[The Economists’ Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets, and the Fracture of Society. By Binyamin Appelbaum. Little, Brown, 2019. 439 pages.]

Efforts to stimulate growth end up hampering growth. The Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle (ATBC), pioneered by Ludwig von Mises, explains this seeming paradox. Government reduction of interest rates below the would-be market rate triggers an expansion of fiduciary credit in the context of fiat currency and fractional-reserve banking. It leads to a boom whose main features are both malinvestment and overconsumption. The former squanders factors of production in business activities less urgently needed by consumers while the latter undermines the replenishment of the capital stock.

[Socialism Sucks: Two Economists Drink Their Way Through the Unfree World. By Robert Lawson and Benjamin Powell.  Regnery Publishing, 2019. 192 pages.]

The great 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat once argued that “between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference — the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee.” Being an avowed socialist, it is little wonder that Bernie Sanders falls into the category of a bad economist, however, his recently released housing plan

The words ‘economy’ and ‘ecology’ have shared roots, both stemming from the Greek word oikos (οἶκος) for “house”. ‘Economy’ adds the suffix ‘nemein’ (νέμειν), for “manage”, creating ‘oikonomia’ for “household management”, or more commonly the “ the management of material resources ”, whereas ‘logia’ (λόγια) at the end of ‘ecology’ means “the study of”.

“Dreary as all get-out.” That’s how National Post columnist Chris Selley describes Canada’s 43rd federal election (October 21). He says “None of the above” (NOTA) should be on the ballot, and he’s right. NOTA should be on the ballot. But what if NOTA wins the election? Then what? Selley doesn’t say, but I will.

Politicians habitually promise us greater economic prosperity, but their official policies usually contradict their promises. And if you dare to point out this contradiction, you will be ignored, as happened recently in London, Ontario.

First, let’s consider the source of economic prosperity.

Profits are sales minus costs. The costs reflect expenditures of money made in the past, sometimes, as in the case of depreciation on buildings, decades in the past. In contrast, the sales reflect money spent in the present, or at least in the current year.

To the extent that the quantity of money and thus volume of spending in the economic system increase over time, sales increase correspondingly, which means that profits increase correspondingly, because the costs are determined by expenditures already made.