I swear, sometimes it feels like Bob Murphy is the only one of them you can hold a conversation with for any appreciable duration of time without him thinking you're attacking him.
Peter Klein now thinks that "someone as, um, accomplished as Daniel Kuehn" is questioning his academic qualifications.
No Peter, I'm not. I follow your blog - you post great stuff. You're clearly highly qualified, intelligent, and well published. I never said anything to the contrary. That goes for everyone else I listed too. Perhaps I should just issue this challenge to Danny Sanchez or anyone else: do you know of any other congressman dealing with economic policy of any variety that is so closely affiliated with one small fraction of one small school of thought and who fills as high a percentage of their hearings with representatives of that faction of that school of thought - representatives who largely work in other fields and who are not internationally known otherwise (preemptive note: the fact that someone isn't internationally known does not mean I'm saying they're not qualified)?
Give me another example. If you can't, then I don't see how you can dispute my point.
Now, do you think that sort of thing - if practiced more widely - would lead to a well informed Congress?
I'm glad, when the Democrats controlled Congress, we didn't just get scholars affiliated with the Levy Institute at Bard College. I think some of that work is interesting and informative just like I think some of the work from Mises Institute scholars is interesting and informative. But I'm glad that's not how hearings were composed previously.
Comparative advantage: a partial truth
11 hours ago