Real Money News

What developing countries need most

2010-03-19T13:30:00.002-05:00

Published at FreeMarketFoundation.com, March 16, 2010

What developing countries need most

Dr Richard J. Grant

A characteristic shared by all countries, whether “developing” or “developed,” is that their economies grow faster the freer they are from government regulation. A “developing” country is generally characterized by a greater level of poverty. This makes the need for economic growth seem much more urgent. Given that, it would follow that a developing country more urgently needs to be freed up from government control – and from government regulations, spending, and taxes.

The developed countries are more advanced in many ways: higher incomes, lower crime, healthier people, better-educated people, fewer restrictions on their ways of life, and more choices of goods, services, and associations. These societies did not get that way because of government actions; they got that way because of government inaction. Had their governments grown and interfered in the economy sooner, then it is unlikely that we would be calling them “developed countries” now.

When looking at the United States, many people make the mistake of blaming its problems on free markets. But the United States, at present, is not the best example of a free-market economy. It was in the past, although it has never been totally free of excessive government interference.

At present, the United States has many problems that are clearly the result of excessive government interference in its economy and the lives of its residents. The recent recession, the difficulties of which are still being felt, was not caused by market freedom. It was caused by a multitude of government policies and actions that created an artificial boom in the economy that directed resources into unsustainable activities.

The US Federal Reserve (the central bank, a government agency) used its power to create money and pushed interest rates down to artificially low levels. This caused many people and businesses to believe that their investments would be more profitable than they could possibly have been. That is one of the reasons why many of these investments later failed. Had the Federal Reserve not manipulated interest rates, but had let them be determined by market interactions, then people would not have made so many investment errors.

There has also, for many years, been an attempt by politicians to please certain voters by making housing appear more affordable. Toward this end, the government gave tax breaks to promote home ownership. The US government also created several agencies that subsidised and guaranteed mortgage bonds for millions of homeowners. The guarantees encouraged the banks and other mortgage bond lenders to give loans to people that might have difficulty repaying the loans. In other words, government policy encouraged the financial institutions to take greater risks than they would have in a free-market where there would be no government guarantees.

The government also was party to more heavy-handed regulations that intimidated the banks into making loans that they never would have made in a free market. That was the cause of what we call the "subprime crisis."

What failed in the United States was not free markets, or a private property system, or what might be called “capitalism.” What failed was government intervention. It is not correct to contrast this with socialism and to say that “both extremes” have failed. Socialism has clearly failed and always will. Countries like the United States, and also South Africa, get into trouble whenever they move toward socialism.

A Public-Private Partnership should not be the first choice for any country. Such ventures in the United States have resulted in a terrible waste of resources. Wherever they are tried, they always result in the politicization of business and in greater corruption.

When PPP ventures are imposed on the mining industry, it is usually in places where property rights are poorly defined and poorly protected. The failure to define and protect property rights is one of the most serious causes of low or stagnant economic growth. It is, perhaps, a defining characteristic of the Third World. Such countries might be “developing,” but they will never achieve their full potential.

PPP ventures might be better than an economy subjected to full socialism. But any kind of government intervention, even in a relatively free economy, will create significant problems that might not be recognized as the result of the previous intervention. If the problems attract political attention, the government might impose more regulations or taxes and subsidies in an attempt to correct them. This, in turn, will lead to further problems that could attract more government intervention – and so on in the direction of socialism.

Although it might appear to be a simple matter for the government to provide services, there are very few services that the government can provide with less difficulty than the private sector. The government has no special advantage in the provision of electricity and transportation services, even though it has the power to expropriate land. The private sector, had it been allowed to compete freely, would now be providing electricity and transportation far more cheaply and in more appropriate forms than has ever been achieved by Eskom or Transnet.

The special protections granted to both companies have created the illusion of low cost. But these companies have been judged only by the visible prices, not by the real cost in resources and lost opportunities. This is why Eskom has been asking for large increases in electricity rates. Regulation has burdened South Africans with high, hidden costs. Had private companies been allowed to develop and to provide these services, South Africa would now be a much wealthier country, and the electricity and transportation systems would be far better developed. The solution is to allow that freedom now.

Development takes time, so the sooner a country frees up its economy and gives definition and protection to private property rights, the sooner will the people enjoy the benefits that only freedom can bring.

Author: Dr Richard J. Grant is Professor of Finance & Economics at Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tennessee, and is Publications Editor at the Free Market Foundation. This article may be republished without prior consent but with acknowledgement to the author. The views expressed in the article are the author’s and are not necessarily shared by the members of the Foundation.

FMF Feature Article / 16 March 2010

Note: The foregoing article is a response to a comment by one of our readers on the article Nationalisation: The Public Always Loses. He wrote: “While I agree with Dr Grant on this issue of Nationalisation, however, I still believe that for a developing economy like that of ours in South Africa, there is a need for the government's intervention in some cases. For instance, in the mining sector, I still believe that we (South Africans) may have to adopt the model practised in Botswana where a government is a shareholder but the actual mine is run by a private company. This would help in leaving the government with its job – to govern and service delivery to its citizens while also ensuring that ordinary citizens also benefit from revenues derived from their country's mineral wealth. In a nutshell, such model is Public Private Partnership (PPP) and it has proven, both in countries like Botwana and in South Africa, to be the viable business model as it strikes a balance between leaving everything in the hands of private companies and pure socialism. Both of these extremes have failed in the US and USSR. I believe that such model would also work for entities like Eskom and Transnet with their current infrastructure developmental requirements that our government /general public cannot afford!”

Nationalisation: the Public Always Loses

2010-03-19T13:13:00.006-05:00

Published at FreeMarketFoundation.com, February 9, 2010

Nationalisation: the Public Always Loses

Dr Richard J. Grant

Generally speaking, nationalisation refers to any act by government to take control of any economic activity. Thus, it could include not only direct “ownership of the means of production”, but also taxation and regulation. But the more popular definition of nationalisation is the transfer of property from private to public (government) ownership. Depending on the intentions and attitudes of the government, this may be done by:

a. Purchase on the open market using tax money.
b. Expropriation without compensation.
c. Expropriation with compensation less than market value.
d. Expropriation with compensation of approximately market value.
e. Expropriation with compensation greater than market value.

Nationalisation can be used to harm the owners of the expropriated property, or it can be a disguised method of transferring wealth to them through overcompensation. Thus, it is not a foregone conclusion that all businessmen will be opposed to the nationalisation of their businesses, though they must always appear to be so in public. Certain individuals may personally gain from nationalisation, but the public as a whole cannot. Overall, the public loses.

The reason we lose is the same as for full socialism: economic information is cut off. Full socialism is just “full nationalisation”, and the effects of information loss are directly proportional to the level of government involvement in the economy. When a company is owned or controlled by the government, it becomes a source of “noise” that disrupts communications between producers and consumers. The more companies the government nationalises, the worse this disruptive effect becomes.

Even when it honestly tries, no government can ever run a business on a “commercial basis”. And if a government does try to “commercialise” one of its companies, it makes no sense for the government to own it. True commercialisation requires 100% privatisation; anything less is an open admission that the government still intends to exert its influence on the company’s operations. Politicians try to justify nationalisation in the first place by claiming it will change things. Any declaration that a company will be nationalised and then run on a commercial basis is a clear contradiction.

There are both political and economic reasons for this. Firstly, politicians are rarely able to resist the temptation to interfere in public businesses to achieve other ends. (The only politicians with the willpower to resist would also have the sense to privatise 100%.) Then, as government interference increases, the adverse economic effects become more apparent, though the cause might not be obvious to the public. This, in turn, usually leads to public demands for the government to “do something”: to put Band-aids on Band-aids.

Secondly, on the economic side, the situation of ‘shareholders” in nationalised industries is obviously very different from that of shareholders in the private sector. The legal implication of government ownership is that every citizen owns an equal share of the nationalised property. But this myth is quickly dispelled when a citizen tries to sell his share. He can’t; he doesn’t have the right of disposal. Any influences that the citizen exerts must go through the same electoral process as other political issues. Thus, upon nationalisation, the control of the nationalised company can never be the same as a private company in which the shareholders have a direct interest in its profitability and can more easily replace bad managers. Private shareholders also benefit from the presence of “corporate raiders” who buy the shares of companies they think are poorly run, take control and put in better managers. But nationalised companies face no threat of takeover if they are inefficient, and thus have less incentive to be efficient.

Who decides what kinds of industry a society shall have? Should it be decided privately or by the government? In the case of private companies, control is held by private owners who bear the costs and responsibility of their own decisions. But in the case of public companies, control is in the political arena. It’s everybody’s business, and therefore nobody’s business. No one with decision-making powers bears the cost of failure. How can this possibly be in the public interest?

Not only is a nationalised company less efficient than a similar private company, the mere existence of nationalised companies reduces the efficiency of all other companies in the economy. This is because the reduced opportunity to obtain services that have been nationalised increases costs and misallocates resources.

As government influence in the economy grows, it becomes impossible to avoid bureaucratisation of all companies, public or private.

Author: Dr Richard J. Grant is Professor of Finance & Economics at Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tennessee, and is Publications Editor at the Free Market Foundation. This article may be republished without prior consent but with acknowledgement to the author. The views expressed in the article are the author’s and are not necessarily shared by the members of the Foundation.

FMF Feature Article / 09 February 2010

Why SA would find weak rand more of a burden than a boon

2010-01-17T16:16:00.003-06:00

Published in Business Day, Thursday, January 14, 2010

Why SA would find weak rand more of a burden than a boon

by Richard Grant

THERE is an unfortunate tendency to blame currency strength for the relative slowness of SA’s recovery from economic recession. This assignment of blame is unjustified, but it is the mantra of the perpetual lobby for a weaker rand.

During the past year, the rand has risen against the dollar, the euro, and a trade-weighted basket of currencies. But the exchange rate with gold remains volatile and, though the five-year uptrend in the rand-gold price seems to be slowing, it is too soon to declare the rand “strong” by that measure.

The dollar, the euro, and all the other fiat currencies are, by definition, man-made currencies. This characteristic, which they share with the rand, makes them all susceptible to inflationary bias, especially during a recession.

As a standard by which to judge the rand’s performance, they are a slow heat. The commodity money — gold — shows them up. Part of the volatility ... continue reading

Grant is professor of finance and economics at Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tennessee. He formerly taught at the University of the Witwatersrand, was chief economist at the Chamber of Mines and was a contributing editor at the Financial Mail.

2006-09-16T22:36:00.000-05:00

The war on malaria is poised to take a turn
by Jasson Urbach

In the time that it takes you to read this sentence, at least one child has died and many more will have suffered needlessly from a disease that is entirely preventable and curable. Malaria is responsible for the death of approximately 1 million African children every year and as many as three million people worldwide. Malaria is not only a human tragedy; it is an economic one as well.

In 2000, Sachs and Gallup estimated that in malarial countries the disease reduces per capita economic growth by 1.3 per cent per year. This equates to approximately $12 billion in forgone income. Therefore, controlling malaria will not only reduce human suffering but it will also allow people to work and sustain themselves and their families, which will help to alleviate human misery and poverty.

As has been widely reported and commented upon, one of the best ways to control malaria and reduce the burden is to stop the deadly anopheles mosquitoes from biting humans. One of the most effective ways of doing that is to spray tiny quantities of the insecticide environmentalists love to hate, dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), on the inside walls of houses in a process known as indoor residual spraying (IRS). DDT lasts for up to a year and primarily repels mosquitoes so that they won’t even enter a sprayed house. However should they enter, it will kill the cunning beasts and protect the residents.

Despite its remarkable life-saving properties, DDT has a bad name, which it gets mostly from Rachel Carson’s 1962 blockbuster book Silent Spring. Her writing raised the dark suspicion that DDT was upsetting the balance of nature. She was entirely dismissive of the fact that the chemical had saved millions of lives and continued to do so. Nor did she make it clear how judiciously and selectively the public-health community deployed DDT.

Carson’s criticism was based almost entirely upon the fact that in agriculture, DDT was being sprayed indiscriminately. One of DDT’s biggest assets, its inability to be broken down quickly, created the suspicion that it adversely affected the environment. It was for this reason that it was named as one of the persistent organic pollutants (POP’s) and included in a list of organic substances known as the dirty dozen. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classifies DDT as a possible carcinogen. It should be noted that while this statement may not be definitive by any means, DDT shares the classification with a number of common household consumables, such as peanut butter, beer and coffee.

Since the 1940’s, thousands of tonnes of DDT have been produced and distributed throughout the world and millions of people have come into direct contact with it in one way or another. Despite this direct exposure, the scientific world has failed to produce any substantial evidence to back claims that link DDT to health ailments in humans. We do know, however, that wherever DDT has been used in public health, disease and deaths decreased dramatically and human populations began to rise; something one wouldn’t expect if DDT was as dangerous as some people make it out to be.

The World Health Organisation advocates the controlled use of DDT for public health and notes, “the improvement in health resulting from malaria campaigns using DDT has broken the vicious circle of poverty and disease resulting in ample economic benefits” such as increased productivity of workers, lower rates of morbidity and the use of previously unoccupied areas that were ravaged by the parasite.

The encouraging news is that the war on malaria is poised to take a turn for the better in Africa. Many African countries are beginning to introduce the targeted use of DDT for indoor residual spraying. South Africa has played a leading role in malaria control in Africa, in large part because of its success in dramatically reducing malaria cases and deaths by reintroducing DDT after a severe epidemic in the 1990s. After DDT was brought back in 2000, malaria cases fell by around 80%.

The South African government’s leadership on this matter has saved countless lives and strengthened malaria control. Recently, a number of other African countries have begun to weigh the substantial cost in human lives against the unfounded hypothetical risks of DDT. The health ministers of Tanzania, Uganda and Mozambique have announced their intentions to use DDT in malaria control. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) also recently announced that it would endorse the use of DDT for indoor residual spraying.

Various insecticides can be used in IRS but six decades of use confirm that DDT comes out on top. Not only is it cheaper than other insecticides, but it lasts longer. It also acts differently; primarily as a repellent in stopping mosquitoes from ever entering houses, which is a major benefit. Support for the use of DDT in combating malaria-carrying mosquitoes is growing, and an increasing number of government agencies are adopting new and effective combination drugs for avoidance and treatment of the disease, which augurs well for malaria control. Now we have to ensure that changes in policy result in saved lives.

Author: Jasson Urbach is a director of the health advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria and a Fellow at the Free Market Foundation. This article may be republished without prior consent but with acknowledgement to the author. The views expressed in the article are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the members of the Free Market Foundation.

2005-05-13T20:47:00.000-05:00

Bears, rands, Friday the 13th

Rand IS area of concern — Bank

SARB vs. SARB

Dollar rallies

Your fiscal sentence just got longer

2005-05-06T16:17:00.000-05:00

Bank seen mopping up Absa deal funds
Reuters
THE Reserve Bank will move quickly to mop up the billions of rand flowing from an expected purchase by Britain’s Barclays of local bank Absa, analysts said.

Speculation is swirling on how the estimated $5.3bn inflow of foreign exchange generated by the deal — which will be the biggest influx in SA’s history — might be handled, to avoid disrupting local financial markets.
Full story...

2005-04-25T21:11:00.000-05:00

China’s yuan to float?

Unpacking SARB’s policy black-box

Treasury’s rand sense

The future of rand targeting

2005-01-11T14:43:00.000-06:00

Get Real Money
... Full story

2005-01-01T12:06:00.000-06:00

A Better New Year to All

2004-12-23T17:18:00.000-06:00

Merry Christmas to all!

2004-12-14T13:46:00.000-06:00

Mboweni welcomes foreign banks
Reserve Bank Governor Tito Mboweni has no problem with a foreign financial institution acquiring a locally owned bank

Gold recovers to $438 on weak dollar
Spot gold was higher on Monday with the precious metal touching USD438 a troy ounce on the weak US dollar against the euro and the yen

Why bother to start a small business in SA?
Review shows that red tape continues to strangle new initiatives. There’s an increase in new businesses, but more liquidations too.

US raises interest rates to 2.25%
The US Federal Reserve raises interest rates to 2.25%, the fifth increase this year.

Who should benefit?
Controversy builds in the empowerment debate

2004-12-10T19:23:00.000-06:00

Opec confirms output cut
Opec oil producers have agreed to reduce oil output by one million barrels a day from January 1, while leaving official production quotas unchanged

US trade war to flare up again as Airbus takes on Boeing
The new plane, known as the A350, could mark a new front in the transatlantic trade clash if, as expected, Airbus applies for launch aid

2004-12-09T14:47:00.000-06:00

SARB keeps repo rate unchanged
The South African Reserve Bank's Monetary Policy Committee has decided to keep the repo rate steady at 7.5% for the second consecutive MPC meeting

Tito: rand, oil not to be trusted
Interest rates are kept unchanged despite improved inflation outlook.

2004-12-08T19:09:00.000-06:00

Live with rand: Tito
The Reserve Bank governor reiterates that market forces determine the rand.
Then what is the purpose of the Reserve Bank?: Grant

Govt. sets its targets: South African govt. says the country’s businesses must sell 25,1% to black investors.
So, how does this differ from the previous regime?

2004-12-07T19:34:00.000-06:00

Goldfields shareholders reject Iamgold deal: Fifty percent plus one vote was required to pass the Iamgold merger but only 48.2% of participating Gold Fields shareholders voted in favour of the deal

Harmony down 6.3% as Iamgold fails

SARB leans into rand wind: The Reserve Bank has been on a dollar buying spree. How much stronger would the rand have been otherwise?

Global currency crisis looms

Race row as Mbeki blood rejected

US rules out joining Kyoto treaty: The US tells a UN conference on climate change it has no intention of joining the Kyoto Protocol in the near future.
Climate Alarmism hurts the poor

U.S. approves intelligence revamp

Niger president wins second term

2004-12-06T12:32:00.000-06:00

Saudi gunmen 'killed': Saudi security forces have reportedly regained control of the US consulate in Jeddah after an attack this morning

Climate Alarmism hurts the poor

Fuel prices set to slide: A heavy slide in still-high dollar crude oil prices points to a further 10% fall in domestic fuel prices.

Resources splatter blood: A rash of broker downgrades, inspired by the sliding dollar, sees serious profit-taking in resources.

Jackpot for black non-execs: Standard Bank shareholders vote in favour of 3 black non-exec directors getting 125 000 shares each.

Pressure intensifies on Blunkett: Another weekend has seen further revelations about his private life

WILLIAM-REES MOGG: Labour's decline and fall

Oxfam blames the innocent, again

2004-12-04T07:35:00.000-06:00

Mbeki to unveil peace plan for Ivory Coast

South Africa to end racial profiling of blood donors

Bomb rocks Baghdad's Green Zone

Rumsfeld sticking around at Bush's request

More British troops to be called for in Iraq

Buy South Africa!The Bank Credit Analyst has issued positive recommendations on domestic equities and bonds. Here’s why.

Batty and bowler Jones stand by for action before South Africa

2004-12-04T00:31:00.000-06:00

Gold takes a breather

Oil prices pause for breath after two-day rout

SA's pool of labour shrinks as HIV/AIDS, discouragement take toll

Navigating the regulatory minefield

Records by the hour: SA stocks hit records in rands AND dollars; rand hits fresh six year record as oil crashes, dollar makes record low on euro, and gold rallies to $457 an ounce.

SA can take a page out of Chile's book

Real Money News

2004-12-02T21:17:00.000-06:00

Does the US need a weaker dollar?

Gold seen easing towards year-end

Gold touches 16-year high on euro

Rates flat in 2005 – poll

Rand steals jobs

Branson's financial sector shake-up

Billions down the drain for Barclays

Sheep instinct is the hardest to beat

Some books of interest to those who want to understand what is happening to their money and freedom.

2004-11-20T12:46:00.000-06:00

Real Money by Richard Grant

Double-digit interest rates and the shrinking value of our money were not forced on us by nature, says Dr Richard Grant. Understanding this is the first step towards protecting ourselves, our savings, and our assets from the ravages of future high interest charges and inflation.

Dr Grant is an economist and former professor of finance and economics at universities in several countries - and taught at the University of the Witwatersrand. For the benefit of the layman and economist alike, his story unfolds in simple and satisfying steps as he clarifies each issue and deals with common misconceptions:

We need supportable rules for a monetary policy.

Money, the medium of exchange, is the messenger which transmits the market knowledge we all need.

Price inflation is man-made and caused by over-issuing the currency.

Various non-causes (e.g. "overheating") and temptations (e.g. wage pressures) create political pressures, but these do not shift practical responsibility from the Reserve Bank, which alters the monetary base, M0, sometimes called high-powered money or the cash base.

Inflation ("cost-push") does not force the Reserve Bank to increase the money supply.

Inflation is an expensive and destructive form of taxation by stealth.

Market interest rates combine the three components of time preference, risk premium, and price inflation premium.

Interest rates are market phenomena which reflect the preferences and interests of savers and borrowers, and are not improvable by central bank tinkering

Central banks should not interfere with the market by exercising statutory control over foreign currency dealings, reacting to so-called balance-of-payment constraints, or trying to fix or restrain exchange rates.

Money itself is not the object of exchange, and central banks should not attempt to control money demand by manipulating interest rates, and by attempting to modify the spending behaviour of millions of individuals.

By their poor performance, central banks have failed to prove that their monopoly privilege is superior to free banking (unrestricted, unprivileged and competitive) with minimal state involvement.

We should seek stable or predictable value of the monetary unit under acceptable and constitutionally entrenched rules of general application.

Free banking, whereby private banks are allowed to issue their own notes and deposits based on any money (which means that the central bank would not have a government-granted monopoly in note issue) is an alternative that would be better than the present central bank monopoly with notes unredeemable in gold or other commodities.

Imposing rational constitutional rules on a central bank, thereby limiting its power, while constitutionally protecting the right to choose and supply private money alternatives. This would provide evidence of people’s preferences, and would be the lowest-cost means of ending inflation permanently and of bringing net benefits rapidly.

Dr Grant concludes by recommending specific rules for a monetary constitution.

Real Money was published in memory of the late Dr AD Wassenaar with the support of the Wassenaar family.

Get your copy of Real Money by Richard Grant

from the Free Market Foundation
PO Box 785121, Sandton2146, South Africa.

1st Floor, Norfolk House, Fedsure Close 2, Cnr Norwich Close and 5th StreetSandton

Tel: (011) 884 0270 Fax: (011) 884 5672

Email: fmf@mweb.co.za

Ask for Real Money

Also by Richard J Grant

Gold, the euro, the dollar and the rand

Dr Grant, in his latest recommendations, takes management of the rand a step closer to integration with the international monetary system.

Monograph #29

The Real Reason for the Fall of the Rand

From July through November 2001, the monetary base (better known as M0), which is the quantity of real money actually produced by the Reserve Bank, increased from R40.3 billion to R45.9 billion. That is an increase of 13.8 percent over four months, which if continued for a year would result in an annual increase of close to 50 percent. Part of the increase in M0, R1.75 billion, was to accommodate an increased need by commercial banks for reserves due to a change in official reserve requirements. Allowing for this, the effective change in M0 from July through November was over 9.5 percent, which is over 31 percent in annualised terms.But it did not stop there. The figures for December showed a further one-month increase of 6.56 percent. Over the five-month period from July to December 2001, M0 increased by 21.3 percent – adjusted for required reserve changes, the effective rate is 16.5 percent. That corresponds to an annualised nominal growth rate of 59 percent, and an adjusted rate of 44 percent, which is a huge dose of cash for any economy to absorb. It should be no wonder that the rand has fallen in an almost mirror-like fashion.When M0 increases significantly, the general price level tends to go in the same direction. All prices, including exchange rates, are affected in the same way, and will tend to be higher than they would have been. That is why price indices, such as CPI and CPIX, tend to move in the same direction as the rand prices of foreign currencies. Exchange rates respond to changes in the monetary base, and usually do so more quickly than do other prices.

Nationalisation: how governments control you

We tend to think of nationalisation as taking control of material things, of the "means of production." But what it really means, argues Dr Grant in this readable and closely reasoned book, is taking control of people. The more property the government controls, the less economic freedom we have. And without economic liberty, political liberty is little more than a charade.

If we want to promote freedom and the higher standard of living that goes with it, concludes Dr Grant, we must not only stop nationalisation but reverse it. Denationalisation and deregulation will help bring about a peaceful and prosperous society.

Exchange controls must go

In this Monograph Dr Grant argues that the special problems of third world countries do not create a need for special government intervention. On the contrary, it is government intervention that creates the problems that give countries third-world status. He contends that some of the most basic solutions include reducing taxes, reducing inflation and eliminating regulations.

Monograph #6

The fallacy of national control

In this Monograph Dr Grant contends that prosperity can come only with economic liberty. And that without economic liberty, political freedom is a charade. He argues that a combination of privatisation and deregulation is the most powerful and reliable force for upliftment that there is.
Monograph #5