“The number of Federal Reserve policymakers willing to consider an interest rate hike this year rose ... as higher gas prices stemming from the Iran war threatened to worsen inflation in the coming months.”
“This new regulatory framework ... has been officially communicated to regional parties. There will be no return to the pre-war status quo.”
The Wall Street Journal recently ran a commentary by Justin Lahart, according to which the debate among economists regarding minimum wages is still unsettled- after 30 years.
Among the 10 points in Iran’s peace proposal that President Trump has now agreed to use as a basis for peace negotiations between the United States and Iran is a plank that prohibits any more attacks on Iran. That point reminds me of what John Kennedy agreed to in his peace agreement with the Soviet Union to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis, an agreement that ultimately led to his assassination at the hands of the U.S. national-security establishment.
People readily line up on one side or another of great economic debates. How do they choose which side to take?
This is clearly a question worth asking. I have asked it of myself, and it has led me to being an Austrian and especially a Misesian.
To try to answer the question of why people decide about economics, let’s begin at the beginning, by asking how people decide anything. As a general rule, they rely on emotion, factual observation, logic, or intuition.
Your dollar has lost 96-97 percent of its purchasing power since 1913. This is not bad luck or mysterious market forces. It is the result of deliberate policy choices that steadily, quietly drained your wealth—and convinced you it was being done for your benefit.
Housing costs in New York City have reached a level that many people can no longer afford. The response has been to push for more control—limits on rent increases and expanded tenant protections. The intention is clear. However, housing markets respond to incentives, not intentions.
