Pete Boettke and Stefanie Haeffele-Balch make the case for ordinary economics. A slice:
Policies can have unintended consequences when budgets are often separated from agency results, and the bureaucratic process often impedes change. And, when it is too easy for special interests to secure political influence, policies are likely to benefit those interests, rather than all of society.
Foreign policy, for instance, isn’t just about deciding when to stop terrorist organizations or to aid war-torn nations. Policymakers must negotiate complex international relationships, respond to the concerns of their constituents and navigate the special interests and companies participating in the military industrial complex. Studies have shown that despite the best of intentions, these competing interests and goals often led to unintended, and less successful, results. Likewise, health policy is plagued with competing interests, a slow Food and Drug Administration approval process and high costs. As the past several initiatives have shown, getting health policy right is a difficult task.
On the same topic as Pete and Stefanie is GMU Econ alum Alex Salter.
In my latest column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, I share some of my favorite quotations.
Alberto Mingardi asks if anti-free-market conservatism will survive.
Aeon Skoble mows down the attempted justifications of an instance of cronyism.
Shikha Dalmia writes sensibly about the Paris climate accord. A slice:
This accord was never going to save the planet — and hence, dumping it won’t doom the Earth. If anything, it might trigger a search for realistic and workable fixes that don’t involve putting the entire human race on an energy diet.
Mark Perry reports on the huge boon that freer international trade has been for Americans since 1950.
