Mises Daily

In two recent blog posts on the varying economic fortunes of US states, Krugman's about-face was complete and fast.

Hutcheson, Hume, and Smith, while scarcely orthodox Calvinists, were dedicated Presbyterians according to their own lights.

Fannie and Freddie, far from being the sole miscreants of the crisis, operate on the same parlous economic principles that the Fed functions on and facilitates. Ridding the market of the crippling appetites of Fannie and Freddie, even if a step in the right direction, is hardly a panacea for the current economic plights.

The rise in stock prices or any other good denominated in paper currency may not say much about the real value of your investments. You may have invested your money — in any venture — and be thinking that you are making a nice profit when in fact you are suffering huge losses.

The world had never seen government paper money until the colonial government of Massachusetts, 1690.

President Barack Obama promised recently in a <i>Wall Street Journal</i> op-ed to undertake a grand review of economic regulation in the United States and get rid of rules that "are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb." Yet he has added plenty of dumb regulations himself.

The main problem with Landsburg's argument is that it unintentionally misleads the reader.

Beauty is something most everyone wants more of. And while there is plenty of handwringing about healthcare not being affordable in the United States, cosmetic surgeons are doing fine, despite the recession. These doctors, by the way, are paid directly by the patient.