- Cafe Hayek - https://cafehayek.com -

Some Links

Tweet [1]

Tim Worstall correctly and rightly argues that Luddite fears today are no more justified than were Luddite fears in the past [2].  A slice:

We need to lay out some ground rules here. The first is the basic assumption at the root of all economics. Human desires and wants are unlimited, the resources from which we can satisfy them are scarce. And yes, in this context labour is one of those scarce resources. We can check this: my garden needs work on it. No one will come and do that for free: I must pay someone to do it. Labour is, therefore, scarce.

Sarah Skwire can! [3]

I’m delighted that the Wall Street Journal chose part of this recent Cafe Hayek blog post [4] as today’s “Notable & Quotable [5].”

I join Ramesh Ponnuru in applauding the Obama administration for starting to see the light about the damaging consequences of occupational-licensing regulations [6].

Bart Hinkle takes expert aim at cronyism – in this particular instance, at a devilish brew by Virginia’s governor Terry McAuliffe [7].  A slice:

Business leaders often talk a good game about free enterprise. But they’re frequently first in line when government starts handing out other people’s money, or writing rules that restrict the competition, such as occupational-licensing regulations and import tariffs. They’re also frequent champions of public education, but not necessarily because of a benevolent desire to see people flourish. Vocational instruction, including STEM programs, is a good way to socialize the business cost of workforce training.

That’s worth bearing in mind the next time you hear business leaders complain about burdensome regulation. The objection often amounts to an argument of convenience. And those businesses that benefit from a governmental hand up lose any standing to complain when that hand starts to tie them down.

John Tamny explains the core economic ignorance that underlies Hillary Clinton’s plan to structure tax rates to penalize investors who do not hold on to their assets for time periods as long as Ms. Clinton has – through some miracle of divination – determined that they ‘should’ hold on to their assets [8].

John Cochrane examines the regulatory state’s effect on the rule of law [9].

Over at Marginal Revolution, my colleague Alex Tabarrok offers evidence to belie the notion that poor people cannot or will not pay privately to educate their children successfully [10].

Comments