23 Jan 2015


Piketty, Potpourri, Shameless Self-Promotion 7 Comments

==> My co-authors at the Fraser Institute and I have a new book out that explains economic principles to the layperson. The ideas are universal but the book is aimed at a Canadian audience.

==> When Tyler Cowen goes head-to-head against Scott Sumner, I side with Cowen.

==> Phil Magness has some fun with the rules of empiricism, Piketty-style. (Note: I have not independently checked Phil’s work here, but from what I can tell he has done what he claims to have done.)

7 Responses to “Potpourri”

  1. Darf Ferrara says:

    Your final comment in the Sumner post is amazing.

  2. Dan Lind says:

    On the copyright page, page 4, is the sentence:

    The authors of this publication have worked independently and opinions expressed
    by *they* are, therefore, their own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the
    Fraser Institute or its supporters, trustees, or staff.

    I believe you meant “them” instead of “they.”

  3. Tyler Kubik says:

    That post by Phil is classic. That has to be the go-to point to bring up anytime someone lauds Piketty

  4. Major.Freedom says:

    Wow, your and Magness’ smack down of Piketty’s ideological biases has been clinical.

  5. Grane Peer says:

    Economics for Canadian’s, I hope to find a scathing critique of the BoC Canada’s Loonie bin.

  6. Tel says:

    On the topic of not really having a topic, if anyone has time on their hands to do not much, I’d be interested in hearing comments on this one:


    “Mark Blyth: Austerity – The History of a Dangerous Idea”

    I’ll give him full points for enthusiasm, he covers a lot of ground in not much time, but I was rather hoping he would take a few slow moments to give a proper explanation of what he thinks “Austerity” actually is. I know LK hates me asking for definitions all the time, but the ground shifts so fast and so arbitrarily that I just need an anchor in order to go and compare the theory against something in the real world.

    Anyhow, I’d rate the talk as “interesting” which is as generous as I can be, but there may be scope for future discussion of many details here.

Leave a Reply