There are few things that reduce the price of a good like an increase in its supply. But the very people who decry the lack of "affordable" housing in New York and other places are often the ones who are most agitated about "overdevelopment." While the idea of "a lack of affordable housing" is itself suspicious, it is clear that one effect of many government programs is to make housing less affordable than it otherwise might be.
With gasoline prices rising to their highest levels in years, and then dipping again after Labor Day, it was inevitable that the politicians would come out of the woodwork and demand yet another costly investigation of the U.S. oil industry. The reason is not scheming industry executives or incompetent managers. Politicians and the bureaucrats they empower, on the other hand, have caused major disruptions to oil supplies. Let us count the ways.
Complete privatization will not lead to ideal results, but it will unravel most of the anticompetitive practices that exist in the cable industry. The lesson that we should draw from the results of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is that efforts to partially privatize the industry are likely to retain those elements of regulations that benefit concentrated interests in business most.
At the Mises University, George Reisman explained why many countries often thought to be socialist, either now or in the past, such as Sweden, Israel, and Britain under the old Labor Party, should be thought of as hampered market economies instead. For production in those countries characteristically takes place, or did take place, at private initiative, motivated by private profit.
People complain about both overdevelopment and the shortage of housing, writes Gene Callahan, without considering the contradiction. In housing, as in all sectors, if one does not carefully trace the problems back to their roots in a previous intervention, it is very easy to believe that yet another intervention is just the ticket for rectifying them.
The critics of free trade persist in their insistence that permitting individuals in this country the freedom to invest where they please undermines the effectiveness of the U.S. economy and ultimately leads to a lower standard of living. The implication: Americans are better off only if everyone else in the world is poor. This flies in the face of sound economics.
Drug reimportation is not a panacea, nor is it likely to have any long-term effect upon the rising costs of prescription drugs. It is at best a temporary fix for those most in need of lower priced drugs. What will have a lasting impact, however, is the extent to which the entirety of the Washington conservative and libertarian alliance was willing to bypass the larger issue of free trade.
The authors of the Time article are correct in that coming energy crises are brewing. However, they are wrong when they assume that such problems occur because of the ineptitude of capitalists and the lack of political will by members of Congress. Whether it be gasoline or the making of bread, the production of goods is best left to economic, not political entrepreneurship.
The idea behind the cuts is more or less that by forceably lowering the interest rates, the costs of businesses and households will fall, consumption and investment will commence, and profits will recover. But why hasn't it worked the former 12 times? Is there something wrong with this idea?
Be it bilateral or multilateral, dispensed directly from a government or through an international lending agency, foreign aid embodies all the failures and tragedies that have come to typify our government-run domestic poverty schemes.
