The Most Important Secret of a Prosperous Economy | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary

The Most Important Secret of a Prosperous Economy | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Nobody could have predicted that these and countless other people would come up with improvements that helped the economy prosper. If inventing had been restricted only to individuals with political connections or individuals whom so-called experts considered worthy, there would have been far fewer people trying to make improvements. The number and value of improvements would have gone down, particularly improvements from unforeseen sources. Improvements would have come later — or not at all. Quite a few important inventions, common in one part of the world, were unknown elsewhere for centuries.

Economies prosper when multitudes of ordinary people are motivated to make improvements. This is because information and insights needed to make an economy prosper are widely dispersed. There's far more than could ever be centralized, validated and updated in a place like the federal government. The most reliable way to motivate people? Harness their self-interest: let them try making a profit by starting a business based on their information and insights. Government can best promote prosperity by, among other things, maintaining equal rights, low taxes, free trade, sound money, predictable laws and protection against force and fraud. Government should let consumers render their verdicts in open markets — no subsidies, special favors or bailouts.'

Now's the Time to Start Cutting Wasteful Government Programs | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary

Now's the Time to Start Cutting Wasteful Government Programs | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'If they won't get rid of ridiculous programs like these, they won't take on serious programs like Social Security and the Pentagon. And if they won't do that, then Uncle Sam might as well start filling out his papers to declare bankruptcy.'

Tale of Two Small Countries | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

Tale of Two Small Countries | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Back in the early 1970s, Cayman was as poor on a per capita basis as is Belize today. Both countries had ambitions to be tourist and financial centers. Cayman succeeded and has about six times the real per capita income of Belize. What did Cayman do right and Belize do wrong?

Perhaps most important is that Cayman had and maintained a competent and honest judicial system, which gave foreign investors confidence that their property would be protected. Cayman also has a very low crime rate. Tourists and other visitors walk around freely day or night in Cayman without fear.'

'There is no reason any country has to remain poor. Countries are not poor because of climate, lack of natural resources or race. Countries as locationally varied as Singapore, Mauritius, Korea, Chile, Estonia and Cayman have become relatively rich over the past few decades. Those countries that are still relatively poor are poor because they have not put in place the necessary institutions, political structures and policies.'

Doing Your Own Thing - Ben O'Neill - Mises Daily

Doing Your Own Thing - Ben O'Neill - Mises Daily: 'Are we to be free from coercion by others — from violent interference with our bodies and our property? Are we to be free from being physically restrained or molested when we try to "do our own thing"? Or are we to be free from the adverse consequences of our actions? Even from adverse judgments by others?'

'if a person is to be free from the adverse consequences of their own actions, then this means that others must be forced to shield them from these consequences — they must be forced to contribute their resources and services to those who are "doing their own thing." But what if those others desire to keep their own property and use it for themselves and their loved ones — what if that is them "doing their own thing"? Who's "own thing" is to prevail?'

What Happened to the GOP's Free-Market Principles? | David Boaz | Cato Institute: Commentary

What Happened to the GOP's Free-Market Principles? | David Boaz | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'In a growing economy, companies succeed and fail every day. Technology changes. Consumer tastes change. New competitors offer a better product or a better price. Raw materials or labor becomes too expensive. Some companies just aren’t viable, and some investments turn out to have been mistaken.

That’s what the “creative destruction” of a market economy is all about. Companies constantly seek to serve consumers better. And often one company’s success means that other companies fail. Manufacturers of obsolete products often go out of business. Jobs and investments are lost, but what’s the alternative? Should we be keeping the firms that once made horse-drawn buggies, gramophones, and slide rules in business? No, we understand that the process of economic change makes us all better off, even though there can be short-term pain for the owners and employees of failed firms.

Republicans are supposed to know all this. That’s why they proclaim their devotion to free markets and oppose industrial policy, government subsidies, bailouts, and other schemes to override the market process and keep current firms in business even when they’re no longer meeting consumers’ needs.'

'We’d never get new companies like Staples, Domino’s, Bright Horizons, and Sports Authority — companies that Romney helped fund and nurture at Bain Capital — if investment capital was locked into existing companies.

And sometimes, as the movie “Other People’s Money” demonstrated, it takes a “predatory corporate raider” to go in and shake up a company, moving the land, labor, and capital to places where they can be more productive.'

Drug Mayhem Moves South | Ted Galen Carpenter | Cato Institute: Commentary

Drug Mayhem Moves South | Ted Galen Carpenter | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'The primary reason the cartels are so powerful both in Mexico and Central America has to do with the fundamental principles of economics. There is a huge demand for drugs, especially in the United States but also in Europe and, increasingly, in other portions of the world. When such a robust demand for a product exists, it is an economic certainty that profit-seeking entities will try to fulfill that demand. Prohibiting commerce of a product does not negate that dynamic; it merely perverts it. Instead of legitimate businesses engaging in lawful competition, the trade falls into the hands of elements that don’t mind breaking the law and assuming all the other risks entailed in operating in a black market. Often, that means the most ruthless, violent individuals and organizations come to dominate the trade.'

State almost caught up on concealed carry permits - 1330 WHBL Sheboygan's News Radio

State almost caught up on concealed carry permits - 1330 WHBL Sheboygan's News Radio: About 71,000 people have applied for permits since the concealed carry law took effect November first.

That is about 1.6% of the adult population! That already puts us 1/3 the way up the list by license rate (of an old list).

Is Further Intervention a Cure for Prior Intervention? - Percy L. Greaves, Jr. - Mises Daily

Is Further Intervention a Cure for Prior Intervention? - Percy L. Greaves, Jr. - Mises Daily: 'In the United States, an example of this trend is clearly seen in the demand arising from some employers and their associations for the individual states to enact so-called right-to-work laws. The proposed laws would outlaw all employment contracts which specify that all employees must pay dues to the union chosen by the majority of an employer's employees in a government supervised election. Such contracts, even though they represent the free and voluntary wishes of the employers and the employees concerned, would be declared to be against public policy and therefore illegal. A growing number of employers believe that such laws will bring about a better balance of the scales in the "class warfare" supposedly going on between "labor" and management. This would seem to indicate that many present-day employers have neither faith in freedom nor an understanding of the economic principles which reveal that a free market is the most efficient means that free, peaceful, and intelligent men can use for the advancement of individual men as well as the general welfare.'

WisPolitics.com: Gov. Walker: Money saved on property taxes donated to charity

WisPolitics.com: Gov. Walker: Money saved on property taxes donated to charity: “The money property taxpayers are saving on their tax bills all across Wisconsin will help improve our communities, our economy, and ultimately leave our state better off for the next generation,” said Governor Walker. “By making this donation I am encouraging others to help improve our state by doing what they can to donate to charitable causes.”

Super PACs: Money Well Spent | John Samples | Cato Institute: Commentary

Super PACs: Money Well Spent | John Samples | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'So are super PACs shaping up to be a disaster for democracy in 2012? Hardly. The $14 million in Iowa super PAC spending funded an assault on Gingrich for committing ethics violations, being soft on illegal immigrants and teaming with Nancy Pelosi on global warming issues. The Gingrich ad to come apparently says Romney's company, Bain Capital, looted companies and left people unemployed.'

'Do these ads constitute legitimate political speech? Wouldn't voters want to know if Gingrich had violated ethics rules, received large payments from Freddie Mac despite claiming to be against big government and had supported positions contrary to the views of most Iowa Republicans? Romney says he is a businessman who knows how to create jobs. Should voters hear claims to the contrary? Of course.'

'John Coleman, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, found that spending on negative ads increased voter information about candidates, especially among those who were least informed prior to the ads.

Other political scientists have found that, contrary to the caricature, negative advertising increases voter turnout and reduces the advantages normally held by incumbent officials. Perhaps it is not surprising that Republican turnout in Iowa was higher than experts expected.'

'the alternative is greatly restricting the rights of outside individuals to fund speech criticizing politicians (a right that many paid commentators on television, the radio and online, many of them wealthy, already happen to have, by virtue of being members of the media).

This seems to me to be a far scarier outcome.'