Since Adam Smith, economic thinkers have failed to understand that profits in a market economy are not extractions of wealth from laborers. In truth, profits lead to higher wages and higher living standards for those workers.
By borrowing money and “creating” new jobs, the government is creating the illusion of a strong economy. This does not end well.
Under free competition, and without government support and enforcement, there will only be limited scope for fractional-reserve banking. Banks could form cartels to prop each other up, but generally cartels on the market don’t work well.
Javier Milei has begun his presidency by taking action against much of Argentina’s vast welfare state. One hopes it is the beginning to a successful term in office.
There is a lack of buyers for US Treasury debt. Rating agencies have recently downgraded the US debt, and entitlement benefits’ “trust funds” will go into the red in a few years. The classical economists offer few answers to the depth of this problem.
The natural tendency of government, once in charge of money, is to inflate and to destroy the value of the currency. To understand this truth, we must examine the nature of government and of the creation of money.
As Oregon struggles with the aftermath of drug legalization, some are calling for new criminalization of drugs. The problem, however, isn’t the drugs but rather the socialistic mindset of people in Oregon who refuse to protect property from drug users.
How do we best understand economics? Per Bylund explains in the introduction to his Chinese version of his book, How to Think about the Economy: A Primer. Economic understanding is now exported to a country with more than a billion people.
The standard line is that taxes are part of a “social contract” that individuals have with the authorities that govern them. It is time to rethink the terms of this so-called deal.
Once in a great while, a book appears that both embodies and dramatically extends centuries of accumulated wisdom in a particular discipline, and, at the same time, radically challenges the intellectual and political consensus of the day.
