Tweet [1]
This coming Wednesday, at noon at the Cato Institute’s Washington headquarters, a special live edition of EconTalk will be held featuring Cato’s George Selgin, my colleague Larry White, and (of course) Russ [2]. The title: “Renewing the Search for a Monetary Constitution: Reforming Government’s Role in the Monetary System.” Note that this event will also be live-streamed.
Cato’s Doug Bandow warns against the hubris, folly, and unintended consequences of U.S. military adventurism [3]. A slice:
The two parties usually attempt to one-up each other when it comes to reckless overseas intervention. Yet Uncle Sam has demonstrated that he possesses the reverse Midas Touch. Whatever he touches turns to mayhem.
Warren Meyer offers a solid candidate for “worst argument for regulation ever. [4]”
Many people believe that the main purpose of occupational-licensing legislation is to protect consumers from incompetent physicians, electricians, interior designers, shampooers, and other professional service providers. This paper (co-authored by my former GMU Econ colleague Mark Klee) identifies another – I think much more likely – purpose of occupational-licensing legislation [5]. (HT Jason Clemens of the Fraser Institute [6])
Citing my GMU colleague David Bernstein’s superb 2011 book, Rehabilitating Lochner, George Leef defends Rand Paul’s defense of the 1905 Lochner decision [7] – which case, by the way, was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court exactly 110 years ago today.
My Mercatus Center colleague Brent Skorup identifies five myths about so-called “net neutrality. [8]”
Prompted by this post [9] from yesterday, Tim Worstall sent me this 2005 “Stumbling and Mumbling” post entitled “Minimum Wage Effects. [10]“