Tweet [1]
My GMU Econ colleague Bryan Caplan questions an AP-economics exam question [3].
Richard Rahn rightly praises the price system [4].
Bob Higgs explains that immorality remains immoral – and unjustified – even if it is “efficient. [5]” A slice:
So, yes, economic analysis is necessary for a sound appraisal of government policy actions, but such analysis does not render moral appraisal irrelevant. Far from it. If it is wrong to launch a military attack against a country that has not attacked one’s own and lacks even a capacity for such an attack, no amount of yammering about unknown counter-factuals can make such an allegedly preemptive attack a justifiable action. Likewise for countless other government actions, from the so-called drug war to drone attacks on Yemeni villages populated mainly by innocent men, women, and children. Some things are wrong; they violate people’s natural rights; and they ought not to be done. And no amount of agonizing over economic uncertainties and implausible but-what-if trade-offs can excuse such wrongful acts.
David Henderson and Charley Hooper explore the flaws in climate models [6].
John Tamny defends short-term investors [7].
My Mercatus Center colleague (and GMU Econ alum) Matt Mitchell investigates the use of certificate-of-need (“CON”) dictates [8]. A slice:
35 states and the District of Columbia still maintain CON programs. The justifications for these programs are compelling when they are taken at face value, but a review of the literature finds that CON regulations fail to achieve their worthy goals.
Michael de Sapio reveals the oneness of fascism with communism [9].
Jeff Jacoby argues that there is nothing civilized about the income tax [10].
Speaking of the income tax, Mark Perry here offers much good history and data [11]. And James Harrigan and Antony Davies [12]. And Elaine Schwartz [13].