Arnold Kling  

Another Caplan Fan

Shorter Schumpeter... Economics of Education Over th...

Brad DeLong passes along a book recommendation.

Bryan Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter is, [David Romer] says, brilliant: everybody should read it.

But you already have ordered your copy, right?

Comments and Sharing

COMMENTS (7 to date)
Biomed Tim writes:

Two Questions:
1) Why aren't there any reviews on Amazon yet?
2) When will the paperback come out?

Constant writes:

I'm waiting for the audio edition read by the author.

Tim Worstall writes:

Err, well, yes, I have "ordered" a copy but not in the actual paying sense, I have to admit.
I'm supposed to be reviewing it for one of the UK papers so I hope Bryan will accept the loss on one copy's royalties for the greater gain?

Andrew writes:

[Comment removed for supplying false email address. To restore this comment, email the from a valid email address.--Econlib Editor]

SteffenH writes:

We poor germans. The book isn't out yet at

Bryan Caplan writes:
Biomed Tim writes:

Two Questions:
1) Why aren't there any reviews on Amazon yet?
2) When will the paperback come out?

1. I don't know. Who wants to write one?

2. 1-2 years, I think.

R. Richard Schweitzer writes:

Here follows a post made on the VC Blog:

Governments as "institututed among men," are only part of the social order, and the functions and composition of governments are only part of the many and varied decisions required of those comprising the social order.

It has been pretty well established (and acknowledged by a Nobel Prize) that practically all decisions are made with incomplete (and often inadequate) information.

What Hayek (and others) have inferred is that, for their functions in a social order, actors seek and use as much information as they perceive necessary for the decisions (choices)they determine as affecting their individual conditions (which include many various relationships).

How much effort (time especially) individuals apply to seeking sources for information, evaluating it, and comparing conflicting information, is probably a function of perceived impact of the resulting decision on the individual's concern with the effects and results of the decision to be made.

The greater benefit for individuals in an open society seems to be to limit the functions of government so that those individual concerns, and the related importance to individuals of decisions are also limited.

To provide an substitute "expertise" that lubricates enlarging the limits on governmental functions, to increase the "efficiencies" of those processes, is contrary to the concept of an open society, and the decision processes within it.

There is not much "irrational" about that.

R. Richard Schweitzer

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top