As we've highlighted, the dangerous effort to weaken critical patent protections for U.S. pharmaceutical…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: Private Sector Pharmaceutical Investment Propels Innovation

As we've highlighted, the dangerous effort to weaken critical patent protections for U.S. pharmaceutical innovators often minimizes the role of private investment and exaggerates the role of public funding.  This offers a critical corrective at a moment when American drug and vaccine innovation is more important than ever:

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="530"] The Critical Role of Private Pharmaceutical Investment[/caption]…[more]

May 14, 2021 • 09:16 AM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Kauffman Foundation’s “Rules for Growth” Is Roadmap Out of Recession Print
By Ashton Ellis
Thursday, February 10 2011
In this era of runaway deficits, out-of-control spending and crushing entitlements, the conservative majority in the House of Representatives has a historic opportunity. Like Thatcher, Speaker Boehner can crystallize his party’s opposition to statism with a document that points to what’s right about free enterprise.

The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation’s new book, Rules for Growth: Promoting Innovation and Growth Through Legal Reform, should be required reading for every federal policymaker trying to get America’s economy growing again.  That includes you, Mr. President. 

The product of three years of intense study by experts in several disciplines, Rules for Growth announces a heady aim in its preface: “to help redirect and expand the ‘law and economics’ field to refocus on the connections between the law and growth.”  That alone would be a great service.  Typical insights from law and economics focus on what government does wrong when it comes to regulations.  Rules for Growth promises something more. 

The book’s central premise – simple but all-too-often forgotten – is that economic growth is good.  It raises living standards and increases life spans.  Thus, government policymakers should not just get rid of rules that stifle productive activity; they should be replaced with a regulatory system that promotes growth.

This change in focus amounts to a paradigm shift.  Rather than have policymakers constrain themselves to removing disincentives from the law, the essayists in Rules for Growth want judges, politicians and bureaucrats to reorient themselves and their work in favor of innovation.  In this respect, their effort recalls Britain’s industrial era approach to regulation: When conflicts arose between British economic dominance and the legal system, the legal system was changed. 

Every branch of the law that touches innovation and entrepreneurship comes under review.  Immigration quotas should be reconfigured to increase the amount of visas granted to entrepreneurs.  University faculty should be free to license their patents and retain all ownership rights over their discoveries.  Taxes should be consumption based.  Independent regulatory agencies should be required to conduct cost-benefit analyses before making new rules.  Perhaps most interesting is the recommendation that the legal services market should be opened up by replacing state licensing requirements with a federal standard.  (If auto insurance companies can compete across state lines, why not lawyers?) 
 
Since his January 18th Wall Street Journal column promising reductions in business regulations, President Barack Obama has made overtures to the free market in his State of the Union Address and, most recently, in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  Of course, fiscal conservatives should submit the president’s newfound interest to free enterprise to Ronald Reagan’s formula of “trust, but verify.” 

One way to verify is to hand President Obama a copy of Rules for Growth and demand he implement its recommendations.  At the very least, House Republicans could introduce legislation based on the book’s findings, and hold televised hearings debating their substance.  It’s time for the free market to receive a full-blown defense in the halls of Congress.  For inspiration, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) need look no farther than former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. 

In 1975, newly elected Prime Minister Thatcher served notice on a “pragmatic” Conservative Party colleague counseling a moderate course on economic policy.  Reaching into her briefcase, the Iron Lady held up a copy of F.A. Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty for all to see.  “This is what we believe,” declared Thatcher as she banged the book down on the table. 

In this era of runaway deficits, out-of-control spending and crushing entitlements, the conservative majority in the House of Representatives has a historic opportunity.  Like Thatcher, Speaker Boehner can crystallize his party’s opposition to statism with a document that points to what’s right about free enterprise.   For fiscal conservatives looking for a roadmap out of the recession, Rules for Growth is it.  

Download a free copy of Rules for Growth from The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation’s website here.

Quiz Question   
What was the last year in which gold was used as the basis for valuing the U.S. dollar?
More Questions
Notable Quote   
 
"My colleague Casey Mulligan of the University of Chicago and I predicted in the Wall Street Journal three months ago that the $300 per week extra unemployment benefits would mean 5 to 6 million people not going back to work because the government was paying them more not to work. The Left laughed at this prediction. Now, we see record jobs going unfilled, 8.1 million, even when there are 9 million…[more]
 
 
—Stephen Moore, Co-Founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity and Former Member of President Trump’s Economic Recovery Task Force
— Stephen Moore, Co-Founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity and Former Member of President Trump’s Economic Recovery Task Force
 
Liberty Poll   

Which one of the following do you view as the greatest threat to the U.S. economy as we recover from the coronavirus disruption?