LibertyVoter.Org

By Ryan McMaken

Thanks to translator Matin Pedram, Rothbard’s Power and Market is now available in a Persian translation.

Front:

Back:

…read more

Source: MISES INSTITUTE

By Ryan McMaken

As has been done for several years, the Mises Institute hosted our annual Auburn University Economics Graduate Student Reception on Friday at our campus next to Auburn University. It was organized by Jonathan Newman (Summer Fellow 2014, Mises U Alum, and Economics Doctoral Student at Auburn).

…read more

Source: MISES INSTITUTE

By Ross McKitrick

Ross McKitrick

When President Barack Obama addresses the United Nations Climate Summit on Sept. 23, you can bet that he will be calling for immediate, substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But is the time for action now?

The White House has claimed that the cost of delaying action on climate change would be greater than if actions were undertaken now. Therefore, the U.S. should move quickly to enact regulatory measures to reduce greenhouse gases. But there is a fatal flaw in the reasoning: the climate issue does not fit the framework in which an early start implies lower costs.

That framework requires three basic conditions to be met. First, we need to know with a high degree of certainty what the optimal policy target is and when it needs to be reached. Second, we need to be sure that no influential new information will be arriving in the near future that might affect our view on an optimal policy target. Third, we need to have an accurate picture of the range of risks associated with acting or not acting.

“The arguments for hasty action on greenhouse gases do not hold up.”

Firstly, defining the optimal policy regarding greenhouse gas emissions has eluded governments for over 20 years. If there is going to be any policy response, it only makes sense at a global level, but global cooperation is unlikely. Even if it could be achieved, the more fundamental problem is that carbon dioxide, or CO2 (the greenhouse gas targeted under climate policy), is very difficult and expensive to reduce in quantities that matter for climate.

Unlike soot and particulate matter (better known as carbon pollution) there are no scrubbers to capture CO2 and nowhere to put it once it is captured. Reducing CO2 emissions pretty much requires cutting fossil fuel use, which is very expensive in an industrial economy. And at the scale of the global climate, only massive global reductions are large enough to have a measurable effect on climate. But only tiny reductions are affordable.

In other words, affordable measures are ineffective, and effective measures are unaffordable. Anyone picking a target and timetable for CO2 reductions (such as 20 percent by 2020) is, therefore, simply making an arbitrary guess.

The second question relates to the first. What might be the benefits of a 20 percent CO2 cut? To answer, we have to agree on the economic harm associated with the …read more

Source: OP-EDS

By Richard W. Rahn

Richard W. Rahn

If you were a campaign manager for Republicans running for the Senate or House in November, what policy positions would you advise them to take? The Republican Party has been under a lot of criticism for running a campaign of “not Obama” rather than presenting a positive agenda — and much of this criticism is valid. That being said, it is far easier for those of us who are with policy organizations to give advice about what a candidate ought to say — because we don’t take the direct hit if our policy ideas don’t resonate with a majority of voters. As a result, too many candidates resort to the banal — “I am in favor of a strong national defense, lower government spending, and tax reform.”

Countries with parliamentary political systems typically have many issue-driven parties, and the trick to forming a government is to build a coalition of these parties to obtain a governing majority in parliament. The U.S. system requires that one of the two parties builds an internal coalition of interests to obtain 51 percent (or more) of the vote. Years ago, I occasionally advised political candidates from the congressional to the presidential level, and so I have some understanding of why candidates are less policy-pure and specific than we would like them to be.

For instance, as an economist with expertise in tax policy, I am in favor of abolishing the corporate-income tax for many good reasons — but unfortunately, we have yet to persuade a majority of the voters. If I were advising a Republican candidate in a marginal district, I might well tell him to advocate a “reduction in the corporate-income tax to 20 percent, so it is internationally competitive.” It should be easy to explain that the United States, having the highest corporate-income tax in the world, is driving investment, innovation and jobs out of the country. Thus, the position would seem sensible to most people — and would be a good, but incomplete, step forward.

“Positive messages about spending reduction and tax reform will resonate with voters.”

Asset forfeiture — that is, the seizing of assets from totally innocent citizens, without being convicted of anything — by federal, state and local law enforcement officials, including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), is an issue that rightly appalls most Americans. I have been writing about it for 15 years, but only recently, …read more

Source: OP-EDS

The EU and the United States began negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) in 2013, with the primary goals of reducing impediments to cross-border trade and investment and achieving greater economic integration between the two areas. Curiously, there has been a near absence of discussion in the TTIP negotiations of freeing trade and investment in commercial airline services. In a new study, transportation policy expert Kenneth J. Button argues that the objections to liberalization lack genuine merit, offers insights into how U.S. airline passengers and businesses would benefit from opening the domestic air market to competition, and urges the U.S. and EU governments to put free trade in commercial air services on the TTIP negotiating agenda.

• “Opening the Skies: Put Free Trade in Airline Services on the Transatlantic Trade Agenda,” by Kenneth J. Button

…read more

Source: CATO HEADLINES