ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax
SHARE
If only Lucas had mentioned Hitler, he would have had a rock-solid argument for abolishing every government ever.
I noted in your book review, John Taylor was under the category of Keynesian. In your opinion, is he now more Monetarist.
Not having the Klamer book at hand, I would be interested reading excerpts from the Taylor interview.
Dear Ed,
I think, and the profession probably thinks, of John Taylor as a New Keynesian. Interestingly, in the interview, Taylor rejected the label of "New Keynesian" but it seemed in part due to his not liking labels. Part of Milton Friedman's tremendous influence, though, was that even Keynesians became monetarists because they came to understand the tremendous potence of monetary policy.
I'll check the Taylor interview for highlights for a future post.
Best,
David
As to David's point about Keynesians becoming Monetarists, Brad DeLong explained it well.
Yeah, Hitler strikes again. Godwin's Law, anyone?
Sure, governments do lots of bad things, but in my opinion, libertarians often slip into lalaland when going from that government by definition does nothing positive. What about civil rights legislation? Peace-keeping in the Balkans? Natural disaster relief? Medical coverage for the needy? Are you prepared to say that all of these issues would be equally well-addressed in the absence of government? I don't buy it. It's a fallacy that any positive aspects of government are actually the people involved while any negative ones are the government as an entity.
As I pointed already, libertarians typically do one and the same trick, they apply communist arguments against property, but they simply apply it selectively against state property, and not against private property.
In this very example, why Lucas speaks about Egypt as about state governed by Pharaoh, and not about Egypt as private property of Pharaoh? What is the difference?
Kurbla,
Libertarians object to rape. Do you find it inconsistent that we don't see rape as a case of the rapist exercising private property rights to his victim? I bet not, because you agree with libertarians that rapists do not actually own their victims. No inconsistency there, right?
Similarly, libertarians don't recognize a Pharaoh as a legitimate owner of Egypt.
Libertarians may be wrong, but to show that you have to point out a problem with what libertarians actually believe.