In free markets where individual choice prevails, conflict is minimized. You get what you pay for and you pay for what you get. If you don’t like the wares in one store, there’s no need to throw up a picket line. You don’t have to attend lengthy and boring meetings and be talked down to by public “servants.”

Mao slaughtered millions for a stupid, evil cause but today, we can celebrate that he’s gone and KFC has been open in Beijing for more than three decades!

Once it was believed that witches, warlocks, and demons were the causes of such calamities as bad weather. Elaborate contrivances were devised to drive them away. When men learned that it wasn’t so, they looked for more natural, scientific explanations. 

I for one am convinced that good economics is more than possible. It is imperative, and achieving it begins with the knowledge of what bad economics is all about.

Does the story of Standard Oil really present a case against the free market? No.

Two centuries after Adam Smith penned his eloquent defense of the right to be free from coercion, coercion is again in the ascendancy. It is seen by many as the “quick fix,” the answer to chronic problems, a panacea that will bring order out of chaos. In 1795, James Madison described this phenomenon as “the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in government.”

It ought to be obvious that trade is a two-way street. In a free mar­ket, where trade is a voluntary, de­sired, and spontaneous feature of human action, there is a "perfect balance."

No wonder economics is labeled "the dismal science," one hundred years after Thomas Carlyle coined the phrase. Under the spell of mathematics, it has been reduced to cold, hard statistics. Acting man somehow has been left out of the picture, replaced by lifeless graphs and equations.