Mises Daily

Both Republicans and Democrats think they can tinker their way to creating an economy with less inequality. Both sides miss the point, and ignore the central role of government fiat money in the problem.

Many claim that great advances in technology come primarily through government spending on research. In fact, government tech spending crowds out other innovations while favoring certain interest groups at everyone else's expense.

The world's central banks have been pouring new money into the financial system, which has produced a dangerous amount of distortion to prices in the market. And what do we have to show for it? Economic growth is anemic, at best.

Opponents of secession and decentralization claim that secession is self-destructive because small states will find themselves defenseless in the face of military aggression. In fact, small states enjoy many advantages in wealth, flexibility, and decentralization that are lacking in larger, centralized states.

What if machines took most of our jobs? Things would become less expensive, and humans would become wealthier in real terms, just as has happened since the Industrial Revolution began. Fear of labor-saving technology continues unabated, nonetheless.

It appears that even economists are now being replaced by machines. At least it seems that way given a recent paint-by-numbers attack from the New York Times on James Grant's new book The Forgotten Depression.

Krugman is confused as to why so much technological growth in recent years has not led to more economic growth. The answer lies in the fact that true technological change requires funding — and thus real savings — to be implemented.

We’re often told that CEO pay is outrageously high and that increases in executive pay comes at the expense of worker pay. If we look beyond the few examples used by the pundits, however, we find that these oft-repeated “facts” are anything but.

Governments don’t like it when citizens emigrate to escape high taxes and other government-imposed costs. Governments would much rather keep productive citizens and their money at home. Bigger countries find it’s much easier to keep us in.

Mathematical economic models have a poor record of making accurate predictions, which makes sense since human action cannot be quantified by numbers. On the other hand, an understanding of sound economics can help us make good qualitative predictions.