Rob recently provided some thoughts on the Russian economy and the global economy.
I'm not sure I have much to add. If there is anything I've learned while following the events of the past two years it's how little I actually know. I think Nouriel Roubini (Dr. Doom!) does a good job summarizing where we are now [on a global scale] and where we may be headed.
Here are two very general questions that I think will play an enormous role in determining the future global economy:
1. What will the proper role of the Fed and central banks be?
2. What does the future hold for modern finance? More to the point, how is finance going to be regulated? How will private firms and eventually the entire private market react to such regulation?
Showing posts with label Regulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Regulation. Show all posts
Horwitz on ObamaCare
Steve Horwitz on ObamaCare:
I continue to be amazed at my friends on the left who think this bill is some sort of victory for the little guy. This will be a feast of lobbying and rent-seeking as it will be tinkered with for years if it passes. Who wins at that game? Not you and me, but Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and Big Corporations in general, who can absorb the costs and engage in the lobbying. It will kill small businesses and it will impoverish and worsen the medical care of the middle class, as well as the poor.
For all the talk on the left of being opposed to corporate power, they just don't seem to get that expanding the state's role is exactly what gives corporations REAL power through lobbying, rent-seeking and the all the rest.
I'll disagree with Steve on one thing; the left definitely gets it. From the minimum wage to agricultural subsidies to mandated benefits to this garbage, the left's economic philosophy (and recently much of the right's) is combining the redistribution of wealth with corporate back scratching, resulting in a duplicitous system that hides behind a veil of populist rhetoric and propaganda, yet ultimately ends up only benefiting the rich and powerful.
Corporate-statism is the greatest threat to liberty, democracy and capitalism, and this bill is a massive step toward that end.
I continue to be amazed at my friends on the left who think this bill is some sort of victory for the little guy. This will be a feast of lobbying and rent-seeking as it will be tinkered with for years if it passes. Who wins at that game? Not you and me, but Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and Big Corporations in general, who can absorb the costs and engage in the lobbying. It will kill small businesses and it will impoverish and worsen the medical care of the middle class, as well as the poor.
For all the talk on the left of being opposed to corporate power, they just don't seem to get that expanding the state's role is exactly what gives corporations REAL power through lobbying, rent-seeking and the all the rest.
I'll disagree with Steve on one thing; the left definitely gets it. From the minimum wage to agricultural subsidies to mandated benefits to this garbage, the left's economic philosophy (and recently much of the right's) is combining the redistribution of wealth with corporate back scratching, resulting in a duplicitous system that hides behind a veil of populist rhetoric and propaganda, yet ultimately ends up only benefiting the rich and powerful.
Corporate-statism is the greatest threat to liberty, democracy and capitalism, and this bill is a massive step toward that end.
Federalism in Action
The Wall Street Journal reports New Hampshire's lack of an alcohol tax is spurring record sales and drawing the ire of neighboring northeastern states. The title of the article, "Tax-Free Liquor Lures Buyers, Stirring Crossborder Tensions", is a bit misleading in that no states seem to actually be irked by New Hampshire's fiscal policy. Massachusetts, the only state mentioned reacting to the lack of tax, seems to actually to accept it as reality and plans to move forward accordingly.
A few things to note. I find this to be a wonderful illustration of our democracy's greatest feature, federalism. Federalism is a preferable style for democratic rule for two reasons. One, it gives states the authority and flexibility to enact policies they feel would most benefit their residents. Consequently the country becomes a hotbed for experimental policy which ultimately results in failure and success. If there is failure, residents exit. If there is success, they flood in. One only needs to observe the Texas vs. California debate to begin to understand. In addition to experimentation (aka the application of freedom), the states disperse power over themselves and away from the federal government. In almost every case this is a good thing.
Another point I wish to address is that one may say this refutes my idea of international, or in this case interstate, competition. I do not believe this is true. New Hampshire's policy, as far as I can tell, was never reactionary. It was simply what legislators determined was the best policy for the state. Now it is possible, theoretically, State A could identify a policy weakness of State B, and thus adjust their policy to capitalize on the failures of State B's policy. In a certain sense, I could see this interpretation of applied federalism to be somewhat similar to the traditional definition of competition. It is an idea worth further studying.
A few things to note. I find this to be a wonderful illustration of our democracy's greatest feature, federalism. Federalism is a preferable style for democratic rule for two reasons. One, it gives states the authority and flexibility to enact policies they feel would most benefit their residents. Consequently the country becomes a hotbed for experimental policy which ultimately results in failure and success. If there is failure, residents exit. If there is success, they flood in. One only needs to observe the Texas vs. California debate to begin to understand. In addition to experimentation (aka the application of freedom), the states disperse power over themselves and away from the federal government. In almost every case this is a good thing.
Another point I wish to address is that one may say this refutes my idea of international, or in this case interstate, competition. I do not believe this is true. New Hampshire's policy, as far as I can tell, was never reactionary. It was simply what legislators determined was the best policy for the state. Now it is possible, theoretically, State A could identify a policy weakness of State B, and thus adjust their policy to capitalize on the failures of State B's policy. In a certain sense, I could see this interpretation of applied federalism to be somewhat similar to the traditional definition of competition. It is an idea worth further studying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
