Blinder vs. Mises on Winners & Losers
Such is the topic of my latest Mises Canada blog post.
That Herod Was Not a Nice Man
This part of the Christmas story has always astounded me (Mt 2: 1-18)
2 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”
3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.
5 So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet:
6 ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
Are not the least among the rulers of Judah;
For out of you shall come a Ruler
Who will shepherd My people Israel.’”[a]
7 Then Herod, when he had secretly called the wise men, determined from them what time the star appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also.”9 When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceedingly great joy. 11 And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
12 Then, being divinely warned in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed for their own country another way.
The Flight into Egypt
13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”
14 When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, 15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”[b]
Massacre of the Innocents
16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men. 17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying:
18 “A voice was heard in Ramah,
Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children,
Refusing to be comforted,
Because they are no more.” [Bold added.]
I’m trying to get inside the mind of a grown man who was so insecure that he would have a bunch of little children killed, lest one of them grow up and challenge him. I suppose intellectually I can talk about it, but I can’t really understand it. Then again, I wouldn’t want to be king in the first place.
Matt Yglesias and Josh Barro Admit They Have No Honor
I promise you guys, I was going to let this go. I said my piece about Yglesias’ “go ahead and lie about having a fake kid, it gives you money” post. But then Josh Barro and he had to double down on it, with Yglesias actually referring to the reaction to his original post as “a lot of dim-witted faux-populist moralistic outrage.”
Before jumping into the substance, two disclaimers:
(1) This isn’t a huge deal. I’m much more outraged that Yglesias, Josh Barro, Krugman, and others have no problem stealing people’s money because they earn a lot and so their “marginal utility of income” is low, or that they have no problem with FDR stealing everyone’s gold in 1933 at gunpoint. So when it comes to their psychopathic disregard for social conventions and property rights, those things are much bigger deals to me than this, which is more akin to sneaking a package of Twizzlers from the grocery store into the movie theater.
(2) This Amazon thing is surely bothering me more, because it’s coming from Yglesias than if it had been some random guy.
OK back to the substance: Yglesias is arguing that this isn’t a big deal, because Amazon didn’t take steps to protect themselves from such dishonesty. OK, well I could probably get away with scooping up a waitress’s tip off the table in a diner, is that the diner’s fault for not hiring a security guard? For a better analogy, what if someone who’s not a senior citizen makes a fake idea to pretend to be? Striking closer to home, what if someone figures out a way to trick healthcare.gov into thinking he’s a healthy 25-year-old when setting his premium, when really he’s a 45-year-old with heart trouble? I mean, the Obama Team should’ve designed their website better if somebody can get away with that.
But what’s truly hilarious in all this is that Yglesias refers to it as “sweet vindication” (his actual term!) when Barro asked for clarification and got this from Amazon (I’m quoting Barro):
Anyway, I put a simple question to Amazon: Do you mind if people with only fake children sign up for Amazon Mom? Answer: they don’t. Here’s what Scott Stanzel, Amazon’s Director of Consumer Communications, had to say:
We’re happy to have all Moms and Dads in the program, although parents with imaginary children won’t be able to take full advantage of the great discounts on diapers and other baby products that the program is designed to provide.
You’re in the clear, Tim Duncan Crawford [Yglesias’ fake kid–RPM].
(Perhaps alarmed at having been too sanguine about the fake baby thing, Stanzel reached back out to me this morning to add, “We are using the honor system, and we expect the vast majority of users to be honest.”)
So there you have it, kids: According to Josh Barro and Matt Yglesias, doing something that requires you to be dishonest and violate the honor system–knowing full well if too many people did it, it would frustrate the purpose of the system according to the creators–is perfectly fine. Didn’t Yglesias study philosophy at Harvard? I guess they didn’t cover Kant’s categorical imperative that semester?
Anyway, in contrast to the Conscience of Our Liberals, let’s look at a scene from my all-time favorite movie, Rob Roy:
That’s what I’m talking about. Jessica Lange’s not hooking up with Matt Yglesias or Josh Barro, I’ll tell you that.
UPDATE: David R. Henderson in the comments asks me what I think of Barro saying that he is under no obligation to help Amazon implement a price discrimination strategy. I responded:
If Amazon ships Yglesias fewer units of soap than they charged his credit card for, and they explain, “What’s the big deal? We just lied to get some more money from you. We have no obligation to help consumers implement their cost savings strategies,” I don’t think Yglesias or Barro would congratulate them on their cunning. I mean, Yglesias is probably OK with Amazon overcharging his credit card, since he typed it into their website. Idiot.
(To be clear, I was feigning calling Yglesias an idiot for typing in his credit card, naively assuming Amazon was being truthful when it promised not to rip him off. I wasn’t calling David Henderson an idiot for asking me about Barro.)
A Reader Comment on Lessons for the Young Economist
I got this from Peter S., who gave me permission to repost:
Message: Hey i am Peter [S.] I am 17 and a senior in high school in Philadelphia and I just read your textbook “Lessons for the Young Economist” and I found it wonderful. I recently became interestied in Hayek, Mises and other Austrians but had trouble reading their economic based wok when they used words like marginal utility or when they discussed othe parts of economics I did not understand . Your book really helped me to understand the basics of economics and what the vocabulary means and in the 2nd half of the book, the errors of socialism.
I did not take economics this year because the teacher is a liberal(in the modern sense) and doesn’t understand why a government can’t just bring money. Your book taught me much more than I ever would in that class and sets up the basics for a potential college major and I thank you for that and for making it free through the Mises Institute.
Particularly for homeschooling parents, make sure you realize here is the free student text and here is the Teacher’s Manual.
If You Must Have More Murphy
Here I am on Twitter. Been there for a while, but I realized some of you might be missing out on all the hijinx.
Would a Keynesian Lie to Advance His Political Agenda?
I don’t know, but Matt Yglesias would lie to save money on soap.
Danny Sanchez complained about this in strong terms on Facebook, and I assumed he was exaggerating. But nope, it doesn’t even sound very ironic; Yglesias is literally telling people to they should lie to Amazon so they can get stuff cheaper.
I realize I sound like the Church Lady here, but this is really disturbing. It’s one thing when Krugman says we need “death panels” or DeLong says someone should be fired as an economist. Yes it’s not funny but they at least “are just joking.”
But Yglesias isn’t joking. He admits he lied about having a baby, tells his readers to do so, and even speculates that in so doing he might force Amazon to stop giving discounts to mothers.
This makes me feel just a little bit creepy, like when I see anything by “Anonymous” or like that Seinfeld episode when George’s fiance dies from licking the envelopes and they just moved on as if nothing happened. Just felt a bit creepy. I have nothing more to add. See you guys tomorrow.
Austrian Economists Photobomb Krugman
[UPDATE below.]
Eduardo Bellani in the comments of my previous post tells us to look at the poster hanging over Krugman’s shoulder at his recent interview with Joe Weisenthal:
In case people don’t recognize it, it’s clearly this poster:
Looks like the folks at Mises.org are sneaking up on Krugman. Hey, I warned him not to turn his back on them…
UPDATE: Danny Sanchez informed that it wasn’t some intern who put that poster up, but none other than Joe Weisenthal himself, courtesy of Bob Wenzel.
Krugman on the Bubble Economy
I really like these chats Paul Krugman has with Joe Weisenthal, because you can get his news-you-can-use take on something without all the hemming and hawing, and lack of body language, from multiple blog posts. Also, Weisenthal adds to the clarification because he will make sure Krugman gets a chance to clear up any possible misconception.
Go ahead and watch this short clip. Then I’ll offer some observations.
First, Krugman admits that he really doesn’t know why the US economy apparently “needs bubbles” in order to grow, not just since 2008 but indeed for the last decade and going forward as far as the eye can see.
Second, Weisenthal and Krugman are both clear that he doesn’t want bubbles, it’s just that the economy right now needs some major changes to avoid the “need” for them. And–even though Krugman has admitted he doesn’t know exactly what’s causing it–he is knowledgeable enough to offer the following recommendations to help right things:
(1) Weaker dollar.
(2) Stronger social safety net.
(3) Somewhat permanent government fiscal stimulus (though he hedged himself on this one).
(4) Permanently higher price inflation target of 4% annually.
To repeat, everybody, the above isn’t something he wants to get us through to 2015. No, this is the new normal in Krugman’s (and Larry Summers’) world.
Recent Comments