It is generally understood that to control inflation the Fed must raise nominal interest rates above the inflation rate, so that real interest rates are positive. Economist Lawrence Summers explains: “The central principle of anti-inflationary monetary policy is that to reduce inflation, it is necessary to raise real rates. Equivalently, it is necessary to raise interest rates by more than the inflation being counteracted and above a neutral level that neither speeds nor slows growth.” Thus, with inflation at 8.5 percent, nominal interest rates must rise significantly for real interest rates to reach positive territory.
Innovation and entrepreneurship have been the primary drivers of economic growth and human flourishing—the keys to greater opportunity, choice, and mobility throughout society. Yet they face mounting obstacles in the United States today. The future well-being of the nation may come down to a choice between two approaches. One is a precautionary approach that relies on a convoluted labyrinth of permits and red tape that often encumber entrepreneurial activities in the name of keeping Americans safe. The other is a permissionless approach, grounded in the notion that experimentation with new technologies and innovations should generally be permitted by default.
Adopting the Proposal would not be in the best interests of the United States. It would determine significant national environmental policies without direction from Congress, creating a high risk of proving to be a futile gesture because of the likelihood that a court will overturn final rules. It would damage the role of the SEC as a securities regulator. It would interfere with domestic and international energy policy. It would impose massive new costs on business without gaining offsetting benefits. It would impose detailed prescriptions for running a company and execute a further invasion into state corporate law and the business judgment of corporate managers. It would rest on a disclosure process that is not workable. It would foment meritless private
securities litigation.
Although state policymakers have delegated many aspects of land use regulation to localities, state policymakers maintain the responsibility for protecting property rights for all Ohioans. Protecting the right of homeowners to monetize their largest asset provides a broad swath of Ohioans the opportunity to earn additional income from their houses. Local policymakers have the responsibility for regulating real nuisances from short-term rentals, such as noise or safety concerns, and they have the tools for addressing these problems directly by, for example, enforcing noise ordinances without resorting to complete bans on short-term rentals that take away an important right from Buckeye homeowners.
Rather than importing housing solutions, Texas should be exporting them. In the 1990s, innovative Houston builders began pioneering the “detached townhouse,” an attractive modern type of home on a postage stamp of land. Unlike traditional townhouses, detached townhouses do not share a wall with neighbors and often face a shared courtyard. These innovations give homeowners some of the privacy benefits of typical single-family neighborhoods while retaining the advantages of density.
