11 Sep 2012


Potpourri, Shameless Self-Promotion, Tom Woods 15 Comments

==> David Gordon is teaching Part I (the “philosophy part”) of Human Action starting tomorrow at Mises Academy.

==> I was skeptical when Tom Woods told me he posted another video responding to Max Keiser, but after watching this I think its humor justifies giving the guy another 6 minutes of our attention.

==> Oh, you wan Chaos Theory in large print? Done.

==> If you buy a t-shirt from these guys in September, they pledge $5 to the Murphy-Krugman Debate.

==> I was on the “Decline to State” podcast recently.

15 Responses to “Potpourri”

  1. kavram says:

    Bob, did you see Krugman’s latest piece comparing the introduction of the new iPhone to the broken window theory? I was sure you were gonna have a field day with it

  2. Maurizio says:

    I am curious if you are still satisfied with Chaos Theory, or you think it needs some integration after your recent classes about market anarchy.

  3. Isaac Izzy Marmolejo says:

    I must say that Woods -v- Keiser debate is a bit odd. It is not true that modern Austrians aren’t ‘true’ Austrians simply because they dont agree with Menger’s views on policy or on government. Keiser though is right in saying that there is a difference in views of government and indeed he thought there was limitations to ‘private individuals as the best at handling property than government’. I have blogged on Menger and the State in the past, but I have made a new post to answer Wood’s question as to what source(s) prove that Menger thought of limits to this

  4. Joseph Fetz says:

    Was there a huge push to have ‘Chaos Theory’ in large print? I would have thought that being in “print” was a big enough goal.

    I kid. It’s still one of the first references I cite when trying to explain free-market defense and law.

  5. Martin says:


    have you seen this Krugman post?


    “In other words, if you believe that the iPhone really might give the economy a big boost, you have — whether you realize it or not — bought into a version of the “broken windows” theory, in which destroying some capital can actually be a good thing under depression conditions.”

    I am pretty sure the “broken window theory” works different than he thinks it does. Yes there is an opportunity cost, but, as far as I can tell, people dumping their old iPhone for the new one are actually better off.

    • Richie says:

      To whose version of the “broken window” theory is he referring? His? Maybe he’ll win another Nobel Prize for that. Sheesh.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      I am convinced that Krugman doesn’t understand the broken window fallacy.

      I mean, he called it the “broken windows theory”.

  6. Ken B says:


    In other words, if you believe that the iPhone really might give the economy a big boost, you have — whether you realize it or not — bought into a version of the “broken windows” theory,

    It’s not a case of ‘broken’ windows, it’s a case of ‘inferior’ ones. He’s missing is that the boost would be bigger if the new iPhone were really a big improvement, like a Star Trek tool that could cure diseases. What’s missing in his analysis is that the older phones are not *broken* , people will replace the old ones because they see the new one as better, and providing more value, and only people who see the value will replace them. Like putting insulated windows on your house to save heating costs.

    • Ken B says:

      Eek. Formatting meltdown. The inner quote is my comment contra Krugman.

      • Adam Hickey says:

        Yes Ken, but you are forgetting the cost of allowing people to spend their own wealth on products they think will make them happier/more productive.

        Would it not be better if we could instead take the wealth you would have spent on the iphone and use it to make things WE think would bring you more value? Why should people be able to choose for themselves??

        • Ken B says:

          @Adam Hickey: I am disagreeing with PK here Adam. I’m just trying to point out that he’s missed a point even if you focus on ‘the things seen’ much laess (as you note) all ‘the things not seen.’

          @Bob: Merci bien.

          • Ken B says:

            Lemme clarify a bit. It’s not *even* a case of ‘broken windows’ because there is no broken window here.

            • Adam Hickey says:

              I agree with you, I was being a bit sarcastic with my remark.

              I think he’s missed quite a few things in his analysis.

      • Bob Murphy says:

        Once again, I have to clean up your mess…

Leave a Reply