Rock the Vote

Here's the standard economics/libertarian argument against voting, either it's immoral or your chances of deciding the election are one in a millions so what's the point.

First on morality. Yes, agreed voting for government and the lesser of two evils certainly isn't the thing to have on a completely clean conscious. But in the spectrum of sins or wrong doings, where would you put voting while also acknowledging your vote has little chance of changing anything? Certainly, it wouldn't rank high. The average person is not a saint. But suddenly when you talk about voting with the average libertarian, they become anointed. Give me a break. Become a good person all around, volunteer at some charities, adopt a few kids, then tell me how you finally crossed off everything on the list by not voting.

Second reason: your chances of changing anything are close to zero. Yes that's absolutely correct. Guess your chances of changing the world by writing another op-ed, or academic article, or sending another student to grad school, or donating money to the Cato Institute, Mises Institute, etc. Your chances are better but still pretty close to none. If probability of change is the reason, then I don't see why any libertarian should engage in any of these other activities either. Kind of a contradiction unless you engage in these activities for the pure selfish joy of it.

No Comparative Advantage on Social Change

Advice on a career path is always appreciated. But when advice turns into judgements of intelligence or worth of a person, then we have issues. Certain libertarian economists offer specific cemented methods of achieving libertarian ends.

Some turn direction into dogmatism. You should write in this type of journal, on these topics, and read these authors.....or you're a moron. A similar list of things you shouldnt do: never write op-eds, never get involved in policy, never get involved in business, never get involved in politics, and don't you possibly dare consider trying to work in the government to improve matters.

Let me fill you in on something....your economics professor does not have a comparative advantage in social change. They do have a comparative advantage on economic knowledge which has plenty of changes taking place and involves politics. However, economics tells us little about creating societal change. A sociologist or political scientist have a whole lot more to say on these topics.

When you read one of my pieces on politics or the direction libertarians should head, this is mere opinion. If you have another, that's fine. We should talk about the best ways to achieve goals These best methods to reaching goals are not in economics books and not in Hayek. Sure, he mentioned the filtering of knowledge through academia but what would Hayek think of modern information monoliths such as think tanks, the internet, modern media, etc.?

Ultimatley, economists know about economics not social change. On the former, they can give you facts on the latter only opinions. I hope these economics academics will begin to recognize this and respects other's career paths more so.

Bailout Article on LewRockwell

Hope you enjoy my bailout article out on LewRockwell.com today. http://www.lewrockwell.com/vuk/vuk25.html

Thank You Russ Roberts and Pete Boettke

Here are some excerpts from their two respective blogs. Rather than expressing how they feel, they simply lay out how it is on Krugman. This is an excerpt deep in the blog conversation on Boettke's blog post on Krugman,

"Doctor Boettke

In light of your comments on Prof Tabarok's post at MR, Do you stand by your remark that the prize for Krugman is the worst in the history of the prize?

Posted by: Michael | October 13, 2008 at 03:44 PM

To Michael --- YES I do for reasons I spell out in my Forbes column and also due to what I think in the hands of Alex is a very charitable interpretation.

I actually had this very discussion with Krugman at the AEA meetings at Disney Land in CA during the 1992 meetings, where he presented his Is Free Trade Passe? paper. We spoke for about 5 to 10 minutes. He would have no reason to remember me --- I was an assistant professor at NYU and visiting Stanford the year, and not a thinker of any measure compared to him, and he was famous. But I did ask him about the implications of his papers along lines similar to Alex and also raised doubts about his full acceptance of the public choice points. I don't think he was too impressed with me on either front. But my critique is not, honestly, due to Krugman dismissing me as not worthy of serious conversation over 15 years ago. It is because of a confusion in the New Trade Theory which I tried to lay out in my lectures in Prague --- which took place one month after the AEA meetings.

Pete

Posted by: Peter Boettke | October 13, 2008 at 04:45 PM"

I enjoyed Russ Robert's commentary even more,

"Everyone has their own least favorite Krugman quote. There was his disrespectful treatment of Milton Friedman after Friedman's death. There was his broken window analysis of the economics of 9-11. Today, now that he has won the Nobel Prize, I'd like to remember the quote that made it clear to me that the economic way of thinking was no longer of concern to him, when he wrote in the New York Times Sunday Magazine:

'Although America has higher per capita income than other advanced countries, it turns out that that's mainly because our rich are much richer. And here's a radical thought: if the rich get more, that leaves less for everyone else. That statement -- which is simply a matter of arithmetic -- is guaranteed to bring accusations of ''class warfare.''"..........................

Cool to Be a Fool

Paul Krugman wins the Nobel Prize. Not a big surprise to me considering Al Gore was picked last year for the Peace Prize. What astonishes me more so is the reaction of many economists Steve Horowitz, Arnold Kling, Bryan Caplan, and Tyler Cowen (whom all I respect otherwise) praising Krugman on his great academic works deserving of the Nobel Prize. This is part of a growing trend amonst beltway libertarians to stroke their fellow academics in "the community of intellectuals."

This reminds me of how it was cool for conservatives to start embracing environmentalism or making sympathetic comments regarding the movement. It made you an "open-minded" conservative.

Look, sure Krugman did some decent academic stuff. But as Walter Block once told me about Karl Marx if you talk enough you're bound to get something right. To evaluate whether a person should get a Nobel Prize enabling one to speak with such authority, the individual's knowledge should be examined beyond a narrow field. Should Karl Marx get a Nobel Prize for his insights on state capitalism? No, I don't think so. And neither should Krugman for the same reasons as Karl would not receive a prize.

Let's cut the BS and the posturing within the "community of intellectuals" seeking objectivity while being everything but that. This is crap. We all know it.

The Rational Enquirer Comes to Life

In a recent post, I suggested the formation of a blog to keep up on all the gossip occurring in the libertarian blogosphere. After all no matter whose blog, the disputes and squabbles bring the most hits.

A new blog, Cato Unhinged, seems to be doing this exact idea. I wish the blog luck and will be definitely stopping by myself and doing my best not to allow my mouth to get me into much trouble as it tends to do.

The Wall Street Bailout Is Gonna Fail; And They Know It

Congress already has the power to pass the Wall Street bailout. More or less, all the Democrats are on board and about half the Republicans. So what's the problem? Congress doesn't want to pass the bill unless everyone is on board. They want to make this another Patriot Act or Invasion of Iraq. If everyone votes, then no one is accountable.

But the fact Congress fears accountability tells the whole story. Isn't this supposed to be the one giant spending act to save us from great despair? Sheer refusal to go through with the bill without near unanimity shows the real chance of the crisis being solved through this legislation. None...

Seeing the desperate attempt to get everyone on board is the exact reason why any reasonable person should oppose the bill. Deep down not one person is confident of success. Entire political careers are on the line and a perfect opportunity for true conservatives arises to purge Congress of liberals both in the Democratic Party and the Republican.

If the cards are played right by the dissenters, this could lead to another Republican revolution in Congress. The turn out of this vote will not only change Wall Street forever but will change Washington indefinitely as well. When the plan fails, heads will roll.