Who Were the Sea Peoples?

Inasmuch as I have publicly predicted that the trade deficits (and relations with China in general) are no big deal, I should probably comment on yesterday's large movements. Contrary to what my critics (who roost around the mises.org blog) may think, what happened yesterday has little relevance to my ongoing critique of people like Paul Craig Roberts and Peter Schiff. In particular, each of my 3 predictions (no recession in '07, oil under $50 by Christmas, and dollar stronger against euro by year's end) could still come true. But there's more than that. What exactly happened yesterday? Well, the conventional story (and I have no reason to doubt it) says that the Chinese stock market tanked because on Sunday, the Chinese gov't said it would crack down on stock "speculation" and might impose capital gains taxes on their unconscionable profits. So is this cause-and-effect--namely, gov't threatens to tax and regulate, and this lowers asset values--due...

That's right kids, for those of you who just shelled out $6 (+$2 s&h), if only you'd waited... The critically acclaimed Chaos Theory is now available online . Now just how would Gene and Wabulon have repelled a Panzer division armed only with their sarcasm and liquor breath? Find out this and so much more!

According to Dr. Charles Steele --a man filling some big shoes at Hillsdale College--my pamphlet Chaos Theory is " the worst discussion I’ve ever read of how an anarcho-capitalist society could function." (I'm just going to hope he's never hung out at anti-state.com.) I used to wonder why no one (save Rob at strike-the-root and my former student, Gennady , at his Rational Argumentator site) had reviewed my book, but I guess this proves the adage about getting what you wished for... The present blog post is hardly going to be an official rejoinder (or reply or riposte or reaction or regurgitation or whatever the appropriate noun is). Even so, a few comments: * I totally concede that I was wrong to motivate the private law discussion with contracts. I still endorse 99% of my discussion, but now I realize that a much more fundamental starting point is the idea of people bringing their disputes to a third par...

A few days ago my wife and I went to see Billy Joel. He was GREAT. I've always been a fan, but even putting that aside, he put on a terrific show. His song arrangement was perfect, starting with ones like Allentown, building up into bigger hits, then getting the crowd on their feet with River of Dreams (or whatever the title of that song is), then doing all rock (for Billy Joel) songs like Big Shot, and finally doing encore performance of Scenes from an Italian Restaurant and then, of course, Piano Man. He's a cool guy, too. Lot of self-deprecating jokes in the beginning (e.g. referring to his age: "It's not about having less hair, it's about getting more head"), shaking his head wryly at the Vanderbilt students in the front row cheering when he'd announce a song from a 1971 album, and all kinds of energy. His voice is still great in the lower ranges. I.e. he didn't try to hit the very highest notes of the songs he picked, and he avoided impossib...

Our son is addicted to the movie Cars (it's good, btw), and now the song "Life Is a Highway" is stuck in my head. I realize the churlishness of analyzing a pop song's lyrics, but even so: Life is a highway / I want to ride it all - night - long. Okay, so does that mean the singer wishes to die by daybreak? "No!" you say. "What he means is, he wants to take life by the horns, to live on the edge, to rush at life with enthusiasm etc." Well OK, if the way one drives on the "highway" represents one's approach to life, then isn't the philosophy suggested extremely bad? Isn't that what every wise person warns against, namely rushing through life without taking time to (in the analogy) get off frequently and explore the various towns along the way?

I was listening to CBS News Radio in the car today, and the announcer said, "Coming up: Some very disturbing news about Iran's Nuclear plans." (I quote from memory.) When the story arrived, it turned out that the "very disturbing news" was that the UN had confirmed George Bush's contention that Iran is continuing its uranium enrichment program. What disturbed me is that: 1) Per IAEA rules, Iran is allowed to have a uranium enrichment program; and 2) Iran publicly has stated that it would not stop its uranium enrichment program. So why does CBS deem it "very disturbing" that Iran is going ahead, as it said it would, with a program permitted by the international treaties it has signed? Is it because it is in the interest of the current administration to portray it as disturbing?

Today, coming down the FDR to the Brooklyn Bridge, I noticed I was getting on the "Ari Halberstram Memorial Ramp." Ramp? They honored the guy by naming an on ramp after him? I want one of the little, dashed white lines in between lanes named after me when I'm gone.