Joseph Salerno discusses the rehabilitation of John Kenneth Galbraith’s reputation among left-wing professional economists. Salerno suggests one possible reason for this phenomenon: in comparison to the mechanistic and hyper-mathematical theorems of modern-day academic economics, even Galbraith’s fallacy-ridden and unsystematic writings look attractive because they are at least expressed in English and deal with real phenomena.
David Gordon pans John Allison’s (the new president of the Cato Institute) new book on the financial crisis. Despite purporting to be an Austrian observer, Allison repeats Objectivist tropes about Immanuel Kant without adequate explanation, accepts Milton Friedman’s monetarist interpretation of the Great Depression without even acknowledging Murray Rothbard’s critique, and betrays a simplistic grasp of Austrian business cycle theory.
William Anderson critiques Aaron O’Connell’s recent New York Times article about the supposed positive economic effects of military spending.
Peter Klein argues that the real welfare bums are not the urban poor, but the big corporations reliant on government subsidies, the professionals protected by stringent licensing requirements, and the legions of bureaucrats dependent on the government for their salaries.
Ron Paul lauds the revival of Lassiez Faire Books and credits Murray Rothbard for helping him and Lewis Lehrman craft the minority report of the 1982 U.S. Gold Commission, now available in a 30th anniversary edition.
Peter Boettke argues that the interest and dedication of young economics students is a cause for optimism. Online programs, he contends, will not replace the face-to-face interactions that are central to their education.