According to Ludwig von Mises, socialism was doomed to failure because the lack of private property, plus the absence of a profit and loss system, meant that accurate economic calculation would be impossible in those regimes. Instead of order, there would be chaos--something that was borne out time and again as we witnessed the poor performances of socialist economies.
By the 1890s, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Frick, Harriman, and many others amassed spectacular fortunes. To progressives and other redistributionists, their wealth, and the income inequality it implied, was unacceptable. An income tax, its advocates argued, was the fix.
More than two centuries before our federal budget sped past the $2 trillion mark, those known as anti-federalists warned us that the price we would have to pay for government would rise. So as you struggle to understand the latest IRS forms, and particularly as you write that big check to the United States Treasury, it is worth remembering what they said.
What may be the more important factor in manufacturing future Enrons is the role of government in fostering the boom-bust cycle. Enron, then, is just one casualty of many--albeit the largest so far--of massive credit expansion and of manipulation of interest rates by the central bank.
Critics of Austrian economics often attack it as “armchair economics.” Instead of testable hypotheses, Mises and his followers offer us truths about the world based on allegedly self-evident axioms.
Pat Buchanan’s remarkable book expresses a distinctively nationalist thesis; and, as a conscientious reviewer in good standing, I shall of course say something about it. But it is on a subordinate part of this thesis that I propose to concentrate
A new study has been seized upon by proponents as a "proof text" against critics of living-wage laws. The success claimed for such policies by that study, however, is, in fact, far less than implied by the innumerable "Living Wage Laws Reduce Poverty" stories it has spawned. At most, the study only shows that some low-income workers may gain more than other low-income workers lose.
In all the commentary on Patrick J. Buchanan's new book (The Death of the West, NY: Thomas Dunne Books, 2002), has anyone discussed his silly economic fallacies and highly interventionist policy agenda? This is the conservative book of the year, the core thesis of which (the West needs higher rates of population increase to keep up with the Third World) impacts very strongly on economic issues.
While many pundits are fond of declaring that capital drives up medical costs, they simply are not being truthful. As one with even a rudimentary understanding of economics knows, capital has the effect of reducing unit costs. It would make no sense to acquire capital, otherwise.
The policies the Fed cooked up during the mid-1990s that brought on the unsustainable boom (mistakenly called the "New Economy") are also the policies that Greenspan employed in the last year, ostensibly to give us a "soft landing." The government is now engaged in a number of foolish regulatory ventures that certainly will make economic life more difficult as we seek to climb out of this latest downturn.
