Why Economic Freedom Matters

Economic freedom is one of my favorite topics and the one that is discussed the least by politicians in this country. Everyone on every news channel discusses all types of "freedoms" -- many without Constitutional legs, but the one that is clearly seen in our governing document (by the Tenth Amendment and the limited powers in Article I, Section 8) is largely ignored. Politicians do not discuss economic freedom and those in the media have no idea why such even matters.

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) brought some excellent information on this topic from several different resources to my attention. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has released a new study called "Economic Freedom and Economic Growth in the US States." That report notes that there is a definite link between such freedoms and employment growth. Other studies have come to similar conclusions, but Michael D. LaFaive (Director of the Mackinac Center's Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative) notes that the thing that makes the Federal Reserve's study significant is its findings on labor markets. The authors write: "In addition, we find that less restrictive state and national government labor market policies have the greatest impact on employment growth in U.S. states."

Having had come from Michigan originally, I am always saddened by stories of that state's continuous decline. LaFaive states that the findings of the study only translates into more bad news for the Great Lakes State. Michigan has one of the worse labor environments in the country. It is not only a closed union shop state, but the epitome of big labor out of control. It is simply much easier for a business to move capital (and jobs) than to subject itself to the highest wages, biggest employee benefits, and toughest "pro-labor" regulations of any state in the Union. These type of policies have forced businesses to leave the state, which has created a revenue shortage, and has led Michigan to answer that problem by raising taxes even higher. Its $1.4 billion tax increase has made Michigan and even less friendly place for doing business, according to LaFaive.

These factors are among the reasons Michigan has consistently suffered from the highest unemployment in the country. The Fraser Institute and Pacific Research Institute have also chimed in on the decline of economic freedom in Michigan. In 2004, Fraser ranked Michigan 32nd among states in economic freedom. By 2009, it had dropped to 39th. Meanwhile, the Pacific Research Institute pointed out that the state fell from 27th in 1999 to 34th in 2004, and most recent, to 43rd (in its 2008 report). This rapid decline of freedom in Michigan has translated into economic ruin for the once great manufacturing giant.

LaFaive suggests several steps in reversing Michigan's economic slide, including:

• Put a halt on the state's new tax increases. Michigan has to develop ways of being more competitive in some areas than other states. Currently, Ontario, Canada does commercials boasting a lower tax rate than Michigan. That has to change if that state is going to attract job creators.
• The state should end entirely its repressive business tax and replace that with real spending cuts and other reforms. Again, the state has to develop ways to attract new businesses. Ending such a tax would certainly help.
• Forbes Magazine notes that all but one of the ten most prosperous states are right-to-work states. Michigan has to make it easier to fire and control employee expenditures, if that state is interested in businesses hiring more and increasing payrolls.
• Finally, Michigan has environmental laws that are among the most aggressive in the country. Michigan has to get its regulations in line with other states, if it is interested in job growth.

Michigan is in a state of crisis. Many other states are following a similar path (as is the nation, seen in businesses taking capital and move to other countries). It is imperative for policy makers on every level of government to recognize the relationship between economic freedom and jobs.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is also host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN radio). Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

The Decline in US Economic Freedom

Since 1995 the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal have monitored the economic freedoms of countries around the world and have published their results in the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom. Ideas like "economic freedom" are a little subjective, but I like the stated view of the publication. According to the editors, economic freedom is defined as "the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself."

As far as methodology, the editors "measure ten components of economic freedom, assigning a grade in each using a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 represents the maximum freedom. The ten component scores are then averaged to give an overall economic freedom score for each country. The ten components of economic freedom are: business freedom, trade freedom, fiscal freedom, government spending, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, freedom from corruption, and Labor Freedom."

We Americans like to believe that we live in the "land of the free and the home of the brave." Yet, most Americans note that our country is in decline. The top ten list of the 183 considered in the survey, gives you an idea of how bad it has become.

The US does not appear in the top five. Using school standards and 90 plus is an "A," no country on the list meets that criteria. With that, number 1 goes to Hong Kong at 89.7, declining 0.3 percent from 2009. The country reached this high status because of its "competitive tax regime, respect for property rights, and flexible labor market, coupled with an educated and highly motivated workforce, have stimulated an innovative, prosperous economy. Hong Kong is one of the world’s leading financial and business centers, and its legal and regulatory framework for the financial sector is transparent and efficient. Business regulation is straightforward. Despite the global economic slowdown, Hong Kong has maintained its status as Asia’s second-largest destination for foreign direct investment, attracting over $60 billion in 2008."

The other countries in the top four are Singapore (number 2 at 86.1 percent, down .1 percent), Australia (number 3 at 82.6 percent, with no change), New Zealand (number 4 at 82.1 percent, up.1 percent), and Ireland (number 5 at 81.3 percent, down .9 percent). New Zealand is only one of two countries in the top ten list to go up. According to the editors, "New Zealand continues to be a global leader in economic freedom, performing well on most of the components measured in the Index. The economy has an impressive record of market reforms and benefits from its openness to global trade and investment. The banking sector is characterized by sound regulations and prudent lending practices, and well-implemented structural reforms have allowed the New Zealand economy to weather the recent global financial and economic crisis relatively unscathed."

Countries six and seven round up the top tier of economic freedom (those with a "B"). The US fails to show up again. Switzerland (number 6 at 81.1 percent, up 1.7 percent) and Canada (number 7 at 80.4 percent, down 0.1 percent) occupy those spots. Switzerland is the other in the top ten to actually go up over the last year.

The United States (number 8 at 78.0 percent, down 2.7 percent) is one of three countries that rounds up the top ten with Denmark (number 9 at 77.9 percent, down 1.7 percent) and Chile (number 10 at 77.2 percent, down 1.1 percent). These countries did not even make it to the top tier, being below 80 percent and the United States had the dubious distinction of seeing the biggest decline in the past year (2.7 percent) among the top ten. In the arena of economic freedom, the US has a low score of "C+" at 78.0 percent.

The study notes that the "U.S. government’s interventionist responses to the financial and economic crisis that began in 2008 have significantly undermined economic freedom and long-term prospects for economic growth. Economic freedom has declined in seven of the 10 categories measured in the Index." It also states that "Uncertainties caused by ongoing regulatory changes and politically influenced stimulus spending have discouraged entrepreneurship and job creation, slowing recovery. Leadership in free trade has been undercut by 'Buy American' provisions in stimulus legislation and failure to pursue previously agreed free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Tax rates are increasingly uncompetitive, and massive stimulus spending is creating unprecedented deficits. Bailouts of financial and automotive firms have generated concerns about property rights."

Imagine, the US is a "second tier country" on the fast track of decline after only one year of one of the most anti-free market Administrations in US history. It will be interesting to see if the US is still in the top ten after the Obama presidency comes to an end.

Ronald Reagan Articulated Economic Freedom

This weekend we celebrated the birthday of Ronald Reagan. There is no question that "the Gipper" had his flaws. Government grew under his administration as it has under every other, but Reagan went far in significantly changing the debate over economic freedom.

One of my biggest frustrations is the reckless abandonment by politicians when it comes to articulating the importance of that freedom. In fact, I haven't heard a Presidential candidate build a message on this theme since Ronald Reagan and I believe that Gov. Sarah Palin may be the first national candidate to do such in her Vice Presidential bid in 2008.

On the eve of the Fourth of July, 1987, President Ronald Reagan delivered an address entitled "America's Economic Bill of Rights." This was an important time for our Republic, because in addition to celebrating the birthday of the Declaration of Independence at this time, we were also commemorating the 200th Anniversary of the United States Constitution on that year. I cannot think of a better time to make such a speech and the need for that message is as strong today as in any time in our history..

Reagan stated right from the beginning what he believed about the Founding Fathers view of economics and noted that the American Revolution had a central theme against "No taxation without representation" and that they "knew that the right to earn your own keep and keep what you earn is central to America's understanding of what it means to be free. This country was built by people seeking to support themselves and their families by their own labor, people who treasured the right to work and dispose of their earnings as they saw fit, people who were willing to take economic risks." In making his case, Reagan focused on "four fundamental freedoms" and he bolstered these with several guiding principles.

Those four freedoms are, according to Reagan:

The freedom to work.

The freedom to enjoy the fruits of one's labor.

The freedom to own and control one's property.

The freedom to participate in a free market.

These four principles were fundamental in the building of this country and they have been under attack long before Reagan went into office and are all the more so today.

In order to secure these rights, Reagan advocated ten different initiatives to reach these objectives that included:

"Reduce subsidized government competition with private citizens." Whenever government could use private companies to do government functions, it should, in order to foster real job creation and to reduce bureaucracy on a state level. There should be no need for such concern on the federal level because of the confines of our Constitution.

"The Freedom to Enjoy the Fruits of Your Labor: You have the right to keep what you earn, free from excessive government taxing, spending, and borrowing." The government is waging a war on this right. Some states, such as Michigan, essentially have 50 percent unemployment. The government would rather have that level of suffering than afford people the right to work.

"To protect you from overtaxing by the Government, I will propose as part of the balanced budget amendment submitted to Congress, a requirement for a super majority vote by Congress before your taxes can be raised." I think this was one of the most bold and creative initiatives ever proposed by a President. This strikes at the heart of how our Founding Fathers saw government being conducted. They desired every legislation designed to expand the government to have as much difficulty of passage as possible (this is why they wanted all tax bills to start in the House and not the Senate), this would assist in that effort.

"To protect your right to own and use your property, my administration will pursue our successful efforts in the courts to restore your constitutional rights when the government at any level attempts to take your property through regulation or other means." I don't think Reagan even fully realized how far the reach of government would go in this area. Today, malls are developed in the name of "imminent domain" and people are removed from their property because of birds and "wetlands."

Reagan went on to address welfare reform years before Clinton, the need to strengthen intellectual property rights, and more. The entire speech deserves to be read in its entirety. In our current times, all of our freedoms are endangered in a way we had not seen historically. In a time such as this, we need to be reminded that our economic still freedoms matter.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is also host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650). Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Capitalism and Morality

I am a fan of Glenn Beck. I like his shows, website, and enjoy his books. Recently I spent some time with his latest, Arguing with Idiots. The book is excellent, although I choose to not waste my time with idiots since there are so many "sincere undecideds" that I believe are open to a better way of thinking about policy issues. He tackles several of the key headline issues that we hear about daily and clearly shows the insanity on the left when it comes to approaching our national problems. However, I had a very difficult time with his view of capitalism.

Beck's book tackles the question of capitalism from a purely utilitarian perspective, in my opinion. Capitalism, he argues, is not right or wrong, but is simply the most efficient. He recognizes the role of human behavior and the fact that capitalism clearly leads to better results, but in the end he says it as neither bad nor good. I could not disagree more. Capitalism is the most moral economic system in the history of the world.

Command economies -- be they communist, socialist, democratic socialist, or whatever -- have the following immoral characteristics:

• The government is a common vehicle for theft, taking money from one group to give to another in pursuit of political, social or other objectives. The taking of money from some to give to others is little more than stealing. Just because it has taken the power to do it, it does not make it right. Government expenditures are only "moral" when they benefit everyone and show special interest to no one. Furthermore, it must be in areas that the government is the only one that can do it.


• These types of governments have monetary policies that print money to pay for government programs (inflation), which devalue all other money in an economy. When individuals or crime syndicates do this, we call it producing counterfeit money, when government does it we call it business as usual. A truly capitalistic economy would depoliticize the currency and link it to gold or other precious metals to preserve the currency's value.


• These economies create social distortions on a macro level that we would never want on a micro level. We would not want families to be subsidized in a manner that encourages divorce so the children would receive more money, we would not want to reward poverty and waste or discourage individuals from increasing their income. These type of distortions are common in these types of command economies, but are contrary to free markets.

Few can honesty argue against capitalism's power to produce jobs, new technology, better opportunities, and personal economic growth. But these are only part of a much more important system. I guess it is fine if one wants to reduce the virtues of capitalism to efficiency, but to me it is selling one of the most powerful -- and moral -- systems far too short. Capitalism embodies liberty, efficiency, and morality. The most important and persuasive, is its morality. That is a high ground that should be taken in the war of ideas.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Political Success without Compromising Principles

I have been watching the political landscape for a long time and got involved in the process at the young age of 17 as someone campaigning for Ronald Reagan and casted my first vote ever for him in 1980 at 18. Over the years I found myself supporting candidates in general elections that I would never support in primaries. I bit into the idea of "the lesser of two evils" which was feeding a movement towards political parties being built on patronage and compromise and not on principle. The current mess we are in today is built on years of good intended people like myself backing candidates who were only taking a slower path to totalitarianism, when we should have been investing in a new political paradigm (not a new party).




The Democratic and Republican parties are merely vehicles. They are recognized organizations with a built-in political apparatus that can get candidates elected. The Democratic Party has become, in my opinion, socialistic. It's principles are so extreme that Barack Obama received the nomination of the Communist Party USA in the 2008 elections (a fact largely ignored by the mainstream media). We might be able to learn a lesson from the Communists. Libertarian and Constitutional parties certainly do not have the luggage of the Communists, but they also lack the legs to make a difference on a large scale. A Republican Party, taken back by those who truly believe in the Constitution could, on the other hand, have value. For that to be the case, however, those of us who support liberty will have to shy away from the sick, co-dependent role that I believe we have been guilty of for years and take a more aggressive and strategic approach.





This approach will take time to see a lasting impact, but not the decades that a new political party will require. Friends of liberty every where will have to take the following steps:

• In this new political paradigm, "party discipline" should be about abiding by the Constitution, not towing a party line that undermines freedom.
• Ask candidates what it means to "defend the Constitution?" If the conversation does not include a discussion of Article I, Section 8 (which lists the very limited powers of the Federal government) and the Tenth Amendment (which restricts the government to those powers listed in Article I, Section 8), the conversation should be over. Certainly educate people about the Constitution, but don't believe that Congress is suitable for "on the job training."
• Become very familiar with the Constitution yourself. How can we hold candidates accountable if we do not know the limits of government?
• Remind the candidate often of what the Constitution allows.
• Work aggressively in the primaries for candidates who support the US Constitution literally and not in word alone.
• This is particularly true in the US House of Representatives which is far easier to get people elected and those who are conservative are far more in number than their colleagues in the Senate.
• If the candidates in your district do not understand their Constitutional obligations, work for candidates outside of your district. Don't let any candidate take you or your vote for granted. If your candidate loses in the primary, support a candidate elsewhere, in time or money, who is a believer in the Constitution.

This approach will produce winners both politically and philosophically, which is greatly needed in our time. It allows those who support liberty to do so without becoming Don Quixotes, merely chasing windmills.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

"A Republic, if you can keep It"

Benjamin Franklin, shortly after the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, was asked by a Mrs. Powel, "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Franklin was quick to reply, "A republic, if you can keep it." Well, if you haven't received the memo before now, we have not "kept it." The US has wandered from the powerful and sound document that unleashed human freedom and kept government at bay.

Recently, on the Price of Business show, I interviewed Renee Herath, who is one of the millions of people who have simply become tired of seeing her government grow out of control. She has gotten involved with the local Tea Parties (both Katy and Houston, Texas) and in Glenn Beck's 9-12 Project and was on my program to discuss some up coming events that may be of interest to my audience. I innocently asked "what got you inspired to be involved in these organizations?" She listed many things, but when we got to the question of the type of government taught in schools today (democracy) versus the one the Founders intended for us (republic), both of us lit up. Very few these days even care about the subject and it has long left the curriculum of government run schools. Those schools have concluded that our country is a democracy, regardless of what our Constitution or the Founders have stated.


So that leads to the question, "does it matter?" This, in turn, makes you ask "what is a republican form of government?" Let me begin by stating that these names have nothing to do with partisan politics, but political freedom. Republic is actually a small "r" and Article IV of the Constitution defines and guarantees this form of government by the federal government for the states. At section four it states "the United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. " This form of government is characterized by the idea of rule by law (the constitution). Although such a government can have democratic institutions, a republic is designed to check all tyrants, be it a federal government out of control or a mob with a destructive agenda. The constitution was designed to protect minorities, not just majorities. If the majority wants to oppress a minority, people still feel oppressed. Under a republic, the government limits itself to a "referee" and not a parental role.



The Founding Fathers believed in checks and balances. It should not surprise us that there were no state departments of education for the first 50 years of our republic. They believed that things like what government can and cannot do are too important to be taught by the government. It would be considered a conflict of interst. We have a generation that largely can't identify the differences between a republic and a democracy, because the vast majority of those people were taught by individuals with a political agenda. We have lost our schools and, as a result, the minds of most Americans. This battle isn't merely about advocating economic freedom, but restoring personal freedom found in the Constitution.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Ronald Reagan and Economic Freedom

One of my biggest frustrations is the reckless abandonment by politicians when it comes to articulating the importance of economic freedom. In fact, I haven't heard a Presidential candidate build a message on this theme since Ronald Reagan and I believe that Gov. Sarah Palin may be the first national candidate to do such in her Vice Presidential bid.

On the eve of the Fourth of July, 1987, President Ronald Reagan delivered an address entitled "America's Economic Bill of Rights." This was an important time for our Republic, because in addition to celebrating the birthday of the Declaration of Independence at this time, we were also celebrating the 200th Anniversary of the United States Constitution on that year. I cannot think of a better time or make such an address.

Reagan stated right from the beginning what he believed about the Founding Fathers view of economics and noted that the American Revolution had a central theme against "No taxation without representation" and that they "knew that the right to earn your own keep and keep what you earn is central to America’s understanding of what it means to be free. This country was built by people seeking to support themselves and their families by their own labor, people who treasured the right to work and dispose of their earnings as they saw fit, people who were willing to take economic risks." In making his case, Reagan focused on "four fundamental freedoms" and he bolstered these with several guiding principles.

Those four freedoms are, according to Reagan:

The freedom to work.

The freedom to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor.

The freedom to own and control one’s property.

The freedom to participate in a free market.

These four principles were fundamental in the building of this country and they have been under attack before Reagan went into office and are all the more so today.

In order to secure these rights, Reagan advocated ten different initiatives to reach these objectives that included:

• "Reduce subsidized government competition with private citizens." Whenever government could use private companies to do government functions, it should, in order to foster real job creation and to reduce bureaucracy.



• "The Freedom to Enjoy the Fruits of Your Labor: You have the right to keep what you earn, free from excessive government taxing, spending, and borrowing." Now more than ever, this fundamental right is endangered.



• "To protect you from overtaxing by the Government, I will propose as part of the balanced budget amendment submitted to Congress, a requirement for a super majority vote by Congress before your taxes can be raised." I think this was one of the most bold and creative initiatives ever proposed by a President. Unfortunately, it never became a reality. It is needed now more than ever.



• "To protect your right to own and use your property, my administration will pursue our successful efforts in the courts to restore your constitutional rights when the government at any level attempts to take your property through regulation or other means." I don't think Reagan even fully realized how far the reach of government would go in this area. Today, malls are developed in the name of "imminent domain" and people are removed from their property because of birds and "wetlands."

Reagan went on to address welfare reform years before Clinton, the need to strengthen intellectual property rights, and more. The entire speech deserves to be read in its entirety. In our current times, all of our freedoms are endangered in a way we had not seen historically. In a time such as this, we need to be reminded that our economic freedoms matter.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 am), AOL Radio, and CBS Radio. Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

The Gift of Ronald Reagan for Christmas

As a parent I love to watch my children enjoy the presents they receive. When you have as many kids as my wife and I, gifts to one another are simply not a priority. The most memorable gift I may have received was from a couple we know (Archie and Robin Arredondo). There is a huge group of friends that participates as "secret Santas" made up of a families we know. Archie was my secret Santa. We know around Thanksgiving who has who. A few weeks ago, Archie and Robin asked my wife what I like. Wisely, she said "anything with Ronald Reagan." She naturally thought -- as would I -- that I might get a great tribute book (like my daughter gave me a couple of years ago) or a T-Shirt (like my sons gave me on a Father's Day). Archie would have none of it, he went on a quest at eBay.

What I received was a Ronald Reagan action figure. Move over GI Joe, here comes the Gipper. Okay, it was more like a talking doll with a push button instead of a string, but it was one of the most thoughtful gifts I have ever received and it is the type of gift that keeps on giving. Americans, everywhere, should be familiar with the quotes of Reagan and this gift was full of them. The following are a few examples from the "Great Communicator."


* "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."


The statement was even more powerful when delivered two decades ago when our primary enemy -- the Soviet Union -- had become weakened after decades of brainwashing and lies from its bloodthirsty regime.



* "Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States."


Where was wisdom such as this when the federal government decided to bailout Wall Street, while taxing the backs of Main Street?



* "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."


Bravo! Most parents enjoy giving their children the fruits of our freedom, but are not doing enough to pass it on to the next generation. This is a message that must be conveyed.


* "The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."


One of my favorite Reagan quotes.


When I was a kid the "in thing" was a GI Joe action figure. I think every child should be given a Reagan action figure so we can raise another generation of adults who enjoy freedom. A Reagan action figure is the gift that keeps on giving.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.