The fundamental issue in banking and monetary policy, writes Guido Hülsmann, is whether government can improve the monetary institutions of the unhampered market. All government intervention in this field boils down to schemes that increase the quantity of money beyond what it otherwise would be. Such schemes confer no social benefit but rather only serve redistributive purposes.
Overall economic efficiency does not concern GDP growth per se, writes DW MacKenzie. It concerns the satisfaction of consumer demand. Increased military spending does not directly satisfy consumer demand. Nor do increased deficits and monetary stimulation substitute for market forces. They only set in motion another round of cyclical economic trends.
In a lumber market where shortages were already appearing, writes Timothy Terrell, the Defense Logistics Agency suddenly ordered more than 20 million square-feet of plywood sheeting for construction in Iraq. Markets for plywood and its substitutes reacted strongly. Prices of oriented strand board (OSB), commonly used in new homes, apartment buildings, and commercial structures, jumped to record highs.
H. Scott Trask sums it up: on the one hand, they believed in fractional-reserve banking, generally following Adam Smith's currency and banking theories. On the other hand, they were resolutely opposed to government-issued paper money, fiat money, legal tender laws, inconvertible paper currency, and land banks. On the question of a national bank, they were divided.
The issue of government debt and deficits lay dormant throughout the high-revenue 1990s. But with recession and exploding government spending, the issue has become enormously important again. Sadly, just about everyone is missing the central point, which not that we need budget reform so much as drastic monetary reform.
Every good libertarian should favor tax cuts. The money belongs to us in the first place, and it should be an occasion to celebrate when Washington wises up and gives some back. We've been promised a tax cut as long as memory serves, but it never seems to arrive. At last, here it is, thanks to Bush having pushed so hard for this as an economic stimulus measure.
Germany's biggest economic troubles trace to Otto von Bismarck, who conceived of a system of social security for the industrial workers in the late 19th century. His goal was to bring them under the control of the State. It was first during World War I and its aftermath and under the Third Reich in the 1930s when the welfare state experienced its greatest expansions.
People can feel socially secure in Denmark—at least for now. People don't get rich from welfare but they can live a comfortable life. Practically all people are eligible for one program or another. But it is not sustainable in the long run. At some point, the trough will be empty. Per Henrik Hansen explains.
Despite the Media Campaign's consistently poor performance, lawmakers are nonetheless set to refund the anti-drug ad program with a new five-year appropriation, which includes a $90 million funding boost! Nevertheless, it's painfully apparent that the public isn't buying what the government is selling.
Government cannot create something from nothing. But the premise of universal health care is that the government can bestow benefits upon members of society that it had not created for itself. It imposes on the economic body something that did not come from within its own means, or by its own choice, meaning the choices of the many individuals that make up the economy.
