The fundamental issue in banking and monetary policy, writes Guido Hülsmann, is whether government can improve the monetary institutions of the unhampered market. All government intervention in this field boils down to schemes that increase the quantity of money beyond what it otherwise would be. Such schemes confer no social benefit but rather only serve redistributive purposes.
How well I recall the debates about the WTO and Nafta, both of which the Mises Institute editorialized against on grounds that they constituted managed trade, not free trade. In the case of Nafta, it was outright regional protectionism. But for dissenting from both sides of the phony DC debate, we were called secret protectionists.
There are few things that reduce the price of a good like an increase in its supply. But the very people who decry the lack of "affordable" housing in New York and other places are often the ones who are most agitated about "overdevelopment." While the idea of "a lack of affordable housing" is itself suspicious, it is clear that one effect of many government programs is to make housing less affordable than it otherwise might be.
In a lumber market where shortages were already appearing, writes Timothy Terrell, the Defense Logistics Agency suddenly ordered more than 20 million square-feet of plywood sheeting for construction in Iraq. Markets for plywood and its substitutes reacted strongly. Prices of oriented strand board (OSB), commonly used in new homes, apartment buildings, and commercial structures, jumped to record highs.
The case for free trade has been made for hundreds of years, and yet the fight for the right to buy and sell outside the borders is never ending. The situation is complicated by a major confusion that exists among free trade advocates. Many believe that world trade, because it is a good thing, ought to be sanctioned, managed, and otherwise regulated by the government or a coalition of governments.
Government has total power to make and break businessmen. This state of affairs compels businessmen, especially large, successful businessmen, to pay regular extortion money to politicians and government officials. They have to pay bribes, in the form of "campaign contributions" and "donations," to various pressure-group organizations in order not to be harmed or altogether destroyed.
Every once in a while, the truth about government spending somehow leaks out in Washington, writes Gregory Bresiger. Reluctantly, another one of our hired help recently told the truth about how the relentless taxing, inflating and spending of our central government is leading our nation down the road to serfdom. He then recommended more serfdom.
The neoconservative clique and their partners have deepened the state's commitment to empire, but Republicans hold no monopoly on building empire in the recent history of our country. The Clinton regime, now seemingly forgotten except as a kind of Camelot II by the American Left, featured most of the same patterns of imperial conquest and domestic repression.
How damaging would another round of protectionism be? With international relations already highly strained—thanks largely, if not wholly, to the unwontedly belligerent approach generally adopted by the current U.S. Administration in its dealings with others—the clear peril here is that a series of escalating trade disputes impairs the ability of flows of goods to discharge the existing financial burdens of debt service and repayment as they come due.
Scott Trask shows that the period of the Articles of Confederation was not characterized by chaos and increasingly bad economic times, as historians tend to assume. Rather, the Articles proved themselves to be a perfectly viable structure for a free society, encouraging trade and prosperity and adherence to the highest ideals of 1776—until the mercantilists and nationalists overthrew it.
