'Adoption of the Populist Party's ideals would/is beneficial for the United States of America."

Thanks, Lannan. Recognize that the resolution is a generality. It demands a cost benefit analysis on the effects of populist ideology on American society. I will not argue that the populists were devoid of good ideas, indeed some of their proposals made all the sense in the world. My argument will instead be that the bad policies they advocated or implemented outweigh the good. I'll do an analysis not only on the policies they effectively passed, but also those they failed to and what their effects likely would've been.==My case== First, don't define populism solely by the policies suggested by the Omaha platform. While this provides a good overview of some of the issues a populist would support, populism itself can be generally defined as an anti-elite, anti-corporate economically liberal, ideology that tries to align itself with the "common man" by increasing the power of the state. Populism can basically be considered as synonymous with the progressive movement of its era save for populisms close link with agrarian society and progressivism's link with the urban centers. I. Corporate and income taxesA. Corporate taxesThe positions of populists on corporations are best summed up by populist idol William Jennings Bryan's statement that "No one can earn a million dollars honestly." From the very beginning the populists were steadfastly against the power and wealth of the nations corporations. This contempt for those who contributed to the economy most led to advocacy of bad economic policy.These anti-corporate beliefs held by the populists and their allies on capital hill led to the passage of the first corporate tax in 1894. Since then, the proliferation of populist ideals steeped into our modern political culture has culminated in the US having the highest corporate tax in the world. A great article from Forbes explains why corporate taxes are such a bad idea[1], in it the author points out that the money taken from corporations does not exist in a vacuum, rather it comes from capital that would be invested by companies to grow the economy elsewhere. The author poses the hypothetical dichotomy of "Who do you think would do more for the overall economy with $250 billion a year, business or government?". Clearly while the government has its place in society, the private sector could invest that money far more efficiently and benefit us all.The National Bureau of Economic Research[2] compiled a cross section of 85 countries to see how corporate taxes affect investment. They conclude that, controlling for other tax rates and a myriad of other economic variables: "effective corporate tax rates have a large and significant adverse effect on corporate investment and entrepreneurship." They estimate that a "10 percent increase in the effective corporate tax rate reduces aggregate investment to GDP ratio by 2 percentage points." The investment to GDP ratio means the percentage of the GDP that is derived from investment in new capital. This is hugely significant. Investment was around 18% of the US GDP in 2012[3], the corporate tax rate was 39.2%[4]. So the corporate tax in the US costs us about 8% of the GDP. Otherwise known as one trillion two hundred fifty-four billion four hundred million dollars (15.68 trillion x .08). Of course the government does *something* with this money, but clearly the private sector can invest it's money more efficiently. Keep in mind also that investments in capital can compound on each other, so the true number could be even greater.Populist ideas in other countries have led to them having corporate taxes as well. If the US did not have one, we would be more globally competitive and businesses would be more willing to invest in the US.B. Income taxProbably the consequential policy advocated by the populists was a *graduated* income tax. This means that the rate of taxation increases as the money made increases--it should be pretty clear why this harms incentive. So fervently did they desire this policy, so far from the status quo that it literally required a Constitutional amendment. We can see from the effects of the income tax the desirability of populist economic recommendations. A century old, we have plenty of evidence to look to to see how the income tax affects the US. The tax code is so confusing and byzantine that even the IRS chief has someone else do his taxes[5] and Americans spend an incredible amount of time on their taxes leading the economist to report[6]: "Americans now spend 7.6 billion hours a year grappling with an incomprehensible tangle of deductions, loopholes and arcane reporting requirements. That is the equivalent of 3.8 million skilled workers toiling full-time, year-round, just to handle the paperwork. By this measure, the tax-compliance industry is six times larger than car-making."Imagine what people might be able to do with the time that's wasted on our labyrinth tax system. This is obviously just the tip of the iceberg. The income tax, originally a small sliver of an individuals income, has now reached up to nearly 40% for the most productive people in the economy[7] allowing for the vast over reaches in federal power that have occurred over this century. Even if we need an income tax to compete in the modern world, a flat tax, not the graduated one the anti-wealthy populists wanted, would be superior. The National Center for Policy Analysis[8] studied the effects of a 17% flat rate income tax using a highly credible economic model, and found that:"...under a flat tax, every production sector would grow faster than otherwise except for subsidized agricultural crops, which would lose their tax subsidies. The only consumption sector to contract would be consumer financial services, which would be affected because so much of available capital would go to the rapidly growing production sectors." Thus a flat tax would better allow for the growth of key economic sectors, furthering the economy.II. State control of industryA. RailroadsThe populists called for the Federal government to own and operate the railroads, which during the time was the primary means of interstate transportation. Plenty of other countries have had government controlled railways, let's see the effects it had on them. Japan had a mix of privately and publicly owned railways, and predictably, the privately owned ones were more efficient. The Atlantic Cities explains that[9]: "As the post-war years marched on, the private railways proved to be more efficient than those run by the state, which were hemorrhaging cash." The railroad in the US demonstrates where the government actually acted intelligently, doing what governments do most efficiently: giving subsidies (in the form of loans and land grants) to private companies to invest in projects that benefited the public good, like the railroad. This is where the governments role is ideal, not in owning and running things. Even as far back as the 1890's the US government was as incompetent as it is today, and even more corrupt. Rail was vital to the economy of the day (and still is today), and the federal government couldn't be trusted with it. Thankfully this is a populist policy that didn't happen so we can't analyze how bad it was, but it can be safely assumed that this policy would've been horrible for American industry and transportation.B. CommunicationThe populists also called for government ownership of the telegraphs. They even compared it's place in American communication to the postal service. This is a great comparison to see how wasteful a telegraph service owned by the government would've been. The telephone soon rendered the telegraph, if not obsolete, a more archaic form of technology, similar to what the Internet has done to paper mail. Today the postal service loses about $25 million dollars every single day[10]. By contrast, companies that used to offer telegraphs like Western Union have moved on and are still quite successful. Private companies are almost always superior to government attempts at making a profit. How much money would have been wasted had this policy been enacted?Populism is bad economically in extremely devastating and quantifiable ways. This outweighs my opponents case easily, thus you must vote con.Sources:1. http://www.forbes.com...2. http://www.nber.org...3. https://www.cia.gov... 4. http://taxfoundation.org... 5. http://www.usnews.com...6. Ibid 7. http://www.bankrate.com... 8. http://www.ncpa.org... 9. http://www.theatlanticcities.com... 10. http://www.economicfreedom.org...