David Boaz’s discussion of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s opposition to libertarian Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) offers further evidence that being pro-business is not at all identical to being pro-free-market (or pro-free-enterprise). Mr. Amash, thankfully, is not pro-business; he’s pro-free-market and pro-liberty. (Mr. Amash, by the way, is one of the tiny handful of elected officials in Washington who I would welcome into my home as a guest – and that’s not just because I’m told that he reads Cafe Hayek. The reason is that Mr. Amash seems to be a genuinely principled, pro-liberty person. Nearly all of the other politicians who haunt Pennsylvania Ave. are smarmy, duplicitous, and officious rent-creators and rent-distributors. I would no more allow into my home any U.S. President or the typical buffoon in Congress than I would allow into my home someone who makes his or her living as a shoplifter or embezzler.)
Over at EconLog, Scott Sumner writes wisely about economic inequality and Thomas Piketty (although I’m far less enthusiastic than Scott seems to be about taxing consumption – but that’s chiefly because I want nothing to be taxed). A slice:
Unfortunately, most of the Piketty supporters seem to think it’s better to have lower tax rates on a wealthy person who devotes his wealth to riotous living, as compared to a wealthy person who is thrifty, putting the money into capital formation, charity, and/or his children’s welfare. I have yet to see a persuasive justification for this bizarre policy preference.
Also especially noteworthy at EconLog is this nice, short post by David Henderson.
Reading the New York Times, Marty Mazorra finds evidence that popular myths die hard.
