FEE on "the 'Libertarian-Minded' Pierre Poilievre"

The world's oldest libertarian thinktank, the Foundation for Economic Education, acknowledges Pierre Poilievre's 'libertarian streak' but notes he will be limited in how far he can change Canada's governance.

Taymaz Valley, Poilievre at Iran protest, October 2022. CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons.

Meet Canada’s Next Prime Minister — the ‘Libertarian-Minded’ Pierre Poilievre | Foundation for Economic Education | Patrick Carroll:

February 5, 2025 - "Born in Calgary, Alberta, in 1979, Pierre Poilievre has been involved in politics nearly his entire life. After earning a BA in international relations at the University of Calgary, he went on to become a Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) in 2004 at the age of 25. He has worked as an MP ever since, slowly climbing the Party ladder, becoming leader in 2022. 

"Poilievre’s political philosophy is essentially conservative, but what makes him unusual is that he also has a considerable libertarian streak — a rare quality in the upper echelons of Canadian politics. In his teens he read Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom, a book he later cited as 'seminal' to his political thinking. As a second-year undergraduate in 1999, he was a finalist in the national As Prime Minister, I Would… essay contest, winning $10,000 and a four-month internship at Magna International. His entry, 'Building Canada Through Freedom,' spells out his principles — and his ambitions — in no uncertain terms:

Therefore, as Prime Minister, what I would do to improve living standards is not nearly as important as what I would not do. As Prime Minister, I would relinquish to citizens as much of my social, political, and economic control as possible, leaving people to cultivate their own personal prosperity and to govern their own affairs as directly as possible.

"His focus on liberty has continued throughout his career. He described himself as 'libertarian-minded' to media outlets when he first became an MP in 2004 and is regularly criticized by those on the left for viewing free markets favorably and government intervention with suspicion.... 

"Poilievre’s pro-freedom credentials were further underscored when he was interviewed on Robert Breedlove’s podcast in 2022.... Poilievre told Breedlove he was a regular listener and fan of the show. This in itself is revealing: Breedlove is a Bitcoiner, a self-described 'Freedom Maximalist,' and an influential figure in the modern liberty movement. Poilievre went on to reference 'one of my favorite economists, Thomas Sowell,' and specifically cited Sowell’s famous 'first lesson' quote: 'The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics'....

"Poilievre is tapping into the classical liberal side of the Canadian identity. He has been especially focused on his plan to 'Axe the Carbon Tax,' referring to a divisive carbon tax-and-rebate program introduced by the Liberals in 2019 as part of their climate agenda. But while he will likely succeed in rolling back the carbon tax, there is reason to doubt that he will be able to make any sizable pro-freedom changes.

"Poilievre may be libertarian-minded at heart, but most Canadian voters are not. Thus, if he wants to get elected, he needs to present Canadians with a considerably moderated version of his ideas, and that’s exactly what he’s been doing. In his mind, presumably, it’s better to get elected on a moderate platform than campaign on what he actually believes and lose in a landslide. Unfortunately, even if this strategy works and he becomes Prime Minister, he will be severely limited in his ability to make any meaningful changes, because he will almost certainly be ousted from power should he ever try to do so.

"There’s an interesting lesson here about power. While it’s easy to think that the person in charge can do whatever they want within constitutional limits, the fact is that they are always beholden to the will of the majority. And as Ludwig von Mises argued — echoing Étienne de la Boétie and David Hume — this isn’t just true of democracies; it’s true of all systems of government. Political 'might' always rests, not on force, but on opinion. If a ruler won’t exercise power in a way that comports with public opinion, they are quickly replaced by someone who will — violently, if necessary.... 

"Poilievre may want to move Canada in a free market, classical liberal direction. He may have great intentions for removing government regulations in both the economic and social spheres. But the problem is that Canadian public opinion is still thoroughly statist."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/meet-canadas-next-prime-minister-the-libertarian-minded-pierre-poilievre/

Pierre Poilievre: A Political Life (w/ Andrew Lawton, True North) | Conversations That Matter | August 23, 2024:

Natural immunity outperfoms 3 Covid shots

Natural Immunity Offered More Protection Against Omicron Than 3 Vaccine Doses, New England Journal of Medicine Study Finds | Foundation for Economic Education - Jon Miltimore:

July 18, 2022 - News reports say the Biden administration is currently weighing a plan that would allow all adults to receive a second Covid-19 booster, citing concerns from White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci about the spike in hospitalizations 'fueled by the extremely contagious omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5.' Currently second booster shots are only offered to individuals over the age of 50. Meanwhile, discussion of a potential fifth shot is already underway.... 

The discussions highlight certain realities of Covid immunization. 'Immunity wanes,' Fauci said during a White House briefing on Tuesday, 'whether that’s immunity following infection or immunity following vaccine.' 

While it’s true that immunization wanes, new scientific research from The New England Journal of Medicine suggests natural immunity lasts longer than immunity acquired from vaccines.

The study, a case–control analysis based on data from Qatar collected from December 23, 2021 through February 21, 2022, involved millions of people, including 1,306,862 who received at least two doses of the Pfizer vaccine (BNT162b2) and 893,671 people who received at least two doses of the Moderna vaccine (mRNA-1273), as well unvaccinated individuals. The results of the study are a mixed bag for the vaccines.

The best news is that 'any form of previous immunity, whether induced by previous infection or vaccination, is associated with strong and durable protection against Covid-19–related hospitalization and death'.... Also good news is that both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines 'enhanced protection among persons who had had a previous infection.... The combination of prior, full vaccination and prior infection was maximally protective,' researchers said in a summary of the study’s findings released last month by the Weill Cornell Medicine Newsroom. 'Individuals with prior infection and three doses of either mRNA vaccine were, overall, nearly 80 percent protected from symptomatic infection during the omicron wave.'

But the study also found that two doses of vaccines offered 'negligible' protection against Omicron infection. 'A key finding was that a history of vaccination with the standard two doses of either the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine, but no history of prior infection, brought no significant protection against symptomatic omicron infection,' researchers said.

In regards to the Pfizer vaccine, three shots offered considerably more protection. But the protection was still lower than natural immunity, which offered stronger and more sustained protection from infection than vaccination. (Researchers noted that 'people with a prior-variant infection were moderately protected from omicron with little decline in protection even a year after their prior infection.')

The findings are not unlike those out of Israel published last year, which found that natural immunity offered more robust protection against the Delta variant than vaccines. 'The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine,' Science reported in August 2021 in a piece exploring the Israel findings.

More than a dozen other studies [have] also found that natural immunity offered powerful protection against Covid, equal to or stronger than vaccination. Even absent these findings, vaccine mandates were dubious from the beginning. The morality of violating bodily autonomy through government coercion is a serious and dangerous matter. In light of these findings, however, vaccine mandates also appear nonsensical.

While many institutions now consider Covid infection a form of immunization — including the NCAA, which in January changed its policy to accommodate athletes who’d had Covid — many have not. Thousands of soldiers have been discharged because of their vaccination status. Healthcare workers continue to face vaccination mandates in many places.

It’s time for all institutions — especially governments—to recognize vaccination choices should remain with individuals. The idea that freedom over one’s own body is the most basic and essential freedom is one embraced not just by libertarians like Ron Paul but by international leaders like Natalia Kanem, a physician who leads the United Nations Population Fund. 'Bodily autonomy is the foundation on which all rights exist,' Kanem bluntly states.

All efforts to compel people to get vaccinated (or else) are coercive, and therefore wrong. But when the government, in particular, violates bodily autonomy for an alleged greater good, it betrays its very reason for being. 'The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights,' the philosopher Ayn Rand noted.

As more studies like the research published by The New England Journal of Medicine come out, it becomes more and more clear that vaccine mandates were not just immoral. They were senseless. Fortunately, many are beginning to realize just that.

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/natural-immunity-offered-more-protection-against-omicron-than-3-vaccine-doses-new-england-journal-of-medicine-study-finds/

Read study: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203965

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Bad COVID-19 models led to bad policy decisions, says epidemiologist

Modelers Were ‘Astronomically Wrong’ in COVID-19 Predictions, Says Leading Epidemiologist — and the World Is Paying the Price | Foundation for Economic Education - John Miltimore: 

July 2, 2020 - "Dr. John Ioannidis became a world-leading scientist by exposing bad science. But the COVID-19 pandemic could prove to be his biggest challenge yet. Ioannidis, the C.F. Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention at Stanford University, has come under fire in recent months for his opposition to state-ordered lockdowns, which he says could cause social harms well beyond their presumed benefits. But he doesn’t appear to be backing down. In a wide-ranging interview with Greek Reporter published over the weekend, Ioannidis said emerging data support his prediction that lockdowns would have wide-ranging social consequences and that the mathematical models on which the lockdowns were based were horribly flawed.

"Ioannidis also said a comprehensive review of the medical literature suggests that COVID-19 is far more widespread than most people realize. 'There are already more than 50 studies that have presented results on how many people in different countries and locations have developed antibodies to the virus,' Ioannidis, a Greek-American physician, told Greek Reporter.... 'A very crude estimate might suggest that about 150-300 million or more people have already been infected around the world, far more than the 10 million documented cases.'

"Ioannidis said medical data suggest the fatality risk is far lower than earlier estimates had led policymakers to believe and 'is almost 0%' for individuals under 45 years old. The median fatality rate is roughly 0.25 percent, however, because the risk 'escalates substantially' for individuals over 85 and can be as high as 25 percent for debilitated people in nursing homes.... Because of this, Ioannidis sees mass lockdowns of entire populations as a mistake....

"In March, in a widely read STAT article, Ioannidis said it was uncertain how long lockdowns could be maintained without serious consequences. 'One of the bottom lines is that we don’t know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society, and mental health,' Ioannidis wrote. 'Unpredictable evolutions may ensue, including financial crisis, unrest, civil strife, war, and a meltdown of the social fabric.' Nearly three months after that interview, the world has seen unemployment levels unseen since the Great Depression, mass business closures, spikes in suicide and drug overdose, and social unrest on a scale not seen in the US since the 1960s. 'I feel extremely sad that my predictions were verified,' Ioannidis said. He continued....

Globally, the lockdown measures have increased the number of people at risk of starvation to 1.1 billion, and they are putting at risk millions of lives, with the potential resurgence of tuberculosis, childhood diseases like measles where vaccination programs are disrupted, and malaria. I hope that policymakers look at the big picture of all the potential problems and not only on the very important, but relatively thin slice of evidence that is COVID-19.

"Ioannidis did not spare modelers who predicted as many as 40 million people would die, or those who claimed the US healthcare system would be overrun. 'The predictions of most mathematical models in terms of how many beds and how many ICU beds would be required were astronomically wrong,' Ioannidis said.... 

"Only time will tell if Ioannidis is proven correct in his assessments. But if he’s even half right, it would suggest that the experts did indeed fail again. There’s little question that the lockdowns have caused widespread economic, social, and emotional carnage. Evidence that US states that locked down fared better than states that did not is hard to find.

"Though not yet certain, the COVID-19 pandemic may well turn out to be another example of central planning gone wrong.... During the coronavirus pandemic, experts may have unintentionally brought about one of the most serious human disasters in modern history by removing choice from individuals with superior local knowledge."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/modelers-were-astronomically-wrong-in-covid-19-predictions-says-leading-epidemiologist-and-the-world-is-paying-the-price/

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Libertarians speak out on coronavirus

What libertarians would do in response to coronavirus | The Week - Bonnie Kristian:

March 13, 2020 - "The novel coronavirus is a novel situation for modern libertarianism:... COVID-19 is forecast to be a unique situation in the last century. Realistically, there won't be a single libertarian view on the state's role in a pandemic. What we call 'libertarianism' is a big tent with significant division on issues including immigration, abortion, and whether the state should exist at all. (There are anarchists in the tent.) Nevertheless, pandemic-era libertarianism is emerging, and it remains distinctly libertarian. Here are the trends I'm seeing.

1. "Praise for the free market's role.... 'That gallon jug of hand sanitizer delivered to your front door less than 48 hours after you ordered it online? It didn't show up because Trump tweeted it into existence'... Reason's Eric Boehm wrote.... Libertarian author Jeffrey Tucker likewise explained how in 'a disease panic, the market is your friend,' and some libertarians have proposed tariff relief as a response to the pandemic's economic damage.

2. "Advice of personal responsibility. Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.) has encouraged voluntary social distancing. Reason's coverage has done the same, emphasizing the seriousness of the illness and offering tips for continuing education at home while school is canceled. A piece at the Libertarian Institute promoted conservative personal finance decisions to limit COVID-19's disruption.

3. "Condemnation of counterproductive regulations and lack of transparency.... For weeks, the FDA and CDC wouldn't let medical workers and academics move forward with COVID-19 tests they'd developed without lengthy processes of federal approval. In fact, these agencies actively discouraged independent testing until the end of February while offering a faulty test kit and too-strict guidelines for who could be tested.... While the testing situation is beginning to improve, the Trump administration has classified its coronavirus meetings.... Amash complained lawmakers weren't given enough time to read last week's coronavirus relief bill before it passed, and the Foundation for Economic Education slammed Beijing for repressing the message of heroic coronavirus whistleblower Dr. Li Wenliang.

4. "Rejection of corporate bailouts and price controls. Trump is exploring plans for corporate bailout loans and other economic stimuli which libertarians generally oppose. The Cato Institute has argued against 'big bailouts and ... throwing money at businesses that will not be viable in the new post‐​epidemic world'.... The libertarian take on targeted tax breaks like Trump wants for energy and travel-related industries will be more mixed: We disagree on whether tax cuts like this should be opposed as favoritism amounting to corporate welfare or supported because any tax break is a good thing. Not mixed is the opposition to price controls, as higher prices are a useful signal of growing demand that discourages hoarding and encourages increased production.

5. "Mixed feelings on emergency social welfare. Libertarians have a reputation for universal opposition to all social safety net spending, and many do take that position. But perhaps the most famous libertarian economist — Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek — supported a limited welfare state, including a universal basic income. This fault line will extend into libertarian stances on pandemic responses like state-provided testing, treatment, and income subsidies. (In my experience, most thoughtful libertarians get less worked up about real needs being filled in a way we consider non-ideal than about more egregious state overreaches like unjust wars or police violence.)...

6. "Skepticism of mandatory lockdowns, travel bans, and the like.... Some libertarians have categorically rejected forced quarantines, arguing the risk of infection is not a direct enough threat to justify impeding people's rights. Most have not taken that view, instead expressing skepticism of the effectiveness of broad quarantines and travel bans — a skepticism public health experts share, by the way — while conceding there could be circumstances where these measures are appropriate for a time. The legal uncertainty around state and federal powers to require quarantines and limit public gatherings has libertarians predictably worried about due process rights.

7. "Insistence on temporary changes. Fierce opposition to expansions of the surveillance state to fight the novel coronavirus is likely widespread among libertarians in no small part because privacy rights, once lost, are very rarely recovered. But the risk of this pandemic permanently expanding the power of the state will shape the libertarian view on every proposed solution.... For many libertarians, our worries about robust government responses to COVID-19 are less about the responses proper than the possibility that the changes they bring will never end, even after the disease is under control. There are libertarians in a pandemic, and we're as preoccupied by coronavirus as everyone else. We're just preoccupied by liberty, too."

Read more; https://theweek.com/articles/901738/what-libertarians-response-coronavirus

Coronavirus threat to Chinese Communists' power

Why Chinese Communism Could Be the Final Casualty of the Coronavirus | Foundation for Economic Education - Doug Bandow:

February 22, 2020 - "The Maoist totalitarian state is being reborn in China under Xi Jinping.... However, the response of the Chinese government to the COVID-19 virus has undermined the CCP’s credibility — and ultimately may threaten the party’s hold on power....

"The worst pandemic in recent years was Ebola between 2014 and 2016: there were about 28,600 cases and 11,300 deaths.... SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome, infected almost 8,100 and killed roughly 800 people in 2002 to 2003. SARS ... also was a coronavirus that originated in a Chinese 'wet market' that featured the sale of live and wild animals. Beijing’s response to that health crisis was heavily criticized.... The regime was more concerned about presenting an atmosphere of calm and stability during a leadership transition than preventing the spread of a disease of unknown potency and transmissibility....

"However, the Chinese government is making similar mistakes in its response to what is now being called COVID-19.... As of mid-February, the number infected exceeds 73,000, with some 1,900 deaths, assuming Beijing’s statistics are accurate. Some doctors and outside researchers estimated that 100,000 or more Chinese actually have been infected.... Nevertheless, the government’s response has fallen short of that necessary to slow if not stop the disease’s spread.... [T]he Wuhan provincial government. ... failed to report a single infection during the first half of January, which coincided with a local party congress, so as not to discourage attendance.

"Beijing decided to lock down the entire city of 11 million. But the Xi government gave advance notice that it was closing the airport and train station, enabling a flood of people to escape.... Five million Wuhan residents ended up elsewhere in China and beyond.... [T]here currently are more than 80 Chinese cities, including Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Hangzhou, and Shenzhen, as well as several provinces, under some form of lock-down/quarantine/isolation — more than 45 million people.

"Lack of transparency and honesty may be the regime’s greatest weakness in fighting COVID-19. The CCP previously gained a reputation for covering up the party’s role in disasters, such as earthquakes and train accidents. The regime also lost credibility attempting to limit the political fall-out during the SARS crisis.

"Current skepticism exploded after the death of Dr. Li Wenliang, an ophthalmologist who sounded the alarm when he observed the rise in suspicious infections. He was detained by the police and accused of spreading 'false information'.... He then treated patients, catching the virus and dying at age 34. The government sought to defuse public hostility by claiming that he was still alive and being treated even after his death.... Li’s death set off a social media explosion ... millions of comments poured in through Weibo, the Chinese Twitter, and other social media platforms.... Many posts declared 'I want freedom of speech,' which the government removed as quickly as possible. Even some Chinese inclined to trust the government went online to express their anger over his treatment....

"In late January the government relaxed control of private reporting, but that ended quickly as Beijing took control of the disease narrative and especially infection statistics. Accounts of doctors, video bloggers, and ad hoc reporters were deleted. Some bloggers, such as lawyer Chen Qiushi, welder Fang Bin, and human rights activist Hu Jia, were detained.... The regime also distributed its new media line: 'Sources of articles must be strictly regulated, independent reporting is strictly prohibited, and the use of nonregulated article sources, particularly self-media, is strictly prohibited.' Social media providers were told they were under “special supervision'....

"This self-serving censorship has highlighted the more fundamental problem of tyranny. Chen Guangcheng, a lawyer and human rights activist who escaped to the US, wrote: 'The Chinese Communist Party has once again proved that authoritarianism is dangerous—not just for human rights but also for public health.' He charged that the CCP 'has succeeded in turning a public health crisis into a health rights catastrophe'....

"A successful conclusion to the epidemic—if infections and deaths soon plateau and start to fall—might minimize memories of the Xi government’s inadequate preparation and slow response. However, economic losses already are huge, in the tens of billions of dollars. And there appears to be no early end to the crisis.... Beijing’s reputation and prestige have suffered.

"Xi and the CCP justify an increasingly authoritarian, even totalitarian regime on the basis of caring for the Chinese people. The COVID-19 crisis has exposed that claim to be a lie. Popular skepticism toward other self-serving government claims will rise in the future.... Ironically, Mao likely would understand the regime’s peril: 'A potentially revolutionary situation exists in any country where the government consistently fails in its obligation to ensure at least a minimally decent standard of life for the great majority of its citizens.'"

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/why-chinese-communism-could-be-the-final-casualty-of-the-coronavirus/

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Millennial socialism based on entitlement

College Student: My Generation Is Blind to the Prosperity Around Us - Foundation for Economic Education - Alyssa Ahlgren:

April 24, 2019 - "'I'm sitting in a small coffee shop near Nokomis trying to think of what to write about. I scroll through my newsfeed on my phone looking at the latest headlines of Democratic candidates calling for policies to “fix” the so-called injustices of capitalism. I put my phone down and continue to look around.

"I see people talking freely, working on their MacBooks, ordering food they get in an instant, seeing cars go by outside, and it dawned on me. We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we’ve become completely blind to it....

"We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty. One. Times. Virtually no one in the United States is considered poor by global standards. Yet, in a time where we can order a product off Amazon with one click and have it at our doorstep the next day, we are unappreciative, unsatisfied, and ungrateful.

"Our unappreciation is evident as the popularity of socialist policies among my generation continues to grow. Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, 'An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity.'

"Never saw American prosperity. Let that sink in. When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I’ve ever heard in my 26 years on this earth.... I do think she whole-heartedly believes the words she said to be true. Many young people agree with her, which is entirely misguided. My generation is being indoctrinated by a mainstream narrative to actually believe we have never seen prosperity....

"Let me lay down some universal truths really quick. The United States of America has lifted more people out of abject poverty, spread more freedom and democracy, and has created more innovation in technology and medicine than any other nation in human history. Not only that but our citizenry continually breaks world records with charitable donations, the rags to riches story is not only possible in America but not uncommon, we have the strongest purchasing power on earth, and we encompass 25 percent of the world’s GDP. The list goes on....

"Why then, with all of the overwhelming evidence around us, evidence that I can even see sitting at a coffee shop, do we not view this as prosperity? We have people who are dying to get into our country. People around the world destitute and truly impoverished. Yet, we have a young generation convinced they’ve never seen prosperity, and as a result, elect politicians dead set on taking steps towards abolishing capitalism.

"Why? The answer is this, my generation has only seen prosperity. We have no contrast. We didn’t live in the Great Depression, or live through two world wars, or see the rise and fall of socialism and communism. We don’t know what it’s like not to live without the internet, without cars, without smartphones. We don’t have a lack of prosperity problem. We have an entitlement problem, an ungratefulness problem, and it’s spreading like a plague....

"My generation is becoming the largest voting bloc in the country. We have an opportunity to continue to propel us forward with the gifts capitalism and democracy has given us. The other option is that we can fall into the trap of entitlement and relapse into restrictive socialist destitution. The choice doesn’t seem too hard, does it?"

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/college-student-my-generation-is-blind-to-the-prosperity-around-us/#disqus_thread
'via Blog this'

Apple challenging Chicago internet streaming tax

Chicago’s New PlayStation Tax Shows How Greedy Politicians Can Be - Foundation for Economic Education - Brittany Hunter:

November 14, 2018 - "PlayStation 4 users in Chicago were shocked when they turned on their consoles and saw a message from Sony. The message informed users that as of November 14, 2018, they would be required to pay a 9 percent 'amusement tax' for PlayStation subscriptions such as PlayStation Now, PlayStation Plus, PlayStation Music, and others....

"The amusement tax was actually passed several years ago and included almost all forms of entertainment. Whether residents are looking to spend an evening at the theater, see a concert, cheer on their favorite sports team, go to a nightclub, or even catch a movie, they are on the hook for an additional 5 percent tax. In 2015, the amusement tax was expanded ... with the creation of a 'cloud tax' ... the city began instituting a 9 percent tax for using platforms like Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, and others. And thanks to the inclusion of the streaming services, the amusement tax now brings in about $12 million annually. It also applies to anyone whose billing address is within city limits.

"Sony actually refused to enforce the tax and did not finally capitulate to the city’s wishes until mid-November.... While it is unclear why Sony decided to begin enforcing the tax at this time, it is likely that statements from government representatives scared the company into submission....

"Right after the 'cloud tax' was instituted, the Liberty Justice Center came forward to challenge the city’s new policy.... Unfortunately, the court ruled in favor of the city in May....

"Just a few months after the same court ruled in favor of the city, Apple filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The tech company’s complaint touches on four different violations it believes the city is guilty of committing. But the primary complaint rests on Chicago’s violation of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA).

"In 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the ITFA into law, protecting Americans from illegal forms of taxation. Specifically, the bill prohibited 'state and local governments from taxing Internet access, or imposing multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce'.... For example, if internet users are already being taxed for their internet service, they should not be forced to then pay further taxes for using the internet to access streaming sites....

"Apple is also asserting that the new tax is a violation of the Illinois constitution.... Since the cloud tax is extended to everyone with a Chicago billing address, this means it is ... being levied on those who enjoy streaming services outside city limits, making it a violation of state law....

"Apple’s additional complaints involve violations of the federal commerce clause, as well as violations of the 14th Amendment right to due process. While the outcome of the case is unclear, Apple’s unwillingness to cooperate with the city’s ridiculous amusement tax is a testament to its integrity."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/chicago-s-new-playstation-tax-shows-how-greedy-politicians-can-be/
'via Blog this'

French revolt against climate-change tax

France’s Tax Revolt: What Separates the Yellow Vests from America’s Tea Party - Foundation for Economic Education - Bill Wirtz:

November 28, 2018 - "France is seeing large-scale protests against massive hikes in petrol prices, sparked by tax increases.... In an effort to make its case on climate change, the government under French president Emmanuel Macron has significantly increased the TICPE, an acronym which stands for 'interior tax on the consumption of energy products." An increase of up to 12 percent is supposed to curb CO2 emissions and get the country on target to fulfill its objectives, set out in the Paris Climate Accord....

"Petrol prices in the République, ... already much higher than in its neighboring countries, skyrocketed.... in the Paris region, a liter of petrol can cost up to €1.90 ($2.15). For my American friends who may be less familiar with the metric system, that’s $8.13 per gallon.

"As a result, the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) arose out of civil society. They aren't associated with any political party, but they are surely angry, contesting sky-high taxation in France, and the political class is unwilling to listen to them. Protest marches often occur on motorways, where the yellow vests block the streets to get attention for their cause. The high-visibility security vests they wear are symbolic for a cry for help and a desperate attempt to gain attention.... Some protests have turned violent in city centers, where particularly large crowds are clashing with police forces....

"The yellow vests aren't a political movement.... However, they risk being politicized ... political parties are mastering the art of undermining legitimate movements and claiming them for themselves. Both France's far-left and far-right believe that the yellow vests could be an essential electoral boost to them before the impending European elections in this coming May.

"But even if we assume that this movement manages to resist the attempts of being swallowed by either political side, what future can it have in such a tax-friendly country? The yellow vests are no Tea Party: they lack the structure and ideological backing....

"[T]he Tea Party understood that in order to cut taxes, you need to cut spending. In France however, expectations to win just as many people over on the promise of cutting spending are grim.... People arguing to cut taxes is a wonderful thing, but it also needs to be offset with the belief that the government isn't here to solve all of your problems. We're not hearing that from the yellow vests.....

"[C]utting taxes without cutting spending is just going to shift the problem to debt and inflationary policies. If the yellow vests want to become a movement that has an actual voice in the process of reforming France, then it needs to be ideologically sound."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/france-s-tax-revolt-what-separates-the-yellow-vests-from-america-s-tea-party/
'via Blog this'

Reed retires after 10 years as FEE president

Giving Thanks for Ten Years of Growth and Progress at FEE - Foundation for Economic Education - Lawrence W. Reed:

November 21, 2018 - "The holidays and final weeks of the year are upon us. It’s a time to count blessings.... I’m thankful for more than anybody has time to read about, but right now I am spending a lot of time appreciating the wonderful opportunity I’ve had to lead FEE for more than ten years as its president. Last June, I announced that when our board of trustees chooses a successor, I will step into an active president emeritus role. That will hopefully allow me more time to write and lecture. The search process is on track and will likely culminate with the announcement of a new president sometime in the first half of 2019....

"My 10+ years represent by far the longest and most consequential of any FEE presidency since that of our founder, Leonard Read. For the benefit of our readers and especially our thousands of financial supporters, I’d like to recap some of our accomplishments since 2008.

"Big and tough decisions were made. One was to move from ... Irvington, New York to Atlanta, Georgia. Many of us felt a deep and long-held attachment to the old mansion on the Hudson.... But the numbers made the case for moving. We chose Atlanta, cut our operating costs in half, avoided a small fortune in future upkeep of a 140-year-old building, and now have an office that fits our needs and mission perfectly. Good stewardship of donor dollars demands their most efficient and effective use in everything an organization does....

"Another big, tough decision was to re-focus and re-staff the editorial/content team. The wisdom of that decision was proven quickly. Our readership had been flat or declining for 15 years but it’s risen dramatically every year since that decision.

"Reflecting where our targeted audience goes to read content, we ended the costly print edition of our venerable monthly magazine, The Freeman. We now publish online every three days the equivalent of an entire issue of The Freeman. And instead of a readership in the thousands, we approach a million unique visitors to FEE.org most months of the year.

"We also do a lot less preaching to the choir these days.... FEE is now focused, laser-like, on young newcomers to liberty of high school and college age....

"Overall revenues, at $6 million last year, are three times what they were in 2008. Moreover, the million-dollar deficit we faced at that time was erased within two years. Every year for the past eight, our bottom line has been in the black and big. We’ve rebuilt our reserves and put FEE on its soundest financial footing in decades. Our auditors give us the highest marks and Charity Navigator ranks us in its top category for nonprofit soundness and management....

"FEE’s many accomplishments would not be possible without our generous supporters. As we continue to advance the ideas and principles of free markets and individual liberty among the rising generation, I ask that you please consider supporting FEE in this endeavor.... Thank you, FEE supporters, for all that you’ve done for us to make FEE the vibrant and productive organization it is today!"

Read more: https://fee.org/resources/giving-thanks-for-ten-years-of-growth-and-progress-at-fee/

'via Blog this'

FL couple wins fight to paint house like Van Gogh

Couple Wins Fight to Keep Their House Painted Like Van Gogh's Starry Night to Soothe Autistic Son - Foundation for Economic Education - David Gornoski:

August 27, 2018 - "Mt. Dora, Florida, ... is an artsy little hamlet known for its murals and art festivals. A year ago, Nancy [Nemhauser] and her husband Lubomir decided to paint their house wall in an interpretation of Vincent van Gogh's famous Starry Night painting. They had no homeowners association, they checked with city code and no issue was raised. Yet after they painted it, they received a city citation claiming the wall art was graffiti — that the wall had to match the color of the house. So the couple decided to paint the whole house to match to avoid any issue.

"This gesture ... was not received well by the city magistrates. They began to issue rolling hundred dollar fines for every day the Nemhausers failed to comply with their demands.

"Nancy and Lubomir commissioned the mural as a gift to their son, who has autism. They found that the Starry Night painting was a particular source of comfort and fascination for the young man. Also, in instances in which he might get lost from home, his difficulty in communication could be overcome by saying 'the Van Gogh house' to a person looking to help.

"If I do not like the color scheme of my neighbor's house, do I have a right to come to their door and demand that they pay me a hundred dollars a day until they fix it? If they resist long enough, can I bring men with guns to force them out of their home? Such behavior sounds insane. Because it is.

"However, when we form groups, we start to think we can get away with doing really insane or cruel things. Toxic groupthink can be playground bullies mimicking a child's unique speech pattern. It can also produce groupthink in governments that maintain the right to do things they would find abhorrent to do individually — just because a majority of voters in a space hired them.

"Nancy and Lubomir ... violated no law. They were merely victims of an arbitrarily banal exertion of power by busybodies who presume control. However, whether such a code existed or not on paper, the principle at stake here is one that arrests the very nature of what our culture should be.

"Should we ever use the threat of theft — an act of violence — to change a person's nonviolent behavior or choices? Should we have a culture that produces laws to coerce people's expression, personal choices, property use, or means of caring for their children? If there is no flesh and blood victim that can be named in a citation or police report about an event, how could we ever accuse a person of a crime or violation?

"As long as human beings are not stealing, defrauding, or initiating violence, they should enjoy their lives free from meddling.... Private contracts are mutually agreed upon covenants that can be enforced if people violate the terms. However, public contracts — the domain of states — are often arbitrarily decided piecemeal based on the ever-changing whims of the people close to power.... It is our job as role models for future generations to never let the law be used in such a farcical way.

"Thanks to their courage and the Pacific Legal Foundation, Nancy and Lubomir were victorious. Facing a federal battle over constitutional rights and an onslaught of media attention, Mt. Dora reached a settlement. As part of the agreement, the mayor publicly apologized in a press conference.

"Nancy told me the ordeal cost them greatly in health, stress, and many sleepless nights. For painting their house to help their son."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/couple-wins-fight-to-keep-their-house-painted-like-van-goghs-starry-night-to-soothe-autistic-son/
'via Blog this'

Does economics explain high CEO salaries? Yes

Are CEOs Paid Too Much? - Foundation for Economic Education - Robert P. Murphy:

October 1, 2006 - "So what if CEOs earn more money than most other workers? In a free market (and below we deal with the complication that in today’s world there is no truly free market), the price of labor corresponds to its marginal product. That is, competition ensures that workers are paid according to how much additional revenue they bring in to their employer. The fact that some types of labor command thousands of times more market value is no more surprising or outrageous than the fact that some goods in the marketplace (such as a house) have a price hundreds of thousands of times higher than the prices of other goods (such as a pack of gum).

"But what of ... corporate leaders actually failing their way to riches?... When a company brings in a new executive ... to turn the company around ... it is entirely possible that the plan will fail — and the executive knows this as well as anyone else.... [T]he assembly-line worker doesn’t want his contract contingent on the overall profitability of the company; he wants to be paid — and to get his pension and other benefits should he retire or quit — whether or not the company’s stock does well. If it’s acceptable for the assembly-line workers, why not for the CEO too?

"Yet ... CEOs and other executives do get paid according to how well the company does. In addition to a base salary, these executives are often paid in stock options [i.e.] the right to purchase shares of stock at a specific price, called the strike price.... [I]f the actual market price of the stock [falls] lower than the strike price, the option is worthless ... options are valuable [only] in proportion to the difference between the strike and actual prices.

"We must accept that in the modern economy, with billions of potential consumers worldwide, certain individuals have extraordinary earning power on the open market.... These people aren’t qualified for just CEO spots, and they’re well aware of the social stigma against big business. If the compensation packages are as high as they are, it’s because that’s what firms need to offer to attract and retain these highly skilled individuals....

"If ... management collectively frittered away $10 million per year in unjustifiable expenses, the total shares of the corporation would be valued around $200 million less than they otherwise would be, assuming an efficient stock market and an interest rate of 5 percent.... Such a corporation would then be a prime target for the much reviled corporate raider. The raider would institute a 'hostile takeover,' in which he bought up a controlling share in the corporation (by offering far more than the current price per share to the stockholders) and then used his power to fire or straighten out the inefficient managers. After cleaning house the corporation’s dividends and/or stock price would rise accordingly, netting the raider a profit.

"Unfortunately ... the above relies on the assumption of a free market in corporate takeovers, and that is decidedly lacking. In the present legal and cultural environment, so-called corporate raiders are even more despised than golden-parachuting CEOs. Regulations severely restrict so-called hostile takeovers, and hence hamper the ability of shareholders to restrain their managers....

"The market’s other checks on inefficient management are stifled as well. After all, ... there was always a sure-fire way to keep corporate officers in line: any firm that wasted too much money on fancy offices and executive perks would be vulnerable to its competitors.... But as with hostile takeovers, so too with new entrants to industry: Government regulation muffles this threat and thus allows entrenched businesses a margin of profligacy that they otherwise would not enjoy.

"Many people (especially young students) new to the ideas of laissez faire believe that big business opposes government meddling, but this is naïve and contradicted by the history of actual legislation. Ironically, the profitability of big business can actually be enhanced when the government regulates an industry, because the big firms can more easily handle the fixed costs of filling out paperwork ... and so on.... In this environment, would-be competitors face additional hurdles if they want to challenge the large incumbents, and thus the latter may indeed get away with lavish expenditures that would be short-lived in a truly free market."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/are-ceos-paid-too-much/
'via Blog this'

See also: Does economics explain high CEO salaries? No

The book Justin Amash wants Trump to read

On Twitter, Justin Amash offered Trump a free book. Here’s what the president would learn if he read it - Erin Dunne, Beltway Confidential, Washington Examiner:

August 29, 2018 - "On Tuesday, Trump tweeted, 'I smile at Senators and others talking about how good free trade is for the U.S. What they don’t say is that we lose Jobs and over 800 Billion Dollars a year on really dumb Trade Deals… and the same countries Tariff us to death. These lawmakers are just fine with this!'

"In response, Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., offered Trump a free copy of an economics book. That book, Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt, is ... not very long but chock-full of excellent advice explained simply. I agree with Amash; the president, if he ever took a break from Twitter, would do well to read it.

"The one lesson the book’s title touts is deceptively simple: 'The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all other groups'.... Actions have consequences both in the short and long-term and for groups beyond those directly implicated....

"Even if Trump didn’t get beyond that first introduction, that simple lesson might give him pause before engaging in all out-trade wars with just about every country he can think of. But should the president be inclined to read more than two sentences, he might do well to open to the chapter on tariffs, given his apparently fondness for them.

"That chapter outlines, first in the words of Adam Smith, the inherent benefit of free trade. Quoting Smith, Hazlitt explains, 'In every country it always is and must be the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest.' Free international trade makes the production, trade and distribution of those goods possible to the benefit of all.

"But tariffs cut into all of that benefit by making goods more expensive. Sure, a tariff might protect a specific industry and specific jobs, but it does not help the economy overall. Because consumers have to pay more for one product, they necessarily have to spend less elsewhere. As explained in that chapter, 'In order that one industry might grow or come into existence, a hundred other industries would have to shrink. In order that 50,000 persons might be employed in [one] industry, 50,000 fewer people would be employed elsewhere.'

"In short, Trump is wrong; the U.S. is not losing jobs or money by engaging in free trade. On the contrary, free trade is making all products cheaper, creating new opportunities and boosting overall efficiency. Tariffs only restructure the economy and reduce real wages and wealth, because they cause efficiency and production to decline as materials and products become more expensive. In the end, that will hurt everyone, even the industries that the tariffs propose to protect....

"Trump would do well to take a walk over to Amash’s office and take him up on the offer of a free book [or] if Trump is too busy to walk over, there is also a free PDF copy of this very book available online from the Foundation for Economic Education. Happy reading!"

Read more: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/on-twitter-justin-amash-offered-trump-a-free-book-heres-what-the-president-would-learn-if-he-read-it#!
'via Blog this'

Free speech and social media

Free Speech in the Age of Digital Platforms - Foundation for Economic Education - John Samples, Cato Institute:

August 17, 2018 - "Last week Facebook, Google, and Apple removed videos and podcasts by [a] prominent conspiracy theorist.... Many people are debating these actions, and rightly so....

"The tech companies have the right to govern speech on their platforms; Facebook has practiced such 'content moderation' for at least a decade.... The managers of the platform are agents of the shareholders; they have the power to act on their behalf in this and other matters. (On the other hand, if their decision to ban ... was driven by political animus, they would be shirking their duties and imposing agency costs on shareholders). As private actors, the managers are not constrained by the First Amendment. They could and should remove [someone if] they reasonably believed he drives users off the platform and thereby harms shareholders....

"I see two limits on business logic as a way of governing social media: free speech and fear.

"Elites in the United States value free speech in an abstract sense, apart from legal limits on government. Platform managers are free of the First Amendment, but not of those cultural expectations.

"Fear informs online struggles over speech. The right believes that platform managers are overwhelmingly left-leaning and ... trying to drive everyone on the right off their platforms and into the political wilderness.... The left fears people like [the banned guy] having access to a mainstream audience leading to electoral victories by authoritarians....

"The platforms need legitimacy for their governance. In other words, they need for users (and others) to accept their right to govern (including the power to exclude). Legitimacy would confer authority on the decisions of the platform managers.... What [Max] Weber called rational-legal authority seems to be the only choice for the platforms. In other words, they need a process (or due process) that looks like the rule of law (and not the rule of tech employees).

"Facebook seems to be trying to establish rational-legal authority. It set out Community Standards that guide governing speech.... But do the Community Standards respect the culture of free speech?... Their basic law ... contravenes American free speech legal doctrine. Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, but not by Facebook.

"I conclude that either Facebook’s standard violates the culture of free speech or it reflects a difference between the culture of free speech (which does not include hate speech) and American First Amendment legal doctrine. If the latter, Facebook’s recognition of the difference will foster a greater gap between culture and law.... This asymmetry between inside the companies and outside is not good for the freedom of speech. It is also not good for the legitimacy of content moderation.

"As a legal matter, social media companies have broad discretion to police their platforms. That is how it should be. But they need to make their authority legitimate. If they do not, elected officials may one day act to compel fairness or assuage fears. As always, that will not be good news for the freedom of speech or limited government."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/free-speech-in-the-age-of-digital-platforms/
'via Blog this'

Glenn 'Kane' Jacobs wins GOP mayoral primary

WWE's Glenn 'Kane' Jacobs is the newest Republican libertarian to (likely) win office - Jack Hunter, Washington Examiner:

May 2, 2018 - "On Tuesday, Glenn Jacobs — aka World Wrestling Entertainment star “Kane” — won a Republican primary by a razor-thin margin in his bid to become mayor of Knox County, Tennessee.

"Jacobs ... beat his closest Republican challenger by only 17 votes. There are still 43 provisional ballots to count before the victor is finalized, which might come as early as Thursday, and reports seem to strongly favor Jacobs’ chances....

"In deep-red Knox County, it is highly likely the Republican will best the Democrat mayoral candidate in the general election.... Tuesday’s primary all but decided who would become the next mayor, and it will likely be a nearly 7-foot tall professional wrestling 'demon,' who also is a well-established dedicated libertarian.....

"Jacobs operated a different kind of campaign, running on a pro-free market limited government platform, while also using his pro wrestling celebrity and libertarian-conservative brand to attract support from both inside and outside his county.

"A slew of famous pro wrestlers — The 'Nature Boy' Ric Flair, The Undertaker, Mick Foley, Chris Jericho, Daniel Bryan, the “Big Show,”Arn Anderson, Ricky Morton — all traveled to Knox County to hold fundraisers for their longtime colleague and friend, and doubled down on their support on election day, enabling the WWE legend-turned politician to draw more popular attention than most conventional Republicans.

"Before he became a mayoral candidate, Jacobs helped found the limited government Tennessee Liberty Alliance, was a regular on the libertarian program 'Kennedy' on Fox Business, a speaker for libertarian youth activist group Young Americans for Liberty, and ... spoke at the Foundation for Economic Education’s national conference in August. Jacobs was also endorsed by Rand Paul in May 2017....

"A mayor will obviously not have the same sort of national profile or impact as a U.S. senator or a congressman, but a figure with Jacobs’ celebrity who so openly embraces liberty ideas and policies is still another great representative for the libertarian faction within the Republican Party....

"There are other promising Liberty Republicans running this year — Maine’s '28-year-old wunderkind' state Sen. Eric Brakey who is challenging Sen. Angus King; former Libertarian Party presidential candidate Austin Petersen’s current GOP bid for U.S. Senate in Missouri; and Pensacola’s Rebekah Bydlak, whose 2016 attention-grabbing congressional run has positioned her well for a Florida statehouse victory in 2018 (not to mention Young Americans for Liberty’s current nationwide effort to elect a slew of libertarian Republicans at the state level)."

Read more: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/wwes-glenn-kane-jacobs-is-the-newest-republican-libertarian-to-likely-win-office
'via Blog this'

John Bright, 19th-century voice for liberty

John Bright Was the Voice of Victorian Liberalism | Foundation for Economic Education | Nicholas Elliott:

April 5, 2018 - "John Bright did more than anyone else to bring about the great advances for liberty in 19th-century Britain. A leading orator and agitator, he was considered by many to be the best political speaker of the century. His voice contained a quiet passion which captivated fellow members of Parliament and roused the many thousands he addressed at public meetings."

"Bright is most famous for his part in the successful campaign for the repeal of the corn laws. During the Napoleonic War, English landowners had enjoyed a monopoly in the production of food. At the end of the war, they instituted the corn laws — a form of import control — to protect their domestic monopoly from competition. The laws kept the price of grain high, and since bread was the primary sustenance for most families, the laws created particular hardship for the poor. The issue had been brewing for some time. Charles Villiers had proposed corn law repeal in Parliament every year, and the Anti-Corn Law League was formed in Manchester in 1839. Richard Cobden and John Bright were instrumental in its founding....

"The League developed into a highly efficient political machine with mass support. They distributed millions of leaflets, held gatherings up and down the country, and published their own newspaper.... Leading Whigs and Tories were convinced of the need for repeal, and on June 25, 1846, a bill for repeal was carried. The elimination of other import duties followed, and a 70-year era of British free trade began; in the popular mind, free trade now signified cheap bread....

"In his activity in support of free trade, Bright was motivated above all by a concern for the plight of ordinary people. From the same motive, he opposed all the legislation which regulated working conditions in factories. The Factory Act of 1847 was in part a retaliation by the landowners for the corn law repeal: regulation of factories was a means of penalizing manufacturers. Bright was certain that it would make people worse off by reducing the number of hours in which they could earn money....

"For Bright, Cobden, and other leaders of the 'Manchester School,' free trade was inseparable from a pacific foreign policy.... They rejected the argument that foreign alliances were needed to enforce a “balance of power” in Europe, and warned that such alliances would drag Britain into future conflicts. The only people who would benefit from war were the 'tax-eating' class — government bureaucrats. Common people would suffer from the burden of taxes to fund foreign adventures....

"In the 1860s, Bright led a vigorous campaign for full manhood suffrage, secret ballots, and equal representation for industrial cities like Birmingham and Manchester.... He was somewhat naive in supposing that a mass franchise would lead to low taxes, free trade, and a non-interventionist foreign policy....

"Bright lived from 1811 to 1889, and when looking at the political events during those years, the advance of liberal principles is quite momentous. In 1819, when demonstrators protested against the corn laws and the lack of parliamentary representation, they were cut down by a cavalry charge. As late as 1859, Queen Victoria expressed her concern to Lord Palmerston that John Bright was attempting to undermine British institutions. Yet by 1868, when Bright became the first Nonconformist to hold a cabinet post, he was respected, as were the principles he enunciated.

"In the campaign against the corn laws, he helped to establish free trade as a popular principle which no politician would dare to interfere with for years to come. His stand with Cobden against the Crimean War inspired a later generation of liberals to follow the idea of non-intervention. Opening up Parliament to the scrutiny of ordinary people marked an end to the high-handed government of earlier times. In these, as in many other issues, John Bright, as a consistent and principled defender of individual liberty, imparted a widespread and lasting acceptance of liberal politics."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/john-bright-was-the-voice-of-victorian-liberalism/
'via Blog this'

Bettina Bien Greaves dead at 100

Bettina Bien Greaves, R.I.P. | Liberty Unbound - Mark Skousen:

January 28, 2018 - "All scholars dream of having one or more disciples who will make sure their legacy is kept alive and their works and theories prominently trumpeted before the public eye.

"For the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, there was quite a following, including two couples, Hans and Mary Sennholz, and Percy and Bettina Greaves. On January 22 the last of the four, Bettina Bien Greaves, died at the astounding age of 100. (Mary Sennholz also lived to be 100)....

"Bettina Greaves deserves to be honored as Mises’ most devoted student, and in July a room will be dedicated to her at the annual FreedomFest conference in Las Vegas.

"From the time she first heard Mises speak in 1951 at a Freeman seminar in Washington Square in New York City, Bettina was smitten. With a background in shorthand and secretarial work during the war years, she attended Mises’ famous New York University graduate seminar, taking copious notes on every lecture from 1951 until 1969. Although she had no formal training in economics, Greaves was the queen of the Austrian school and never deviated from it. She joined the Foundation [for] Economic Education (FEE) staff in 1953 and worked at the FEE mansion for the rest of her career. She survived everyone, including founder Leonard Read. After retiring, she stayed on as a board member and even donated her home in New York to FEE....

"She focused her career on advancing the works and ideas of the Austrian school, including the contributions by Henry Hazlitt and Hans Sennholz. She wrote many articles for The Freeman, gave lectures, and compiled anthologies about Austrian economics. She spearheaded FEE’s program to provide libertarian material for high school debaters with packets on foreign aid, government regulations, medical care, and other issues. She compiled and edited Free Market Economics: A Syllabus and Free Market Economics: A Basic Reader, a two-volume set that was distributed to thousands of students and teachers....

"But her main interest was always in her mentor, Ludwig von Mises.... She compiled, edited, and translated many of his books after his death in 1973. She also worked with her husband Percy [on a book] ... published in 1974, called Mises Made Easier (but never easy!). With the help of Robert W. McGee, she published an exhaustive Mises: An Annotated Bibliography (FEE, 1993, 1995). When the Liberty Fund decided to publish the complete works of Mises, Bettina was asked to be the editor, writing introductions for each volume."

Read more: http://www.libertyunbound.com/node/1808
'via Blog this'

Oxfam fighting "extreme" wealth, not poverty

Oxfam Cares More About Ideology than Poverty - Foundation for Economic Education - Working for a free and prosperous world - Martin van Staden:

January 27, 2018 - "Oxfam recently published its latest report on global inequality, pretentiously titled Reward Work, Not Wealth. In the report, Oxfam not only regurgitates all the same economic fallacies we’re used to — chief among them, the labor theory of value and the notion that wealth inequality is a problem to be solved — but it goes on to make dangerous and authoritarian recommendations to governments on how they should respond to this supposed 'inequality crisis'....

"Oxfam is among that cabal of non-government organizations that love the much-touted slogan that the world’s wealth is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people..... In this year’s report, however, Oxfam cites research that 2017 saw the biggest increase in the number of billionaires in human history; 'one more every two days,' the charity claims. But ... Oxfam ... considers this phenomenon as indicative of 'extreme wealth' ... a problem that must be ended.

"Either wealth is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people ... or, as Oxfam reported this year, there has been a substantial, indeed unprecedented, increase in the number of billionaires. Oxfam should decide what its angle is going to be....

"The report makes another incredible claim: globally, billionaires’ wealth increased by $762 billion in 12 months. According to Oxfam, this 'huge increase could have ended global extreme poverty seven times over.' There is, of course, a massive problem with this claim. In 2011 alone, the United States government spent more than $668 billion on 126 welfare programs.... According to Michael Tanner at the Cato Institute, the United States has spent nearly $15 trillion on welfare since the War on Poverty was declared by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964....

"Poverty is ended through employment, savings, and, crucially, a political environment conducive to economic freedom and economic growth; not by throwing money at the problem. Thankfully, on the up-side totally ignored by Oxfam, global extreme poverty has fallen dramatically over recent decades. It is likely that extreme poverty will be eliminated within the current generation. This won’t satiate Oxfam, however, because it concerns itself with the rich, not the destitute....

"Among a laundry list of state-centric suggestions, Oxfam calls on governments to 'use regulation and taxation to radically reduce levels of extreme wealth, as well as limit the influence of wealthy individuals and groups over policymaking.” It is safe to assume that Oxfam excludes itself — an extremely wealthy lobbying organization, having received over $244 million from governments alone between 2015-16 — from those groups that need limiting. It further advocates that governments should set targets 'for the collective income of the top 10% to be no more than the income of the bottom 40%'....

"It is high time that Oxfam be reduced to irrelevancy, at least as far as public policy goes. Its dodgy methodology, nit-picking of facts, and ideological commitment to the non-problem of inequality – at the expense of the very real problem of destitution – make it an intellectually dishonest player in policy advocacy. To the extent that Oxfam still engages in charity work, we must wish it all the best of luck. But solving poverty will not come out of its recommendations; instead, it will only yield more despair and tyranny.""

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/oxfam-cares-more-about-ideology-than-poverty/
'via Blog this'

Prohibition the real cause of the 'opioid crisis'

Stop Calling It an Opioid Crisis - Foundation for Economic Education - Working for a free and prosperous world - Jeffrey A. Singer, Cato Institute:

January 18, 2018 - "For nearly a decade, policymakers have bought into the misguided narrative that the opioid overdose crisis is a result of careless doctors and greedy pharmaceutical companies getting patients hooked on prescription opioids and condemning them to the nightmarish world of drug addiction. As a result, the Drug Enforcement Administration has ordered decreases in prescription opioid production. There was a 25 percent reduction in 2017 and a 20 percent reduction is ordered for 2018.

"States have set up monitoring programs that put doctors and patients under surveillance leading to a dramatic reduction in the prescription of opioids since 2010. In fact, high-dose prescribing fell 41 percent since 2010.... This focus on the supply and prescription of opioids makes many patients needlessly suffer in pain. Some, in desperation, turn to the illicit market to get relief, where they find heroin and heroin-laced fentanyl often cheaper and easier to get. Some others resort to suicide.

"Policymakers mistakenly focus on doctors treating their patients in pain. By intruding on the patient-doctor relationship, they impede physician judgment and increase patient suffering. But another unintended consequence is that, by reducing the amount of prescription opioids that can be diverted to the illicit market, they have driven nonmedical users to heroin and fentanyl, which are cheaper and easier to obtain on the street than prescription opioids, and much more dangerous....

"The overdose rate is not a product of doctors and patients abusing prescription opioids. It is a product of nonmedical users accessing the illicit market.

"The problem will not get better — it will probably only get worse — as long as we continue to call this an 'opioid crisis.' The title is too nonspecific. This is a crisis caused by drug prohibition, an unintended consequence of nonmedical drug users accessing the black market in drugs.

"Policymakers should stop harassing doctors and their patients and shift their focus to reforming overall drug policy. A good place to start would be to implement harm reduction measures, such as safe syringe programs, making Medication Assisted Treatments like methadone and suboxone more readily available, and making the opioid antidote naloxone available over-the-counter, so it can be easier for opioid users to obtain. Even better would be a sober reassessment of America’s longest war, the 'War on Drugs.'"

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/stop-calling-it-an-opioid-crisis/
'via Blog this'

U.S. government cuts UN funding

The UN Cuts Are a Step in the Right Direction - Foundation for Economic Education - Working for a free and prosperous world - Daniel J. Mitchell:

December 28, 2017 - "According to the Associated Press, steps are being taken to reduce the fiscal burden of the United Nations.

The U.S. government says it has negotiated a significant cut in the United Nations budget. The U.S. Mission to the United Nations said on Sunday that the U.N.’s 2018-2019 budge would be slashed by over $285 million. The mission said reductions would also be made to the U.N.’s management and support functions. The announcement didn’t make clear the entire amount of the budget or specify what effect the cut would have on the U.S. contribution. U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said that the 'inefficiency and overspending' of the organization is well-known, and she would not let 'the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of.'

"By the way, 'nicked' or 'trimmed' would be more accurate than 'slashed.' Nonetheless, at least it’s a small step in the right direction.

"And the recent U.N. vote against the U.S. may lead to additional budgetary savings, as explained in the Wall Street Journal by John Bolton, a former ambassador from the United States to that bureaucracy.

…the U.N. showed its true colors with a 128-9 vote condemning President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.… Despite decades of U.N. 'reform' efforts, little or nothing in its culture or effectiveness has changed  … largely because most U.N. budgets are financed through effectively mandatory contributions.... The U.S. should reject this international taxation regime and move instead to voluntary contributions. This means paying only for what the country wants—and expecting to get what it pays for. Agencies failing to deliver will see their budgets cut, modestly or substantially. Perhaps America will depart some organizations entirely.

"Bolton has some targets in mind.

…earlier this year the U.N. dispatched a special rapporteur to investigate poverty in the U.S.? American taxpayers effectively paid a progressive professor to lecture them about how evil their country is. The U.N.’s five regional economic and social councils, which have no concrete accomplishments, don’t deserve American funding either....Next come vast swaths of U.N. bureaucracy. Most of these budgets could be slashed with little or no real-world impact.... 

"My view, for what it’s worth, is that the United Nations is better (less worse?) than the OECD or IMF. But that’s mostly because it doesn’t have much power. When it does try to intervene in policy (global warming and gun control, for instance, as well as the Internet, the War on Drugs, monetary policy, and taxpayer-financed birth control), the U.N. inevitably urges more power and control for government."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/the-un-cuts-are-a-step-in-the-right-direction/
'via Blog this'

The economic case for regifting

Don't Be Ashamed, Regifting is Good Economics - Foundation for Economic Education - Working for a free and prosperous world - James Walpole:

December 26, 2017 - "Regifting is like free trade for Christmas presents. Allowing and encouraging regifting represents the true spirit of Christmas.

"Let’s say you want to be a great gift-giver. If you do, you need to 1) desire the best possible life outcomes for your recipient and also 2) recognize that you don’t exactly know what that best outcome is.

"All gifts, like all capitalistic ventures, require some risk and leap of faith that you have found the solution to a problem for your recipient, despite all the unknown variables. It’s also true that most gifts, like most capitalistic ventures, fail to do that.

"You should encourage your recipient to feel free to regift your presents. An oven mitt which is useless to Sally (who already has an abundance of oven mitts) may be a perfect gift for her friend Sue (who is just getting started with cooking). One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Our social stigma against regifting would leave Sue without a good oven mitt and leave a good oven mitt gathering dust in Sally’s kitchen drawer.

"With a healthy regifting economy, gifts (like goods and services) flow to their most efficient uses.

"You might tell me that regifting is bad because of a loss of symbolic value when you regift something. 'It’s the thought that counts,' you might say.

"I’m not suggesting that you take the positive thought or intention out of your gifts. I’m suggesting that your intentions should include the possibility that regifting and trade is actually a good thing for the recipient, too."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/dont-be-ashamed-regifting-is-good-economics/?utm_medium=push&utm_source=push_notification
'via Blog this'