The New Theories of Moral Sentiments
By DALIBOR ROHAC
LondonDeirdre McCloskey certainly leaves an impression. With her robust frame, hoarse voice interspersed with an occasional stammer, and extraordinary charisma, she is anything but your typical economic historian.
On a recent trip to England, she gave a talk at Hartwell House in the heart of Buckinghamshire that felt like a good stand-up comedy show, on par with the better performances of Eddie Izzard or George Carlin. But humor and witticisms aside, the talk revealed her conviction that economists should not shy away from the subjects of love, friendship or virtue.
What Ron Paul Talks About
Posted by David Boaz
The New York Times has an interesting graphic, under the heading “Choice Words,” that shows how differently Ron Paul talks about the role of government from all the other candidates. There’s a complete version here, but I’ve excerpted a section. The Times notes that the graphic depicts “selected words used by President Obama in his State of the Union addresses, and by Republican presidential candidates in their debates, television interviews and major speeches since May.”
So what do we see? Ron Paul talks about deficits and debt more than any other candidate. (President Obama seems to have talked about the deficit most in 2009, when it was all Bush’s fault.) He’s virtually the only candidate who talks about war and troops—no doubt in phrases like “bring the troops home” and “troops in 147 countries.” All those folks who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 to end the war may be wondering where the determined young antiwar senator went; now he doesn’t even talk about America’s wars.
Where’s the party?
The long arm of the state
How the Communist Party is trying to expand its influence in the private sector
BEIJING
RAHN: Deaf to deficit warnings
Deaf to deficit warnings
“So what?” is the implicit expression of much of the Washington political class when it comes to spending and taxing. The consequences of Washington’s fiscal irresponsibility are not evident to many in the media and electorate - yet. But the pain will come - and it will hit almost every American. Last week, I explained how government deficits are strangling necessary capital formation. The following describes the impact on job creation and growth, and next week, I will present a way out of the mess.
Blocking the Paths Out of Poverty
By John Stossel
Have you noticed how often government takes sides against the little guy?
Street vending has been a path out of poverty for Americans. And like other such paths (say, driving a taxi), this one is increasingly difficult to navigate. Why? Because entrenched interests don't like competition. So they lobby their powerful friends to erect high hurdles to upstarts. It's an old story.
Now, growing local governments are crushing street vendors.
The city of Atlanta, for example, has turned all street vending over to a monopoly contractor. In feudalist fashion, all existing vendors were told they must work for the monopoly or not vend at all.
"Vendors who used to paying $250 a year for their vending site must now hand over $500 to $1,600 every month for the privilege of working for the monopoly," wrote Bob Ewing in The Freeman. Ewing works for the Institute for Justice, the libertarian public-interest law firm that defends victims of anticompetitive regulation.
Street vending has been a path out of poverty for Americans. And like other such paths (say, driving a taxi), this one is increasingly difficult to navigate. Why? Because entrenched interests don't like competition. So they lobby their powerful friends to erect high hurdles to upstarts. It's an old story.
Now, growing local governments are crushing street vendors.
The city of Atlanta, for example, has turned all street vending over to a monopoly contractor. In feudalist fashion, all existing vendors were told they must work for the monopoly or not vend at all.
"Vendors who used to paying $250 a year for their vending site must now hand over $500 to $1,600 every month for the privilege of working for the monopoly," wrote Bob Ewing in The Freeman. Ewing works for the Institute for Justice, the libertarian public-interest law firm that defends victims of anticompetitive regulation.
Why Newt Soared but Could Sour
By David Paul Kuhn
It’s
no longer a race between Mitt Romney and Not Romney. Newt Gingrich’s
resurgence is rooted in the candidate he is, rather than the candidate
he is not.
Gingrich has proven able to win with a broader coalition than Romney. That coalition eviscerated Romney’s double-digit lead in national polls. The GOP race is now a dead heat between the two men. Romney remains the favorite. But Gingrich is a serious contender for the nomination. And it’s a mistake to limit Gingrich’s GOP appeal to what Romney is not.
But Gingrich’s primary vulnerabilities are a layer beneath the surface. Republicans’ attachment to Gingrich remains fickle.
Gingrich’s appeal to men is significantly offset by his weaknesses with
women (see Insider Advantage polling on Sunday and Wednesday). The GOP electorate is still digesting who Gingrich is and, perhaps more consequentially, is not.
Gingrich’s South Carolina victory was the most impressive thus far. But it was also exaggerated. Outlets, such as Bloomberg News, reported that Republican turnout in South Carolina set a new record. Therefore, some pundits concluded, Gingrich is changing the electorate. But not so fast. Turnout is measured against the number of eligible voters. South Carolina’s turnout was a numerical record but not an actual record -- 17.3 percent in 2012 compared to 19.5 percent in 2000 -- according to data compiled by the authority on turnout Curtis Gans.
Gingrich has proven able to win with a broader coalition than Romney. That coalition eviscerated Romney’s double-digit lead in national polls. The GOP race is now a dead heat between the two men. Romney remains the favorite. But Gingrich is a serious contender for the nomination. And it’s a mistake to limit Gingrich’s GOP appeal to what Romney is not.
Gingrich’s South Carolina victory was the most impressive thus far. But it was also exaggerated. Outlets, such as Bloomberg News, reported that Republican turnout in South Carolina set a new record. Therefore, some pundits concluded, Gingrich is changing the electorate. But not so fast. Turnout is measured against the number of eligible voters. South Carolina’s turnout was a numerical record but not an actual record -- 17.3 percent in 2012 compared to 19.5 percent in 2000 -- according to data compiled by the authority on turnout Curtis Gans.
A Critique of Representative Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity”
Economic Elites Strip Away European Sovereignty
Questioning European leadership, 17 elites set to strip away
European autonomy, a charade of misdirection, no new Euros printed as of
yet, ECB in bed with The Fed, gold and silver the only true value of
currency, Greek exit from Euro inevitable.
by Bob Chapman
Even the middle of the road journalists are beginning to question Europe’s elected and appointed leadership. This past Monday the plan for the euro zone was laid out for a final capitulation to world government. The financial crisis has been handled from behind the scenes by the Fed, so that Germany’s Chancellor Merkel and France’s President can concentrate on more important matters, namely the final federalization of the euro zone to be followed by the entrapment of the remainder of the European Union.
by Bob Chapman
Even the middle of the road journalists are beginning to question Europe’s elected and appointed leadership. This past Monday the plan for the euro zone was laid out for a final capitulation to world government. The financial crisis has been handled from behind the scenes by the Fed, so that Germany’s Chancellor Merkel and France’s President can concentrate on more important matters, namely the final federalization of the euro zone to be followed by the entrapment of the remainder of the European Union.
World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
| by Bob Adelmann | |
 Global elites — many of the 2,500 of them billionaires — are spending a few days in Davos, Switzerland, attending the World Economic Forum (WEF), a group founded in 1971 “committed to improving the state of the world.”The state of the world doesn’t appear too rosy. The recent downgrades of major economies, the clamor over perceived income inequality, the crisis in the eurozone, and other concerns are weighing heavily on the participants. Vikas Oberoi, chairman of India’s second-largest real estate developer, observed, “Many who will be in Davos are the people being blamed for economic inequalities. I hope it’s not just about glamour and people having a big party.” Azim Premji, chairman of India’s third-largest software company, was equally somber: “We have seen in 2011 what ignoring this aspect can result in. If we don’t take cognizance of it and try to solve this problem, it can create a chaotic upheaval globally.” |
Warren Buffett's Secretary Likely Makes Between $200,000 And $500,000/Year
Warren Buffett’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, served as a stage prop
for President Obama’s State of the Union speech. She was the president’s
chief display of the alleged unfairness of our tax system – a little
person paying a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss.
Lessons From the Great Expansion
In his State of the Union address this week, President Obama said
we shouldn't "settle for a country where a shrinking number of people
do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by."
No one would argue with that. But is it an accurate description of our economy? The production of wealth is not a zero-sum game here at home or in the global economy—never has been.
Between 1980 and 2007, the world economy experienced what I call a "Great Expansion" due largely to the free-market polices that President Obama blames for the last recession. Over those three decades, world GDP grew by about 145%, or roughly 3.4% a year, a rate comparable to the 3.5% per year growth during the golden era of 1950-1973.
No one would argue with that. But is it an accurate description of our economy? The production of wealth is not a zero-sum game here at home or in the global economy—never has been.
Between 1980 and 2007, the world economy experienced what I call a "Great Expansion" due largely to the free-market polices that President Obama blames for the last recession. Over those three decades, world GDP grew by about 145%, or roughly 3.4% a year, a rate comparable to the 3.5% per year growth during the golden era of 1950-1973.
0 comments:
Post a Comment