires exist, they blame capitalism.

But the deeper causes are debt, inflation, regulation, taxation, artificial scarcity, distorted incentives, and government interference in the capitalist system.

Capitalism is not perfect because people are not perfect. But capitalism remains the greatest engine of abundance, innovation, opportunity, and upward mobility the world has ever known.

Government can provide order, courts, national defense, basic rules, and protection against fraud and force. But when government tries to manage everything, price everything, subsidize everything, regulate everything, and promise everything, it corrupts the signals that make markets work.

Capitalism is the engine.

Government is the road, the fuel, the speed limit, the toll booth, the traffic cop, and sometimes the guy throwing nails in the lane.

When the ride gets rough, people blame the engine.

They should look at the road.

April 17, 2019

AFFORDABLE HOUSING…Not Gonna Happen

by Steve Dana

In pursuit of answers regarding Affordable Housing, our investigation should consider all aspects of the problem.  I will include a few I know about.

The term “Affordable Housing” isn’t well defined so it can be considered in the context of properties for sale and properties for rent. Rental properties can be privately-owned, government owned like the Snohomish County Housing Authority or NGO owned (non-government organizations typically non-profits) like Cocoon House or Housing Hope subsidized by government.  These properties are for rent to people with varying income levels.

If you believe that public private partnerships might be a way to create affordable housing, they are working in some areas.  We approve property tax relief for some projects if there is an aspect of affordability incorporated into the credit agreement.  It’s not clear what qualifies for affordability in this scenario.

Section 8 has been a way to incent private landlords to rent to low income tenants, but the pool of money and the applicable regulations haven’t kept pace with demand.  There are anecdotal accounts of huge fraud within the Section 8 program that might warrant investigation.  It was reported recently that there is an eight year wait for Section 8 housing with the current inventory of properties.

Private sector property owners cannot be expected to cut rents out of the goodness of their hearts so if the government wants access to the property, they need to kick in enough to cover the differential between appropriate rent for low income tenants and market rent for the landlord.  There might be other incentives for landlords that would also make participating worthwhile.

If affordable housing is only for rental properties our focus could be on them, but home ownership is still the American dream.  How can we keep buying a home within the range of young families?

Let’s take a look at why buying a home is so expensive.

There are a few components to housing cost consistent with all segments; land cost itself, driven by local and state/federal regulations, building regulation driven by local permits and fees and construction cost of the building.

From the standpoint of housing cost at a structure level, the cost in our market is comparable to other places in the country.  Framing materials, plywood, roofing, drywall, carpet and fixtures are generally the same price across multiple markets.  A home built in Boise, Idaho should have approximately the same component cost as a home built in Snohomish, Washington.

So, for the most part, factors effecting housing cost for consumers is driven by something other than the structure.  It appears that government regulations are the driving force.

Right out of the gate, the government controls the zoning of the land that might meet affordability requirements better if more was set aside for multi-family development rather than single family detached housing.  Encouraging condominium construction might address a deficiency for housing where ownership is a priority.  Condo construction comes with its own set of obstacles also created by the government we cannot begin to address here.

When the state passed the Growth Management Act, it created a tool to limit the amount of land available to developers which we knew would artificially drive up the cost of developable land.  Areas outside Urban Growth Areas would be down-zoned to rural density in the One Dwelling Unit per Five acres range while land within UGA’s would immediately escalate in value because of the finite supply.  Supply and demand is still a market force that reflects shortages or surpluses in product or in this case, land.

When the government creates shortages through regulation, the cost goes up faster than in an unregulated market. Urban Growth Boundaries arbitrarily pick winners and losers.  The politics of urban growth designations add a layer of cost that compounds as the process evolves.

The process of dividing land required by local and state laws make $40,000 lots into $140,000 lots.

The other factor in the cost of housing is the skyrocketing increases in direct government regulatory cost through permitting, hook-up fees, mitigation fees and associated regulations from state regulatory agencies.  The Growth Management Act empowered cities and counties to collect mitigation fees supposedly to offset the cost of future development rather than to address existing deficiencies.  Without inventorying the deficiencies at the time, cities and counties went about collecting fees and spending money to build schools, roads and parks.  The burden of growth is supposedly borne by the new development.  Do we need to collect park impact fees if we have enough parks already?  How many parks do you need?  Can you use mitigation fees for anything other than purchase of the land?

School districts must develop a capital improvement plan to predict where and when new facilities should be built.  They analyze where schools are today and compare that with where students are coming from to know where deficiencies exist to be mitigated by new facilities.  In our district, there haven’t been school impact fees for a while since we built or remodeled schools through a huge bond issue.  That should establish a legitimate baseline for future growth to be paid for with mitigation fees.

Hook-up fees have become commonplace in the last twenty-five years as utilities discovered that they could sell the privilege of connecting rather than granting it for free as a property owner in the service area.  Hook up fees supposedly allow collection of funds that can be used to expand the physical delivery system in advance of growth.  I don’t think it’s happening that way in practice.  New pipes in the ground are now paid for by developers.  Under certain circumstances, they can recover a portion of the capital cost of the installation through late comer fees.

On top of that add Storm Water Collection and conditioning fees authorized/mandated by the state.

The science of sanitary sewer service is driven by federal and state laws which translate into higher sewer rates.  In recent years, clean water standards have driven up the cost of increasingly smaller incremental improvements in quality of the effluent released into the river.

The Shoreline Management act limits how property owners can use their land if it is within 200 feet of a significant waterway in the state.

Critical Area regulations also play a huge part in limiting the supply of land and how much of that land can be used for a designated purpose.

Currently we are developing local code language to address a mandate from the state to regulate archaeological aspects of privately-owned property that could substantially increase the cost of housing if there is a suggestion that artifacts are on the property.  Not proof that there are artifacts, but suggestion.

The bottom line for those clamoring for the government to do something, the government is doing something, they are driving up the cost of housing.  If the private sector is to be the solution to the problem, the government needs to cut the permit fees, mitigation fees and other fees while offering credits and incentives to the developer if the end use is committed to subsidized housing for low income or senior tenants.

Affordable Housing will not happen with government playing such a significant part in regulating housing in general.

The housing market is a hugely complex dynamic creation that cannot be explained in a couple hundred words.  The takeaway should be that every level of government regulation compounds and adds to the cost of housing for consumers.  Relief will only come from peeling away those regulatory requirements away.

March 9, 2019

Climate Change Guilt Trip

by Steve Dana

It’s hard to comment about things related to climate change these days because some people de-compensate at the mention.  Having said that, I am willing to spin a few minds into a tizzy.

Let me say from the beginning that I am not a climatologist or a meteorologist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express the other night.

Here’s what I think I know.  The weather is changing all the time.  Climate is a reflection of weather changes over time.  Climate is changing all the time.

We are growing grapes in the state of Washington where we couldn’t fifty years ago.  Climate changes in California are affecting the crops they can grow today that were staples fifty years ago.  Over that time, farmers have adapted their practices to take into consideration the changes.

For me and most other people, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about.  Al Gore is like Chicken Little warning us that the sky will fall.  Our own Jay Inslee characterized his Presidential campaign as a “War against Climate Change”.  As far as I can tell, the people he intends to wage war against are you and me.

From a scientific perspective the climatologists study the evolving climate, but they don’t ever suggest we can manage it.  The current craze is to reduce Green House gases and the movement is to identify those man-made sources of Green House gases and slash them.

The thing I don’t hear from reputable scientists is that efforts in the US will have a measurable impact on the problem.

The countries producing the most pollution contributing to the problem have no intention to slash production of Green House gases if the cost of doing so trashes their economy.  China and India are by far the largest populations on the planet and they produce the most pollution.  Unless we can twist their arm to get them to play ball, we accomplish nothing by trashing our own economy.

I’m not suggesting that we don’t undertake an effort to reduce environmental impacts that contribute to climate change, but we must keep in mind that everything comes with a cost.  For the Al Gores and the Jay Inslees of the world, they don’t mind that you bear the burden of a Climate Change War even knowing up front there will be no victory.

The thing that pushes their zealotry is guilt for America’s past abuses.  American excesses over the past sixty years coming from a very successful economy create an appearance to the rest of the world that Americans are selfish squanderers of the world’s resources.  Creating a Climate Change movement focusing on American behavior only, contributes nothing to measurable change in the climate but a catastrophic impact to the American economy.

When Obama talked about fundamental change to America, this is the tool that will make it happen.  Inslee’s war will be a war of ideas to convince us that we are bad people who should be ashamed of our success and as a result we should beat our selves to death for penance.

If the environment on the planet changes, our best strategy is to be adaptive.  If we have huge population centers located on low elevation seacoast areas subject to flooding if the oceans rise, then maybe we should be talking about moving to higher ground. Just look at New Orleans if you think you can hold back the sea.  That city is sinking and the government is spending a fortune to prevent the relentless flood.  Move away from the low land, quit building homes in flood prone areas, quit putting people’s lives in danger by allowing residences in “future flood” designated areas.

We’ve learned that mankind is fairly insignificant to mother nature.  It is only in our feeble minds that we think we can alter the weather.

I know I always advise my clients to buy property at least fifty feet above sea level.  Who knows, at some time that property might be on the beach.

Adopting modest changes to our behavior at modest prices is probably a good thing, but taxes to change your behavior has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with power over you.  Think about that.

March 26, 2018

Fund the Carnegie at the expense of What?

by Steve Dana

Like most of you, I read the article in the Everett Herald about the county’s plan to build the much down-sized court house remodel. I’m happy for the court house workers that they are getting updated facilities they need so badly.

This example in Everett of elected officials recognizing the error of spending $172 million for the original plan and scuttling the deal even though they had already spent millions up to that point can serve us as we look at the Snohomish Carnegie Library project. Snohomish needs to make sure that spending $4-5 million dollars on the old Carnegie is the best use of our limited public funds.

The county council pulled the plug on the project because it was too expensive. What makes their case different from ours is the fact that the project they killed actually served the people working on the county government campus. The common sense elected officials concluded that spending an extra hundred million didn’t make any sense. Even in the face of a critical need.

So, I come back to the decision-making process in Snohomish regarding the Carnegie Library project. There’s no question that there are strong feelings about restoring the old building, but aside from historical aspects, the building will neither serve a constructive purpose in our little town nor fill a critical need. The spending of the public money will be for a vanity project that does not serve a single identified deficiency or person in our town.

I applaud the county council for recognizing the poor judgment of squandering that money when a more sensible alternative was available. I hope elected officials in all our communities vet big budget projects before they get so far into them that they cannot pull out.

I would hope that before we agree to commit public funds to a project, that project must serve a public need first and second the cost must be reasonable in the context of our total budget. One way to fund controversial projects is to put them up for a public vote. If the citizens want to take on bonded debt to pay for the project, then a public vote would confirm that. I would be in favor of that method of funding the Carnegie.  Then voters would agree to tax themselves to pay for the project.

All of our communities struggle with their own challenges in meeting the needs of their citizens. Both Lake Stevens and Arlington are living with working libraries that are grossly inadequate for their communities but like our city did, they are doing their fiscal analysis and hopefully concluding that the need justifies the cost. When we built our new library, it made sense because we determined the need justified the expenditure.

Now looking at the old Carnegie building, I see a building that has no functional purpose in our city. At the same time, our finance department is advising us that revenues coming into the city coffers are trending downward and how we must be cautious with our commitments looking out into the future.

The funding source for the Carnegie Library is Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) monies. This money is earmarked for certain kinds of projects; one of which could be restoration of the Carnegie. So technically, it qualifies. But the larger question that should be answered first is “What other projects might this money be used for that actually serve the needs of our city and citizens?”

I would hope the Snohomish City Council would do a thorough budget analysis regarding our REET funds to insure that committing millions to one project won’t handicap us in other parts of the city where there is an actual need.