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."
All it takes is one mad (evil or crazy) scientist to destroy the human race, according to Michio Kaku. So does government have a role in ensuring these technologies are not used for nefarious -- even catastrophic ends?
Okay, now that you've watched this video, ask yourself: what if you apply the economic way of thinking to political action? In other words, even though we don't need politicians to get the "good orders" we see around us, we nevertheless have to live with these characters. So what do actions, interactions and consequences have to do with the results we see in the public sphere (that we're so often troubled by)?
Immigration is a tough issue. Ben Powell makes a strong economic case for open immigration here. After all, labor is a market. And the market mechanism has a way of reallocating labor in ways that is beneficial for everyone.
Yet we know that there are generous welfare programs in many states that mean immigants can come illegally and gain access to costly social services. If a robust welfare state is available to all comers, this is -- of course -- unsustainable (as it has been in Europe). This was essentially Milton Friedman's more pragmatic position. And he has a point. That is, he was for open immigration as long as the welfare state could be dismantled. And of course it isn't.
So how might we cut this immigration Gordian Knot?
The U.S. healthcare system is not a free market. Not even close. There are five major things wrong with the system that make it less free and, therefore, more expensive -- both in terms of insurance and in terms of care. Most are mentioned in this video. But here's my list:
The above video has officially gone viral. For those in the business of producing free market media, we need to speculate as to why. We should also ask whether this is an echo-chamber piece or might actually be affecting the way some people think. Below is my assessment, for what it's worth. But before giving it, understand that 'video killed the think-tank star' -- in a manner of speaking. Let's discuss the communications strategy.
Charles Murray is a really interesting fellow. Normally I don't post thirty minute videos. I think our Ideas Matter readers generally want quick contact. Few of us have thirty minutes to spare. But occasionally we have those videos that get to some of the deepest issues of our time. And they require more. I hope you get a lot out of this Reason interview with Murray (the excellent Ron Bailey is the interviewer).
And if you enjoy the video I hope you'll enjoy my own 2006 interview with Murray below the fold:
Are we going to run out of food, resources and green space? Does trade make one party worse off? Is inequality the root of the world's problems? Is the world going to overheat and cause catastrophe?
Matt Ridley answers these questions and more in the best writing on the relationship between resources, markets and well-being since Julian Simon. What's superb about Ridley's work is that he not only slays the doommongers with flair, but he explains the beautiful processes set in motion by people serving each other creatively.
Antony Davies is on a roll. Last week we found him clearing up misconceptions about the minimum wage. This week he explains why higher taxes won't balance the budget. So if higher taxes won't balance the budget -- what will?