28 Feb 2013


Potpourri 13 Comments

I’m going on a long trip so not sure what blogging will be like for a few days… In the meantime:

==> David Glasner has a nice Alchian post. Man, there were some heavy hitters at UCLA back in the day. I used Jack Hirshleifer’s textbook when I taught intermediate micro. It had the cool diagram showing how you could turn a 3-dimensional utility mountain into a 2-d set of indifference curves. Ah, Mises would be proud of me.

==> Want more on Alchian? Sure.

==> David R. Henderson gets sarcastic about foreign policy.

==> Speaking of foreign policy, check out these thoughts on the drone debate.

==> Daniel Sanchez doesn’t turn the other cheek when Krugman calls us a cult.

==> Many of you will find econ giant Ed Prescott’s 2006 list of “myths” to be amusing.

==> I really like Garett Jones’ blogging style. Like me, he comes up with an odd take on issues, but then builds up a pretty specific example to illustrate exactly what he means. Once he writes a One Act Play talking about fiscal multipliers, we’ll know he is ready for the Jedi Council.

==> I’m such a model for Catholics.

==> The other R. Murphy has some good points on the minimum wage debate.

==> David R. Henderson wants you to “respect my authority!”

13 Responses to “Potpourri”

  1. Davis says:

    Nothing on the brewing battle of century, Kinsella vs. Wenzel?

  2. Jordan says:

    Perhaps someone should put University Economics back into print, if only for a limited time. For all the praise the book garners, its disappointing not to be able to find it anywhere

  3. Joseph Fetz says:

    On the Aquinas article:

    It’s funny that often those who are supposedly on your side will complain that you give too much to your opponents or that you frame your arguments on their terms, but I believe that your argumentation methods are actually the correct way to proceed. I never thought of making a connection between you and Aquinas, though.

  4. Dan says:

    “Asked what the standard is for who could be hit, former Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter recently told an interviewer: “The definition is a male between the ages of 20 and 40. My feeling is one man’s combatant is another man’s – well, a chump who went to a meeting.”

    Good thing they have kids sitting in rooms across the planet that are using the “reasonable man” standard for deciding whether they are going to blow up these 20-40 year old men . Otherwise, they might end up murdering innocent sons and fathers for no reason whatsoever.

  5. Major_Freedom says:

    Re: Garett Jones…

    I really liked the blogpost, it is thoughtful and I know I am going to cite it, but the following comment kind of spoiled it a little:

    “There are 32 recessions in these 125 computer-simulated years, which coincidentally is the same number of recessions the U.S. has experienced since 1854.

    Oh come on. Did Jones do this simulation in 1979? That would be when 1854 was 125 years ago. That would be “coincidental”.

    If my simulation model of wars outputs a figure of 157 wars over 125 years, then is my model really that “coincidental” that there has been exactly 157 wars since June 14th, 1586?

  6. Major_Freedom says:

    “Many of you will find econ giant Ed Prescott’s 2006 list of “myths” to be amusing.”

    “Myth No. 1: Monetary policy causes booms and busts.”

    Amusing, or nauseating? Maybe both.

  7. Oderus Urungus says:

    Pretty clearly you didn’t learn much from your micro texts.

  8. Ken B says:

    It’s a little surprising there isn’t much discussion of Rand Paul and his filibuster here. Is Rand Paul too much of a “statist” for the crew here to applaud him?

    • guest says:

      Rand is a sellout. I refuse to vote for him.

      And I don’t buy that Code Pink and Van Jones really support Rand’s opposition to drone strikes; The strikes advance their commie ideals by killing off our troops and burdening America with war spending.

      EPJ has some great articles on the filibuster:

      Did the Planners of Rand Paul’s Filibuster Forget to Tell Him About Stadium Pal?

      Keep in mind, outside of getting Rand much publicity, the filibuster itself did nothing. It will not prevent CIA nominee John Brennan from being confirmed by the Senate. It will not stop American drones from continuing to blow up foreigners via amazing missile carrying flying iron birds. It was magnificent air.

      Lets see if Rand carries a libertarian banner beyond a useless filibuster. If he does, I will be cheering. But I am very suspicious and I am taking a very wait and see approach.

      The Neocon Points That Rand Adhered To

      Later today Rubin gave us the checklist that garnered her approval (my emphasis):

      Paul was clever to pick an issue, a specific and narrow issue, on which virtually no one can disagree. He wasn’t attacking the war on terror. He wasn’t attacking drone use overseas. He surely wasn’t attacking indefinite detention at Guantanamo for enemy combatants. He was objecting to the refusal of the administration to say whether it is constitutional to use drones on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens who are not combatants.

      Rand Declares Victory; Will Grigg Says It’s an Empty “Victory”

      Here’s Will Griggs on what has really gone down:

      What Holder Really Said

      Holder selected a carefully qualified question in order to justify a narrowly tailored answer that reserves an expansive claim of executive power to authorize summary executions by the president. That’s how totalitarians operate.

      Actually, to the degree people hear Rand’s declaration of “victory,” but fail to appreciate Grigg’s observations, the country is worse off, as more will now believe the possibility of a drone attack on an American has been ruled out. Not so. The concern has been diluted, while the threat continues.

      Neocon: Rand Paul Filibuster is a Stroke of Political Genius

      Folks, this kind of stuff doesn’t happen by accident. Neocons are not out there with lanterns looking for honest and principled men. They are looking for men who will advance the neocon agenda. The sudden support Rand is getting, from every neocon, says to me that chips will be placed on Rand in the 2016 presidential election. They are very comfortable with him, which makes me very uncomfortable.

Leave a Reply