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 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.
Restriction or Legalization? Measuring the Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform
Featuring Peter Dixon, Principal Researcher, Centre of Policy Studies,
Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University (Australia); and Daniel Griswold, Director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute.
As Congress prepares to tackle immigration reform, a new study from the Cato Institute estimates that the difference in the impact on U.S. households between the most and least restrictive policies would be about a quarter of a trillion dollars. Using a model of the U.S. economy developed for the Department of Homeland Security and other U.S. agencies, economists Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer conclude that increased restriction of illegal immigration would cost U.S. households $80 billion a year, while legalization through a temporary visa program would raise incomes by $180 billion. Professor Dixon will explain the findings and answer questions about the methodology of the study, and Cato scholar Daniel Griswold will share the results of his new study on immigration and the underclass.