Random Sightings of Sensible Economics (well not so random)

Kevin Grier asks "Is more regulation always the answer?"

Larry White explains why looking carefully at the Fed figures might make sense of contemporary monetary policy in a way that the conventional wisdom misses.

Glen Whitman on the Post Soviet diet of Cubans and the "health benefits" of such a policy.  Though Glen I wonder really how one could infer that the improved health conditions were a consequences of communist policies when in fact they are correlated with the breakdown of the communist system which wipes out a supply network for Cuba, and Cuban policies of autarky.

David Beito gives some more evidence on why Herbert Spencer was a good guy that classical liberals should embrace rather than hide.

Tyler Cowen on the Cowles Commission economists.  But Tyler, I would distinguish between brilliance and insightful.  No doubt these guys were brilliant, but not necessarily the most insightful when it comes to understanding the real world and possessing great judgment when it comes to issue of public policy.  Yes, brilliant and well meaning people can be wrong.  As Gary Becker once summed up the most important lesson he learned from Milton Friedman "Economics is not just a game played by clever people."  The economists associated with the Cowles Commission were (are) no dobut the cleverest of the clever, but they were more often than not wrong on the major issues of their day.  Imagine what modern economics would have looked like had the post-WWII period not been dominated by Cowles and Rand, but instead by organizations that resisted the intellectual alliance of statism and scientism!!!  Not sure any of those guys would make the list of the most insightful contributors to the science of economics even recognizing that they were (are) no doubt brilliant minds.

Finally, Anthony Evans raises questions about the economic rhetoric.

Comments

[fundamentalist]

Excellent insight on the economists of the commission. Another, maybe older way of putting it is that these men lacked wisdom. They're obviously very intelligent and well educated, but without wisdom such men can do a lot of harm, more harm than less intelligent people with greater wisdom. Wisdom is hard to define but we know it when we see it, like beauty. One of its chief characteristics is a love of truth regardless of the consequences. Another is character.

[Sinclair Davidson]

Yes - that is exactly right.

I once heard an argument that post WWII economics was affected by the fact that most (many?) economists worked for the government regulating prices and/or solving various allocation algorithms. After the war they continued to apply these techniques. It is a nice story, and there are exceptions (Buchanan went to war and Stigler and Friedman who did work for the government were free-marketeers), is there any literature on this point? Has anyone else heard this explanation?