The consequences of a markedly diminished position of the US dollar would be dramatic and of global proportions. While it would affect all economies that are closely related to the US economy, the major impact would fall on the United States itself. A demise of the US dollar as the dominant global currency would mean that the current relation between domestic absorption and production could no longer be maintained.
Do you remember, asks Tibor Machan, when America was called the leader of the Free World? It seems like so long ago. Now the USA is the leader of the protectionist world, the very opposite of free, at least where international commerce is concerned.
For a few billion dollars, you might expect to be able to bribe some small third world country into cleaning up its act, to defend the property rights of its citizens, to provide a stable currency, and to establish a non-interventionist economic and foreign policy. Not so, writes Mark Thornton.
Hardly a day goes by when Mark Brandly doesn't observe confusion on the subject of international trade, from pundits who blame it all of American economic and social to those who think trade can only thrive in the context of treaties and war. This primer corrects most of the big mistakes.
In the midst of a recession, and with the credibility of central banking itself being called into question, what is a central banker to do? Why, blame executive pay, of course, and impugn the morality of anyone who might believe that Fed governors are a greater threat to economic stability than shareholders that make wage decisions.
Creating traditions of free trade, property rights, and entrepreneurship in an impoverished continent, often amid lethal tribal and religious conflict, will take decades to achieve. But it is the only way to throw off the yoke of foreign aid.
The well-being of the majority of any nation's economically disenfranchised citizens could be realized without any state control of the nation's money supply or state regulation of peaceful economic activity, writes Harry Valetine. It is a lesson that could inspire entire populations to wrest control of the economy away from the statist elitists.
Corruption breeds poverty. That is the conclusion of the latest World Development Report, in which the World Bank cites "evidence that higher levels of corruption are associated with lower per capita income" (World Bank, 2002). The story told is that bribes raise the costs of doing business, so more corrupt countries attract less foreign direct investment, which lowers growth rates and per capita incomes.
According to the Keynesian magic formula, writes Frank Shostak, government spending is all that is needed to make a society prosperous. Even today this position has prominent defenders, such as Joseph Stiglitz. If this view were correct, however, poverty in the world would have been eliminated a long time ago.
The burdens imposed upon producers by easy money and their consequent lack of profitability are among the main reasons why there is no significant capital expenditure. The overhang from the 2000 capital-spending boom only partly exacerbates this, since much of the outlay undertaken then was wastefully misallocated and is not germane to the needs of the current economy anyway.
