This presidential campaign season may be one of those turning points in history for reasons good and bad. Anyone watching the one debate between the Republican and Democratic Party candidates would not have come away with the view that this was a great battle of competing principles and visions for the future. It was a campaign of name-calling and bullets, where one candidate avoided discussing ideas at all costs – and even avoided the media at all costs. Where the other candidate dodged two attempted assassinations while throwing red meat rhetoric to an understandably angry population.

The election is upon us. We wonder whether we have to have war, tariffs, and deficit spending, regardless of whom we support. What are we to do? Faced with the intractable problems of misgovernment, we need to look deeper. Following the great Murray Rothbard, we should ask, do we need a State at all? Rothbard’s answer was a clear “No.” And not only do we not need a State; the State is a menace.

Today, in theory, will conclude the 2024 presidential election, one of the most bizarre in American political history. From inner-party coups to assassination attempts, Kamala’s Brat summer social media trend to Trump’s courting of comedian podcasts, the campaign cycle has been saturated with the unconventional. It has, of course, also seen its expected share of shallow, political, rhetorical rhetoric and general economic illiteracy, which are the cornerstones of modern democracy.

Much has been said about the role of slavery in the history of the United States, and while that history cannot be recounted in a brief article, it is important to clarify some of the ethical principles underpinning the institution of slavery in light of contemporary debates about reparations for slavery. A number of states have expressed an intention to pay slavery reparations. For example, the New York Times reports that,

Central to any good investor’s decision-making process is determining the degree to which the target of investment is “robust to the downside.” Can the investment maintain its value—or even continue to provide sufficient return on capital—in the event of a pullback in the broader economy or a specific sector?

On September 18, 2024 the Federal Reserve (“Fed”) lowered its policy interest rate target by 0.5 percent to 5 percent. Most commentators, including the Fed chairman Jerome Powell, hold that the lowering of the policy rate is going to strengthen the economy. This way of thinking is based on the view that the lowering of interest rates is going to strengthen the demand for goods and services. As a result, this would strengthen the production of goods and services (i.e., generate economic growth).

As of this morning, ABC’s Project FiveThirtyEight says that Donald Trump wins 53 times out of 100 and Kamala Harris wins 47 times out of 100. How can we make sense of this statement?

To do so, we have to understand the difference between case probability and class probability.