From The Journal of Private Enterprise, an extract from the paper “Homer Economicus: Using The Simpsons to Teach Economics.” Bureaucrats and bureaucracy As Gwartney, Stroup, Sobel and Macpherson (2003, 135) state, “Economic analysis suggests a strong tendency for bureaucrats and public-sector employees to favor expanding their budgets beyond what would be considered economically efficient.” The [...]

Some of you have no doubt seen the “Fear the Boom and Bust” video featuring the rap stylings of economists John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich von Hayek, two economists with diametrically opposed viewpoints. To put the dispute in its most simplistic terms, Keynes thought government intervention was the only way out of economic downturns, and Hayek…not so much. (Think Paul Krugman vs. Ron Paul to get a picture of two contemporary acolytes of these schools of thought.)

In Wikipedia’s entry on Keynes, the section “Economics: out of favour 1979–2007” is followed by Economics: the Keynesian resurgence of 2008–2009.

Ever hear “Intelligence Squared“? Rethink your point of view with Intelligence Squared U.S., a live debate series in New York City. Intelligence Squared U.S. is a public charity supported by individuals and foundations who share our mission of raising the level of public discourse on the most critical issues of the day. Launched in 2006, [...]

From a recent post titled “What Are These Three Numbers” on the economics blog Econbrowser comes this chart:

These numbers, represented in billions of 2010 dollars, were taken from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

This post on the concept of extended warranties from late last year on the blog Economists Do It With Models includes this quote from the book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein: …the extended warranty is a product that simply should not exist. If Humans realized that [...]

Yesterday, we told you about Ecocomics, a site devoted to examining economic principles represented in the storylines of comic books. Today here is a post from that site: Economics Themed Superheroes (and supervillains), submitted by readers using Marvel’s Create Your Own Superhero tool. Check out The Toxic Asset, Taxing Colossus, and Gold Standard. More superheroes/supervillains [...]

After months of delving into unemployment, real estate, health care, and financial markets, EconomyBeat finally gets to the heart of the matter with this post, asking the question:

Does Superman really need the rest of the Justice League?

The answer can be found in Ecocomics, where “economics and comic books collide.” The site is devoted to examining economic principles represented in comic books storylines.

On the question of Superman and the Justice League, we find the answer in a post called The Justice League and Comparative Advantage.

When you think about it, Superman doesn’t need the rest of the Justice League.

In conventional wisdom, every member of the Justice League has a particular strength. Green Lantern can handle weird and alien threats. Aquaman can talk to fish. The Flash can handle armies of lightly armed minions in a heartbeat. Wonder Woman usually takes point on mystical threats. And Batman is the World’s Greatest Detective.

If we consider each of those types of crime-fighting an output, we see that each member of the Justice League is a uniquely skilled producer of that output. Sure, Batman can beat up henchmen almost as well as the Flash can. But Flash can do it better. If Batman specializes in detective work, and Flash specializes in henchman-stomping, the two of them produce more Justice on net than if one tried to do both.

But what if we bring Superman into the equation?

An interesting debate on the discussion web site Plastic about the viability of worker cooperatives (a business model that Michael Moore touted in Capitalism: A Love Story) encompasses economics, philosophy, and business ethics. The initial post… Not a Mere Factor of Production There is this bookshop on 57th Street, South Side. Finding your way through [...]

Peter Schiff is the president of Euro Pacific Capital, a former adviser to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, a libertarian financial pundit, and a current candidate for the Connecticut Senate seat held by the retiring Christopher Dodd. He’s also a bit of a downer, as can be seen in his video blog from last week, in [...]

Last year in The American Spectator, Peter J. Wallison wrote about the political importance of determining causes of the financial crisis that blew up in 2008.

Two narratives seem to be forming to describe the underlying causes of the financial crisis. One, as outlined in a New York Times front-page story on Sunday, December 21, is that President Bush excessively promoted growth in home ownership without sufficiently regulating the banks and other mortgage lenders that made the bad loans. The result was a banking system suffused with junk mortgages, the continuing losses on which are dragging down the banks and the economy. The other narrative is that government policy over many years–particularly the use of the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to distort the housing credit system– underlies the current crisis. The stakes in the competing narratives are high. The diagnosis determines the prescription. If the Times diagnosis prevails, the prescription is more regulation of the financial system; if instead government policy is to blame, the prescription is to terminate those government policies that distort mortgage lending.