World History

In a market economy, it is not the warlord or strongman who seizes control and lords it over his subjects. Rather, it is the common man as consumer who sets the terms for victory in the marketplace.

When some years ago I first read Murray Rothbard's description of Lord Acton as "the great Catholic libertarian historian," I suspected overstatement. The more I learned from and about Acton, however, the more Rothbard's words rang true. 

The salient fact, and one which most writers fail to stress, is that, insofar as the working people then had a "choice of alternative benefits," they chose the conditions which the reformers condemned.

The evidence suggests that monarchies—especially small ones—are more peaceful, stable, and protective of private property than their republican neighbors. 

If we actually examine the record of markets versus socialist regimes, we find that markets perform much better in terms of income growth, environmental quality, and the empowerment of women. 

The Chinese regime hopes it can use a digital yuan to challenge the supremacy of the US dollar. That brings a host of geopolitical advantages, as well. 

One of the most striking facts of world history: since about 1800, there has been an enormous increase in the average standard of living throughout the world. Before that date, almost everyone was poor, but then things changed.

The socialists have engineered a semantic revolution in converting the meaning of terms into their opposite.

The fact that colonial empires often differ significantly in their outcomes can serve to provide us with insights into what sorts of government policies are the most and least harmful.

If you were to browse the economics sections of bookstores here in my home city, Dublin, you would find a wide variety of books by anticapitalist celebrity economists. Books by free market economists? Not so much.