The Economics and Ethics of Government Default, Part I
What would it mean for the economy if by one fell swoop not just the debt owed to the central bank, but all of it disappeared?
What would it mean for the economy if by one fell swoop not just the debt owed to the central bank, but all of it disappeared?
Prudent economic calculation becomes more difficult as legal and regulatory regimes are subject to frequent changes and political upheaval.
Americans would be wise to not dismiss separatism just because their history textbooks said it's illegal, racist, or treasonous. Instead, they should recognize it as a tool that could save a lot of headaches and even lives.
The threat of “nuclear proliferation” remains one of the great catch-all reasons—the other being “humanitarian” intervention—given for why the US regime and its allies ought to be given unlimited power to invade foreign states and impose sanctions at any given time.
Every depression generates a clamor among many groups for special privileges at the expense of the rest of society—and the American depression that struck in 1784–85 was no exception.
How did the federal government acquire this omnipotent power? Certainly not by constitutional amendment. It acquired it by converting the federal government after World War II from a limited-government republic to a national security state.
The latest impeachment saga simply confirms Thomas Paine’s adage: “The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind.” Score another victory for the Swamp.
Social activists now regard the minimum wage as another welfare program that can reduce the costs of programs like Medicaid and food stamps, and can reduce inequality. But the minimum wage is very poorly targeted for these purposes.
Let's take a sober and even-handed look at what economics and empirical studies have to say about minimum wage hikes. Krugman and Biden claim there's no evidence these hikes affect employment. But they are being misleading.
A state's borders should change over time to reflect demographic and ideological realities. By denying this, political leaders are effectively saying that the rights of minority populations don't matter.