This year the Nobel prize in economics was awarded to Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt for having explained how innovation drives economic growth. According to the laureates, Mokyr in particular, the period of Enlightenment set the foundation for the Industrial Revolution and sustained economic growth. Note that the period of Enlightenment gave birth to industrial capitalism—a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, especially property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

Professor Hülsmann’s rejoinder to my earlier reply is, as always, elegantly written and guided by the spirit of collegial debate. Yet, despite its rhetorical polish, I must disagree on several points, particularly where his argument rests on empirical conjecture rather than on praxeological necessity.

The age of social media has made it easier than ever to spread misconceptions and misdirection. Bad arguments seemingly go through seasons like the flu. One idea currently in-season is that artificial intelligence is uniquely damaging to the environment. Accusations abound against AI’s impact on our environment, emanating both from popular consciousness and academic institutions.

A paradox now sits at the center of global finance: the US government, in trying to stabilize its debt markets, has legitimized the very free-market forces that are eroding its monopoly over money.

The truth about historical events cannot be evaluated purely by reference to the ideological perspective of the historian, for example, whether he is a Marxist or a libertarian. Much as it is tempting to believe that people we already agree with must be the only ones telling the truth about history, that method of evaluation would mean that each historian has his own personal “truth” that is dictated by his own ideology, and that readers may choose the “true” interpretation of history based on whether they agree with the historian’s ideology.

Eight years, eight dreary, miserable, mind-numbing years, the years of the Age of Reagan, are at long last coming to an end. These years have surely left an ominous legacy for the future: we shall undoubtedly suffer from the after-shocks of Reaganism for years to come. But at least Himself will not be there, and without the man Reagan, without what has been called his “charisma,” Reaganism cannot nearly be the same. Reagan’s heirs and assigns are a pale shadow of the Master, as we can see from the performance of George Bush.

Here is modern economic theory in one sentence: money needs to be plentiful for a prosperous economy. As a corollary: No problem is too big that can’t be resolved with enough money.

On the other hand, here are modern economic results in one sentence: a boom eventually nosedives into crisis, which is the necessary correction, but is delayed or fought by the process that caused it—massive money printing to save significant market participants.