Monday's interesting reads

"The Truth About Milton Friedman" by David Boaz at Cato:

I mentioned briefly this article in the NY Times about Milton Friedman. Boaz largely quotes David Henderson are he critques, and largely rebuffs, many of the comments and assertions made by the author of the original article. It's way to long too pick something specific to quote but way too not to mention at all.


Cato Daily Podcast with Russell Sobel (HT: Club for Growth)


"Wal-Mart doesn’t put anybody out of business. It’s consumers that put stores out of business. And the reason that some stores fail after Wal-Mart comes to town is because consumers choose to go shop at Wal-Mart instead of choosing to keep shopping at the places that they were shopping at before. And the reason that they do that is because they can save a lot of money, or the convenience, or the product lines that are offered, but it’s not Wal-Mart putting anybody out of business. It’s consumers selecting to shop at Wal-Mart over those stores because consumers view it as in their better interest..."


People like to blame businesses for their own decisions. If you're opposed to something, a well-orchestrated boycott can do wonders. The only thing is that those who don't like Wal-Mart know they could never organize an effective boycott of Wal-Mart because people always like to pay less for something. Wal-Mart does that better than anyone else.


"Raised on welfare, the 'Why Bother?' generation that doesn't want to work" from the Daily Mail (HT: Club for Growth):


"An education system with a "dismal record" of educating the poorest, and a complex welfare system, have together created a far more divided society than other European countries, it finds.
Means-tested benefits and higher taxes have reduced the incentives available to those on low incomes to better themselves, Reform says.

It concludes: 'The unintended consequence has been a 'why bother?' economy in which a significant minority do not have the capability or motivation to succeed.' "

"Current-Account Deficit = Capital-Account Surplus" by Don Boudreax at Cafe Hayek:

"A trade deficit reflects decisions made by persons on both sides of a border. If foreign suppliers of oil to America spent all of their dollars on goods and services produced in the U.S., Americans' imports of oil would not raise the size of the U.S. trade deficit. America's trade deficit grows not just because Americans import lots of things (including oil), but also because foreigners choose to invest their dollar earnings in the U.S. For this reason, Mr. Engler's conclusion that it would be "good" if America's trade deficit were lower is questionable. I, for one, welcome capital inflows into the U.S. Such inflows of capital not only directly fund private investments in America, but help to lower Americans' cost of financing Uncle Sam's reckless habit of spending beyond his means."

I've never been able to see the doom and gloom of a trade deficit. To make the accounts balance, something has to be moving stateside to offset whatever we're buying. The answer is capital investment.