Bryan Caplan learned a lot from Kristian Niemietz’s Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies.
Matt Ridley rightly decries the EU’s innovation-stifling bureaucratic risk-aversion.
David Henderson supports free trade for reasons economic, ethical, and national security. A slice:
In the 18th century, the national security reason for allowing free trade was articulated succinctly by a French philosopher whom many signers of the Declaration of Independence read: Baron de Montesquieu, who wrote, “Peace is the natural effect of trade.” He then gave his reason: “Two nations who traffic with each other become reciprocally dependent; for if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling: and thus their union is founded on their mutual necessities.” In this century, two economists who examined a large number of trading nations, produced evidence for his view. Solomon W. Polachek and Carlos Seiglie of Rutgers University wrote, “[T]rading nations cooperate more and fight less. A doubling of trade leads to a 20% diminution of belligerence.”
T. Norman Van Cott celebrates a core insight from Adam Smith.
Phil Magness rebuts the New York Times’s attempted defense of its fanciful “1619 Project.”
Also from Phil Magness is this splendid critical review of Lawrence Glickman’s Free Enterprise.
