Unconventional monetary policy—characterized by “zero interest rate policy” (ZIRP) and “quantitative easing” (QE), along with macro-prudential regulation—has increased the power of central banks in the United States, Japan, and Europe. In the new issue of Cato Journal, contributors revisit the thinking behind unconventional monetary policy and the “new monetary framework,” make the case for transparent monetary rules versus foggy discretion, and point to the distortions generated by ultra-low interest rates and preferential credit allocation.
When the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in 2005, Denmark found itself at the center of a global battle about the freedom of speech. The paper’s culture editor, Flemming Rose, defended the decision to print the 12 drawings, and he quickly came to play a central part in the debate about the limitations to freedom of speech in the 21st century. In The Tyranny of Silence, Flemming Rose provides a personal account of an event that has shaped the debate about what it means to be a citizen in a democracy and how to coexist in a world that is increasingly multicultural, multireligious, and multiethnic.
The Cato Institute has released its 2015 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. The thousands of individuals who contribute to Cato are passionate about freedom and committed to ensuring that future generations enjoy the blessings of liberty, unencumbered by an overreaching state that seeks to control their lives. This is Cato’s optimistic vision for the future, and it would be unimaginable without the Institute’s longstanding partnership with its Sponsors. We will continue our diligence and dedication to seeing this vision realized.
Featuring Benjamin Zycher, Senior Fellow, Pacific Research Institute; Stephen S. Fuller, Dwight Schar Faculty Chair and University Professor, Director, Center for Regional Analysis, George Mason University; and Stephen Moore, Editorial Board Member, Senior Economics Writer, Wall Street Journal; moderated by Christopher Preble, Vice President, Defense and Foreign Policy Studies, Cato Institute.
The Budget Control Act passed by Congress directs that on January 2, 2013, the Obama administration must cut the defense budget by at least $55 billion, and the same amount from domestic discretionary spending. The prospect of such reductions has led to assertions that they will damage the economy and increase unemployment. Meanwhile, many who view excessive government spending as economically counterproductive nevertheless oppose Pentagon cuts, partly in the belief that military spending is good for the economy and an important source of jobs. Others, however, claim that limiting Pentagon spending would make resources available for more productive uses in the private sector and lower the burden on the taxpayer. Is military spending different from other forms of government expenditures? Could the impending, mandatory cuts actually benefit the economy? Please join us for a spirited debate that will provide some much-needed perspective on the economic effects of military spending.