The simple fact of the matter is that in a capitalistic system, money will be misappropriated unless failure is allowed.

Yes, we Americans would be even wealthier materially if we Americans saved even more – wealthier materially both as a product of many or all of us having larger financial portfolios, and as a product of the economy of which we are a part having an even greater volume of total output. But for this very reason we Americans are made wealthier also when foreigners save more and invest their savings here, regardless of how much or how little Americans save and invest.

we are testing the economic theories of three (I think von Mises should be added) dead white guys. The dominant theories are being shown to be wrong. The sooner we acknowledge that the better. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the major economic schools to come to grips with their failure.

What is relevant is that we now have pretty sophisticated evidence showing that economic freedom both increases economic growth in the states (implying that freer economies are more efficient) and attracts people, and that personal freedom also attracts people. Economic freedom does not appear to attract people by generating business growth, since income growth is not associated with more in-migration (surprisingly). It attracts people for its own sake (they want to pay less in taxes, most likely). Opponents of freedom as we define it are going to have to grapple with the consequences of the policies they advocate.

what’s the significance or purpose of a statutorily set debt ceiling if the expectation is that it will be raised without question to accommodate the need, or simply the desire, for government to borrow more than is allowed by the existing ceiling?

It’s as if you march down to the local government office with your paper IOU with $100 printed on it demanding ‘your’ money and the government hands you another paper IOU with the exact same amount printed on it. That’s substantively how fiat money works.

First, I do not see why government needs to subsidize mortgages at all. If what you want is a more stable housing market, then let people put in larger down payments. If what you want is for poor people to be able to afford good housing, then give them housing vouchers.

Recent studies, however, have found the opposite: Countries that rely primarily on spending cuts tend to experience less economic pain in the short term. Moreover, in some cases, the cuts seem to spur faster growth. The monetary fund study reported that a 1 percent fiscal consolidation achieved primarily through tax increases reduced economic activity by 1.3 percent over two years, while an identical consolidation driven primarily by spending cuts reduced activity by 0.3 percent.