Charles Rowley “laments the cowardice”:http://charlesrowley.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/the-dog-that-does-not-bark/ of his erstwhile band of brothers. In verse, no less (or, if you insist, ‘verse’).
Where are all the real business cycle theorists who once argued that business cycles reflect Pareto-optimality? Where are all the monetarists who used to worry about the inflationary implications of massive increases in the money supply? Where are all the financial economists who used to thrust the efficient capital market hypothesis down the throats of Wall Street brokers? Where are all the law-and-economics scholars who used to boast of the efficiency of the common law? Where are all the New Classical rational expectations scholars who used to explain why systematic fiscal and monetary policies cannot influence macroeconomic activity? Where are all those Friedmanians who used to argue so effectively in support of capitalism and freedom?
Where? Where indeed?
Where have all the free market soldiers gone?
Why, they have run for cover, almost every one!
Their models have failed, their math is undone.
They need new statistics and that is no fun.
They dig into trenches to evade the socialist gun.
Their escape routes are cut off, nowhere else to run.
They hide in the darkness and avoid the free market sun.
Come out, come out, counter-attack and be done!
My review of <a href=”http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/the-plays-the-thing”>Brian Boyd’s <i>On the Origin of Stories</i></a> has just appeared in <i>American Scientist</i>. Though it contains no (overt) references to cap-popping, it does contain an illustration to which I was permitted to write the <a href=”http://www.americanscientist.org/include/popup_fullImage.aspx?key=+e/4LMzhrkg9AVXmk9Tdi91hjcJ9fmPNEfSh2GQCd/802vx+qyeI7rfVqwjbCbXOt9bgoWjmutE=”>caption</a>. (More specifically, I wrote the first sentence. The good people at <i>AS</i> enjoyed it but assured me that it would confuse everyone terribly, to which I replied, “cool.” But we compromised.)
‘Tis the season, so I have been finishing up a few projects. First, I made book on Squid and Owl. That’s right! it’s perfect for the person on your list who wants a copy of Squid and Owl! But here’s the thing. I haven’t actually seen it yet myself, so if that person on your list is you, you might want to hold off until I give a final quality check. Couple weeks. Otherwise, caveat emptor and your chestnuts roasting on an open fire.
In other news, my Haeckel X-Mas cards went over well last year – post got four whole comments! Lots of folks apparently hadn’t known about Haeckel’s early career, which just goes to show. This year I have done considerably more research – ‘delving’ is the word – and the results are … well, exciting – a bit forbidding; minatory, even. I was invited to publish a notice of my findings here, after being turned down by more ‘reputable’ scholarly outlets. (But I am not bitter.) I’ve assembled the documentary evidence that is the basis for my conclusions here. Judge for yourselves! A lot of people are courageous enough to ask whether Santa really exists, but how many people are willing to ask where he comes from?
I’m pushing hard now to finalise a draft of my book-in-progress,
It’s currently titled Zombie Economics:Undead Ideas that Threaten the World Economy. The title is pretty much locked in, but the subtitle is still open for change if anyone has any suggestions. You can read the first few chapters (not quite an up-to-date draft) at wikidot.
The chapter I’m working on now is Trickle-Down Economics, which seems a fairly soft target after the challenge of presenting a critique of the “micro foundations” approach to macroeconomics. But, there are still plenty of difficulties starting with the point that, of course, no-one espouses Trickle-Down Economics under that name. On the other hand, while the view that pro-rich policies will benefit everyone in the long run is widely held, I don’t know of a good general term that describes it.
Anyway here’s the opening section. As always, comments and criticism much appreciated.
Via