Cato’s David Boaz is now blogging at the Encyclopaedia Brittanica blog.
In the Guardian, my brilliant younger colleague Bryan Caplan debates Tiger Mom Amy Chua.
After reading George Will’s superb column in yesterday’s Washington Post, I’m more convinced that ever that we should bring back, and ‘Locke’ in, the nondelegation doctrine.
Chapman University philosopher Tibor Machan ponders Paul Krugman.
Finally, Henry Manne reminds me of this video – “The Government Can” – from August 2009 by comedian Tim Hawkins. I’m pretty sure that I linked to this video earlier here at the Cafe, but it’s worth re-linking. Not only is it entertaining, but perhaps the single best way to protect our liberties is to reveal politicians to be the buffoonish objects of ridicule that they truly are. In this way, laughter is indeed the best medicine.
Share
{ 13 comments }
My favorite paragraph from the Jim Gray video is:
“The sixth group of people that are winning [from drug prohibition], are the terrorist organizations of the world. You look at any terrorist organization, from Osama bin Laden or anywhere else – the primary source of funding is drug money. It’s the sale of illegal drugs to the degree that I say, that drug prohibition is the golden goose of terrorism. If our government really wanted to do something damaging to terrorists groups around the world they would take the one step that would do that – repeal drug prohibition.” Judge Jim Gray
George Selgin canot set our thinking straight about fractional-reserve vs. 100%-reserve banking without setting it straight about monetary contraction.
And he’s already demonstrated his inability to do that.
Prof Boudreaux,
You wrote,
the single best way to protect our liberties is to reveal politicians to be the buffoonish objects of ridicule that they truly are. In this way, laughter is indeed the best medicine.
And laughter at buffoonish economists as well as politicians?.
Re: The Bryan Caplan Vs Amy Chua debate.
It is really too short to draw much of a conclusion as to how widely separated they are in difference; but, based on what I have read there and in the past from both, I would rather have Amy Chua as my kids teacher than Bryan Caplan.
The reason is that Amy Chua understands that life is not all about fun, not even close, and that sometimes kids have to learn that life can be tough, mean, and damned difficult to wrest something from it, so kids need to learn that if they want a good life that sometimes they will often be required to suck it up and suffer the hard, the tough, the mean, and the difficult, and do it without expecting their neighbors to cough up the fruits of their labor as a compelled benefit for those not measuring up.
Successfully taking care of one’s self frequently requires sweat, fatigue, pain, physical and mental endurance, and patient suffering to get the job done and earn the reward. The best time to experience that and make it part of enculturation is while young.
It is far easier to earn the reward and recoup from the effort made to get it, than it is to miss the reward and recoup from weakness that caused you to miss it.
Ever heard of delayed gratification and the marshmallow tests?
Predicts life success better than IQ, at the age of 4.
Emotional maturity. Would Caplan or Chua be more likely to raise a child who could consistently delay gratification?
There’s your answer.
From Cato, I humbly suggest this should be the graph of the week:
Government spending and jobs
Enough with the subtlety.
If Keynesian stimulus works and there is a government multiplier, its reward should be highly significant and plain for all to see.
I think Krugman would turn Machan’s argument around on him by arguing that logic requires inconsistency when dealing with complex systems, specifically at those times when the complex system has undergone a phase change. Krugman believes that we are in a liquidity trap and that the laws governing economics in a liquidity trap are different from those that govern under ordinary conditions.
And that seems a fair point. Excercise is generally good for the individual, but not a good idea when sick.
Caplan losses big time. Parents don’t impact their children?
What an idiot.
“Parents don’t impact their children?”
Not if they don’t misbehave.
It is really fascinating that no GMU guy when referring to a GMU colleague can’t resist the temptation to add an adjective like “brilliant”.
I suspect that, when pediatricians are discussing a colleague from Vacaville, CA, that they can’t resist adding adjectives like, “moron”, “dumbass”, or, “dipshit”. Nothing wrong with adjective, if they’re accurate.
Tiger Mom Chau sounds liek an excellent luchador name.