Half Mad with the Itch for ‘Simpler Times’? : Don Boudreaux explains increases in the standard of living, using historical perspective to paint a picture of humanities struggle from rags to riches. I recall a similar message from a speech by Dr. Bordeaux several years ago at a FEE student seminar: Cleansed by Capitalism. Empirically I believe it would be difficult to prove otherwise, that individuals in industrialized and even “third-world” countries have had longer lasting and less suffering livelihoods throughout the past century because of free-trade and enterprise.
Venting Against Mysticism: Another article by Don Boudreaux, in which he discusses the “Cargo Cult Science” behind the State. Feynman gave a speech in which he tells a story of Pacific Islanders post-WW2 who are essentially addicted to foreign aid and concoct a scheme to entice aid from afar: they rebuild (to the best of their abilities) airports, towers, landing strips — the whole nine yards and then expect that upon completion, planes (akin to the Newborn Stork) would simply land and give them supplies. Dr. Boudreaux suggests that the politicos and pundits that worship the State use similar smoke and mirror techniques to create a veil of legitimacy around their menacing machination.
Nobel Laureates for Kerry: Jonathan Dingel discusses the “argument from authority” fallacy in which ten Nobel Prize winners in Economics (actually, it’s not a real Nobel Prize) issue a letter of reprimand to Bush and laude Kerry. It’s not that Jonathan is pro-Kerry and anti-Bush, it’s simply that their argument is fallacious solely upon the use of their status as recipients of what is considered a prestigious award (argumentum ad verecundiam). Here’s my take on the Nobel Prize in Economics: it’s quite tainted. It’s the only prize in which the winners (or co-winners) from year to year can have diametrically opposing views: Hayek and Myrdal. This would be like awarding someone the Physics Prize for their experiments which impugned the validity of the General Theory of Relativity and then awarding the co-winner the prize for his work demonstrating the definitive validity for Relativity. While I’m not suggesting that past or future recipients for the Economics Prize are ignorant or foolish academics, I am suggesting that the selection committee and the economics profession as a whole rethink the philosophy behind the award (prior to the creation of the Economics Nobel Prize, the Francis Walker Medal was awarded every five years for life-time achievement within the field).
I’d like to take a quick moment to plug a couple other Mises U guys I met that blog: David Skarbek has an excellent blog he has updated with economics-related punditry and John Spears of Georgia who runs an odds & ends blog (sorta like mine, minus cool pictures).
Also, if you live an apartment, please do not play loud bass-driven music at night. So damn annoying.