Mises Daily

Sean Corrigan asks the crucial question: if the causes of the business cycle are that well known and understood, why can't business wise up and avoid the trap of making clusters of investment errors?

How does any political movement that begins by being opposed to the state avoid being absorbed by the state? The most crucial step, writes Lew Rockwell, is to decide what you are for and what you are against from the very outset.

In his newly-released federal budget President George W. Bush promises to reduce farm subsidies. Predictably, writes Tom DiLorenzo, on the day the budget was made public there were well-choreographed "protests" by all the usual suspects.

Thanks to a little-noticed item in Bush's budget, writes Joseph Potts, it won't just be Islamist suicide bombers whose families are limned and paid off for the death of their fighters.

In a true free-market secured to private property rights, writes Ninos Malek, employers can determine employee qualifications on any grounds whatsoever.

Current monetary policy, writes Frank Shostak, is based on a theory of Knut Wicksell. How does Wicksell stack up to Mises?

European antitrust regulators have taken the worst of American antitrust "analysis," argues DT Armentano, and made it even worse.

This week sees the release of what is, in light of recent events, an especially timely issue of the Journal of Libertarian Studies.

The true state of the Union, writes DW MacKenzie, is that its chief executive fails to grasp the profound truth that central planning by political elites can never match the results of decentralized planning by the general public--even when it is done in the name of liberty.