The Angry Economist

Sigh. From time to time, leftists get up on their high horse, and think that they can come up with a single objection to freedom which completely smashes all arguments. Today's version of that objection may be found on elementropy, where it goes:

another question unanswerable by neoliberal economists: Who is our economy for?

I'm thinking that the author is not open to new light, but let me venture to answer today's unanswerable question: An economy is for people who trade goods and services with other people. Consequently, any interference with trade goes against the best interests of the economy. Government regulation of trade counts as interference.

Now, readers of that blog may think I'm INSANE. That's okay. 240 years ago, nobody thought a country could exist if it didn't choose a religion for its countrymen. A country without an established religion?? INSANE! Of course, we now know better (although there are some fundamentalist religionists who still disagree). In time, we will be able to convince people that freedom of trade is a civil right along with freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and yes, freedom of religion.

Not that I expect this one posting to change anybody's mind. It takes many drops to turn a wheel, singly none, singly none.

Unions are against globalization. To listen to them, unions are a force for good for all workers (rather than just the workers who pay the union its dues). But to watch them, you can see that they're in favor of cartelization. They don't mind other people competing against them, as long as those people are hobbled by the same pay rate, protections, and benefits as the union members have. In other words, they're not allowed to use a lower cost of living, or a lower regard for their own safety, or a longer work week as a competitive advantage.

Sigh. Unions! Still selfish, after all these years.

Yo! Stupid conservatives! Y'all keep whinging about how wonderful it is that Arizona is FINALLY doing something about immigration. It sounds like you wish that the Federal Government would do its job and keep those dratted foreigners out.

Well, I have exactly zero words for you:

[nelson@desk ~]$ grep -i immigration ~/Constitution 
[nelson@desk ~]$ 

Well, I have exactly one word for you: emigration.
If the Feds can control immigration even though the Constitution doesn't give them that power, then they can also control emigration. So when the USA turns into the communist USSA and Der Presidente for life decides that you can't leave, where are you going to be THEN??

The Feds don't have the ability to stop people from entering or leaving the United States, and that's a good thing.

The proper version of "ignorance is bliss" is actually "WHEN ignorance is bliss," and it should be followed by "'tis folly to be wise." That's the short version of public choice economics, which points out that your vote counts for very little, and consequently justifies very little investment in making a quality vote. They call that "rational ignorance." Some economists go even further and say that because your vote counts for so little, you can vote emotionally rather than rationally. You can vote for a minimum wage because it makes you feel good, rather than voting against a minimum wage because it actually prices the worst workers (who need the most help) out of the market.

Dear Mr. and Mr. Koch, I'm for sale! Really I am! Please pay me to blog on libertarian issues! I'll take your money!