NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

10/09/2018Ron Paul

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.

For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.

The USMCA also requires Mexico to pass legislation recognizing the “right of collective bargaining.” In other words, this so-called free trade agreement forces Mexico to import US-style compulsory unionism. If the Mexican legislature does not comply, the US and Canada will impose tariffs on Mexican goods.

The USMCA also requires the three countries to abide by the International Labour Organization (ILO) standards for worker rights. So, if, for example, the bureaucrats at the ILO declared that Right to Work laws violate “international labor standards”’ because they weaken collective bargaining and give Right to Work states an unfair advantage over compulsory unionism states and countries, the federal government may have to nullify all state Right to Work laws.

The USMCA also obligates the three countries to work together to improve air quality. This sounds harmless but could be used as a backdoor way to impose costly new regulations and taxes, such as a cap-and-trade scheme, on America.

This agreement also forbids the use of currency devaluation as a means of attempting to gain a competitive advantage in international trade. Enforcement of this provision will be difficult if not impossible, as no central bank will ever admit it is devaluing currency to obtain a competitive advantage in international trade. Of course, given that the very act of creating money lowers its value, the only way to stop central banks from devaluing currency is to put them out of business. Sadly, I don’t think the drafters of the USMCA seek to restore free-market money.

The currency provision will likely be used to justify coordination of monetary policy between the Federal Reserve and the Mexican and Canadian central banks. This will lead to region-wide inflation and a global currency war as the US pressures Mexico and Canada to help the Fed counter other countries’ alleged currency manipulation and challenges to the dollar’s reserve currency status.

A true free trade deal would simply reduce or eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers. It would not dictate wages and labor standards, or require inter-governmental cooperation on environmental standards and monetary policy. A true free trade deal also would not, as the USMCA does, list acceptable names for types of cheeses.

Those of us who support real free trade must not let supporters of the USMCA get away with claiming the USMCA has anything to do with free trade. We must also fight the forces of protectionism that are threatening to start a destructive trade war. Also, we must work to stop the government from trying to control our economic activities through regulations, taxes, and (most importantly) control of the currency through central banking and legal tender laws.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

AOC's Green New Deal Is Absolutely Absurd, but That's the Washington Status Quo

02/08/2019Tho Bishop

This week Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez released a preliminary summary of her grand vision for a Green New Deal. Prior to its unveiling, the youngest rising star of the Democratic Party had already managed to get the support of leading members of Congress, including all of the party’s current leading Presidential candidates. Unfortunately for Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, the document was met with widespread ridicule for advocating policies such as building high-speed rail to Hawaii, eliminating combustible engines, and guaranteed government jobs – even for those “unwilling to work.”

Like FDR’s New Deal, the proposal would be a total disaster for the US economy. Also, like its spiritual predecessor, it’s a great illustration of what F.A. Hayek warned of his classical work the Road to Serfdom: a grand utopian plan for a military-like mobilization of the entire US economy, the inevitable result of which is economic ruin and loss of liberty.

The most refreshing part of the Green New Deal’s proposals though is how honest and transparent the document is – a rarity for Washington. The proposal makes its own comparisons to military plans, stating its objective is “to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2” and remarking at the government’s past success of outperforming expectations when it comes to the manufacturing of war machines. It doesn’t try to downplay the revolutionary vision outlined in the brief, nor even try to act as if this is some sort of policy that will pay for itself, instead it explicitly advocates for it to be financed through the monetary magic of the Federal Reserve.

It is in her honesty in which Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s true weakness as a politician lies.

After all, the very same class of political pundits and politicians – on both the left and right – that have decided it is safe to laugh at the freshman Congresswoman’s proposal are almost all guilty of promoting and supporting plans that are similarly absurd.

For example, AOC’s embrace of the idea that “we’ll just pay for it!” – a crudely articulated version of Modern Monetary Theory which has gained its own following in recent years  –  is certainly deserving of ridicule. Is it, however, all that more outrageous than the idea of negative interest rate or the massive expansion of central bank balance sheets that “serious” central bankers have embraced around the world?

Similarly, the sheer hubris of thinking that Washington central planners – in just 10 years – can re-arrange the entire US economy in a way to eliminate all carbon emissions is something so insane that it shouldn’t be seriously discussed in civilized society.  Yet is it really all that more delusional than the idea that the US military could transform the entire Middle East into a bastion of neoliberalism, a view passionately defended by a number of “serious” pundits and policymakers who continue to get paid for their opinion?

Yes, anyone with a basic grasp of economics can recognize the amazing fallacies that exist within the idea of guaranteeing everyone, everywhere a job, food, healthcare, and housing – totally regardless of merit. Yet the current operations of the US government actively dismiss the well-understood consequences of prohibition, government subsidies, unfunded social programs, and arbitrary insurance mandates.

So yes, Rep.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is guilty of promoting stupid policy she doesn’t fully understand, the consequences of which will have very negative consequences for Americans of all types. She is deserving of public ridicule and in a better world would be soundly voted out for her severe ignorance.

She should not, however, be treated as a beltway outlier.

 Her complete ignorance of economics simply means she fits in perfectly with the rest of Washington and most legislators around the world. 

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Why It's Important to "Preach to the Converted"

02/08/2019Ryan McMaken

An an editor of publications with a distinct ideological bent, I sometimes hear that it's important to strive to avoid "preaching to the choir" or "preaching to the converted."

It's difficult to generalize what is meant when this phrase is used. Some users of the phrase think it's a waste of time for any group to discuss important topics among the members. Why discuss laissez-faire economics (or any topic) with other people who already agree?

Some have even argued that the very existence of publications devoted to a specific limited ideological point of view are dangerous because they encourage more in-group discussion at the expense of outside engagement.

More generally, though, the use of the phrase "preaching to the converted" is used to devalue the practice of encouraging frequent discussion of ideas and scholarship within in a certain group. The phrase instead suggests it is better to focus most — if not all — communications outward for the purposes of converting outsiders.

There's a lot of gray area here, and moderates on the issue likely hold a wide variety of opinions as to just how much discussion ought to be with outsiders. Some may think its fine to develop ideas internally, and to engage in only occasional outward "missionary" efforts. Depending on the nature of the organization, some may even think it's fine to focus nearly all energies on in-group teaching and scholarship so that in-group members can then go to other organizations which specialize in outward communications, but do little in terms of internal debate and idea development.

In practice, most ideological groups do both internal idea development and education, and outward communication.

Both activities are important, and many people understand this.

Some observers, nevertheless have a tendency to excessively emphasize the importance of not "preaching to the converted" and this is often due to three incorrect assumptions:

  1. It is believed that people in the converted already have a sufficient understanding of the topic at hand.
  2. It is assumed that the converted will never leave the group in question.
  3. It is believed that the converted won't interact with people outside their group in other contexts.

To illustrate these points, it may be helpful to speak of them in the context for which the term was originally invented: religious evangelization.

This isn't to suggest that laissez-faire views of political economy are anything like a religion. They're not. These views do not constitute a "way of life" or any sort of all-encompassing theory of the cosmos or the human person.

Nevertheless, a religious group can serve as an instructive analogy for a closer look at spreading a certain ideological viewpoint.

The "Choir" Is Often Full of Poorly Educated and Casual Believers

Let's begin by looking at "the converted" or the congregation in any religious group.

Anyone who has experience within any sizable group of Christians — for example — knows that there is a wide variety of knowledge levels and engagement levels within the group.

Some of them are well-read, enthusiastic, orthodox, and attend every single group event. Others are less sure of the group's core beliefs. Some only attend services occasionally. Some self-identify as Christians, but have barely read any of the group's most important documents.

And yet, all of these people call themselves "Christians." Clearly, it would be a mistake to then conclude that no one in this group requires additional discussion, instruction, or reading. In fact, most would benefit from being shown new ways of looking at things, or new readings with which they had not been familiar before. The clergy and teaching staff would also benefit from being asked difficult questions and being asked to elaborate on ideas already discussed. Useful information doesn't just flow one way. Without this, the "converted" cannot be expected to communicate their ideas to others, or even to themselves. Moreover, because old people die and new people are born, new people may be coming into the group as other people are dying off.

Some of the Converted May Be Headed Out the Door

This brings us to the second problem of assuming too much about the converted. It is often assumed that those who are converted will stay that way. This, of course, is a bad assumption in both ideological movement and in religious groups. People fall away from religious groups frequently. The same is true of any number of ideological groups, whether they be based on laissez-faire economics,  on Marxism, or on veganism.

Thus, one of the most important functions of "preaching to the converted" is to address the questions of those who perceive inconsistencies in the ideas, or to better explain hard-to-understand aspects of a certain group of ideas. One of the most important things to avoid is the idea that every question already has pat answers that are self-evidently true to everyone. This is rarely the case, of course, so even among the converted, additional discussion and investigation is usually warranted.

The Converted Are Part of Other Groups

And finally, it is important to remember that "the converted" — unless they're part of a despotic cult — interact with numerous other groups of people in daily life, whether through family, professional work, or community groups. If these people are to be expected to spread certain ideas effectively, they must have a competent grasp of them. And there must be some place or publication or organization that can help them obtain this grasp of things.

In other words, if the converted are to share their ideas with others, their primary concern should be understanding these ideas well in the first place.

Leonard Read regularly made this point, noting:

it is only in self-improvement that one can have any influence whatsoever on the improvement of others. This point may never come clear unless we know why so few of us feel any need for self-improvement while so many of us possess an overpowering itch to improve others. Why do we spend so much more time looking down than up?

This was perhaps Read's version of "doctor, heal thyself." It's a good thing to want to go out and improve the world. But it's important to also have the means of improving one's self first. Being a member of "the choir" or "the converted" is often a helpful first step.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Crony Capitalism in Scientific Research

02/07/2019Hunter Lewis

My wife and I read a quirky newsletter you won’t find online called the Belly of the Beast. It is the source of this startling but then again not surprising information: Academic researchers publish 2-3 million papers a year, most of it funded by governments. Most of the results of the this research are published in copyright protected journals owned by private companies, especially the giant German company Elsevier, companies that together are thought to earn over $25 billion. To read the research, you need to subscribe, and some of the journals charge as much as $5,000-10,000 a year for the subscription. Individual articles may be purchased separately, but there are stiff fees for them such as $40 each. Academic libraries often use public funding to pay the subscription or article prices.

There are some other peer reviewed "open access" journals, but researchers may have to pay a stiff fee to be put up on line by them, for example $3,000, and they are generally less "prestigious" than the print publications. A documentary film on this subject may be found at . The film teases that you will have to pay $39.95 to see it, but you won’t actually have to do so. By the way, the government giving away billions for research and then allowing private publishers to skim billions from it is far from the whole story. If government funded research at a university results in a patentable invention, such as a drug, the university is granted all the rights to the patent. The university then sells or licenses the patent to a drug company. The government, having doled out so-called public funds, does not share in any of the profits.

Why is government perfectly happy with these arrangements? Because government is working hand in glove with the private interests directly profiting from the arrangements. Politicians benefit through campaign contributions, donations to their captive non-profits, and future jobs. Bureaucrats receive trips or other benefits or the prospect of future, remunerative jobs from the same private interests.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Spitznagel on Fed Policy, Hedge Funds and Insuring Market Risk

02/06/2019Mark Spitznagel

Universa Investments Chief Investment Officer Mark Spitznagel sits down with Bloomberg's Erik Schatzker to discuss the next market crash, the size of the hedge fund industry and worries around hedging market risk.

Watch it here. 

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Jeff Deist on Crosstalk

02/06/2019The Editors

Jeff Deist joined CrossTalk yesterday to discuss the influence of neoconservatives like John Bolton on Trump's foreign policy. Things get heated with another guest when Jeff questions the dubious "War on Terror," the enormous US military budget, and whether Trump's actions regarding endless Middle East wars matches his rhetoric.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

New York is America's Least Free State, Which is the Most Libertarian?

wrote a couple of days ago about America’s best and worst cities for pro-market policy, and I noted that there are several rankings of economic liberty for states and nations.

But what if you want to know the place with the most overall freedom? In other words, what is the most libertarian place to live based on both economic liberty and personal liberty?

If you don’t mind a bit of travel, the answer is New Zealand.

For those who prefer to stay in the United States, Will Ruger and Jason Sorens periodically crunch numbers to calculate Freedom in the 50 States.

Their previous edition had New Hampshire in first place, so let’s take a look at the newest version.

This 2018 edition of Freedom in the 50 States presents a completely revised and updated ranking of the American states on the basis of how their policies promote freedom in the fiscal, regulatory, and personal realms. …More than 230 policy variables and their sources are now available to the public on a new website for the study. …the 2018 edition provides annual data on economic and personal freedom and their components back to 2000. …Freedom in the 50 States is an essential desk reference for anyone interested in state policy and in advancing a better understanding of a free society.

The publication is loaded with data, as you’ll see from the following charts.

To put all this data in context, the report separately calculates fiscal freedom, regulatory freedom, and personal freedom.

We’ll start with the fiscal section, which includes variables about taxes and spending, as well as other measures such as debt and government employment.

For those interested, the report has plenty of analysis and explanation about the variables that are used and the weights that are assigned.


Most of us, though, simply want to see which states get good scores and which ones get bad scores.


I’m not surprised to see that zero-income-tax states – led by Florida – are at the top. And I’m also not surprised that flat-tax states – led by Pennsylvania – also are well represented.

I assume nobody is surprised to see New York in last place.

Now let’s shift to regulatory policy and see where the burden of red is most onerous.

This part of the ranking covers a range of issues, most notably controls on land use and restrictions on the use of markets in health care.

But there are other important variables, including the extent and burden of occupational licensing.


Indeed, before getting to the overall rankings for regulation, I want to share those scores because it is so galling and upsetting that politicians impose barriers that limit the freedom of people to earn income.

Colorado deserves hearty applause for being at the top, edging out Idaho by a narrow margin. And even though Vermont was near the bottom of the fiscal rankings, it merits a mention for being good on the issue of occupational licensing.


California deserves hearty condemnation for being in last place. And I’m not surprised to see states like Illinois and New Jersey near the bottom.

I’m very disappointed, however, that Texas and Florida have such a dismal record.

But let’s not fixate on just one of the variables. If we look at the rankings for all regulatory issues, Kansas is in first place, followed by Nebraska and Idaho.


The worst states (hardly a surprise) are New York, New Jersey, and California.

Now let’s combine fiscal policy and regulatory policy and see the report’s ranking for overall economic freedom.

Florida is in first place by a comfortable margin, followed by three other zero-income-tax states (though the absence of a state income tax does not guarantee a good score, as you can see from the poor performance of Alaska, Wyoming, and Washington).


New York wins the Booby Prize by a large margin.

Hawaii and California also stand out in a bad way.

The above table tells us which state enjoys the most economic liberty, but that doesn’t tell us where to live if you want the maximum amount of overall freedom.

To identify the nation’s most libertarian state, we also need to look at rankings for personal liberty.


This means, in part, whether people are harassed and persecuted for victimless crimes, but it also includes measures of educational freedom and gun rights.

Speaking of which, I can’t resist sharing the data on which states most respect the 2nd Amendment.

Kansas gets the best score, followed by Vermont(!), Arizona, Idaho, and Mississippi.


Hawaii is the worst state by a significant margin and we (again) find California near the bottom.

Another issue which is near and dear to my heart is asset forfeiture.

I am nauseated and disgusted that governments are allowed to steal property from people who have not been convicted of any wrongdoing.

So let’s applaud New Mexico, Nebraska, and New Hampshire for putting limits on this awful practice.


And let’s heap unending score on Rhode Island for having the nation’s worst track record on this issue.

But what happens when we combine all issue relating to personal freedom?

Well, that’s exactly what the authors did, which means we get a comprehensive ranking for personal freedom. I’m not surprised that Nevada, Colorado, and New Hampshire are in the top 5, but I’m surprised to see that Maine leads the pack.


Likewise, I guess I’m not too surprised that Texas and other bible-belt states are socially conservative.

But Hawaii next to last?!?

In any event, the report combines economic freedom and personal freedom and tells us which state could be considered the most libertarian.

And the winner is the Sunshine State of Florida, followed by New Hampshire, Indiana, Colorado, and Nevada. I’m surprised that Florida does so well, though some of the other high-scoring states make sense (especially when I look at data on who reads these columns).


By contrast, the most dirigiste state is New York. That doesn’t surprise me, and I’m also not shocked by some of the other bottom dwellers.

I’m tempted to end here since we’ve already surveyed so much information.

But there’s one final chart which hopefully should be very fascinating.

We just looked at the data on how states currently rank for overall liberty.

This final selection tells us which ones have been moving in the right direction and wrong direction since the turn of the century.

Kudos to Oklahoma for adopting a lot of good reform. Same for New Mexico. And it’s also interesting to see that several states from the Great Lakes region boosted their scores (with Illinois being a laggard, of course).


Vermont has the dismal distinction of having moved the fastest in the wrong direction (No wonder it’s the Moocher State).

Hawaii also deserves an unfavorable mention, while the deterioration of New Jersey and New York is hardly a surprise.

Originally published at International Liberty
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Talking about "Affordable Housing" on the Tom Woods Show

02/05/2019Ryan McMaken

Tom and I talked about how governments make housing less affordable, and how the best way to make housing more affordable is to build more. But both government planners and private owners will often join forces to prevent new housing from being built. Thus, the most commons "solution" ends up being schemes to subsidize housing.


Ep. 1334 The Government's War on Affordable Housing

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

The Myth of Swedish Socialism with Per Bylund

02/01/2019Mises Institute

In a new interview with Pete Raymond, Sweden-born economist Per Bylund describes the Swedish economic system and takes a closer look at the claims of those who say Sweden is an example that ‘socialism’ can work in practice.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

The Reforms that Venezuela Needs Right Now

02/01/2019Rafael Acevedo

Venezuela's government is in a state of upheaval. Foreign nations are lining up to support either the regime of Nicolás Maduro — who claims to be the legitimately elected president — or that of Juan Guaidó, who the opposition claims is now the constitutionally mandated interim president.

The current situation has been brought on by nearly twenty years of Chavismo, a hard-left socialist ideology, which has left the Venezuelan economy in ruins.

Understandably, many Venezuelans are now hoping for a political change. and many believe no real change can be had until the current regime is gone.

But no matter who is president a week — or a year, or five years — from now, prosperity can only be regained by enormous reforms to the Venezuelan political and economic systems.

Venezuelans must act now to demand these changes, because bringing in new politicians won't be enough to turn the nation around:

  1. Open the road to monetary freedom, eliminating all legal tender laws and the nation's central-bank supported system of fractional-reserve banks. Allow Venezuelans to adopt whatever medium of exchange they wish. Even dollarization ought to be on the table.
  2. Open the country to International Trade: eliminate all tariffs, taxes, and trade barriers. All of them.
  3. Privatize Everything! All state-owned companies and assets, following Econintech's proposal.
  4. Decentralize the Government: Grant total administrative and budgetary autonomy to Venezuela's twenty-three states . Decentralization is a key to minimizing the damage an abuse central government can do.
  5. Lower taxes drastically, and decentralize tax collection and administration to the state level. All new taxes must be approved by referendum.
  6. Allow private Venezuelans to access and accept both humanitarian and security assistance from foreign organizations.
  7. Guarantee the right to self-defense: demobilize all the armed groups, purge the prisons, implement widespread private gun ownership, and auction to the public all weapons confiscated by the state.

Should Venezuela finally move toward real reform, Venezuela could reclaim its position as one of the most prosperous nations in Latin America. At times like this, Venezuelans can look at former communist countries — such as Poland — that applied radical free-market reforms and now are moving toward a far more prosperous future.

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Come on Mr. Krugman, Give Real Libertarianism a Chance

01/30/2019Walter Block

Professor Paul Krugman asked a very important question in his January 10 New York Times essay “Trump’s Big Libertarian Experiment; Does contaminated food smell like freedom?".  In his opinion piece, Krugman maintained that the recently concluded governmental shutdown demonstrated the hypocrisy of Republicans. The Nobel Prize winning economist also defended a plethora of government programs such as the Small Business Administration, food stamps, the FDA and socialized medicine.

As a libertarian, I strongly and enthusiastically support his claim of Republican hypocrisy. With regard to most of the rest of his assertions, I respectfully disagree. Let us consider the specifics.

Mr. Krugman noted that according to Ronald Reagan government was the problem, not the solution. Yes, Ronald Reagan’s rhetoric was strongly libertarian. But talk, no matter how eloquent, is cheap. When he was governor of California, that state’s budget increased, not the other way around. Ditto for when he was president of the United States and federal spending zoomed. Krugman is absolutely correct in asserting that “Republicans have echoed his rhetoric ever since,” but they do not follow through. They held the Presidency and both houses of congress for the last two years, and nary was there any noticeable reduction in government expenditure. However, fair is fair: President Trump did eliminate a few onerous business regulations and lowered tax rates somewhat.

But Krugman’s claim that the shutdown in effect provided some sort of natural experiment for libertarianism is wide of the mark. The idea, here, is that with government out of the picture, if the libertarians are correct, the free enterprise system will quickly ride to the rescue and take up the slack. But no. When government is giving it away for free down the street (courtesy of the long suffering taxpayer), it is difficult, just about impossible, for private firms to provide goods and services competitively. The latest shutdown lasted longer than any previous one. The strong expectation is, now that it has ended, that there will either be a compromise on the wall (a trade for the status of the DACAs), or Trump will build it as part of his claim of national emergency. A much fairer test of this “big, beautiful libertarian experiment” would be if there were a credible announcement that the government would end these initiatives on a permanent basis. Even better would be an announcement from Trump that he would work with Congress to establish free enterprise zones with an eye on actually experimenting with true libertarianism. 

This is the entire point of free enterprise zones: government taxes, regulations, prohibitions, do not apply in a small test area, say, the size of Rhode Island, maybe located in the wilds of Alaska, Nevada or Wyoming, or in that entire state. There would be no laws there against drugs, sex between consenting adults; no welfare for anyone; the whole libertarian nine yards would be implemented. I challenge Mr. Krugman, a fair minded man, to call for exactly this sort of “experiment” instead of the present one he offers almost tongue in cheek, which does not at all qualify for that honorific. Ceteris was hardly paribus, during the recently ended shut down.

Krugman mentioned that SBA loans and farm subsidy checks were no longer being sent out during the partial shutdown, but he was curiously silent as to whether or not he favors these elements of “crony capitalism” that Republicans, but certainly not libertarians, support. The case against them is easy to make for left-liberals: They take money from all taxpayers, and direct the funds to the relatively rich. Libertarians oppose welfare programs both for the poor (they can creative incentives for family break up) and for the wealthy. We all have a word for compelling some people to give money to others against their will: theft. But only libertarians employ it when the government is involved as intermediary. This opposition holds true whatever the wealth of donors and recipients. Both of these programs, farm subsidies and SBA, should be abolished in their entirety; immediately, if not sooner. Moreover, they are both elements of central planning and government picking winners (Solyndra, anyone?). Have we learned nothing from far better “natural experiments” than the one alluded to by Krugman: that between East and West Germany, North and South Korea? 

Let us now consider the Food and Drug Administration, a shibboleth amongst so-called “progressives.” Why should we be forced to put all our eggs in one basket: to trust the views of but one institution for the all-important task of ensuring safety regarding these products? It is a basic premise of economics 101, to which even Mr. Krugman should adhere, that competition brings about a better result than a compulsory monopoly. That applies to all industries, certainly including the one tasked with ensuring food and drug safety.

Then there is the question of why FDA pronouncements should be compulsory. Why not, merely, advisory? How does it help the consumer to reduce options among medications? Our friends on the left side of the spectrum favor “choice” in the debate over abortion. Why not here, too? The FDA, along with programs such as compulsory Social Security, are profoundly incompatible with democracy, yet another favorite of this sector of the political spectrum. If people are so stupid as to require prohibitions of medicine deemed inappropriate by the FDA, not merely warnings, and cannot save for a rainy day or for their retirements, then it cannot be reasonable to give them the right to vote. On the other hand, if we entrust them with access to the ballot box, we cannot also logically think they need FDA advice, let alone prohibitions, or nanny state requirements that they save their money (put the Ponzi scheme elements of social security to one side). But even governmental advice is highly problematic. Nowhere in the Constitution is there provision made for government to function as an Ann Landers.

Then, too, brand names are a source of security for quality of food and drugs. Who is really more responsible for insuring excellence, Pfizer, Heinz and McDonalds, or the FDA? If the former fail us, they will be heavily penalized, even bankrupted. When the latter fails they keep on going, just like the Energizer Bunny. (The Army Corps of Engineers is still in charge of the Mississippi River, even though it was the failure of their levies which led to the deaths of some 1900 people in late 1920s; were a private enterprise responsible for such a horror, it would have long ago have been replaced by a different business firm).

Nor must we sweep under the rug past FDA mistakes. For example, it failed to warn pregnant women of the morning sickness medicine thalidomide, which created birth defects. That was a Type I error, approving of a negative. Once burned, twice shy. As a result of that horror, the FDA has been busy manufacturing all sorts of type II errors: refusing to allow people to use safe medicines. That is, not until after years and years of very expensive testing. This pushes pharmaceutical prices through the roof, and deprives needy patients for long durations of unavailability. Many unnecessary deaths can be attributed to this failure of theirs. No, the FDA is nothing to brag about. It should be terminated and ashes sowed where once it stood. Milton Friedman indeed hit the nail precisely on the head when he condemned “the F.D.A.’s existence as an unwarranted interference in the free market,” as Krugman accurately states.

By the way, contrary to Krugman, Friedman always characterized himself as a small l libertarian, not a conservative. His intellectual and moral soldier in arms, Friedrich Hayek, wrote an essay “Why I am not a conservative.”

Professor Krugman opines that “libertarian ideology isn’t a real force within the G.O.P.; it’s more of a cover story for the party’s actual agenda.” This is only partially true. There are several libertarians now in the congress: Senator Rand Paul and Congressmen Justin Amash, Walter Jones and Thomas Massie. Dr. Ron Paul was a long time member of the latter institution. There is also the Congressional Freedom Caucus composed of many other libertarians as well as conservatives. Senator Paul is now widely discussed (not only within libertarian circles) as Donald Trump’s Vice Presidential running mate for 2020, instead of Mike Pence. Yes, libertarianism sometimes serves as a fig leaf for Republicans, but, this philosophy plays a role just a little bit more vital than that.

No truer words were ever said about all this than Krugman's: “In the case of the (Republican) party establishment, that agenda is about redistributing income up the scale, and in particular helping important donor interests. Republican politicians may invoke the rhetoric of free markets to justify cutting taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor … but they don’t really care about free markets per se. After all, the party had little problem lining up behind Trump’s embrace of tariffs … Stick it to the bums on welfare, but don’t touch those farm subsidies.” But this, of course, does not at all apply to libertarians.

Next consider health services, whether Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare or the single payer system of Canada and much of Europe. Basic supply and demand analysis indicates that when prices are held below equilibrium, demand exceeds supply. Every freshman economics student can tell you that this means there is a shortage. And, a shortage there is, in these systems. In Alberta, Canada, both a woman and a horse she owned had kidney stones. Her pet was treated right away (there is no veterinary socialism in that country); were it not, she would have been arrested for animal cruelty. As for her, she had to endure several long months of pain, until she was treated. That is but one sad story in this tip of the iceberg.

Why is medical care so expensive in the U.S.? It is so for two reasons. One, we have covered above: the FDA boosts prices of medical drugs. Two, even more important, the strongest labor union in the country, the American Medical Association, practices restrictions on entry, similar to what the taxi cab crony capitalists attempt to do against Lyft and Uber, and downtown hotels vis a vis Airbnb. They strictly limit the intake of medical schools and their number. They strive mightily to ensure that highly qualified foreign doctors are not allowed to practice in this country. Eliminate their unwarranted powers, and there will be no felt need for medical socialism. Relative prices of computers, television sets, and other products of the somewhat free sectors of the economy continually fall. Next, perhaps, to banking, the health industries are the most highly regulated and prices remain high, there.

Professor Krugman ends on this note: “Knowing that the food you’re eating is now more likely than before to be contaminated, does that potential contamination smell to you like freedom?” I say, in contrast, if you want to be free of tainted food and drugs, the last thing we should rely on is the FDA. Yes, eliminate it, and allow the “magic of the market” as Ronald Reagan would say, to bring us security in this regard.

Originally published at Real Clear Markets
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here
Shield icon power-market-v2