In the debates over wealth inequality that have followed the publication of The Triumph of Injustice (authored by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman), there have been intense discussions of the […]
The invocation of the Gilded Age like a cheap political talking point is bad economics and bad economic history.
Strong and rigorous empirical methodologies are desirable. This year’s laureates make this abundantly clear. The next step is to apply them to the biggest and broadest questions possible.
Opposition to immigration takes many forms. Most of these forms are easily tackled empirically and are found to be wanting.
“Precisely because those topics are important that we need to be cautious, not rush in headfirst and add extra layers of government policies.” ~ Vincent Geloso
The story of Moby Dick warns us of the unforeseen consequences of government intervention and point to the potency of market forces in terms of protecting the environment.
Once freed from the mischaracterizations of economic theory that the new historians of capitalism have imported from Karl Polanyi, it is easy to see the foolishness of their endeavors.
Why believe that the state can pick the right immigrants but not the right industries to subsidize?
Most of the tragedies – such as the Franklin expedition – were publicly funded.
The tree cover of the planet is increasing, thanks mostly to increased efficiencies in food production.