Most of the energy of political work is devoted to correcting the effects of mismanagement of government.

If the only motive was to help people who could not afford education, advocates of government involvement would have simply proposed tuition subsidies.

I am favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible.

There's only one thing that all of the central banks control and that is the base, their own liability, and they can control that in various ways. They can control it directly by open market operations, buying and selling government securities or other assets, for example, buying and selling gold, or they can control it indirectly by altering the rate at which banks lend to one another.

With some notable exceptions, businessmen favor free enterprise in general but are opposed to it when it comes to themselves.

It is my view that what is important is cutting government spending, however spending is financed. A so-called deficit is a disguised and hidden form of taxation. The real burden on the public is what government spends (and mandates others to spend). As I have said repeatedly, I would rather have government spend one trillion dollars with a deficit of a half a trillion than have government spend two trillion dollars with no deficit.

The great virtue of a free market is that it enables people who hate each other, or who are from vastly different religious or ethnic backgrounds, to cooperate economically. Government intervention can't do that.