Paul Krugman now promotes “hangover theory” he “refuted”

As I noted earlier Paul Krugman rejected the Austrian business cycle theory a few years ago, calling it “about as worthy of serious study as the phlogiston theory of fire.”[A theory of fire refuted by Antoine Lavoisier in the late 18th century]. Krugman wrote that he saw no reason why a investment bust would result in a recession because it would be compensated by increased consumption.

Conservative Euphemisms for Aggression

Reading Joseph Bottum’s essay, you find a long string of euphemisms for state intervention. We are in the end talking about groups supporting the only thing that the state does: namely roughing people up through violence and threats of violence. That’s what every line of every regulation comes down to. That’s the meaning of every tax. That the whole upshot of every tariff, expenditure, prohibition, and bomb. It all amounts to increased use of violence in society.

Social Security and the Destruction of Capital

Social security is neither social nor secure. It is not social because the transfer system provokes the very dependency it is said to heal, and it is not secure because the comprehensive modern welfare system undermines economic prosperity. As a coercive system of transfers from the active to the inactive, from the saver to the consumer, and from the producer to government, social security systems have an inherent tendency to destroy the formation and transformation of capital and to inhibit the division of labor.

We have ways of making you speak

The US Supreme Court ruled, on Monday, May 23rd, 2005, that to compel people to support its propaganda with which they disagree does not violate the First Amendment to the US Constitution, the one about everyone having the right to freedom of speech. Yes, the court acknowledge, no one may be coerced into funding some private party’s advertisements or related speech. But when the government or some part of it decides it will proselytize for something, it can make us all fund it.