Thursday, August 19, 2010
Back to Bureaucrashing
I have started working part-time at CEI, the place I interned last summer, and in connection with that have made my first blog post in a long time on the Bureaucrash main page. It's about Boétie's Discourse on Voluntary Servitude. Go take a look!
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Happy Sucession from Britain Day
Just wanted to wish everyone good tidings on the anniversary of our ancestors' secession from Great Britain. I've also posted some actually content today, as well. See below.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Belated Rothbard Graduate Seminar Wrap-Up
Well, it's been a while since I got back from Auburn. It was a great week. I liked it better than the Mises University I attended last year. It felt less crowded and less rushed. There was more time for discussion, more face time with faculty, and since it's aimed primarily at grad students, we got deeper into the subject matter.
I want to pick out three things that stick out among all the things I learned.
Rothbard has an excellent discussion of tax incidence which I found revelatory. It is commonly argued that who "really" pays for a tax on a good depends on the elasticity of demand for the good; this will determine whether the seller of the good can raise her prices or not by some amount.
The flaw in this argument is that if the seller could charge more than she does currently, what was to stop her from charging this price before the tax was imposed? Given a stock of goods to sell, the entrepreneur will try to maximize revenue. Placing a tax on a good does not change the revenue-maximizing price. The entrepreneur will have to lower her price by the amount of the tax, so that the consumers' out-of pocket expenses are the same. This means the entrepreneur's product will bring her less revenue than before, which in turn causes her to impute lower values to the factors of production she buys. The result is that production of the taxed good will be reduced until the cost-revenue spread is substantial enough to keep the remaining firms in business. I don't remember whether Rothbard says anything on the subject, but it appears to me that exactly how much of the tax will be paid by the producer of the good and how much will be "paid" by her suppliers will vary from case to case based on the specific conditions in each case. The specificity of the factors of production in question will likely be the most important consideration.
Now that I think about it, if the tax is large enough that it acts as an effective price floor, the analysis will be a bit different, but the only thing I can think of that resembles a real-life example would be cigarette taxes.
The other two things I wanted to touch on are more technical matters regarding ordinal preference ranks. Austrians hold it true that we rank our wants from most urgent to least urgent, and likewise rank consumer goods that satisfy these wants. They also argue that the neoclassical assumption of transitivity doesn't hold. But ordinal preference ranks have to be transitive in the trivial sense, so it isn't clear why Austrians should have a problem with neoclassical transitivity, at least prima facia.
The issue is that neoclassical usage of "transitivity" implies a persistence of value ranks in time. If you chose an apple over an orange, a banana over an apple, and an orange over a banana successively, a neoclassical economist would say that your choices violated transitivity and were therefore irrational. An Austrian economist would say that for some reason, you must have changed your mind along the way, and that this was no cause for alarm.
The other point was that while there are difficulties in figuring out what someone's "complete" preference ranks are, all we need to do catallactics (the praxeological study of indirect exchange) is a subset of the "complete" ranks containing units of a single good and units of money--diminishing marginal utility ensures that within the subset, certain difficulties that arise when thinking about three or more goods. For instance, lets say given a choice between A, B, and C, you choose A. We know that A was at the top of your ranking at the time of the choice, but we want to know about B and C so that we can construct a demand schedule. One way we might think about that is if we go back and time and tell you to choose two of A, B, and C, expecting that you will choose A and your second-ranked good. But we cannot know that you will choose A at all, a priori. Maybe A is a beer, B is gin, and C is tonic water, and you like beer but love gin and tonics together while disliking them separately. But if we restrict the goods we consider to bundles of some consumer goods and bundles of currency, it would be reasonable to assert that if you chose A when you could chose one, you would have chosen A if you could chose two.
Now, that leaves some questions about whether we can work with preference ranks when there is no medium of exchange in the economy (ex. a Robinson Crusoe economy), but that's a separate issue. We can certainly construct supply and demand schedules, and that's what we care about for almost all of economics.
All in all, RGS was awesome and I'm very glad I went. I'm about two thirds of the way through the copy of Bureaucracy by Mises that I bought during the week, and so far that's been enjoyable. If there's anything really awesome in the part I haven't read yet I'll be sure to blog about it, otherwise I think my next entry will be a commentary on Boetie's Discourse on Voluntary Servitude. Been putting that off for ages now.
I want to pick out three things that stick out among all the things I learned.
Rothbard has an excellent discussion of tax incidence which I found revelatory. It is commonly argued that who "really" pays for a tax on a good depends on the elasticity of demand for the good; this will determine whether the seller of the good can raise her prices or not by some amount.
The flaw in this argument is that if the seller could charge more than she does currently, what was to stop her from charging this price before the tax was imposed? Given a stock of goods to sell, the entrepreneur will try to maximize revenue. Placing a tax on a good does not change the revenue-maximizing price. The entrepreneur will have to lower her price by the amount of the tax, so that the consumers' out-of pocket expenses are the same. This means the entrepreneur's product will bring her less revenue than before, which in turn causes her to impute lower values to the factors of production she buys. The result is that production of the taxed good will be reduced until the cost-revenue spread is substantial enough to keep the remaining firms in business. I don't remember whether Rothbard says anything on the subject, but it appears to me that exactly how much of the tax will be paid by the producer of the good and how much will be "paid" by her suppliers will vary from case to case based on the specific conditions in each case. The specificity of the factors of production in question will likely be the most important consideration.
Now that I think about it, if the tax is large enough that it acts as an effective price floor, the analysis will be a bit different, but the only thing I can think of that resembles a real-life example would be cigarette taxes.
The other two things I wanted to touch on are more technical matters regarding ordinal preference ranks. Austrians hold it true that we rank our wants from most urgent to least urgent, and likewise rank consumer goods that satisfy these wants. They also argue that the neoclassical assumption of transitivity doesn't hold. But ordinal preference ranks have to be transitive in the trivial sense, so it isn't clear why Austrians should have a problem with neoclassical transitivity, at least prima facia.
The issue is that neoclassical usage of "transitivity" implies a persistence of value ranks in time. If you chose an apple over an orange, a banana over an apple, and an orange over a banana successively, a neoclassical economist would say that your choices violated transitivity and were therefore irrational. An Austrian economist would say that for some reason, you must have changed your mind along the way, and that this was no cause for alarm.
The other point was that while there are difficulties in figuring out what someone's "complete" preference ranks are, all we need to do catallactics (the praxeological study of indirect exchange) is a subset of the "complete" ranks containing units of a single good and units of money--diminishing marginal utility ensures that within the subset, certain difficulties that arise when thinking about three or more goods. For instance, lets say given a choice between A, B, and C, you choose A. We know that A was at the top of your ranking at the time of the choice, but we want to know about B and C so that we can construct a demand schedule. One way we might think about that is if we go back and time and tell you to choose two of A, B, and C, expecting that you will choose A and your second-ranked good. But we cannot know that you will choose A at all, a priori. Maybe A is a beer, B is gin, and C is tonic water, and you like beer but love gin and tonics together while disliking them separately. But if we restrict the goods we consider to bundles of some consumer goods and bundles of currency, it would be reasonable to assert that if you chose A when you could chose one, you would have chosen A if you could chose two.
Now, that leaves some questions about whether we can work with preference ranks when there is no medium of exchange in the economy (ex. a Robinson Crusoe economy), but that's a separate issue. We can certainly construct supply and demand schedules, and that's what we care about for almost all of economics.
All in all, RGS was awesome and I'm very glad I went. I'm about two thirds of the way through the copy of Bureaucracy by Mises that I bought during the week, and so far that's been enjoyable. If there's anything really awesome in the part I haven't read yet I'll be sure to blog about it, otherwise I think my next entry will be a commentary on Boetie's Discourse on Voluntary Servitude. Been putting that off for ages now.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
The Berlin Batman
My favorite item hanging on the Mises Institute walls is a framed display of The Batman Chronicles #11, showing the cover and a few excerpted panels.
It's a Batman comic book. So yeah, automatically awesome, but what else is there to say? I mean, it's the goddamn Batman!
Well, actually, that's from "All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder," and the Mises Institute's comic book is from a different Batman series, and on top of that is an "Elseworlds" story, which Wikipedia tells me was part of a series of comics putting superheroes out of their traditional settings.
This particular Batman story is about "Baruch Wane," a closeted upper-class Jew living in Nazi Germany. So what does Batman do in Nazi Germany? Well, he fights Nazis, obviously.
Well, the Mises Institute obviously doesn't like Nazis, what with the Nazis' general anti-freedom tilt, but that isn't why this particular issue is enshrined on the premises. You see, the comic book's dastardly Nazis are--among other misdeeds--planning to raid the library of a certain Economist and Austrian Jew. And now we see where this is going. If you'd like to see Batman try to save von Mises' library from falling into the hands of the Nazis, you can read an excerpt from The Batman Chronicles #11 here. Mises.org has a brief review as well; it's a bit more in-depth than my treatment here.
The best part of this is that much of the story is true. The Nazis did seize von Mises' library, and it was subsequently taken by the Soviets before finally being recovered years later. Mises himself fled the country, making his way to America.
Incidentally, the Berlin Batman is Ron Paul's favorite superhero.
It's a Batman comic book. So yeah, automatically awesome, but what else is there to say? I mean, it's the goddamn Batman!
Well, actually, that's from "All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder," and the Mises Institute's comic book is from a different Batman series, and on top of that is an "Elseworlds" story, which Wikipedia tells me was part of a series of comics putting superheroes out of their traditional settings.
This particular Batman story is about "Baruch Wane," a closeted upper-class Jew living in Nazi Germany. So what does Batman do in Nazi Germany? Well, he fights Nazis, obviously.
Well, the Mises Institute obviously doesn't like Nazis, what with the Nazis' general anti-freedom tilt, but that isn't why this particular issue is enshrined on the premises. You see, the comic book's dastardly Nazis are--among other misdeeds--planning to raid the library of a certain Economist and Austrian Jew. And now we see where this is going. If you'd like to see Batman try to save von Mises' library from falling into the hands of the Nazis, you can read an excerpt from The Batman Chronicles #11 here. Mises.org has a brief review as well; it's a bit more in-depth than my treatment here.
The best part of this is that much of the story is true. The Nazis did seize von Mises' library, and it was subsequently taken by the Soviets before finally being recovered years later. Mises himself fled the country, making his way to America.
Incidentally, the Berlin Batman is Ron Paul's favorite superhero.
Lunch with David Gordon and Bob Murphy
I'm still down in Auburn at the Rothbard Graduate Seminar. I've been learning a lot about some of the finer points of the Austrian School, but I think those would be best held back for a capstone post at the end of the week. I played soccer with some of the other grad students last night, and oh man am I out of shape. It still felt great to get out on the field again though, and it's served as an inspiration for me to get back on the saddle in terms of fitness. I was pleased, however, to see that my touch on the ball isn't completely gone.
This morning we had a talk about the current direction of the Rothbardian research program and of Austro-libertarian academics in general. Dr. Gordon mentioned that there was opportunity to be had in giving John Rawls a good Austrian lambasting, which excited me because I had actually been thinking of just that as a possible direction I could go with my own academic endeavors. Rawls is one of the most influential of modern political philosophers and ethicists, and any attempt to establish an alternative system would likely be required to address the Rawlsian position first.
Dr. Gordon's primary work currently is in writing The Mises Review and says of his work, "I regard book reviewing as a blood sport." Needless to say, Dr. Gordon is a pretty funny guy.
At lunch today I sat at Dr. Gordon's table (as noted in the title, Bob Murphy was there too) with the intention of picking his brain on the prospects for an Austro-libertarian attack on Rawls. What happened instead was a discussion of professional wrestling.
Dr. Gordon was apparently a friend of the late Lou Thesz, and currently corresponds with Glenn Jacobs, noted blogger, member of the Free State Project, but known best as the WWE wrestler "Kane." Apparently Kane recently picked up some tips from a YouTube video of Thesz that Gordon had sent him. Thesz apparently used to half-jokingly give Gordon self defense advice (to avoid a fight, turn around and walk away--but if they follow you, surprise them with an elbow to the face). Either Gordon didn't mention how he met the wrestlers, or I've forgotten, but I imagine that would be another tale in itself. To round out the story, I should note that there is an autographed picture of Jacobs hung in the Institute, made out "to Lew and the Mises Institute, the heavyweight champions of liberty and freedom."
It is my second favorite item on the Institute's walls. For the first, you'll have to check my next blog post.
This morning we had a talk about the current direction of the Rothbardian research program and of Austro-libertarian academics in general. Dr. Gordon mentioned that there was opportunity to be had in giving John Rawls a good Austrian lambasting, which excited me because I had actually been thinking of just that as a possible direction I could go with my own academic endeavors. Rawls is one of the most influential of modern political philosophers and ethicists, and any attempt to establish an alternative system would likely be required to address the Rawlsian position first.
Dr. Gordon's primary work currently is in writing The Mises Review and says of his work, "I regard book reviewing as a blood sport." Needless to say, Dr. Gordon is a pretty funny guy.
At lunch today I sat at Dr. Gordon's table (as noted in the title, Bob Murphy was there too) with the intention of picking his brain on the prospects for an Austro-libertarian attack on Rawls. What happened instead was a discussion of professional wrestling.
Dr. Gordon was apparently a friend of the late Lou Thesz, and currently corresponds with Glenn Jacobs, noted blogger, member of the Free State Project, but known best as the WWE wrestler "Kane." Apparently Kane recently picked up some tips from a YouTube video of Thesz that Gordon had sent him. Thesz apparently used to half-jokingly give Gordon self defense advice (to avoid a fight, turn around and walk away--but if they follow you, surprise them with an elbow to the face). Either Gordon didn't mention how he met the wrestlers, or I've forgotten, but I imagine that would be another tale in itself. To round out the story, I should note that there is an autographed picture of Jacobs hung in the Institute, made out "to Lew and the Mises Institute, the heavyweight champions of liberty and freedom."
It is my second favorite item on the Institute's walls. For the first, you'll have to check my next blog post.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Dinner with Tom Woods
This week I'm at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama for a program called the Rothbard Graduate Seminar. The program is a series of talks on Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State taught by the Institute's faculty.
Tonight was the welcome dinner, and Tom Woods recognized and sat next to me. Awesome. When I was here last summer (for the Mises University program), I tended to do more listening than talking during the meals, and tonight continued that trend mostly, but I did ask Dr. Woods about his new book, and I wanted to share that vignette because I thought it was pretty funny. I'm going to paraphrase as best as I can remember, although the payoff line is verbatim.
Grant: So I hear you've got a new book?
Dr. Woods: Yup.
Grant: On secession, right?
Dr. Woods: Nullification. What do you think I am, some kind of radical?
Dr. Woods' new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, comes out on June 28th. He is scheduled to speak to the Iowa Republican State Convention on the 26th. Hopefully that will be posted somewhere--Dr. Woods is an insightful and entertaining speaker and with the talk being so close to the release of his book, it should make for some interesting listening.
Tonight was the welcome dinner, and Tom Woods recognized and sat next to me. Awesome. When I was here last summer (for the Mises University program), I tended to do more listening than talking during the meals, and tonight continued that trend mostly, but I did ask Dr. Woods about his new book, and I wanted to share that vignette because I thought it was pretty funny. I'm going to paraphrase as best as I can remember, although the payoff line is verbatim.
Grant: So I hear you've got a new book?
Dr. Woods: Yup.
Grant: On secession, right?
Dr. Woods: Nullification. What do you think I am, some kind of radical?
Dr. Woods' new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, comes out on June 28th. He is scheduled to speak to the Iowa Republican State Convention on the 26th. Hopefully that will be posted somewhere--Dr. Woods is an insightful and entertaining speaker and with the talk being so close to the release of his book, it should make for some interesting listening.
Friday, May 21, 2010
In Which Rand Paul Sticks His Foot In His Mouth
So, shortly after winning the Republican primary for the Senate seat in Kentucky, Rand Paul has commented that the parts of the Civil Rights Act that restrict the actions of private businesses were incorrect. Everyone and their mother has jumped on this as typical "racist Republican" buffoonery. Even sympathetic voices are wondering if perhaps Rand has taken his small-government views too far.
He hasn't. It is perfectly coherent to sincerely abhor racism, and not think the Civil Rights Act should have included restrictions of private agents. It is only incoherent if you believe the only way to affect social change is with government violence. Mainstream socio-political thought, however, sees government as the proverbial hammer and every challenge faced by humanity as a proverbial nail.
Implying that Rand Paul is a racist because he opposes the violent attack on the rights of people to say who can and cannot be on their property (even when they make poor decisions in this regard) follows the same logic as saying that he's a communist because he thinks communists should be allowed to say or publish whatever they want (even though communists say and publish reprehensible things). It should be obvious that Paul is no communist. It might be objected that there's a big difference between freedom of speech and property rights, but this is simply false, both from a philosophical and practical standpoint. Freedom is an indivisible whole and no part is of a different class than the others--there is no line between "economic" freedom and freedoms of expression and thought.
Outlawing the effects of racism is simply foolish. It would be like if you tried to outlaw rain, knowing you couldn't get rid of clouds. Racism is a cultural problem, not a civic one, and attacks against it should be made on those grounds.
He hasn't. It is perfectly coherent to sincerely abhor racism, and not think the Civil Rights Act should have included restrictions of private agents. It is only incoherent if you believe the only way to affect social change is with government violence. Mainstream socio-political thought, however, sees government as the proverbial hammer and every challenge faced by humanity as a proverbial nail.
Implying that Rand Paul is a racist because he opposes the violent attack on the rights of people to say who can and cannot be on their property (even when they make poor decisions in this regard) follows the same logic as saying that he's a communist because he thinks communists should be allowed to say or publish whatever they want (even though communists say and publish reprehensible things). It should be obvious that Paul is no communist. It might be objected that there's a big difference between freedom of speech and property rights, but this is simply false, both from a philosophical and practical standpoint. Freedom is an indivisible whole and no part is of a different class than the others--there is no line between "economic" freedom and freedoms of expression and thought.
Outlawing the effects of racism is simply foolish. It would be like if you tried to outlaw rain, knowing you couldn't get rid of clouds. Racism is a cultural problem, not a civic one, and attacks against it should be made on those grounds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
