Okay, now that you've watched this video, ask yourself: what if you apply the economic way of thinking to political action? In other words, even though we don't need politicians to get the "good orders" we see around us, we nevertheless have to live with these characters. So what do actions, interactions and consequences have to do with the results we see in the public sphere (that we're so often troubled by)?
This video is not just an outline for aspiring politicians. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita actually describes, however indirectly, the architecture of power. I can't wait to read his book. It sounds to me like what you get when you marry Machiavelli with Buchanan and Tullock (public choice theory). So what do we mean by the architecture of power?
Most people just assume that occupational licensing protects consumers. The truth is, most licensing is a veneer. But it's really designed to create barriers to entry. What's clever about IJ's comparative analysis is that it holds up states with licensing to states without. If you can't find any trouble in the states without them, it's probably not doing any good for the states that have them. In those states, it's probably time to scrap them. But wouldn't that anger cronies?
The U.S. healthcare system is not a free market. Not even close. There are five major things wrong with the system that make it less free and, therefore, more expensive -- both in terms of insurance and in terms of care. Most are mentioned in this video. But here's my list:
If you think we could soon have a flat tax, you're kidding yourself. Do you know how many parasites are nestled in the byzantine recesses of the U.S. tax code? Enough to make an army. That army would swarm out of the woodwork if we ever had a serious conversation about simplifying the internal revenue code. And guess who would be leading the charge: the IRS bureaucrat-H&R Block-tax lawyer complex. Don't believe me? Witness the parasites...
Before we get into the evidence, we should mention that Frances Fox Piven seems to be conflating colonialism with capitalism. If, for example, property rights institutions provide a basis for any free enterprise system, it's difficult to see how commerce could have amounted to peasants losing their farms (unless, of course, by lose she means sold). When peasants have their land taken, it's always by governments or cronies colluding with governments to undermine property rights.
But back to the question--relatively speaking (because there is no perfectly free system on earth): Do the most economically free countries tend to produce more freedom and equality?
This is an eye-opening talk. Most people don't realize that the U.S. system of higher education is in desperate need of reform. We take it for granted that these hoary old institutions need to be changed. But when one turns a business lens on higher ed, one comes to realize that the system is a cross between a guild and a cartel.
Because there are a number of voting paradoxes, I’ll credit the Marquis de Concordet and Kenneth Arrow. Irrational results follow from majority-rule voting. For example, imagine you’re the owner of a small business. You need to make a decision about the business, so you decide to let your three top employees vote on the following three choices:
If you live in or near a city of more than 100,000, you've probably heard some noisy group of politicians and smart growthers talk up "light rail" -- the 18th century travel technology that gets started in the 20th century and you'll pay through the nose for in the 21st. Does light rail make any sense at all? Consider the data and come to your own conclusions.