Economics today poses as a predictive discipline which fails to correctly predict anything; a prescriptive discipline which prescribes the wrong policies; and an empirical discipline which collects data but misses the point.
Susan Neiman contends Southerners need to acknowledge guilt for slavery, segregation, and lynching, and "work off" the past. But collective responsibility is a chimera, and a dangerous one at that.
"The reality must be faced that the new…colony of Pennsylvania lived for the greater part of four years in a de facto condition of individual anarchism, and seemed none the worse for the experience."
Free market economics is often ignorantly dismissed for being "ideological" rather than scientific. It probably sounds smart to the economically illiterate, but it is decidedly not.
Government statistics on worker productivity combine many errors of aggregation such as "average prices" and the total purchasing power of money. So it's unlikely that productivity numbers tell us much that's useful.
Is just aiding and abetting someone in committing an aggressive act a violation of the nonaggression principle? What if you were "just" driving the getaway car?
How can paternalists say that when they make it more difficult for you to smoke they aren’t interfering with your freedom? They've come up with a bizarre rationale.
In portraying the state as an integral part of economy and society, advocates of "state capacity libertarianism" ignore the state's unique political, i.e., predatory, nature.
Uncritically holding democracy out as an ideal overlooks the question of whether market democracy or political democracy better serves citizens.
In terms of economics, what currently is should be of very little importance: what matters, and that we should seek to understand, is the process that brought it about and that will create what will be in its place.
