Posted by Bob Murphy on 06/01/09
Last updated 06/01/09

In a recent Forbes.com piece, Bruce Bartlett criticized libertarians for focusing too much on tax cuts and not enough on other areas of government overreach. But before you C4L folk nod your heads in agreement, get this... Of all the self-described libertarians who ignore "Big Government" in the guise of the Drug War or foreign adventures, Bartlett singled out you folks as a great example of the hypocrisy he was talking about!

After linking to this C4L "talking points" memo [.pdf] for people calling in to talk radio, Bartlett says:

An example of this type of libertarian thinking can be found on the Web site of a group called the Campaign for Liberty. It pays lip service to the libertarian philosophy on foreign and social policy, but says little about them. The discussion of economic policy, however, is much greater. But its only major proposal is abolition of the income tax. No ideas on how government spending would be cut to make this possible are put forward except to eliminate the congressional pay raise. Perhaps this group really believes that will be enough to abolish the income tax, but I suspect not. Whoever wrote these talking points is simply pandering to the stupid, the ignorant and the unsophisticated.

Needless to say, if you go and read the "talking points" [.pdf], you'll see that they are incredibly principled as far as these things go, and that the writer(s) spent a large fraction of the 3 pages to issues other than mere tax cuts. Moreover, they listed plenty of ways to save money besides congressional pay.

I am still stunned that Bartlett chose to single out the C4L as the poster child of libertarian hypocrisy when it comes to ranting about Big Government. Now the C4L is accused of simultaneously (a) being too "extreme" and "idealistic" when it comes to its recommendations for the Drug War or the War on Terror, and (b) being too wimpy on ways to cut government spending outside of congressional pay hikes.

For those interested, my initial reaction to Bartlett's hit piece is here.

Posted 06/01/09 rightsman Las Vegas,, NV

Bob Murphy, Mr. Bartlett has the unalienable right to be ignorant and to prove his ignorance by his drivel. And I will fight to the extend of one bruised knuckle to protect his divine right to continue to be an ignoramus. Thank you, Robert Walker

Posted 06/01/09 Andrew Sica Woodbury, CT

Mr. Bartlett's piece is an example of what passes for journalism and opinion now from major media sources: Just do zero investigation, have all the facts wrong and Forbes, Time, etc. will publish the crap you write! Yet another reason why the printed media is going the way of the dinosaur! Not only does he not understand the Campaign for Liberty, but he clearly doesn't understand libertarianism. You wanna know why this country is really messed up now???? Here is another line from the end of the article: "Bruce Bartlett is a former Treasury Department economist"

Posted 06/01/09 JFeldman Kearney, NE

Bruce Bartlett said that? Wait, who is Bruce Bartlett and why do I care? At least we are doing something, instead of sitting around criticizing others while doing nothing. Sounds like the first of a series of hit pieces that we will see coming from the "right" as we grow in influence. If Bruce Bartlett is so concerned about it, he is welcome to join and help lead us those other areas to help sastisfy his own vision of what should be done, but my guess is that he isn't intrested in DOING anything, just whining.

Posted 06/01/09 Sproge Brick, NJ

Hahaha this is funny!!! Gonna need pounds of salt for this one!!!

Posted 06/01/09 ConservativeSouthern Nokesville, VA

The guy doesn't even know the difference between "Libertarians" and "Constitutionalist".

Posted 06/01/09 MichaelBarry Sebring, FL

Who is Bruce Bartlett? It would be better for him to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Posted 06/01/09 VictimOfFeds San Clemente, CA

Ron Paul has made it quite clear on how we could save $1 trillion per year by ending our interventionist foreign policy. Going down the line of Departments and ending each one of those would save plenty as well. How does Bruce Bartlett not understand this?

Posted 06/01/09 soule hoboken, NJ

Brucelette who? Bob, you did a great job debuking this hit piece on C4L. This is just one of the many signs that tells us, the C4L is going in the right direction, teaching and informing people around the country regarding the US constitution, the monetary policy, the US foreign policy, Freedom and liberty. They will keep attacking this movement with lies and facts spinning, they are good at that, actually, that's all those "MSM Jornalists" are good at. Keep them in check and exposed for what they are, a fraud and disgrace for journalism.

Posted 06/01/09 soule hoboken, NJ

Brucelette who? Bob, you did a great job debuking this hit piece on C4L. This is just one of the many signs that tells us, the C4L is going in the right direction, teaching and informing people around the country regarding the US constitution, the monetary policy, the US foreign policy, Freedom and liberty. They will keep attacking this movement with lies and facts spinning, they are good at that, actually, that's all those "MSM Jornalists" are good at. Keep them in check and exposed for what they are, a fraud and disgrace for journalism.

Posted 06/01/09 HazBalls4RP Champaign, IL

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi Phase two has begun, comrades.

Posted by Bob Murphy on 05/14/09

Amongst the other things brewing in DC (such as health care and financial sector "reforms"), there is going to be a big push for legislation to combat climate change. For those interested in this topic, here is a very detailed post by climate scientist Chip Knappenberger explaining that the standard policy model shows the Waxman-Markey cap & trade bill--even if flawlessly implemented in its original draft--would avert 9/100ths of a degree (F) in global warming by the year 2050.

Also, here is a 6-minute YouTube clip where I give the big picture explanation of why a "green recovery" is absurd: you can argue that "green" subsidies and mandates are necessary to save the planet, but don't argue that they will simultaneously pull us out of recession. That's just crazy.

Posted 05/15/09 Sproge Brick, NJ

There's a GREAT documentary about the hoax of man-made global warming, I reccomend to anyone who hasn't seen it yet: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870

Posted 05/15/09 in omnibus libertas PITTSBURGH, PA

Also note that the RealClimate folks wrote a response to Chip Knappenberger's article, to which Chip responded: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/the-tragedy- of-climate-commons/ And, in fairness, I think the RealClimate folks have a point: even if the effect of Waxman-Markey bill is negligible, if the United States is unwilling to sacrifice, we cannot realistically expect the rest of the world (including developing countries that are emitting the lion's share of CO2) to do so. The idea of "green recovery", though, is propounded only by those who are clueless about economics. It will take a long time to reach the point where green energy (in which I include carbon sequestration and nuclear fission) is as cost-effective as using fossil fuels outright. Subsidies only disguise the loss of wealth that obtaining energy in less efficient ways must entail; they do not mitigate it.

Posted 05/15/09 Nagelbett New Bedford, MA

This is a fantastic speech given at the Utah Valley University http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/14/now-thats-a-commencement-spe ech/

Posted 05/15/09 redshirt Philadelphia, PA

FYI, generation of electricity via combustion of biomass with cogeneration of syngas and marketable byproducts is as cost effective as natural gas, right now. I've read as low as 4 cents per kWh for production. With retail prices at near 10 cents it could easily be a few cents more at production and still be worth the investment. I believe that recent reports show solar plants will be competitive with coal in the next couple of years as well. So, I'd be careful about assuming green technology will be stymied for so long that it won't contribute meaningfully to an economic turn around. Technology refinements can make something suddenly economically feasible. Meanwhile, large manufacturers of energy may be so laden with their existing infrastructure and relationships that they may not be able to shift gears. Producing more of our energy here would ultimately reduce trade imbalances. Assuming in the long run, a greater demand for energy, and reduced dependence on foreign sources, this should mean net job creation. But, given good margins, there would be no good reason for government to be involved. As pointed out in the video, if the money is there, there is simply no point in the government being involved. If on the other hand, the technology is in fact less efficient, all the government can do is raise costs, which destroys jobs elsewhere. And since it is government money with the added inefficiencies, it would destroy more jobs than it creates.

Posted 05/18/09 jtfische w, MO

Most people are completely clueless about climate change. Including scientists. The truth is no one really knows exactly whats going on.

Posted by Bob Murphy on 04/20/09

Please forgive the self-promotion, but today is the official launch of my new book.  I tried to boil down all the essentials for (a) what caused the Depression, (b) why Hoover and FDR made it worse, and (c) why World War II was no "cure."  I have a longer infomercial at LRC if you want to take a look.

In all seriousness, the Treasury and Federal Reserve are doing the exact same things today that they did back in the 1930s.  So it's no wonder that the "credit markets are frozen" and unemployment rates are rising.

Oh, one last plug:  On the front cover Ron Paul says, "Read this book and understand why massively increasing government is not change we can believe in."

Posted 04/20/09 BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA

This will be a good book since Robert Murphy is a meticulous writer and a scholar. I am also excited about the upcoming book by Ron Paul titled "END THE FED."

Posted 04/20/09 Nebelwerfer Overland Park, KS

I plan on picking this up as soon as possible and reading it after I finish "The Creature from Jekyll Island." Robert Murphy is great. Should be an excellent read.

Posted 04/20/09 jlick Taipei, Taiwan

I hope you will publish this as an eBook as it looks very interesting.

Posted 04/21/09 vshagoyan glendale , CA

I will be buying this book tomorrow. I wish you great success with it Dr Murphy. Robert Wenzel of economicpolicyjournal.com had a great intro to it. I've read Rothbard's "America's Great Depression," so I know what to expect, but it's been sometime, so why not polish up my knowledge of it once more.

Posted by Bob Murphy on 02/10/09
Last updated 02/10/09

...would be just as correct, but it would sound more respectable I guess. I realize I shouldn't be pouting, but it's frustrating that I went through grad school with people rolling their eyes about the "obsolete" stuff by Mises and Hayek that I "wasted" my time on, as opposed to all the cutting-edge economic models.

And yet, the longer this financial crisis continues, the more economists and financial analysts are coming around to what is quite clearly an Austrian diagnosis of the problem.

For example, Arnold Kling discusses James Hamilton's work involving "technological frictions," but these are simply the "capital heterogeneity" stressed by the Austrians since the 1920s. In other words, Austrian economists like Roger Garrison have been chastising the mainstream economists for collapsing the entire interlocking capital structure into a single variable "K" in their models, and now Hamilton and others are rediscovering that you can't turn a McMansion into a drill press.

Now in fairness, Hamilton might respond that he disagrees with the Austrian explanation of how we got stuck in this improperly balanced capital structure in the first place. But the same cannot be said for John Taylor, whose op ed in yesterday's WSJ quite clearly lays much of the blame for the housing boom on the easy-money policies of the Fed.

Like I said in the beginning, I know that the important thing is that our ideas are finally getting some traction. It's better that people relabel the Austrian critiques of the Fed and "stimulus" package, if that makes it easier for the major media to trumpet the ideas, rather than those critiques being confined to the pages of Mises.org.

And yet, it's still amusing to see very sharp mainstream economists "discover" things that the Austrians literally discussed back in the 1920s, all the while you have lots of critics (not necessarily Taylor and Hamilton) mocking modern-day Austrians for living in the past.

Posted 02/10/09 AuthenticAuthor Canutillo, TX

Well that's the nature of entrepreneurs in any field, isn't it? If you want to make a profit in a business (say Economic research) why not repackage something old and claim it's brand new and different from your competitor's?

Posted 02/10/09 Justin DeWind Grand Rapids, MI

Pseudo-Intellectuals love complex models over common sense and simplicity. What is interesting is that taking that small step from pseudo-intellectual to real intelligence is understanding and respecting simplicity.

Posted 02/10/09 jrupchurch Monument, CO

It is also part of saving face. What would amount to career suicide in admitting their ignorance or, perhaps worse, mistakes, can be turned into success by (re)discovery by simply ignoring the fact that the knowledge was always there to begin with. j

Posted by Bob Murphy on 01/20/09
Last updated 01/20/09

Readers at this blog know that the Fed poses a huge danger to our economy. Bernanke assures us that he will suck those hundreds of billions in excess reserves out of the system in time to prevent large price inflation, but I will be very surprised if he can pull off the trick. Yet another very real threat to the economy comes in the guise of environmental protection. I hope that Obama's political sensibilities will kick in, and he won't impose a cap & trade regime on the U.S. while it's in the middle of a severe recession. However, a lot of analysts think that Obama--who has backed off many of his "radical" views on other issues--will toss a fig leaf to the Left through his energy/environment agenda.

We'll have to see how it plays out, but the fact that he picked a socialist to oversee this area does not reassure me. (I'm not making that up.) In the meantime, for those who are interested in energy and climate change issues, I point you to a new blog, Master Resource, where true experts post on these matters.

Posted 01/20/09 Fu Manchu Belleville, MI

All I can say is, hold on tight, we're in for a bumpy ride.

Posted 01/20/09 manding Los Gatos, CA

Let's hope the Fed can stay on top of this put I'm not hopeful. Just today the WSJ quotes South Korean biggest money manager than they are starting to sell U.S. Treasuries. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123237117098594719.html?mod=dist_sm artbrief That can't help with keeping interests rates down as we try to finance all this new debt we want to sell. And today we have an "expert" at Goldman Sachs saying that we can't lower Treasury interest rates so we need to get inflation up to 6% or more to simulate a negative 6% interest rate. We need negative interest to get us spending again. http://www.businessweek.com/ read "Rates: When Zero is Too High" If both are "correct" we will need to raise interest rates to sell debt and increase inflation way above 6% to get back to that negative effective interest rate. It's wierd Together they stories are forecasting something approaching hyperinflation like it was the plan.

Posted 01/20/09 eric g Fraser, CO

How twisted it is that no matter what we (regular folks) do, if we try to save a buck or two we can't get ahead. If we buy a CD, we get a lousy interest rate that doesn't even beat the (actual, not made up) inflation rate. If we buy a stock, we take on incredible risk. So we have to ride bubbles and worry about getting out too late. Now, when the banks could use our help, today's best rate at Wells Fargo is 1.35% 12 month, with a minimum of $100,000. Nice deal, for the bank. Of course, if you don't want to tie up your money for such a "long time" you can open a "Preferred Rate" savings account that will pay 0.85% for that same $100,000. It is interesting to note that the minimum for opening a preferred rate account is $10,000. WFC closed down 23% today.

Posted 11/02/09 cdrates Brookline, MA

I mean, I think competition is what is keeping rates where they are. Banks are only offering what they think they can make a profit off of. You can't really expect them to offer rates they think they'll lose money on. You can't stay in business long with that sort of model.