A passing reference (but a fittingly complimentary one) to Mises in The Economist’s Lexington column this week.
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/18153/the-economist-magazine-ludwig-von-mises-a-towering-economist-of-the-austrian-school/
The Economist magazine: “Ludwig von Mises, a towering economist of the Austrian School”
Previous post: It’s 2009 all over again
Next post: Mises on the Business Cycle, 1931
{ 8 comments }
Hey, where did the previous blog post disappeared? Would be good to know why it is gone (I can think of many good reasons and many bad reasons, but without explanation bad reasons tend to dominate in speculations because I don’t take good intentions for granted).
For legal reasons, as a non-profit organization, the Mises Institute cannot be perceived as speaking out for or against a political campaign.
Good reason, thank you!
Ugh, probably worth the rule but annoying nevertheless
This is just another example of how our statist system uses a nominally neutral policy (income taxation) to favor some views and oppose others. There must be hundreds of statist (left and right) organizations advocating pro-state policies of all kinds freely using the 501c(3) tax-exempt status, without any need to name particular political candidates, since all mainstream candidates are statist. But I am certain that Danny is correct that if the Mises Institute stepped over the line into advocating particular political candidates that support a libertarian viewpoint, they would be in danger of losing their tax-exempt status. Note that lewrockwell.com took the step of converting away from this status so that they could continue to advocate for a political candidate.
AIPAC is a non-profit.
It’s not even registered as a lobbying group (totally unlawfully) as far as I can remember. They have no employees.
Yup, life is a Monty Python skit.
The hypocrisy of many conservative republicans is fair game, and often welcome. But smarmy fussbudgets on the left are just as revolting.
From the Economist article itself, “She continues to maintain, preposterously, that Standard & Poor’s downgraded America’s credit because Congress raised the debt ceiling. The opposite is true: the agency wanted more deficit reduction but expressed alarm at the spectacle of politicians like Mrs. Bachmann turning the debt ceiling into a political bargaining chip…”
And so we have Lexington’s preposterous counterclaim. Sophistry with unsettling condescension. The political wrangling was one of several reasons; debt management was implicated as well. But moreover, equating deficit reduction as an “opposite” of debt ceiling expansion is maddening, a non sequitur.
More troubling are poorly woven threads like, “God-fearing cornfields of Iowa…”
Now I can’t say if there is a God, nor can I guess at God’s nature, but my own gardens don’t seem to fear God. My tomatoes will need to have a discussion with the stalks of America’s heartland.
The implicit bigotry of Lexington is as clumsy as it is transparent.
Anyway, I agree that the Mises-ean reference is needed publicity. But brand recognition next to the likes of the conservative right is equally problematic.
Good post
I’m thankful when the media pays some attention, but one really should have standards
Comments on this entry are closed.