The Growth Effects of Federal Regulation
Proponents of the modern welfare/regulatory state often claim that state intervention promotes the common good and benefits ordinary people. Markets allegedly fail to deliver maximum prosperity, so governments must intervene to promote the common good. Advocates of free markets have always had evidence to counter the arguments for government intervention, and this evidence is mounting. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (6)
It does little good to say "we should have fewer regulations" whilst "regulate interstate commerce" is "interpreted" to cover trade that does NOT cross a State line (because it has an "effect" or whatever).
People have long looked to the government to "pass a law" to solve any problem - they are taught to think like this by the education system and the media.
However, in the past they had to get a constitutional amendment to grant the Federal government more power - for example the 18th Amendment to give the Congress the power to ban booze (when was the Amendment to give Congress the power to ban other drugs - do not ask this type of question, it shows a "horse and buggy" view of the role of government).
If a State was hit by regulations one could compare it the situation in another State that was not so hit.
"Look they do not have licensing there and standards are not lower, they are higher, it is prices that are lower".
But with Federal regulations such comparisons are not possible.
Published: August 3, 2007 11:01 AM
"Dawson did detect a positive correlation between economic performance and a few types of regulation. Most of the positive correlations are in areas of regulation that promote property rights and contract enforcement. Secure property rights and private contract enforcement does seem to promote prosperity."
In an overall framework of widespread government interference in the economy and monopolization of the use of force, that may be true. But what about a case in which we reduced government interference drastically in all areas but property rights and contract enforcement? From that point, wouldn't we be likely to see even greater growth if the government ended its monopoly on the legitimate use of force and allowed the private enforcement of property rights and contracts?
Published: August 3, 2007 12:33 PM
It's nice to see the Mises Institute has at least some love for Chicago-style empiricism. That's what got me interested in economics, libertarianism and so on and I certainly wouldn't be reading this website if it hadn't been for that.
Published: August 3, 2007 5:36 PM
If by empiricism you mean more case studies that serve as illustrations of economic theory, I agree, this is good. If you mean deriving economic theories by empiricist as opposed to Austrian methodology, then I disagree. Austrians can definitely do empirical studies where pure economic theory is not concerned though.
Published: August 3, 2007 5:57 PM
this is good
Published: August 3, 2007 9:08 PM
For those interested, this paper explains the Austrian method and its Aristotelian foundations quite well:
http://www.veritasnoctis.net/docs/aristotelianapriorism.pdf
Published: August 4, 2007 5:09 AM