Kleines Lesebuch über den Freihandel

freihandel_ebook_detmar-doering
Kleines Lesebuch über den Freihandel. Ebook von Detmar Doering.

Editor: Detmar Doering,
Vorwort: Otto Graf Lambsdorff

“Der Freihandel, eine der grössten Segnungen, die eine Regierung einem Volk erweisen kann, ist dennoch in fast jedem Lande unpopulär”. Von dem britischen Historiker Thomas Babington Macaulay stammt dieser Stoßseufzer aus dem Jahre 1824. Viele Verfechter des freien Welthandels können ihn nachempfinden. Anscheinend erhalten die Theorien, die den Freihandel stützen, so manche Wahrheit, die tief im menschlichen Geist verwurzelten Vorurteilen und Instinkten widerspricht. Viele Menschen können sich zum Beispiel anscheinend nicht vorstellen, dass ein freier und offener Welthandel den ärmsten und schwächsten Völkern dieser Welt nutzt. Dabei ist in Wirklichkeit gerade der Freihandel das beste Instrument der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung für die Benachteiligten dieser Welt, das wir kennen. Dort, wo wirtschaftliche Unfreiheit herrscht, ist auch die Armut am größten. Die Wahrheit ist: Kaum eine ökonomische Doktrin ist so sehr durch Theorie und Praxis bestätigt worden wie die des Freihandels …

Weiterlesen -> Download PDF (334 kb)

XIII. International Gottfried von Haberler Conference

‘Interventionism is a system that is contradictory and unsuitable even from the point of view of its sponsors, that cannot be carried out logically, and whose introduction in every case can effect nothing but disturbances in the smooth functioning of the social order based on private property’.

Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973)

haberler conference 2017

The Economics and Politics
of Interventionism

Wenn Bürokraten Unternehmer spielen:
Die Politik des Interventionismus

The XIII. International Gottfried von Haberler Conference will take place on May 19, 2017 in Vaduz, at University of Liechtenstein. Topic: “The Economics and Politics of Interventionism” – German translation: “Wenn Bürokraten Unternehmer spielen: Die Politik des Interventionismus”. The event will be organized and hosted by ECAEF – European Center of Austrian Economics Foundation.

By invitation only

Admission:
General: CHF 100 / 100 Euro; Students: CHF 50 / 50 Euro

Academic Director:
Kurt R. Leube, Tel. +1 650 248 4955; email: krleube at stanford edu

Administration and Media Contacts:
Rosmarie Lutziger, Tel. +423 235 1570, email: rosmarie.lutziger at lgt com

Conference Schedule on May 19, 2017
9:00-9:30 Registration/Fee
9:30-9:45 Welcome and Opening;
H.S.H. Prince Michael of Liechtenstein

Session I:
On Monetary and Economic Interventions
9:45-10:00 Chair: Peter Fischer (CH)
10:00-10:30 “Über den Missbrauch der Geldpolitik” (On the Abuse of Monetary Policy); Joachim Starbatty (D)
10:30-10:45 Discussion
10:45-11:15 Coffee break
11:15-11:45 “Subsidies: When ‘Free’ Comes at High Cost” (Subventionen sind teuer erkaufte Geschenke); Johan Norberg (S)
11:45-12:15 Discussion

12:15-13:45 Buffet Luncheon for all participants at conference site

Session II:
Interventionism Undermines the Legal Framework
13:45-14:00 Chair: Beat Kappeler (CH)
14:00-14:30 “Plurimae Leges, Summa Injuria: Die Gesetzesflut erzeugt grösstes Unrecht” (The Flood of Rules creates Injustice);  Carlos Gebauer (D)
14:30-14:45 Discussion
14:45-15:15 “On Environmental Regulations, Private Property and Free Markets” (Umweltschutz, Privateigentum, freie Märkte); Terry L. Anderson (USA)
15:15-15:30 Discussion
15:30- 16:00 Coffee break

Session III:
Some Adverse Effects of ‘Social Engineering’and Censorship 
16:00-16:15 Chair: Beat Kappeler (CH)
16:15-16:45 “Wieviel Umverteilung verträgt eine Demokratie?” (How Much Redistribution Can Democracy Withstand?); Erich Weede (D)
16:45-17:00 Discussion
17:00-17:30 “Lügenpresse? Über Journalismus, Zensur und Political Correctness” (Fake News? Does Political Correctness censure free Journalism?); Karl-Peter Schwarz (A)
17:30-18:00 Discussion (topic and general)

18:00-18:10 Farewell address:
H.S.H. Prince Michael of Liechtenstein
18:20-18:30 Transportation by bus to Vaduz Castle
18:30-19:30 Farewell Cocktail Reception at Vaduz Castle

Please note: Some titles might change. Relevant literature will be offered for sale by www.buchausgabe.de

Da droben in Davos

Elite auf dem Gipfel: Weltwirtschaftsforum 2017 in Davos (Bildquelle: Shutterstock, Beitrag: eigentuemlich-frei)


Da droben in Davos – Die selbsternannte Elite hält sich für moralisch überlegen | Wäre das Weltforum in Davos eine Sache der Wirtschaft, würde es für die eigenen Kosten aufkommen. Und Staatschefinnen oder linke Vordenker wären gar nicht eingeladen. Aber das Kürzel stimmt schon: „WEF“ heißt „Welt-Elite-Forum“.
„Elite“ bezeichnet eine Gruppe von Menschen, die sich von der Masse oder vom Durchschnitt abhebt. Im soziologischen Sinne des Wortes handelt es sich um eine Auslese aufgrund von Leistungen und Fähigkeiten. Eine Auslese hat jedoch immer ein Wettbewerbsmoment. Weil sich eine Person derzeit von der Masse abhebt, heißt das noch lange nicht, sie bleibe auf Dauer leistungsfähiger als der Durchschnitt. Und jederzeit kann diese Auslese durch neue Individuen herausgefordert werden. So weit, so gut.
Problematisch wird die „Elite“, wenn eine Gruppe sich selbst als solche stilisiert. Und definitiv zur Gefahr wird die Elite, wenn sie auch noch den Anspruch erhebt, ethisch-moralisch besser zu sein als die anderen Menschen. Und das passiert in Davos. Statt sich wirtschaftlichen Zusammenhängen zu widmen, versammelt sich eine selbsternannte Elite, um uns, der Masse, die Leviten zu lesen.

Globalisierung des Guten

Der neueste Coup der Moralelite ist: Attacken auf die Globalisierung sind schlecht. Das ist nicht utilitaristisch zu lesen. Sie sind nicht schlecht für die Globalisierung. Sie sind an sich, also moralisch, schlecht. Das ist interessant. Denn es war das WEF selbst, das unter lautem Getöse entschied, sich den Globalisierungskritikern zu öffnen. Der Teufel – in diesem Fall die Elitenmoral – steckt eben im Detail. Denn im alpinen Olymp wurde gerichtet. Es wurde befunden, Globalisierungskritik von links sei gut; jene von rechts böse.
Noch viel interessanter ist, wie sich der Begriff der Globalisierung nicht nur in Davos veränderte. Als er die mediale Welt betrat, meinte er die betriebswirtschaftliche Ausdehnung der Wertschöpfungsketten über die ganze Welt. Das hat Kritiker auf den Plan geholt. Im letzten Jahrzehnt fand jedoch auch eine Ausdehnung sämtlicher Weltregularien und Weltregulatoren statt. Globale Standards für Besteuerung, global geächtete Wirtschaftspraxen, automatischer Informationsaustausch in der Steuereintreibung sind Beispiele für diese Regulierungsglobalisierung.
Diese Globalisierung der Überwachung ist jene, die das WEF als moralisch gut bezeichnet. Denn im Gleichschritt mit ihr können globale Unternehmen Wertschöpfungsketten ausdehnen. Aber weil diese Art der Globalisierung eben nicht betriebswirtschaftlich, sondern regulatorisch erfolgt, ist ihr Preis hoch. Die weltumspannende Regulierung verzerrt die Märkte zugunsten der bereits etablierten Firmen. Das Wettbewerbsmoment zwischen Unternehmen, aber auch zwischen Staaten wird gänzlich ausgeschaltet. Damit verstärken sich globale Ungleichheiten …

Weiterlesen -> Da droben in Davos (PDF, 900kb)
eigentümlich-frei: http://ef-magazin.de/

Vernon Smith Prize 2016: Winners announced

Vernon Smith Prize 2016 Call for Papers
Vernon Smith Prize 2016: Direct Democracy versus Representative Democracy …

1. Prize: Karol Zdybel (Warsaw, Poland)


2. Prize: Alan Futerman (Rosario, Argentina)


3. Prize: Mark O’Kane (Lancashire, UK)


Essays had been judged by an international jury. They will be posted after their defense at the ‘International Vernon Smith Prize Ceremony’ on February 6, 2017 in Vaduz, Principality of Liechtenstein.

The 9th International Vernon Smith Prize for the Advancement of Austrian Economics was an essay competition sponsored and organized by ECAEF European Center of Austrian Economics Foundation, Vaduz (Principality of Liechtenstein). Topic: ‘Direct Democracy versus Representative Democracy. Cost and Benefit of the Citizenry’.

Although, democracy is fundamentally a method for preserving individual liberty and civil rights, this almost narcotic term has become so powerful today that all essential limitations on governmental power are breaking down before it. By deteriorating into a scheme of legitimizing the regime of coalitions of organized interests, representative democracies gradually transform into oligarchies. While it is assumed that governments always have the people’s best interests in mind, for the most part they seem to act in their own behalf. In direct democratic systems, however citizens have more controlling devices at their disposal and can propose, decide, or profoundly modify their governing laws, and even secede from the republic. Are direct democracies more cost effective and beneficial for the citizenry?

1st Prize EUR 4,000 – 2nd Prize EUR 3,000 – 3rd Prize EUR 2,000

ECAEF invited papers on this topic which needed to meet several requirements, such as:

Entries may be submitted by individuals of up to 30 years (in 2016).

Entries may not exceed 12 pages; 1.5 spacing; left/right margins no less then 1 inch; full bibliography and a 1/2 page summary (abstract) must be included.

Entries had to be submitted in English in electronic form (PDF) including an abbreviated CV. Entry deadline was November 11, 2016.

Unlocking the Wealth of Indian Nations

By Terry L. Anderson*

Many Europeans still view Native Americans as the “noble savage” depicted in the paintings of Karl Bodmer. Traveling with the German explorer Prince Maximillan zu Wied-Neuwied from 1832 through 1834, Bodmer saw and painted American Indians with the dignity and cultural wealth they deserved. Unfortunately, that dignity and wealth have been stripped from most Native Americans by the federal government.

The dignity painted by Bodmer derived from the fact that Native Americans had well established institutions—property rights, limited government, and trade—that sustained indigenous economies. Before the arrival of Europeans, the more sedentary Indians of the East had well defined tribal and individual property rights to land, and invested in making land more productive. Pacific Northwest tribes invested in weirs to catch salmon on their upstream migration and sustainably harvested salmon to increase populations. Pueblo bands in the southwest developed sophisticated irrigation systems to cope with aridity. Even the more nomadic Plains Indians invested in “surrounds” into which buffalo were driven and in stone walls miles long to drive buffalo over cliffs. Thanks to the ingenuity of their members, many tribes were able to build up a surplus of goods—to, in other words, accumulate wealth—and trade with other tribes.

A story from the Lewis and Clark expedition shows the propensity of Native Americans to trade. While the Corps of Discovery, as the expedition was called, spent the first winter of 1803 in a Mandan village (now North Dakota), the blacksmith among them made trade axes and used them to barter with Indians for food, horses, and artifacts. Months later, when the expedition reached the Pacific Coast, they were surprised that one of the axes had beaten them there, having been traded between Indians many times across the plains and mountains. In the words of Adam Smith, Indians had the “propensity to truck, barter, and exchange.”

If Bodmer ventured into Indian Country today, however, he would be struck by the poverty and lack of economic development. Housing is typically substandard, businesses are small if they exist at all, and infrastructure is poor. In 2015, average household income on reservations was 68 percent below the U.S. average of $53,657; twenty percent of the households made less than $5,000 annually compared to 6 percent for the overall U.S. population; and 25 percent of the Indian population was below the poverty level compared to 15 percent for the nation as a whole. The suicide rate among Native American males aged 15 to 34 is 1.5 times than for the general population, the rate at which Native American females are raped is 2.5 times the national average, and the rate of child abuse on reservations is twice the national average.

In essence, Indian reservations are islands of poverty in a sea of wealth. Even though the Native American population of 2.9 million is roughly the population of Kansas, it is mainly ignored except by Washington bureaucrats. Bureaucracies, housed mostly in the Department of Interior, employed 9,000 people and spent approximately $2.9 billion in 2012. That amounts to one bureaucrat for every 322 Indians and $1,000 for every Indian.

The subjugation of Native Americans by the federal government began at the same time that Bodmer was traveling with Maximillan, when in 1832, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall concluded that the relationship between the federal government and Indians is that of “a ward to his guardian.” Since then through laws such as the Allotment Act (1877) and the Indian Reorganization Act (1934), Congress has locked Indian lands into perpetual trusteeship with the Department of Interior (DOI) as the trustee. As trustee, the DOI regulates land use, oversees leasing of Indian lands, collects revenue from Indian land leases, and distributes revenues back to the tribes and individual Indians. The resulting bureaucratic red tape makes development virtually impossible.

Consider what this means for the abundant energy resources in Indian Country. Reservations contain almost 30 percent of the coal reserves west of the Mississippi, 50 percent of potential uranium reserves, and 20 percent of known oil and gas reserves. The Council of Energy Resource Tribes recently estimated the total value of these resources at nearly $1.5 trillion.

Energy development on reservations could lead to jobs for people with the highest unemployment rates in the country, in some cases over 50 percent. For instance, on the Blackfeet reservation in Montana, drilling a single oil well resulted in 49 new jobs for the tribe, and each of its members received a $200 royalty payment in 2013. From its oil and gas reserves, the Blackfeet tribe has collected around $30 million in leases and bonus payments. Not surprisingly, Ron Crossguns, from the tribe’s oil and gas department, doesn’t think outsiders should tell the tribe how to manage its energy resources: “It’s our right. We say yes or no. I don’t think the outside world should come out here and dictate to us what we should do with our properties.”

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is involved in nearly every aspect of energy development on Indians lands, including reviewing and approving pipeline agreements and rights-of-way approvals, and the process is notoriously inefficient. A 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report observed that “the added complexity of the federal process stops many developers from pursuing Indian oil and gas resources for development” and that the process “can involve significantly more steps than the development of private or state resources, increase development costs, and add to the timeline for development.” The GAO report noted further that in 2014, the Southern Ute tribe reported that the BIA’s review of several of its pipeline rights-of-way agreements took as long as eight years. A simple review of a wind-energy lease on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation in South Dakota took a year and a half for the BIA to review. According to the developer, the delay made the project lose its agreement with the local utility, resulting in a loss of revenue for the company and the tribe.

Beyond energy resources, tribes also have water, timber, fisheries, grazing lands, and recreational amenities that could help pull them out of poverty. And, of course, for some tribes, especially those in more urban areas, gaming has brought jobs and income.

The enormous resource potential on reservations begs the question: Why can’t tribes unlock their wealth potential? Is it because their culture is inimical to economic growth? Is it that their members lack entrepreneurial and technical skills?

As described above, the historical record suggests that these are not the reasons for poverty in Indian Country. As tribe member and law professor Robert Miller notes, “Contrary to what most Americans believe, individual and family entrepreneurship is not a new concept to Indian cultures.”

If culture and entrepreneurship are not the impediments, what is the key to reservation growth? The key to Unlocking the Wealth of Indian Nations (Lexington Press, 2016),, is for Indian Nations to establish clear and stable property rights to their land, to create a rule of law that will attract the capital investment necessary to stimulate reservation economies, and to create fiscally responsible tribal governments that can provide the local infrastructure to support investment.

The lack of a rule of law on reservations thwarts capital investment in Indian Nations. Because tribes are considered sovereign nations, many have their own judicial systems separate and apart from the states in which they reside. Because tribal courts often do not follow jurisprudential rules taken for granted outside reservations, they discourage capital investment and credit markets on reservations. Writing for Forbes, Joseph Koppisch quoted an officer of a local lending institution near the Crow Reservation in Montana: “We take on such a huge extra risk with someone from the reservation. If I knew contracts would be enforced, then I could do a lot more business there.” As a result, when reservations with independent courts are compared to those whose civil disputes are adjudicated in state courts, per capita income for Indians on the latter reservations was 35 percentage points higher than the former. Hence, a stronger rule of law on reservations could contribute significantly to helping Indian Nations rise out of poverty.

The Trump administration may change much of this status quo. Trump has formed the Native American Affairs Coalition to free Indians from “a suffocating federal bureaucracy.” As Markwayne Mullin, a U.S. representative from Oklahoma and a Cherokee tribe member who is co-chairing Trump’s coalition, put it: “It is time to end the overreaching paternalism that has held American Indians back from being the drivers of their own destiny.”

If Native Americans are to determine their own destiny, rise out of poverty, and unlock their wealth trapped by trusteeship, they must achieve what the great Nez Perce Chief Joseph sought in 1879: “Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to talk, think and act for myself.” It is past time to give Native American the freedom they deserve to make their own decisions about the future of their culture and economies.


* Terry L. Anderson is a fellow with the Lichtenstein Academy, PERC (Bozeman, MT), and the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. This essay is based on research published in Unlocking the Wealth of Indian Nations (Lexington Books) edited by Dr. Anderson.