The latest health crisis has made it clear that governments put their own interests before those of the public while hiding crucial information and imposing counterproductive regulations.
What needs to be done in such a crisis is not to attempt to steer the market to ensure it provides what is needed, but to let it free to do what it always does: match the goals of entrepreneurial producers with the needs of the populace.
Whether we're talking public health or economic growth, the Chinese regime's love of intervention and centralization has led to one crisis after another.
You are not even allowed to ask: "Is the price we’re paying worth it?" or "Is this an abundance of caution, or an overdose?" The "serious people" attack anyone who urges calm and encourages others to adopt a "don’t panic" approach. The new party line is: panic = virtue.
Quantitative methods can't be applied to human action, which is purposeful and not a mere reflex. For this reason, mathematical formulas can only describe events, never explain them.
Between 1909 and 1913, Keynes was the most important defender of British monetary imperialism in India. His faithful defense of the British Empire in those early years allowed him to become the century’s most influential economist after the war.
Although it doesn't explain everything, it's always a good idea to ask "who benefits" whenever governments step in to "solve" a crisis.
Learning the history of economic thought is important not because every economist has been right, but because we can learn from their mistakes.
Some people use the concept of negative externalities to argue for government to force people toward "what is best for them." An example of this is the call for a consumption tax.
Finn Kydland and Edward C. Prescott (KP), the 2004 Nobel laureates in economics think that technological shocks can explain 70 percent of economic fluctuations in postwar US data. Unfortunately their quantitative methods are simplistic and ignore the real problem: central banking.
