And here’s Steve Landsburg’s appreciation of Coase. (Curious thing: I once shared Steve’s opinion that Coase’s famous 1960 paper is poorly written – or, at least, too wordy. Having re-read that paper several times over the past two years, however, I no longer hold that opinion. I’d offer my thoughts on why my assessment has changed, but that would make this post too wordy.)
I predict that you’ll enjoy Art Carden’s new series of posts at EconLog – “Research that Should Get More Attention” – as much as I will enjoy it, which is a great deal. In this inaugural post Art highlights an important 2005 paper (in the Independent Review) by my GMU Econ colleague Dan Klein.
In the Wall Street Journal, Jonathan V. Last reviews Paul Sabin’s new book on the famous bet between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich – a bet that Simon won resoundingly. Here’s a slice of Last’s review:
Mr. Ehrlich was more than a sore loser. In 1995, he told this paper: “If Simon disappeared from the face of the Earth, that would be great for humanity.” (Simon would die in 1998.) This comment wasn’t out of character. “The Bet” is filled chockablock with Mr. Ehrlich’s outbursts—calling those who disagree with him “idiots,” “fools,” “morons,” “clowns” and worse. His righteous zeal is matched by both his viciousness in disagreement and his utter imperviousness to contrary evidence. For example, he has criticized the scientists behind the historic Green Revolution in agriculture—men like Norman Borlaug, who fed poor people the world over through the creation of scientific farming—as “narrow-minded colleagues who are proposing idiotic panaceas to solve the food problem.”
Mr. Sabin’s portrait of Mr. Ehrlich suggests that he is among the more pernicious figures in the last century of American public life.