http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GL15Dj01.html

As contradictory as it may seem, fascist dictatorship was made possible because of the flawed notion of freedom which held sway during the era of laissez-faire capitalism in the early twentieth century. It was the liberals of that era that clamored for unfettered personal and economic freedom, no matter what the cost to society. Such untrammeled freedom is not suitable to civilized humans. It is the freedom of the jungle. In other words, the strong have more of it than the weak. It is a notion of freedom which is inherently violent, because it is enjoyed at the expense of others. Such a notion of freedom legitimizes each and every increase in the wealth and power of those who are already powerful, regardless of the misery that will be suffered by others as a result. The use of the state to limit such "freedom" was denounced by the laissez-faire liberals of the early twentieth century. The use of the state to protect such "freedom" was fascism. Just as monopoly is the ruin of the free market, fascism is the ultimate degradation of liberal capitalism.

Some friendly amendments from a Veblenian perspective.  

1. Veblen taught that the most interesting class distinction was not between rich and poor but between the Leisure and Industrial classes.  He spent his life trying to explain what that meant.

2. Veblen first learned economics from a professor at Carleton named John Bates Clarke.  Clarke was a plodding butt-kisser who spent his life trying to prove that theory of marginal utility could be applied to everything--not just how folks make purchase decisions.  Veblen thought this position was probably insane and wrote often to discredit it.  His 1909 essay on marginal utility in the Journal of Political Economy is a classic refutation of the utility fetishists--those super-dull "intellectual" children of the super-dull John Bates Clark.

3) Veblen wrote that the desire for status emulation was second only to the survival instinct in most folks--and sometime not even in second place.


"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

What astounds me is how potent the influence of this tacky nonsense about rational individual choice and maximum utility has been for two centuries now. Life is infinitely more complex. And less "free" (in the sense "liberty"). But there perhaps lies the appeal - simple faith de-stresses and fills with hope a situation that, for most people, would give rise to anxiety and depression if recognized for what it is.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/

The experiment mentioned above was discussed a couple of weeks ago, but I don't have the exact link.

He mostly finds interesting news or commentary items with an economic angle and excerpts them and sometimes frames them as well.

He seldom argues with those who comment, but the regulars manage to generate enough heat amongst themselves.

There are a few other economists who have also started blogs and they are now starting to quote one another, so his site will also lead you to others.

There are a few people from outside the US who contribute and I think if a few more participated it could only be a good thing.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

Two students pair up. The first one is given 10$. He has to give a number of dollars to the second student; if the second student accepts, they both keep what the first student allocated each of them; if the second student refuses, they get nothing.

Economic theory would suggest that as long as the second student gets one dollar, he is better off, and will accept any split. Practice, again, shows that students were willing to forego their dollars if they felt the split was too unfair.

Can't find the references right now, but it's quite famous.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

Might it just be that status is better at explaining social phenomena than utility.

A bus driver.

When this diary talks about social mobility, the underlying assumption is that people want to go up the social ladders, and not down. Of course going down is generally easier and with less blockades hence we don't talk about it too much.

Not being anymore in the Netherlands I didn't really experience the whole ruckus around the Dutch future-bus driver - but the fact that there was ruckus and I read about it made we wonder. What was so puzzling that someone wanted to become a bus driver? Clearly this guy's talent could be put to work on other places but perhaps he sees no difference in, say, becoming a politician or a bus driver. A politician is supposed to take responsibility of the people of its country; a bus driver takes responsibility of the people inside its bus. Difference in quantity - but different in utility? Both professions are responsible for people. I hope the guy just picked what he thinks makes him happy. Perhaps within 5 years time he's going bonkers behind the steering wheel, but that's then.

But this is how I'd like my society to be: no one should look up estranged that someone wants to climb down.