Wednesday, June 21, 2017
"When contrasted with a dream of perfection, capitalism was manifestly at a disadvantage. But with the advent of socialist economies (Communist Russia, China) and the semisocialist, or “mixed,” systems of Scandinavia, Britain, and New Deal America (to say nothing of the “national” socialisms of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy), capitalism no longer requires apologists. Under any comparative audit of systems it comes out very well indeed.
....It may have its islands of poverty, its “contractions,” but it does not murder people as a matter of policy or shut them up in concentration camps. It does not force men and women to accept uncongenial occupations or goods that are subjected to the approval of a small “planning” bureaucracy. It does not reduce life to a continual round of abject permissiveness."
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Saw this great takedown of liberal-vs-conservative "dialogue" or what stands for dialogue in these times:
“To help poor children, I am going to launch flaming accordions into the Grand Canyon.”
“WHY DO YOU HATE POOR CHILDREN?”
Thanks to Professor Boudreaux for this quote from the great economic historian Deirdre McCloskey’s 2006 volume, The Bourgeois Virtues:
"If you look into the way Carnegie and Rockefeller actually got their fortunes, it turns out that it was mainly by making steel and transporting oil cheaper than their competitors did. They did not get it by hurting consumers with monopolies. Nor did they get it by hurting workers by paying less than other people did."
Sunday, June 11, 2017
Professor Boudreaux helps to take down the Great Mind fallacy. Too many people, including those who should know better, look to government to correct things that may or may not be "problems" in the first:
“Got a problem? Pass a ‘law’ or appoint government agents to ‘solve’ that problem!” is about as common – and about as naive – a reaction as is possible in human society.
Wednesday, June 07, 2017
Quoting: Pierre Lemieux:
"The mercantilists of the 16th to 18th centuries thought that a country should export as much as possible and import as little as possible. This is an economic error. Just as today individuals sell (including labor services) in order to buy something, countries export in order to import. As James Mill wrote nearly 200 years ago, “The benefit which is derived from exchanging one commodity for another, arises, in all cases, from the commodity received, not from the commod- ity given.” In other words, exports are a cost because the United States uses its resources to produce goods and services for foreign countries; imports are a benefit because the United States uses the resources of foreign countries to obtain its own goods and services. So, contrary to what the mercantilists thought, the United States should import as much as it can and export as little as possible (assuming it were possible to maintain this regime for long). A reductio ad absurdum of this mercantilist argument is easy. Imagine that the United States ships its exports by sea and that the returning ships bring back imported goods. If the returning ships sank, would this situation of exports without imports be a bene t for the United States? Obviously not."