Vienna vs. Venus
I can’t believe I didn’t think of that title originally…
Anyway, years ago for Mises.org I wrote, “Venus Needs Some Austrians,” saying that the idea of “resource-based economy” (RBE)–as opposed to a money-based economy–and the “Venus project” needed the benefit of Mises’ arguments about calculation.
Kevin Tilsner of Zeitgeist Philadelphia Radio has been trying for a year (?!) to get me on his show, to debate the article. (He is a supporter of an RBE.)
We finally had our debate. It was extremely cordial, and we actually spent most of the time agreeing with each other. But don’t worry, in the last 15 minutes or so I activated my Mises Ring and dropped some truth bombs.
Unfortunately I was on my phone so the audio isn’t great, but if you want to give it a chance, I think it ended up being a very unorthodox yet fundamental discussion.
Here is the direct mp3 link, and here is the main show page.
Also, in the interview Tilsner alludes to Peter Joseph’s response to Mises’ calculation argument. Here is that talk, though I haven’t listened to it.
Finally, apparently Stefan Molyneux debated Peter Joseph on this stuff.
Tom and Bob on Dave Smith’s “Part of the Problem”
Taped on location on the Contra Cruise 2017.
The Internal Consistency of the Story of Jonah
(I just got back from the Contra Cruise so I’ll do my “Sunday post” today…)
Last night my son and I read the following (Matthew 16: 1-4):
16 The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven.
2 He replied, “When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ 3 and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.[a] 4 A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away. [Bold added.]
We had a really good discussion that hit the following points:
==> In the excerpt above, Jesus isn’t snapping at them because they are asking for a sign. After all, Thomas–who had seen Jesus raise others from the dead and who had heard Jesus predict His own death and resurrection–famously doubted the testimony of his friends, and said he wouldn’t believe Jesus had come back until he personally inspected His wounds. Jesus didn’t show up and rebuke him, but instead let him inspect His wounds.
==> Rather, Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees and Sadducees because they are hypocrites. They aren’t sincerely asking for a sign, in order to help quell their (understandable) disbelief. Jesus performed many signs of which they were aware, and they said He was violating the Sabbath (if He healed someone on the day of rest), even setting up a “trap” for Him on this score, and on another occasion they argued that He was able to cast out demons because He himself was in league with the devil.
==> The “sign of Jonah” that He will give the wicked generation of hypocritical cynics is that He will be dead inside the earth for 3 days before miraculously returning, just as Jonah was dead (either literally or effectively) inside the whale (/fish) for 3 days before miraculously returning. (Jesus explains the metaphor earlier in the gospel of Matthew.)
==> Of course God could make Jonah survive in the center of the sun for 3 days if He wanted, but I personally think it’s more elegant to imagine that Jonah was swallowed by a whale (not fish) and didn’t go into its belly, but was hanging out in its mouth a la Pinocchio, getting enough oxygen because the mammal had to keep surfacing to breathe. Imagine how absolutely terrifying that would be, in pitch black for most of the time, knowing you are either going to be swallowed and digested, or die of thirst while floating in salt water. It would be such a dramatic ordeal that after emerging unscathed, a coward like Jonah would have been transformed into someone who could deliver such a scathing message that the entire city of Ninevah would repent of its sins.
Potpourri
==> Episode 108 of Contra Krugman, where Krugman worries about replacing the whiz kids who’ve been running the Fed.
==> Alex Tabarrok talks about a vindication (?) of some of the points Phil Magness made in our critique of Piketty. (NOTE: I know Alex and he wasn’t insulting us.) I haven’t had time to read the paper though.
==> Jesus Huerta De Soto gives a provocative talk on God and liberty.
==> From me: Myths about the CPP repeal.
==> Joe Salerno on Mises’ writings on immigration. I had to skim it but he has stuff in here I had never seen from Mises before.
RC Sproul on Post-Christian Christianity
If you’re a believer, I think you will find the second half of Sproul’s lecture very compelling and authentic.
If you’re agnostic, and you are familiar with Kantian philosophy, let me know if you think Sproul gets it right in his opening summary.
Reactions to Thaler’s Nobel
Commentary from David R. Henderson, Alex Tabarrok, and Tyler Cowen.
Von Pepe also sends this feisty reaction from Mario Rizzo. Check this out:
Nevertheless, the emphasis on the limits of the standard rational paradigm, as pioneered by Thaler, has been a very refreshing and useful thing. And yet behavioral economics remains wedded to this narrow conception of rationality as a normative and prescriptive standard of evaluation. It drives the critique of many market outcomes and is the basis of policy prescriptions. It is precisely because people are not narrowly rational that their behavior must be fixed. Their behavior must be taxed, regulated or nudged in the direction of the behavior of the perfectly rational neoclassical man. For example, it is alleged that people are obese because they fail to take “full account” of the negative effects of their unhealthful eating habits. What is full account? They must reckon or discount these effects at the rational rate of discount – the long-run rate, the rate one would use if one were super-rational and calm in making a diet plan to be implemented in, say, six months or a year. But how the agent looks at things now, at the moment of deciding what to eat, is wrong. It is impetuous. It is “present biased.” The individual needs help. And, in practice, it is the government’s help.
Aside from the policy implications, there is an incredible irony here. Standard economics is mocked for its rationality assumptions and yet those assumptions are held up as an ideal for real human beings. It is as if there is a neoclassical man deep in each of us struggling to get out but he is continually bombarded by behavioral shocks. Behavioral policy is about nothing less than becoming the real you! All this despite your resistance. [Italics in original.]
And also check out the big guns in the comments of Rizzo’s post.
Tom Woods’ 1000th Episode
The roast at the end is pretty fun. Regarding Dave Smith, all I can say is: “At last, a man worth killing.”
Recent Comments