Passing a BillMeNow For Later

(Austrian) Economics, Business, Nanny Statism
By / / 1 minute of reading
Share

Jeremy B. White of the NY Observer writes:

“City Council Member Brad Lander introduced a bill today that would require banks to help pay for the upkeep of foreclosed homes by posting bonds with a minimum value of $10,000.”

What he failed to write was that if this bill were to pass, new mortgage applications would either require a $10,000 fee to cover for foreclosure contingencies, or more likely just include a risk premium for that $10,000 bond. Even if the bill would ban sticking the potential mortgager with that bill, it would compel banks to be even stricter in their lending standards than they would have been otherwise, thus cutting off otherwise qualified applicants from buying homes, foreclosed or otherwise.

In either scenario, the tendency will be to have empty foreclosed homes sitting longer in unkempt vacancy than in the counterfactual situation in which the government didn’t meddle as much.

Don’t you love well-intentioned, yet clueless legislators?

Passing a BillMeNow For Later Read Post »

Watson: Too cool not to share

(Austrian) Economics, Business, Technology
By / / 1 minute of reading
Share

Perhaps you have heard – the future has arrived. Tech-giant IBM recently pitted their super-computer/AI named “Watson” against the two best Jeopardy players on earth and Watson won.

I for one welcome our new computer overlords.

Check out this interesting video about this historic event. To me, these kinds of things are far more important in the long run than the stupid political movers and shakers that populate Washington and various other capital cities. The free market gets stuff done.

Watson: Too cool not to share Read Post »

What Libertarians Should Know When Debating Statists

(Austrian) Economics, Anti-Statism, Libertarian Theory, The Basics
By / / 3 Comments / 2 minutes of reading
Share

Anthony Gregory makes a quick list of “talking points” that libertarians should know rather well when engaging in argumentation with statists. Here it is:

The law of comparative advantage
Broken window
Socialism vs. universability
The state cannot be perfectly egalitarian — someone calls the shots
If EVEN the US government does X, is there any hope for a good govt?
The ratchet effect
History shows markets can handle health care and insurance
History shows markets can handle law
Govt. education = indoctrination by the power elite
Guns protect us from criminals, and the state
Free speech is the cornerstone of civilization
Without property rights, no other rights are possible
Libertarian property rights are, in the good sense, more “democratic” than socialist rights
The free market empowers the weak against the strong, who always grab political influence
If you don’t own your body, no liberties are possible
History shows corporations side with the regulatory state
History damns every war that has happened
Due process rights are important, because the state can never be trusted — it is that evil
You can’t have freedom without letting others have it
Political democracy is no better than any other form of govt., basically (hat tip, HHH!)
Relative freedom at home can mean more imperialism — look out! (hat tip, HHH!)
Illegal aliens are people just as much as we are
Tax victims have a right to reclaim stolen goods, it doesn’t make the stealing legitimate
Privatization is messy because socialization is the original sin
States can’t calculate without prices
Central planning fails due to information problems
Public choice theory
The butler effect (how drug wars make things worse)
Outlawing guns and drugs means only outlaws have them, and drives them underground
Blowback
Just war theory
The state as a monopoly on violence
Libertarian class analysis
Thou shalt not steal
Taxation is theft
War is murder
War is the health of the state
All states are born unjustly
All states commit aggression
Either you’re for aggression, or not

What Libertarians Should Know When Debating Statists Read Post »

Economics, ethics, and Krugman

Business Cycles, The Left
By / / 6 minutes of reading
Share

Reading Paul Krugman is like picking at a scab: You know you should probably just let it alone, but there’s pleasure in picking the Krugman rough redness. So you read. So you bleed. So you flick away the droplets and the clots.

I could hardly avoid his recent post, “Economics and Morality,” in part because the title mirrors an abiding interest of mine, and of many libertarians. There is a deep connection between economics and ethics. After all, one is the science of human action and transactions, the other is the art of prescribing for same. Frank Knight observed that the subject of economics was the same as that of Herbert Spencer’s Principles of Ethics: “acts adjusted to ends,” or, to put simply, Human Conduct.

Krugman offers no insights about the deep connections. Instead, he regurgitates old pabulum about the welfare state, and misunderstands the case for free markets. Again.

He begins with a concern: “[T]he right is winning economic debates because people believe, wrongly, that there’s something inherently moral about free-market outcomes.”

I don’t know if this is the case, in the real world. Perhaps I don’t follow enough “debates.” But, as I see it, market outcomes are not moral as such. It’s market processes that are. That is, non-fraudulent, non-coerced exchanges (trade) — no matter how much error there may be in them — are more moral processes than fraudulent and coerced processes. It’s the means that are important, here. Fixating on the ends leads you into traps like Krugman seems to rest his whole ideology upon.

…

Economics, ethics, and KrugmanRead More »

Economics, ethics, and Krugman Read Post »

The Illusion That Makes the Math Look Nice

Business Cycles, Podcast Picks, Statism, The Basics
By / / 5 minutes of reading
Share

Perhaps the greatest contribution of socialism to economics was to cajole Austrian economists into understanding just how different their theoretical approach was from the main stream of economics. At first, Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek thought they were on the leading edge of that main stream. But the two major debates that they engaged in in the first half of the 20th century — over business cycle theory and regarding calculation in the socialist society — both proved vexing. They should have won both debates. They had the better arguments. But in both cases the majority of economists sided against Mises and Hayek.

…

The Illusion That Makes the Math Look NiceRead More »

The Illusion That Makes the Math Look Nice Read Post »

Scroll to Top