==> Oh boy, here we go again, flirting with the event horizon in economics known as capital & interest theory. If I were an academic, puffing on my pipe and flaunting a tweed sportcoat, I could really get into this. As it is, you will have to content yourself with my comments in Nick Rowe’s post. Anyway, here is Nick and then David Glasner talking about the Sraffa-Hayek debate. (Others like Daniel Kuehn are involved, but you can follow the links to see all the blogosphere fun.) I am pretty sure I agree with everything those two guys say, except when they conclude (Nick explicitly, David implicitly) that Sraffa’s point wasn’t so hot, in the famous debate. As I point out here in this heretical paper, yes it was a big deal, and in particular, Ludwig Lachmann’s attempt to solve the problem fails completely. I am not throwing out Austrian business cycle theory–that’s what I try to rehabilitate in that very paper–but I don’t think Austrians have done a good job at all in responding to Sraffa’s challenge, which was perfectly fair in the context of that debate. To wit, Hayek had recommended that the monetary authority do something that was impossible. I don’t see why Sraffa is out line for bringing up that awkward fact.
==> This guy at The American Conservative didn’t like my utopian approach to the marriage question.
==> Speaking of TAC, here is a piece from a while back that I forgot to post. I take on the claim by Lawrence Summers, Brad DeLong, and Gene Callahan that governments should borrow more right now, and be acting like smart businesses.
==> This article condemning the Confederacy for going to war is amazing because it never occurred to the author that all of his arguments could be used…to condemn the North for going to war. The Confederate states didn’t invade the North in order to protect slavery, rather they wanted to secede and be left alone. The North said, “Nuts to that,” and sent in generals who burned their cities to the ground. If the author wants to say today’s libertarians shouldn’t be talking about this, because it’s strategically silly for us to waste time “defending” slave owners, OK I’ll listen to that argument, but as it is this piece makes no sense to me. If anything, it proves the opposite of what the author intends.
==> Mario Rizzo reminds us that Bloomberg’s soda ban isn’t the only dumb thing going on in New York.
==> The crafty veteran economist David R. Henderson shows me how to find a Krugman Kontradiction old-school style. The topic is what the “Keynesian” prediction on inflation was in the early Reagan years, and it is simply breathtaking how confidently Krugman yells at his opponents and accuses them of making stuff up, when he himself spouted the views that they are attributing to Keynesians. Wow.
==> Another Henderson post, this time on the oft-heard claim that if we had conscription, the politicians would think twice before plunging us into another war. I give David and his co-author some pushback in the comments, just keeping them honest.
==> Apparently Tom Woods has had people ask him about Webster Tarpley too.