Classic bad economic thought by Krugman




From the Mises Blog

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Join the Pumpkin Revolt

Image
Bureaucrats in Orem, Utah, are trying to destroy 71-year-old Darrell "Bud" Durrant's livelihood.  Durrant lives off of a $396 retirement.  The bulk of his income comes from pumpkins that he grows on his farm in Lake Shore, and sells from his yard at  112 W. 1600 N. in Orem ,  a distance of  17 miles . He's been selling pumpkins from his yard for 20 years.  But this year, authorities threatened to shut him down. Bud Durrant and his business partner, David Cook. Durrant appealed to the city, and so they will " allow him to sell through this year." City Attorney Paul Johnson said, " It's too bad the city hasn't enforced the law before now ." The city hopes to have a decision by the end of 2011, on whether or not he can sell next year. It seems to me, that shutting down small farmers during a recession is just plain stupid.  It's a cold, impersonal cruelty, that someone would destroy an old farmer's livelihood simply to enforce a nonsen...
Read more

Using gang violence to end gang violence

Image
Thuggish police beat, tased, and broke the arm of a student for wearing baggy pants .  It was in an effort to rid the school of its "gang culture." Who's gangsta now? This is what happens when you give a guy a gun, a taser, and bat; immunity from the law; and tell him to go enforce the law. Since the police force is a government monopoly, it has been removed from market forces.  There is no feedback mechanism to tell them whether they're serving the customer or not. Monopoly is why government services (think DMV) suck.  If Costco were to tase customers who wore baggy pants, they would lose customers, get sued, and probably go out of business.  If a police officer abuses customers, our taxes still pay them. People tend to scoff at the idea of breaking up police monopoly.  The main argument I've heard: Q: In a free market, wouldn't only rich people would have police? A: In our free market, poor people have access to almost every good imaginable (for example—p...
Read more

Welfare hurts poor people (and the rich)

Image
We should give to the poor.  But must we? I win! (Edited by Double Birds) In a voluntary exchange both parties benefit .  A rich man may give money to the poor, and the poor may give nothing in return, but the rich man still gets something.  He may get to feel good about himself. He may, if religious, get a feeling that he has laid up treasure in heaven.  He may simply get satisfaction out of the poor man's smile, or knowing that he has made the poor man's life better.  He may get public recognition—entire hospitals and colleges have been built for this seemingly trivial benefit. Voluntary exchanges always  benefit both parties, otherwise they would not occur.  Forced charity, on the other hand, hurts both parties. If the rich man's money is forcibly taken (through taxation), he gets nothing.  No recognition.  No smiling poor.  He might not even want outward recognition, but he does not even know where his money goes.  He may ki...
Read more