For those who are amateur "skeptics" on global warming* like me, guys like Richard Lindzen are heros. Yeah they might be off a little bit, and maybe they overgeneralize, but we think they're basically right and the rest of their field are not nearly as bold.
It occurred to me that perhaps George Reisman plays that role for the economics profession, including Austrian economists. Reisman offers some very bold arguments in his treatise Capitalism. For example, he argues that the notion of "opportunity cost" is a mirage. Really, some radical stuff in terms of economic theory.
Yet nobody has adequately dealt with his critiques. I think he's wrong, but I'm not very confident in my conclusion--do you want to blow off a guy who controls the website Capitalism.net ?? At the very least, we should publish why he is wrong.
(This is a self-congratulatory post, since I am currently working on a 3-year-old article that I had started as a college professor and then life happened.)
* Yes I know the preferred nomenclature is anthropogenic climate change. Now do ya love me?
"If your approach to mathematics is mechanical not mystical, you're not going to go anywhere." -- Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Declares LewRockwell.com : "All of this means that while the government has been artificially propping up the economy and 'stimu...
Is shaping up nicely .
The language won't die, but that doesn't mean the programmers won't ! Funny quote: '"Just because a language is 50...