In Praise of the Capitalist 1 Percent - George Reisman - Mises Daily

In Praise of the Capitalist 1 Percent - George Reisman - Mises Daily: 'Contrary to such beliefs, in the modern world in which we actually live, the wealth of the capitalists is simply not in the form of consumers' goods to any great extent. Not only is it overwhelmingly in the form of means of production, but those means of production are employed in the production of goods and services that are sold in the market. Totally unlike the conditions of self-sufficient farm families, the physical beneficiaries of the capitalists' means of production are all the members of the general consuming public who buy the capitalists' products.

For example, without owning so much as a single share of stock in General Motors or Exxon Mobil, everyone in a capitalist economy who buys the products of these firms benefits from their means of production'

'irst, the fortunes that are accumulated in this way generally serve in the larger-scale production of the very sort of products that provided the profits out of which their accumulation took place. Thus, for example, Jobs's billions serve largely in the production of Apple's products.'

'the accumulation of great business fortunes generally requires the introduction of a series of improvements in products or methods of production. This is what is required to maintain a high rate of profit in the face of competition. For example, Intel's ability to maintain its high rate of profit over the years has depended on its ability to introduce one substantial improvement in its computer chips after another. The net effect has been that computer users have gotten the benefit of improvement after improvement not only at no rise but a drastic decline in the prices of computer chips.'

'Thus, however ironic it may be, it turns out that virtually all of the problems the Occupy Wall Street protesters complain about are the result of the enactment of policies that they support and in which they fervently believe.'

The Consumption Tax: A Critique - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

The Consumption Tax: A Critique - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily: 'For what the higher-income person is really objecting to is not the mythical robbery inflicted upon him by "the poor"; his problem is the very real amount being extracted from him by the State. The wealthier man's real complaint, then, is not how badly he is being treated relative to someone else, but how much money is being extracted from his own hard-earned assets. We submit that progressivity of taxes is a red herring; that the real problem and proper focus should be on the amount that any given individual is obliged to surrender to the State.'

' To say, therefore, that only consumption should be taxed and not savings is to challenge the voluntary preferences and choices of individuals on the free market, and to say that they are saving far too little and consuming too much, and therefore that taxes on savings should be removed and all the burdens placed on present as compared to future consumption. But to do that is to challenge free-market expressions of time preference, and to advocate government coercion to forcibly alter the expression of those preferences, so as to coerce a higher saving-to-consumption ratio than desired by free individuals.'

'More specifically, savings and consumption, it is alleged, are not really symmetrical. All saving is directed toward enjoying more consumption in the future. Potential present consumption is foregone in return for an expected increase in future consumption. The argument concludes that therefore any return on investment can only be considered a "double counting" of income, in the same way that a repeated counting of the gross sales of, say, a case of Wheaties from manufacturer to jobber to wholesaler to retailer as part of net income or product would be a multiple counting of the same good.'

'It is therefore incorrect to say that an income tax levies an extra burden on savings and investment; it penalizes an individual's entire standard of living, present and future. An income tax does not penalize saving per se any more than it penalizes consumption.'

'The best scheme of [public] finance is, to spend as little as possible; and the best tax is always the lightest.'

The Keystone XL Energy Project Is Much More Than a Pipe Dream | Robert L. Bradley Jr. | Cato Institute: Commentary

The Keystone XL Energy Project Is Much More Than a Pipe Dream | Robert L. Bradley Jr. | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'The projections for employment are so low one wonders if the study examined the right pipeline project. But the study changes the game by calculating how many "green" jobs are foregone by the pipeline project to reach its conclusion.'

Why stop there? Why not compute how many jobs would be created if we required the oil to be carried in jugs on the back of porters the whole way? Just think of how much our economy would soar if we outlawed every labor-saving device!

Rethinking the Gold Bubble - James E. Miller - Mises Daily

Rethinking the Gold Bubble - James E. Miller - Mises Daily: 'In reality, there is no QE1, QE2, TARP, etc. These are not separate stimulus efforts that actually started and concluded independent of one another. They are all a part of one long fiat injection into our economy that never ended.
The Fed is ALWAYS creating fiat. Some of it is reported, most of it is not. Ask yourself this: Are interest rates still at near zero? If the answer is yes, then the fiat still flows.'

Despite Flaws, U.S. Health Care the Best | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary

Despite Flaws, U.S. Health Care the Best | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'They come here because they know that despite its flaws, the U.S. health care system still provides the highest quality care in the world. Whether the disease is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease or AIDS, the chances of a patient surviving are far higher in the U.S. than in other countries.

According to a study published in the British medical journal The Lancet, the U.S. is at the top of the charts when it comes to surviving cancer. For example, more than two-thirds of women diagnosed with cancer will survive for at least five years in the U.S. That's 6 percentage points better than the next best country, Sweden.'

When Will Your Time Come? | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

When Will Your Time Come? | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Notice that the president, when arguing that his "jobs" bill is going to increase jobs, quotes the same economists who also said his "stimulus" would keep unemployment under 8 percent, rather than referring to those economists who were correct in saying it would fail.'

And Now for Obama's Ugandan Military Adventure | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary

And Now for Obama's Ugandan Military Adventure | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'The Obama team has embraced the U.N. doctrine known as "Responsibility to Protect," which holds that the "international community" has an obligation to protect civilians from crimes against humanity — by force, if necessary — when their own governments cannot or will not.

That doctrine is at odds with the U.S. Constitution, which empowers Congress to set up a military establishment for the singular end of "the common defence ... of the United States."'

It's Time to Declare Peace in the War against Drugs | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary

It's Time to Declare Peace in the War against Drugs | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Banning drugs raises their price, creates enormous profits for criminal entrepreneurs, thrusts even casual users into an illegal marketplace, encourages heavy users to commit property crimes to acquire higher-priced drugs, leaves violence the only means for dealers to resolve disputes, forces government to spend lavishly on enforcement, corrupts public officials and institutions, and undermines a free society. All of these effects are evident today and are reminiscent of Prohibition (of alcohol) in the early 20th Century.'

Why Government Spending Is Bad for Our Economy | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary

Why Government Spending Is Bad for Our Economy | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'there isn't any net gain from government spending since it's offset by the taxes needed to pay for it, taxes that reduce private sector spending.'

'Our findings indicate that a 10% increase in government expenditures as a percent of GDP results in approximately a 1 percentage point reduction in GDP growth."'

Patently Absurd - Copyright Law Can Meet the Needs of Software Developers | Timothy B. Lee | Cato Institute: Commentary

Patently Absurd - Copyright Law Can Meet the Needs of Software Developers | Timothy B. Lee | Cato Institute: Commentary: It takes a systematic campaign of reeducation to persuade those engineers that filling out patent paperwork is a higher priority than improving the company's products.