Showing posts from June, 2016

Election Uncertainty and Economics

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on February 10, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) The economy is already rocky. This election won't bring a stable, growing economy, and it could bring disaster.

In business, I'd rather know what taxes and regulations are ahead of me. If you can plan for something, there's stability. You might not like the programs and proposals of Hillary Clinton (I don't), but you can plan for what she would pursue as president.

Donald Trump? His candidacy embodies the uncertainty businesses fear. It is like waiting for a natural disaster, but you don't know which type of disaster. Do we seek higher ground, to avoid a flood? Do we go into the basement to avoid a tornado? Trump is going to be something, but what will he be?

Don't assume Trump cannot win. He can and he might.

I'm not suggesting support for Hillary Clinton, either, but I am more concerned about Trump.

The world today needs free trade. We need open borders. We need e…

2016: Proof Our System is Broken

Our "choices" for the 2016 presidential election are very bad and extremely bad.

What, you say? There are more than two choices? Right. And I'll soon be running a Hollywood Studio.

The two-party system of the United States is not going to change this election cycle, though the cracks are showing. More likely, if the Republican Party does implode, a new party will rise. It has happened before and will happen again. But, overall, we remain a two-party nation. The parties flip ideologies, the parties change names, individual parties split. And we always end up with a duopoly.

Not that other nations really have multiple parties in the way romantically imagine. There are, generally, two central parties with minor parties trying to pull the major parties to the left or right. Because the parliamentary systems rely on coalitions, those minor parties have more influence than smaller parties can have in the United States.

The upside of the European model is that small par…

Response: Am I a Libertarian?

Because I've been cautioning that libertarians need to be pragmatic and we should avoid the caricatures of others that we are subjected to online and in the press, a few readers have asked why I consider myself an almost classical liberal and a libertarian.

My core values and my ideal economic and political models remain firmly grounded in the works of Austrian economic theorists and John Stuart Mill's theories on freedom. I value Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, F. A. Hayek (a lot), early Murray Rothbard, Roger Garrison, Eugene Fama, Deidre McCloskey, and Milton Friedman.

I enjoy the views and historical grounding of Meagan McArdle, Robert J. Samuelson, and Amity Shlaes. I argue with other "libertarians" over Ayn Rand, while still respecting The Fountainhead for its emphasis on personal expression over greed.

The federal government of the United States is a tangled mess of departments, agencies, bureaus, and offices.

In order of Constitutional ra…