I have blogged on here before about how the elite left is still obsessed with Karl Marx and thinks he should be given another chance. This fact is even more mind boggling when you consider that economically speaking Karl Marx is seen as a complete failure. A simple basic economics course will dispel any hope that Karl Marx can be successfully implemented. He is such a failure that a couple economists are having a hard time listing his positives. To see this exchange read Brad Delongs post , Professor of Economics at UC Berkeley. He asks simply for five one-sentence bullet points listing his positives. Tyler Cowen, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, tries to list some positives here . Although he concludes with, Of course marxism, as a political program, remains dangerous nonsense. Marx's blind spots were enormous, and I still cannot understand how generations of the intelligentsia were taken in by the whole thing. Can somebody please convey this message to those ...
Kevin Grier, Professor of Economics at the University of Oklahoma, writes about Mexico's Economic growth problem , I believe the primary two problems with mexico are both political (1) very little real competition in the domestic economy (2) no true rule of law. Fundamentally its still a society where personal connections or bribes get lots of things done. The "ideal" of everyday anonymous transactions working out well even when there are time intervals between beginning and end (payment and reward) just is not there. Also the Mexican civil war at the beginning of the 20th century probably had something to do with the low growth in the first half of the century. That was no joke, that war. The "golden years" could easily be high transitional growth getting back on the BGP after the devastation of the civil war, kind of Mexico's mini version of the Japanese and German growth miracles after WWII. imho Mexico is middle income due to "location location loca...
Linda Chavez has an interesting article detailing some of the comments Andrew Stern, the president of the largest union in the AFL-CIO, himself a huge Democrat supporter, made with regard to the Democratic party, here are some quotes I found most interesting, "We[Democrat party] can't talk about education. . . We can't discuss when it is failing our members (children) in public schools in urban areas. You know, we're the experiment. Maybe vouchers aren't the only answer, but then, what is? I'm tired of hearing if we just pay teachers more, you know life will be terrific. It's a huge problem." There are two main reasons why I believe Democrats are against Vouchers. The first reason is because the privatization of public schools would practically destroy one of the Democrats most ardent supporters. The teachers union. The second reason is because Democrats don't understand basic principles of Economics. Andrew Stern touched on the first reason wit...
Comments
Post a Comment