Most societies, at least in this century, handle the problem of national defense by having a large, well-armed, permanent military force, run by a centralized government, funded by taxation, and often (though not always) manned by conscription. Is this a solution that a free nation can or should follow?
Category: Free Markets
Negative Balance of Trade? So What?
Although the topic may appear daunting, the essence of the matter is utterly simple. As a fair approximation, each international transaction, whether it be buying, selling, borrowing, or lending across a national border involves a willing party on each side—importers want to purchase goods from sellers abroad, lenders want to lend to borrowers abroad, and so forth. Each party to the transactions expects to benefit by entering into it. In a sane and just world, that would be the end of the matter.
Should Governments Even Try to Solve Problems?
Otto von Bismarck famously described politics as “the art of the possible, the attainable.” People who like politics love this sentiment. It suggests workable pragmatism rather than impractical principles, compromise over conviction, action rather than inaction. I find this sentiment both hypocritical and misleading.
Think of All the Jobs Central Heating Destroyed
Central heating – along with running water, electricity-powered household appliances such vacuum cleaners, ranges, refrigerators, and freezers (with the latter later becoming self-defrosting), commercial dairies, inexpensive prepared foods, and other modern conveniences – released women from the dullness of housewifery so that they could contribute their skills to strangers in commercial markets (and, of course, earn extra monetary income from these contributions).
Legalizing Weed Has Done What 1 Trillion Dollars and a 40 Year War Couldn’t
The $1 trillion War on Drugs launched by President Nixon in 1971 created the Mexican drug cartels, now legalizing weed is killing them.
It’s Either Bullies or Balance Sheets
A wise man once told me that in this life, you can obey balance sheets or bullies. In the end, those are the only two paths. He was drawing attention to an unavoidable reality in a world of scarcity. All scarce things must be allocated among competing ends. This can be done top-down by people in control, or it can be accomplished bottom-up with the signaling system that emerges from voluntary exchange. The two approaches don’t mix well.
Tariffs, Pickpockets, and the Nationalist Snake in the Moral Grass
Protectionism, as it is misleadingly known, has always been an insider’s game, a political gambit aimed at enriching those to whom the government is especially beholden or seeks to seduce at the expense of other people. Incumbent producers who produce products on which tariffs are imposed succeed in repelling competition by force of the government’s customs officers, which is to say that they succeed in increasing their profits by force, not by offering consumers a better deal.
Do Two Wrong Taxes Make a Right?
Imposing tariffs in order to protect domestic producers who are unjustly harmed by taxes or regulations, as Bastiat noted, simply shifts the harm done by these taxes and regulations from producers to consumers. But why should consumers rather than producers suffer this harm? Some people must suffer it, and it’ll be either the unjustly taxed and regulated producers (in the case of no protective tariff) or their consumers (in the case of a protective tariff).
The Utter Irrelevance of the “Balance of Trade”
No concept in international economics – indeed, perhaps no concept in all of economics – is as prodigious a source of confusion and plunderous policy as is that of the so-called “trade deficit.”
Anti-Immigrant Arguments from Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum
Immigrants are destroying us! They come here and get on welfare, ’cause as everyone knows, the main attraction of America to immigrants is our government welfare system. Americans are made poorer because immigrants consume too much and produce too little!”