≡ Menu

Some Links

Joakim Book identifies a key flaw in notions held by far too many self-styled “environmentalists”: a persistent refusal to look beyond the most immediate and visible consequences. A slice:

What angers most people about climate activists is not their goals, but their elaborate system of doublethink, their profound cognitive dissonance, and the truly fascinating ability to rationalize their own behavior; they ignore their own seriously harmful actions while praising themselves for the meager and largely inconsequential benefits of their climate activism.

Jonah Goldberg highlights a hidden danger lurking in schemes, such as that of Elizabeth Warren, to soak the rich. A slice:

But the more important part is the democratic disincentive. Think of the old golden rule: Whoever has the gold makes the rules. (This insight apparently comes from noted philosopher Johnny Hart, the cartoonist behind “The Wizard of Id,” who coined it in 1965). When the bulk of tax revenues come from the people, or at least from the middle class, the government heeds the middle class. When all of the money comes from the aristocracy, as it did prior to the rise of democratic capitalism, the aristocracy made the rules. When it comes from the rich — aka “the donor class,” the “One Percent,” etc. — the rich care a lot more about the rule-making.

John O. McGinnis laments the intellectual decline of the New York Times.

David Henderson continues to expose the deficient economic thinking of two of the most-recently minted Nobel laureates in economics.

This news is great: AIER’s and John Papola’s new video on Mises and Marx is a big hit in China.

Tom Mullen explains with impressive clarity that Trump and many other people – from all across the political spectrum – are mistaken to suppose that China’s economy is made stronger by the obstructions that Beijing imposes on the Chinese people’s freedom to trade. A slice:

Well, the same goes for the Chinese. To the extent they are doing the things they are accused of by Washington, they are only hurting themselves. All the arguments for why the US should eliminate its tariffs, even if the Chinese don’t, also apply to China. Whatever money China spends subsidizing its exporters is money that could have been used by a Chinese industry that doesn’t need to be subsidized. Every additional renminbi yuan Chinese consumers are paying for automobiles or other products upon which they place high tariffs is one they no longer have to spend on something else, making the Chinese poorer for all the same reasons US tariffs make Americans poorer.

Next month, my GMU Econ colleague Bryan Caplan will deliver this year’s IEA Hayek Lecture. Its title is: “Poverty: Who’s to Blame?”.