Philosophy Learn more about our
organization and the moral basis of capitalism.
Campaigns Find out about the
Center's many activism projects.
Media Center
News mentions, press releases and
speakers.
Feedback
Send us a comment or ask
a question--we want to hear from you!
Contribute This website and the
Center's advocacy programs are not free--we depend on you to support our
efforts. Invest in your freedom today! Donate once or set up a monthly
withdrawal plan--we accept all major cards.
National Review's Larry Kudlow analyzes the resignation of New York Stock Exchance CEO Dick Grasso with appropriate outrage:
kangaroo court of liberal-leaning journalists and Democratic state treasurers charged and convicted former New York Stock Exchange CEO Dick Grasso with an unpardonable sin — success.
This collection of class-envy warriors put such relentless pressure on the NYSE that Grasso was finally forced by his board to resign. Grasso, of course, was the man whose Herculean efforts were behind the reopening of the stock exchange only four business days after the terrorist bombing of downtown New York. But the so-called titans of finance who sit on the NYSE board were so mau-maued by the media and political onslaught that they actually sided against the man who inflicted the first major blow on Osama's terrorism.
There was no scandal here. Dick Grasso accepted a big pay package endorsed on two occasions by the NYSE board in return for 35 years of successful service. What is scandalous is that key Big Board officials — like Hank Paulson of Goldman Sachs, Philip Purcell of Morgan Stanley, and William Harrison of JP Morgan Chase — succumbed to the pressure of newspaper headlines and abandoned Grasso.
Not only did Grasso start America's economic recovery immediately after 9/11, he also saved the NYSE from a late-1990s assault by the Nasdaq. At the time, the technology stock market threatened to induce numerous Big Board companies to switch their listings, and at one point cautioned that it might even take over the NYSE. But it was the diminutive son of Italian immigrants who defended NYSE floor brokers and retail investors from a new era of impersonal electronic trading. Some thanks he got: Many of these same floor brokers helped push Grasso over the edge.
Let's be very clear about this: Grasso has done nothing wrong. Nothing, that is, except believe his own board when they offered him a large pay package for his long-term service.
The Grasso "scandal" has every appearance of hating the good for being good. Just like the federal indictment of Martha Stewart, the ouster of Grasso is not about corporate ethics or the rule of law, but about demonizing those who dare to earn and enjoy business success.
The most disturbing aspect of this story is the self-indulgent whining from numerous state treasurers--including California's--over Grasso's "unfair" pay package. You can argue the treasurers are a valid stakeholder, since state-administered pension funds are a major stock investor. That's true enough, but state treasurers are first and foremost politicians, not businessmen, so their criticism of Grasso is presumptively an act of political self-indulgence, not a rational criticism of NYSE's business practices. Especially coming from states, like California, that have financially mismanaged themselves into near-insolvency, the attack on Grasso's salary seems little more than an effort to deflect public attention from the genuine financial scandal of state budgets run amok.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 10:37 AM | link
| donate |
CAC News: Hurricane Update
From my perch looking north into metro Washington, power has just been restored in my immediate Alexandria neighborhood, while much of the surrounding area remains in darkness.
The dome of the Capitol remains illuminated. Our great institutions endure.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 3:25 AM | link
| donate |
Thursday, September 18, 2003 :::
CAC News: Hurricane Update
CAC Chairman Nick Provenzo reports the power is out in his Alexandria, Virginia, neighborhood. The lights remain on from my Northwest Washington, DC, perch however.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 8:00 PM | link
| donate |
Foreign Policy: Saudis Think About the Bomb
The Guardian says that Saudi Arabia is considering a nuclear strategy, either an alliance with a nuclear power, a plan to buy the bomb from Pakistan, or to somehow get Israel and Iran to give up their nuclear programs.
The Saudis provided a lot of money to Pakistan while Pakistan was developing their nuclear program. Saudi has also recently stationed F-15s in the northwest of the country, in striking range of Israel.
Selling a nuclear weapon for cash would also be very attractive for North Korea, in fact export is, in my opinion, the most likely reason that the North is developing nuclear weapons.
We must stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons to our enemies by any means necessary. We wasted a year dickering with diplomacy over Iraq that produced nothing. Time is not on our side.
::: posted by John Bragg
at 7:34 PM | link
| donate |
Celebrating Capitalism: Hurricane News
According to phone reports, power is out in parts of Montgomery County, MD, (northwest of Washington) but Papa John's is delivering.
By the way, let's remember this storm next time someone starts prattling about the benefits of using public transportation and deriding our four-wheeled freedom machines.
::: posted by John Bragg
at 7:15 PM | link
| donate |
Foreign Policy: Crisis Micro-Management
Chess king Gary Kasparov has some sharp words on US foreign policy in a WSJ essay analyzing US relations with Russia:
Instead of offering us a new vision of global development, on the scale of Winston Churchill's historic 1946 "Iron Curtain" speech, the current administration has reduced its foreign policy to a vehicle of crisis micro-management.
Kasparov hit it right on the head. The US lacks a clear, coherent strategic vision, and the willingness to fight for that vision if necessary. Iran and North Korea are much greater threats to US security than Iraq, yet the administration seems unwilling to aggressively face down on either regime.
It dosen’t get better. Kasparov continues:
President Putin was quick to phone George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks. But as the Bush administration built its case for war against Iraq, he preferred the company of Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroder, not to mention the business of Saddam Hussein. Meanwhile, Russia continues to supply Iran with nuclear technology and has done next to nothing to thwart the North Koreans' pursuit of Russian technology to advance their intercontinental-ballistic-missile program.
Indeed, President Putin has been playing a clever game of reaping benefits from both sides of every major international crisis. While the Russian Foreign Ministry kindly offers the U.S. its mediating services, Russia's military and security wings work behind the scenes to bolster rogue regimes, thus adding value to Mr. Putin's bargaining chips at the geopolitical table.
Helping our enemies ought to come with a price. It’s high time the Bush Administration find some courage--and a policy to match.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 1:16 PM | link
| donate |
Antitrust News: More Postal Comments
Two more amicus briefs were filed this week in the Postal Service antitrust case before the Supreme Court. Both the Washington Legal Foundation and the American Trucking Associations filed in support of the respondent, Flamingo Industries. The ATA's membership includes Postal Service competitors United Parcel Service and Federal Express.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 11:24 AM | link
| donate |
Antitrust News: Antitrust Ruling Upheld Against Visa, MC
Reuters reports Visa and MasterCard lost in court yesterday.
A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld a lower court's antitrust ruling against Visa and MasterCard, dealing a blow to the credit card associations' efforts to prevent member banks from issuing cards from rivals American Express Co. and Discover.
Visa and MasterCard both said they would likely appeal the decision.
The decision was made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The suit, which argued that a rule by Visa and MasterCard preventing banks from issuing credit cards from their rivals hurts competition and stifles innovation, had been brought by the U.S Department of Justice.
If ultimately upheld, the decision would be a major boost to American Express and Morgan Stanley's Discover, allowing them to put their cards in the hands of more consumers by striking deals with the tens of thousands of banks that Visa and MasterCard have as members.
"The defendants have failed to show that the anti-competitive effects of their exclusionary rules are outweighed by pro-competitive benefits," Judge Pierre Leval wrote in the 23-page decision by a three-judge panel.
"Today's decision means that consumers can enjoy the benefits of competition by having more choices for their credit needs," said Hewitt Pate, head of the Justice Department's antitrust division.
Visa and MasterCard have argued that even though banks do not issue the cards of American Express and Discover, those companies are not prevented from reaching consumers through their own marketing.
Visa and MasterCard's argument is true, but not primary. Why don't Visa and MasterCard enjoy a fundamental right to set terms for the use of thier products? That's the billion dollar question behind antitrust that Visa and MasterCard have yet to ask.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 10:22 AM | link
| donate |
Rights and Reason: Hurricane Isabel
This just in: The Citizens for Voluntary Trade filed emergency comments with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration opposing the planned landfall of Hurricane Isabel, citing that the strong winds and rainfall was "not in the public interest". In anticipation of the storm CVT ordered a halt to non-essential voluntary trade on Thursday and the Voluntary Trade Alert System raised the national threat condition to Code Purple.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 9:53 AM | link
| donate |
Wednesday, September 17, 2003 :::
Rights and Reason: Where Cosmetology and Real Estate Converge
Virginia Postrel blogs the story of a self-employed Texas beautician who, despite having the required state cosmetology license, is facing the government’s wrath over a supplemental licensing requirement:
Little did she know that the state requires an "independent contractor's license," which entails no additional qualifications, merely a $65 fee. This license is, as far as I can tell, purely a shakedown. You pay your money and give them your address. The license has nothing to do with either professional qualifications (that's the cosmetology license) or tax payments (that's another state department). But those $65 fees add up. And if you don't have the independent contractor's license, you get socked with a $500 fine--precious working capital Denise had planned to use for supplies. (Her landlord got hit with a $1,000 fine for each contractor who lacked the required license.) She is not a happy entrepreneur.
After a bit of rooting around, I managed to find some some mention of the independent contractor's license on the state cosmetology commission's website. But it would be very easy to overlook that information, which isn't featured on the home page. From a first glance, you'd think the commission was concerned with professional qualifications and protecting the public from bad perms and mangled manicures. But you'd be wrong.
This harassment is happening in business-loving, entrepreneur-celebrating Texas. It persists because this sort of petty bureaucratic hassle--and the associated hidden taxes--is so routine that it doesn't constitute "news" and hence never becomes a political cause. But it's stifling business expansion just when the economy most needs it, and it's punishing bold, productive people.
Licensing regulations exist under the state’s general “police” powers to protect the public’s health and safety. State legislatures, however, see few practical limits to police power, and state courts are reluctant to get in the way even when a requirement is clearly unconstitutional or unlinked to any rational health and safety justification.
A case I’m working on right now raises issues similar to the example cited by Postrel. In New York State, it is against the law for individuals to sell apartment rental listings without a special “apartment information vendor” (AIV) license, which is separate from a general real estate broker’s license. The AIV law was passed in the late 1970s to combat potential fraud in the rental market; for example, individuals might sell repackaged newspaper rental listings as original compilations. The AIV law places substantial burdens on legitimate businesses, however, such as mandatory refunds on request and a ban on advertising specific properties.
In 1992, LaLa Wang started MLX.com, an online multiple listing service (or MLS) for customers looking to rent apartments. In most markets, real estate brokers form an MLS to combine their individual listings into a single, shared database. The traditional MLS concentrates resources in the hands of the brokers. New York City, however, is one of the few major markets to lack an MLS (in part because New York’s notorious rent control laws create an artificial supply shortage that make high-commission rentals too valuable a commodity for brokers to share with one another). Wang’s service changed all that. Not only did MLX create a de facto MLS, it did so in a more open platform than a traditional service: Customers could directly access the MLX database via a password protected account.
New York officials, and their political allies in the traditional real estate industry, used the AIV law to try and shut Wang down. They claimed that Wang needs an AIV to operate her service. But the Internet-based MLX service is merely a forum to exchange rental listings, not the type of self-contained lists that were the intended target of the AIV law. Wang’s service is no different than a newspaper that runs apartment listings, yet New York officials acknowledge newspapers do not need an AIV license to operate.
Furthermore, the AIV law’s requirements make it nearly impossible for an Internet-based listing service to succeed. For example, the law requires brokers to refund all but $15 to a customer on demand, with or without reason. MLX charges about $249 for access to its database, meaning all but $15 would have to be refunded to a customer who searched the listings and didn’t find what they were looking for. Few businesses have a legal obligation to refund a fee after the service was used in full.
Far from protecting consumers, the AIV law serves as a practical barrier to entry, especially for newer technology-based services that look to compete with established real estate brokers, or even protected forums like newspapers.
When Wang refused to get an AIV on grounds that it would either make MLX’s business illegal or unprofitable, the New York secretary of state revoked her regular real estate broker’s license. It did so on the sole ground that she was “untrustworthy” to hold a broker’s license--the refusal to obtain an AIV license itself being “untrustworthy” behavior. Wang appealed the secretary’s decision to the New York courts, which turned a blind eye to her challenge. Wang is now considering a final appeal to the United States Supreme Court on federal constitutional grounds.
The most obvious constitutional defect with New York’s regime is the trampling of free speech rights. If Wang wants to offer a forum to exchange information, the state has no right to restrict or restrain such efforts under the First Amendment. There is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against Wang--only her failure to comply with an irrational licensing regime that arguably doesn’t apply to her business model in the first place. The state affords Wang a lesser degree of First Amendment protection based on the forum she chooses to operate; remember, if Wang started publishing a newspaper that contained the same type of listings she provides now, the state would not require the AIV license.
Like the recently settled Nike case, Wang’s battle with New York is a question of so-called “commercial speech” rights. The state is regulating speech based on economic motive. The First Amendment does not permit this, but most courts simply look the other way. The Supreme Court itself articulated a needlessly complex “commercial speech doctrine” to review regulations like New York’s, and even under that test, the AIV law has unjustly restricted Wang’s rights, not to mention her economic livelihood.
As Virginia Postrel notes, state regulatory abuse is so routine now that it doesn’t rise to the level of a political cause. But folks like Wang, who are battling the system despite the odds, show us that there may yet be a crusade to be waged (and won) against the ever-expanding abuse of “police” powers over the economic rights of Americans.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 3:38 PM | link
| donate |
History: Vote for your favorite Document
US News and Word Report is offering a poll for readers on which documents do they think were the most influential in American history.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 3:31 PM | link
| donate |
Rights and Reason: Masters of the blatantly obvious
In an unsigned op-ed that says that even if Yasser Arafat lives, the “idea of him” must die, the Wall Street Journal observed that even the Nobel Foundation website (Arafat was awarded the Nobel peace prize in 1994) says that Arafat is a dictator.
This agreement included provision for the Palestinian elections which took place in early 1996, and Arafat was elected President of the Palestine Authority. Like other Arab regimes in the area, however, Arafat's governing style tended to be more dictatorial than democratic. When the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu came to power in Israel in 1996, the peace process slowed down considerably. Much depends upon the nature of the new Israeli government, which will result from the elections to be held in 1999.
So according to even the Nobel Foundation, Arafat is more dictator than democrat, but it was right-winger Benjamin Netanyahu that slowed down the peace process. No mention of Arafat’s broken promises and connection to terrorism prompting Israel’s right-wing reaction.
I agree with the WSJ. The idea of Yasser Arafat must die.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 10:01 AM | link
| donate |
Rights and Reason: Seattle Voters Nix 10-Cent Espresso Tax
Rebecca Cook of the AP reports Seattle's proposed excise tax on espresso fell flat in the voting booth yesterday:
After voters in this caffeine capital rejected a proposed 10-cent tax on espresso drinks, cafe owners celebrated with beer, wine and — what else? — lattes.
With 97 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday, 69 percent of voters opposed the tax. The initiative served a jolt of controversy to an otherwise sleepy off-year primary election.
"You can't tax coffee. It just doesn't work," said coffee shop owner Jeff Babcock, celebrating the victory at a downtown espresso store.
The measure would have taxed espresso drinks a dime per cup, with the revenue going to fund preschool and day-care programs. The tax would have been levied on any drink with half an ounce or more of espresso.
Initiative sponsor John Burbank said people who spend $3 to $5 on coconut mochas or iced vanilla lattes could afford an extra dime for kids. "It's a disappointing vote," he said.
No it's not. Excise taxes are one of the most vicious taxes levied--they are a tax that target users of a specific item, rather then a broadly based tax on all consumption. Burbank's egalitarian premise was plain--people who have money for luxury items should be made to pay for "the kids." It's refreshing that even in Seattle, hardly a bastion of capitalist thought, capitalism won out the day. Bravo!
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 9:32 AM | link
| donate |
Tuesday, September 16, 2003 :::
Antitrust News: Briefs Filed in Postal Service Case
Yesterday Flamingo Industries, which sued the U.S. Postal Service for antitrust violations, filed a brief in support of its right to bring its case with the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit previously held the Postal Service is a "person" that can be sued under the Sherman Act. Solicitor General Ted Olson, representing the Postal Service, appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. Oral arguments will be held later this year.
CAC previously filed an amicus brief in support of neither party but endorsing the Ninth Circuit's judgment. In our view, while nobody should be subject to the antitrust laws, to exempt a government-sposnored monopoly from antitrust's reach is unreasonable. Private businesses are already at a legally mandated disadvantage when competing with the Postal Service, and the agency does not deserve, as a matter of law, a special antitrust exemption. At the same time, CAC takes no position on the underlying merits of Flamingo's case, which involves a dispute over the Postal Service's contract with the firm to provide mail sacks.
Joining CAC as an amicus in this case is PostalWatch, a nonprofit group that monitors and criticizes Postal Service activities. PostalWatch filed in support of Flamingo. You can access PostalWatch's brief here.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 2:31 PM | link
| donate |
Capitalism and the Law: Hypocrisy Watch
Neil Strauss and Bernard Chang of the New York Times don't like the RIAA's enforcement of its IP rights. Yet oddly enough, the New York Times copyrights their work (see the lower right below their cartoon).
Savor the irony.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 12:00 PM | link
| donate |
Antitrust News: Microsoft puts antitrust behind it
Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP issued the following press release:
--Tomorrow millions of California consumers and businesses will begin receiving forms allowing them to claim up to $1.1 billion in benefits from the settlement of an antitrust class action lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation. Over 10 million forms will be mailed during the next 60 days. Claim forms may also be obtained immediately online at www.microsoftcalsettlement.com or by calling 1-800-203-9995.
California consumers and businesses will now have an opportunity to recover a substantial portion of the prices they paid for all of their Microsoft operating system, spreadsheet and word processing software purchased during a seven year period ending in December 2001. Consumers can recover the first $100 of their benefits just by listing their eligible Microsoft product purchases on a claim form and signing their names. Even larger recoveries will be obtained by those who provide documentation of more than five purchases of eligible Microsoft products.
The settlement is expected to provide substantial relief to the thousands of California businesses whose technology budgets have been cut drastically in recent years, according to Eugene Crew and Richard Grossman, co-lead attorneys for the consumer class. Grossman observed, "Medium and large businesses will recover tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits. Even the smallest businesses are likely to recover thousands of dollars." He added, "A computer systems manager would be derelict in his duties if he passed up this opportunity to beef up his technology budget. The claims process is pretty simple so we expect business owners and executives to quickly file their claims and pass along the news of this fabulous opportunity to their colleagues."
After years of antitrust litigation directed at Microsoft, this is the first time that Californians will be able to recover the overcharges that Microsoft allegedly imposed upon its customers as a result of its monopoly in key software markets. While prior antitrust claims against Microsoft focused only upon its monopoly in desktop operating system software, the California class action settlement also covers alleged overcharges in word processing, spreadsheet and office productivity suite software.
It would be interesting to know what the total cost of Microsoft's decision not to publicly target the antitrust laws themselves as unfair and unjust when it first found itself under antitrust attack. Microsoft created and owns its "word processing, spreadsheet and office productivity suite software." It can charge any price its wants to consumers, or choose not to sell at all. Yet not once did Microsoft make this key point to the public. Not once did Microsoft itself challenge the premise of antitrust.
I encourage our California supporters to get their forms and get thier money from Microsoft. Why shouldn't they? Microsoft itself has sanctioned this $1.1 billion payout.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 11:16 AM | link
| donate |
The War: Iraq Police Chief Dies in Roadside Ambush
The AP reports on another attack against Iraqi law & order:
The police chief in the dangerous "Sunni Triangle" town of Khaldiya was killed in a roadside ambush as he was returning to his home in Fallujah, scene of rising criminal violence and guerrilla resistance to the American occupation of Iraq. . .
Policemen from Khaldiya said they have frequently come under attack because of their perceived association with the American occupation force, despite the American withdrawal from inside the cities in July. Many in the town, they said, shunned policemen.
Monday's killing of Ali underlines the risks facing Iraqis in the area, and to a lesser extent elsewhere in Iraq, when they join U.S.-backed security forces that the Americans have set up with the aim of allowing them to gradually take over security.
In many cases, they are seen as collaborators who sold out in exchange for an income at a time when unemployment in Iraq is as high as 60 percent.
"We are not in the police to serve the Americans, but to protect our community," said Abdel-Salam Elaiwah, a policeman from Khaldiya. "Those who attack us are just thieves."
The right answer would have been to say that proper policing of the community serves everyone. But why are thieves getting more sympathy in Iraq then US supported policemen?
The primary US focus in Iraq must be on creating institutions able to restore law and order, yet I hear a lot more about Iraqi rebuilding infrastructure then I do about rebuilding law and order.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 10:59 AM | link
| donate |
Capitalism and the Law: Insurers Sue Over 9/11 Attacks
Law.com reports on a recent suit brought by five major insurance companies who have sued Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida, dozens of other terrorist organizations and five Middle Eastern countries, seeking $300 billion in connection with claims paid out to victims of the 9/11 attacks.
Lawyers from Cozen O'Connor filed the suit on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York but eventually hope to consolidate it with separate suits filed in New York and Washington directly by the families of 9/11 victims, Cozen partner Elliott Feldman said. . .
Feldman said his clients have paid $4 billion in reserve claims and there are more than 300 wrongful-death claims and more than 100 personal injury claims. He said the potential damages from those claims are "dozens of billions" of dollars. That number is tripled because the money sought in the lawsuit can be trebled under RICO and antitrust legislation. And then Feldman said there is another increase when factoring in punitive damages, leading to the $300 billion figure mentioned in the complaint.
Antitrust? You have got to be kidding me.
Then again, one wonders what the world would look like if the DOJ went after al-Qaida as hard as it went after Microsoft.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 1:08 AM | link
| donate |
Monday, September 15, 2003 :::
Rights and Reason: A terrorist's nine lives
Reuters reports on the half-hearted war against terrorism, reporting that Israel has backed down to a threat to kill Yasser Arafat:
Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom Monday dismissed comments by a cabinet minister that Israel could kill Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, but the remarks served to increase international pressure for caution.
[* * *]
Israeli Foreign Minister Shalom, responding to Olmert's comments, told foreign journalists at a briefing:
"There will be no immediate action. It's not official policy of the Israeli government...We don't speak about killing (him). We didn't speak about it before, and we don't speak about it today."
RAGE THOUGH THE ARAB WORLD?
The United States has voiced opposition to any attempt to kill or expel Arafat, moves that Secretary of State Colin Powell said would spread "rage throughout the Arab world."
I'll repeat John Bragg's question from yesterday: Why is Arafat still alive? Would the Colin Powell accept as legitimate concerns that the death of Osama bin Laden at US hands would spread "rage throughout the Arab world"?
And rather worry about Arab rage, why doesn’t Powell worry about increased Arab intransigence that comes from knowing that the US does not have the stomach to let Israel fight its war against terror?
UPDATE: Colin Powell is not the only American voice condemning Israel for its assassination talk.
Former President [Jimmy] Carter on Monday criticized Israeli threats to kill Yasser Arafat saying they send "a wave of increasing animosity not only through the Palestinians but the entire world."
Carter told The Associated Press that statements by Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and other Israeli officials are "totally contrary to the position of the U.S. government" and U.S.-backed road map for peace in the Middle East even rules out a threat to exile the Palestinian leader.
Speaking by phone from his home in Plains, Ga., the former president said Arafat could be more forceful in condemning violence, but can't control Hamas, which is responsible for scores of suicide bombings in Israel. The State Department calls Hamas a terrorist organization.
"I don't think he is in charge of everything, but I know he can be a stronger leader," Carter said, however.
If Arafat can not control Hamas, what is he worth? What is the value of a leader who can not control huge terror cells within his own borders?
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 3:32 PM | link
| donate |
Capitalism and the Law: Businessman Pits Principle Against Politics
Today at Initium Skip Oliva tells the story of Moshe Tal, a businessman who is taking on Oklahoma City's "economic development" scheme--a scheme that confiscates private wealth through taxation, then redistributes that wealth to businesses favored by local politicians.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 10:22 AM | link
| donate |
Sunday, September 14, 2003 :::
Foreign Policy: WTO Talks Fail
Poor countries walked out of the Cancun trade talks demanding that America and Europe open their agriculture markets and reduce subsidies.
I'm not a WTO expert. I don't know if the countries who pulled out were honest about their reasons, or if this was an excuse to protect their protectionism. But it's a sad day.
::: posted by John Bragg
at 11:02 PM | link
| donate |
Foreign Policy: Why is Arafat still alive?
::: posted by John Bragg
at 8:01 AM | link
| donate |
Foreign Policy: Iran
Reuters reports that Iran is threatening to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
The most interesting part to me was this piece of analysis:
But Anoush Ehtesami, professor of international relations at Britain's University of Durham, said some in Iran's military wanted to quit the NPT and follow Pakistan and India's example.
"The lesson Iran has learned...is that you can have a clandestine program, and when you complete it you declare your nuclear status and after a little period of economic sanctions the world moves on," he told the BBC.
Which is why we need to preempt and blow up Iran's nuclear facilities. We must do whatever is necessary to prevent nuclear weapons from being in the hands of Islamist fanatics.
::: posted by John Bragg
at 7:58 AM | link
| donate |
The success of the Center for
the Advancement of Capitalism is made possible thanks to
voluntary contributions by people like you. If you would like
to help support the Center's efforts, please make an
online contribution. We accept all major credit cards.
