One of the most discussed topics in modern macroeconomics is the alleged trade-off between price inflation and unemployment. The Phillips curve became, in one form or another, the linchpin of modern monetary policy since the 1960s when Nobel laureates Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow presented the curve as a politically exploitable “menu of choice”: either high price inflation and low unemployment, low price inflation and high unemployment, or any point in between the extremes — just like that, à la carte.

Perhaps the leading argument for democracy is that it substitutes “ballots for bullets”: that it replaces the inconvenient and disruptive processes of violent change by peaceful changes expressing the majority will. Some democrats have defined democracy as majority rule, while others have placed on this rule the limitation that minorities must themselves be left free to try to become a majority. But, whichever the definition, the peaceful change argument is the dominant one.

All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.

The upcoming presidential election has pitted two of the most unlikeable candidates in recent memory against each other. Laura Roslin and Gaius Baltar each represent some of the worst impulses of humanity, and the prospect of having either as president of the colonies is simply terrifying. In fact, their individual platforms are so awful that they should give us pause to consider a question recently posed by Admiral Adama: does humanity even deserve to survive?

Say what you want about Donald J. Trump, but he is correct about one thing: the Federal Reserve has, with near certainty, been holding interest rates down for political purposes — namely, to aid Hillary Clinton in getting elected president of the United States.

In September’s first presidential debate, Mr. Trump said:

President Obama’s High Command at the Fed has had the luck which Napoleon looked for in his generals. The exercise of two Yellen puts seems to have delayed the late dangerous stage of asset price inflation to beyond 2016 Election Day.

In various talks (long and short) and articles about big business, I’ve stressed the point that established companies frequently lobby for more regulation, give generously to politicians on all sides, and benefit from an environment in which government plays a large role in the economy.

In American political discourse, the Homestead Acts remain so widely regarded as a success, that merely mentioning them will often suffice to provide evidence of how government deserves credit for being wise, prudent, and devoted to taking the long view in economic development. 

Introduced by Murray Sabrin, Joseph Salerno spoke on “Why Falling Prices Are Good for Business” at Ramapo College in New Jersey on October 4. 

Dr. Salerno’s portion of the talk begins at 6:20. The lecture is followed at the one-hour mark by a panel discussion covering business cycles, the Fed, interest rates, and financial crises with Alex Olbrecht and Murray Sabrin. 

Prohibition kills a massive number of people in the United States every year. It does help make a few people extremely wealthy, but at the same time, it impoverishes the rest of us. This dire situation is mostly unknown, but it is not due to a simple misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about prohibition. It is because prohibition is nothing but a scam.

It is widely accepted that by means of suitable monetary policies the US central bank can navigate the economy towards a growth path of economic stability and prosperity. The key ingredient in achieving this is price stability.

Some experts are of the view that what prevents the attainment of price stability are the fluctuations of the federal funds rate around the neutral rate of interest also known as the “natural rate.”