The Atlantic magazine shouts the headline. “Richard Thaler wins the Nobel Prize in Economics for killing Homo Economicus.” For sure, the father of behavioral economics has done some good stuff. However, he didn’t kill Homo Economicus, Ludwig von Mises did.
In Hans Hermann Hoppe’s original and controversial essay “The Case For Free Trade and Restricted Immigration,” he outlined a defense of state action for the restriction of immigration according to certain, specific qualifications.
Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard told reporters “Quebec has been attacked. And Quebec will resist. And Quebec will unite. . . .”
One of the most accusatory and negative words currently in use in various politically “progressive” circles is that of “Neo-Liberalism.” To be called a “Neo-Liberal” is to stand condemned of being against “the poor,” an apologist for the “the rich” and a proponent of economic policies leading to greater income inequality.
The biggest winner of the Trump presidency is also the most surprising: Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen.
After all, Yellen was a constant target for criticism by Candidate Trump, going so far as to accuse her of being “more political than Hillary Clinton.” Beyond Mr. Trump’s barbed rhetoric, pundits such as Paul Krugman predicted that Trump’s ascendency would be disastrous for the US economy and the stock market in general, which would have wiped out the modest recovery that Yellen’s legacy depends on.
The Indian tribesman’s claim to his ancient stomping grounds can’t be reduced to a title search at the deeds office. That’s the stuff of the positive law. And this was the point I took away from a conversation, circa 2000, with Mr. Property Rights himself, Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
President Donald Trump proposed last month a tax plan that would lower the top individual tax rate to 35% from 39.6%. It would also lower the corporate income tax rate to 20% from 35%.
The plan however, says nothing about how spending will be cut to avoid increasing deficits. According to supply-side economics — a relatively new school of economics — a reduction of tax rates and lower revenues for the government does not need to be offset by decreased government spending or increased borrowings.
