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.
Washington should, as it applies to Turkey, immediately repudiate the provision in article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty that considers an attack on one member as an attack on all and obligates the United States to render assistance.
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 2014 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. “Libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom,” Cato’s David Boaz writes in his book, The Libertarian Mind. “It is the indispensable framework for the future.” And as the new report demonstrates, the Cato Institute, thanks largely to the generosity of our Sponsors, is leading the charge to apply this framework across the policy spectrum.
Featuring Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) and John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute.
The recent Supreme Court decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life marks a change in direction in judicial doctrines concerning campaign finance. As recently as 2003, a majority of the Court upheld the strictures on free speech enacted in McCain-Feingold. In Wisconsin Right to Life, the Court forcefully stated that the benefit of the doubt lies with freedom of speech and not with the government. What will this decision mean for the 2008 campaign? How has the Court limited the power of Congress to regulate campaign finance and freedom of speech? Will we see a general deregulation of campaign finance compelled by judicial decisions over the next few years? Please join us to hear a leading congressional critic of restrictions on campaign spending and to discuss this vital judicial decision and its implications for Congress and national politics.