Dan “Bulldog” Mitchell has a few questions for protectionists.

CEI’s Ryan Young looks back even further in time at a Sears catalog.

In my latest Pittsburgh Tribune-Review column I argue that neither vulgar Keynesianism nor academic Keynesianism supplies as sound an explanation for the inadequacy of investment spending as does Bob Higgs’s theory of regime uncertainty.

AEI Resident Scholar Philip Levy made some important points about international trade in his Congressional testimony earlier this week.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, PERC’s Terry Anderson calls for a Green Tea Party.

Writing a few years back in London’s Sunday Times, Jamie Whyte made the case that “human rights” often lead to human wrongs.

Over at EconLog, Bryan Caplan argues that “that immigration increases diversity, which undermines solidarity, which mutes public support for the welfare state.

The doorbell rings.  (HT Mike Stetson)

Be Sociable, Share!



7 comments    Share Share    Print    Email


RonB September 23, 2011 at 9:47 am

Jamie Whyte while correct about property rights is wrong when he says economist debate the causes of poverty. Poverty is the natural state of man, wealth is what must be created and that is what economist debate.

SweetLiberty September 23, 2011 at 9:58 am

But Keynes believed that innovation had all but run its course. Entrepreneurs’ and innovators’ creativity was tapped out…

Academic Keynesianism is rooted in the same Vulgar Keynesian notion that the key to an economy’s success is total spending, and that private parties — consumers and investors — cannot be relied upon consistently to spend enough to keep workers fully employed. Government must help.

So, even if we grant at some point Keynes’s notion that innovation will one day run its course, how does government manipulation of the economy change this equation? Should people ever truly run out of new ideas, no amount of government meddling can ever change this fact.

But modern Keynesians who champion government interference advocate a means to “jump start” the economy out of a temporary lull. While I believe this interference is misguided and serves only to exacerbate the problem, you would be hard pressed to find any modern Keynesians (whether Vulgar or Academic) who argue, ” Entrepreneurs’ and innovators’ creativity [is] tapped out “. If Keynes did indeed believe that innovation was all but dead, I can’t imagine this part of his legacy is kept alive by anyone who is taken seriously today.

Slappy McFee September 23, 2011 at 11:32 am


Don linked to a story by Dan Mitchell where Dan provides a video by Don.

10 yard penalty, loss of down.

Ken September 23, 2011 at 11:48 am


EG September 23, 2011 at 12:21 pm

I don’t have time to read the AGS paper that Caplan quotes, but I saw those graphs a few days ago and I was wondering about what they are showing. One thing that puzzles me is the definition of “racial fractionalization”, or rather what source or index was used to build it. Maybe these questions are answered in the paper itself (I’ll read it sometime)

For example, Sweden is on the low end of the scale, and yet Sweden’s population just of foreign born individuals is close to 15% today (I understand the graph cuts off at 1998, and Sweden has experienced a boom in emigration since then, but still). That doesn’t strike me as a country on the “low end”. This bring up the question, what does ‘racial” mean…and how is it related to “immigration”. Not all immigrants are from a different race. A country with high immigration, like Sweden, may or may not show “racial fractionalization” (since a lot of immigrants there are East Europeans). Then we look at Argentina, halfway down the scale. It has around 87% “Europeans”…what may be a greater “racial” homogeneity than Sweden. Plus I’m pretty sure they have considerably fewer immigrants as a % than Sweden. Then we go to Ecuador on the extreme end of the scale.; very little immigration, 65% “Amerindian” and 25% “Spanish”. Are these “races”?

Not knowing anything more than those graphs and what I read in the posts, I’m not quite sure what we’re looking at. If we redrew that graph (including the one of blacks in the US), to GDP per capita instead of racial fractionalizm, how different would it look? Is race necessarily related to immigration?

Daniel Kuehn September 23, 2011 at 12:38 pm

I enjoyed your article. I’ve got more thoughts here: http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2011/09/credit-where-credit-is-due.html

I think it’s good to make the distinction on Keynesianism that you did, although it seems to me it’s just easier to complain about “pundits and politicians”. That’s what Krugman does, for example. Most of the time he just talks about pro-austerity pundits and politicians. These sorts of people are just too hard to tie to an actual economic theory. One could call them “vulgar Austrians” (lots of talk about easy spending from cheap credit among politicians), or one could call them “vulgar Chicagoans” (lots of skepticism of fiscal solutions), but sometimes its easier to call them what they are and avoid the bickering: pundits and politicians with half-baked theories that we need to keep close track of because it’s our republic.

Greg Webb September 24, 2011 at 1:01 am

I like Jamie Whyte, but, he does not understand the concepts and principles of the founding of the United States. He incorrectly identifies the ideals of the French Revolution with the ideas of the American Revolution. The Founders were correct in saying that it is self-evident that each individual is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But, the French Revolutionaries, along with Thomas Paine, were wrong when they turned those ideas on their head to murder and steal the property of others.

Previous post:

Next post: