Source: Unicorn Governance | Foundation for Economic Education.
Mises on the Fatal Conceit
20 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, comparative institutional analysis, Ludwig von Mises, Public Choice
Adam Smith and the Follies of Central Planning
20 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in Adam Smith, applied price theory, applied welfare economics, Austrian economics, comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, development economics, history of economic thought, Public Choice Tags: central planning, The fatal conceit, The pretence to knowledge
Ronald Coase on good regulation
18 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, comparative institutional analysis, economics of regulation, Public Choice, rentseeking, Ronald Coase
.
Deirdre McCloskey on the Nirvana fallacy in public policy
18 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, economic history, Public Choice
Source: Quotation of the Day… – Cafe Hayek.
A Milestone For Women In Politics: Libertarians Reflect on Hillary’s Nomination
12 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in economics of media and culture, politics - USA, Public Choice Tags: 2016 presidential elections
Today 1987 Reagan at Brandenburg Gate – “tear down this wall”
11 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in Marxist economics, politics - USA, Public Choice Tags: Berlin, collapse of communism, fall of berlin wall
Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is Smarter
11 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, economics, economics of information, income redistribution, Public Choice, public economics, rentseeking Tags: rational ignorance, rational irrationality, voter demographics
Desperately seeking to agree with @JulieAnneGenter on transport investment quality
11 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, economics of bureaucracy, environmental economics, politics - New Zealand, Public Choice, transport economics, urban economics Tags: cost benefit analysis, KiwiRail, New Zealand Green Party, road pricing
I just wrote an op-ed for National Business Review online (pay-walled) agreeing with an op-ed last week by Green MP Julie Anne Genter on transport investment. My op-ed started
The Taxpayers’ Union welcomes the commitment of the Green Party yesterday to evaluating transport investments without any bias or favouritism to one transport mode over another.
The Taxpayers’ Union could not agree more with Julie Anne Genter when she said that the question ministers should always ask is “what is the best investment we can make?”
This op-ed was my rejoinder to her reply to my op-ed criticising a recent Green Party on national freight policy. That policy called for 25% of all freight by kilometres travelled to each go by rail and road. That would near double their freight market share from 30% currently to 50% when measured by kilometre.
For my troubles I got nothing but criticism and accusations in the comments section in National Business Review Online. A tweet by Genter was far more gracious.
There was no praise in the comment section at the National Business Review online for agreeing with the Green policy. In the first comment I was told I did not understand economics and that
When the policy default is “cut taxes and spending and let me selfishly keep my money” they miss out on the much larger benefit to everyone, including themselves, by nudging or economy to spend more on intrinsically more efficient transport – like rail – and less on alternatives.
No thanks at all for agreeing that transport investments should be the best we can make. After saying that in their recent freight policy, the Greens set targets were specific transport technologies they favour, which are rail and sea freight.
You cannot argue that transport investments should be the best we can make then declare a preference for a particular technology or mode of transport. But let us not quibble over that glaring contradiction.
The broader principle was agreed which is transport investments should be driven by cost benefit analysis and value for money. It should be technology neutral and transport mode neutral. That, of course, means the Greens cannot declare targets for the market shares of particular modes of freight shipment if they want to follow their own policy about value for money.
Tyler Cowen on Joseph Schumpeter
10 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in development economics, entrepreneurship, industrial organisation, Joseph Schumpeter, survivor principle Tags: creative destruction
Fossil fuels and The Great Escape
09 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, development economics, economic history, energy economics, environmental economics, global warming, growth miracles, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: China, energy poverty, extreme poverty, India, The Great Enrichment, The Great Escape
#FeeltheBern? There’s a Cure.
09 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, comparative institutional analysis, economic history, economics of education, economics of regulation, health economics, income redistribution, industrial organisation, international economics, politics - USA, Public Choice, public economics, rentseeking Tags: 2016 presidential election, antimarket bias, crony capitalism, living wage, pessimism bias, top 1%
Did #FightFor15 forget that @FightFor15 was an ambit claim for a #livingwage
07 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, comparative institutional analysis, labour economics, minimum wage, politics - USA, Public Choice Tags: antimarket bias, expressive voting, living wage, rational rationality
Any decent political movement makes an ambit claim in expectation of being beaten back to its real position. That is basic negotiation tactics in politics.
Such is the volatility of expressive politics that the fight for 15 campaign has taken on a life of its own and is actually delivering on a $15 living wage as the minimum wage in the USA in a growing number of states and cities as well is in Democratic party presidential campaign pledges.
If there is any degree of economic sanity and practicality among living wage advocates, they know that such a high living wage increase will cost jobs.
After all, if a large wage increase for low-paid workers cost no jobs, why not increase everyone’s wage by a similar percentage, which is about 100% in the USA?
Stalin: Inside the Terror
06 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in economic history, economics of bureaucracy, Marxist economics, Public Choice Tags: autocracy, Russia, Stalin, USSR
PT Bauer on wealth and power
06 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, development economics, labour economics, liberalism, P.T. Bauer, poverty and inequality, Public Choice Tags: wealth and power
Poverty halves in #LatinAm in last 10 years, @WBG_Poverty @WorldBank still grumbling
05 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in development economics, economic history, economics of bureaucracy, poverty and inequality
The World Bank should enquire more as to why particular Latin countries succeeded while others did not and the economic systems employed in each.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments