Imagi-Natives advice on:
0 0
Daily Needs
Mind Needs
 Learn Quotes (5010)
 Imagine Quotes (1915)
Plan Quotes (1664)
 Focus Quotes (2120)
Persist Quotes (5291)
 Evolve Quotes (1499)
Progress Quotes (290)
 General Quotes (295)
Body Needs
 Health Quotes (565)
 Exercise Quotes (413)
 Grooming Quotes (146)
 General Quotes (823)
Money Needs
 Income Quotes (238)
 Tax Quotes (525)
 Save Quotes (186)
 Invest Quotes (4012)
 Spend Quotes (319)
 General Quotes (1228)
Work Needs
 Customers Quotes (136)
 Service Quotes (1027)
 Leadership Quotes (3223)
 Team Quotes (494)
 Make Quotes (281)
 Sell Quotes (1439)
 General Quotes (1037)
Property Needs
 Clothing Quotes (144)
 Home Quotes (151)
 Garden/Nature Quotes (964)
 Conservation Quotes (281)
 General Quotes (345)
Food Needs
 Food Quotes (205)
 Drink Quotes (226)
 General Quotes (529)
Friends Needs
 Friends Quotes (778)
 Partners Quotes (615)
 Children Quotes (1675)
 Love Quotes (792)
 Conversation Quotes (4576)
 General Quotes (8694)
Fun Needs
 Gratitude Quotes (1695)
 Satisfaction Quotes (957)
 Anticipation Quotes (1256)
 Experiences Quotes (626)
 Music Quotes (280)
 Books Quotes (1298)
 TV/movies Quotes (177)
 Art Quotes (654)
 General Quotes (2654)

 Imagi-Natives Search 
 
Quote/Topic  Author
Contains all words in any orderContains the exact phraseContains at least one word
[ 50 Item(s) displayed from page 11 ]


Previous<<  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11 12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next Page>>

  Quotations - General  
[Quote No.30390] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 11. Anti-Trust: The conventional theory of anti-trust laws (laws against monopolies) is that after the Civil War with the rise of large scale enterprises, businesses had power over consumers in being able to corner their markets. Responding to a public need, the Congress passed the Sherman Anti-trust Act and the laws have done good ever since. This conventional view is grossly mistaken. Actually, the origins of the anti-trust laws lie in politically influential businesses getting a national law passed to pre-empt state laws, to use the power of the state against their business rivals, and from a political vendetta by the bill's author against the head of a major firm. Likewise, the laws have not served the consumer but have done the exact opposite, harming productive, cost and price-cutting businesses to the detriment of consumers. Two famous anti-trust cases illustrate these points: The 1911 Standard Oil Case divided the company into thirty-three separate organizations. What was Standard Oil guilty of? The judge decided that by integrating stages of the oil business--wells, pipelines, refineries, etc.--and by buying small unintegrated stages, Standard was preventing these separate businesses from competing with one another. Nowhere was it found that Standard had raised prices (prices fell continuously), or had restricted output (output rose continuously)--the classical complaints against a monopoly. Standard Oil had earned its position as the largest domestic oil producer by serving the needs of consumers and serving them very well. By the time the court case was settled, Standard had dropped from a 90% market share to a 60% market share because of the natural developments in the market itself. Even assuming that the court case was originally necessary, it was made obsolete due to free competition from the Texas oil discoveries and by the move from kerosene to other petroleum products and from the advent of electricity. There was nothing Standard Oil could do to stop these events--compare that to a government-authorized monopoly! The Standard Oil Case set the precedent for a theory in anti-trust law known as the 'rule of reason.' But, as D. T. Armentano has explained, how can this be reasonable when there is no reference to the facts? The 1945 Alcoa Aluminum Case is equally absurd. Alcoa had been the dominant primary aluminum producer for decades, having first begun production when aluminum was so rare and unknown that it was more valuable than gold! Over the years Alcoa developed its facilities and methods enabling it to lower the price with its lowered costs and to expand its market. As in the Standard Oil Case, there was no claim that Alcoa was charging high prices or restricting output. So what did the judge find offensive? The judge's verdict included this incredible paragraph: ‘It was not inevitable that it [Alcoa] should always anticipate increases in the demand for ingot and be prepared to supply them. Nothing compelled it to keep doubling and redoubling its capacity before others entered the field. It insists that it never excluded competitors; but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively to embrace each opportunity as it opened, and to face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience, trade connections and the elite of personnel.’ Clearly, anti-trust theory had been turned literally on its head with good service to the consumer becoming a black mark in the courtroom. Imagine if, instead, Alcoa had been an incompetently run organization, never gaining a significant share of the market, the judge (had he had occasion to rule on Alcoa) would have found Alcoa to be the very essence of a good citizen company, patted it on its head and sent it on its way to continue its blunders, all obviously to the detriment of consumers. At the same time the judge was finding Alcoa guilty, the U. S. Congress was granting a commendation to Alcoa for doing such a fine job during the effort of WWII. Notice further that the market these companies was found guilty of monopolizing were the domestic oil market--overlooking the competition from imported oil--and the primary aluminum market--overlooking the competition from reprocessed aluminum. In other words, the courts had to first artificially narrow the market in order to find these companies guilty! Other equally absurd tales could be told of cases such as Brown Shoe, Von's Grocery, IBM and the shared monopoly in ready-to-eat breakfast cereals and can all be found in Armentano's Anatomy. Suffice it to say here that most other advanced countries do not have anti-trust laws and think it very strange indeed that the U.S. government would spend its time beating up on the businesses in its own jurisdiction. And notice as well, that crippling these companies would benefit their rivals who were better politically connected--one of the real motives behind this law. Now the vendetta story: Senator Sherman had his heart set on being President of the United States and appeared destined for the Republican nomination in 1888. His life's ambition was thwarted when Russell Alger--of the Diamond Match Company--threw his support to Benjamin Harrison, the eventual president. In an effort to get Alger, Sherman sponsored the anti-trust law. As President Harrison signed the bill into law he is reported to have said, 'Ah, I see Sherman is getting back at his old friend Russell Alger!' By the way, Diamond Match was never indicted and Sherman's true position was revealed soon afterwards as he sponsored a bill to levy a tax on imported consumer goods. Thus the Sherman Act was a mere smokescreen for Congress to hide behind while it did its dirty business of sacrificing the consumer to political pull among businesses via the power of law. With all of the anti-competitive, monopoly-creating regulations and laws, the only proper place for anti-trust indictments is against government agencies--a practice which Congress has managed to outlaw. [References: Armentano, D. T. - 'Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure', (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1982); Armentano, D. T. - 'Antitrust Policy: The Case for Repeal', (Washington, D. C.: Cato Institute, 1986); Bork, Robert - 'The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself', (New York: Basic Books, 1978); Burris, Alan - 'A Liberty Primer', (Rochester, New York: Society for Individual Liberty, 1983) pp. 209 - 225; Greenspan, Alan - 'Antitrust' in 'Capitalism the Unknown Ideal' edited by Ayn Rand, (New York: New American Library, 1967) pp. 63 - 71; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Man, Economy, and State', (Los Angeles: Nash Publishers, 1970) p. 840, pp. 1 - 60.]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30391] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 12. Unions: Unions are a matter of pitting one group of workers against other workers; it is not a worker versus manager phenomenon. Successful unions are those which are able to exclude workers, and the unions most able to exclude workers are those composed of skilled workers. Skilled workers are more difficult to replace than unskilled workers and thus are better able to succeed in a strike. As Milton Friedman has stated, 'unions don't cause high wages, high wages cause unions.' When unions strike they are not merely refusing to work but are preventing any labor from being offered to the employer. Those workers who do cross a union line are called 'scabs,' thereby illustrating the lack of working class solidarity and clarifying the fact that the issue is one group of workers against other workers. When unions are successful they raise the wages of their membership but do so only at the expense of reducing the number of workers employed by the firm. Those workers unable to find employment in the unionized sector must seek work in the non-unionized sector, thereby depressing the wages for the non-union workers. Unions do not raise wages, they increase wages for one group of (unionized) workers at the expense of lowering wages for the remaining (non-unionized) workers. The problem with unions in modern America is that like businesses which enjoy government protection through regulation, unions have been granted legal privileges. These legal privileges include the Wagner Act, the Norris-LaGuardia Act and lenient courts which treat job related violence as somehow legitimate. In a free market, the limited role of unions would be beneficial as they might act as job clearinghouses and standards-certifying boards. Anyone truly concerned with the welfare of workers should first analyze the source of wages. Wages are determined by worker productivity. Worker productivity is determined by the availability of capital goods (tools) to the worker to help him in his production. The availability of capital goods is determined by the prospect of profiting from such an investment. And the appropriate mix of investment in capital goods results from freedom in the marketplace. Thus anyone concerned with the welfare of workers should be the greatest advocate of free markets. If this sounds too theoretical, consider the action of real world workers concerned with their personal welfare without regard to theory or ideology. The experience the world over is one of workers constantly seeking out freer economies, escaping from East Berlin to West Berlin, from China to Hong Kong, from Mexico to the U.S. The world has yet to see such a mass migration of workers from the freer economies to the less free economies. [References: Branden, Nathaniel - 'Common Fallacies about Capitalism' in 'Capitalism the Unknown Ideal' edited by Ayn Rand, (New York: New American Library, 1967) pp. 83 - 88; Friedman, Milton and Rose - 'Free to Choose', (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980) pp. 228 - 247; Mises, Ludwig von - 'Human Action', (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1966) pp. 777 - 779; Reynolds, Morgan O. - 'Making America Poorer: The Cost of Labor Law', (Washington, D. C.: The Cato Institute, 1987); Rockwell, Llewellyn - 'The Scourge of Unionism' in 'The Economics of Liberty' edited by Llewellyn Rockwell, (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1989) pp. 27 -31; Schiff, Irwin - 'The Biggest Con: How the Government is Fleecing You', (Hamden, Connecticut: Freedom Books, 1976) pp. 185 - 192]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30392] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 13. Advertising: Advertising has been given a bum rap in economic theory. Aside from any inherent bias against the free market itself, the reason for this is the theory of perfect competition. Once the economist perceives the world through 'perfect competition colored glasses' it naturally follows to disparage advertising. Given the fanciful assumptions of perfect competition--perfectly homogeneous products, perfect mobility of resources, perfect knowledge, and all firms so small that none can influence price--advertising is purely wasteful. What valuable economic role could advertising play in such a world? All consumers know the attributes and availabilities of the products, products are equally readily (instantaneously) available in regard to location, and the prices for these products are all the same. So much for advertising in a world of perfect competition. What about in reality? In reality, in the real world of actual competition--rivalrous attempts among firms to attract consumers--advertising does indeed play a useful, beneficial economic role. The three major points of contention regarding advertising are persuasion versus information, waste versus efficiency and concentration versus competition. Persuasion versus Information: The claim that much of advertising is only persuasive rather than informative is based on such examples as 'Coke is it!' The anti-advertiser claims that there is no information in such an advertising slogan, there is only hoopla in an attempt to persuade a poor consumer to part with his cash. It should be understood that just because advertising is of no value to a particular critic, someone else may find the advertising to be of value. For any one person most advertising is in fact not directed at him. Many of us will agree that the above slogan is lacking in information--what's the price?, where can it be bought?, what's the nutritional content?, etc. But for someone on their way home who has promised to pick up a six pack of Coke for the evening's company the slogan is in fact a welcomed reminder. People are busy with a multitude of activities and cannot keep everything in mind; reminders are often necessary. I suspect everyone reading this page can cite an example wherein they had neglected the consumption of some favored product only to spot it or a simple advertising slogan again and think in effect: 'Oh yes, I used to enjoy X, I'll have to buy it again!' People in such situations are glad to have had the reminder. Further, newcomers need to be introduced to products which are familiar to the rest of us. Newcomers would include infants, immigrants and populations where the product is first being introduced. The reason the particular product in that slogan strikes us as needing no further advertising is because the company has done such a thorough job of constantly keeping the product before us that we perceive it as unnecessary. The anti-advertisers have set up a false dichotomy between persuasion and information; the two are actually and necessarily intertwined. The only way to inform someone is to first persuade them to direct their attention to that information, thus the clever slogans, bright colors, catchy tunes, etc. And the only way to persuade someone is with information, however limited. But, let's grant the anti-advertisers their point: consumers at times buy products only because of a purely persuasive advertisement. The very proper response to such a charge is: SO WHAT? If a consumer wants to buy a product purely based on the persuasion of an advertisement that's his right as a consumer to spend his money as he chooses. Besides, how many wants are inherent, beyond the persuasion from anyone? Very few purchases or human preferences are for inherent wants--and certainly being consumed with animosity toward advertising is not one of them! Waste versus Efficiency: The second claim against advertising is that it increases production costs--undeniably producing a product and then spending money on advertising is more costly than spending nothing on advertising. But this is also true of every feature of any product--producing an automobile with an engine versus one without an engine, for example. The real issue is: are the extra costs (advertising, the auto engine, etc.) a value to the consumer he is willing to pay for? If not, generic-type non-advertised goods will out-compete flashy, heavily advertised goods; the consumer ultimately decides. Since heavily advertised products are in fact the norm, what is it that advertising provides that is of value to the consumer? Information as to the existence of the product, its special features, where it is available, etc. Anyone who doubts that the consumer values the information in advertising can just think of the last time he bought a newspaper to check movie schedules or perused the flyers in the Sunday newspaper searching for a purchase. A different line of argument which claims advertising is wasteful is based on the notion that many products are the same except for the advertising--examples often cited are detergents, soft drinks, aspirin, etc.--and thus the advertising is an unnecessary extra cost. The truth is exactly the opposite, the more one knows and cares about the subtle differences between different brands the more obvious the differences are. What the advertising critic is really saying here is that the differences between, say Coke and Pepsi, are unknown to him and he really does not care about any such differences. This is the argument from snobbery or what Murray N. Rothbard has called 'the sustained sneer.' Imagine telling a major critic of advertising like John Galbraith that all economics books are the same, they all cover prices, costs, supply, demand and so on. The only one who could honestly believe such a statement is someone unfamiliar with and uninterested in economics--the way Galbraith is unfamiliar with and uninterested in the differences between Coke and Pepsi. Given the actual though subtle differences among products, advertising alerts consumers to the availability of products which may more closely match the consumers' preferences--a valuable service, indeed. Concentration versus Competition: The last claim against advertising is that it encourages concentration in industries, that the high cost of advertising locks out newcomers who can't afford to compete with established heavy advertisers. Actually advertising--getting consumers' attention--makes it possible for the newcomer to attract consumers away from their established habits. Closing down all advertising would secure the position of the large, established firms. Notice that new products, new malls, new restaurants, new gas stations are advertised heavily, and with the most glaring, loud and obtrusive means. Some examples: could Wendy's have ever broken through to successfully compete with McDonald's without advertising, could Diet Coke have succeeded without celebrity endorsements, could Wal-Mart have surpassed Sears in total sales if they could not have widely and repeatedly advertised their prices and very existence as an alternative? The lack of advertising (or the outlawing as has been done and is advocated by the critics) plays right into the hands of the dominant firms and products. Other than the anti-advertising theorists these are the biggest champions for ending advertising. Legal services, eyeglass, and vitamin advertising have all been outlawed at various times at the behest of the sellers of these goods and services. What freedom of advertising does is allow the consumer to shop for low prices in advance of entering these places of business; without advertising the consumer must go 'blindly' in search of the best deals. The desire to shut out newcomers' ability to reach potential consumers is a broader sociological law with widespread application. Examples: Incumbent candidates rarely willingly debate their newcomer challengers, established authorities ignore the arguments of their lesser-known critics, old money elites have no regard for the nouveau-riche. Finally, the coup de grace in this entire argument: Anti-advertisers .... advertise! Yes, in trying to convince others of the evils they see in advertising they do all of the very things they condemn: They use clever phrases and examples to persuade others, incur costs in the creation of new arguments with subtle distinctions, and attempt to break through to reach followers who may be content with their existing understanding of the value of advertising. [References: Armentano, D.T. - 'Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure', (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1982) pp. 37 - 39, 256- 257, 262; Armentano, D.T. - 'Antitrust Policy: The Case for Repeal', (Washington, D. C.: The Cato Institute, 1986) pp. 35 - 38; Block, Walter - 'Defending the Undefendable', (New York: Fleet Press Corporation, 1976) pp. 68 - 79; Brozen, Yale, editor - 'Advertising and Society', (New York: New York University Press, 1974) pp. 25 - 109; Hayek, F. A. - 'Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics', (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967) pp. 313 - 317; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Man, Economy, and State', (Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, 1970) pp. 843 - 846.] " - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30393] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 14. Speculators: Speculators--those attempting to gain by guessing future conditions (in particular prices)--are a subcategory of entrepreneurs; everything written previously about entrepreneurs applies as well to speculators. However, while the public will often have sympathy and understanding for the role of entrepreneurs, there is a general disdain for speculators. In redeeming the reputation of speculators let me first point out that everyone speculates. Consumers speculate when they decide to buy a house now rather than wait for lowering prices or mortgage rates, students speculate when they choose a major in college, etc. But beyond noting the universal practice of speculating there are other redeeming qualities to speculators. If, for instance, someone is speculating in the future price of sugar then he will pay much more attention to the weather conditions, technology, and political influences on sugar than will the consumer. For the consumer, sugar is a passing and minor part of his life; for the speculator it is his means of livelihood. At a time when the price of sugar is $1 per pound a speculator will begin buying sugar if he has reason to anticipate a future lack of supply. His speculative demand added to that of consumer demand will increase the price to say, $1.50 per pound. This is one source of the animosity typically directed by the public toward speculators. The higher price will have two effects: First, the consumer will begin to economize on sugar, treating it as more valuable than before. And second, suppliers will be encouraged to produce more sugar than before. The speculator is, in effect, acting as an early warning signal notifying others of the impending future reduction in supply--much like a smoke detector alerts otherwise distracted residents about a spreading fire. Then when the reduced supply becomes evident to all, the speculator will dump the sugar at the now even higher price of say, $2.00 reaping a $0.50 profit per pound. This is another source of the animosity typically directed by the public toward speculators. But, what has the speculator actually done? He has taken the plentiful sugar away from consumers when they were ignorant of its future higher value and returned it to them just when they needed additional supply the most--he has provided a marvelous service to others in the pursuit of his personal gain. He should be cheered for his actions; he is a benefactor of consumers. Another way in which speculators do good but receive condemnation is in futures contracts. Take the example wherein a farmer has planted his peanut crop in January when the price of peanuts is $2 per pound. The farmer will not reap his harvest until June, by which time the price of peanuts may have changed dramatically. A speculator comes along and offers the farmer $2.20 for every pound he can deliver in June. If the farmer accepts the deal then he can concentrate on his farming without worrying about some uncertain future price for his peanuts. He can sleep peacefully at night, certain of his price because the speculator has agreed to shoulder the burden of future price changes. A division of labor has occurred with the farmer specializing in farming and the speculator in risk-bearing. If the price of peanuts in June falls to $1.50 then the farmer will be overjoyed that the speculator has saved him from such a catastrophe and will think speculators are the best people on earth. But if the price in June goes to $3.00 per pound the farmer will curse the name of the fast-talking slicky salesperson of a speculator who deprived him of the high profits. The farmer will forget all about the peaceful sleep he enjoyed due to the speculator's guaranteed price, and he'll forget all about the fact that he freely chose to enter into the agreement in the first place. This is yet another reason for the public's negative view of speculators. But, which speculator will be around to speculate again? The one so popular with the farmer has lost a fortune and cannot or will not care to try his hand again. The successful speculator, the one the farmer has such disdain for, has made a major profit and will be able and interested in pursuing another contract. It at least makes some sense that speculators are unpopular, but in evaluating their role in the economic system they should properly be regarded with the same appreciation as all other productive parties. [References: Arneyon, Eitina - 'Dictionary of Finance', (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1988) p. 430; Block, Walter - 'Defending the Undefendable', (New York: Fleet Press Corporation, 1976) pp. 171 - 175; Friedman, David D. - 'Price Theory', (Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western Publishing Company, 1986) pp. 296 - 297; Greaves, Percy L. - 'Why Speculators' in 'Free Market Economics: A Basic Reader' edited by Bettina Bien Greaves, (Irvington-on-Hudson, New York: Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1975) pp. 94 - 98; Mises, Ludwig von - 'Human Action', (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1966) p. 457; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Power and Market: Government and the Economy', (Menlo Park, California: Institute for Humane Studies, 1970) pp. 125 - 126.]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30394] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 15. Heroic Insider Trading: Insider trading--making profits in financial markets from knowledge not available to the general public--has been a universally scorned activity of late. But what is the nature of this alleged crime? Making financial gain on superior knowledge is exactly what the stock market is all about. In fact, this is what all business activity is about. Doesn't Delta make a success of its airline business because it knows better than others how to run an airline? Doesn't Coca-Cola make a success of its soft drink business because it knows the ins and outs of production, distribution, marketing and consumer demand better than other establishments? Certainly, Delta and Coca-Cola don't reveal to competitors their insider's knowledge of their businesses. But beyond the universal nature of insider trading what are its effects on the stock market? Let's say Investor A has knowledge that Acme is about to be bought by Ajax and therefore buys Investor B's stock at the current price of $20. The takeover occurs, and the price shoots up to $40. Investor B would have sold the stock anyway, whether Investor A had his knowledge or not. But, somehow in inside-trader-hater logic, ignorant but lucky Investor C, the one who would have made the purchase from Investor B if Investor A had no superior knowledge to act on, could have legitimately been the one to make the quick $20 profit. But we must ask: Why is C's ignorance a legitimate means of earning profits but A's knowledge an illegitimate one? This boils down to scorning the knowledgeable for being knowledgeable and elevating the ignorant for being ignorant--hardly a desirable trait for social well-being. Besides, the very act of making stock purchases on insider trading helps to reveal to the world, through the higher stock prices, that these stocks are currently undervalued. Thus, economic information is actually spread through markets more quickly when insider trading occurs than when it is effectively outlawed. And every economic theory I'm aware of says more information sooner is better than less information later. There's a rule of thumb popular among investment advisors which says the amateur investor should not buy individual stocks because individual stock investing is a full-time job; likewise one should realize when undertaking stock investments that there are bound to be people with more knowledge than he has about the prospects of future stock values. Insider trading is a victimless crime, and its prohibition should be viewed as nothing more than a welfare program for S.E.C. lawyers. This becomes all the more obvious when it is realized that 'insider trading' is not even defined in the laws. It is in fact so vague that it could be used against virtually any investor. The one legitimately-wrong kind of inside trading is where someone uses 'inside' knowledge in violation of a contract or explicit trust. In such cases, civil law ought to apply, with damages to those wronged, rather than criminal law with fines to the U.S. Treasury. 'OK,' you may be thinking 'there really isn't anything so evil about insider trading, and all of the recent legal activity is no better than a witch hunt, but why call them heroes?' Well as stated (in regard to other alleged scoundrels) in Walter Block's, Defending the Undefendable: ‘...others are generally allowed to go about their business unmolested, and indeed earn respect and prestige, but not so these scapegoats; for not only are their economic services unrecognized, but they face the universal bile and wrath of virtually all, plus the additional restrictions and prohibitions of governments. They are heroes indeed; made so by their unjust treatment at the hands of society.’ (Foreword) Further, since they act on a legitimate, but unacknowledged right, they help secure the liberties of all, while more timid souls shrink from the battle. Inside traders should be granted the respect they truly do deserve. [References: Block, Walter - 'Defending the Undefendable', (New York: Fleet Press, 1976) foreword; Fischel, Daniel - 'Payback: The Conspiracy to Destroy Michael Milken and his Financial Revolution', (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1995) pp. 40 - 68, 301; Frantz, Douglas - 'Levine & Co., Wall Street's Insider Trading Scandal', (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1987) pp. 54 - 55, 219 - 221; Levine, Dennis B. - 'Inside Out, An Insider's Account of Wall Street', (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1991) pp. 124 - 125; Rockwell, Llewellyn H. - 'Michael R. Milken: Political Prisoner,' in 'The Economics of Liberty' edited by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1990) pp. 70 - 72; Taylor, John - 'Storming the Magic Kingdom', (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc: 1987) pp. 243 - 248.]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30395] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 16. Owners vs. Managers: In the relentless attack on economic freedom waged by statists, the modern corporation has been targeted for scorn. The perfectly valid theory that a profit-maximizing firm will generate efficient production for consumers has been turned into a 'judo' argument against the free market. This theory states that the old nineteenth century firm was an efficient producer since the owner (who wanted to maximize his profits) was one in the same with the manager (who made actual day-to-day decisions). However, today the modern corporation is run by 'hired gun' managers who are not the owners of the firm and its assets, and thus are less interested in profit maximization than in a comfortable existence, while the owners are often passive investors uninvolved in the decisions of running the business. Thus, according to these critics the firm will not be efficiently managed for consumer benefit but will result in management taking advantage of the owners for their (the managers') personal benefit. From this viewpoint the statists argue for regulation and denunciation of the free market process--a process which often results in these large, corporate business enterprises. (First, let me acknowledge the dichotomy of interests which does exist between the owners and the managers; a dichotomy which also exists even with a single owner and a single-employee sized firm. The owner will be diligent in his behavior, whereas the employee does gain personal benefits from slacking. Obviously, the benefits of having employees outweigh the negatives of having employees since we find a world of firms with employees instead of one-man enterprises.) The free market has inherent remedies for such ill-behavior on the part of the 'hired-gun' managers. At least four offsetting influences will tend to mitigate the dichotomy of interests: First, any abused passive investor can always sell his share of stock in such a corporation. While this will not save the investor from past personal losses he can at least extricate himself from the abuse. But if this response is widespread, the effect of many small investors selling their stock will put downward pressure on the price of the stock. A reduction in the price of the stock will surely get the attention of the major investors who do involve themselves in the decision making of the corporation--the board of directors, if no one else--who can take meaningful action! Second, it is very, very common for managers to be paid in stock or stock options in a corporation. Thus the managers are owners who will benefit from an increase in the stock value--as the passive investors prefer--and lose the opportunity for gain from a decrease in the stock value; a conjoining of interests! Third, who would the board of directors--as owners interested in profit-maximization--choose to manage their corporate assets? A 'natural selection' process will occur in the market as those managers who have shown their determination and ability to create profits will be promoted to the pinnacles of corporate management, while those more interested in personal comfort at the expense of the stockholders will be passed over. Admittedly, none of these three listed influences will totally overcome the dichotomy of interests problem, but as usual, the free market inherently has appropriate motives for efficiency. The final solution to any remaining negatives can and is overcome by the effects of corporate raiders. Corporate raiders--the mis-analyzed and under-appreciated cleansing acid of the corporate community--can be relied on to serve the interests of consumers and efficiency. Any poorly managed firm will, to that degree, be ripe for a buyout by those specializing in profiting by the spread between the actual and the potential value of a firm's assets. Corporate raiders will approach current owners of undervalued assets with the offer of a better price in order for the corporate raider to reap the profits available from a change in management of those assets. A well-managed firm--one whose potential stock value and actual stock value are already in line--will be passed over as a target of a buyout. The problem of owners versus managers is therefore most acute when there is no marketable stock share as in citizens' 'ownership' of government enterprises. Rather than agonizing over for-profit corporation management, the theorists of management abuse of owners should instead direct their attention to government enterprises. [References: Fischel, Daniel - 'Payback: The Conspiracy to Destroy Michael Milken and his Financial Revolution', (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1995) pp. 9 -39; Friedman, Milton - 'From Galbraith to Economic Freedom', (West Sussex, Great Britain: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1977) pp. 16 - 29; Hoppe, Hans-Hermann - 'Why Socialism Must Fail,' in 'The Free Market Reader' edited by Llewellyn Rockwell, (Burlingame, California: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1988) pp. 244 - 249; Mises, Ludwig von - 'Bureaucracy', (New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House Publishers, 1969) pp. 40 - 53; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Man, Economy, and State', (Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, 1970) pp. 508 - 509; Taylor, John - 'Storming the Magic Kingdom', (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc: 1987) pp. 243 - 248.]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30396] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 17. Market vs. Government Provision of Goods: Its often heard that government is not as efficient as business. This is not a knee-jerk ideological reaction. It is grounded in the real differences of the incentives facing government and private enterprises. In the market, a private enterprise is dependent on the flow of consumer dollars into the organization for its success. Thus a tight link exists between consumer satisfaction and business success. In contrast, a government enterprise has a second source of income available to it--tax revenues. With an alternate source of income to support it, a government enterprise will necessarily have a lesser incentive in serving consumers. Realize, this is not a matter of good people in management of private enterprises and bad people in management of government enterprises, but a different incentive structure in the two arenas. Most people attempt to please their bosses on the job as a means of generating an income. Winning the lottery often reveals the employee's true underlying attitude toward working at the behest of the boss. Government enterprises have won the lottery, so to speak, and thus treat the consumer not as the end all and be all for the organization but as a nuisance interfering in the peace and tranquility of the day. Additionally, many government enterprises hold a legal monopoly relieving them of the fear of loss of customers to rivals, unlike private enterprises in a free market. An easy example to illustrate these points is the U. S. Postal monopoly. With tax dollars available to make up for any shortfalls from consumer-derived revenues, the Post Office can afford to treat its customers as an unwanted interference. The Post Office is notorious for its lack of innovations. For instance, while private enterprises in the free market offer customers bags in which to secure their purchases (even in the case of minimally priced purchases) the Post Office does not bother to stock and offer bags to its customers regardless of the value of what they buy. Advertisements in your Sunday newspaper will typically offer return address labels with a more expensive peel off option as well as a cheaper lick and stick option. Stamps until quite recently were lick and stick only. Why should the Post Office go to such trouble when the taxpayers make up losses and it's illegal for others to deliver first class mail? Federal Express began offering urgent overnight delivery years before the Post Office. Why should the Post Office take chances on such innovations which may or may not pan out? Fast food restaurants, banks, dry cleaners, liquor stores and other businesses offer drive-in service. But again, why should the Post Office take chances on such innovations which may or may not succeed? But, the grand example which clearly illustrates these differences is late Fall with the approach of the Christmas buying season. While businesses take out ads virtually begging customers to shop with them--even late in the season--the Post Office is haranguing the hapless public to 'mail early!' In effect, what the Post Office is spending money to do is to tell their potential customers not to bring their damned Christmas cards in for delivery at an inconvenient time. Customer satisfaction takes a back seat to the convenience of the Postal organization. A further approach to these issues can be delineated as five significant differences between the two means of providing for consumers. First, the market provision of goods is based on a voluntary relationship between firm and customer. Government provision of goods is based on a coerced relationship between enterprise and customer. This difference alone is all the difference in the world as far as consumer satisfaction is concerned. It is the difference between employment and slavery, charity and robbery, seduction and rape. A summary statement concerning market provision of goods is the well-know phrase, 'the customer is always right.' Notice there is no such similar phrase 'the voter is always right', or 'the taxpayer is always right' in describing the attitude of government enterprises. Second, in the market there is proportional representation; that is, consumers get the goods they 'vote' for in proportion to their 'votes.' If ten percent demand green cars then ten percent will get green cars. With government provision it's a winner takes all deal; either we all have the Social Security program or none of us have it, regardless of our preferences. Third, in the market there are small individual choices. Just because you buy a Sears refrigerator does not mean you then have to buy a Sears washer and dryer and tv, etc. With government provision, there is a package deal arrangement. Mixing and matching is unavailable with government provision of goods. It's either Bill Clinton's policies on taxes, the environment, and foreign policy or it's Bob Dole's policies on these issues. Fourth, choice in the market is continual. One can replace unsatisfactory goods at any time. Tired of the car you thought would be so great? Sell it and get a different model. No longer happy with your detergent, buy a different brand. Realize the first brand was good after all? Re-replace it at your discretion. Now compare this to government. Want to drop out of the Social Security program--go to jail. Tired of the president. Four more years. And fifth, a private firm is held liable for damages to those it may harm. Suing companies for compensation is the norm. Government enterprises often enjoy 'sovereign immunity,' placing them above reproach (an ill carried forward to America from the European theory that the king could do no wrong). Government enterprises can and do wreak havoc with peoples' lives without suffering any financial consequences. In a real sense it is dangerous to have government enterprises providing consumer goods since an absence of potential liability will result in a reduced emphasis on safety. Private firms facing potential liabilities for their damages have a financial incentive to be safe. [References: Friedman, Milton - 'From Galbraith to Economic Freedom', (West Sussex, Great Britain: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1977); McConnell, Campbell R. - 'Economics' 13th edition, (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1996) pp. 622 - 625; Mises, Ludwig von - 'Bureaucracy', (New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House Publishers, 1969) pp. 40 - 53; Mises, Ludwig von - 'Human Action', (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1966) pp. 303 - 311; Rockwell, Llewellyn H. - 'Why Bureaucracy Must Fail' in 'The Economics of Liberty' edited by Llewellyn Rockwell, (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1990) pp. 119 - 123; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature', (Washington, D.C.: New Libertarian Review Press, 1974) pp. 81 - 87.]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30397] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 18. Market vs. Command Economy: There are two polar opposite approaches to an economy's operation. The command economy is the top-down, centrally-planned economy of socialism. The market economy is the decentralized economy of the free market. The most fundamental distinction between the two is the existence of private property in the free market and the absence of private property in the command economy. The alleged virtue of the command economy is that it is planned in contrast to the unplanned market economy. The error in this view is that the market economy is actually very rationally planned by means of consumer demand through the price system. Additionally, for four reasons the command economy will be deficient. First, an attempt to plan an entire economy by a central committee is bound to be inefficient just because the task is so large. There is no way that a committee of say, 300 planners can know the needs, conditions of resource availability, and localized knowledge spread throughout an economy. Second, the command economy ultimately rests on coercion as its means of motivation. Socialists will typically claim that the resort to coercion (the Berlin Wall, Russian gulags, etc.) is not part of their system, but only an unfortunate bad choice in political leaders and that socialism only attempts to control the economy, not people's individual liberties. But, of course the main element in an economic system is in fact people; therefore controlling an economy is first and foremost control of people--the Berlin Wall was no peculiar misfortune. Suffice it to say further that human motivation is diminished when coerced. Third, the command economy is a collectivized system. All work for the benefit of their quotal share of total production. Individual incentives are absent. As an example, with 100 workers in an economy each will receive 1/100 of total production. If one worker shirks, his loss is only 1/100 of the production he otherwise would have generated. (Imagine the incentives when this system is broadened to a nation of 200 million!) Each ends up attempting to live at the expense of others and total production plummets. And fourth, the incentive of production is to please the political authorities who have life and death control over the workers. In contrast to the market, where production is predicated on consumer demand, the consumer is the forgotten being in a command economy. [References: Barron, John - 'Mig Pilot', (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980); Friedman, Milton & Rose - 'Free to Choose', (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1979) pp. 9 - 37, 54 - 69; Hayek, F. A. - 'The Fatal Conceit', (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988); Rand, Ayn - 'Atlas Shrugged', (New York: Random House, 1957) pp. 660 - 670; Roberts, Paul Craig and Karen LaFollette - 'Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy', (Washington, D.C.: The Cato Institute, 1990); Steele, David Ramsay - 'From Marx to Mises, (LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company, 1992) pp. 255 - 294.]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30398] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 19. Free Trade vs. Protectionism: Economists of all schools recognize the value of free trade: greater overall production. This greater production is due to the freedom of each producer to specialize in that line where he or she has a natural advantage. The natural advantage of each trading partner results from the differences among people and locations. A major reason the U.S. economy is as productive as it is, is that there is a large geographic area of free trade (the U.S. Constitution wisely prohibits protectionist tariffs and quotas among the various states). Adam Smith enunciated the principle that it is foolish to produce at home that which can be obtained more cheaply abroad. This is true not only literally of the home, but of the county, state, region and country as well. This emphasizes that there is no distinction between trade and international trade in principle--one 'exports' his labor to 'import' goods consumed, as it is a cheaper means of obtaining goods than producing the consumed goods directly. Despite the value of free trade there are continuous calls for disruption of an international division of labor by way of taxes on imports (tariffs) and numerical limitations on imports (quotas). Such arguments are ultimately special interest pleadings advanced for the sake of a transfer of income to the special interest at the expense of the rest of the economy. Henry George summarized the fallacy of protectionism this way: 'What protection teaches us, is to do to ourselves in time of peace what enemies seek to do to us in time of war.' A review of the seven most common protectionist arguments and their rebuttals follows: Military Self-Sufficiency: This argument claims that some vital military goods may be unavailable from other countries in time of war and therefore a viable domestic industry is necessary for defense. A true concern with such a scenario, however, can be dealt with by means of stockpiling the needed goods. Such a stockpiling program would leave the consumer still free to shop the world and not disrupt the international division of labor. One must suspect many such arguments when those making the argument are the very firms supplying those goods. Examples in recent U.S. experience include even wool socks and steel--goods with easy substitutes and existing viable U.S. production. Further, a program of reducing taxes and regulations would allow continued viable U.S. production. As is so often the case, any concerns should recognize the violence done to the U.S. economy by current policies and the fact that it is economically more efficient and just to reduce, not compound government interference in the market. Protection of Domestic Industry: The fallacy of such claims is that the protection of any U.S. industry is to that same extent a detriment to other U.S. industries. Protectionism against steel imports, for example, harms American firms which use steel as an input in their production process--auto, washing machine manufacturers, all firm's transportation expenses, etc. Employment Protection: As Milton Friedman has stated, 'we work to live, we do not live to work.' The concern should be with our production, not its means--employment. Tariffs and quotas to protect American employment reduce our standard of living as we engage in lines of production that are not the most efficient in providing for ourselves. The move to free trade which would reconfigure employment patterns in the U.S. would not be necessary except for the artificial pattern currently existing due to those tariffs and quotas. In other words, the loss of employment in certain lines of work which would undeniably occur with a movement to free trade are due to the current absence of free trade. These particular jobs would not have been created in the U.S. if policy had been one of free trade in the first place. [Once inefficient work is not protected, more efficient productive employment patterns would emerge.] Diversification for Stability: Though this argument has little application to the U.S. economy, it is often used for say, Chile, which is heavily dependent on copper exports. The fallacy is that Chile has a strong advantage in copper production and to forcibly diversify would be to pay dearly in opportunity costs. Individual entrepreneurs should make these decisions according to their own assessments. (On an individual basis this may be like cautioning a surgeon to find other means of making a living. While this would offer protection against the risks of being unable to perform as a surgeon the lost income in pursuing say, training as a lawyer would be vast.) Infant Industry: Again this is not a currently fashionable argument for modern day America. But the basic notion of protecting new industries competing with established foreign firms until they can 'mature' and compete toe-to-toe is still false. In effect, this suggests the substitution of government officials' judgment for that of private investors. A truly viable firm can find investors who will be willing to absorb losses--as a form of investment--for the sake of the future profits to be earned. This is in fact routine in the market as most new businesses or products earn losses in the early stages yet investors still see merit in such investments. The fact that such firms are not currently successful in attracting investors voluntarily is strong evidence that there are no future profits to be earned. Whose judgment would be superior: private investors with their own money to lose or government officials with no personal financial stake in the outcome? If in fact this was a truly valid argument for protectionism, it would logically be applicable not just to domestic firms competing with established foreign firms but to domestic firms competing with established domestic firms--a special tax on NBC programs for the sake of newcomer FOX, for example? Dumping: There are two versions of dumping. The first is selling products abroad at lower prices than at home. But this is to be expected. Buyers are normally more loyal to domestically produced goods (all other things held constant of course) than to foreign made goods. The only way to successfully sell to foreigners is therefore with price concessions. (Because of this loyalty factor, it would be strange if dumping was not the norm.) A second version of dumping is a subsidy to firms to sell abroad. Naturally, American firms complain about such practices by other nations. (And this is not to say that American firms receive no such subsidies--as special interests using the power of government for their own financial gain, it is common.) If other countries do subsidize their sales in the U.S. then they are making a gift to American consumers. While this is not wise for the sake of the economy doing the subsidizing, it is not right to correct the situation by punishing the American consumer with tariffs and quotas. A consitent application of a prohibition of gifts would prohibit samples! The analogy often cited in other countries resorting to this form of dumping is to consider each economy to be a man in a lifeboat. The lifeboat is the overall standard of living in the world. If one person in the lifeboat foolishly takes out a gun a fires a hole into the bottom of the boat, the last thing others should do is to retaliate likewise with additional blasts to the boat bottom! Compounding mistakes is not a solution. Cheap Foreign Labor: This argument claims that American workers should not have to compete unfairly with low paid foreigners. (Everyone comes up with some reason to except themselves from free competition; low paid foreign workers claim it is unfair for them to have to compete with high skilled American workers!) As do all protectionist arguments this one violates the principle of not producing at home that which can be obtained more cheaply abroad. Besides this self-interest argument against protectionism, it is anything but humane to call for sacrificing the living conditions of already poor foreigners to that of relatively very wealthy American workers. [References: Bovard, James - 'The Fair Trade Fraud', (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991); Friedman, Milton & Rose - 'Free to Choose', (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1979) pp. 38 - 54; Friedman, Milton - 'Bright Promises, Dismal Performance', (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, 1983) pp. 357 - 372; Hazlitt, Henry - 'Economics in One Lesson', (Norwalk, Connecticut: Arlington House, Inc., 1976) pp. 74 - 89; Roberts, Russell D. - 'The Choice', (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1994); Taylor, Joan Kennedy, editor - 'Free Trade: The Necessary Foundation for World Peace', (Irvington-on-Hudson, New York: 1986)]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30399] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 20. Money: As did language and customs, money evolved--evolved from the process of trade in barter (trading goods directly for goods). It did not arise via vote or social contract or government decree. (This last statement may seem in conflict with the current experience wherein fiat money--money by government decree--is the norm. Is this not an exception to money arising from a good in trade? No. The brilliant 'regression theorem' of Ludwig von Mises demonstrates the original truth: If one regresses through the history of our money it can be seen that the value of our fiat money is based upon the commodity value of gold. The U.S. dollar was severed from gold in the international arena in 1971 and in the domestic arena in 1933. Prior to these dates U.S. dollars were redeemable in gold at $35 and $20 to the ounce, respectively. Without the experience of full gold redeemability a paper dollar could never have become a money.) Barter however, had the problem of a double coincidence of wants--each party to the trade must have and be willing to trade for that which the other party has and is willing to trade. As barter proceeded it was discovered by the traders themselves that certain goods were more readily accepted in trade than other goods, thus making those more readily accepted goods even more readily accepted in trade. A snowball effect took place. As this good became a standard in trade because of its widespread acceptance the problem of a double coincidence of wants was solved as money became half of all trades. Having a money--a medium of exchange--facilitated trade and complex business arrangements. This effectively means money is important for human progress comparable to the wheel and fire. Money makes possible comparisons of value--a shirt can be bought for 1 gram of gold, and a camera for 5 grams of gold, for instance. Having a common denominator measure of value engendered profit and loss assessment; without money one would have to list the entire period's exchanges under barter resulting in a huge array of exchanges with no common value. Lastly, money serves as a store of value, carrying value comparisons over time, lengthening the time horizon available in carrying out productive work. Notice that to the degree an economy suffers from inflation, money is a poorer gauge, distorting value comparisons, undermining it as a store of value and ultimately--during hyperinflation--failing as the medium of exchange as traders revert to a barter relationship. [References: Mises, Ludwig von - 'Human Action', (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1966) 408 - 412; Paul, Ron - 'Ten Myths About Paper Money', (Lake Jackson, Texas: The Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, 1983); Rand, Ayn - 'Atlas Shrugged', (New York: Random House, 1957) 410 - 415; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Man, Economy, and State', (Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, 1970) pp. 231 - 237; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'What Has Government Done to Our Money?', (Auburn, Alabama: Praxeology Press, 1990) pp. 15 - 63; Sutton, Anthony - 'The War on Gold', (Seal Beach, California: '76 Press, 1977)]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30400] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 21. Inflation: Inflation results from an increase in the money supply. The traditional definition is 'a rise in the general price level,' but this is actually an effect, not the cause. Most economists have given up trying to explain the difference in common discussion, partly because most people see the world through 'Keynesian-colored glasses.' Keynesian theory says there can't be inflation caused by an increase in the money supply (or from any other cause other than supply shocks reducing total supply) at the same time that there is unemployment. Any increase in the money supply, they say, will not cause inflation--it will just put people to work, not cause prices to go up. The theory of inflation as an increase in the money supply, causing prices to go up, is consistent with basic supply and demand analysis. When there is an increase in the supply of a good, the value of each unit has got to go down. It is consistent with the law of diminishing marginal utility. It is consistent with our history--inflation in the United States has occurred at the same time that the money supply has increased (likewise in other countries). A point that has been grossly underemphasized in economic theory is that people steal through the money system, and inflation is a means of doing that--by creating more new money, the value of everyone's existing money is undermined to the benefit of those receiving the newly created money. These would be the Federal Reserve first, then the banks, the government when it borrows the money from them, and so on down the line to the point where the dollar is worth much less when it gets to the average citizen. Inflation, then, is a result of special interest influence. Stealing through the money supply is done today through the esoteric Federal Reserve System's open market purchases and fractional reserve banking. (The third way of stealing through the money supply is appropriately illegal--counterfeiting--but is in principle no different.) Thus Keynes's famous quote of Lenin is entirely correct: ‘Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, nor surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.’ The Federal Reserve's modern method of stealing through the money system is the parallel to the less sophisticated older means. The two primary former means were coin clipping and debasement. Coin clipping was the practice of filing the outer edge off a gold or silver coin and passing it on as if it still contained its full face value weight while keeping the filings as an ill-gotten gain. Mill marks on coins (tread on the outer edge) were used as protection against such stealing. Debasement is passing on a coin with all of the same look of a full weight of precious metal but with a cheaper base metal in place of the valuable precious metal. As can readily be verified, current U.S. coinage (properly called 'tokens' not coins) has been totally devalued--the silver in a pre-1965 quarter is worth more than 1/4 of a dollar, and the zinc and copper in a post-1964 quarter is worth less than 1/4 dollar. These 'coins' are made of cheap metals such as zinc and copper and the mill marks are there only out of nostalgia or attempted deceit! The effect of this increase in the money supply is an increase in prices in general, but this is not the most troublesome effect of inflation. More problematic is the effect on morality as people realize hard work and saving are self-defeating, and the generation of the boom-bust of the business cycle due to the distortion of relative prices. [References: Alford, Tucker - 'Fiat Paper Money: Tyranny's Credit Card' in 'The Free Market Reader' edited by Llewellyn Rockwell, (Burlingame, California: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1988) pp. 105 - 108; Hazlitt, Henry - 'The Inflation Crisis and How to Resolve It', (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1983) pp. 138 - 143; Katz, Howard - 'The Paper Aristocracy', (New York: Books in Focus, Inc, 1976) pp. 5 - 60; Mises, Ludwig von - 'Economic Policy', (South Bend, Indiana: Regnery/Gateway, Inc., 1979) pp. 55 - 74; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'What has Government Done to Our Money?', (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1990) pp. 38 - 44; Sennholz, Hans - 'The Age of Inflation', (Belmont, Massachusetts: Western Islands, 1979)]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30401] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 22. The Gold Standard: A number of different goods have been used as money across the globe and human history--sea shells, cows, cigarettes, beer, cabbage, tobacco, beads, etc.--but the most commonly used money has been the precious metals of gold and silver. Such goods arose as a money not by democratic election or government fiat but by the free interaction of consumers in the market. Money serves as a medium of exchange facilitating trade, a measure of value and as a store of value. The qualities that made gold and silver the first choice in money over the numerous others are inherent in the precious metals and is comparable to using cotton for shirts and ceramics for coffee cups. Just as cotton has the qualities which make it a good material for shirts--light weight, breathability, washability, etc.--and ceramic has the qualities which make it a good material for coffee mugs--insulation, non-leaking, etc., gold is a good material for money. Gold has four qualities in the right combination to be money. These qualities are: durability--a 100 year old coin is still recognizable and functional as a coin; widespread acceptance--people the world over value gold; high value per unit--1 ounce of gold is worth about $350 today; and divisibility--cutting an ounce of gold in half results in 2 fully gold 1/2 ounces. Other goods which have been used as money do not have the same mix of qualities as fully appropriate as does gold. Thus, gold as money is all quite rational, logical and reasonable in contrast to J. M. Keynes's famous edict that 'gold is a barbarous relic.' Ironically, it is the current chairman of the Federal Reserve System, Alan Greenspan, who enunciated the correct view on the animosity toward gold in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal: ‘An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense--perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire--that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.’ p. 96 One of the claims against a gold standard money--currency units denominated in a weight of gold with gold coins circulating and paper currency fully redeemable upon demand--is that it is silly to mine gold from the earth only to rebury much of it in bank vaults and incur significant costs in the process--unfortunately, Milton Friedman is in this camp. These critics claim that it would be much less expensive to just establish a pure paper money standard. While this claim is true as stated, it does not recognize the costs that are generated. A gold standard puts a check on the creation of money since all paper and credit must be redeemable in actual gold bullion or coin. The problem with a paper money standard is that there is no way to stop the creation of ever greater quantities of money once the authority to do so is granted. As an analogy, it could be claimed that it is silly to go to all of the trouble and expense of making locks out of hard metal when paper locks would be cheaper! But of course the reason for metal locks is that thieves will not be deterred by the paper locks and refrain from theft. Nor will those in authority of money creation refrain from the theft inherent in additional paper money creation. Contrary to the notion that unlike a paper money supply, gold cannot be readily created in mass quantities and therefore is undesirable, this in fact is one of the major virtues of gold! In a choice between the integrity of politicians and the stability of gold, George Bernard Shaw is reported to have advised: 'With all due respect to those gentlemen, I advise the voter to vote for gold.' Yet another ridiculous claim against gold is that the price of gold is too volatile--having run up from $70 in the early 1970's to $850 in 1980 and now selling in 1995 at $350. But this line of analysis exactly reverses the true cause and effect. Gold in terms of paper dollars soared in the late 1970's due to the growing distrust in the paper money when inflation hit double-digits. With the disinflation of the 1980's fears subsided and the price of gold declined. Gold is seen as the safe haven, the hedge against inflation. The actual volatility was in the confidence of the paper dollar; the price of gold in terms of those dollars was an effect. An additional commonly cited claim against gold as money is that our economy would be at the mercy of the world's major gold producers--Russia and South Africa. What this argument conveniently overlooks is that the annual production of these two countries is tiny compared to the existing stock of gold. Additionally, it is costly to mine gold and will be done only if the price is high enough to warrant the costs. But increasing production of gold reduces the price, thereby undermining the intended outcome of a country hell-bent on overproduction. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume both countries do engage in mass production to whatever degree possible and 'flood' the world with gold. Is this something to be upset about? After all, gold is a valuable commodity in industry and for consumers--would this be such a tragedy? I'll worry about this in the same way I lose sleep worrying that Russia may massively produce oil or wheat thereby reducing my cost of driving and eating! One last claim against gold is that there just is not enough gold to reestablish the U.S. dollar's redeemability. It is true that the number of paper and credit dollars created has been so vast that there is not enough gold to redeem dollars at the original rate of $20 to the ounce. But, we can recognize reality and reestablish the dollar at an appropriate rate of approximately $2000 to the ounce. Murray N. Rothbard has proposed just such a program in The Mystery of Banking: '1. That the dollar be defined as 1/1696 gold ounce. 2. That the Fed take the gold out of Fort Knox and the other Treasury depositories, and that the gold then be used (a) to redeem outright all Federal Reserve Notes, and (b) to be given to the commercial banks, liquidating in return all their deposit accounts at the Fed...I propose that the most convenient definition is one that will enable us, at one and the same time as returning to a gold standard, to denationalize gold and to abolish the Federal Reserve System.’ [References: Greenspan, Alan - 'Gold and Economic Freedom' in 'Capitalism the Unknown Ideal' edited by Ayn Rand, (New York: New American Library, 1967) pp. 96 - 101; Hazlitt, Henry - 'The Failure of the New Economics', (New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House, 1959) pp. 153 - 155; Katz, Howard - 'The Paper Aristocracy', (New York: Books in Focus, 1976) pp. 5 - 18; Paul, Ron - 'The Case for Gold', (Washington, D. C.: The Cato Institute, 1982); Rockwell, Llewellyn, editor - 'The Gold Standard', (Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1985); Rothbard, Murray N. - 'The Mystery of Banking', (New York: Richardson and Snyder, 1983) pp. 263 - 269.]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30402] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 23. The Federal Reserve System: The Federal Reserve is the third central banking system in the U. S. The first two, called the First Bank of the United States and the Second Bank of the United States, were chartered for the periods of 1792 - 1812 and 1816 - 1836, respectively. The bank panic of 1907 motivated the major banking interests to assure that such difficulties would not plague them in the future. In 1910 a group of such bankers, pretending to be on a duck hunting trip to Jekyll Island, Georgia, designed the future central bank. After supporting the banking bill they had designed, it was defeated in Congress by suspicious rural and midwestern Congressmen. So biding their time, they had the bill reintroduced--with a different title but now with their feigned opposition. In 1913, while many members of Congress were on Christmas break, the remaining 'in's' passed the Federal Reserve Act and rushed it over for Woodrow Wilson's signature on December 23rd. Although the Fed was established by an act of Congress it is a privately owned--by banks in the twelve districts--organization which can be found in the white pages of your phone book. The Federal Reserve System thus had its origin in underhanded dealings at the behest of the special interests of bankers. The point of the Fed was to authorize a central bank which could generate an elastic money supply in time of bankers's needs. In other words, it allows them to create money out of thin air without suffering the consequences of another panic or bank run. The Fed was thus created as a cartelizing agency for banks the same as the I.C.C. was for railroads, and the C.A.B. for airlines. In addition, the Fed is an outlet for the sale of government bonds--government debt--and thus facilitates the deficit financing of the federal government. The Fed coordinates the inflationary practices of banks, keeping each from the pressures of note redemption which would otherwise keep their artificial money creation in check. Since the founding of the Fed in 1913 the value of the dollar has fallen by more than 90%! So much for the conventional wisdom alleging that the Fed leads the fight against inflation. Creation of the Fed should be understood as an important step in a number of steps in the undermining of an honest money based on gold. Other steps in this process include the legal tender laws; the shift from Federal Reserve Notes redeemable in gold, to redeemability in gold or lawful money, to redeemability in lawful money only, to no redeemability at all; replacement of all bank notes with Federal Reserve Notes; abandonment of the gold standard domestically in 1933; and abandonment of the gold standard internationally in 1971. Since the Federal Reserve Notes in your wallet are not redeemable in gold or anything else, it must be asked: In what sense are they notes? A note is a promise to pay. The Fed promises to pay nothing more than another promise to pay! [References: Paul, Ron - 'The Case for Gold', (Washington, D. C.: The Cato Institute, 1982); Rockwell, Llewellyn, editor - 'The Fed', (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1993); Rockwell, Llewellyn, editor - 'The Real Secrets of the Temple' in 'The Free Market Reader' edited by Llewellyn Rockwell, (Burlingame, California: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1988); pp. 116 - 122; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'The Case Against the Fed', (Aubrun, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1994); Rothbard, Murray N. - 'The Mystery of Banking', (New York: Richardson & Snyder, 1983); Schiff, Irwin - 'The Biggest Con: How the Government is Fleecing You', (Camden, Connecticut: Freedom Books, 1976) pp. 254 - 289.]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30403] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 24. The Business Cycle: The business cycle is the recurring prosperity and depression seen over economic history. Before the modern age of advanced industrialism the prosperity could be accounted for by events such as good weather yielding bountiful crops or the spoils of war from a military victory. Likewise, depression could be accounted for by harsh weather resulting in poor crops or from a military defeat. In each case the causes were fairly evident. The modern business cycle, however, needs a more sophisticated explanation as it is a more complex phenomenon. Marxists believed that business cycles were the inevitable collapsing of capitalism, but this theory can be discarded since capitalism has not collapsed though socialism has. Keynesians account for the business cycle by an appropriate level of spending (prosperity) or underspending (depression) but have been baffled by the simultaneous occurrence of both inflation and depression--a condition their theory treats as being as likely as a square circle. The Friedmanite monetarists appropriately look to the money supply as the causal factor in the business cycle though they fail to realize the ill effects of their favored policy of a slow but steady increase in that money supply. (Friedmanites also fail to consider the ethical aspects of such artificial increases in the money supply which create involuntary transfers of wealth.) The correct Austrian theory of the business cycle also focuses on the money supply as the causal factor, but does recognize the intervention in the economy that an artificial increase in money and credit in fact is. Basically, the Austrian theory recognizes that there is some voluntarily chosen ratio of consumption to saving by the total of individuals comprising the economy. When an artificial increase in the money supply through the banks occurs, this increases the available money in savings and depresses the interest rate, thereby encouraging an artificial increase in spending which is highly sensitive to the interest rate--capital spending. This run-up in the capital goods industry is the boom, and the subsequent depression results when consumers reestablish their consumption to saving ratio--thus revealing that the capital goods boom was indeed artificial. The only way to prevent the depression is to pump another dose of new money into the system to maintain the higher savings ratio, but eventually this must end or there will be a runaway inflation. The artificial increase in the money supply therefore is a government subsidy--through monetary policy--to the capital goods industry. Naturally the subsidy stimulates production in the capital goods industry. Once that subsidy is removed by consumers reestablishing their preferred saving ratio, there is a crash in the capital goods industry. The Austrians, in contrast to all other schools of thought, do not regard the depression as bad news, for it is the necessary correction to put production back in line with consumers' preferences. This view regards the preceding inflation as the ill setting the stage for the needed correction. Two analogies follow to clarify this theory: Everyone understands that a drug addict will need higher and higher doses of his drug to get the same kick. This is comparable to the growth in the money supply causing a capital goods industry boom. The addict has the choice of increasing his doses of his drug until it kills him or of going cold turkey and suffering the withdrawal pains. The withdrawal pains are similar to the economy's depression adjustment. Second analogy: If a person ingests poison into his system he will need to rid himself of that poison, say through vomiting. It's obvious that the unpleasant vomiting is the necessary cure for the evil of the poison ingestion. In this analogy the poison is the inflation and the vomiting the depression. From the Austrian perspective the cure for the business cycle is a laissez-faire policy for the money supply, letting the money supply be determined by the free choice of individuals in the market. The alternative to this Austrian policy is government involvement in money and banking which inevitably results in special interest pressure to increase the money supply to the benefit of those first receiving the new money--the banking system itself. [Rererences: Brown, Susan, et. al. - 'The Incredible Bread Machine', (San Diego: World Research, Inc. 1974) pp. 30 - 33; Browne, Harry - 'New Profits from the Monetary Crisis', (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1978) pp. 40 - 52; Ebeling, Richard - 'The Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle and Other Essays', (Burlingame, California: The Center for Libertarian Studies, 1983); Mises, Ludwig von - 'On the Manipulation of Money and Credit', (Dobbs Ferry, New York: Free Market Books, 1978) pp. 57 - 107; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'America's Great Depression', (Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, 1972) pp. 11 - 77; Skousen, Mark - 'The Structure of Production', (New York: New York University Press, 1990)]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30404] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 25. Black Tuesday: October 29, 1929 is the day the stock market crashed and is commonly viewed as the day that the Great Depression started. The usual explanation for this crash are theories such as overinvestment, an imbalance in the distribution of income and hence a lack of consumption spending, or just a crack-up of the free market. The overinvestment theory is not fundamental enough to be meaningful--one must ask: What caused the overinvestment itself? The imbalance of income and lack of consumption spending is not only an irrelevancy but also factually incorrect--consumption increased from 73% of GNP in 1925 to 75% in 1929. Quoting Rothbard in America's Great Depression: ‘If underconsumption were a valid explanation of any crisis, there would be depression in the consumer goods industries, where surpluses pile up, and at least relative prosperity in the producers' goods industries. Yet, it is generally admitted that it is the producers' not the consumers' goods industries that suffer most during a depression. Underconsumptionism cannot explain this phenomenon... Every crisis is marked by mal investment and under-saving, not underconsumption.’ p. 58 The failure of the free market is wrong theoretically and historically. The U.S. was not a free market economy; interventions in the economy abounded most importantly in the form of a centralized banking system. In addition, subsidies, income taxes, regulations, tariffs and creation of money out of thin air by the governmentally established central banking system were exceptions to a genuinely free market economy. The events that did cause the stock market crash are the deliberations relating to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff (which became law in June 1930) being considered by the interventionist Congress beginning in March 1929. (On May 5th 1,028 economists signed a petition asking Hoover not to sign the tariff.) If one tracks the day to day news regarding the tariff--as has been done by Jude Wanniski--the pattern is that the stock market dropped every time it appeared the tariff would be imposed and rallied every time it appeared that the tariff would be defeated. And it became clear the tariff would indeed pass on Monday, October 28th, destroying vast value in stock market shares which then revealed itself when the exchanges opened the next day. You may wonder how a law enacted in June could cause an event the previous October. One of the determinants of demand for a good (including a stock share) is expectations. The expectations of a severe tariff to be placed on imports reduced the demand for stock shares. The reason an import tariff would reduce the value of an American firm's stock is that investors could understand that the likely result of American tariffs on imports would be a reduction in exports. Quoting from the economists' petition: ‘Countries cannot permanently buy from us unless they are permitted to sell to us, and the more we restrict the importation of goods from them by means of even higher tariffs, the more we reduce the possibility of our exporting to them...’ In other words, trade is a two way street and a barrier stops the traffic in both directions. Additionally, retaliatory tariffs by other countries would further destroy American export sales which would reduce profits of those same American firms. Also, high import tariffs would increase American firms' costs since many were buying foreign products as inputs in their manufacturing processes; again reducing the asset value of the firm. [References: Anderson, Benjamin - 'Economics and the Public Welfare', (Indianapolis, Indiana, 1979) pp. 192 - 204; Brown, Susan, et. al. - 'The Incredible Bread Machine', (San Diego, California: World Research Inc, 1974) pp. 29 - 43; Mises, Ludwig von - 'On the Manipulation of Money and Credit', (Dobbs Ferry, New York: Free Market Books, 1978) pp. 57 - 107; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'America's Great Depression', (Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, 1963) pp. 56 - 58; Temin, Peter - 'Did Monetary Forces Cause the Great Depression?', (New York: Norton & Company, 1976) pp. 4 and 32; Wanniski, Jude - 'The Way the World Works', (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983) pp. 139 - 151]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30405] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 26. The Great Depression: The Great Depression, as with previous and subsequent downturns in the economy, was brought on by an artificial increase in the money supply, in this case engineered by the Federal Reserve during the 1920's. The increased money supply resulted in an artificially low interest rate and stimulated investment in capital projects--in particular the stock market and real estate. The necessary adjustment began in 1929 as such malinvestments were being liquidated and production was once again shifting to that based on genuine consumer demand. Unfortunately, unlike many previous downturns, this one was fought tooth and nail by the Hoover administration thus turning it into the GREAT depression. Hoover's first intervention thwarting the needed adjustment was in calling in the major industrialists of the day and extracting guarantees of continued high wages for their employees on the faulty theory that high wages cause prosperity (rather than prosperity causing high wages). Also, the Smoot-Hawley tariff signed by Hoover in June 1930 resulted in a 50% tariff wall against trade with other countries thereby interrupting the international division of labor. In 1932 Hoover managed an increase in the income tax from a top rate of 25% to 64%, further burdening a weakened economy. Hoover was thus no laissez-faire champion. Additionally, the feds created a new agency to prop up failing large businesses with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in 1930. As Hoover stated in 1932: 'I have waged the most gigantic program of economic defense and counter-attack ever evolved in the history of the Republic.' Rather than allowing the recovery to proceed, the federal government took numerous measures which prolonged the conditions and prevented the much needed recovery. Against this massive series of interventions, the Democrats offered a candidate for president committed to reduced intervention, lower taxes, less federal spending and maintenance of the gold standard. Unfortunately, once in office Franklin Roosevelt governed very differently than he had campaigned. Within a month gold had been confiscated from the American people upon penalty of a ten year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine. The dollar was devalued by 40%, and the National Industrial Recovery Administration was established to reduce competition and output. The NIRA cartelized industries with councils establishing codes for minimum prices, including minimum wages, the net effect of which was to increase business costs by 50%. In addition, the Agricultural Adjustment Act authorized crop destruction as a way to boost farm prices (reducing output during time of need is surely among the most heartless acts one could imagine!). Fortunately, the Supreme Court began finding much of this central planning for favored businesses unconstitutional in 1935 and these offensive programs were ended. But Roosevelt was not through with his social engineering. In 1937 an undistributed profits tax was signed, Securities and Exchange regulations were increased and the Wagner Act of 1935 went into effect. The Wagner Act undermined free labor relations, empowered unions and generated greater misery for those in search of employment. Also, Roosevelt brought back a less constitutionally offensive version of the Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1936 and 1938. In 1937-38 the economy experienced a sharp drop as the first known depression within a depression occurred. To further compound the misery, the Wage and Hours Act became law in 1938. This act mandated 48 hour pay while reducing the workweek to 40 hours, thereby increasing business costs and limiting the freedom of labor to contract. The 1930's downturn became the Great Depression because of massive government intervention, the climate of uncertainty all businesses faced as new laws were passed at breakneck speed and then struck down and then reestablished in altered form, higher taxes, mandated costs, and currency manipulation (and this recounting is only a fraction of the innumerable interventions). As Hans Sennholz has stated, 'the 1930's was a case of politics running wild in economic life.' Those economists who blame the Great Depression on the free market are playing wildly loose with the facts; there has been no less free market in so rapid a fashion as there was during this period of American history. When Keynesians say the free market failed and demonstrated the need for widescale government management of the economy they are doing so oblivious to the facts. The two major camps are in effect talking past one another as the free marketeer explains that a free market is stable, only to have the Keynesian respond with a proof to the contrary based on an episode lacking a free market. [References: Anderson, Benjamin M. - 'Economics and the Public Welfare', (Indianapolis, Indiana: LibertyPress, 1949) pp. 224 - 483; Brown, Susan, et. al. - 'The Incredible Bread Machine', (San Diego, California: World Research, Inc, 1974) pp. 30 - 53; Hospers, John - 'Libertarianism', (Santa Barbara, California: Reason Press, 1971) pp. 335 - 344; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'America's Great Depression', (Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, Inc., 1972) pp. 167 - 296; Sennholz, Hans - 'The Great Depression: Will We Repeat It?', (Irvington-on-Hudson, New York: The Foundation For Economic Education, 1993.); Sennholz, Hans - 'The Politics of Unemployment', (Spring Mills, Pennsylvania: Libertarian Press, Inc., 1987)]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30406] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 27. Methodology: The proper methodology--the system of principles, procedures and practices applied to a branch of knowledge--in the social sciences is to begin with self-evident axioms regarding the subject to be studied. (Self-evident meaning a proposition must be true since to deny that proposition one must employ that very proposition itself in the denial, e.g. the axiom of human action cannot be denied with out carrying out the action of the denial!) Economics studies the actions of human beings transforming nature-given scarce resources into usable products. The axioms are therefore that human beings act to pursue ends (or goals) in the face of scarce resources. Therefore by logical deduction, one can begin with the undeniable axioms of purposeful human action and scarcity and proceed. The procession runs from human action and scarcity to choice; realizing from choice the truth of opportunity costs and continuing in like fashion to the entire field of knowledge embodying 'economics.' By this method, economic truths are ascertained as long as there is no break in the chain of logical deductive reasoning. This method is appropriate for the social sciences because in studying human behavior we can understand the motive driving human beings. Notice that this method is inappropriate for the natural sciences which deal with inanimate objects--inanimate objects pursue no ends. In the natural sciences one does not deduce from axioms the next truth, but must ascertain truth by empirical studies. The common mistaken methodological approach is 'positivism' or 'empiricism'--defined as gathering and studying facts. This approach is appropriate for inanimate objects and conscious-less living matter and is often imitated by economists in an attempt to gain a similar prestige of 'serious science' as is held by the hard sciences--physics, astronomy, etc. Among those championing the free market are the economists of the Chicago School; but the Chicago School approach in particular is sometimes known as the 'open the horse's mouth and count teeth' method (the empirical approach). While this is quite appropriate for counting teeth it does not lend itself to the study of goal-directed human action. An example: Let's say we want to know if the law of demand (more will be bought at a lower price and vice versa) is true or false. The empiricist will watch actual sales figures to test the law of demand. But of course a lot of factors other than price influence the quantity demanded. If the study results in a greater quantity demanded at a higher price do we discard the law of demand as false or do we know from logical deduction that it must be true and therefore other factors overwhelmed the influence of the higher price? As stated by Murray N. Rothbard in 'Man, Economy, and State': ‘... in human action, as contrasted with the natural sciences, ideas can be refuted only by other ideas; events themselves are complex resultants which need to be interpreted by correct ideas.’ p. 840 There is no way to carefully control for all variables in such a study of human behavior, and even when done 'thoroughly' one never knows what one does not know--a relevant factor may have been overlooked. Notice further, that the empiricists must have some logic-based theory to go out and test in the first place--one cannot be a pure empiricist gathering every conceivable fact and statistic waiting for a theory to reveal itself. Quoting Rothbard in Individualism and the Philosophy of the Social Sciences: ‘The [mental experiment] is the economist's substitute for the natural scientist's controlled laboratory experiment. Since the relevant variables of the social world cannot actually be held constant, the economist holds them constant in his imagination. Using the tool of verbal logic, he mentally investigates the causal influence of one variable on another.’ p. 38 Deduction from axioms was a common method having been enunciated by John Baptiste Say (Say's Law), Nassau Senior (capital and value theory), John E. Cairnes (the last of the classical economists), Carl Menger (marginal utility analysis), and other major economists over the past 200 years. This method has been neglected only in the last several decades with the rush to positivism. A second aspect of methodology is the individualist perspective. Since it is individuals who act in pursuit of goals, the proper method is to study individual human behavior. This methodological individualism does not preclude group actions; it just reminds us that ultimately the group is composed of individual human beings acting. (The standard definition of economics given is the allocation of scarce resources for use in the satisfaction of society's unlimited wants. Notice the collectivist approach in this definition in contrast to the method described here.) [References: Hayek, F. A. - 'Individualism and Economic Order', (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948) pp. 39 - 91; Hoppe, Hans-Hermann - 'Praxeology and Economic Science', (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1988) pp. 8 - 24; Kirzner, Israel M. - 'On the Method of Austrian Economics' in 'The Foundations of Austrian Economics' edited by Edwin G. Dolan, (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McNeel, 1976) pp. 40 - 51; Littlechild, Stephen C. - 'The Fallacy of the Mixed Economy', (San Francisco: The Cato Institute, 1979) pp. 14 - 20; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Individualism and the Philosophy of the Social Sciences', (San Francisco, California: The Cato Institute, 1978) pp. 19 - 61; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Man, Economy, and State', (Los Angeles: Nash Publishers, 1970) pp. 1 - 60, p. 840]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30407] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 28. Labor Theory of Value: The labor theory of value is the bedrock basis of Marxist or socialist economic theory. Disagreements between the socialist theory and that of the free marketeer can ultimately be traced back to the question of the theory of value. The labor theory of value states that all value is a result of human labor. The theory has a certain initial plausibility since laboring does commonly result in additional value. However, a closer brief analysis reveals the obvious errors in such a theory. If the labor theory of value was correct then a diamond found in a diamond mine would be of no greater value than a rock found right next to it since each would require the same 'amount' of labor-time. A photo of a loved one would have the same value as a photo of a total stranger or of a hated enemy--check your wallets or desktops to test this theory. According to the labor theory of value if you have a slice of pizza for lunch, valued because of the labor-time required to produce it, you must necessarily value the next slice the same. The labor theory of value is a denial of the well-established law of diminishing marginal utility which states that the value to the consumer falls with additional consumption of the good in question. How a true believer Marxist ever justifies ceasing pizza eating is still a mystery. One has to wonder what two Marxists attending a movie do as they leave together. Is each timid in expressing his opinion as to the pleasure or displeasure of the experience since he may disagree with his companion? After all, the movie required the same amount of labor-time in its production. How in this theory can the value of land space, a nature-given resource, ever be explained? According to the labor theory of value, if a skilled carpenter produces a solid, comfortable chair which is useful for decades in a mere four hours, whereas a klutz in four days produces a chair which collapses with the first attempted use, the latter chair is more valuable. (Marx had an escape hatch for this last dilemma: Only 'socially necessary labor' creates value; however, Marx defines socially necessary in terms of the competitive market itself--thus we are right back to the market values Marx so vehemently abhorred!) The labor theory of value resulted from the mistake of David Ricardo, who proceeded from Adam Smith's error in ascribing value to the total costs of production. Marx understandably built on Ricardo's theory and concluded that these costs can be traced back to the costs of labor--capital equipment being 'frozen labor.' The alternate theory, the correct theory of value, is that value is subjective. The subjective theory of value concludes that goods have no inherent value, that goods are valuable only to the degree that there is a valuer desiring the good. Returning to the examples above, the diamond is more valuable because people enjoy a diamond more than a rock, a photo of someone dear is more important to the photo owner than a photo of a stranger. People stop eating pizza after a few slices because the (necessarily subjective) pleasure diminishes with additional consumption; different movies appeal to different patrons' tastes. A working chair is preferred to a pile of chair pieces. More fundamentally, Marx came to his labor theory of value from searching for an equality in the two goods which are exchanged for one another. Of course, Marx thought that the labor embodied in each good was that equality (rather than other factors he first discarded, such as weight, volume, etc.). But the nature of exchange is such that trade only occurs when there is an inequality in the subjective value of the good received and the good exchanged. If equality were indeed the basis of exchange, and say an orange was exchanged for a fish due to the equal amount of labor embodied in each, then logically, the two parties would immediately trade the two goods again since they are still equal in labor. This would become a never ending process until the two traders collapsed dead! As another example, and to test this theory, how many times have you traded a dollar bill for a dollar bill, and then traded them back, and then again? In short, the whole of socialist economic theory is derived from the mistaken labor theory of value--it collapses for lack of a base; the whole of free market economic theory is derived from the solid base of the valid subjective theory of value. [References: Burris, Alan - 'A Liberty Primer', (Rochester, New York: Society for Individual Liberty, 1983) pp. 181 - 182; Hazlitt, Henry - 'Time Will Run Back', (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1986) pp. 166 - 175; Littlechild, Stephen C. - 'The Fallacy of the Mixed Economy', (San Francisco: The Cato Institute, 1979) pp. 11 - 13; North, Gary - 'The Fallacy of Intrinsic Value' in 'Free Market Economics: A Basic Reader' edited by Bettina Bien Greaves, (Irvington-on-Hudson, New York: Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1975) pp. 212 - 221; Nozick, Robert - 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia', (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1974) pp. 259 - 260; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'The Essential Ludwig von Mises', (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1983) pp. 6 - 13]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30408] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 29.The Trade Deficit: There is no such thing as a trade deficit. The nature of trade is such that each party will make an exchange only if the good received is of greater value to the trader than the good surrendered. Therefore, all trade generates a surplus; each party gains from a voluntary transaction. The theory of the trade deficit is a misapplication of accounting to economic theory. In accounting, everything must balance or be equal. For instance, if a firm buys office supplies for $100 it will record the transaction as a debit (or increase) of $100 in its Office Supplies account and as a credit (or decrease) of $100 in its Cash account. Obviously, the only reason the firm would make such a purchase is if it prefers the office supplies to the cash. Unfortunately, this perfectly valid accounting practice has been used in such a way as to obscure the underlying economic phenomenon occurring. With this correct understanding, the trade deficit becomes a non-issue, a meaningless--and false--statistic. Further, historically the U.S. economy has enjoyed prosperity during the most significant trade deficits recorded and has suffered bad times during the largest trade surpluses recorded--in other words, the exact opposite one would expect if the trade deficit were a valid economic statistic warranting concern. The prosperous 1980's showed a growing trade deficit and the most recent trade surplus occurred when the U. S. was experiencing the 1974 - 75 recession. Before that, a trade surplus occurred during the Great Depression of the 1930's. A trade deficit was also the norm during the first 150 years of this country's history--a period of tremendous economic growth. One has to be grateful that trade statistics are not kept between individual states or the eastern and western U. S., for surely one of these designated groups is at all times experiencing a trade deficit! If such statistics were tracked, politicians and special interests would bemoan the fact and attempt to direct government policy to remedy them, in the process robbing the average citizen to the benefit of the special interests. Recently, the hysteria over this phony trade deficit has directed its wrath at Japan. And sure enough, the Japanese have been running a trade surplus with the U. S. What this means in actual reality is that the Japanese have been working to produce goods for Americans at a faster total rate than Americans have been working to produce goods for Japanese. Does that really sound so bad? If so, you are more than welcome to create a massive trade surplus with this author--send the goods on, and I promise not to reciprocate. But further still, the trade statistics for 1990 showed a value of goods from Japan to the U. S. of $93 billion and a value of goods from the U. S. to Japan of $48 billion--a trade deficit for the U. S. with Japan. But hold on. The U. S. population is 250 million while the Japanese population is only 120 million. Therefore, each Japanese is in fact buying more American products ($400) than each American is buying Japanese products ($360). Even by their own standards, there can be no remaining gripe with the Japanese by those so inclined. The trade deficit deserves the same treatment from the economics profession as the theory of the just price, mercantilism, and the labor theory of value--total repudiation. [References: Allen, William R. - 'Midnight Economist: Broadcast Essays', (Ottawa, Illinois: Green Hill Publisher, Inc. 1981) pp. 61 - 62; Mises, Ludwig von - 'Human Action', (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1966) p. 325; North, Gary - 'Tariff War, Libertarian Style' in 'Free Trade: The Necessary Foundation for World Peace' edited by Joan Kennedy Taylor, (Irvington-on-Hudson, New York: Foundation for Economic Education, 1986) pp. 109 - 116; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Man, Economy, and State', (Los Angeles: Nash, 1970) pp. 719 - 722; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Protectionism and the Destruction of Prosperity' in 'The Free Market Reader' edited by Llewellyn Rockwell, (Burlingame, California: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1988) pp. 148 - 161; Wells, Sam - 'The Myth of the Trade Deficit' in 'The Free Market Reader' edited by Llewellyn Rockwell, (Burlingame, California: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1988) pp. 138 - 143]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30409] Need Area: Money > General
"‘The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 30. Economic Class Analysis: The false Marxist theory of economic class analysis is better know today, however, it was derived (in the mid-1800's) from a correct theory of economic class analysis originated by the French intellectuals of the late 1700's. This correct analysis was emulated by James Mill in the English speaking world of the early 1800's in England. Mill's analysis saw the economic classes as the state rulers and those exploited by them. In other words, what American statesman John Calhoun later called the taxpayers and the tax consumers. Marx took the valid theory and (misapplied) it to the relations between employers and the employed. The Marxian version suggests an inherent antagonism between the interests of the owners of the means of production and those who sell their labor to those owners. The truth is that there is a symbiotic relationship between employers and employed--each specializing in their own chosen pursuits (savers and investors in the means of production and laborers selling their labor for current income). [References: Hoppe, Hans-Hermann - 'Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis' in 'Requiem For Marx' edited by Yuri N. Maltsev, (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1993) pp. 51 - 73; Mises, Ludwig von - 'The Clash of Group Interests and Other Essays', (New York: Center for Libertarian Studies, 1978) pp. 1 - 12; Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels - 'The Communist Manifesto', (New York: Pocket Books, 1964) pp. 57 - 79; Raico, Ralph - 'Classical Liberal Roots of the Marxist Doctrine of Classes' in 'Requiem For Marx' edited by Yuri N. Maltsev, (Auburn, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1993) pp. 189 - 220; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Classical Economics', (Brookfield, Vermont: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 1995) pp. 75 - 78, 385 - 391; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Conceived in Liberty', Volume III, (New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House Publishers, 1976) pp. 350 - 356]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30410] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 31. Justice, Property Rights and Inheritance: If property which is justly acquired is later stolen, the corrective action is for that property to be returned to the owner from the thief, with additional compensation from the thief for the aggravation and effort of recovering it. If the original owner should die before the property is returned, does this change the corrective action? No. The property should be returned to his heirs just as never-stolen property is passed to his heirs. Does this conclusion change if there are numerous generations? Again, the answer is no, for the principle is the same. What if the thief has died or has sold the stolen property, is the corrective action altered? No, the property still should be returned to the original owners or his heirs, regardless. (It should be noted that this is the very reason for title insurance which is so common in real estate transactions.) Now we can apply this theory to an actual issue--reparations to Blacks due to slavery. Were the slaves victims of theft? Yes, of both their liberties and their production. Therefore, the corrective action is for the slaveowner to restore the property to the slave with compensation for the aggravation and the effort of recovery. What if the slaveowner has died? Then his heirs have received stolen goods which should be returned to the slaves, again regardless of the number of generations which have passed. What if the slave has died? Then the stolen goods should be returned to the slave's heirs, again, regardless of the number of generations which have passed. Does this theory conclude that a victim of theft has the right to loot innocent bystanders? The answer is no, for that would be to further compound the original injustice. A victim has no claim on humanity at large if property is unrecoverable because it cannot be traced or if the thief has died and left nothing to reappropriate, nor does the slave victim and his heirs. (Buyers who unknowingly purchase stolen goods can be protected in the market by title insurance.) There is no need, nor justification, for a collective payment of reparations; only the wealth identifiable as being stolen should be subject to the claims of the identifiable heirs of slaves, nothing less, but nothing more, either. [References: Burris, Alan - 'A Liberty Primer', (Rochester, New York: Society for Individual Liberty, 1983) pp. 80 - 82; Locke, John - 'The Second Treatise of Government', (New York: Bobs Merrill Company, Inc., 1952) pp. 16 - 18; Oubre, Claude F. - 'Forty Acres and a Mule: The Freedman's Bureau and Black Land Ownership', (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978); Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature', (Washington, D.C.: New Libertarian Review Press, 1974) pp. 65 - 69; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'The Ethics of Liberty', (Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1982) pp. 51 - 73; Sowell, Thomas - 'Knowledge and Decisions', (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1980) pp. 266 - 269.]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30411] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 32. Cost Push: One particularly popular theory among economists antagonistic to the free economy is that inflation is caused by a cost push in the form of a reduction in aggregate or total supply in the economy. In a straightforward analysis wherein aggregate supply and aggregate demand in the economy determine the price level, a reduced supply would have the effect of increasing prices in general. Thankfully though, the world we live in, including the persistent inflation, is not one of reduced supplies but ever greater production. Still, this theory is typically claimed to be applicable in the U.S. during the 1970's--the decade when Keynesian theory was revealed as clashing with actual experience. The die-hard Keynesians claim that reduced crop yields from poor weather and the Arab oil embargo effected a supply shock on the U.S. economy, thereby driving inflation up into double digits. The problem with this theory is that it also does not fit with the facts: Real GDP: 1970-$2875.88, 1979-$3796.88, which was an increase of 32.02%, CPI (1982-84=100): 1970-38.8, 1979-72.6, which was an increase of 87.11% Clearly, production was increasing during the 1970's while inflation was also increasing--the inflation must be explained by the demand side. In actual practice Milton Friedman's famous phrase is entirely correct--'Inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon.' [References: Friedman, Milton and Rose - 'Free to Choose', (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1980) pp. 263 - 264; Hazlitt, Henry - 'The Inflation Crisis and How to Resolve It', (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1983) pp. 23 - 26; Hazlitt, Henry - 'What You Should Know About Inflation', (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1968) pp. 82 - 84; Katz, Howard - 'The Paper Aristocracy', (New York: Books in Focus, 1976) pp. 112 - 113; Skousen, Mark - 'Economics on Trial', (Homewood, Illinois: Business One Irwin, 1991) pp. 97 - 99; Smith, Jerome - 'The Coming Currency Collapse', (New York: Bantam Books, 1980)]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30412] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 33. The Phillips Curve: The Phillips Curve asserts a permanent trade-off between unemployment and inflation based on empirical data and the strict Keynesian theory that an economy can suffer either from inflation or unemployment problems but never both simultaneously. In fact, there is no permanent or long-term trade-off between the two. The only reason that a temporary or short-term trade-off does occur is because of a lack of understanding of actual conditions by workers. When inflation unexpectedly increases, workers are caught off guard and continue to engage in a job search based on a now-mistaken understanding of the value of money. Once workers realize that inflation has undermined the value of money they then adjust their wage requirements upward to compensate for the reduced dollar value and thereby lengthen the duration of the job search and increase the unemployment rate itself. The reverse occurs in times of disinflation (consecutively lower rates of inflation). A temporary or short-term tradeoff results from workers being caught off guard as they now seek unrealistic wage rates. Once workers realize that inflation is not undermining the value of money as rapidly as they had anticipated, they lower their wage expectations thereby shortening the duration of the job search and reducing the unemployment rate. The recent statistics demonstrate the truth of the above as inflation and unemployment increased during the 1970's and then both decreased during the 1980's: Year - Unemployment - Inflation: 1970 - 4.1% - 5.7%; 1979 - 5.8% - 11.3%, 1980 - 7.1% - 13.5%, 1989 - 5.3% - 5.4% Interestingly, Milton Friedman postulated the correct understanding of a short-term tradeoff of inflation and unemployment in the mid-60's when the Phillips Curve notion of a permanent tradeoff was considered holy writ by most economists. Even more amazing is that Ludwig von Mises anticipated both the faulty and the correct theories in 1952! By tying the theory to actual individual micro-decisions, Friedman and Mises applied the correct methodology. In contrast, the Keynesians, believing that the aggregate 'inflation' and the aggregate 'unemployment' somehow acted directly on one another, failed to tie all economic questions to individual behavior and therefore misled an entire generation. [References: Herbener, Jeffrey - 'The Myths of the Multiplier and the Accelerator' in 'Dissent on Keynes' edited by Mark Skousen, (New York, New York: Prager, 1992) pp. 73 - 88; Mises, Ludwig von - 'The Theory of Money and Credit', (Indianapolis, Indiana: LibertyClassics, 1953) pp. 458 - 459; Hayek, F. A. - 'Unemployment and Monetary Policy', (San Francisco: The Cato Institute, 1979) pp. 1 - 20; Sennholz, Hans - 'The Politics of Unemployment', (Spring Mills, Pennsylvania: Libertarian Press, Inc., 1987) pp. 104 - 107; Skousen, Mark - 'Economics on Trial', (Homewood, Illinois: Business One Irwin, 1991) pp. 97 - 99; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Ten Great Myths of Economics' in 'The Free Market Reader' edited by Llewellyn Rockwell, (Burlingame, California: The Mises Institute, 1988) pp. 26 - 27]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30413] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 34. Perfect Competition: Perfect competition is the perverse theory modern economics has developed in dealing with firms, prices and resource allocation. Competition is normally, and correctly, understood to mean rivalry between firms in attracting consumer patronage. The theory of perfect competition reflects the influence that positivism [empiricism] and mathematics have had on economics. In perfect competition, all firms produce the same identical goods, charge the same price for those goods, face a perfectly horizontal demand curve, experience no transaction costs, and buyers and sellers have perfect knowledge. Aside from the appalling lack of reality embodied in this theory--which should alone warrant its discard--the theory is also self-contradictory. A perfectly horizontal demand curve is self-contradictory on the very grounds of its propositions. A perfectly horizontal demand curve depicts ongoing sales at the same price, however to supply that increasing number of sales is to add to total supply, and an increase in total supply depresses prices! A perfectly elastic demand curve is therefore a theoretical impossibility. Additionally, the theory of perfect competition is said to maximize consumer welfare as the marginal cost of production will equate exactly with the value the consumer places on that production as revealed by price. But in its quest to find competition in the large number of firms the consumer welfare-enhancing economies of large scale production are lost. Not many consumers will be delighted to know that the firm's marginal cost is equal to the price paid when that price is high due to the small scale production necessary to meet the conditions of perfect competition. An example: Millions of auto producers might each produce ten cars per year at a marginal cost of $200,000. But with economies of large scale production forty auto companies may each produce 250,000 cars per year at a marginal cost of $15,000 while charging more than its marginal cost, say $20,000. It is undeniable that a consumer is better off buying the auto for the $20,000 than for the $200,000. As far as the consumer is concerned equating marginal costs and price is totally irrelevant; only economists pursuing mathematical tangents instead of human action would come to any other conclusion. Given the assumption of perfect knowledge those looking at the world through 'perfect competition colored glasses' have naturally condemned advertising--this condemnation is yet another perversity resulting from this theory. Not only is perfect competition unrealistic but it is also undesirable since only an extremely limited variety of goods could even conceivably be produced under such conditions! Are there any other aspects of human life where one would set as a standard both an unrealistic and undesirable state of affairs? [References: Armentano, D. T. - 'Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure', (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1982) pp. 37 - 39, 256 - 257, 262; Hayek, F. A. - 'Individualism and Economic Order', (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1972) pp. 92 - 106; Kirzner, Israel - 'Equilibrium versus the Market Process' in 'The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics' edited by Edwin G. Dolan, (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McNeel, 1976) pp. 115 - 125; Littlechild, S. C. - 'The Fallacy of the Mixed Economy', (London: The Institute of Economic Affairs, 1978) pp. 27 - 30; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Man, Economy, and State', (Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, 1962) pp. 633 - 634; Skousen, Mark - 'Economics on Trial', (Homewood, Illinois: Business One Irwin, 1991) pp. 238 - 253]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30414] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 35. The Multiplier: The Multiplier is one of the major components of Keynesian analysis and policy. The multiplier effect can be defined as the greater resulting income generated from an initial increase in spending. (For example, an increase in spending of $100 will generate a total increase in income received of $500 as the initial income is respent by each succeeding recipient--these figures are based on an assumption that each income receiver spends 80% of his additional income and saves 20%, the formula being Multiplier = 1 / % Change in Saving.) [therefore 1/20 x $100/1 = 5 and then 5 x $100 = $500] Fundamentally, the multiplier is theory run amok, as Henry Hazlitt has explained in The Failure of the New Economics: ‘If a community's income, by definition, is equal to what it consumes plus what it invests, and if that community spends nine-tenths of its income on consumption and invests one-tenth, then its income must be ten times as great as its investment. If it spends nineteen-twentieths on consumption and invests one-twentieth, then its income must be twenty times as great as its investment....And so ad infinitum. These things are true simply because they are different ways of saying the same thing. The ordinary man in the street would understand this. But suppose you have a subtle man, trained in mathematics. He will then see that, given the fraction of the community's income that goes into investment, the income itself can mathematically be called a 'function' of that fraction. If investment is one-tenth of income, income will be ten times investment, etc. Then, by some wild leap, this 'functional' and purely formal or terminological relationship is confused with a causal relationship. Next the causal relationship is stood on its head and the amazing conclusion emerges that the greater the proportion of income spent, and the smaller the fraction that represents investment, the more this investment must 'multiply' itself to create the total income!’ p. 139 A bizarre but necessary implication of this theory is that a community which spends 100% of its income (and thus saves 0%) will have an infinite increase in its income--sure beats working! A further reductio ad absurdum is provided by Hazlitt: ‘Let Y equal the income of the whole community. Let R equal your (the reader's) income. Let V equal the income of everybody else. Then we find that V is a completely stable function of Y; whereas your income is the active, volatile, uncertain element in social income. Let us say the income arrived at is: V = .99999 Y Then, Y = .99999 Y + R .00001 Y = R Y = 100,000 R Thus we see that your own personal multiplier is far more powerful than the investment multiplier, it is only necessary for the government to print a certain number of dollars and give them to you. Your spending will prime the pump for an increase in the national income 100,000 times as great as the amount of your spending itself.’ pp. 150 -151 The multiplier is based on a faulty theory of causation and is therefore in actuality nonexistent. Keynesians today will often admit to this but cling to their multiplier by citing the fact that it has a regional effect. Without them saying so explicitly, what this means is that if income is taken from citizens of Georgia and spent in Massachusetts it will benefit the Massachusetts economy(!). The multiplier is an elaborate attempt to obfuscate the issues to excuse government spending. It and Keynesian theory are nothing more than an elaborate version of any monetary crank's call for inflation; Keynes managed to dredge up the fallacies of the 17th century's mercantilist views only to relabel them as the 'new economics'! [References: Hazlitt, Henry - 'The Failure of the New Economics', (New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House, 1959) pp. 139, 151, 337 - 373; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Man, Economy, and State', (Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, 1970) pp. 757 - 759; Skousen, Mark - 'Economics on Trial', (Homewood, Illinois: Business One Irwin, 1991) pp. 63 - 71; Mises, Ludwig von - 'Stones into Bread, the Keynesian Miracle,' in 'The Critics of Keynesian Economics' edited by Henry Hazlitt, (New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House, 1977) pp. 304 - 314; Keynes, John Maynard - 'The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money', (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Javanovich , 1936) chapter 23]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30415] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 36. The Calculation Debate: The original socialist theories envisioned an abolition of not only privately owned property but also money and prices. However, in 1920 Ludwig von Mises shocked the socialists with his demonstration that such a socialist economy would be unable to rationally allocate production. Production in a socialist economy without money and prices would be arbitrary and lacking any rational foundation. Money and prices provide a value measure with which to choose between competing options. As an example, in deciding whether or not to insulate your attic, you must compare the price of the insulation with the price of the energy to be saved. In an economy without money and prices to convey relative values--that is, an economy with just the goods, insulation and natural gas, you would not know if it made sense to insulate or not. Should you repair your old lawnmower or buy a new one? Obviously, what makes good economic sense depends on the prices of the repair and the new mower. An absence of money and prices wreaks havoc with consumer decisions--that alone is bad enough for economic well-being. But even more dramatically disruptive is this same absence at the production level of the economy. Does it make sense to add a bakery to the city--the socialists would have no way of knowing since, again, all they have before them are the goods: land, concrete, flour, the anticapted future bread, etc. Taken a step further in the production process, should the socialist managers build a bulldozer to move dirt rather than using men with shovels; should the bulldozer be made of steel, or iron or some parts wood? Should the steel be made of newly mined ore, or from reprocessed steel; should the mine work be powered by natural gas, steam, or electricity? Should the natural gas be transported by truck, train, or pipeline? There's a nearly endless number of economic decisions to be made in an advanced industrial economy. In the money-less and price-less socialist economy, these decisions could not be made in any rational manner. After thanking Mises for pointing out a flaw in their theory (and suggesting the erection of a statue in a future socialist square to Mises for his contribution!), the socialists attempted to solve this problem. What was their ultimate answer? Quoting from any Dave Barry column: 'I'm not making this up!': The socialist's ultimate answer to the calculation problem was to have the socialist factory managers 'play' market--that is, to pretend that the resources and outputs had prices and then adjust production accordingly! Of course this was no answer (though the socialists quickly then retired from the debate feeling they had fully addressed the issue). Playing at business decision making will come nowhere near to that of actually investing real privately owned money and resources--money and resources which have a real impact on the well-being of the decision maker. [References: Hayek, F. A. - 'Individualism and Economic Order', (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1972) pp. 119 - 208; Hoff, Trygve J. B. - 'Economic Calculation in the Socialist Society', (Indianapolis: LibertyPress, 1981); Mises, Ludwig von - 'Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth', (Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1990); Mises, Ludwig von - 'Human Action', (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1966) pp. 698 - 715; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Ludwig von Mises and Economic Calculation under Socialism' in 'The Economics of Ludwig von Mises' edited by Laurence S. Moss, (Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, Inc., 1976) pp. 67 - 78; Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Man, Economy, and State', (Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, 1962) pp. 548 - 549]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30416] Need Area: Money > General
"'The Concise Guide To Economics' [from a libertarian-Austrian perspective] by Jim Cox: Chapter 37. The History of Economic Thought: The Spanish Scholastics of 14th through 17th century Spain had produced a body of thought largely similar to our modern understanding of economics. The work of these scholars was largely lost to the English speaking world we've inherited. The French physiocrats carried the discipline forward in the 18th century with prominent economists of the time including A. R. J. Turgot and Richard Cantillon. A strategic error was made by these French advocates of laissez-faire as they attempted to change policy by influencing the King to embrace free markets, only to have the institution of monarchy itself delegitimized. Thus a guilt by association undermined the credibility of the laissez-faire theorists. In 1776 Scotsman Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations only to set the discipline back with his cost of production theory of value. (Smith did properly emphasize specialization and the division of labor in his analysis.) The correct subjective theory of value had been understood by both the Spanish Scholastics and the French laissez-faire school. Why Adam Smith chose [to determine value from] the faulty cost of production theory over subjectivism is a mighty mystery as it is clear from Smith's lecture notes that he had endorsed marginal utility [where the value to the consumer falls with additional consumption of the goods in question] analysis prior to the publication of his book. The marginal revolution of the 1870's--with Carl Menger in Austria, William Stanley Jevons in England, and Leon Walras in Switzerland each writing independently and in differing languages--reestablished the correct marginal approach. As stated by Joseph Schumpeter in The History of Economic Thought: ‘It is not too much to say that analytic economics took a century to get where it could have got in twenty years after the publication of Turgot's treatise had its content been properly understood and absorbed by an alert profession.’ p. 249 Unfortunately, the theory was perverted into a mathematized method with the rush to positivism in the 20th century. The Austrian tradition of Menger was completed in the theories of Ludwig von Mises with the application of marginal utility analysis applied for the first time to money, which in turn led to the correct business cycle approach during the 1920's. This approach was gaining headway in the English speaking world with F. A. Hayek's appearance in England in the early 1930's. But in the late 30's the well-named Keynesian Revolution displaced the Austrian theories--not by refutation, but by neglect--taking economic theory to the bizarre point of splitting macro-theory [which focussed on society as a whole] from an underlying micro-emphasis [which focussed on the individual]; a point where it still is today. [Here's a chronological guide to the development of some of the major economic ideas: 1350 - 1700 Spanish Scholastics; 1766 A. R. J. Turgot (1727 - 1781) 'Reflections'; 1776 Adam Smith (1704 - 1790) 'The Wealth of Nations'; 1848 Karl Marx (1815 - 1878) 'The Communist Manifesto'; 1912 Ludwig von Mises (1881 - 1973) 'The Theory of Money and Credit'; 1936 John Maynard Keynes (1890 - 1947) 'The General Theory'; 1962 Milton Friedman (1912 - ) 'Capitalism and Freedom'; Murray N. Rothbard (1926 - 1995) 'Man, Economy, and State'] [References: Chafuen, Alejandro - 'Christians for Freedom', (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986); Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature', (Washington, D.C.: New Libertarian Review Press, 1974); Rothbard, Murray N. - 'Economic Thought Before Adam Smith', (Brookfield, Vermont: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 1995) pp. 67 - 133, 435 - 471; Schumpeter, Joseph - 'The History of Economic Thought', (Brookfield, Vermont: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 1995); Spiegel, Henry William - 'The Growth of Economic Thought', (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1971) pp. 215 - 217; Tucker, Jeffrey - 'The Economic Wisdom of the Late Scholastics,' in 'The Economics of Liberty' edited by Llewellyn Rockwell, (Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1990)]" - Jim Cox
Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Gwinnett Campus of Georgia Perimeter College in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has taught the Principles of Economics courses for nearly 30 years, since 1979. From his excellent book, 'The Concise Guide To Economics'. [Please note this book and the above quote has a libertarian-Austrian economics perspective, which means that it stresses individual freedom and minimal government.] Reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30434] Need Area: Money > General
"The best loved by God are, those that are rich yet have the humility of the poor, and those that are poor and have the magnanimity of the rich." - Saadi
(1184 – 1283/1291?), one of the major Persian poets. [His full name in English is Muslih-ud-Din Mushrif ibn Abdullah]
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30458] Need Area: Money > General
"History has shown that the great threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market. It is too much government involvement in the market. ... And the surest path to... growth is free markets and free people. Capitalism is not perfect. But it is by far the most efficient and just way of structuring an economy. Capitalism offers people the freedom to choose where they work and what they do, the opportunity to buy or sell products they want and the dignity that comes form profiting from their talent and hard work... The record is unmistakable: if you seek economic growth, social justice and human dignity, the free market system is the way to go." - George W. Bush
U.S. President
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30499] Need Area: Money > General
"Profits are the reward of the active capitalists — the entrepreneurs. In contrast, interest is the reward of the passive capitalists." - Steve H. Hanke
Professor of Applied Economics at The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30505] Need Area: Money > General
"The charity that is a trifle to us can be precious to others." - Homer

Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30531] Need Area: Money > General
"All money means to me is a pride in accomplishment." - Ray Kroc
American entrepreneur and McDonald's founder.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30533] Need Area: Money > General
"If money is all that a man makes, then he will be poor. Poor in happiness and poor in all that makes life worth living." - Herbert N. Casson

Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30559] Need Area: Money > General
"A study of history, economics and rational philosophy combine to show that mankind's legitimate self-interest lies in the principles of individual rights, limited government, political/economic freedom, capitalism, an industrial revolution and international free trade [i.e. Libertarian politics and Austrian economics]. Men [and women] need to understand and embrace Enlightenment principles universally, glorify and liberate the creative mind, produce abundance and trade freely around the globe. This is the path to world freedom, prosperity and peace." - Andrew Bernstein
From his excellent book, 'The Capitalist Manifesto - The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez Faire'. The book cogently defends capitalism from the many false arguments made against it and is wholeheartedly recommended.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30560] Need Area: Money > General
"The fundamental moral principle upon which capitalism is based is that individuals have inalienable rights [to life, liberty and property] and that governments exist solely to protect those rights. Capitalism requires the limiting of governmental power to maximise the freedom of the individual... The facts show that capitalism is the system of freedom - and that it creates wealth. The facts similarly show that statism [i.e. the subordination of the individual to the state, which includes socialism, communism, fascism and feudalism] is the system of repression [and lack of freedom] - and it causes poverty... Despite these facts, however, widespread antagonism towards capitalism exists; and generally from among society's most educated members - Humanities professors, writers, artists, journalists, teachers, clergymen and politicians... Two intellectual tasks must be accomplished in order to [counter this unfair antagonism and] establish capitalism [and freedom as defined by Libertarian politics and Austrian economics] as the ideal social system. The first is to factually document the enormous practical benefits to man's life wrought by capitalism. These are the tasks of history and economics. The second is the job of philosophy... Only when the good is shown to be that which promotes man's life [by increasing his freedom] will it be possible to understand and appreciate the enormous moral virtue embodied in capitalism's unparalleled ability to do precisely that." - Andrew Bernstein
Ph.D in Philosophy, lecturer and author. From his excellent book, 'The Capitalist Manifesto - The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez Faire' (2005). The book cogently defends capitalism from the many false arguments made against it and is wholeheartedly recommended. Two highly regarded explanations by economists of the superiority of capitalism are Ludwig von Mise's 'Human Action' and George Reisman's 'Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics'.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30570] Need Area: Money > General
"In order to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism to statism's political/economic system, in increasing people's living standards, it is only necessary to compare capitalist countries with statist/socialist countries. For example: South Korea to North Korea, Cuba to the free Cuban-American community of Miami, West Berlin to East Berlin, U.S.A. to U.S.S.R., China's Special Economic Zones to its pure communist areas, even Sweden as a capitalist system at the turn of the 20th century to its mixed economy welfare state at the end. In every case the greater the capitalistic, politico-economic freedom the higher the standard of living." - Seymour@imagi-natives.com
Summary of part of philosophy professor, Dr. Andrew Bernstein's book, 'The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire'.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30571] Need Area: Money > General
"[A wonderful example of the power of Libertarian politics and Austrian economics/pure capitalism:]...The freedom and consequent prosperity of Hong Kong in the decades leading up to the new millenium have become a matter of legend. Indeed, by the late 1990's, Hong Kong had a standard of living second only to the United States. But it had not always been that way. Immediately following World War II, the British colony had a population of merely 600,000 - but after the Communist conquest of China 'a flood of refugees' arrived. Many of the penniless Chinese who had fled the mainland subsisted in the 1950s in temporary quarters, in 'one-room cells in a multistory building that was open in the front: one family, one room.' But in the post-war years, the British sent John Cowperthwaite - a Scot and a disciple of Adam Smith - to Hong Kong as its financial secretary. While Britain itself moved towards socialism, Cowperthwaite kept Hong Kong on a path of Laissez-faire. When, in 1963, American economist, Milton Friedman, asked him regarding the dearth of official economic statistics, Cowperthwaite replied that if he permitted such statistics to be computed the British government would want to use them for central planning [which is one of the reasons socialist governments are so poor at managing economies. He chose to follow the economic philosophy of Adam Smith which closely resemble what we call today Libertarian politics and Austrian economics - that is individual rights and minimal government interference. So] He kept taxes low, he imposed no tariffs, he eliminated bureaucracy and made it easy to start a business. The Hong Kong government enforces laws against crime, provides a court system to adjudicate legitimate disputes among honest individuals and upholds contracts. In short the government provides a rule of law that protects honest individuals. Imagine the horror of the anti-capitalist, socialist mentalities if it was said to them: what if there were a country in which the government stays out of the economy? One with no tariffs or other legal restrictions on international trade - with no regulatory agencies, no minimum wage laws, no price or wage controls. Imagine, it is said to them, that the government limits neither investment coming in nor profit going out. There's no capital gains tax, no interest tax, no sales tax and a pittance in corporate bailouts for companies that fail to compete on a free market. This imaginary country has a 15 percent flat tax, enabling its citizens to retain the preponderance of their earnings. Further, it extends no unemployment benefits, enacts no labor legislation and provides no Social Security, no national health insurance and scarcely any welfare. The welfare statist would recoil in horror from such a proposal; he would drown his interlocutor with dire warnings regarding the misery of the numberless poor and exploited who would be the inevitable victims of such a heartless, callous system. But, in fact, that country exists, it is real; it's Hong Kong, one of the wealthiest nations of history. In mere decades, at a breakneck pace, the island colony rose. 'In 1960...the average per capita income in [laissez-faire] Hong Kong was 28 percent of that of [socialst] Great Britain; by 1996, it had risen to 137 percent of that of Britain.'" - Andrew Bernstein
Ph.D in Philosophy, lecturer and author. From his excellent book, 'The Capitalist Manifesto - The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez Faire'(2005). The book cogently defends capitalism from the many false arguments made against it and is wholeheartedly recommended.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30572] Need Area: Money > General
"Just as capitalism is accused of such moral crimes as war, imperialism and slavery, though, in fact, statism [and its disregard for individual rights] is responsible, the same pattern holds true regarding economic failings. The truth is that statism is responsible for monopolies, unemployment, inflation and depressions. The travesty is that statism [and part-statism in the form of the mixed economics of social democracies], the cause of the problems, escapes condemnation - while [laissez-faire/pure] capitalism, the solution, takes the blame [heaped on them by the the statists and part-statists who use that as a reason to persuade the public that they need still more power to intervene into the economy and people's lives. If truth be known]... Coercive monopolies are formed by governments legally debarring entry into a field. Unemployment is caused by minimum wage laws and laws granting coercive powers to unions. Inflation is government expansion of the money supply [due to the lack of a gold standard restricting government spending] leading to the debasement of the monetary standard. Finally, depressions are caused by a series of regulations and interventions that strangle an economy, e.g., the tariffs, taxes, restrictions on banks, etc., of the Hoover-Roosevelt New Deal that caused, exacerbated and extended the Great Depression." - Andrew Bernstein
Ph.D in Philosophy, lecturer and author. From his excellent book, 'The Capitalist Manifesto - The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez Faire'(2005). The book cogently defends capitalism from the many false arguments made against it and is wholeheartedly recommended.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30627] Need Area: Money > General
"[Free market capitalism, better than any other system developed - especially political lobbying by business or unions whether justifying their desires by profits or jobs, uses prices to vote for how the population really wants resources to be used and the economy to change.] There are only so many resources in the world - only so many workers...only so many tons of steel and only so many barrels of oil. In a real, free-market economy, ordinary people [consumers] decide how these will be used. They vote with their money. They buy a beer, for example...and send a [demand-supply price] signal to the whole world [producers]. 'Beer is what we want!' So, the hop growers get hopping...the beer truckers get trucking... and the brewers get brewing. The 'hidden hand' [of the free market, as described by economist Adam Smith] directs resources to where they are needed. People get what they want. [unless governments influenced by the politically powerful, whether business, unions, or vocal minority groups interfere in the only really truly democratic daily voting process - the free market pricing system.]" - Bill Bonner
Founder and editor of the financial newsletter, 'The Daily Reckoning'.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30663] Need Area: Money > General
"There is a gigantic difference between earning a great deal of money and being rich." - Marlene Dietrich

Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30665] Need Area: Money > General
"[Libertarians and Austrian economists believe in free market capitalism and limited government, unlike conservatives/Republicans, despite their rhetoric, and liberals/Democrats. For example the following facts about government regulations:] Today [Barack] Obama is the president-elect of the United States. With Democratic majorities in Congress, he will have tremendous power to push his 'reforms.' And unlike FDR before him, President Obama won't have to create a regulatory system from scratch in order to increase government control of people's lives. His groundwork was laid by George W. Bush...Some people still seem to think Republicans take a hands-off approach to regulation, probably because the party is always quick to criticize the burdens regulations place on businesses. But Republican rhetoric doesn't always match Republican policy...Since Bush took office in 2001, there has been a 13 percent decrease in the annual number of new rules. But the new regulations' cost to the economy will be much higher than it was before 2001. Of the new rules, 159 are 'economically significant,' meaning they will cost at least $100 million a year. That's a 10 percent increase in the number of high-cost rules since 2006, and a 70 percent increase since 2001. And at the end of 2007, another 3,882 rules were already at different stages of implementation, 757 of them targeting small businesses. Overall, the final outcome of this Republican regulation has been a significant increase in regulatory activity and cost since 2001. The number of pages added to the Federal Register, which lists all new regulations, reached an all-time high of 78,090 in 2007, up from 64,438 in 2001." - Veronique de Rugy
January 2009 issue of 'Reason' magazine [Refer reason.org and reason.com]
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30675] Need Area: Money > General
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties [security and wealth] than standing armies. [that is...] If the American [or any other] people ever allow private banks [through a fractional reserve banking system] to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation [where increased demand for reward increases unbacked money supply, borrowing, speculation and therefore prices], then by deflation [where increased recognition of risk reduces money supply, credit and prices]...[just like the Austrian economics of today warns of and therefore recommends a full reserve banking system and/or a gold standard to preserve the integrity of a country's currency.]" - Thomas Jefferson
(1743 - 1826)
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30702] Need Area: Money > General
"Money, if it does not bring you happiness, will at least help you be miserable in comfort." - Helen Gurley Brown

Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30721] Need Area: Money > General
"Being rich isn't about money. Being rich is a state of mind. Some of us, no matter how much money we have, will never be free enough to take time to stop and eat the heart of the watermelon. And some of us will be rich without ever being more than a paycheck ahead of the game." - Harvey Mackay
American businessman, speaker and author
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30800] Need Area: Money > General
"Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses. In other words, economics studies the consequences [- short and long term for all stakeholders] of the decisions [made by individuals, companies and governments] that are made about the use of [limited] land, labor, capital and other resources that go into producing the volume of output which determines a country's standard of living." - Thomas Sowell
Economist and author of 'Basic Economics - A Common Sense Guide to the Economy'.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30801] Need Area: Money > General
"The fact that no given individual or set of individuals [i.e. government department] controls or coordinates all the innumerable economic activities in a [capitalistic free] market economy does not mean that these things just happen randomly or chaotically. Each consumer, producer, retailer, landlord, or worker makes individual transactions with other individuals on whatever terms are mutually agreeable [without coercive force or fraud]. Prices convey those terms, not just to the particular individuals involved but throughout the whole economic system - and indeed throughout the world. If someone else somewhere else has a better product or a lower price for the same product, that fact gets conveyed and acted upon through prices, without any elected official or planning commission [i.e. communism] having to issue orders to consumers or producers - indeed, faster than any planners could assemble the information on which to base their orders... While [these] markets coordinated by price movements [price signals] - 'capitalism' as it is called - may seem like a simple thing, markets are misunderstood... losses are equally important [as profits] for the efficiency of the economy, because losses tell producers what to stop producing... producers automatically produce more of what earns a profit and less of what is losing money. That amounts to producing what the consumers want [demand higher than supply] and stopping the production of what they don't want [demand lower than supply]. Although the producers are only looking out for themselves and their companies' bottom line, nevertheless from the standpoint of the economy as a whole the society is using its scarce resources more efficiently because decisions are guided by prices. [Therefore government interference with market prices lowers economic efficiency and thereby the living standards of the community as a whole over the long term, even though one politically important group may be better off.]" - Thomas Sowell
Economist and author of 'Basic Economics - A Common Sense Guide to the Economy'.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30802] Need Area: Money > General
"When many African colonies achieved national independence in the 1960's, a famous bet was made between the president of Ghana and the president of the neighboring Ivory Coast as to which country would be more prosperous in the years ahead. At the time, Ghana was not only more prosperous than the Ivory Coast, it had more natural resources, so the bet might have seemed reckless on the part of the president of the Ivory Coast. However, he knew that Ghana was committed to a government-run economy and the Ivory Coast to a freer market. By 1982, the Ivory Coast had so surpassed Ghana economically that the poorest 20 percent of its people had a higher income per capita than most of the people in Ghana. This could not be attributed to any superiority of the country or its people. In fact, in later years, when a new generation of Ivory Coast politicians eventually succumbed to the temptation to have government control more of their country's economy, while Ghana finally learned from its mistakes and began to loosen government controls, these two countries' roles reversed - and now Ghana's economy began to grow, while that of the Ivory Coast declined... Other countries - India, Germany, China, New Zealand, South Korea, Sri Lanka - have experienced sharp upturns in their economies when they freed those economies from many government controls and relied more on [capitalistic free market] prices to allocate resources." - Thomas Sowell
Economist and author of 'Basic Economics - A Common Sense Guide to the Economy'.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30831] Need Area: Money > General
"No nation was ever ruined by [free] trade. [despite what some protectionist industries might say, for while those industries might suffer, the overall benefit of having the resources they use used more efficiently elsewhere more than compensates the community as a whole.]" - Benjamin Franklin

Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30838] Need Area: Money > General
"Economics, mistaking itself for physics [creates theories and predictions that are more confident than accurate]." - James Grant
Editor of famed financial newsletter, 'Grant's Interest Rate Observer'.
Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

[Quote No.30845] Need Area: Money > General
"A great fortune depends on luck, a small one on diligence." - Chinese Proverb

Author's Info on Wikipedia  - Author on ebay  - Author on Amazon  - More Quotes by this Author
Start Searching Amazon for Gifts
Send as Free eCard with optional Google Image

Previous<<  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11 12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next Page>>

 
Imagi-Natives'
Self-Defence
& Fitness Training

because
Everyone deserves
to be
Healthy and Safe!
Ideal for Anyone's Personal Protection Needs
Simple, Fast, Effective!
Maximum Safety - Minimum Force
No Punches, Kicks, Chokes, Pressure Points or Weapons Used
Based on Shaolin Chin-Na Seize and Control Methods
Comprehensively Covers Over 130 Types of Attack
Lavishly Illustrated With Over 1300 illustrations
Accredited Training for Australian Security Qualifications
National Quality Council Approved