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.

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to shed critical light on micro‐finance.

This scheme is managed from an economic perspective.

Micro‐finance comes to us as a left wing attack on the free enterprise system; as such, it ought to be opposed by all freedom lovers, at least in its present format. Other baggage weighing it down is, if not absolute fraud, then, what might well be considered at least serious chicanery. A further criticism is the cult‐like behavior now surrounding it. However, is micro‐finance per se necessarily fraudulent? Can it only be favored by critics of laissez faire capitalism? What of micro‐finance shorn of all such encumbrances? Should it then be supported? No. Even the Platonic Ideal of micro‐finance has serious difficulties. This claim is a matter of prudential judgment, not praxeology. But, even a pure‐as‐the‐driven‐snow variety of this scheme still violates the economic concepts of specialization and division of labor, an appreciation of the infant industry fallacy, and several other basic building blocks of the dismal science. There are other better ways to “cure poverty” than this misbegotten scheme. This one, paradoxically, exacerbates impoverishment by placing investment resources in hands less capable of making it grow than would otherwise be the case.

It would be unwise to invest in or support this scheme.

Society should instead rely upon free enterprise banking, the occupy movement to the contrary notwithstanding.

It takes a minority position on this very popular institution.

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.

This study aims to offer a critique of the theory of the deterioration in terms of trade, developed by Raúl Prebisch and Hans Singer.

As an example of the theory’s shortcomings, the case of Argentina’s import substitution model is analyzed.

This study demonstrates how a misunderstanding of the influence of price variability in international trade may lead to the mistaken conclusion that protectionist measures must be enforced to achieve growth and prosperity.

This is the first study that criticizes the Prebisch-Singer theory of the deterioration in the terms of trade from an Austrian economics.

Discusses Bagwell and Ramey’s theory that advertising can promote sales even if mostly informative. Posits there must be method in what would perhaps seem to be the madness of customers railing against firms’ lack of communication. Highlights the various slogans employed via jingles, etc. Criticises the analysis by Bagwell and Ramey and shows how their overall explanation fails.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify definitions in economics.

To apply the insights of Austrian economics to terms widely used in the profession.

The authors find that the Austrian approach brings clarification to communication.

The authors know of no other such attempt. Therefore this paper presumably has some originality.

Profits have a bad press. They are associated in the public mind with greed, avarice, self-seeking. The purpose of this paper is to make the case in behalf of profit-seeking, so as to right the balance of publications on this topic.

The authors undertake an economic analysis of the phenomenon of profit-seeking. The paper explores how profits lead to resource allocation, wealth creation, the promotion of human welfare and well-being.

The paper finds that the system of profit and loss, part and parcel of economic freedom and laissez faire capitalism, does indeed promote wealth. It is the last best chance to fight poverty. Contrary to the views of the economically illiterate, it does not cause inflation or the business cycle nor any other economic malady.

We cannot give ourselves good marks as to originality. Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard beat us to the punch as to the benefits of the profit and loss private property rights system. However, as Friedrich Hayek said each generation must fight these battles in its own context. So, the authors claim value for this paper, since it confronts more modern criticisms, and addresses more recent contexts.