Why are people still drawn to Marxism? Did you know it's still hot among the professoriate? I know, I know. Thoroughly discredited. But they eat that stuff up in the ivory tower. Brad Thompson's thesis is essentially that Marx was a great sloganeer. And he was. (I'd also argue that people have inherent dispositions to socialism.) My friend Michael Strong argues quite powerfully that -- due to academia's continuing fixation with Marx -- higher ed may be the "world's leading social problem."
When the original 1980 Free To Choose was aired, inflation was starting to make life tough in the U.S. We were in the waning days of the Carter era. And the economy wasn't looking so good. It's interesting that Friedman was able to augur a long era of relatively low inflation in the U.S.
That said, a lot of people are under the impression that Friedman was perfectly happy with the Federal Reserve System we have today. But it's better to say that Milton was a pragmatist on such matters. As with many other issues, Friedman understood that well entrenched systems don't just get trashed with a penstroke. One might say Friedman was an early, pragmatic inflation Hawk.
The international banking system is set up to benefit private interests, but when those interests fail, they socialize the losses in the form of bailouts -- bankrolled, as it were, by taxpayers. The Europeans are getting hosed right now. (Watch the Irish reporter in the video above.)
Because these private interests are so big and so powerful, they can always argue that their failure will cause economic catastrophe. But the socialization of losses will eventually cause catastrophe, too. In fact, we're now seeing Europe -- starting with Greece -- teeter at the precipice. So where does that leave us?
Noam Chomsky embodies the problem with progressivism: He confuses the symptoms of state power with the disease. Government power is the problem, after all, because there is no such thing as corporate power without state power. Without the state's favor, you have to be responsible to an army of customers. With a large, powerful state, it's always possible to buy favors. That's a tough thing to swallow if you're worldview is pegged to loathing corporations. But Chomsky has built his own intellectual empire on a notion that gets the causal story precisely backwards.
This parent's quote sums it up: "I saw the light in his eyes dimming. His flame was extinguishing." This animated video in support of Montessori education is also a powerful critique of public education.
Now that I have my own child, I'm starting to look more carefully at education. I am a customer. And despite my family's own rather meager income I can see that that the most costly form of education is that which is offered for "free." That's also why I believe there is currently an educational revolution in the making.
John Hood is being charitable here, but he's dead on. The Occupy Wall Street movement was orchestrated by professional protesters that have been active since the anti-globalization movement of the 90s. Where I think Hood might be pulling punches is on the composition of the movement. Who are they predominantly?
James Delingpole is the man the climate-industrial complex loves to hate. I ran into him at a conference in Dallas. He gave me a galley copy of his book Watermelons. I read it from cover to cover and enjoyed every minute of it. Delingpole has put together a damning case against the green movement.
What is the next infrastructure project? Adding a runway at a regional airport that doesn't need to be added? Another "Big Dig" like the one in Boston? Bridges to nowhere? A build-it-they'll-come airport in Eastern North Carolina?
I came across this great little presentation on Google+ The speaker, Lanny Goodman, discusses the basic idea of self-management, which has become more than a trend due to some proven successes.
But editor, you may be wondering, why do you sometimes put up these videos on organization theory?
Sam Harris has upset a lot of classical liberals with this post on wealth redistribution. I won't critique it here, because other people have done such a good job. Why would Harris wade into this debate? Perhaps fame has helped Harris feel qualified to talk about everything under the sun. He's become one of the big evangelists for atheism, you know. And while I'm not particularly religious myself, I generally find his critiques of religion to be a couple of centuries behind the times.
