You are browsing the archive for 2014 July 24.

Avatar of admin

by admin

Video: Robert Murphy Presents Contrasting Views of the Great Depression

July 24, 2014 in Economics

By Mises Updates

Archived from the live broadcast, this Mises University lecture was presented at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on 23 July 2014.

…read more

Source: MISES INSTITUTE

Avatar of admin

by admin

Video: Robert Higgs on the FDA and Consumer Welfare

July 24, 2014 in Economics

By Ryan McMaken

Archived from the live broadcast, this Mises University lecture was presented at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on 23 July 2014.

…read more

Source: MISES INSTITUTE

Avatar of admin

by admin

Live Stream, Thursday at Mises U: Afternoon Lectures

July 24, 2014 in Economics

By Ryan McMaken

Thursday, July 24 (Central Daylight Time)
1:30 - 2:30 p.m.—The Corrupt Origins of Central Banking in America | DiLorenzo
2:45 - 3:45 p.m.—Energy Policy | Murphy
4:00 - 5:00 p.m.—Four Things the State is Not | Woods

…read more

Source: MISES INSTITUTE

Avatar of admin

by admin

Full Photo Album for Mises U 2014

July 24, 2014 in Economics

By Ryan McMaken

We’re still adding photos there, but you can see what’s been added so far at our Picasa page for Mises U 2014.

…read more

Source: MISES INSTITUTE

Avatar of admin

by admin

How Government Uses “Efficiency” as an Excuse to Steal

July 24, 2014 in Economics

By Ryan McMaken

6818

Mises Daily Thursday by Gary Galles:

Only individuals can determine what is efficient for themselves, and they will only engage in voluntary exchange when they believe it is the efficient thing to do. Some economists, and most governments, prefer to use other standards of efficiency such as “potential compensation” which leads to government mischief.

…read more

Source: MISES INSTITUTE

Avatar of admin

by admin

Sen. Paul Introduces the FAIR Act

July 24, 2014 in Politics & Elections

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Rand Paul yesterday introduced S. 2644, the FAIR (Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration) Act, which would protect the rights of citizens and restore the Fifth Amendment’s role in seizing property without due process of law. Under current law, law enforcement agencies may take property suspected of involvement in crime without ever charging, let alone convicting, the property owner. In addition, state agencies routinely use federal asset forfeiture laws; ignoring state regulations to confiscate and receive financial proceeds from forfeited property. The FAIR Act would change federal law and protect the rights of property owners by requiring that the government prove its case with clear and convincing evidence before forfeiting seized property. State law enforcement agencies will have to abide by state law when forfeiting seized property. Finally, the legislation would remove the profit incentive for forfeiture by redirecting forfeitures assets from the Attorney General’s Asset Forfeiture Fund to the Treasury’s General Fund. ‘The federal government has made it far too easy for government agencies to take and profit from the property of those who have not been convicted of a crime. The FAIR Act will ensure that government agencies no longer profit from taking the property of U.S. citizens without due process, while maintaining the ability of courts to order the surrender of proceeds of crime,’ Sen. Paul said Click HERE for the FAIR Act legislation text.
### …read more

Source: RAND PAUL

Avatar of admin

by admin

A Big Hole in the Heart of Obamacare

July 24, 2014 in Economics

By Ilya Shapiro

Ilya Shapiro

If you thought the Supreme Court’s ruling two years ago remaking the individual mandate into a tax was the end of the legal threat to the Affordable Care Act, think again.

Set aside Hobby Lobby and similar lawsuits; those are important for religious liberty but don’t threaten Obamacare’s existence. Instead, as we saw Tuesday, courts are again considering serious challenges that strike at the core of how Obamacare operates.

First, in Halbig v. Burwell, the D.C. Circuit — the federal appellate court that oversees executive agencies — held that the IRS broke the law in issuing tax credits for people to buy policies from federal insurance exchanges. A couple of hours later, however, in King v. Burwell, the Richmond-based 4th Circuit ruled in favor of the government’s authority to provide these credits.

The sooner the administration is forced to fix Obamacare, the better for the country and its battered rule of law.”

As it turns out, these tax credits, better known as subsidies, make Obamacare tick, even more than the individual mandate. Without them, consumers face the full cost of health care, which is a sticker shock that would further turn the public against the law and finally force the administration to reopen it. It’s also these subsidies that trigger taxes on employers and individuals who don’t buy the requisite level of care. So what the two courts are debating is whether President Obama illegally spent billions of taxpayer dollars and subjected millions of people to illegal taxes.

The problem lies buried deep in the text of the Affordable Care Act, which provides federal subsidies only to taxpayers who enroll in exchanges “established by the state.” As Judge Thomas Griffith, a moderate George W. Bush appointee who was supported by then-Sen. Barack Obama, wrote for the D.C. Circuit, “the federal government is not a ‘state,’” and therefore “a federal exchange is not an ‘exchange established by the state.’”

That should be the end of the discussion, and it would be in any sane world. But the government and its defenders argue, apparently channeling Humpty Dumpty’s mantra that a word means just what he chooses it to mean, that “established by a state” is synonymous with “established by the federal government.” Thus, in the King ruling, Judge Roger Gregory, whom Bush appointed in a good-faith gesture after his nomination expired under Bill Clinton, somehow found the language to be “ambiguous” …read more

Source: OP-EDS

Avatar of admin

by admin

Should the 'Right to be Forgotten' be Reviewed by an International Court?

July 24, 2014 in Economics

By Simon Lester

Simon Lester

A few weeks ago, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued a decision regarding an individual’s right to have negative information about him or her removed from internet search engines, such as Google. Privacy advocates and business groups have debated the merits of the ruling, but there is a larger issue at stake here, related to another prominent policy debate: Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). If the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) were currently in force with ISDS, Google could challenge the ECJ ruling before an international tribunal. It is this aspect of ISDS — its international constitutional elements – that should be at the core of the debate.

The actual ISDS debate, unfortunately, is much less substantive. Business groups talk about ISDS as necessary for, and intended to promote, foreign investment. In reality, the evidence on this point is mixed at best. Many studies show no correlation at all between ISDS and investment flows, and investment continues to boom in countries such as Brazil, which has no such treaties in force, and China, which has no treaty with the US or EU.

The questions surrounding the investor-state dispute settlement are not about “corporate profits” or “promoting foreign investment”, but about the role of international courts in global governance.”

On the other side, critics obsess about “corporate profits”, and claim that lost profits are enough to trigger a complaint. But that is not really how these agreements work. Certainly, if a government action results in lower profits, a company might consider whether an ISDS claim against that action is possible. However, you cannot assert lower profits as the basis of such a claim. The rules are more nuanced than that.

The actual system works like this, as applied to Google’s case. The rules in these international investment obligations tend to offer broad and general protections, similar to those seen in domestic constitutional or administrative law. For example, one such rule is that foreign investments must be provided with treatment that is “fair and equitable.” Google could use that rule as follows.

In the ECJ case, the complainant, a Spanish citizen, was upset about a negative article that had appeared in a Spanish newspaper. But the ruling did not force the Spanish newspaper to take down the article. Rather, it compelled Google to remove the article from its search results and set up a general process for removing such …read more

Source: OP-EDS

Avatar of admin

by admin

10 Facts About Marijuana

July 24, 2014 in PERSONAL LIBERTY

By mfarrington

July 25, 2014

Drug Policy Alliance

DPA Publication

These are ten top facts about marijuana policy and effects, with detailed supporting information and citations.

…read more

Source: DRUG POLICY