I am a professor (I teach economics at Loyola University New Orleans). In my view, this means I should profess something. I would be bland and uninteresting to my students if all I did was offer them all sides of every controversial issue in an even-handed way, so that none of them even had a clue as to where I stood on any topic. Of course, I would be derelict in my duty if I only offered my own viewpoint. As John Stuart Mill says in his “On Liberty” (paraphrase) “if you only know your own side of an argument, you don’t even know that, since all views are contrasted with all others.”

People like the welfare state because they suppose that it comes at no costs and provides many benefits. If people knew how much the present consumption of social benefits entails less prosperity in the future, the population would have a critical attitude towards the welfare state and politicians would have a harder time selling their fraud. Just as a society that ranks security over liberty loses both, a society that attributes a higher value to social benefits than to wealth creation ends up with neither wealth nor benefits.

As the New York City subway system continues to deteriorate, this word is verboten by political and media elites here: Privatization.

Even the supposed friends of private enterprise, the Manhattan Institute, don’t argue for the abolition of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), the state agency that has run the subways since the late 1960s. Some supposed friends of laissez-faire don’t accept that private transportation systems can ever effectively run the trains and make money.

A Blockchain Study Finds 0.00% Blockchain Success Rate . The study reported also reported 0 vendor call backs when asked for evidence of implementation.

Though Blockchain has been touted as the answer to everything, a study of 43 solutions advanced in the international development sector has found exactly no evidence of success.

[This article is Part 3 of a series. See Part 1 and Part 2.]

Ludwig von Mises’s contributions stood out against the background we outlined previously in mainstream international economic theory. Mises did not employ an analytical distinction between domestic and international trade, and unlike his contemporary scholars, he did not separate the real and monetary realms of the economy in his analysis. Quite the contrary, his lifelong research program was centered on bridging what he believed to be an artificial theoretical separation.

One of the more interesting reactions to the Green New Deal (GND) came courtesy of Ross Douthat. Writing for the New York Times, Douthat offered “one cheer for the Green New Deal,” two cheers shy of a full endorsement.

When Britons voted on June 23, 2016 on whether or not to leave the EU there was no discussion of a “hard or soft Brexit”. These terms were invented after Brexit passed by a surprisingly large margin and the mostly anti-Brexit Tory Party government, especially its leadership, decided that it needed to negotiate the terms of leaving. Brexit supporters regard such terms as betraying the 2016 Brexit referendum itself. These 17.4 million Britons undoubtedly believed that Brexit would mean exactly that: Britain would no longer be governed by any EU laws, regulations, etc.