Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Blogosphere?

In this blog post, one Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute claims that Ludwig von Mises's case against "free love" is "implicitly" a case against birth control. Because Mises was enough of a traditionalist to be against things like multiple partners at once with no need for commitment, open marriage, and so on (things that were part of the "free love" package), he must, simply must, have had the exact same position on birth control as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to Mike that the vast majority of Americans are:
1) Not advocates of "free love"; and
2) Not opposed to the use of birth control.

Nor does Mike seem to have heard of this new tool called Google, with which one can actually find out what Mises thought about birth control, rather than just giving it your best guess. If he had tried this Google thingie, he might have discovered that Mises was a birth control enthusiast:

"It is not the practice of birth control that is new, but merely the fact that it is more frequently resorted to. Especially new is the fact that the practice is no longer limited to the upper strata of the population, but is common to the whole population. For it is one of the most important social effects of capitalism that it deproletarianizes all strata of society. It raises the standard of living of the masses of the manual workers to such a height that they too turn into 'bourgeois' and think and act like well-to-do burghers. Eager to preserve their standard of living for themselves and for their children, they embark upon birth control. With the spread and progress of capitalism, birth control becomes a universal practice. The transition to capitalism is thus accompanied by two phenomena: a decline both in fertility rates and in mortality rates. The average duration of life is prolonged." -- Human Action

My point here is not to defend any particular view of birth control or free love. No, it is to note, once again, how the desire to bash one's political opponents tends to throw even minimal standards of truth-seeking right out the window. It would have taken Mike about two or three minutes to find out what Mises really thought about birth control... but why bother, when he thought he had a juicy quote with which he could order libertarians to "man up"? And Brad DeLong, without bothering to check this himself, enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon.

Brad, why oh why can't we have a better blogosphere?

A Problem in Probablistic Combinations

Given that there are 100 lockers in the YMCA locker room, and it is just before closing, so that only you and one other fellow are left in the room, what is the probability the your two lockers will be immediately adjacent to each other?

Answer below the fold.

Another Famous Member of the Paul Family Chastises Me

"Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." -- St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 9

Perhaps I am the anti-Paul here: when at a libertarian blog, I become like a statist. When at a traditional Catholic blog, I become like a Protestant. When at a liberal blog, I become like a traditionalist.

Perhaps there was a reason I heard this epistle last week? Nah, couldn't be!

Alerting Bob Murphy: Krugman Is on Our Side

At least on this issue.: a reduction in the price of (certain) assets is not the destruction of wealth, and does not reduce output capacity.

This was first noted explicitly (to my limited knowledge) by the late, great Fritz Machlup. Machlup wrote:

"While it is perfectly clear that an individual capitalist or speculator may make losses on the stock exchange, it is very doubtful whether 'society' can make such losses."

Just so: if stocks decline, what has occurred is that certain people (the owners of stocks) have become poorer, and other people (for instance, those holding cash but interested in buying stocks) are now wealthier, because their cash can now buy more in the way of stocks. Bob and I, blissfully unaware of having been anticipated in our "breakthrough" by several decades, basically repeated Machlup. (I still think we wrote a fine article, just not one as original as I thought it was when we wrote it!)

And now Krugman points out the same thing. The idea that a decline in stock prices (or housing prices, etc.) is a "destruction of wealth" for the economy as a whole is special pleading for the owners of that asset. It is a fallacy to which "right-wing" economists who are torch-bearers for the stock-investor class are especially prey.

Is This a Parody to Show How Dumb the Whole "Meme" Business Is?

John Stossel says that ideas have sex. My questions are legion.

When the idea that, when tied, one should hold the ball for the last shot in hoops, mates with the idea that the number of primes is infinite, what does their offspring look like?

If two ideas of the same sex have been steadily mating for many years, should we allow them to be married?

Is it moral for ideas to have anal sex?

And, most of all: The concept of a gene is useful in biology because it represents a unit of inheritance, and based upon the genes present in the two parents, we can make very good probabilistic predictions about various traits of their offspring.

But, besides just making up a cute name that sounds kind of like "gene," what is the identifiable unit of inheritance in ideas? How do we detect what "memes" are present in various ideas? What mathematical formulas have been developed for predicting which "memes" will appear in the "offspring" of two ideas?

Wait: You say the answers are "there isn't one," "we don't," and "none"?! So this is just the new phrenology?

Things That Just Ain't So

"People only pay their taxes at the point of a gun." -- Libertarianism 101

"Personally, I don’t mind paying taxes that support the public schools, because I see them as a public good, even though my family chooses not to use them." -- Rod Dreher

An Idea So Silly

that the dude should have dropped it as soon as he put away the bong. My favorite bit: it is "jaw-droppingly easy" to create whatever spurious correlations you want, once you set your mind to it. ("Speakers who have the sound 'f' in their language are more likely to open delis.")

That Fascinating Paul Family

NBA all star, US Senator, presidential candidate, Super Bowl winner, transvestite: Is there anything this family cannot achieve?

Waiting for Godot?

The crime that is sure to happen here soon? The upcoming bondage party?

In any case, these cuffs have been attached to this fence for over a week:

That's a Shutout, Folks

The Obama administration loses 9-0 at the Supreme Court, which acts to prevent a major violation of religious freedom. Signs say the contraception assault on the Catholic Church will be struck down as well if it gets to SCOTUS.

This Raises the Question of Begging the Question

I like the answer as to how to use the phrase "beg the question," given in point number four: don't. You lose whether you use it in the traditional or the newly popular meaning. And there are better phrases to choose for either meaning.

My New Coffeepot

My wife bought this fancy pants, hi-tech sleek black and chrome thing. This morning it beeped. Went I went down to check it, the display read,

"Coffee is ready. That new brand you got: meh.

"But what do you think about that Santorum sweep in the Midwest? Game changer, huh?

"By the way, the fridge says the blue cheese ain't doin' so well. Just sayin'."