E-Verify Threatens American Jobs and Liberties | Daniel Griswold | Cato Institute: Commentary

E-Verify Threatens American Jobs and Liberties | Daniel Griswold | Cato Institute: Commentary: "E-Verify sounds reasonable in principle, but a pilot program has exposed potential problems. A government-commissioned study by Westat found that the system failed to flag more than half of the unauthorized immigrants who applied to work at companies using the system.

The system also exposes too many legal workers to the risk of being falsely denied permission to work. As my Cato Institute colleague Jim Harper concluded in a study of the program, 'It would deny a sizable percentage of law-abiding American citizens the ability to work legally. Deemed ineligible by a database, millions each year would go pleading to the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration for the right to work.'"

"A 2009 study for the Cato Institute found that a 28.6 percent reduction in the number of unauthorized low-skilled immigrants in the United States through increased border and interior enforcement actually would cost U.S. households $80 billion a year. The study found that a resulting decline in immigrant labor would mean less investment, more money diverted to smuggler fees and other unproductive uses, and relatively fewer jobs further up the skills ladder."

Greek Bailouts, Free Speech Impediments and a Faux Debt-Ceiling Wrestling Match | Edward H. Crane | Cato Institute: Commentary

Greek Bailouts, Free Speech Impediments and a Faux Debt-Ceiling Wrestling Match | Edward H. Crane | Cato Institute: Commentary: "the Greek government owns so much private industry (and monopoly industries) that it could cover its debt obligations simply by creating a free enterprise system."

US War Debt Dances on the Ceiling | David Isenberg | Cato Institute: Commentary

US War Debt Dances on the Ceiling | David Isenberg | Cato Institute: Commentary: To grasp the bill US taxpayers will eventually have to pay try multiplying Nordhaus' 2002 estimate 30 to 40 times. That is the preliminary bottom line in a study released June 29 by the Watson Institute of Brown University, a new multi-author study of the costs of the post-September 11, 2001 wars.

The End of Progress? | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

The End of Progress? | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: "it takes some time to figure out how to regulate new industries. Old industries, such as energy production, transportation and education, are heavily regulated. Accordingly, the people do not get the benefits of lower costs and better products in these industries that would be possible if the regulators were not outlawing innovations. The United States and other governments are now in the process of destroying the global financial industry through misguided and destructive regulations. Few medical advances come from countries that have nationalized medicine, and if Obamacare is allowed to continue in the United States, it is almost a certainty that medical progress will be stifled and millions will die unnecessarily early.

The government has not figured out how to destroy the Internet and advances in computers. So the struggle goes on between those who try to innovate faster than the government can find ways to outlaw the future. It is no surprise that as governments grow, the rate of technological progress in those countries slows down and vice versa.

There is a titanic struggle now going on in Washington over the size of the U.S. government. Those who want a smaller government are, in effect, saying they want to unleash the future with all of its benefits by removing many of the regulatory and tax restrictions that impede human progress, while those who seek a bigger government are, in reality, pushing for a less prosperous and less kind future."

Real Journalism

Real Journalism: "According to most news sources, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachmann are the frontrunners. So what qualifies them as such, and what sets them apart from the rest of the group?

I wasn't exactly sure myself. So, in order to answer this question, I have produced a simple calculation method for picking the frontrunners."

Hutt's Crushing Blow to Keynes - Hunter Lewis - Mises Daily

Hutt's Crushing Blow to Keynes - Hunter Lewis - Mises Daily: "the real source of unemployment is some disturbance in the price-and-profit system. Government cannot possibly help matters by intervening in ways that further distort and disturb that system."

"To grow, an economy must change. To change, assets and workers must be shifted from where they are less needed (less productive) to where they are more needed (more productive). These shifts will inevitably produce temporary unemployment. If there had never been unemployment, and thus no economic change, we would all still be living in caves, and there would be far fewer of us, because hunting and gathering would only support a small fraction of the present population."

"Is it more productive for a highly trained but unemployed engineer to bag groceries for pay or to invest time without pay in looking for an engineering job? If he or she took the grocery-bagging job, Keynes would presumably be satisfied; we would be closer to full employment. But the economy would clearly not be more productive, which it must be to create new jobs. We should also keep in mind that an employment-agency employee job searching for the engineer would be considered gainfully 'employed,' while the engineer doing the same work would still be 'unemployed.'"

"For the period 2002–2008, out-of-control Federal Reserve money printing and a host of other government policies and programs blew up the bubble. Millions of people not especially suited for construction were pulled into this sector and put to work building homes that, in the end, no one wanted. When the bubble burst, even the most highly trained construction workers suddenly found themselves unable to get any construction work at all."

"higher wages earned by unions actually come out of the pockets of other workers, not out of employers' profits, a point that is now well established but still little understood. This is true, in simple terms, because high wages reduce employment in unionized sectors, thereby increase labor supply in other sectors, which increased supply reduces nonunionized labor rates. In addition, workers are also consumers and may have to pay more for unionized-sector goods."

"free markets, without aiming for equal outcomes, produce both more equal opportunity and more equal outcomes than any other system."

Nelson Mandela and Volunteerism - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Daily

Nelson Mandela and Volunteerism - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Daily: "If someone is actually getting paid to do work, he or she knows that at least one person values it. In contrast, volunteer work may or may not be useful, because it lacks the feedback of market prices."

It's Time to Kick Farmers Off the Federal Dole | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary

It's Time to Kick Farmers Off the Federal Dole | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: "But despite their rhetoric politicians do not spend much time worrying about those in poverty. The two biggest domestic programs provide middle class welfare: Social Security and Medicare. The Pentagon mostly provides welfare for populous and prosperous allies throughout Asia and Europe.

The rest of the federal budget is filled with outrageous special interest pay-offs."

"The system doesn't help consumers. Reducing supplies and imposing price floors obviously are bad deals for the hungry. Paying off farmers might lower some prices, but steals back through taxes any benefits received by consumers. Agricultural subsidies are designed by farmers for farmers."

"During the Reagan administration the government paid farmers to add cows for milking. Then it paid farmers to kill cows so they couldn't be milked. Along the way the government accumulated huge cheese surpluses that had to be given away, but only in a manner that did not reduce public demand for cheese."

A Beacon for US Trade Policy | Daniel J. Ikenson | Cato Institute: Commentary

A Beacon for US Trade Policy | Daniel J. Ikenson | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Using domestic reform as a bargaining chip in [trade] negotiations is akin to an athlete refusing to get fit for an event unless and until other competitors also agree to get fit."

"The concept of indivisibility reinforces the fact that domestic economic reform — rather than market liberalisation abroad — is the most effective trade policy. If governments wish their countries' industries to be internationally competitive, the focus should be on reducing home-grown frictions, removing superfluous domestic regulations and encouraging more competition at home, before looking to clear bottlenecks abroad."

"the primary focus of the Obama administration's National Export Initiative has been the reduction of foreign barriers to trade — the premise being that the most significant obstacles to US export success are foreign-made. But that's wrong. US exporters, like Australian exporters, are not born as exporters. They are first manufacturers, service providers, employers, importers, taxpayers and emitters of carbon, compelled in those capacities to comply with a growing web of mandates, regulations and restrictions that are often redundant or at cross purposes, impeding competitiveness at home and abroad. That is where the reform focus should be."

"a World Trade Organisation dispute settlement panel sided with the US government in its challenge of restraints imposed by the Chinese government on China's exports of nine crucial raw materials. US Trade Representative Ron Kirk was right to characterise the export restraints as harmful to downstream US industries that rely on those industrial inputs to compete effectively. But he failed to mention that the US government itself imposes import restrictions under the anti-dumping law on some of those raw materials, devastating firms in the same industries."

Jettison Those Musty Jobless Benefit and Union Rules | Chris Edwards | Cato Institute: Commentary

Jettison Those Musty Jobless Benefit and Union Rules | Chris Edwards | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Harvard University's Robert Barro estimated last year that recent expansions in [unemployment insurance] benefits pushed up the U.S. employment rate by about 2.7 percentage points."

"In 2002, the nation of Chile created personal UI savings accounts funded by payroll contributions. When workers lose their jobs, they draw on their UI accounts, giving them a strong incentive to find a job quickly and not deplete their funds. A detailed study of the Chilean system found that, indeed, workers using the new accounts had shorter spells of unemployment. A side benefit of Chile's system is that when workers retire, they have an additional pot of savings to enjoy."

"Collective bargaining is out of step with today's individualistic culture. The system is inconsistent with the right to freedom of association, and it effectively silences workers who disagree with union heads. Collective bargaining also creates rigid work structures in companies, which is damaging to firms competing in the dynamic global economy."