Economists, using charts or high-speed computer models, can accurately forecast the future

crystal_ball-551x700

Many studies, formal and informal, have been made of the record of forecasting by economists, and it has been consistently abysmal.

Forecasters often complain that they can do well enough as long as current trends continue; what they have difficulty in doing is catching changes in trend. But of course there is no trick in extrapolating current trends into the near future.

You don’t need sophisticated computer models for that; you can do it better and far more cheaply by using a ruler.

The real trick is precisely to forecast when and how trends will change, and forecasters have been notoriously bad at that. No economist forecast the depth of the 1981–82 depression, and none predicted the strength of the 1983 boom.

The next time you are swayed by the jargon or seeming expertise of the economic forecaster, ask yourself this question: If he can really predict the future so well, why is he wasting his time putting out newsletters or doing consulting when he himself could be making trillions of dollars in the stock and commodity markets?

Murray Rothbard

Murray Penthouse.jpg

Have you ever heard of a private firm proposing to solve a shortage of the product it sells by telling people to buy less?

Image

Imports from countries where labour is cheap causes our unemployment to rise

One of the many problems with this doctrine is that it ignores the question: why are wages low in a foreign country and high in the United States?…

Basically, they are high in the United States because labour productivity is high – because workers here are aided by large amounts of technologically advanced capital equipment.

Wage rates are low in many foreign countries because capital equipment is small and technologically primitive. Unaided by much capital, worker productivity is far lower than in the United States.

Wage rates in every country are determined by the productivity of the workers in that country. Hence, high wages in the United States are not a standing threat to American prosperity; they are the result of that prosperity…

we must realize that wages in each country are interconnected from one industry and occupation and region to another.

All workers compete with each other, and if wages in industry A are far lower than in other industries, workers – spearheaded by young workers starting their careers – would leave or refuse to enter industry A and move to other firms or industries where the wage rate is higher…

If the steel or textile industries in the United States find it difficult to compete with their counterparts abroad, it is not because foreign firms are paying low wages, but because other American industries have bid up American wage rates to such a high level that steel and textile cannot afford to pay.

In short, what’s really happening is that steel, textile, and other such firms are using labour inefficiently as compared to other American industries.

Tariffs or import quotas to keep inefficient firms or industries in operation hurt everyone, in every country, who is not in that industry. They injure all American consumers by keeping up prices, keeping down quality and competition, and distorting production. Tariffs and import quotas also injure other, efficient American industries by tying up resources that would otherwise move to more efficient uses.

Murray Rothbard

Murray Rothbard on the European Union

The Union will increase pressures  for high taxes and higher inflation.

Murray Rothbard on outlawing jobs

 

All demand curves are falling, and the demand for hiring labour is no exception. Hence, laws that prohibit employment at any wage that is relevant to the market (a minimum wage of 10 cents an hour would have little or no impact) must result in outlawing employment and hence causing unemployment…

Since the demand curve for any sort of labour (as for any factor of production) is set by the perceived marginal productivity of that labour, this means that the people who will be disemployed and devastated by this prohibition will be precisely the "marginal" (lowest wage) workers, e.g. blacks and teenagers, the very workers whom the advocates of the minimum wage are claiming to foster and protect.

The advocates of the minimum wage and its periodic boosting reply that all this is scare talk and that minimum wage rates do not and never have caused any unemployment.

The proper riposte is to raise them one better; all right, if the minimum wage is such a wonderful anti-poverty measure, and can have no unemployment-raising effects, why are you such pikers?

Why you are helping the working poor by such piddling amounts? Why stop at $4.55 an hour? Why not $10 an hour? $100? $1,000?…

It is conventional among economists to be polite, to assume that economic fallacy is solely the result of intellectual error.

But there are times when decorousness is seriously misleading, or, as Oscar Wilde once wrote, "when speaking one’s mind becomes more than a duty; it becomes a positive pleasure."

If you’re so smart, show me your bank account

The pretensions of econometricians and other “model-builders” that they can precisely forecast the economy will always flounder on the simple but devastating query: “If you can forecast so well, why are you not doing so on the stock market, where accurate forecasting reaps such rich rewards?”

It is beside the point to dismiss such a query . . . by calling it “anti-intellectual”; for this is precisely the acid test of the would-be economic oracle

Murray Rothbard

Austrian economics, labour economics and the economics of unemployment

Austrian economists seem not to be as thorough as they could be in applying the concepts of dispersed knowledge, tendency to equilibrium and entrepreneurial appraisal, discovery and learning to the labour market.

In a nutshell, the position of Mises and Rothbard is the problem of unemployment is not jobs being fewer than workers. On some terms, a job is always available in an open market. But a wage and the hours of labour required to earn it can be so unrewarding that a person is rational to decline the job offer and remain unemployed. Of course, they acknowledge institutional unemployment that results from are laws and arrangements which inhibit adjustment of prices of labour services.

Kirzner and Rothbard argue that the market is a process that is always in disequilibrium. Does this disequilibrium not imply some unemployment in the labour market? Why should the tendency toward equilibrium be any stronger in the labour market that elsewhere?  Bill Allen explained search unemployment this way:

…many officially counted as unemployed are heavily and rationally investing their resources in looking for work. They are sampling the market, seeking information on employment alternatives. That information is valuable, but it is not obtained either freely or instantaneously, and generally, the faster it is to be acquired, the more costly it will be…

as output falls [because of a demand or supply shock], there will be some rise in unemployment, for the economy’s adjustment to the new circumstances of supply and prices will not be made instantaneously, without frictions and lags.

Rothbard was well aware of search unemployment:

It might be objected that workers often do not know what job opportunities await them. This, however, applies to the owner of any goods up for sale. The very function of marketing is the acquisition and dissemination of information about the goods or services available for sale.

Except to those writers who posit a fantastic world where everyone has “perfect knowledge” of all relevant data, the marketing function is a vital aspect of the pro­duction structure.

The marketing function can be performed in the labour market, as well as in any other, through agencies or other means for the discovery of who or where the potential buyers and sellers of a particular service may be. In the labour market this has been done through “want ads” in the newspa­pers, employment agencies used by both employer and employee, etc.

Mises also spoke of search unemployment:

Unemployment is a phenomenon of a changing economy. The fact that a worker discharged on account of changes occurring in the arrangement of production processes does not instantly take advantage of every opportunity to get another job but waits for a more propitious opportunity is not a consequence of the tardiness of the adjustment to the change in conditions, but is one of the factors slowing down the pace of this adjustment.

It is not an automatic reaction to the changes which have occurred , independent of the will and the choices of the job-seekers concerned, but the effect of their intentional actions. It is speculative, not frictional

These are good discussions of search unemployment. But when discussing mismatch unemployment as identified by Hayek after a shortening of the produc­tion structure on the market where there might be temporary unemployment of workmen in the higher stages, lasting until the workers can be reabsorbed in the shorter proc­esses of the later stages, Rothbard’s repost to this possible case of involuntary unem­ployment on the free market is:

It is also true that the shortening of the structure means that there is a transition period when, at final wage rates, there will be un­employment of the men displaced from the longer processes. How­ever, during this transition period there is no reason why these workers cannot bid down wage rates until they are low enough to enable the employment of all the workers during the transi­tion. This transition wage rate will be lower than the new equilibrium wage rate. But at no time is there a necessity for unem­ployment.

The labour market is a process just as is any other market: it is a communication network that mobilises dispersed knowledge to overcoming ignorance. Why should knowledge unfold in the labour market process through entrepreneurial discovery any faster than elsewhere? There should be disequilibrium wages, entrepreneurial errors, unemployed and mispriced resources, and a process of entrepreneurial learning and error correction. Hayek held that unemployment is always a pricing problem:

The normal cause of recurrent waves of widespread unemployment is … a discrepancy between the way in which demand is distributed between products and services, and the proportions in which resources are devoted to producing them.

Unemployment is the result of divergent changes in the direction of demand and the techniques of production. If labour is not deployed according to demand for products, there is unemployment…

It is the continuous change of relative market prices and particularly wages which can alone bring about that steady adjustment of the proportions of the different efforts to the distribution of demand, and thus a steady flow of the stream of products.

True, but the correction of erroneous wage rates and the reallocation of labour and other resources to new jobs, new firms and new industries is neither instantaneous nor a free process. Kirzner explains:

The entrepreneurial forces acting on the market for any one commodity are thus continually pushing that market toward the market-clearing point—that is, to where (a) the quantity produced is such that (only) all units “worth producing” are indeed produced, and (b) the market price for this commodity is just high enough to make it, as a practical matter, worthwhile for producers to produce this quantity, and is just low enough to make it worthwhile for consumers to buy it…

The process through which the market tends to generate the “right” quantity of a commodity, and the “right” price for it, can be seen as a series of steps during which market participants gradually tend to discover the gaps or errors in the information on which they had previously been basing their erroneous production and/or buying decisions…

The market process is one in which, driven by the entrepreneurial sense for grasping at pure profit opportunities (and for avoiding entrepreneurial losses), market participants, learning more accurate assessments of the attitudes of other market participants, tend toward the market-clearing price-quantity combination.

Alchian, Demsetz and Barzel were on the mark when they pointed out that too frequently the process of change and reaching a new equilibrium is assumed to be a free good, having no resource costs. Hayek also spoke of the time that is takes to reach a new equilibrium because the new constellation of prices and wages must emerge through the free-play of the market:

The primary cause of the appearance of extensive unemployment, however, is a deviation of the actual structure of prices and wages from its equilibrium structure. Remember, please: that is the crucial concept. The point I want to make is that this equilibrium structure of prices is something which we cannot know beforehand because the only way to discover it is to give the market free play; by definition, therefore, the divergence of actual prices from the equilibrium structure is something that can never be statistically measured.

As Kirzner has well argued, entrepreneurs thrive on alertness to disequilibrium prices and they buy and sell to profit from their discoveries, thereby correcting the mispricing, but this takes time. The knowledge and intentions of the different members of society both across all markets and in the labour market about how to match workers to new jobs must come into agreement through a process of discovery and mutual learning that takes time. Phelps (1969) put forward a fine metaphor for how this process of learning and discovery takes place:

I have found it instructive to picture the economy as a group of islands between which information flows are costly: to learn the wage paid on an adjacent island, the worker must spend the day travelling to that island to sample its wage instead of spending the day at work.

Beveridge has similar views of a multiplicity of markets in 1912:

Why should it be the normal condition of the labour market to have more sellers than buyers, two men to every job and at least as often two jobs for every man? The explanation of the paradox is really a very simple one … that there is no one labour market but only an infinite number of separate labour markets.

Gary Becker drew a parallel between the theory of marriage and the theory of job search and matching. In both cases, it takes time to sort among the options and find a suitable pairing. Some are clearly unacceptable.  Good  matches will often take a long time to find unless people are just plain lucky. Involuntary unemployment is like saying you are involuntarily unmarried. You could marry the first person you meet, if they will have you, but few would say that is wise.

Workers must search for and discover each other. Both are entrepreneurs. The information, knowledge and forecasts of future wages and prices each needs to improve co-ordination of supply and demand will not be discovered immediately:

  • The behavioural responses of employers and workers to change are so pronounced because the cost of acquiring new information is profound (Alchian 1969). Many such costs impede wages from instantly fluctuating to rebalance labour supply with demand.
  • A job seeker does not initially know the location of suitable vacancies, the wages for various skills, differences in job security and other factors. Job seekers must search for this information, keep this knowledge current and forecast whether better vacancies may open soon.
  • Employers must search to learn the location, availability and asking wages of applicants.

The time consumed in labour market search is why Rothbard’s views below that wages just adjust to clear the market has been over taken by developments in economic thinking:

To talk of unemployment or employment without reference to a wage rate is as meaningless as talking of “supply” or “de­mand” without reference to a price. And it is precisely analogous. The demand for a commodity makes sense only with reference to a certain price.

In a market for goods, it is obvious that what­ever stock is offered as supply, it will be “cleared,” i.e., sold, at a price determined by the demand of the consumers…

Whatever supply of labour service is brought to market can be sold, but only if wages are set at what­ever rate will clear the market…

We conclude that there can never be, on the free market, an unemployment problem. If a man wishes to be employed, he will be, provided the wage rate is adjusted according.

Mises in the quote below treated unemployment as a investment in prospecting for a better wage offer very much along the lines of W.H. Hutt:

If a job-seeker cannot obtain the position he prefers, he must look for another kind of job. If he cannot find an employer ready to pay him as much as he would like to earn, he must abate his pretensions. If he refuses, he will not get any job. He remains unemployed.

What causes unemployment is the fact that–contrary to the above-mentioned doctrine of the worker’s inability to wait–those eager to earn wages can and do wait. A job-seeker who does not want to wait will always get a job in the unhampered market economy in which there is always unused capacity of natural resources and very often also unused capacity of produced factors of production. It is only necessary for him either to reduce the amount of pay he is asking for or to alter his occupation or his place of work.

Alchian (1969) lists three ways to adjust to unanticipated demand fluctuations:
• output adjustments;
• wage and price adjustments; and
• Inventories and queues (including reservations).

Alchian (1969) suggests that there is no reason for wage and price changes to be used regardless of the relative cost of these other options:
• The cost of output adjustment stems from the fact that marginal costs rise with output;
• The cost of price adjustment arises because uncertain prices and wages induce costly search by buyers and sellers seeking the best offer; and
• The third method of adjustment has holding and queuing costs.

There is a tendency for unpredicted price and wage changes to induce costly additional search. Long-term contracts including implicit contracts arise to share risks and curb opportunism over sunken investments in relationship-specific capital such as firm-specific human capital and specialised machinery. These factors lead to queues, unemployment, spare capacity, layoffs, shortages, inventories and non-price rationing in conjunction with wage stability. Alchian and Woodward in their 1987 paper ‘Reflections on a theory of the firm’ say that :

… the notion of a quickly equilibrating market price is baffling save in a very few markets. Imagine an employer and an employee. Will they renegotiate price every hour, or with every perceived change in circumstances? If the employee is a waiter in a restaurant, would the waiter’s wage be renegotiated with every new customer? Would it be renegotiated to zero when no customers are present, and then back to a high level that would extract the entire customer value when a queue appears?

… But what is the right interval for renegotiation or change in price? The usual answer ‘as soon as demand or supply changes’ is uninformative.

Alchian and Woodward then go on to a long discussion of the role of protecting composite quasi-rents from dependent resources as the decider of the timing of wage and price revisions. Alchian and Woodward explain unemployment to the side effect of the purpose of wage and price rigidity, which is the prevention of hold-ups over dependent assets. They note that unemployment cannot be understood until an adequate theory of the firm that explains the type of contracts the members of a firm contract with one another.

Walter Oi has also written on slack capacity as being productive and he included references back to W.H. Hutt. Oi’s work on retailing and supermarkets spends a lot of time explaining how an empty store is efficient because the owners are waiting for a mass of customers to arrive at unpredictable time. Oi redeveloped the term the economies of massed reserves to describe this. Oi thought that this was a better term than Hutt’s pseudo-idleness. Oi argued that all resource idleness could, in principle, be eliminated, but to accomplish this, the synchronization of the arrival rates of customers, sales clerks, and just-in-time inventories would be prohibitively expensive.

Benjamin Klein’s theory of rigid wages in American Economic Review in 1984 is one of the few that explored rigid wages as an industrial organisation issue. Klein treated rigid wages as a response to opportunism and hold-up problems over specialised assets and are forms of exclusive dealership or take-or-pay contracts.

The labour market is better understood by forgetting it is the labour market and treating it as a market for long-term contracts for relationship-specific services, firm-specific human capital and mutually dependent assets owned by multiple parties.

Labour is more heterogeneous than capital. The notion that buyers and sellers in the labour market can pair up instantly contradicts the Austrian traditions that markets only tend to equilibrium and entrepreneurs are needed to move things along.

Morgan O. Reynolds makes a good point in his labour economics textbook about how labour markets are different from other markets because there are no speculators and no forward markets in labour to quickly clear the market and allow entrepreneurs to drive the market towards equilibrium through arbitrage as quickly as they do elsewhere.

Contributions of Mises and Rothbard to Economic Thought | Robert P. Murphy – YouTube

The Crusader State versus the Foreign Policy of the Old Right

The foreign policy of the Old Right of the Republican Party is undergoing a revival through the now retired Congressmen Ron Paul and now his son, Senator Rand Paul. They are the joint heirs of the Old Right of the Republican Party and Senator Robert A. Taft.

TIME Magazine Cover: Robert A. Taft -- June 2, 1952

In The Republican Road Not Taken: The Foreign-Policy Vision of Robert A. Taft Michael T. Hayes argues that Taft was isolationist, which is opposition to binding commitments by the U.S. that would create new, or expand existing, obligations to foreign nations. Like many Americans of his era – the 1940s and early 1950s – Taft gladly would have:

let the rest of the world go its own way if it would only go without bothering the United States

Taft advocated what he called the policy of the free hand, whereby the United States would avoid entangling alliances and interferences in foreign disputes:

  • This policy permitted government leaders the freedom of action to decide in particular cases whether a vital U.S. interest warranted involvement.
  • Taft correctly pointed to features of the United Nations that would prevent its serving as a real force for peace and equality under the law.
  • He challenged the Truman administration’s assessment of the Soviet military threat against Western Europe.
  • He anticipated correctly that a steady rise in defence outlays could lead to a “garrison state” and the erosion of civil liberties.
  • Taft was prescient in warning that even well-meaning internationalism would degenerate over time into a form of imperialism that would breed resentment against the United States around the globe, eventually endangering U.S. national security.

In Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy, Ivan Eland argues for an urgent rethinking of America’s national interests:

  • America’s natural geo-strategic position places it at a natural advantage, rendering unnecessary a forward defence posture.
  • A non-interventionist foreign policy would mean lower defence budgets.
  • An America less willing to get involved in complex overseas disputes unrelated to its vital interests would also be less likely to make enemies around the world.

Further to the Libertarian Right, in Where the Left goes wrong on Foreign Policy the late Murray Rothbard asked whether:

  • The Left is prepared to accept a foreign policy in which the United States government allies itself with no one and retires from the world scene, leaving all international encounters to the private realm of free trade, travel, and cultural and social exchange.
  • That is what a policy of genuine non-interventionism and anti-imperialism would mean: a world in which the US government no longer tries to push other people around, on behalf of any cause, anywhere.

One area of agreement between classical liberals and the new left used to be opposition to foreign aid. Foreign aid was a system to subsidise US exports and prop up client states.

Rothbard used a revisionist perspective on foreign policy to argue that:

  • Taking the twentieth century as a whole, the single most warlike, most interventionist, most imperialist government has been the United States;
  • The main thrust of Soviet foreign policy was to preserve what it already has at home and abroad, not to jeopardise it;
  • A conservative Soviet government is capable of dangerous militaristic actions, but these are acts of imperial protectionism, not revolutionary or aggrandisement;
  • National communist movements were not monolithic but independent-minded – the wars between china, the USSR and China and Vietnam are examples; and
  • There vast differences between the various communist regimes throughout the globe spell the difference between life and death for a large part of their subject populations.

History did not perhaps hold up well on Soviet intentions for Rothbard, and Thomas Schelling and Robert Aumann are better writers on how if you want peace, you must prepare for war, but the Old Right did have a point about the crusader state.

In The Empire Has No Clothes U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, Eland argued that:

In a post–Cold War world, taking into account only the security of American citizens, their property, and U.S. territory, the benefits of an interventionist foreign policy have declined, and the costs have escalated dramatically.

Americans continue to pay excessive taxes to defend countries that are rich enough to defend themselves or to occupy conquered countries in the world’s backwaters (e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan)…

Their sons and daughters are killed on remote foreign battlefields for reasons even remoter from U.S. vital interests.

Crusader states can stumble into wars that they had no intention of fighting both in terms of scale and length. Remember World War 1 where everyone thought they would be home by Christmas after a negotiated settlement.

Tom Schelling looked at going to war as an emergent process. He argues that what a country does today in a crisis affects what one can be expected to do tomorrow. To quote Schelling:

A government never knows just how committed it is to action until the occasion when its commitment is challenged.

Nations, like people, are continually engaged in demonstrations of resolve, tests of nerve, and explorations for understandings and misunderstandings….

This is why there is a genuine risk of major war not from ‘accidents’ in the military machine but through a diplomatic process of commitment that is itself unpredictable.

Schelling goes on to argue wars to save face are, nonetheless, rational:

It is often argued that ‘face’ is a frivolous asset to preserve, and that it is a sign of immaturity that a government can’t swallow its pride and lose face.

But there is also the more serious kind of ‘face’, the kind that modern jargon is known as a country’s ‘image’, consisting of other countries’ beliefs (their leaders’ beliefs, that is) about how the country can be expected to behave.

It relates not to a country’s ‘worth’ or ‘status’ or even ‘honor’, but to its reputation for action.

If the question is raised whether this kind of ‘face’ is worth fighting over, the answer is that this kind of face is one of few things worth fighting over.

Robert Aumann argues well that the way to peace is like bargaining in a medieval bazaar. Never look too keen, and bargain long and hard. Aumann argues that:

If you are ready for war, you will not need to fight. If you cry ‘peace, peace,’ you will end up fighting… What brings war is that you signal weakness and concessions.

Old macroeconomic fallacies never die, they just wait for the next recession

Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions showed that sciences do not march onwards and upwards towards the light. Kuhn found that once a central paradigm is selected, there is no testing or sifting, and tests of basic assumptions only take place after accumulated failures and anomalies in the ruling paradigm plunge the science into a crisis.

Scientists do not give up the failing paradigm until a new paradigm arrives, which resolves the failures and anomalies that caused the crisis. It takes a theory to beat a theory.

Murray Rothbard, when discussing Kuhn, pointed to economics is an example of a science which moves in a zigzag fashion, with old fallacies sometimes elbowing aside earlier but sounder paradigms.

Thomas Humphrey wrote an excellent 250-year long literature surveys of both the rules versus discretion debate and the cost-push theories of inflation in the 1998 and 1999 Richmond Fed Quarterly.

Humphrey wrote the reviews to see if economics was a progressive science in the sense that superior new ideas relentlessly supplant inferior old ones.

Humphrey showed that policy rules were popular in good times to contain inflation, and when unemployment was rising, discretionary policies returned to vogue. The policy debate keeps recycling because

  1. people forget the lessons of the past; and
  2. For better or worse, politicians and the public have tended to believe that central banks, the focus of his studies, have the power to boost output, employment, and growth permanently.

Mercantilists, with their fears of hoarding and scarcity of money together with their prescription of cheap (low interest rates) and plentiful cash as a stimulus to real activity, tend to gain the upper hand when unemployment is the dominant problem.

Classicals, chanting their mantra that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, tend to prevail when price stability is the chief policy concern.

Cost-push fallacies about inflation were even more resilient against repeated refutations.

There is nothing new under the sun in macroeconomics. The same issues that divided twentieth-century monetarists and non-monetarists as well as current macroeconomists were discussed by everyone from David Hume (1752) to Knut Wicksell (1898) and in the Bullionist-Anti-Bullionist and the Currency School-Banking School controversies:

  • rules v. discretion,
  • inflation as a monetary v. real cost push phenomenon,
  • direct v. inverse money-to-price causality,
  • central bank-determined v. market demand-determined money stocks,
  • exogenous v. endogenous money, and
  • backing v. supply-and-demand theories of money’s value

Current macroeconomists and monetary economists often unaware of the eighteenth and nineteenth-century origins of the ideas they employ.

Barro (1989) “New Classicals and New Keynesians, or the Good Guys and the Bad Guys”, made the point that Keynesian macroeconomics does not seek out new theoretical results for testing; rather the aim is to provide respectability for the basic viewpoints and policy stances of the old Keynesian models.

Bellante (1992) likewise, noted that the search in Keynesian economics for microeconomic foundations is to blunt criticism, rather than because it is otherwise useful. The analytical apparatus may change, but the policy conclusions remain the same.

Next Newer Entries

Bassett, Brash & Hide

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Truth on the Market

Scholarly commentary on law, economics, and more

The Undercover Historian

Beatrice Cherrier's blog

Matua Kahurangi

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Temple of Sociology

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Velvet Glove, Iron Fist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Why Evolution Is True

Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.

Down to Earth Kiwi

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

NoTricksZone

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Homepaddock

A rural perspective with a blue tint by Ele Ludemann

Kiwiblog

DPF's Kiwiblog - Fomenting Happy Mischief since 2003

The Dangerous Economist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Watts Up With That?

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

The Logical Place

Tim Harding's writings on rationality, informal logic and skepticism

Doc's Books

A window into Doc Freiberger's library

The Risk-Monger

Let's examine hard decisions!

Uneasy Money

Commentary on monetary policy in the spirit of R. G. Hawtrey

Barrie Saunders

Thoughts on public policy and the media

Liberty Scott

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Point of Order

Politics and the economy

James Bowden's Blog

A blog (primarily) on Canadian and Commonwealth political history and institutions

Science Matters

Reading between the lines, and underneath the hype.

Peter Winsley

Economics, and such stuff as dreams are made on

A Venerable Puzzle

"The British constitution has always been puzzling, and always will be." --Queen Elizabeth II

The Antiplanner

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Bet On It

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

History of Sorts

WORLD WAR II, MUSIC, HISTORY, HOLOCAUST

Roger Pielke Jr.

Undisciplined scholar, recovering academic

Offsetting Behaviour

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

JONATHAN TURLEY

Res ipsa loquitur - The thing itself speaks

Conversable Economist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

The Victorian Commons

Researching the House of Commons, 1832-1868

The History of Parliament

Articles and research from the History of Parliament Trust

Books & Boots

Reflections on books and art

Legal History Miscellany

Posts on the History of Law, Crime, and Justice

Sex, Drugs and Economics

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

European Royal History

Exploring the Monarchs of Europe

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

Marginal REVOLUTION

Small Steps Toward A Much Better World

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. - J Robert Oppenheimer.

STOP THESE THINGS

The truth about the great wind power fraud - we're not here to debate the wind industry, we're here to destroy it.

Lindsay Mitchell

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Alt-M

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

croaking cassandra

Economics, public policy, monetary policy, financial regulation, with a New Zealand perspective

The Grumpy Economist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

International Liberty

Restraining Government in America and Around the World