公告板

Hayek on Cantillon Effect

F. A. Hayek: The effect we are discussing is rather similar to that which appears when we pour a viscous liquid, such as honey, into a vessel. There will, of course, be a tendency for it to spread to an even surface. But if the stream hits the surface at one point, a little mound will form there from which the additional matter will slowly spread outward. Even after we have stopped pouring in more, it will take some time until the even surface will be fully restored. See here.

Huang: The China Growth Fantasy

Yasheng Huang on WSJ: China is one of the few countries in the world endowed with the land mass, the energetic and talented population, and the entrepreneurship to become a true global economic powerhouse. But that potential has been squandered by a misguided development strategy that privileges production at the expense of consumption and uses political power to suppress costs rather than relying on market mechanisms to boost income. In the midst of a global recession, China, along with its 1.3 billion people, is paying a dear price for that mistake now. See here.

周飙：“麦道夫案”并非系统性风险

周飙：麦道夫的骗局并非复杂难辨，其疑点突出而明显，有关分析和质疑并非案发后才出现，十几年来一直不断有人提出；特别是所宣称的稳健策略和几乎恒定的高收益之间的矛盾，以及定期清仓的诡异做法，是一望便知的马脚。个人投资者或许甘愿冒风险而接受纯暗箱操作，或者听信麦道夫有内幕消息的传闻，或者指望骗局崩盘之前自己已赚够了分红，这还可以理解；但对于服务于投资者的机构人员，抱此类幻想便是极其荒谬而不可原谅的，他们应被列入黑名单（详见这里）。

Donald Boudreaux: “I, Pencil” Turns 50

Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek: This month marks the 50th anniversary of one of the most insightful economics essays ever penned — “I, Pencil.”  It wasn’t written by a professional economist; it was written by Leonard E. Read, founder and long-time president of the Foundation for Economic Education. Although Read was no professional economist, his understanding of the way market economies work, and his ability to explain that logic in clear and compelling terms, far surpasses that of all but a tiny handful of PhD-sporting economists.

Arthur Laffer on Energy Independence

Arthur B. Laffer on WSJ: The only real solution is Al Gore’s proposal to offset a carbon tax dollar-for-dollar with either an income or payroll tax reduction. If a carbon tax increase were offset dollar-for-dollar with an income tax rate cut, I for one would strongly support the policy. The economy would benefit because the progressive income tax does far more damage than a carbon tax would, and we’d use less oil. It’s a win-win situation. Yet this perspective appears to be totally outside the Obama team’s ken. Read the whole thing here.