RonZeplin
Member

Mises Wire Octavio Bermudez 04/29/2024 Ludwig von Mises visited Argentina in June 1959 by invitation of Dr. Alberto Benegas Lynch. The lectures Mises delivered at the University of Buenos Aires are reproduced in the book Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow. As the title suggests, the economic knowledge transmitted by Mises was for both those days and for the future. Argentina in 1959 was in a recession, the Frondizi administration trying to cope with the terrible situation left by President Juan Domingo Peron (1946–55) and the military government that got him exiled. In his time, Peron turned the Argentinian economy into a command economy with massive price regulations, decapitalization that greatly damaged wages and infrastructure, nationalizations, inflation, foreign exchange control, and import and export restrictions (taxes and quantitative limitations) among a myriad of interventions. The military coup that ousted him from office had mixed views on how to conduct economic policy. There was somewhat of a consensus that policy should aim at recapitalization and lowered restrictions. The system of multiple exchange rates was removed, and the bank deposits that had previously been nationalized and moved to the central bank were given back to the private banks. Yet the military government intervened in finance and banking in other ways like determining interest rates and carrying out operations in the open market by buying or selling currency and absorption documents. The military government was neither worrying about inflation nor giving way to the free market. It did set back some “excesses” of the previous administration, but the general role of the state in the economy remained unchanged. At the end of 1958, elections were held, and Arturo Frondizi was elected president (with the help of Peron from abroad). The errors of Peron and the military government were fresh when Mises visited Argentina, and Frondizi was just starting his economic reforms of import substitution by foreign investment. To put it more clearly, imports were discouraged, and foreign investment was sought to replace what was being discouraged.

By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. April 29, 2024 . . . Attorney Robert Barnes posted this article on his X stream with the comment: “Hint: when Politico sings your praises, it ain’t because you’re gonna drain the swamp. It’s because you are the swamp. This is actually a very bad sign. Wiles is a classic swamp personality — deeply embedded with corporate lobbyists for Big Tobacco, Big Food & Big Pharma. Guess who else her company’s partners have close ties to? Covid vaccine fraudster Pfizer.” https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/26/susie-wiles-trump-desantis-profile-00149654

The Secretary of the Senate is required to make all reports filed under the LDA, as amended, available to the public over the Internet. Reports may be accessed in two ways. https://lda.senate.gov/system/public/ For example, after clicking the green "Contributions Report" button, you can type in Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline or any entity that you want and this will list who the lobby money went to.

Mises Wire Wanjiru Njoya 04/27/2024 The classical liberal defense of contractual freedom is derived from the principle of individual autonomy. Freedom of contract entails the right to enter into or exit from contracts at will. As Richard Epstein argues in his defense of the contract at will: "The first way to argue for the contract at will is to insist upon the importance of freedom of contract as an end in itself. Freedom of contract is an aspect of individual liberty, every bit as much as freedom of speech, or freedom in the selection of marriage partners or in the adoption of religious beliefs or affiliations" (p. 953). Utilitarian classical liberals, like Epstein himself, who agree with him on the value of individual liberty therefore defend the widest possible scope for contractual freedom. They would only accept limits on that freedom in exceptional cases which Epstein defines as “the infrequent cases in which discharge of the contract at will is inconsistent with the performance of some public duty or with the protection of some public right.”