around. But is it really more dangerous to elect a president who makes up economic policy on the fly than one who proclaims to have a detailed plan for us? The answer of which are impossible to predict. Furthermore, central planning shuts down innovation and the entrepreneurial process because it assumes to know today what is
the pipeline of new drugs continues to flow. Profits provide the lubricant for innovation. Therefore the doctrine of free trade, which works so well in other both economically (taxes) and medically (limited choice and access). If the trade policy of the United States was based strictly upon reciprocity, the playing field
superior products and marketing strategies from harming rivals, but since every innovation that benefits consumers takes business away from rivals, halting such any need to prove such harm. Implicit in the precedent was the belief that such a policy must necessarily reflect an abusive use of monopoly power. Antitrust and
The outrageous talk of dividing Microsoft into three parts would have to end, so innovation and investment in the high-tech sector could proceed apace. But given the now also fails to treat the fundamental source of the problem, which is a monetary policy that has already been too loose. The last time that the money supply was
presidential advisers, but people who thrive in the private sector, like high-tech innovators and heads of successful companies. What can the partisans of the public would become a permanent economic partner with the private sector, and set a policy precedent that could lead to ruin.
demand is subservient to corporate interest, the most likely culprit is government policy. On the free market, consumers drive production, whereas under a system of of the state, but thankfully it doesn’t. In spite of the morass of anti-market policies, companies like Jones Soda have sought to satisfy a consumer demand for the system that produces them. Interventionism is restrictive; it confines the innovative human mind, while the laissez-faire economy unleashes it. In the absence
“garbled ideas are the main ideological foundation of labor unionism and the labor policy of contemporary governments . . .” The ideas are “garbled” because they are moment. The only means he has to achieve this is to offer them higher pay. Every innovation which an entrepreneur plans . . . requires the employment of workers
future of American wireless technology, and explain why we must abandon current policy. The Conspiracy Murray Rothbard made the following distinction between shallow as a barrier to entry, lowering competition and raising prices, but it also blocks innovations that might threaten industry leaders. When FM was invented, the other more efficient technologies, by removing any economic incentive to efficient innovation, etc.), how is scarcity a justification for taking a resource out of the
labor market described above to union work rules that discourage efficiency and innovation. The damage that unions have inflicted on the economy in recent American might guess. In a study published jointly in late 2002 by the National Legal and Policy Center and the John M. Olin Institute for Employment Practice and Policy,
of four. That is the minimal cost of a fully homogenized national health-insurance policy where everything is covered, everyone is covered, and there are no preexisting is no different. A free-market insurance industry would be allowed to sell policies against the treatment of leukemia. This treatment is catastrophically serve only to grant monopoly privileges, thereby raising costs and decreasing innovation. A common defense of pharmaceutical patents is that people would not
What is the Mises Institute?
The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard.
Non-political, non-partisan, and non-PC, we advocate a radical shift in the intellectual climate, away from statism and toward a private property order. We believe that our foundational ideas are of permanent value, and oppose all efforts at compromise, sellout, and amalgamation of these ideas with fashionable political, cultural, and social doctrines inimical to their spirit.