In Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility feminist scholar Angela Franks presents the evidence that should revolutionize our view of the founder of Planned Parenthood. Far from being motivated by the liberation of women she was in fact a lifelong devotee of that dark 20th century phenomenon: eugenics. A review in Touchstone by Anne Barbeua Gardiner explains:
The Economist writes: “By the late 1990s the Wallenbergs controlled some 40% of the value of the companies listed on the Swedish stock exchange.” My thanks to Tyler Cowen for this Sweden fact of the day.
This essay was originally published in The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics, edited by Edwin Dolan (Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, 1976), pp. 52–74.
Mark Brandly asks what might have happened to prices if the money supply had been fixed since 1959. According to the CPI, the 2005 price level was 6.7 times higher than it was in 1959. However, in the absence of an expanding money supply, the price level would have been one-fifth as high as it was in 1959. Due to economic growth, the price level in this period would have fallen by 80 percent. Therefore, the expanding money supply over the last 46 years has resulted in a current price level over 34 times higher than it otherwise would have been.October 14 is a date celebrated in Pennsylvania, but unfortunately not in other states. That is because it marks the 1644 birthday of William Penn—its founder, but also an important contributor to freedom in the US.
Before Pennsylvania was founded, Penn defended British rights on which Americans’ rights would be built.
Penn joined the Quakers at 22. Because they dissented from the state religion and refused to take loyalty oaths, he became an outsider in British society. He was expelled from Oxford and arrested several times.
Since Lew Rockwell has blogged here about the Nobel Peace Prize, and Jeffrey Tucker and others (1, 2, 3) have blogged about the so-called Nobel Prize in Economics, I thought I’d take the opportunity to point out, once again, that these two prizes do not come from the same foundation.
Some time ago, the Nobel Prize committee changed the definition of the antiwar prize to include activism for government welfare and environmentalism (exactly the sort of coercive redistributionism that undermines social peace). This was a direct betrayal of the founder, who had stipulated that the prize be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
