War is coming, we're still in recession, the public is still angry about 9-11 (hey, is all this connected?), so we must do something to rekindle a sense of joy in our own private lives. But what? What people on the home front have always done: throw themselves into the domestic arts, preferably something that is beyond the time and connects us with ancient truth. For my part, it is all about bread.
The answers we receive from the academics in response to the collapse of the Enron Corporation and the implosion of other firms are not answers at all. At best, they deal only with effects, or, at worst, reverse the pattern of cause and effect. To put it another way, writes William Anderson, the people who are supposed to know the answers don’t even know what questions they should pursue.
Many intellectuals believe that war is good for many things, including fixing up a weak economy, writes Adam Young. The coming invasion and occupation of Iraq will happen because the Bush administration believes in the Keynesian/Great Depression myth of perpetual war for perpetual prosperity.
It is hard to understand the vague and ill-defined laws Martha Stewart and Sam Waksal are accused of violating. But the premise of the law is not hard to divine: Competition in capital markets must proceed from a level playing field. All investors are entitled to the same information advantage irrespective of effort and abilities. In a word, socialism!
Those who have written in favor of distributism on moral grounds appear to revel in their ignorance of economics--as if a discipline devoted to the application of human reason to the problems of scarcity in the world could actually in itself be antagonistic to ethics and faith.
If someone is forced to engage in work that he otherwise would not do, and he is not paid compensation to which he agrees for that work, then we call this slave labor. It cannot be defined by any other term, writes William Anderson. Princeton's Paul Krugman and his followers, however, believe that the state should force people to do its bidding, even if it means they will not receive payment for their work.
"Sustainability" is the doomsters' rallying cry. The slogan is clever. It sparks apocalyptic urgency. But clever slogans and vivid imagery are no substitute for clear thinking about the place of private property in environmental concerns.
It's a neat trick, writes Adam Young: the media sell a certain viewpoint, then take a poll and cite public opinion to illustrate that, yes indeed, the public agrees with what it has been told, and that the only solution is more government intervention.
The statement given by the Bush administration to Congress and now available online, entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States," must be read to be believed, writes Joseph Stromberg. Its historical points are dubious, its economics misleading, and its social theory a heap of dangerous half- or third-truths.
