In our more or less free societies, we regularly see confirmations of an idea well defended by Friedrich Hayek and by Anthony the Jasay. The idea is that remunerations determined by politics, that is, by coercive authorities under the threat of punishment, are not only less efficient but also more conflictual than if determined only by impersonal markets. In a recent example, the International Longshoremen Association (ILA), a government-protected union (as they all are by labor laws and government bureaus), called a strike. Its leader, Harold Daggett, haughtily threatened 200 million consumers. Of the many employers of his members (container carriers and terminal operators), he said: “We’re going to show these greedy bastards you can’t survive without us!” On their side, the greedy longshoremen are not proletarians: they earn between nearly $100,000 to more than $250,000 a year, much above the average salary in the US (about $60,000). In 2020, 665 dockworkers at the Port of New York and New Jersey were in the more-than-$250,000 category. As a union apparatchik, Daggett himself earns over $900,000 a year; his son, who works for the same unions, earns more than $700,000. ILA temporarily settled the strike for a more than 60% wage increase but still wants to stop automation. This is in a context where the most productive port in America (Charleston) is ranked 53rd in the world. (See “A Ports Strike Shows the Stranglehold One Union Has on Trade,” The Economist, October 2, 2024; “A Dockworkers Walkout Would Close Ports From Maine to Texas and Slam the U.S. Economy,” Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2024; and “The Profane 78-Year-Old Leading the Dockworkers Strike,” Wall Street Journal, October 2, 2024). Similar phenomena can be observed in all countries where governments or their trade-union proxies exert a direct influence on wages. It extends to public sector unions, who have their hands directly in the public treasury. Consider unions representing employees of the London Underground, the subway system run by a local government body in the UK capital. The secretary general of one of the unions said that the pay offer to its members fell “short of what [they] deserve” (“London Underground Workers to Strike Over Pay,” Financial Times, October 16, 2024). In France, employees of the government’s public transport organizations regularly go on strike for more money and benefits; the strikes are respectfully called “social movements” (mouvements sociaux). An individual naturally thinks that his value “to society” is not well enough recognized by his fellow humans and especially by his fellow citizens. The phenomenon is analogous to how an individual not familiar with economics thinks the prices he pays for what he buys are too high while the price he receives for his labor services is too low. The complaint takes many forms: I am not fairly remunerated according to my needs, my talents, or what I deserve according to this or that criterion; I don’t get the respect owed to me. Before its members rejected the latest offer from Boeing, which is in deep financial trouble and is cutting 10% of its workforce, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers declared (“Boeing Workers to Vote on Ending Strike in Critical Week for Plane Maker,” Financial Times, October 20, 2024; also “Boeing Factory Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer,” October 24, 2024): Workers will ultimately decide if this specific proposal is sufficient in meeting their very legitimate needs and goal of achieving respect and fairness at Boeing. In a free society, with wages and other benefits determined on markets, this temptation is countered by the fact that the determination is not made by an organization. An employee’s bosses may appear to make it, but it is an illusion: the employee is free to move to another employer or to become self-employed; if he doesn’t, it is because he suspects he could not gain more (at constant risk). There is no identifiable authority that underestimates his value. Remuneration is impersonally determined. This mechanism does not work when politics determines remuneration. An organization—either a democratic assembly or some strongman—is able to determine by law or diktat the value of your services. The process is typically called “social justice” according to some criteria or other. When it supports richer individuals, the process is called “industrial policy” or something similar. Because everybody thinks he deserves more, the game consists in staking your claims more forcefully to have them politically enforced. The individuals who win are those who are better organized and more politically powerful. In the meantime, the game has changed from impersonal to personal, from voluntary exchange to government commands, from a positive-sum game to zero-sum and eventually negative-sum. Perhaps one can persuade oneself that the market is more efficient and just than politics with the following thought experiment. Imagine a perfectly democratic system whereby remunerated occupations would be divided into a certain number of categories and an online referendum would be held regularly (every quinquennium or every year or every month or every day) to determine the remuneration to prevail in each category. Would you prefer this system to free agreements on markets? ****************************** The quest for social justce (0 COMMENTS)

  The majority of Californias Have Decided. “California Needs to Decide if it Wants Low Carbon or Low Gasoline Prices.” That’s the title of an article published by the “Energy Institute at Haas,” part of the University of California, Berkeley. It’s by James Bushnell, a professor of economics at UC Davis who earned his Ph.D. in Operations Research. The article is here. First, as co-blogger Pierre Lemieux would be quick to point out, the article is mistitled. “California” can’t decide anything; it’s not a sentient being. But Californians, if they are like most Americans–and they may not be–have already decided. In his long article, Bushnell talks about the tradeoffs between low gasoline prices and low carbon usage. But, unless I missed it, he doesn’t give the reader a sense of how much Californians would have to pay to reach the ambitious targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB.) My sense is that it’s very expensive. But maybe Californians are willing bear a large expense to cut carbon usage, right? Wrong. In “68% of Americans Wouldn’t Pay $10 a Month in Higher Electric Bills to Combat Climate Change,” Cato at Liberty, March 8, 2019, Emily Ekins, vice president and director of polling for the Cato Institute, presents a graph a that tells a lot. Part of it is in the title of her piece. And $10 a month has to be a substantial underestimate. The cost of having some perceptible influence on world temperatures would almost certainly be at least $100 per month. Only 16% of people surveyed would be willing to pay that much. While Bushnell doesn’t give us cost numbers to compare with the numbers in the survey, in a much earlier article, Robert P. Murphy did. He cited an MIT study that found that a generic cap and trade program would cost $3,100 per average household. As Murphy pointed out, although the MIT professor strongly objected to the cite of his number, he didn’t deny it. Rather, he argued, because the revenues would be rebated to people, the net cost per household would have been “only” $800 per year. As Murphy noted, though, for that to be true, the revenues would have to be rebated in an efficient way. Does that sound like the government you and I know? But let us assume, against virtually all evidence, that the government did distribute the revenues efficiently. A sum of $800, when this MIT professor wrote (say in 2008), adjusted by the Consumer Price Index, would have been $950 in 2019, when Emily Ekins wrote. That’s $80 per month. Only 15% of people surveyed would have paid $75 per month. So, again, unless Californians are much different from other Americans–and unless Californians have changed a lot on this issue in 5 years–James Bushnell can rest easy. The majority of Californians have spoken. (0 COMMENTS)

During wartime, the media generally engages in propaganda in order to bolster support for the government’s policies. The so-called “War on Drugs” is no different.Consider the following headline, from the BBC: Cranberries singer O’Riordan died by drowning O’Riordan had fallen into a stupor due to excessive consumption of a legal drug known as alcohol. She drowned in her bathtub. Her death was treated as a tragic accident.A few years later, TV star Matthew Perry fell into a stupor due to excessive consumption of a drug named Ketamine. He drowned in his bathtub. His death was treated as an outrage, as if was killed by drug pushers. Here’s Reason magazine: Last month, federal prosecutors indicted five people for the overdose death of a celebrity the previous year. Three have pleaded guilty so far, and this month, a trial date was set for the other two. . . . For one thing, Perry did not overdose, and his drugs were not tainted; while the medical examiner listed ketamine as the primary contributing factor in his death, the most direct cause was drowning. “Matthew Perry drowned while intoxicated on ketamine the same way people routinely drown while intoxicated on alcohol,” Ryan Marino, a doctor of toxicology and addiction medicine at University Hospitals in Cleveland, told Filter.Andrew Stolbach, a physician and toxicologist at Johns Hopkins Hospital, “said it’s unlikely Perry would have died if he was not in a body of water,” VICE reported last year. “It’s really dangerous to use sedative drugs in a pool, especially alone, or a bathtub,” Stolbach added. Of course, no attempt was made to find the people that sold Dolores O’Riordan her alcohol.   Reasonable people may disagree as to the optimal policy for illegal drugs (or alcohol).  Reason suggests that Perry might be alive today if Ketamine were not illegal without a prescription: Ketamine was developed for use in anesthesia and pain relief before gaining a reputation as a club drug in the 1980s. Recent evidence suggests it can be used to treat persistent depression and addiction. In the right context, it’s also quite safe: A 2022 scientific review of 312 overdoses and 138 deaths in which ketamine was present found “no cases of overdose or death related to the use of ketamine as an antidepressant in a therapeutic setting.” . . . As investigators would discover, Perry was staying clean through therapeutic ketamine treatments but eventually became addicted to the treatment itself; when doctors refused to increase his dosage, he sought the drug elsewhere. Obviously, we cannot be sure what would have happened if Perry had continued to have access to a legal source of the drug.  O’Riordan drowned despite access to legal alcohol.  Perry might have done the same.  All intoxicating drugs are dangerous to some extent.  But it’s also clear that illegal drug use creates greater risks, as it is much more difficult to ensure that one has the desired dose.  Many fentanyl deaths occur in people who were not even aware that they were consuming fentanyl. My concern here is with the media.  If voters are to make intelligent decisions about drug policy, it is essential that the media not become an arm of government propaganda.  Thus far, they have failed to provide objective information on the effects of drug use, as they report the consequences of illegal drug use in a radically different fashion from the way the report on the consequences of legal drugs such as alcohol.  Please, just give us the facts. (0 COMMENTS)

Why do we like sad music or that poignant feeling that comes from attending a funeral? Author Susan Cain talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about her book Bittersweet and the seductive and sometimes deeply satisfying power of melancholy. The post Susan Cain on Bittersweet and the Happiness of Melancholy appeared first on Econlib.

  With SCOTUS, the Statistics Belie the Vibe by Ilya Shapiro, Shapiro’s Gavel, October 21, 2024. Excerpt: The court leans right, yes, but it’s no monolith, and it clips the wings of aggressive conservative litigators and lower-court judges alike. Indeed, last term, for the first time in living memory, the Supreme Court reversed the Texas-heavy Fifth Circuit more than the California-based Ninth Circuit. And in the previous term—which featured historic rulings on gun-rights and affirmative action—the justices least in the majority were Thomas and Alito. As the kids would say, statistics belie the vibe. Only 11 of the 58 opinions in argued cases last term resulted in “partisan” 6-3 splits and nearly half the decisions were unanimous. (The previous term saw only five “partisan” 6-3 votes and a similar rate of unanimity.) There were also five 5-4 rulings in five different configurations, in four of which the liberal trio held together.   The Remarkable Redneck Air Force of North Carolina by Eric Boehm, Reason, October 23, 2024. Excerpt: Less expected is the sight that has accompanied that sound in Swannanoa, North Carolina, for the past three weeks: Helicopters, many of them privately owned and operated, launching and landing from a makeshift helipad in the backyard of the local hog shop. According to the men who organized this private relief effort in the wake of devastating floods unleashed by the remnants of Hurricane Helene, more than a million pounds of goods—food, heavy equipment to clear roads, medical gear, blankets, heaters, tents, you name it—have been flown from here to dots all over the map of western North Carolina. “We’re not the government, and we’re here to help,” says one of the two men standing by the makeshift gate—a pair of orange traffic drums—that controls access to and from the Harley-Davidson dealership’s parking lot and the piles of donated items neatly organized within it. “We can do it quicker, we can do it efficiently, and we genuinely just want to help our neighbors.” He identifies himself only by his first name and later asks that I don’t use even that. It’s an understandable request, as what he’s doing is probably not, strictly speaking, totally legal. (italics mine) DRH comment: The quote that I italicized is obviously a riff on what Ronald Reagan famously said were the scariest 9 words in the English language: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” (Parenthetical note: I miss Reagan.) And: The man largely responsible for organizing the Harley-Davidson airlift is a burly, bearded former Green Beret who goes by Adam Smith—yes, really. And finally: They weren’t the only ones who needed help. Smith’s day job these days is running Savage Freedoms Defense, a training and consulting firm, where he draws on his military experience to help prepare people to take care of themselves and their loved ones under difficult circumstances. Through that business and via connections with other retired special operations veterans in the area, Smith launched what’s been called a redneck air force to get supplies to flooded mountain towns. Smith owns motorcycles and knows people who work at the Harley-Davidson dealership. He also knew it would be a perfect spot for the group’s ad hoc operations: a big parking lot with a single entrance, and a large field out back where the helicopters have been landing. By the end of the first week, they had three civilian helicopters running missions, and it has only grown from there. In addition to food and supplies, the group has carried Starlink devices into places where internet and cell connections were down.   Draghi’s Dirigisme by Samuel Gregg, Law & Liberty, October 24, 2024. Excerpt: Entitled The Future of European Competitiveness, this 404-page document is remarkably candid about Europe’s economic troubles. Draghi acknowledges that Europe “is stuck in a static industrial structure,” increasingly devoid of innovation, unable to resist regulatory creep, weakening in capital markets, experiencing a demographic implosion, enduring accelerating energy prices, and losing some of its best entrepreneurs to America. Thousands of European businesses, reports Draghi, identify “regulatory obstacles and the administrative burden as their greatest challenge.” Then there is Europe’s sclerotic tech sector. “Only four of the world’s top 50 tech companies,” Draghi observes, “are European.” And: One would think that this state of affairs would itself suggest the solution: an aggressive deregulation of European economies at the national and EU levels. Alas, it is a sign of the dirigiste mindset’s iron grip upon wide swathes of the EU’s political class that Draghi’s proposed cure for fading competitiveness amounts to more political centralization and greater state intervention, the exact opposite of what is necessary to make EU economies more dynamic and fitted up for twenty-first-century challenges.   Illegitimate Attacks on the Court’s Legitimacy by John O. McGinnis, Law & Liberty, October 24, 2024. Excerpt: Critics also argue that Dobbs is unique because it represents the first time the Court has overturned a right on which many Americans relied. But this claim ignores history. The Court erased substantial economic liberties when it overruled Lochner v. New York and gutted constitutional protections for contracts in Home Building and Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, holding that the Contract Clause could be disregarded during economic emergencies—the very moment when such protections are most critical. These decisions eliminated rights that Americans had depended on, rights that were enshrined in the original constitutional framework. DRH comment: Very good point. I think he and I have a different understanding of rights, though. I don’t think anyone can eliminate a right; he or she can only fail to recognize it. For example, I have a right not to be a slave. If someone made me into a slave, he would abrogate my right, not eliminate it. (0 COMMENTS)

Mancur Olson once argued that Germany and Japan grew rapidly after WWII largely because a great deal of bureaucratic deadwood was removed by the war—allowing these defeated nations to rebuild with a more streamlined and efficient economic system.   A David Brooks column discusses this theory: In 1982, the economist Mancur Olson set out to explain a paradox. West Germany and Japan endured widespread devastation during World War II, yet in the years after the war both countries experienced miraculous economic growth. Britain, on the other hand, emerged victorious from the war, with its institutions more intact, and yet it immediately entered a period of slow economic growth that left it lagging other European democracies. What happened? In his book “The Rise and Decline of Nations,” Olson concluded that Germany and Japan enjoyed explosive growth precisely because their old arrangements had been disrupted. The devastation itself, and the forces of American occupation and reconstruction, dislodged the interest groups that had held back innovation. The old patterns that stifled experimentation were swept away. The disruption opened space for something new. There’s always a danger that these sorts of explanations are merely “just so stories”; intriguing ideas, but ultimately untestable. The Economist has an article entitled: “Why India should create dozens of new states“, which discusses the creation in 2014 of a new Indian state named Telangana.  Initially, people were pessimistic: It was the poorer part of the state from which it was carved out. Unlike other prosperous southern states, it is landlocked. It still has only one airport. With the exception of Hyderabad, it lacks any cities of size. Many foresaw economic difficulties, even unrest. The new government worked hard to make Telangana an attractive destination for investment by cutting red tape: Another advantage of new states is that they may have greater leeway to experiment. Upon creation, Telangana immediately set about making itself attractive to investors. Many Indian states eager to rise up ease-of-doing-business rankings promise “single-window clearance” for businesses to deal with the bureaucracy. But the process is still a painful mess, with multiple departments working to their own timelines. Telangana’s innovation was to do away with many requirements and promise approvals within 15 days. Such ideas were “only possible because we were a new state, and there was no legacy to pull you down”, says Jayesh Ranjan, a senior bureaucrat who was involved in drafting the policies. “Everything was a clean slate.” The phrase clean slate reminded me of the Mancur Olson hypothesis about the recovery of Germany and Japan.  So how have things been going in Telangana?  Was the outcome as disappointing as pundits expected?  Here’s The Economist: A decade ago the Union of India welcomed into the fold its newest member: the state of Telangana. Of India’s then 29 states, it ranked 12th by population, 11th by area and 10th by per-person income. One of those rankings has since changed dramatically. By last year Telangana had shot up to boast the highest per-person income of any decent-size state, behind only tiny Sikkim and Goa. This landlocked state is now richer than coastal states that contain important business hubs such as Mumbai, Bengaluru, Chennai and Ahmedabad. The Economist suggests that several other new Indian states also did a bit better after independence, but nowhere near as well as Telangana.  A clean state may be a necessary condition for radical reform, but it’s not a sufficient condition for successful reform. PS.  If you are as old as I am, you might recall these Indian cities by their previous names: Mumbai (Bombay), Bengaluru (Bangalore), Chennai (Madras) Here’s a picture of Telangana’s largest city—Hyderabad: (0 COMMENTS)

The socialist calculation debate is firmly located within economics. But a look at philosophy can shed light on the kind of insight Ludwig von Mises gave us, and thereby sharpen our understanding of socialism and its problems. It shows what we can know about socialism through conceptual analysis, and what such analysis cannot tell us. Philosophy makes clear that there are analytic truths, which describe that something is true by virtue of its meaning. To see what is analytically true, we need to engage in conceptual analysis, that is, to inquire into the concept and explore what it entails. Having done this, we can also look for implications of the concept. P implies q if it is impossible for p to be true and not q, viz., that q is not the case. So implications also show us what is necessarily true. But why all this fuss about analytic truths? They take on an exalted status because they are irrefutable and do not depend on empirical matters. Let’s turn to socialism, which is an economic system. An analysis of the concept of socialism reveals that it is the economic system in which there is collective ownership of the means of production, which is equivalent to a system in which the collective (or someone else for this collective) plans the use of these means of production, i.e. a planned economy. With this in mind, we can turn to prices. An analysis of the concept reveals that prices are exchange ratios (at least in the sense in which Mises understood the concept and considered it relevant). It follows that you cannot have prices (for the means of production) if you do not have exchange—for an exchange ratio only comes into being when exchange takes place. But if there is collective ownership, this implies that there can be no exchange, since exchange requires that there are at least two parties who each own some means of production. It follows that in socialism there can be no prices. For prices, to put the point positively, in terms of meaning, can only arise when people exchange, which requires that they have several property. Consequently, it is an analytical insight into socialism and prices that there can be no prices in a socialist system. There is nothing empirical or speculative about this insight. Rather, an abstract analysis demonstrates that there can be no prices in socialism. To the extent that my analysis is correct, it follows that this is not open to debate – all that would be possible is to show that I have made a mistake in my analysis of the concepts. But if my analysis is accurate, it provides a value-free and irrefutable insight into what socialism and prices are, and what follows. It is for this reason that Mises chided, among others, Karl Polanyi for his failure to see clearly what socialism is and for vacillating between a socialist and a syndicalist system. “The defect in [Polanyi’s] construction lies in the obscurity by which it seeks to avoid the core question: socialism or syndicalism?”, Mises wrote in response to Polanyi. However, having thus established that there can be no prices in socialism, it is necessary to examine the consequence of such a lack of prices. This is not, or at least not purely, an analytical question. The consequences of the necessary absence of prices for the means of production in a planned economy depend on empirical conditions or factors. This much was already clear to Mises in his 1920 paper. It would not be difficult for a farmer in economic isolation to come by a distinction between the expansion of pasture-farming and the development of activity in the hunting field. In such a case the processes of production involved are relatively short and the expense and income entailed can be easily gauged. But it is quite a different matter when … the conditions necessary for the success of the enterprises which are to be initiated are diverse, so that one cannot apply merely vague valuations, but requires rather more exact estimates and some judgment of the economic issues actually involved. For what else does his acknowledgment that in simple circumstances the absence of prices has no or at most only negligible impact mean? Clearly, then, we need to examine empirical circumstances in order to assess the consequences of the absence of prices. For this purpose, the analytical power of the insight that there are no prices is not enough.   Max Molden is a PhD student at the University of Hamburg. He has worked with European Students for Liberty and Prometheus – Das Freiheitsinstitut. He regularly publishes at Der Freydenker. (0 COMMENTS)

The universe, points out economist Noah Smith, is always trying to kill us, whether through asteroids hurtling through space or our every-few-hours hunger pains. Why, then, should we expect anything but a gravitational pull toward poverty? In this episode, Russ Roberts and Noah Smith reflect on films and TV shows that depict the “good old days-” nostalgia for the particular era of the 1950’s. They end with an exchange about various survival shows, including a Canadian show that was canceled as survival in late 1800’s farming life conditions was simply too challenging for the contestants. Why do people tend to idealize certain historical periods, and how does this affect current views on progress, technology, and economics? We hope you enjoy this exchange of ideas, descriptions and anecdotes about development. As always, your reactions are welcomed and encouraged.   1- Smith refers to poverty as the “elemental foe.” What does this metaphor suggest about the nature of poverty and survival as compared to other foes such as nuclear war or climate change?   2- “Industrial modernity” is described as a “system of technological edifices” that sustain modern standards of living. How did Adam Smith foresee this in his opening of Wealth of Nations about division of labor?    3- The paradox of labor-saving technologies reducing jobs while increasing productivity is an age old phenomenon.  As the discussion continues to evolve about the future of AI, what potential consequences of technological unemployment appear to be underrated or overrated? Why?   4- Both Roberts and Smith express curiosity about why the Industrial Revolution didn’t occur sooner, despite the availability of key technologies in earlier civilizations such as Rome, China, and Latin America. What are some potential explanations for why industrialization took so long, and how does the extent of the market, the institutions of the time, or other economic factors contribute to this delay?   5- Some argue that technological advancements can reduce resource consumption without the need for degrowth, while others believe degrowth is necessary to mitigate environmental harm. To what extent is there hope that Noah Smith’s concept of our “single team” effort in fighting for our future, a way that these two approaches can coexist effectively? (0 COMMENTS)

At the recent vice-presidential debate between Senator J.D. Vance and Governor Tim Walz, both leaders emphasized that families are America’s backbone. However, they erred in their approach by suggesting that more government involvement could solve families’ challenges. From expanding the child tax credit to advocating for new social programs, their solutions imply that the government can strengthen families. This is a dangerous misconception.  Instead of empowering families, government programs often create dependency and stifle personal responsibility. Families thrive when they can shape their futures, not when bureaucratic systems constrain them. Each time the government steps in with a new program or benefit, it diminishes that freedom, replacing it with control.  What begins as well-intentioned assistance often leads to dependence on the state. For example, the expansion of the child tax credit may appear to help families in the short term, but beneath the surface, it’s just another form of wealth redistribution. The government takes from some families to give to others, often with strings attached, reducing overall freedom and fostering a culture of dependency. As Milton Friedman often argued, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Every dollar spent on social programs must come from somewhere—from today’s taxpayers or, worse, future generations who will inherit the debt.  When politicians advocate for more government borrowing, they are not helping families; they are placing a financial burden on the very children they claim to support. These government interventions discourage self-reliance and erode the virtues that strengthen families, such as responsibility and initiative. The real solution to helping families is not more government intervention—it’s less.  Cutting government spending and reducing taxes allows families to keep more of their hard-earned money. When families control more of their income, they can make decisions that fit their unique needs, whether saving for a home, investing in their children’s education, or starting a small business.  Families are far better equipped to allocate resources than Washington bureaucrats. Moreover, reducing the size of government programs fosters independence. Work requirements, for instance, are essential to reducing welfare dependency. When individuals are encouraged to contribute to society through meaningful work, they regain a sense of dignity and self-worth—key elements for the stability and strength of the family unit.  Government handouts that lack work incentives trap individuals in cycles of poverty and dependency. Over time, these individuals lose the motivation to improve their circumstances, weakening the family structure. A critical area where this is evident is in criminal justice reform.  Too many fathers, particularly in minority communities, are imprisoned for non-violent offenses, leaving families without a primary breadwinner and creating emotional and financial strain. This is another case where excessive government intervention—in the form of overcriminalization—has done more harm than good.  Reforming the system to focus on rehabilitation and second chances would do far more to help struggling families than government welfare checks. Strong families depend on having responsible, present role models. Keeping families intact is essential to breaking the cycles of poverty that afflict so many communities. Rising living costs are another major issue for families, but government intervention often exacerbates this problem.  In housing, healthcare, and education, regulations and taxes inflate costs, making it harder for families to get by. For instance, restrictive zoning laws and excessive property taxes increase housing costs. Rather than creating new government programs to subsidize housing, a better approach would be eliminating these regulations and reducing the tax burden, allowing the free market to provide more affordable solutions.  The free market has a proven track record of reducing prices and increasing access, while government involvement often does the opposite. The government should protect individual rights and ensure a fair playing field, not interfere by redistributing wealth or attempting to manage the economy. Personal responsibility and economic freedom are key to prosperity. Families need the freedom to choose how to work, spend, and live their lives.  More government programs won’t strengthen families—freedom will. Politicians like Vance and Walz, though well-meaning, miss the broader point. Families don’t need more government programs; they need more freedom. This includes the freedom to work, to spend their money as they see fit, and to live without excessive regulation. By reducing the size of government, cutting taxes, and eliminating burdensome regulations, we give families the tools they need to succeed on their terms. The key to strengthening families is not expanding government but reducing its role. Families thrive when they have the freedom to make their own choices without the heavy hand of government dictating their lives. The best way to help families is to let them keep more of what they earn, remove the bureaucratic red tape that stifles opportunity, and foster a culture of personal responsibility. The freer families are to pursue their goals, the more prosperous society will become—not just for them but for the entire country.   Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is president of Ginn Economic Consulting, host of the Let People Prosper Show, and previously chief economist of the Trump White House’s OMB. Follow him on X.com at @VanceGinn. (0 COMMENTS)

  4. Econ Log EconLog, run by the Library of Economics and Liberty, includes various contributors sharing ideas on economic theory, public policy, and classical liberal views. This blog offers a place for lively debate and different opinions. (bold in original) This is from Anja Finegan, “The Top Economics Blogs to Follow in 2025,” inomics.com, October 7, 2024. Finegan lists 16. Being #4 isn’t bad. Thanks, Anja. (0 COMMENTS)