Monthly Archives: September 2011

Why Restricting “Luxury” Ends Up Hurting the Poor

September 30, 2011   Shaun Connell   No comments

wall street michael douglas

The following was written by Leah Stiles, a student of government and history at Regent University. She has completed a Koch leadership program and an internship with the Foundation for Economic Education.

The image to the left is of Michael Douglas with a rare cell phone in the 1987 movie Wall Street.

________________

Advocates of wealth redistribution often summon images of grand manors atop rocky hills where the idle rich dwell in despicable contrast to the lowly peasants toiling in the mud of the valley below. The common solution that said advocates posit is a direct and deliberate redistribution of wealth.

Their appeal to justice suggests that it is immoral for some to revel in luxury while others wallow in poverty.

However, with a proper understanding of economic progress, one understands that the toys and amusements of today’s idle rich will soon become the essential components and improvements of the masses.

Defining Luxury

Initially, before one can assess the societal benefits of luxury, one must understand what the term truly means. In his work, Liberalism, Ludwig Von Mises (1985) defines luxury as a relative concept that is essentially historical. It is fundamentally “a way of living that stands in sharp contrast to that of the great mass of one’s contemporaries” (p. 55). Luxury is then the former divide between the automobile of the executive and the mule-cart of the farmer. Several generations later, however, it is quite uncommon for even the humblest in society to lack a car.

Similarly, as Mises (1985) explains, the fork was once the “godless luxury” of a Byzantine noble. When the fork-user contracted a deadly disease, her contemporaries viewed it as the just punishment of a righteous God (p. 55). With the passage of time, long after the disappearance of Byzantines and gilded fork-forerunners, one finds it nearly impossible to find any civilized human eating with his hands rather than with a utensil. Thus, was the fork a godless luxury or merely a common necessity ahead of its time?

The first fork users and drivers of automobiles were likely unaware of the great impact that they would have on society. They were, rather, enjoying the products of their abundant resources. Nonetheless, their splurges were able to trickle down and bring a higher standard of living to countless individuals. Here we observe a classic example of the market directing resources in a manner that is beneficial to society. To plan such a progressive improvement on the standard of living would be nearly impossible.

Inequality Creates Spontaneous Benefits

Friedrich A. Hayek (1960), in fact, emphatically holds that “progress cannot be planned” (p. 41). This is largely due to Hayek’s overall philosophy that man is constantly confounded by a knowledge problem that limits the range and effectiveness of anything that he designs. The only solution to the knowledge problem is an allowance for the work of spontaneous order. The question of luxury is no exception.

When inequality is permitted to exist in its natural form, as the result of directing income according to market-value rather than government convention, the results will eventually benefit everyone – even if not obviously or immediately. This is due to the fact that luxury items are first held by the few but are then seen by many who observe and envy (Hayek, 1960, p. 45). Thus, others begin to demand the good held only by a few.

With this heightened demand, more producers learn to create the luxury item and it slowly becomes available to more and more people of less and less income. Eventually, after manufacturers have found simpler and less expensive ways to quickly create the coveted good, supply and demand meet to determine a price that is much more accessible to the masses. Such an impersonal market force has allowed for unprecedented improvements in the last few centuries. A continually unfettered market will, in turn, produce untold advantages for the current and coming standards of living for a great majority.

The Man of Independent Means

There is, however, another societal role that can only be played by the idle rich. Hayek (1960) describes the “man of independent means” as one capable of preserving the fine arts, education and research, history, and novel ideas in the fields of politics, morals, and religion (p. 125). His wealth renders him a credible platform from which he can properly influence the majority view. Also, by financially supporting religious causes, philosophies, and programs, the man of independent means is able to directly subsidize the fruition of his convictions.

Furthermore, the man of independent means can directly use his resources for other forms of philanthropy. For instance, history demonstrates that majorities are inadequate in the pursuit of preserving the arts because most people lack the resources and incentives to invest heavily in anything that benefits society and preserves beauty for an audience broader than themselves (Hayek, 1960, p. 126). The idle rich, however, have the resources, and often the tastes, necessary to invest in museums, universities, historical sites, libraries, hospitals, and other such philanthropic endeavors that serve society. One merely has to consider the various public buildings bearing the name “Carnegie” for proof of the benefits of such philanthropy.

Conclusion

All of this in mind, one can properly respond to the critic of the manor on the hill. That manor once lacked plumbing, electricity, electric heat, telephone wires, television, internet, and a vast array of other luxuries not heard of two centuries ago. Now, however, the critic of luxury likely revels in these conveniences without casting stones or passing judgment. That same individual has likely strolled through a museum or received medical care that truly originated from the generosity of a selfish man and his “immoral” proportion of wealth.

Then, in truth, we benefit today from the extravagances of yesterday. If government can resist the shallow temptation to redistribute wealth for the immediate catharsis of easy justice, the extravagances of today will turn into the necessities of tomorrow. Such improvements will not yield perfection on earth, but they will certainly serve to make life more convenient for those in the valley.

References

Hayek, Friedrich A. (1960). The Constitution of Liberty. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Mises, Ludwig Von. (1985). Liberalism. The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc: Irvington, New York.

Read More

It’s Not as Simple as “Create Jobs”, Mr. President

September 27, 2011   Shaun Connell   No comments

education Fox News reported yesterday that lawmakers in Washington, as they look to cut $1.5 trillion from the budget, are primarily concerned with creating jobs. This has been the bandwagon-marketing scheme of all American elected officials since the beginning of the 20th century, as it’s their job to look to the interests of their working constituents.

An important clarification must be made regarding the benefit of jobs within an economy. Vital to an economy, yes, but by themselves, jobs don’t increase the standard of living. Rather, the goods and services created by these new jobs increase the standard of living.

An American engineer, on a tour of China during the early 1900’s observed the construction of a dam. Instead of using machinery, however, hundreds of workers were slaving away using only shovels. When asking one of the foremen for an explanation, he was given the answer that if machinery were to be used, jobs would be destroyed. The American succinctly replied, “Then why not just use spoons?”

Jobs are not equivalent to wealth. The goods and services produced by these jobs are what define our living standard.

More Taxes for More Jobs?

The problem for lawmakers and President Obama has been to try and create jobs while simultaneously regaining control of the debt crisis. As Fox points out, “The fiery fallout from President Obama’s deficit-reduction plan shows how politically tricky it is to focus on a jobs crisis and a debt crisis at the same time. With a call to raise taxes as part of his broad strategy, lawmakers and strategists quickly complained that Obama’s proposal yanked the focus once more off job creation.”

President Obama’s American Jobs Act, with $447 billion in targeted tax cuts and unemployment aid, ultimately proposes tax increases to pay for the plan.

Realistically, though the government may create jobs, it does so with taxpayer dollars and higher interest rates. Consequently, opportunities and revenue are taken away from a more efficient private sector that is held accountable to free market principles. The massive injection of funds into GM, Chrysler, or solar energy a few years ago helped those industries/companies temporarily. But ultimately, rivals lost market share to competitors who are now little more than businesses crutched by government payroll. In other words, increasing taxes isn’t the appropriate means of creating jobs. Especially when created jobs, by themselves, aren’t even the definition of a “fixed economy”.

Goods and Services are the Definition of Wealth

As Adam Smith said in 1776, “Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.” Now, it’s true that jobs usually provide an increase in the goods and services that improve our living situations, but not necessarily. Men building bridges with spoons isn’t a very effective way of increasing wealth, even though they are all employed.

Historically speaking, Congress has forgotten the fact that an increase of goods and services translates to a higher living standard. Here are two examples:

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (AAA) tried to maintain agricultural prices by senselessly reducing the supply. Farmers were paid to spray potatoes with dye (making it non-edible), and kill livestock. 6 million pigs were killed in the first year and buried in mass graves to keep them off the market. It was repealed in 1936, but subsidies still continue. It helped certain farmers temporarily, but overall, the nation was made poorer by a loss of goods.

The 2009 Cash for Clunkers program is another example. In an effort to promote prosperity, productive assets were destroyed. Car dealers received $3500-$4500 for destroying used cars. It was thought that doing so would stimulate the economy by encouraging the buying of new cars, but the money consumers used to buy new cars was then unavailable for the purchase of other goods. Thus, while it temporarily stimulated auto purchases, it reduced spending in other areas. After the program was over, used cars became more expensive because of the reduced supply. After all, if this program was a success, why haven’t auto dealers destroyed cars every year?

And so, government at the very least should be committed to the maintenance of goods and services.

How Should Government Proceed?

What solutions should our government pursue, considering that creating jobs costs tax dollars and our debt crisis severely limits their spending power? Patrick Louis Knudsen, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, points out ways in which government can stimulate an increase in the standard of living without raising taxes. As quoted by Fox, “…there are ways to stimulate job creation, without blowing up the budget and without requiring large tax increases. Republicans have pushed the president to pursue lower-cost measures that could imbue more certainty into the economy, like stripping regulations that make it more expensive for businesses…revenue-neutral tax reform that closes loopholes and lowers rates could promote growth.”

In summary, Washington’s pursuit of job creation is misguided for two reasons: Low unemployment isn’t equal to a healthy economy. Increased goods and services are. Secondly, Washington is running in circles by trying to create these meaningless jobs through tax increases. A more effective strategy would be to encourage deregulation of productive businesses so that these goods and services can be created more cost-effectively.

The article above was written by Sam Paul, a student at New Saint Andrews College.

Read More

Why We Should Privatize Public Schools

September 22, 2011   Shaun Connell   No comments

educationThe following was written by Mark Bautista, a 15-year-old student residing in Cleveland, Ohio. 

Generally, I’m not one to conceal my true political ideology. Although Libertarianism is not too common in my or any other public school, I’m typically able to voice my opinions with mild opposition. However, there is one issue that cannot be mentioned without creating a maelstrom of outrage: the privatization of public schools.

The arguments against this seemingly radical proposition are unchanging. Lower-class citizens won’t get a good education! How do you expect people to pay the outrageous cost of private schools? I believe that my opinion is founded on good reason. Public schools are not getting any better. We’re one of the most prosperous nations in the world, yet our schools hardly reflect that.

According to the Huffington Post, the US received ratings of approximately 500 on an international education rating. The scale goes up to 1,000, putting us on the map as “average” and in some cases “below average.”

CBS reports that among American eighth graders, proficiency rates are as low as 34% in math, 29% in science, and 33% in reading. Considering our influence in the modern world, that hardly seems like where we should be.

The idea of the alleged “great education at a low cost” that public schools provide has been hammered into the minds of students by the state. But is any of this valid? Let’s take a moment to look at the inefficiency of the United States public school system.

The True Cost of Public School

A typical argument against privatization is that public education is available to all at a fraction of the cost of a private school. And according to the cost-per-student presented by public school districts, this seems to be true. However, what the public school districts don’t tell you makes for a shocking revelation.

The Houston School District reported a cost of $8,418 per student in 2009. Yet this official figure is far from the truth. The supposed cost of $8,418 accounts only for basic funding like books and teachers. The district failed to include major costs like funding for classrooms and school buildings, benefits for current and past employees, athletics, and many more. There is absolutely no reason for this exclusion. All of these programs are funded by taxes just the same.

According to the CATO Institute, adding these concealed costs to the official figure makes for a grand total of $12,534 per student. This is completely different from the previously reported cost. And this revealing truth is not exclusive to Houston.

In Los Angeles, the official claim of $10,053 was dwarfed by the actual cost: $25,208 per student. This inconsistency is present in almost every major school district throughout the nation. If this sum of these costs is enough to send students to some of the most distinguished schools in the United States, then why do we continue to pay for schools that are constantly declining in quality? And so we reach a conclusion:There is no logical reason for the taxpayer to do so. But we must ask: Why are public schools producing students of lesser intelligence than those of a private school for about the same price?

One Size Does Not Fit All

Imagine for a moment that you are inside ObaMart, your local state-run general store. You are looking for a dress shirt, as you find them to be more attractive and comfortable. To your dismay, you can’t find one. When you approach an employee and ask where you may be able to locate a dress shirt, he informs you that since 65% of shoppers wear t-shirts, it would be economically harmful to carry both kinds of shirts.

As you are walking away, you hear a man complaining that he cannot find a turtleneck sweater. Leaving the store with your new t-shirts, you begin to think that the government does not care about your individuality. You begin to fathom the idea of stores owned by people. You even go as far to fathom stores that fit needs of particular demographics.

This example is perfectly applicable to the public school system. Because public education is designed to accommodate all students, the students’ individuality is not taken into account. It is a commonly known fact that students learn differently. Some are “verbal learners,” some are “visual learners.” Yet the government provides an education for all the people in the same way, regardless of the children’s distinct differences. This makes for a less than proficient education for a specific student. As we’ll discuss later, private schools avoid this fatal flaw.

The Government Monopoly

Monopolies. Most of us associate dishonest and deceitful businesses with the word. They dominate a specific market and are accountable to no one for the quality of their service or their prices. However, we Americans seem to make an exception for the government.

In the United States, the public school systems enjoy what is primarily a monopoly. The only private schools are not easily affordable to the bulk of American citizens, and present a minuscule amount of competition to public schools. As a monopoly, public schools are easily able to get away with doing only what is required to get by. They have almost no risk of being shut down. If you’re a middle class parent who is unsatisfied with your child’s education, too bad. Where else are you going to go? You likely pay for the equivalent of one public school, another is out of the question.

The Negation of Critical Thought

Public schools are expected to maintain a high level of political correctness, just like any other government institution. This is because public schools are paid for by all demographics people thus making it inappropriate for faculty members to teach in a manner that may seem to emphasize or antagonize a particular opinion. One word that is considered offensive to a particular group can have catastrophic implications for the school and ultimately the state. However, sometimes it is necessary to speak in terms that may be considered politically incorrect.

Consider the Russian Revolution, a major event in history. In a public school, this event may only be presented in terms of fact. Yet this method of teaching leaves a major question unanswered: why? Why were so many people willing to create and support a state that so quickly turned into a violent totalitarian regime?

Political correctness dictates that these important lessons be skipped over in order to ensure no one is offended. Yet this process of thought does not teach students to think critically. This thought process does not teach students to look deeply into any matter and find the truths behind it. A private school is not required to adhere to such intellectually harmful safeguards.

Your New Parents, the State

In order for our democratic process to function correctly, we must ensure that citizens are constantly questioning authority and its actions. Yet in a school run by the government, how can we believe that students from public schools will question the very people that had a major role in shaping their opinions?

“Taxes are good and help everyone. The army serves all people and is loved by everyone. A big government is necessary to ensure the welfare of a nation.”

All of these things are subtly slipped into public education. I believe a quote from Lenin will summarize the point I am trying to make:

“Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”

And even today, we see the state continuing to seize power from the parents and put it into its own hands. With programs like sex education and D.A.R.E., the “one-size-fits-all education” is again put into play. While a parent may not agree with what is being taught, the majority will rule.

To quote NPR, “15 percent of Americans say they want abstinence-only sex education in the schools, 30 percent of the principals of public middle schools and high schools where sex education is taught report that their schools teach abstinence-only.”

Forty-seven percent of their schools taught abstinence-plus, while 20 percent taught that making responsible decisions about sex was more important than abstinence.”" This shows the great division in the opinions of parents. Those who disagree with the majority will be left having their children taught ideas contrary to their own.

It seems that American public schools aren’t the best option for our youths’ education. But how could we fix this? More funds? The money spent on education has about tripled since the 1960′s only to see schools decline further. Therefore, I’ll propose a solution accepted by most Libertarians: privatize it.

Competition Creates Accountability

If all schools were to be privatized at this very moment, what would happen?

Let’s look at two of these imaginary private schools. John Doe’s son attends School A. School A has repeatedly cut core courses to redirect the funds toward buying new equipment for the football team. Since this is downgrading the education of the students there, many parents, including John Doe, choose to transfer their children to School B. School B is much more focused on education and better reflects the views of John Doe.

With the great loss that School A has suffered, it has several options. It may attempt to market itself as a primarily athletic school, assuming there is a market for it, it may adjust its academic standards, or it may not change a thing and go out of business.

Competition is a core function of capitalism. Private schools MUST adjust their price and quality competitively or they risk going out of business. Here we see the direct accountability of the school to the parents.

Competition Creates Choice

I’ll now briefly expand on the concept of the plethora of choices a nation of private schools provides.
Assume that you are a Christian. The school that your child attends leans toward a more secular viewpoint. Since this is not consistent with your views, you may choose to move your student to the Catholic school down the street.

Again assume that your child is not learning well with the primarily visual practices of his/her current school. You, being the parent, can choose to send your child to a school that emphasizes a learning process that suits your child.

This example is the same throughout the country. Schools of all kinds of practices and ideas would exist if all schools were privatized. If these schools raise their prices to be too high, customers will go where they receive a better value. Competition and the choice that it provides makes for the best possible education for a specific student. I’d like to propose a simple equation that illustrates the benefits of private schools:

  • Privatization = Competition
  • Competition = Choice, Quality, and Competitive Pricing
  • Choice, Quality, and Competitive Pricing = The best education for and student or family.

However, each time I present this argument, I am told that the poor would not be able to obtain an education. Not true.

In the world of department stores, there does not exist only high-priced establishments that allow the poor to go unclothed. There is Walmart, and then there is Nordstrom’s. Stores are available to citizens at every economic level. Keep in mind that citizens no longer pay the ridiculously high prices of public school.

However, wouldn’t this mean that the poor are left only able to obtain lesser educations? Nope.

Imagine again the example of ObaMart. It is accountable only to the government and may not maintain a high standard of service and products.

However, Walmart is accountable for the products it sells. It will provide a much better product because if it does not provide products that satisfy the people, they will go elsewhere to a store that meets their needs and put Walmart out of business. Therefore, even the schools with lower pricing have a much higher standard of education than that of a public school.

If the United States was ever to privatize schools, I strongly believe that we would see a monumental increase in our national education standards. Our intelligence and promotion of individuality would skyrocket. But with things as they currently are, the majority of Americans must make use of their educations courtesy of Uncle Sam, no matter how flawed the system may be.

Sources:

Sex Education in America, NPR, 2004.

Libertarianism: A Primer, David Boaz, 1996.

U.S. Falls In World Education Rankings, Rated ‘Average’, Huffington Post, 2010.

Read More

The Fallacies of the “Gender Pay Gap”

September 19, 2011   Leah Stiles   No comments

Business Woman

Indra Nooyi is the CEO of PepsiCo.

Statistics and slogans vocally declare that women still have a long way to go before gaining equal pay with their male counterparts. Such statistics, however, largely lack fundamental context, analysis, and understanding. The figures, generally demonstrating disparities in median income, generalize from the entire population and eliminate many of the underlying causal variables that are essential for proper comprehension of the issue. Thus, they leave only one variable remaining on the table – discrimination.

Although, a proper understanding of free market economics enables one to perceive that the true gaps between men and women are those of differing societal and familial roles, priorities, and interests. These variables are curiously absent from the statistics and slogans that commonly address the issue. But, when one considers the whole picture, it is clear that an unfettered market does not discriminate based on gender and, instead, assigns wage rates based on the objective laws of economics.

Some of the most prominently cited wage figures come from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. The results of their 2009 earnings ratio study demonstrated that, overall, women’s median incomes were 80 percent of that of their male counterparts (BLS, 2010). Emotion alone would push any woman to the point of offense, but one must rationally consider the rest of the information. The Bureau later admits that, in younger cohorts, the gap is much less significant. In fact, women between the ages of 25 and 34 earn 89 percent of male income and those between 16 and 24 earn 93 percent (BLS, 2010). One immediately notices a trend. As women get older, their pay tends to drop in proportion to that of males. Social norms offer some plausible explanations.

As Thomas E. Woods (2001) explains, women often seek employment with the eventual plan of interrupting their careers to care for children. Furthermore, they are more likely to seek careers that are less demanding, allow for smoother reentry, more flexible for taking time off, and even those that are closer to their homes in potentially less urban areas (Woods, 2001).

These specifications, on a statistically broad basis, narrow the careers that are appealing to many women. Thus, with more women interested in careers meeting these criteria, there is a heavy supply where there is not necessarily a correlating demand. This simple law of supply and demand helps to explain some of the disparity – particularly among older cohorts that more likely include mothers. Similarly, those women who resist societal patterns and enter higher-demand markets can statistically expect to earn more and seal the gap (Woods 2009).

As time progresses, it is possible that more women will resist the social phenomena behind the current data and, thus, the numbers will change to accommodate their novel behavior. Recent decades, in which women have exponentially increased their reaches in the global market, statistically demonstrate major steps toward the natural equality of gender pay. Therefore, women’s preferences and actions bear more effect on the statistics than do those of the employers who are often suspected of discrimination.

In a free market economy, employer incentives are actually to pursue just the opposite of discrimination. As explained by John Hood (1998), discrimination robs employers of a large pool of human capital. It would be completely irrational to select employees based on any factor other than profit-potential. After all, the dollar sign has no age, gender, or race.

Regardless of this important argument, the government has often tried to intervene to forcefully equalize the rate differences between the genders. This intervention throws off the normal market process and often acts to change employer incentives. In fact, according to Ludwig Von Mises (1964), coercively raising wages above the market rate can only serve to create lasting unemployment. This is due to the fact that mandating the raise of any wage immediately decreases the resources available to hire more employees.

Furthermore, if an employer pays according to the effort employees invest, and female employees generally work fewer hours than their male co-workers, the employer will likely pay those women less than male employees who work a lot of over time. If the employer is required by law, however, to pay them the same rate, that employer is much less likely to hire women at all.

In fact, a case study in Minnesota demonstrates that, after implementing an equal-pay law, women’s unemployment rose five percent. After the effects of the law were discernible, many Minnesota women wanted to overturn the law because they feared unemployment (Woods, 2001). Thus, appealing as equality-driven government interventions may at first appear, they only serve to make the existing gap much, much worse.

All of this in mind, one can easily perceive that there is more to the gender wage gap issue than the unexamined statistic or the emotionally-driven slogan. It is crucial to recall that the laws of economics do not favor gender, and the incentives do not exist that would support employer discrimination. The only variables left, then, are those of normal, unregulated human behavior. The fallacy of hobgoblin, discriminatory employers merely does not correlate with reality.

About The Author:

The following was written by Leah Stiles, a student of government and history at Regent University. She has completed a Koch leadership program and an internship with the Foundation for Economic Education.

References

Hood, John. (1998, August) Capitalism: Discrimination’s implacable enemy. The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty. Retrieved from http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/capitalism-discriminations-implacable-enemy/

Mises, Ludwig Von. (1964, April). Wage Interference by Government. Christian Economics. Reprinted in Economic Freedom and Interventionism: An anthology of articles and essays, 65-68.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (July, 2010). TED: The Editor’s Desk. Women’s-to-men’s earnings ratio by age, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2010/ted_20100708.htm

Woods, Thomas E. Jr. (November, 2001). The “Pay Equity” Racket. The Free Market, vol. 19, 11. Retrieved from http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=380

Read More

This is Not the Study of Economics

September 16, 2011   Jason Hughey   No comments

economics

By Jason Hughey, Capitalism Institute staff writer

______________________________________

Individuals who lack a solid understanding of economics generally make a plethora of errors in reasoning, particularly when they are faced with the opportunity to articulate their viewpoints on contemporary economic issues.

While this problem may be true for individuals who lack an understanding in other fields of study (i.e. calculus, physics, biology, philosophy, etc.), the glaring holes in reasoning become much more apparent in economics because they are manifested in every day public policy.

Usually, when an individual fails to understand the reproductive system of an extinct lizard, it will not have any bearing on how he votes. However, when individuals vote for political leaders based upon faulty misconceptions of economics, such errors will eventually become manifest in ruinous policies that negatively affect our jobs, our income, and our overall standard of living.

Thus, it is important to cleanse our thinking of the faulty ideas about economics that dominate the minds of many people (including political leaders). All of these misconceptions are highly tempting at first glance because they over-simplify economics to make it something that it is not. However, with some clear thinking, it is possible to reject these misconceptions in favor of a more holistic view of what economics really is all about—namely, the study of human action.

Economics is not about money

People very easily fall into the temptation of equating economics with money. This could not be further from the truth. Although economics does teach us about the nature of money, how it is used in economic transaction, how changes in its supply affect productivity, etc., economics is not simply about money.

Money by itself is static, boring, and completely worthless. It is human action that imputes value into money as a medium of exchange, that determines how it should allocate goods and services, and that uses it in trade. Viewing economics as simply about money completely removes our ability to understand how money really should function in a society.

In public policy, this error is manifested whenever people assume that providing more money for a particular project will result in its success. Consider the following example:

Some people would say that if students in a particular school are getting Cs, Ds, and Fs, then that obviously means the school needs more money than it had before. There’s obviously no way teachers could have been ineffective and no way students could have been unwilling to learn. There’s no way that the money from the school’s previous budget was mismanaged behind a veil of inefficiency and corruption. Therefore, the solution is simple! Give the school more money and grades will surely rise.

Reality, however, teaches us that this is completely false. The goal of economics with regard to money is not to make us worshippers of money so that we can throw it at our problems like a magic spell. This is a gross oversimplification of economics that can lead to poor policy outcomes.

Economics is not about jobs

This second error is as prevalent and malicious as the first. Many people look at the economy and think it needs to provide us with jobs. Yet, economics, rightfully understood, does not even really bother with this idea.

You see, jobs are easy. In fact, when an economy is in trouble, jobs might be one of the easiest problems to fix. Simply give everyone a shovel and have them dig a trench. Then have them refill the trench they just dug. Repeat ad nauseum and your country will have full employment.

If economics were primarily about how to maintain high employment, we could be done studying it at the third grade. It would also make economics absurd and useless. Admittedly, economics does cover issues of employment/unemployment, however this can never rightfully be the focus of economics. As with the issue of money, economics teaches us about jobs because it teaches us about human behavior. In relation to jobs, it also teaches us about what constitutes real wealth, about the importance of productivity (as opposed to just being “busy”), and much more.

Yet, today, politicians discuss high unemployment as if it were a unique economic problem unto itself—its own separate field of study. As far back as 1946, Hazlitt observed that “Wages and employment are discussed as if they had no relation to productivity and output” (p. 72). When this type of attitude guides economic policy, it results in “domestic job-creating” regulations (e.g. minimum wage, tariffs, subsidies) which eliminate the competitiveness of poorer laborers, both in the United States and abroad. Not only that, but such programs minimize efficiency and nullify productivity simply for the sake of “doing something.” In education, that’s called busywork, but in our government, it’s called a stimulus job.

Economics is not about math, graphs, or statistics

Many people think of economics as purely statistics and graphs. As a result, they perceive economists as being obsessed with supply-and-demand graphs, GDP, average income, interest rates, equations, formulas, and a host of other mathematic concepts. While some economists have done nothing to mitigate this misperception, it remains a misperception.

It is simply impossible to make economics into the kind of mathematical science that many believe it to be. As I previously stated, economics simply is the study of human action. The problem this poses for mathematically-minded economists is that human action carries with it a virtually limitless amount of variables that cannot be controlled. This makes economic research impossible to repeat (as we can do in scientific research).

Admittedly, some graphs and statistics are useful both to the economist and the student of economics, but one cannot overemphasize the fragility of mathematical models in economics. A supply-and-demand graph only represents a brief snapshot of a conglomeration of human action. In reality, this conglomeration will always be in flux as each new variable comes into play. It is easy for markets to adapt to these variables, but the same cannot be said for the mathematical models.

In public policy, this misperception of economics as a mathematically precise science has resulted in a glut of central planners who regulate economic activity according to their highly limited economic models. They assume that economic growth is a mathematical formula that includes some quantity “C” for private consumption, some quantity “I” for gross investment, and some quantity “G” for government spending. Somehow, it is assumed, that if we can just increase these values (by the force of government), then we can achieve growth.

Unfortunately, economics is not nearly this simple. Even more unfortunately, the cost of reducing economics to this level of mathematical simplicity in public policy has been high. The Great Depression, the Dot Com bubble, and the housing bubble are just a few examples of what happens when we allow central planners to make policy according to preconceived mathematical models of what the economy should look like.

Conclusion

Admittedly, each of the above concepts coincidentally fall under economics in some respect or another. However, that does not mean that any of them should be considered as the foundational paradigm by which economics should be studied. Properly understood, economics is the study of human action, which causes it to rise above minute details regarding money, jobs, and graphs. Admittedly, the focus of human action which economics deals with tends to relate to things such as trade, labor, money, interest rates, business cycles, etc. However, all of these issues are informed by the holistic view of economics as the study of human action, not the other way round.

This is not meant to disparage the importance of thinking about these concepts rightly. Economics has valuable insights to give us about money, labor, and statistical findings. Yet, we cannot force economics to become something that it is not. We cannot add to economics by subtracting its most essential tenet of human action.

“Economics, as a branch of the more general theory of human action, deals with all human action, i.e., with man’s purposive aiming at the attainment of ends chosen, whatever these ends may be.” – Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (1949), p. 880.

References

Hazlitt, H. (1946). Economics in one lesson. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Mises, L. (1949). Human Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Read More

Monetary Inflation in Colonial Bedford, MA

September 13, 2011   Shaun Connell   No comments

The following article was written by Andrew Criscione, who holds a bachelor’s in physics with a minor in pure mathematics. He is currently looking forward to expanding his academic career in economics and his professional career in medical dosimetry. If you’d like to write something for this website, click here.

________________

The money that Americans and the other people of the world use is fiat money: The central bank can command (or “fiat”) the printing of as much of it as the bank wants. Before 1971, the US dollar could be traded in for physical gold and silver at the Federal Reserve, America’s central bank.

Before 1933, when FDR outlawed gold ownership by Americans, everyone could do this. From 1933 to 1971, only foreigners could do this. This is also how currency operated in pre-revolution colonial America.

A hard money backing sets limits on the amount of money that the central bank can print, but central banks throughout history have inevitably overreached and printed too much paper money, leading them to default on their promises to pay in physical money. In 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window, Federal Reserve essentially admitted to printing too much paper money and not being able to honor its contract by exchanging the paper for gold and silver.

A similar event occurred in pre-revolution colonial America. A very weak paper currency isn’t new to America: It’s as American as apple pie. I will be using Bedford, Massachusetts as a microcosm to study one such a crisis.

At the time of the founding of Bedford, in 1730, the General Court was issuing more paper money than existed reserves, and it decreed a legal tender law such that everyone had to accept the paper as equal to silver. There was high price inflation. If you were a shopkeeper, and you were willing to take either 5 shillings paper money or 1 shilling physical silver, this was illegal due to the legal tender laws.

Specie, i.e. gold and silver, started disappearing because people would rather hoard the more-valuable silver and get rid of the less valuable paper as soon as they could. This is a phenomenon known as Gresham’s Law.

Eventually, there was so much paper money in circulation that long-term contracts became impossible to fulfill because prices were rising so fast. The town originally had signed a contract with the minister for 100 pounds in paper notes, but the town ended up changing the contract to 240 pounds paper because it realized how badly the currency had been devalued.

Then the legislature promised to pay the face value of the old fiat currency with a brand new fiat currency which they swore wouldn’t be devalued and could be redeemed in silver and gold. There was an extremely high incentive to hoard both the existing paper and silver and gold. The incentive was so high that barter became commonplace.

It turns out that the government had lied, and the old paper was redeemed at a much lower rate: Towns recognized the new paper as ‘lawful money’ and the old paper was redeemed at one fifth of its face value. This new currency lasted for 20 years until the American Revolution, when it was in turn devalued again in large amounts. The following passage is a historical account of the monetary history that I described above.

History of the Town of Bedford

“Bedford was incorporated at the time when the currency of the Province was in a very uncertain condition. The General Court had been issuing paper money without an adequate provision to retain its nominal value; hence specie was growing scarce and the ‘Bills of Credit’ were continually depreciating;” But as these bills were almost the only medium of exchange, the people clamored for more and the majority of the Legislature seemed ready to gratify them despite the opposition of the Royal Governor, which, in 1740, occasioned a severe quarrel. Each new issue of ‘Bills of Credit’ caused a decline in the value of the currency. In 1730 they had sunk more than half below their nominal value and the depreciation continued until 1750. The fluctuation in the value of this currency was a source of general embarrassment, and contracts involving annual salaries were fulfilled with difficulty by the most scrupulous. In agreeing with Rev. Nicholas Bowes, the first minister, the town voted ‘that our money shall be in proportion as it is now in valiacon (valid coin), rising, fallin.’ The value at that time was eighteen shillings per ounce. The decline was so great that in 1749, the last year of the ‘Old Tenor’ bills, the town voted to give Rev. Mr. Bowes £240 in place of £100, but he returned £20 for the use of the schools. In 1750 voted to give him ‘£50 13s. Ad. Lawful money.’

The expectation of having the ‘Bills’ exchanged for specie led many to hoard them, and it became difficult for the collector of taxes to get the dues of the Province, and the time for settling demands was necessarily extended. The following rhyme gives an idea of the change that was anticipated:

“And now Old Tenor, fare you well,

No more such tattered rags we’ll tell,

New dollars pass and are made free;

it is a year of Jubilee.

Let us therefore good husbands be.

And good old times we soon shall see.”

The town paid for their minister’s wood in 1749 35s. per cord “Old Tenor,” and in the following year the price paid per cord was 4s. “Lawful money.” In 1749 the people worked out their highway “Rates,” and were allowed during three summer months 14s. each man per day, and in the other months 8s. per day; a yoke of oxen with cart 8s. per day, “Old Tenor.” In 1750 the allowance in “Lawful money” for a man was 2s. per day until the last of September, and in the rest of the year Is. per day. For oxen and cart the allowance was Is. Ad. per day. The scarcity of money was felt by the people possessed of property as well as others, and trade was carried on largely by barter. In the list of tax-payers reported in arrears in March, 1753, the names of leading citizens are found. By a law of the General Court the bills of credit were redeemed at a rate that was about one-fifth less than their lowest current value-that is at fifty shillings for an ounce of silver, which was valued at 6s. Sd., or an English crown. Here originated the “Old Tenor” reckoning. March 31, 1750, marked the era of “Lawful money,” after which date all debts were contracted on the specie basis of 6s. 8per ounce of silver and three ounces of silver were equal to £1. With the currency restored to a metallic basis and to a uniform value the people were free from all such trouble for more than twenty years. The fluctuating state of the currency, dwelt upon at length in the military section, made it difficult to adjust the ministerial rates in the years of the Revolution as it was in the pastorate of Rev. Mr. Bowes.

This work is free on Google and, because of its printing date in 1895, has no copyright on it. You can read it here.

In conclusion, I would like to suggest that the history of all paper money issued by a central bank is one of inevitable failure. If the money is backed by gold or silver, the bank will inevitably default. If the money is pure fiat money, then hyperinflation is always a distinct possibility.

The authors of the US Constitution learned this lesson the hard way, through history, and this is why, in Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1of the US Constitution, it says “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” The authors did this in order to discourage paper money, especially in government matters.

Private banks did issue notes, and for two periods during the First Bank of the US and the Second Bank of the US there was a national bank that competed with the private banks. There was also a brief experiment with fiat money during the Lincoln administration which ended in large amounts of inflation.

In 1913, the US licensed a bank note monopoly to Federal Reserve notes, and this currency has surprising lasted almost a hundred years. It has been devalued by over 98%, though, and the pace of its devaluation seems to be quickening.

Read More

The 10 Principles of Economics You Should Know

September 04, 2011   Shaun Connell   No comments

principles of economicsEconomics is the study of human behavior — of how people interact to get what they want and whether what they want is possible for them to get. It’s a science in the sense that there are uniform laws guiding the field of economics — invisible forces at work that guide the market. But it’s not a science in many ways, because it involves peoples’ decisions, which are anything but scientifically predictable.

When approaching economics, it’s incredibly important to understand that the first step is to know what to look for — natural laws guiding human behavior, society’s production, individual trade, and wealth building itself. In other words, the study of economics is simply the study of economic principles and their application. That’s about it.

This, of course, just begs the question: what are the principles of economics? Below are list of 10 basic economic principles, inspired by great economists like Henry Hazlitt, Adam Smith, and Greg Mankiew.

The 10 Fundamental Principles of Economics:

  1. People respond to incentives.
  2. People face trade offs.
  3. Rational people think within the margin.
  4. Free trade is perceived mutual benefit.
  5. The invisible hand allows for indirect trade.
  6. Coercion magnifies market inefficiency.
  7. Capital magnifies market efficiency.
  8. Supply and demand magnify resource efficiency.
  9. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.
  10. Desires are infinite; resources are finite.

I’ll go into detail with a short summary of how these economic principles work in economics. Of course, a longer explanation is necessary but is too much for a single article. I’ll continue to write longer explanations of each principle in the following weeks. If you’d like to read them, make sure to subscribe to our newsletter at the right or at the bottom of any page on this website.

The 10 Undeniable Principles of Economics Explained:

  • People respond to incentives. This is an unavoidable concept found in human behavior. It’s just how people function. We respond to incentives. Incentives aren’t necessarily “selfish” in the traditional sense, but they all appeal to our values — whether conscious or subconscious. Examples would be accepting a job to make money, donating to charity to help the poor, going to church to learn about God — anything where we essentially do what we want. People respond to incentives.
  • People face trade offs. It’s impossible to get everything you want at the exact same time. It’s impossible for me to sleep all day and work all day. It’s impossible for me to grill a steak at home while also dine at Olive Garden. This means people face trade offs. We have to trade one thing for another thing — there’s no other option. This is why people often barter with others. People are willing to trade 7 years of college work for the ability to become a lawyer, lot’s of money for a house, and pretty much every other choice in life. People face trade offs.
  • Rational people think within the margin. Thinking within the margins means trying to get the best result. In other words, if you have the option of choosing a good car or a perfect car, the rational choice is the perfect car. All things being equal, the better option is better. Thinking within the margins is essentially believing in net benefits — focusing on the best thing possible. Rational people think within the margins.
  • Free trade is perceived mutual benefit. When people trade in a free market, it’s because they are both responding to peaceful incentives. For example, an employee trades time for money because they want money. An employer trades money for labor because they want the labor. Both sides are acting in a way that they think benefits them as much as peacefully possible. This is true for all trades. People buy stuff because they’re reacting to incentives. This is a critical concept, especially when we mix it with the above principle of rational people thinking within the margin. People act in a way they think benefits them.
  • The invisible hand allows for indirect trade. The invisible hand is the market force that does what no individual could do on his own. For example, no single country on earth has all of the resources and industry necessary for the creation of a single pencil. It takes a dozen companies and several countries working together through trade to make that pencil. Not all of those who contribute to the creation of the pencil will ever meet or even know of each other — that’s why it’s referred to as the miracle of the invisible hand. The market does more on it’s own than any individual can possibly do on his own because the invisible hand allows for indirect trade.
  • Coercion magnifies market inefficiency. The invisible hand operates through the free market. That is, through people acting in a way that benefits them. The people mining lead, for example, aren’t doing it because they’re thinking about your ability to use a pencil. They don’t even know where the lead they’re mining is going. They’re acting on the basis of the free market, and the free market’s invisible hand is taking care of the rest. Using coercion — that is, manipulating the incentives people respond to — focuses on less production and more exploitation. What this means is that instead of everyone focusing on how to peacefully produce and trade for as much as possible, it changes the rules so that it’s possible to just take or force others to give you what you want. This makes about as much sense as a farmer eating his milk cow. The more coercion in a market, the less efficient it is. For examples of this in action, just look at any socialized nation in the history of mankind. Coercion magnifies market inefficiency.
  • Capital magnifies market efficiency. Capital is the magic behind the invisible hand. It allows people who have never met to barter. Capitalism is essentially juiced up barter economy. A pig farmer is trading pigs for stuff at Wal Mart — he’s just using currency for the sake of making the bartering more efficient. The existence of capital means that you can produce one thing, earn money, and trade that money for something else entirely — without the person you’re trading with needing to accept what you’re producing. Capital is an ingenious method of allowing anyone to trade with anyone, as long as both are productive people who produce more than they consume. Capital magnifies market efficiency.
  • Supply and demand magnify resource efficiency. Market forces work so that if there’s a demand for something as well as a potential supply of it, the market will try to unleash the supply to meet the demand. This will eventually lead to market equilibrium where the demands are quenched as much as possible by the market. This is honestly just an end conclusion of the very first principle of economics — people respond to incentives. Making money filling market demands is an incentive that nearly everyone reacts to during their lives.
  • There’s no such thing as a free lunch. This is a simple concept. Nothing is free. All wealth must be earned. You can’t use black magic economics to create something out of nothing. Every bit of wealth has to be earned. Welfare gets the money from someone. Government spending takes money from somewhere. Even if one person benefits without paying for it, someone else has to pay for it. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.
  • Desires are infinite. Resources are finite. We don’t live in a magical world where stuff is created from nothing. Everything that is produced is based on a complicated, long train of trade offs. The question isn’t whether we can judge each trade off individually — the question is how we determine to make those trade offs. People who support socialized medicine often completely miss this basic concept, and believe that capitalists just want the poor to die or stay sick. This is absurd. There are only so many doctors and nurses — the question is how to take what we have and disburse it in a manner that doesn’t cause rationing and inefficiency. That’s why socialized medicine always creates health slavery and rationing. It’s not “free”, because nothing is free.

Studying these principles of economics will give you a road-map for understanding economic events. You’ll see why most government economic plans fail, why capitalism always works, why socialism always fails, why peace always produces, and why war always destroys.

If you want to keep learning — if you want to become economically educated — get our free newsletter below and begin your journey to learning every week about free markets, property rights, and the art and science of economics.

Read More

Does Free Trade Hurt Developing Economies?

September 03, 2011   Jason Hughey   No comments

emerging economies The other day, I was in a class on political economy and economic development in which we discussed whether or not Adam Smith was right about the benefits of free trade when it came to poor nations.

Everyone in the room unhesitatingly agreed that deregulated markets in rich Western countries have been much more effective at providing for the material needs of individuals.

Yet, when the point was considered that “Third World” nations have been left behind as Western capitalist nations have surged ahead, students were quick to place the blame on free trade for hindering poor nations.

Why?

Because these poverty-stricken nations lack the technology, infrastructure, and ability to compete with nations that have a tradition of deregulated markets and free enterprise. Consequently, some felt that free trade is harmful to poor nations because rich nations will only trade with other rich nations. The poor nations are thus condemned to miserable poverty, meaning that free trade only benefits economically powerful nations.

That’s when I decided it was time to say something. I asserted that free trade is the only way that poor countries can ever hope to rise out of their poverty. I asserted that history has proven this to be the case, citing Hong Kong and Chile as readily powerful examples. I mentioned that trade is a mutually beneficial endeavor in which the parties of both nations benefit through voluntary transaction, thereby actually increasing wealth in both nations.

In short, of all the nations in the world, we should be most ready to agree that free trade most helps the poor. And yet, that’s where most students (and professors) present their “intellectual” doubts about the merits of free trade. Therefore, in order to inform those unfamiliar with the transforming power of free trade and to encourage those who already agree with this notion, I want to assert and defend one general principle about poor nations.

If you keep this one thought with you as you learn about free trade and international markets, it will save you a boatload time and effort when faced with the absurd proposition that free trade brutalizes poor nations.

Poor nations are poor because of government intervention.

The Nature of Trade and its Benefits

Very simply, consider what trade is on an individual level. Trade occurs when Kirk wants what Kelly has while Kelly wants something in return. Thus, Kirk offers Kelly something of his own (either an item, service, or money). Kelly perceives the trade as beneficial to herself, so she accepts Kirk’s offer. As a result, both are more pleased about their material situation than they were prior to the trade. Does this change when Kirk is from Sweden and Kelly is from Canada?

Of course not. Nor does it change when Kirk’s company is South African and Kelly’s company is Japanese. To argue that adding more people to the mix, or that changing a flag means that trade is not beneficial, makes absolutely no sense.

Thus, what really hurts poor countries? There are only one of two options that we can consider, and in both of them, trade is not the culprit: 1) Either the governments of rich countries refuse to allow trade with poor countries, leaving people in both countries worse off; or 2) the governments of poor countries refuse to allow trade with rich countries, leaving people in both countries worse off.

Notice that, in both scenarios, the mutually beneficial action of voluntary trade between individuals of different nations is disrupted by the controlling force of an intervening state actor. It is not trade that is harmful, but the lack of trade caused by governments that keep poor countries in their wretched poverty.

For the purposes of this article, I will only consider poor nations whose governments disallow trade by taking control of their economies, but someone could easily point to many U.S. domestic subsidies and tariffs that act to discourage Americans from importing cheaper and better products from many poorer nations. But an article on regulations by the governments of rich nations can be left for another time.

The Third World’s War against Free Trade

Doug Bandow (1996) observed that, “Unfortunately, as decolonization quickened after World War II, most Third World states traveled the socialist path. The decision was in part nationalistic: African state, in particular, believed that true independence required indigenous control of economic resources” (“The First World’s Misbegotten Economic Legacy to the Third World,” in The Revolution in Development Economics, 1998, p. 208).

Unfortunately, this movement to collectivize the economies of Third World countries turned out to be a highly beneficial trade-off for the governing officials of these nations, but it condemned their citizens to a wretched existence. As Bandow noted, “control of the economic system helped assure continued political domination for ruling groups” (Bandow, 1996, p. 208-209).

Meanwhile, as governments accumulated whatever material wealth there was to be had, poor people struggled, starved, and succumbed to the tyranny of their political overlords. They experienced the reality of a life in which their government could literally steal whatever they owned while forbidding them to trade their goods and services to foreigners for a profit. The result of such tight-fisted regulation was not only poverty, but also instability, war, sickness, and crushing misery.

After all, what else are people to do when they can’t improve their well-being through peaceful production, honest effort, and voluntary exchange?

Simaltaneously, in the West, intellectuals and politicians condemned free trade as the source of evil in these countries. Even beyond this absurdity, these central planners called for the corrupt socialist governments of Third World nations to bring about economic development, disregarding the true sources of sustainable development as grounded in free trade. As Bandow noted in the same essay, “Western officials encouraged ambitious leaders of small countries to drag their peoples into the industrial age as quickly as possible” (1996, p. 209).

Of course, foreign aid was pumped into these governments to encourage their economic growth as quickly as possible.

In the midst of these proposals, absent were recommendations that encouraged free trade, even though such a solution would have permitted foreign investors and multi-national corporations to create jobs and provide for true economic development in these countries. Thus, for the sake of upholding the corrupt governments of these Third World nations, the poor individuals within them were doomed to economic failure—not because of trade, but because of the lack of it.

The results are evident today. A brief perusal of the Heritage Foundation’s “Index of Economic Freedom” shows that countries with the lowest levels of economic freedom are names synonymous with repression and economic misery. Countries like North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuala, Libya, Burma, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Turkmenistan, Chad, Uzbekistan, Angola, Libera, Ecuador, and Belarus all have significant economic restrictions on domestic and international trade and none stand as beacons of economic power and material prosperity.

On the contrary, countries like Chile, Singapore, and Hong Kong, who had histories of economic control and repression, but which ultimately liberalized their markets, are now contemporary symbols of economic development, growth, and prosperity.

If, during the early 1950’s, one had walked among the rocky hills where Hong Kong stands today, there would have been no way to predict the bustling, mighty commercial city that would arise simply because people would be allowed to own what they produced and trade it for things they liked better.

Conclusion

In short, poor nations have been poor because their governments have prevented trade. If they remain stuck in the Third World today, it’s because their governments still do not allow trade. If they will be forever doomed to poverty, it will be because they continue to disallow the free flow of goods and services across their borders.

Admittedly, this is not an iron rule of physics, and thus, objections may be raised by the diligent statist researcher in particular case studies, but it cannot be generally disproven. Remember this principle—that the primary cause of poverty in Third World nations is government—and you will be able to slice through much of the absurd confusion that dominates academia’s thinking regarding the effects of free trade on the poor.

“The state is not a producer of wealth. It shapes conditions that encourage the creation of wealth. But it also frequently represents political institutions that impede expanding welfare. The state can, and frequently does, obstruct the wealth-creating process and contribute to sustained poverty. Its wealth-impeding activities yield an economic rent to a small group with access to sociopolitical institutions. The emerging social organization of Western societies will thus determine whether a nation accumulates wealth or persists in poverty.” – Karl Brunner, “The Poverty of Nations,” in The Revolution in Development Economics (1998), p. 54.

References

Bandow, D. (1998). The First World’s Misbegotten Economic Legacy. In The Revolution in
Development Economics (pp. 207-228). ed. J. Dorn, S. Hanke, & A. Walters, Washington D.C.: Cato Institute.

Brunner, K. (1998). The Poverty of Nations. In The Revolution in Development Economics (pp.
41-54). ed. J. Dorn, S. Hanke, & A. Walters, Washington D.C.: Cato Institute.

Written by Jason Hughey, Capitalism Institute staff writer.

Read More

  • Get The Newsletter:

    The media is trying to hide the truth, but now you can bypass them. Get our newsletter now:


Copyright Capitalism Institute, 2011-present.