Cafe HayekCafe Hayek - where orders emerge - Article Feed
///////////////////////////////////////////
Quotation of the Day
Posted: 13 Jan 2020 03:25 AM PST
[link removed]
(Don Boudreaux)
Tweet
is from page 162 of Bas Van Der Vossen’s and Jason Brennan’s excellent
2018 book, In Defense of Openness (footnotes deleted; links added):
When people are poor, not only are they more likely to suffer from
starvation or disease, but their ability to cope with bad weather and
weather disasters is also much worse. We often hear that climate change may
lead to more frequent and much worse severe superstorms. It may indeed,
even if the United Nations recently release a report arguing that so far,
it has not. But it’s worth noting that weather-related deaths have declined
dramatically over the past century. Despite a much larger population, the
absolute (not just relative) number of yearly weather-related deaths are
only about one-fiftieth now what they were 80 years ago.
DBx: The historical record proves as conclusively as any historical record
can prove anything that the economic growth brought over the past 200 or
so years by market-driven innovism (to use Deirdre McCloskey’s proposed
substitute term for capitalism) is by far humanity’s greatest and most
reliable source of safety, cleanliness, and protection from physical harm.
In contrast, the history of governments’ treatment of human beings is,
shall we say, rather checkered.
Ironic does not fully capture the oddity of pursuing greater human safety
by entrusting the state with power to rein in competitive, innovative
markets.
///////////////////////////////////////////
Bonus Quotation of the Day
Posted: 12 Jan 2020 05:25 PM PST
[link removed]
(Don Boudreaux)
Tweet
is from page 57 of George Will’s 2019 book, The Conservative Sensibility:
The crux of modern radicalism is that human nature has no constancy, that
it is merely an unstable imprint of the fluctuating social atmosphere. This
fallacy emboldens political actors to adopt agendas of ambitious social
engineering.
///////////////////////////////////////////
Some Links
Posted: 12 Jan 2020 08:54 AM PST
[link removed]
(Don Boudreaux)
Tweet
Katherine Timpf rightly tears into Lindsey Graham for criticizing Rand Paul
and Mike Lee for their refusal to defer, as the mindlessly hawkish Graham
defers, to Trump on matters of war-making. A slice:
It really is a shame, because Paul was also right about something else:
There is a patriotic case for limiting the president’s war powers. In fact,
to me, it’s quite clearly the patriotic case. There is, after all, a reason
why the Founders gave Congress the sole power to declare war in the first
place. They were explicitly rejecting the English model, the one that they
fought to be freed from, where the entire country could find itself at war
based on [no more] than the whims of the king. They took war seriously;
they wanted it debated and carefully considered. The truth is, it’s Paul
and Lee’s position, and not Graham’s, that reflects the position of the
Founders — and that seems pretty damn patriotic to me.
Kyle Smith bids farewell to the rock drummer Neil Peart.
Also remembering the late Neil Peart is Peter Earle.
Back during his grad-school days at GMU, Steve Horwitz mentioned Pearts
band, Rush, in a letter-to-the-editor of Reason.
David Henderson isnt impressed with Tyler Cowens state-capacity
libertarianism. A slice:
That brings me to a bigger point. There’s a large elephant (Republican) and
a large donkey (Democrat) in the room: the reliably perverse incentives of
politicians, voters, and bureaucrats. Compare their incentives to yours and
mine when we go to the supermarket. When I shop for food, I get what I pay
for. If I want steak, I buy it. If the price of avocados is particularly
high this time of year (it is), I buy few or zero. I’m spending my own
money and I have an incentive to husband my resources.
Now consider the incentives of politicians and bureaucrats. When they spend
money, they spend other people’s money. They have little incentive to worry
about costs and a large incentive in some cases to give resources to people
they favor. When they regulate, they have little incentive to care about
the sometimes devastating effects of their regulations. Voters have bad
incentives too. Their individual vote matters so little that they have
little incentive to be informed. I stated above that the global warming
problem, if indeed a problem, is an example of the tragedy of the commons.
But here’s the even worse news: essentially the whole of government is a
problem of the tragedy of the commons. If I as a voter and/or activist work
diligently to make government somewhat better, I gain only my pro rata
share of the benefits. Those who don’t do a thing to make government work
better gain as much as I do. That’s why we have underinvestment in making
government better.
Jen Maffessanti applauds the profit motive in markets for improving
batteries.
Im delighted to learn from Phil Magness of the new edition of the late
Warren Nutters superb 1968 book, The Strange World of Ivan Ivanov.
--
You are subscribed to email updates from "Cafe HayekCafe Hayek - where
orders emerge - Article Feed."
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now:
[link removed]
Email delivery powered by Google.
Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States
