Deirdre McCloskey on Piketty, the Bourgeoisie Deal, the Bolshevik Deal, and the Bridal Deal
17 Nov 2015 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, development economics, economic history, economics of bureaucracy, growth disasters, growth miracles, Public Choice Tags: bourgeoisie deal, capitalism and freedom, Deirdre McCloskey, industrial revolution, The Great Enrichment, The Great Escape, The Great Fact, Thomas Piketty
.
Do the European welfare states free ride off American entrepreneurship and innovation?
12 Nov 2015 1 Comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, economic history, economics of regulation, entrepreneurship, industrial organisation, politics - USA, public economics, survivor principle, taxation, technological progress Tags: creative destruction, Daron Acemoglu, Denmark, entrepreneurial alertness, Eurosclerosis, international technology diffusion, taxation and entrepreneurship, taxation and innovation, taxation and investment, taxation and labour supply, technology followers, welfare state
Source: Daron Acemoglu A Scandinavian U.S. Would Be a Problem for the Global Economy – NYTimes.com.
In addition to being patient No. 1 of Bush derangement syndrome, @NYTimeskrugman suffers from wrong headedness as well
03 Nov 2015 Leave a comment
in comparative institutional analysis, personnel economics, politics - USA
Did government pick the Internet as a winner? @stevenljoyce @dpfdpf
31 Oct 2015 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, Austrian economics, comparative institutional analysis, economic history, economics of bureaucracy, economics of media and culture, industrial organisation, Public Choice, survivor principle Tags: creative destruction, entrepreneurial alertness, industry policy, Internet, picking losers, picking winners, The fatal conceit, The meaning of competition, The pretense to knowledge
Mises on Nazi socialism
31 Oct 2015 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, Austrian economics, comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, defence economics, economics of bureaucracy, economics of regulation, industrial organisation, labour economics, Ludwig von Mises, Public Choice, survivor principle Tags: Nazi Germany
#TBT Ludwig von Mises' 1942 Letter to the Editor in the @nytimes on Nazi socialism. http://t.co/kv7TFekY8J—
Mises Institute (@mises) October 15, 2015
@NaomiAKlein agrees with #MiltonFriedman on Mancur Olson’s theory of how nations escape institutional sclerosis
25 Oct 2015 Leave a comment
in comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, development economics, economic history, economics of bureaucracy, income redistribution, Marxist economics, Milton Friedman, Public Choice, rentseeking, technological progress Tags: expressive voting, interest groups, Leftover Left, logic of collective action, Mancur Olson, Naomi Klein, pressure groups, rational ignorance, rational irrationality, rise and decline of nations, Twitter left
Source: quoted by Naomi Klein in “The Shock Doctrine”.
LA premiere tonight @NaomiAKlein @avilewis @mrdannyglover in person Q&A 7.30pm sundancecinemas.com http://t.co/wRkPFbnUHu—
Changes Everything (@thischanges) October 16, 2015
1. There will be no countries that attain symmetrical organization of all groups with a common interest and thereby attain optimal outcomes through comprehensive bargaining.
2. Stable societies with unchanged boundaries tend to accumulate more collusions and organizations for collective action over time.
3. Members of “small” groups have disproportionate organizational power for collective action, and this disproportion diminishes but does not disappear over time in stable societies.
4. On balance, special-interest organizations and collusions reduce efficiency and aggregate income in the societies in which they operate and make political life more divisive.
5. Encompassing organizations have some incentive to make the society in which they operate more prosperous, and an incentive to redistribute income to their members with as little excess burden as possible, and to cease such redistribution unless the amount redistributed is substantial in relation to the social cost of the redistribution.
6. Distributional coalitions make decisions more slowly than the individuals and firms of which they are comprised, tend to have crowded agendas and bargaining tables, and more often fix prices than quantities.
7. Distributional coalitions slow down a society’s capacity to adopt new technologies and to reallocate resources in response to changing conditions, and thereby to reduce the rate of economic growth.
8. Distributional coalitions, once big enough to succeed, are exclusive, and seek to limit the diversity of incomes and values of their membership.
9. The accumulation of distributional coalitions increases the complexity of regulation, the role of government, and the complexity of understandings, and changes the direction of social evolution.
Source: Obituary: Professor Mancur Olson | Obituaries | News | The Independent
Angus Deaton on slow growth as a force for distributional conflict
25 Oct 2015 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, development economics, growth disasters, growth miracles, income redistribution, liberalism, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: Angus Deaton, The Great Enrichment, The Great Escape, The Great Fact
@CarlyFiorina says it all on action to fight global warming @jamespeshaw @AndrewLittleMP @garethmorgannz
24 Oct 2015 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, comparative institutional analysis, energy economics, environmental economics, global warming, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: 2016 presidential election, climate alarmists, expressive voting, free riding, game theory, global warming, international public goods, rational ignorance, rational irrationality
@EricCrampton @KhyaatiA should New Zealand divide into Cantons?
22 Oct 2015 Leave a comment
in comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, economics of bureaucracy, politics - New Zealand, Public Choice Tags: economics of federalism, Switzerland
Suggestions by the New Zealand Initiative for regions to be able to ask to be exempt from some national policies was against a background that New Zealand is too small to be a federal state. The New Zealand provinces were abolished in 1876. Switzerland seems to still put bread in the shops despite having many tiny Cantons and half-Cantons.
Source: Swiss Statistics – Cantons, communes.
So many American states have smaller populations are New Zealand, half in all, that is difficult to present them on a chart. All managed to be richer the New Zealand despite the horrors of federalism or because of it. These small state populations are before considering how much local government legislative power there is, including taxing and spending powers, city income taxes and city sales taxes, and county and local police forces.
Source: List of U.S. states and territories by population – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The median national population size of countries is not much more than New Zealand’s current population.
- Controlling for location, Easterly and Kraay (2002) found that smaller states were richer than other states in per capita real GDP.
- Rose (2006) reviewed the impact of size on the level of income, inflation, material well-being, health, education, and the quality of a country’s institutions and found that small countries are more open to trade than large countries, but are not systematically different otherwise.
As I argued in my previous post on distance, New Zealand were prosperous from the time of European settlement despite a small population and their great distance from the main markets of the world on each side of the Atlantic.
Half the world's population lives inside this circle. http://t.co/XlTeEsTZkn—
Weird Science (@weird_sci) October 17, 2015
Of the ten richest countries in terms of GDP per capita, only four have populations above one million people (Alesina 2003). These countries are the USA (290 million people), Switzerland (7 million people), Norway (4 million people) and Singapore (3 million people). Of these four nations, two are below the global national population median of six million (Alesina 2003).
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments