Links for November 8, 2010: Keynes v. Hayek Economics Rap, Congressman Bob Etheridge Assaults Member of the Public, others….

November 7, 2010
  1. A discussion with the men behind the EconStories video.

  2. Too little too late, but here were the Philadelphia Libertarian congressional candidates. I went to the same high school as Gerald J. Harlacker. I met him a few times, and I know him to be a decent guy. If I lived in the 1st District, he would have had my vote. As I’m registered in the 2nd District, my vote went to Jonathan Reed.

  3. Those are called “members of the public”, congressman, and they have a right to know whether you “fully support the Obama agenda”.

    I suspect that if a tea-party candidate “manhandled” a MoveOn supporter who “pressed him to explain votes or positions,” Mother Jones and Kevin Drum would be unlikely to entertain the possibility that the democrats were acting like a bunch of “seventh-graders”.

    The print version of Mother Jones is not this consistently awful. I swear! It’s usually a very thoughtful magazine. I think they flush their doo-doo down their twitter feed… Read the rest of this entry »


Links for October 25, 2010: Interview with Marakay Rogers, Libertarian Candidate for Pennsylvania Governor; More “Quantitative Easing” to Come; others….

October 24, 2010

    Marakay Rogers (OurCampaigns.com)

  1. Not a great interview; It sticks mainly to some few libertarian talking points, but you won’t hear from her during the gubernatorial debate tonight.

  2. The BBC explains “quantitative easing”.

  3. For those who aren’t in the know, “quantitative easing” is doublespeak for printing money.

  4. Read the rest of this entry »


links for 2010-02-07

February 8, 2010
  1. Stop the Drug War (DRCNet) | Obama's Drug War Budget Destroys the Myth of Change

    Strong rebuke for the White House's 2010 drug war budget.

  2. Mises Economics Blog | "Who dat" owns the term "Super Bowl"? – Douglas French

    Commenting on the trademark infringement involving the term "Super Bowl".

  3. Mises Institute | Wage Earners and Employers – Ludwig von Mises

    More reason not to fear the Citizens United case: "It is a myth that there prevails a conflict between the interests of the corporations and firms and those of the people employed by them. In fact, good profits and high real wages go hand in hand." —Still, though, I'm hearing from many different sources that the court brought up the First Amendment issue "sua sponte". If this is true, as it is looking more likely to be, I would consider that to be 'judicial activism'. I will have to update my prior posts where I denied the claim…. Read the rest of this entry »


links for 2010-02-04

February 5, 2010
  1. Huffington Post | Mark Green: Why Citizen’s United Is a Fraud: A Guide for Non-Lawyers

    I commented earlier that the parties must have wanted to talk about the First Amendment because it played such a prominent role in the oral arguments. Here it is clarified that this was not an issue in lower courts and it was not an issue during an earlier trip to the Supreme Court. So it looks like I need to go back a little further to research the origins.

  2. PBS | Bill Moyers Journal: Monica Youn and Zephyr Teachout

    The errors of thought: 1) Corporations all speak with the same voice. 2) They speak in opposition to “the people”. It just might be the case that some corporations may agree with some of “the people” on some of the issues. If you save money at Wal-mart, or if you buy a Ford automobile that enriches your life, then, in at least one sense, your interests are in line with those of the corporations. You will cheer for those corporations when they spend gobs of money to speak in your interest in opposition to other corporations who disagree. As to the judicial over-reaching, Youn and Teachout claim that the parties stipulated that this case would not be about a narrow issue and not the First Amendment. For what it’s worth, the oral argument available at SCOTUSWiki speaks of nothing but the First Amendment for at least the first ten pages of its transcript (all I’ve listened to so far: http://is.gd/7F0Kw). Somebody other than the justices was interested in discussing the issue.

    Update: I’m interested in reviewing the “activism” question. See the above link for more info. I need to review the case thoroughly and come to my own conclusion. Read the rest of this entry »