Archive for the ‘Econ. 101’ category

Thomas Sowell Discusses “Fact Free Liberals”

January 23, 2014

Thomas Sowell

I love when Thomas Sowell writes articles taking the educated elite to the cleaners by challenging  the facts they cite to prove their reality. The first article is titled, Fact-Free Liberals, read here. Here are some excerpts from the article.

“Someone summarized Barack Obama in three words — “educated,” “smart” and “ignorant.” Unfortunately, those same three words would describe all too many of the people who come out of our most prestigious colleges and universities today.”

“……The net results are bright people, with impressive degrees, who have been told for years how brilliant they are, but who are often ignorant of facts that might cause them to question what they have been indoctrinated with in schools and colleges.”

“All too often when liberals cite statistics, they forget the statisticians’ warning that correlation is not causation.”

“But who reads history these days? Moreover, those parts of history that would undermine the vision of the left — which prevails in our education system from elementary school to postgraduate study — are not likely to get much attention.”

After wetting your appetite by tackling issues like women getting paid three-quarters of what men make, income mobility, black applicants for mortgage loans being turned down at twice the rate of white applicants, and other issues , he challenges more Progressive sacred cows in his next article titled, “Fact Free Liberals: Part II”, read here. Here are some excerpts from this article.

“Words seem to carry far more weight than facts among liberal….”

“When words trump facts, you can believe anything. And the liberal groupthink taught in our schools and colleges is the path of least resistance.”

He analyzes rent control laws, and minimum wage laws in this article, and then takes on “the war on poverty, sex education, and the murder rate in this article titled, “Fact-Free Liberals: Part III”, read here. Here are some excerpts from the article.

“The actual signing of the “war on poverty” legislation took place in August 1964, so the 50th anniversary is some months away. But there have already been statements in the media and in politics proclaiming that this vast and costly array of anti-poverty programs “worked”.”

Of course everything “works” by sufficiently low standards, and everything “fails” by sufficiently high standards. The real question is: What did the “war on poverty” set out to do — and how well did it do it, if at all?

“Without some idea of what a person or a program is trying to do, there is no way to know whether what actually happened represented a success or a failure. When the hard facts show that a policy has failed, nothing is easier for its defenders than to make up a new set of criteria, by which it can be said to have succeeded.”

“While the fact-free liberals celebrate the “war on poverty” and other bright ideas of the 1960s, we are trying to cope with yet another “reform” that has made matters worse, ObamaCare.”

Reading Thomas Sowells books is like receiving a vaccine, inoculating you from the lies of politicians, journalists, and the educational establishment, who are unapologetic about pushing their ideology through propaganda.

Other Thomas Sowell Posts You Might Like.

Thomas Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed, at austrianaddict.com. Short video.

Thomas Sowell Used To Be A Marxist? at austrianaddict.com. Short video.

Thomas Sowells Take On The Federal Reserve, at austrianaddict.com. Short video.

Thomas Sowell- “Economic Problems Don’t Have Political Solutions”, at austrianaddict.com. video.

Income Inequality Part II: Increase The Minimum Wage

January 15, 2014

Economic theory suggests an excessive minimum ...

The two recent, but not new, political solutions for income inequality (aka income redistribution), are extending unemployment benefits, and raising the minimum wage. In this post we will look at the consequences of the political solution, “raising the minimum wage”, but first lets start with an understanding of the nature of exchanges.

TYPES OF EXCHANGES

The free market is nothing more than individuals making voluntary exchanges. What is produced and consumed in the free market is the result of these individual decisions. All actions by individuals are exchanges, whether it’s an isolated exchange or an exchange involving other people.

An example of an isolated exchange would be you deciding to run on your treadmill. You are exchanging the time on the treadmill for other activities that could have been done with that time and at that time. This exchange reveals your value preference no matter what you might have said about that preference before your choice. Value is revealed in action and not one second before the action takes place.

Examples of exchanges between individuals, or interpersonal exchanges, would be you exchanging your labor for money, you exchanging that money for a treadmill, a steak dinner, a ticket to a baseball game, or having your roof repaired. These voluntary interpersonal exchanges increase the value for both parties involved, or they wouldn’t have taken place. Put another way, each person values what they are receiving in the exchange more than what they are giving up.

Are there involuntary interpersonal exchanges, or exchanges an individual wouldn’t choose unless he was forced or defrauded? Yes: examples of these involuntary interpersonal exchanges would be a robber taking your wallet at gun point or under the threat of physical harm, a slave owner taking the labor of the slave under the threat of violence, or a counterfeiter stealing what you’ve produced in a fraudulent exchange of something for nothing. So, in review there are two types of exchanges, isolated and interpersonal, and there are two types of interpersonal exchanges, voluntary and involuntary. Now lets look at raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits through this lens.

THE REALITY ABOUT LABOR AND WAGES

When Government officials make a law raising the minimum wage, it voids the wage contract voluntarily agreed on by the employer and the employee. Each person in this exchange decided that the terms of employment were beneficial, or their wouldn’t have been an exchange of the labor for money. The Government is a third-party to the exchange between the employer and the employee. It forces an agreement on both parties that one, or both, would have never decided to make under a voluntary situation. It forces an involuntary exchange to be made.When Government officials mandate a higher wage, the employee would obviously like this exchange of his labor for more money, but the employer wouldn’t voluntarily make this exchange. What if Government officials mandated all wages be lowered? The employers would like these new terms, but the employees wouldn’t voluntarily make this exchange. Labor is ruled by the same economic laws as every other good or service supplied in the market, in spite of the Marxist brainwashing about the specialness of labor, that has taken place over the last seventy plus years.

We know from the law of supply and demand that more is demanded at a lower price than a higher price, and more is supplied at a higher price than a lower price. We have this concept of supply and demand bass ackwards when it comes to labor because we think the supplier is the employer and the demander is the employee. In reality the demander of labor is the employer and the supplier of labor is the employee. The employee is demanding money, not a job, and the employer is supplying money, not a job. When a wage is high, workers will supply more labor at this higher price than they would supply if the wage is lower. When the wage is high the employer will demand less labor than he would demand if the wage was lower. This applies to labor in general, but labor is more complex than this.

Labor is not homogeneous it is specific. Labor can be broken down into specific general categories like construction, healthcare, food services etc; and each general category can be broken down into specific jobs with specific skills like welder, plumber, doctor, nurse, cook, server etc. Each specific skills value is determined by the demand for that skill, balanced by the supply of that skill. If there is a high demand for a skill that’s rare, the price for that skill will be high. If there is a low demand for a common skill the wage will be low. The combinations of how much demand there is for a skill, and how rare or common it is, determines how much money that skill can demand, and how much money the employer will supply.

The demand for NFL quarterbacks is limited to the number of teams in the NFL, 32, and there is no real demand for this skill outside of the NFL. There are roughly 64 quarterbacks in the NFL, counting starters and backups, and these 64 are demanded differently. The demand for the skill level of  Tom Brady or Payton Manning is greater than the demand for the skill level of Ryan Mallet or Josh Johnson, and this difference in skill level determines how much money each can demand.

Millions of people have the ability to dig with a shovel, making it a common skill, and if you add to it the fact that we use machines to dig, we get a situation where there is a large supply of potential labor for the low demand job of digging with a shovel. The result is a low wage for that particular skill. The varying  combinations of the supply for specific labor, and the demand for that specific labor is why wages differ. If you factor in the reality that these combinations are constantly changing, because technology and innovation are constantly changing the supply and demand for labor, you have a situation where no one politician or bureaucrat, or group of politicians or bureaucrats, could possibly have enough knowledge to arbitrarily set wages. Although they certainly have enough arrogance and ignorance to try.

GOVERNMENT MANDATES VS. INDIVIDUAL CHOICES

There is one factor these moral crusaders fail to think about when they make these third-party mandates. Individuals may not comply. In an involuntary interpersonal exchange, like robbery at gun point or forced slave labor, the person being robbed or enslaved can simply not comply and accept being beaten or killed, or he may fight back if he thinks he has a chance of prevailing over his aggressors. In the case of the minimum wage being artificially raised above what labor produces, the employer has options besides complying with the law. The employer can 1)use capital in place of labor,  2) get rid of, or not hire low skilled labor and spread the work among his higher skilled employees, or 3) a combination of the two.

CONCLUSION

The reality is, when the price of labor is artificially set above the cost of labor, there will be less labor. Raising the minimum wage increases unemployment. Politicians really don’t care about the reality that their minimum wage mandate will hurt the people they say they are trying to help. Politicians are only interested in how morally righteous they look in the fight against income inequality. Low skilled workers are being sacrificed on the altar of politics, because political reality is the only reality that interests politicians.

Related ArticleMinimum Wage Laws Create Unemployment, by austrianaddict.com.

Related  ArticlePolitics And Minimum Wage, by Walter E. Williams, at jewishworldreview.com.

The New, Old, Buzz Words, “Income Inequality”

January 13, 2014

142763 600 New Years Resolutions cartoons

INCOME INEQUALITY AS POLITICAL BLUDGOEN

As the 2014 mid-term election cycle begins, big government politicians are starting to use the phrase “income inequality” as a talking point. It must be the new focus group tested phrase that appeals to emotions, which is why politicians are using it. The political solutions concerning “income inequality” elicit an emotional frenzy among the economically ignorant, that is difficult to overcome with logical analysis about the economic reality of “income equality”.

INCOME INEQUALITY IS REALITY

The politically self-righteous start from the premise that income inequality is a problem with the free market that shouldn’t exist and something has to be done about it. The political solutions they invoke are simply the forcing of what they want done for the voluntary decisions individuals have made in the market process. These solutions always benefit the politicians at the expense of everyone, including the people they are purporting to help. The invented problem of “income inequality” isn’t a problem with the laws of economics. Inequality in general, and income inequality in particular, are realities of life, and putting the word income in front of the word inequality doesn’t change that reality. These invented problems are made worse when we try to solve them through the political process.

INDIVIDUALS CAN’T BE EQUAL

The simple reason there is income inequality is because people aren’t equal. People have different skills, different desires concerning the use of those skills, different desires on how productive they want to be, with all of these being influenced by where they were born, who their parents are, how much education they have, and who they gravitated to outside of their family structure, among many factors. Could a crab fisherman in Alaska develop the skills or have the desire to grow oranges, or could an orange grower in Florida develop the skills or have the desire to fish for crab. How many hockey players come from the state of Hawaii, and how many surfers come from the state of Minnesota. The fact that we are individuals, means we are not the same, which means we are not equal.

GREEDY CONSUMERS SET WAGES

Another reason for income inequality is the consumer decides peoples salaries. What a person gets paid isn’t decided by the boss, it is decided by what the consumer will pay for a  particular good, or service. The price of a good isn’t decided by adding up the cost of all the material and labor used to produce it, and the consumer pays that price. What really happens is the entrepreneur takes a risk thinking that consumers will pay a certain price for a particular good and then goes about trying to produce that good at a cost lower than the price he thinks the  consumer will pay. The wages of workers are determined by what the consumer will pay for the finished product. The cost of labor is part of the cost of production, nothing more nothing less. Marxist thinking has so permeated our society that we think labor is sacred and shouldn’t be ruled by something as heartless as economic laws. When the cost of production rises, businesses can’t just raise prices to cover the cost, if this were the case no business would ever go under. Put another way if business could have higher total revenue by simply raising prices they would have already raised them. If you are mad about income inequality, don’t point your finger at the greedy owner of the business for not paying a higher salary, blame the greedy consumer for not being willing to pay more for the product. This Peter Schiff Video: Will Wal-Mart Customers Support Higher Wages For Wal-Mart Workers? , at economicpolicyjournal.com, will show you how eager people are to pay higher prices for their consumer goods.

In the next post we will discuss two ways politicians try to fight income inequality, 1) Raising the minimum wage and 2) Extending unemployment benefits. Do they really work, or do they benefit the politicians prospects for reelection?

Walter E. Williams: The Pope And Capitalism

December 19, 2013

Walter E. Williams shows his usual brilliance in this article titled, The Pope And Capitalism. The pope is trying to solve economic problems through his vision of justice. Unfortunately the laws of economics don’t obey the pleas for “justice” or “fairness” however they may be defined. Here are a few excerpts from the article.

First, I acknowledge that capitalism fails miserably when compared with heaven or a utopia. Any earthly system is going to come up short in such a comparison. However, mankind must make choices among alternative economic systems that actually exist on earth. For the common man, capitalism is superior to any system yet devised to deal with his everyday needs and desires.”

The usual tactic that people, who are against capitalism, use to argue against it is to set up the straw man of a utopian economic system and argue that capitalism doesn’t meet the utopian standard. They seem to think that if we just got rid of free market capitalism this utopian world would magically come into existence.

There are literally thousands of examples of how mankind’s life has been made better by those in the pursuit of profits. Here’s my question to you: Are people who, by their actions, created unprecedented convenience, longer life expectancy and a more pleasant life for the ordinary person — and became wealthy in the process — deserving of all the scorn and ridicule heaped upon them by intellectuals, politicians and now the pope?”

Think about everything you purchase and consume, and ask yourself this question: Would I be able to produce all of these things with the scarce time and knowledge I have? The answer is no. You pay people for their knowledge and their ability to produce what you can’t produce. If we didn’t have specialization and exchange we would be living in a primitive society.

Profits force entrepreneurs to find ways to please people in the most efficient ways or go out of business. Of course, they can mess up and stay in business if they can get government to bail them out or give them protection against competition.”

The problem we run into is most people think our present economic system is a free market system, and it is not. We have a crony capitalist system where  Government has granted itself the power to intervene in the economy through regulation, taxes, and subsidies. The only reason businesses spend time lobbying Government is because Government has the power to make rules about their business. There would be no reason to lobby the Government for favors if the Government didn’t have the power to grant these favors.

Arthur C. Brooks, president at the American Enterprise Institute and author of “Who Really Cares,” shows that Americans are the most generous people on the face of the earth. In fact, if you look for generosity around the world, you find virtually all of it in countries that are closer to the free market end of the economic spectrum than they are to the socialist or communist end. Seeing as Pope Francis sees charity as a key part of godliness, he ought to stop demonizing capitalism.”

Understanding how free markets really work takes much deeper analysis than the shallow thinking enjoyed by utopian central planners, Marxists, and even well meaning Christians. If you read Walter E. Williams articles you will have a better understanding of economics than a vast majority of our politicians, teachers, journalists and yes even the Pope.

Related ArticlePope Says He Is Not A Marxist, But Defends Criticism Of Capitalism, by Lizzy Davies, at thegardian.com.

Related ArticleTrickle Down And Tax Cuts, by Walter E. Williams, at creators.com.

Related ArticleThe “Trickle Down” Economics Straw Man, by Thomas Sowell, at capitalismmagazine.com

Related ArticleTrickle Down Theory and Tax Cuts For The Rich, by Thomas Sowell, Hoover Institute Press. This is heavy lifting on the subject, but well worth the time.

Visual Explanation Of The Deficit And The Debt

November 1, 2013

The visual of this chart is outstanding, it jumped off the page when I saw it. The chart shows our Governments yearly revenue, yearly deficit, and total debt. This is from an article titled Great News! The Fiscal Crisis Is Over! by Jon Gabriel, at ricochet.com. I got there from this article at theburningplatform.com.

https://i0.wp.com/cdn1.ricochet.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/media/images/debtchart/4700766-1-eng-US/debtchart_lightbox.png

Here is a quote from Mr. Gaberiel, “…imagine the green is your salary, the yellow is the amount you’re spending over your salary, and the red is your MasterCard statement.”

What is sobering about this chart is how a seemingly small yearly deficit compounds into a massive amount of debt over time. What is it going to look like in three more years if we continue our $1 trillion yearly deficit?

THE REAL DEBT TOTAL

Unfortunately the $17 trillion is really not the actual debt. If you factor in the unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which have been estimated to be between $55 to $222 trillion, look at chart here, the problem gets exponentially worse. What do you think Obamacare will add to this unsustainable mountain, or valley, of debt?

THE FED RIDES TO THE RESCUE?

Fortunately we have the Fed which can electronically print counterfeit money to pay our way out of this mess. Oh yeah, I forgot, the only way a Government can accumulate this amount of debt is because its Central Bank funds the expansion in the first place by buying Government bonds. Without the ability to electronically print counterfeit money, Governments can only grow to the size of what they can steal or mooch through taxing and borrowing. At a certain point, individuals won’t produce above a certain level if they can’t enjoy the fruits of their labor, and they won’t purchase bonds from a seller whose level of debt makes the transaction seem to risky. The Fed can’t print its way out of the economic reality of scarcity. Their denial of this reality is why they printed us into this mess in the first place.

Related ArticleLet The Counterfeiting Continue! The Fed Is Stuck In Their Feedback Loop, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleThe Fed As Giant Counterfeiter, by Robert P. Murphy, at mises.org.

The Market (Individuals) Finds Ways Around Govenment Intervention.

October 7, 2013
600 mm by 300 mm (24 in by 12 in) emergency pl...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

INDIVIDUAL DECISION MAKING vs. GOVERNMENT DECISION MAKING

I’ve always thought free market capitalism would always out pace the interventions of Government, but when the bubble burst in 08, I started to change my mind as I began to educate myself about the interventions by the Fed via the double edge sword of low-interest rates and electronically printing counterfeiting money. I had never understood the ramifications of these policies until I started reading about the Austrian Business Cycle Theory. We have talked about these ramifications in these posts: The Role Of Interest Rates In A Market Economy, Thomas Woods Explains The Austrian Business Cycle Theory, Keynes Was Correct In 1919!,  A Look Over The Horizon At What Lies Ahead If We Continue Down The Central Planning Road, What Comes First Production Or Consumption,

I had become more pessimistic about the chances of the market regaining the lead over Government intervention, but recently I’m seeing signs of the market starting to reassert its dynamism. Two examples are the shale oil boom and another is the plummeting sales of electric cars. The oil boom is happening in spite of the best efforts of Government to get in it’s way, and electric car sales prove the consumer ultimately makes the decision on what succeeds and fails in the market, and not the Government. I should never have been pessimistic in the first place because the market is always attempting to correct the interventions perpetrated on it by the Government.

THE BUST IS THE CURE FOR THE PRINTED BOOM

If we look at the case of the housing boom that lead to the 08 bust, the boom was out pacing the corrections by the market, much like the story of the tortious and hare, but once economic reality finally caught up to the fake reality created by Government, the bust in housing occurred. The bust was the cure for the artificial boom created by the Government and the Fed, and should have been allowed to run its course in order to wring out all the misallocations that had been allowed to grow during the boom. From the politicians stand point this much-needed cure was a political nightmare, because they were in the driver seat when the crash happened. So instead of letting the market cure the problem they created, the Government and the Fed stepped in and “saved” the too big to fail banks by lowering interest rates to near zero and injecting close to $3 trillion into the economy through the purchase of mortgage-backed securities and treasury bills. This doesn’t even count the TARP bailout under Bush or the $900 billion economic stimulus package under Obama. What the Fed and the Government did to grow the boom and then “save’ the economy from the bust, was like a doctor prescribing steroids to his young patient in ever-increasing amounts to help build a big strong body. Everyone could see him growing because of his outward appearance, but no one could see what was happening on the inside. When his organs began to fail, and his body began to break down, the doctor prescribed more steroids to try to keep his body growing. This isn’t a perfect analogy but it’s close to describing what the Fed and the Government has done to the economy over the last 15 plus years. Unlike the patient, who will eventually die, the economy won’t die, it will continually keep trying to make corrections for all the interventions by the Fed and the Government. Why won’t the economy die? Because an economy is simply the result of all the decisions made by each individual as they cooperate and compete with other individuals on how to use scarce resources for production and consumption. Government intervention is just one variable that has to be considered when individuals make decisions. When Government intervention grows to a certain point, individuals start spending more time protecting what they have rather than spending  time producing more. The standard of living begins to stagnate as we start to consume more than we produce.

Here is a chart that shows that debt doesn’t create growth. The G7 nations consist of US, UK, France, Germany, Italy Canada, and Japan. The debt that was created to grow these economies has only marginally increased GDP compared to the growth in debt. In fact the GDP number is fake because the electronically printed counterfeit money that gets used for consumption is counted when GDP is calculated. You could say the central banks are counterfeiting a positive GDP number. Read article here.

CONCLUSION

This debt has to be paid back by future production. Future production also has to sustain future consumption by Government and private individuals. If production can’t cover all three (debt, Government consumption, and individual consumption), who do you think will have to sacrifice for the other two? The upcoming debt ceiling fight will answer that question. My prediction is the debt ceiling will go up and there will be no actual cuts in Government spending, just minor reductions in the rate of growth. I hope I’m wrong.

Onset Radio Interviewed Me About Economics

October 2, 2013
web radio

web radio (Photo credit: AleBonvini)

Ted and John Stevenot of Onset Radio were gracious enough to have me as a guest for one of their shows. We talked about basic economic principles, as well as a wider range of topics related to economics. Ted and John work hard at spreading the truth about the liberty movement. Thanks Ted and John for inviting me, I had a great time.

Click on the link below to listen to the interview.

http://onsetradio.com/?p=218&preview=true

Thomas Sowell, “The first rule of economics is scarcity, what everybody wants adds up to more than what there is. The first rule of politics is to ignore the first rule of economics.”

Entrepreneurship Can Be A Stinky Business

September 19, 2013

I stumbled across this commercial for a product that I thought couldn’t be real, but the product and the company really exist. As much as we talk about the consumer reigning supreme in the market, the entrepreneur is the one who takes a chance on a new idea, product, or service, for which  there is no consumer demand. The entrepreneur takes a risk, a leap of faith in his ability to come up with an idea he thinks consumers will want. If he is wrong and consumers won’t support the product, or activity, in large enough numbers to make a profit, he suffers the loss, and the scarce resources used to produce the unwanted product, are freed up to be used in more productive activities. The entrepreneur is essentially trying to supply his own demand (production comes before consumption). Watch the commercial for a product called Poo-Pourri. I thought it was funny, but I might be a little touched.

The marketing is pretty good because nobody wants to take the dreaded away dump. This commercial asks and answers the question, “So how do you make the world believe your poop doesn’t stink, or in fact that you never poop at all? Poo-Pourri- the before you go toilet spray.”

If Poo Pourri produces a paltry profit that can’t support the price of production, they have another option, in our crony capitalist system, to overcome their failure under voluntary exchange in the free market. They can lobby the Government and try to get them to mandate that all public restrooms have a supply of Poo-Pourri, because second-hand stink is not just offensive, studies have shown it can cause headaches, nausea, watery eyes, asthmatic reactions, dizziness, and other reactions too numerous to name. If the Government will not grant them their demand, that Government create a limitless demand for their product, they always have an option of sue. There has to be some obscure rule under the purview of OSHA, the EPA, HHS, or the CDC, that is being violated by businesses who are shirking their responsibility to protect the public from second-hand stink.

Fortunately, in our current crony capitalist system, there is enough freedom left for entrepreneurs to take a risk and supply a demand that doesn’t yet exist. Growth happens on the frontiers of the economy where risk is a way of life, not in the old status quo businesses that are just trying to protect their current position of supplying an already existing demand. Government intervening in the economy won’t make it grow, one reason is because it is risk averse and will always prop up the status quo big businesses (remember too big to fail). and the other reason can be summed up in a quote by Robert Bradley Jr., “When Government tries to pick winners and losers, it typically picks losers. Why? Because the Free Market Consumers pick winners to leave the losers for Government.” 

It is not possible for Government to manage an economy because the amount of information it would need to make decisions doesn’t exist in a single place or at a particular time. This information is also constantly changing day-to-day which makes it exponentially impossible to know this widely dispersed information. Prices arrived at by individuals voluntarily cooperating and competing in a free market is the only way this amount of constantly changing information can be utilized as optimally as possibly. Prices coordinate economic activity.

RELATED ARTICLEToo Big To Fail GM vs. Too Small To Save Hostess, at austrianaddict.com.

RELATED ARTICLEMilton Friedman on Market Failure vs. Government Failure. Which Has A Higher Cost, at austrianaddict.com.

RELATED ARTICLEWhy Do People Think The Government Is The Economy, at austrianaddict.com

Too Big To Fail GM vs. Too Small To Save Hostess

August 8, 2013
Box of Twinkies

Box of Twinkies (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

FREE MARKET CAPITALISM OR CRONY CAPITALISM

I noticed Hostess products are back on the shelves again in grocery stores. It leaves me scratching my head about how this could possibly have happened because I thought they went bankrupt. I remember when GM was going to go bankrupt we were told that GM needed to be bailed out to save the company and all the jobs, because we couldn’t see an America without GM. The politicians and the media were banging this drum as loudly as they could, leaving the impression that if Government (using yours and my money) didn’t step in to help, GM would go under and cease to exist. When Hostess declared bankruptcy, the politicians and the  media weren’t beating the same drums, in fact the drums were silent. I guess if GM was “too big to fail”, and Hostess was “too small to save”! Apparently the only thing that saved GM from going extinct, was the rigged crony capitalist bankruptcy set up (more…)

Walter E. Williams Talks About Free Market Morality

August 2, 2013

I saw this video titled Free Market Morality at prageruniversity.com. In it Walter Williams talks about the voluntary action between individuals in the market as opposed to the coercive action used in a centrally planned economy. He also talks about the market being a positive sum game instead of a zero sum game because both sides in an exchange are better off. He explains concepts as only he can. Watch listen and learn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNdPrJySGdA

Related Article-Video,  Walter E. Williams: Voluntary vs. Involuntary Exchange, or Seduction vs. Rape, at ausrtianaddict.com.

Related Article-Video,  Walter E. Williams: Free Market Capitalism Produces A Higher Standard Of Living For Everyone, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleI Love Greed, by Walter E. Williams, at jewishworldreview.com.