Many Americans probably feel that eating Chilean fruit costs America jobs. Think of the jobs that could be created, goes their argument, if laws prevented Americans from buying Chilean fruit. At the very least, we should all “buy American.” What a boost to the economy, huh? Wrong!
In all the commentary on Patrick J. Buchanan's new book (The Death of the West, NY: Thomas Dunne Books, 2002), has anyone discussed his silly economic fallacies and highly interventionist policy agenda? This is the conservative book of the year, the core thesis of which (the West needs higher rates of population increase to keep up with the Third World) impacts very strongly on economic issues.
Contrary to popular thinking, the velocity of money doesn't have a life of its own. It is not an independent entity, hence it can't cause anything, let alone offset the effect of an explosion in the supply of money on prices of goods and services.
While many pundits are fond of declaring that capital drives up medical costs, they simply are not being truthful. As one with even a rudimentary understanding of economics knows, capital has the effect of reducing unit costs. It would make no sense to acquire capital, otherwise.
While it is perfectly clear that an individual capitalist or speculator may make losses on the stock exchange, it is very doubtful whether "society" can make such losses. The question with which we are concerned here is whether an individual's losses from domestic stock exchange transactions represent a loss to the society to which that individual belongs.
Free trade is premised on the idea that human relationships should be voluntary and based on mutual consent. It is grounded on the understanding that the material, cultural, and spiritual improvements in the circumstances and conditions of man are best served when the members of the global community of mankind specialize their activities in a world-encompassing social system of division of labor.
Robert Kaplan's newest book seems to be, bottom line, a briefing book to justify the switches and turns, contradictions, and conflicting rationales for American foreign policy and the domestic political control to which it is tightly bound, while freeing the government to to do anything it wants, anywhere in the world it wants.
The policies the Fed cooked up during the mid-1990s that brought on the unsustainable boom (mistakenly called the "New Economy") are also the policies that Greenspan employed in the last year, ostensibly to give us a "soft landing." The government is now engaged in a number of foolish regulatory ventures that certainly will make economic life more difficult as we seek to climb out of this latest downturn.
Why is there so much religious passion in the tone of the Microsoft critics? Why is it so difficult to understand that the marketplace is a far better evaluator of Microsoft's product than a federal judge who tries to synthesize, express, and enforce the whims of 20 million consumers whom he's never talked to?
Can there be a right to freedom of speech without that right being firmly based on property rights?
