Search results

In the aftermath of the Enron scandal, the critics of free enterprise have blamed this system for inflated and out of control executive salaries, particularly those of the chief executive officer (CEO). The present paper defends the marketplace against these charges. In section I we argue that the market has passed the Enron test with flying colors. Section II gives the background of the financial situation relating to CEO salaries. Sections III and IV are devoted to, respectively, the tax court and the appellate court; section V looks at the reaction of the former to the latter; and in section VI we defend the “independent investor” test. We look at this issue from a political economic perspective in section VII and conclude in section VIII.

In order to answer this question, it will first be necessary to distinguish between political and economic correctness on the one hand, and then between Austrian and mainstream economics on the other.

In the view of most economists, highways and streets are “public goods,” not amenable to ordinary market competition. The present papers argues, to the contrary, that these thoroughfares are conducive to competitiveness, and then applies these insights to automobile insurance and price controls.

Some economic commentators claim that inequality of wealth or income reduces economic development and growth of GDP. But this is counterintuitive, since economic breakthroughs usually occur by dint of great effort, or discovery, or invention, which brings great wealth to those responsible (think Bill Gates). Nor is this thesis supported by a proper interpretation of the facts of the matter, despite the contentions of several authors in this regard. Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini (1994) (hence, PT) have an interesting thesis. It is that inequality is harmful for economic growth. That is, ceteris paribus, the more equal is the income or wealth distribution, the better are a country's prospects for economic development.

States that labour unions are widely respected institutions in modern society. Argues that this reputation in unearned insofar as these organizations are the only ones, besides that Government, which have not only a de facto warrant to initiate violence against innocent people (e.g. scabs) but a de jure one as well (right to strike). Suggests that in a socieity characterized by economic freedom, organized labour as presently constituted would be banned outright.

This paper argues that laissez faire capitalism is the last best hope for mankind. That if the human race is to survive and prosper, put an end to starvation, hopelessness and unemployment, then we must embrace private property rights, the rule of law and free enterprise. No longer should “profits” be a dirty word.

This paper aims to examine the case against land use zoning.

We approach this analysis from the perspective of economics, health and geography.

The findings of this paper suggest that the case against zoning is overwhelming.

This result applies only to public zoning, not the private variety thereof.

Public zoning should be repealed.

This paper approaches this from three perspectives: economics, health and geography; this has not been done before.

Rasmusen, Ramseyer and Wiley (1991) (hereafter RRW) seek to show that exclusionary agreements can be both “profitable and pernicious (1137).” A contract to exclude provides that if I sell to you, you agree not to buy from anyone else but me; you must be loyal or, better yet, faithful, to me. RRW “focus on exclusionary conduct that is ‘naked’: conduct unabashedly meant to exclude rivals, for which no one offers any efficiency justification” (1137).

The purpose of this paper is to correct Rozeff (2010). He contends that fractional-reserve banking is legitimate and efficacious. The authors demonstrate that it is not.

The design of this paper is to quote widely from Rozeff (2010) and then to expose his errors of analysis.

The authors demonstrate that fractional-reserve banking is neither legitimate nor efficacious.

Money is the lifeblood of the economy. If so, then banking is the marrow of the economy, since it is from that sector that money arises in the first place. It is crucially important, then, that the monetary system be based on sound principles. Fractional-reserve banking is a violation of these sound principles. Therefore, it is valuable to demonstrate that this is indeed the case.