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.

Most 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. The neutral rate, it is held, is one that is consistent with stable prices and a balanced economy.

In a recent thread, a commentator (Feirman) wrote: “Rand herself didn’t agree with everything Mises wrote, such as his a priori methodology, subjectivism and utilitarianism, and I am sure that other Randians pick bones with other of his ideas as well. But this doesn’t amount to not endorsing von Mises, even by contemporary Randians.”

Thanks to a little-noticed item in Bush’s budget, writes Joseph Potts, it won’t just be Islamist suicide bombers whose families are limned and paid off for the death of their fighters.

In contrast to all the platitudes about sacrifice, this general loves his job. What saddens me about this episode is not that he would say such things; no kidding plenty of the macho guys in the military think it’s fun to shoot people—look at the games in any arcade. No, what depresses me is that if this general had said, say, “I have never been comfortable taking orders from a black superior,” he would have immediately been forced to resign because of the PR disaster.

This week sees the release of what is, in light of recent events, an especially timely issue of the Journal of Libertarian Studies. Roderick Long explains.

From an interview with Milton Friedman (2), a good story about Mises and the Mont Pelerin Society. It’s told to critique him; but to me, it shows Mises’s integrity and principles.

I’ve wondered when we would start seeing arguments like the following, from Keith Halderman of the Liberty&Power blog. He argues that the cap on earnings subject to FICA taxes should be lifted because: “at least [the tax] would become less regressive. More importantly, if the pain of the tax program were to spread upwards to the more influential there would be a greater chance that the social security system would be privatized and ownership of the money restored to the people who earned it.”

The true state of the Union, writes DW MacKenzie, is that its chief executive fails to grasp the profound truth that central planning by political elites can never match the results of decentralized planning by the general public--even when it is done in the name of liberty.