The Problem with “Predictive” Theories of Economics
There is almost never clear evidence that a theory's predictions are false. You can always adjust something in the theory to make it come out true, and that is what all too many economists do.
There is almost never clear evidence that a theory's predictions are false. You can always adjust something in the theory to make it come out true, and that is what all too many economists do.
Today would have been the ninety-second birthday of JoAnn Rothbard.
Judge Stickman is right that the Pennsylvania lockdown cannot be defended by anyone who takes human rights seriously.
The Fed plans to keep interest rates near zero, while monetizing debt, financing zombie companies, and pouring new dollars into the market. But that may not be enough.
If lockdowns now seem to be receding, it's because policymakers fear another round of lockdowns would be greeted with resistance rather than obedience.
The “forgotten depression” can still teach us important lessons: that the interventionist and spendthrift state is often more part of the problem than it is of the solution.
In an unhampered economy, monopoly is not a framework distinguishable from “pure” competition. In fact, inefficient monopolies arise only in case of government interventionism.
Savings are the foundation for a productive and advanced economy. Unfortunately, governments insist on policies that make it harder for ordinary people to save.
Twenty-first-century socialism, which has been so popular in Latin America for many years, has failed in a way that mirrors the failure of twentieth-century socialism in other parts of the world.
Since the trade balance has nothing to do as such with either the supply of money or the demand for money, we can conclude that trade balances do not determine the purchasing power of money of respective countries.