BRYAN CAPLAN
May 7, 2013
Keynesian Bets: What's Out There
May 6, 2013
Keynesian Bets Bleg
May 6, 2013
The Pyramid of Macroeconomic Insight and Virtue
May 2, 2013
A Natalist Provision
May 1, 2013
I Was a Teenage Misanthrope
DAVID HENDERSON
May 5, 2013
John Thacker on Vaccinations and the Sequester
May 3, 2013
Chef Rudy's Virtues Project
May 2, 2013
My take on Reinhart and Rogoff
May 1, 2013
Medicare Kills a Program
SHARE
I think you're right; libertarians can't win. We've come a long way, but have a much longer way to go in educating the public about economics so that we have a chance of winning.
Libertarianism, small "l", is an economic theory that states there is an optimum, generally smaller, relative size of government that mazimizes productivity.
This change in the Republican Party coincided with the fall of the Soviets and the expansion of global free trade.
China dollarized, the U.S. provides global trade security, and foreign populations pay taxes via a depreciating dollar. So, libertarian measurement of the relative size of goverment is much harder, and Republicans virtually represent billions of non-voting global citizens.
It is the internationalization of US politics that is causing uncertainty among economists.
the strength of libertarianism is the emphasis on the individual.
however, individualism turns out to be a weakness, when group decisions and actions are required, as is the case with international cases.
sometimes smokers and non-smokers must band together competitively to save clean air and tobacco. i have not heard libertarianism speak strongly and relevantly to cooperation and successful team competition.
The prostitutes still need an answer when they get asked how to fix certain problems. The libertarians need to win the intellectual debate so they can be the people supplying those answers. Then they need to educate the public so that the prostitutes are not afraid to give libertarian answers
Wow, Matt. Very interesting, avant-garde analysis... In what sense did China dollarize? (Not a sarcastic put-down question; I think you might be onto something but possibly you're just crazy, I'd like to know...)
"Democrats, when they win, tend to listen to their economists. Republicans seem to ignore theirs."
Depressing, isn't it? For all the complaints Republicans made of Clinton, at least he grew the size of the state more slowly than Bush.
"Democrats, when they win, tend to listen to their economists. Republicans seem to ignore theirs."
Depressing, isn't it?
Republicans not listening is bad, Dems listening to their economists is worse.