≡ Menu

Some Links

My GMU Econ and Mercatus Center colleague Pete Boettke reflects on the award to F.A. Hayek, announced 50 years ago this month, of the Nobel Prize in economics. A slice:

Economics is a science of complex phenomena, not a science of simple phenomena. The methods appropriate for the one are wholly inappropriate for the other.  In fact, Hayek argued, the methods that appear the most scientific, will in fact be the least, and those that appear least scientific may be the most. Furthermore, Hayek continued that unless economist correct their error not only will the science of economics border on charlatanism, but the practitioners of economics will become tyrants over their fellow citizens and destroyers of civilization.

Martin Lueken reports that “school choice saves taxpayer dollars.” A slice:

Decades of data show that these programs generate substantial fiscal benefits for taxpayers. A recent EdChoice analysis of 48 school-choice programs across 26 states through 2022 estimates that school-choice programs generated cumulative net fiscal benefits for taxpayers worth between $19.4 billion and $45.6 billion. This translates to up to $7,800 a student. Put another way, for every dollar spent on these programs, taxpayers have saved between $1.70 and $2.64—a significant return on investment.

Opponents claim that school-choice programs cause budget meltdowns. But these programs represent only a fraction of overall state spending. Across all states with choice programs, total state spending on all public services exceeds $1.2 trillion. The cost for choice programs represents only 0.3% of state budgets. These programs aren’t large enough to upend budgets—and they’re flexible. They typically start small and grow slowly over time, allowing states and districts to adjust their budgets and operations.

Anyone who is very sure that the Trumpian right clearly poses a greater threat to liberal values than do progressives should read this essay by Andrew Stuttaford….

…. and read also this Wall Street Journal column by Mary O’Grady. A slice:

Progressives want the state to monitor truth in the public square, and some would give government the power to punish dissent from approved narratives. Last month Hillary Clinton proposed criminalizing speech she labels as “propaganda.”

[DBx: No matter what happens in the presidential sweepstakes in November, nearly all of us Americans afterwards will be in deep doo-doo. At this point, all I care about regarding the upcoming election is (1) hoping that the election outcome, whatever it will be, isn’t contested, (2) relishing the defeat of whichever presidential ticket loses, and (3) hoping that the GOP gains control of the U.S. Senate in order to avoid elimination of the filibuster.]

George Leef understandably is a fan of Arnold Kling’s recent excellent defense of allowing dissent.

Colin Grabow shares some evidence of the dysfunction of protectionism.

Vance Ginn details some of the high costs of rent control. A slice:

Landlords, faced with below-market rents, often convert rental units into condos or leave them vacant rather than rent them out at lower rates. This leads to a further reduction in available rentals and worse living conditions for tenants. It’s a vicious cycle that harms the housing market and the people relying on it.

David Friedman offers a compelling take on declining birth rates. (HT Jane Shaw Stroup)

Lee Fang writes about San Francisco’s “progressive racism.”

Peter Suderman applauds creative cocktails.