In my latest Loonie Politics column I ask why the legacy media are so reticent about covering suicide but so keen to report all the lurid details on (American) mass shootings
In my latest National Post column I say the vehemence of the reaction to Pierre Poilievre, like his own rhetoric, reflects not the vast policy and philosophical differences in Canadian politics but their pettiness.
“The most common doubt about economists stems from their apparent inability to agree, best captured by George Bernard Shaw’s line that ‘if all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion. But economists’ hard-core detractors recognize the superficiality of this complaint. They know that economists regularly see eye-to-eye with one another. A quip from Steven Kelman directly contradicts Shaw: ‘The near-unanimity of the answers economists give to public policy questions, highly controversial among the run of intelligent observers, but which share the characteristic of being able to be analyzed in terms of microeconomic theory, reminds one of the unanimity characterizing bodies such as the politburo of the Soviet Communist Party.’ It is not lack of consensus that incenses knowledgeable critics, but the way economists unite behind unpalatable conclusions, such as doubts about the benefits of regulation.”
Bryan Caplan, “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies,” Cato Policy Analysis #594 (May 29, 2007)
In my latest Epoch Times column I say people arguing over whether government in Canada is “broken” should devise a checklist of the attributes of a genuinely broken government and then see how many of them we’ve got.
In my latest Epoch Times column I repeat myself on purpose on the mindless decades-long repetition of obtuse calls to dump more money into our broken health care system instead of reforming it.
“Popular writing in this connexion is far below the zero of knowledge or common decency. On this plane, not only is any real knowledge of the Classical writers non-existent but, further, their place has been taken by a set of mythological figures, passing by the same names, but not infrequently invested with attitudes almost the exact reverse of those which the originals adopted. These dummies are very malignant creatures indeed. They are the tools or lacqueys of capitalist exploiters – I think that has the authentic stylistic flavour. They are indefatigable opponents of social reform. They can conceive no function for the state other than that of the night watchman.... Now, doubtless, the best remedy for this state of affairs would be that people should once more turn to the original texts. I hope that this... is what will happen in those universities which are once more insisting on some minimum knowledge of the history of economic thought. But, since life is short and the literature is extensive, there is perhaps something to be said for yet another attempt to get the wide field into something like a correct focus.”
Lionel Robbins The Theory of Economic Policy in English Classical Political Economy
In my latest Epoch Times column I note the tragicomic contrast between the cosmic aspirations and vaulting self-regard of our politicians and their incapacity to discharge even basic functions of government.
In my latest National Post column I say the Liberal ban on (some) single-use plastics is a classic illustration of policy made without any attention to incentives and consequences.