Over the years, you have been the most reliable public intellectual, analytically and normatively, across a diverse range of "shocks," which disoriented and divided observers; e.g., the financial crisis, the pandemic, sanctions, and crypto.
You have a rare ability and commitment always to write clearly and incisively about complex matters -- helpful to experts and non-experts alike.
You deeply engage a remarkable range of disciplines -- economics, philosophy (esp. epistemology), anthropology, evolutionary psychology, sociology, history -- in your quest to understand human interdependence, institutions, cooperation, and conflict.
You remind people, by example and by the FITs criteria, always to ask: Am I intellectually honest, even with myself? And what might change my mind?
Your comments section reflects your example.
And you generously encourage anyone who hopes to emulate these epistemic virtues.
I rarely find someone who shares my mixed set of philosophies. I have stopped trying to categorize or label myself. My beliefs are so much more complex than one ideology and your understanding of the world seems to closely match mine. I enjoy reading your posts but often wonder what it is all good for since the leftist agenda train barrels forward undeterred. Maybe you have addressed this. Btw, I became a fan through the three languages book. I started a local discussion group of local women who knew each other but were politically in different positions. I shared from your book, but discussion was ultimately doomed. I learned a lot about how ingrained people are in their ideologies. I am very interested in open minded exchange it's hard to find.
In the latest version the TLP, there's an added chapter on Trump & elites / populists as a separate axis. Which I think is true, but more accurately labeled as "Somewhere" vs "Anywhere" type people.
“...we were always doomed to lose at nation building.” Really? Invariably? I’d agree that our record is quite spotty these past sixty years. But is there not some natural instinct in the “big brother” to lend a hand to the “little brother?” It’s obviously much more complicated than that but “nation building,” economic development, etc. is not something you’ve discussed much in the many years (going back to the early days of Russ Roberts’ EconTalk podcast) that I’ve followed you. It would be worth exploring, particularly as it relates to your perceptive interest in human interdependence. Thanks and keep up the great work.
The Paris Peace Accords of 1973 show that we were NOT doomed to lose - but our anti-war elected Democrats of 1974 decided the US would NOT fight when the Soviet supported N. Viet commies invaded the peaceful S. Vietnam in 1975. (Coulda been a S. Vietnam like S. Korea).
Wars end when one side decides to stop fighting. Usually in history, it's with a loss or series of losses in battles - the US has been willing to stop fighting, and lose the war, without quite losing battles that it fights.
(I think Arnold's great - but sometimes wrong. He thinks I'm wrong, tho - the audience gets to compare evidence.)
It's worth noting that fighting against a country that invades another country is quite different than nation-building where the primary aggressors are internal. History shows more success in the first case than the second. Vietnam was a little bit of both so I suppose there could be a difference of opinion on which was primary and how important the secondary was. That might be a factor in whether success is achievable.
" I say, “Markets fail. Use markets.” I think that markets will usually correct failures more quickly and more effectively than government. "
It's comments like that which make liberals, big govt fans, and out-right socialists think they are right. It ignores all the situations where there isn't an obvious market solution that doesn't involve a lot of govt intervention if not total govt operation. Candidates include:
Air pollution limits
Water pollution limits
Electric distribution
Sewer systems
Water supply
Flood control
Roads
Police
Fire protection
Courts
National defense
Etc
Some of these might have a market solution I'm not aware of and it's likely govt can use markets as a tool to address some of these but I'm pretty sure that leaves plenty of areas where markets can't do it alone, sometimes not at all.
Note: When I read Basic Economics by Sowell what stood out to me were the times he ignored the issues that could not be easily addressed using his economic philosophy. For example, how do we provide healthcare to those who can't afford it? Crickets. How do we properly incentive healthy lifestyle that reduces healthcare cost while not making insurance unaffordable to those who aren't healthy? Crickets. Who pays the high costs for those who are born with bad health? Crickets How do we keep healthy people from skimping on health insurance until they aren't healthy or keep insurance companies from dropping or raising rates on people who become unhealthy? More crickets.
Lots of issues aren't easy for government or for markets.
I never thought I'd look forward each morning to reading the thoughts of an economist, and I mean Every morning. Thank you for your generous contribution to my continuing education.
Arnold - Thanks so much for being here. I read some of your pieces referenced in other writings but subscribed after your conversation with Russ Roberts a few months ago. This was a nice intro that went beyond that offered by interviews on podcasts: As an anecdote, a result of your post today was knowledge of your Three Languages work such that I recognized the reference in Lorenzo Warbys post today .. hence, I just acquired a copy (on audible). I’ve also discovered several other writers referenced in your daily links. If I had 50 lives, at least one would be dedicated to the life, observations, and work of Arnold Kling. For now, I’m doing my best. Cheers,
"I am old. Born in 1954, I have vivid memories of the 1960s." Hell, I was born in 1947 so am really old . . . and have vivid memories of the 1950's, which really were the happiest of days in and for this country. I have been following your commentary haphazardly over the years, wherever I happened upon it, usually in an aggregation site. Great to have it in one place.
Thanks for taking the time to do this. I *always* find something interesting in your links to consider messages even though I don't read all of your notes. Among the best qualities of substack is the content filter it provides when you find the right brains to do the filtering for you.
I came on-board to learn more about the brewing financial crisis, but I feel as if I lack some basic knowledge about how banking and the financial industry operate. If anyone has reading recommendations to get me started, please share...
I've enjoyed reading and mostly agreeing with Arnold for some 20+ years, from his EconLog & ASKblog. I hope more of the new readers try to contribute more thoughts in the comments. A great trait is to say something substantial about an issue, but clearly not trying to be complete -- so there's room for others to add what they think might be missing, as well as disagreeing if they think they have a better idea.
It's a good moment to say how much I appreciate this substack (as one of your legion non-payers!). I would however pay if you were to write something of depth on organisational behaviour.
Your statement: "I identified Paul Krugman in his NYT columns as modeling how not to think (and he knows better, which makes it all the more painful to watch)" makes me think I may not be insane. I always viewed him as being more pure political with internal assumption that large governmental bureaucracy had "God" like properties of making wise decision, not just self-interest institutional decisions.
Great post! Like many others here, I appreciate your intellectual honesty and humility and your willingness to be a contrarian. Your posts are always insightful, pointing me to things that I had not seen or thought about. Wonderful!
This is a great introduction to you, and not too long!
Arnold,
Over the years, you have been the most reliable public intellectual, analytically and normatively, across a diverse range of "shocks," which disoriented and divided observers; e.g., the financial crisis, the pandemic, sanctions, and crypto.
You have a rare ability and commitment always to write clearly and incisively about complex matters -- helpful to experts and non-experts alike.
You deeply engage a remarkable range of disciplines -- economics, philosophy (esp. epistemology), anthropology, evolutionary psychology, sociology, history -- in your quest to understand human interdependence, institutions, cooperation, and conflict.
You remind people, by example and by the FITs criteria, always to ask: Am I intellectually honest, even with myself? And what might change my mind?
Your comments section reflects your example.
And you generously encourage anyone who hopes to emulate these epistemic virtues.
Thank you!
Thank you. Very fine links, just starting the 90+pages of macromemoir, delicious to read. (No one uses delectable anyways)
One of the non-paying newbees (paid sub of Razib+Erik Hoel - recommended: https://erikhoel.substack.com/p/publish-and-perish
Scott Alexander is the Michael Jordan of FIT, but the marginal value of the 5678th payer may be, err, marginal).
I rarely find someone who shares my mixed set of philosophies. I have stopped trying to categorize or label myself. My beliefs are so much more complex than one ideology and your understanding of the world seems to closely match mine. I enjoy reading your posts but often wonder what it is all good for since the leftist agenda train barrels forward undeterred. Maybe you have addressed this. Btw, I became a fan through the three languages book. I started a local discussion group of local women who knew each other but were politically in different positions. I shared from your book, but discussion was ultimately doomed. I learned a lot about how ingrained people are in their ideologies. I am very interested in open minded exchange it's hard to find.
The other blogger I always (try to) read is https://www.thenewneo.com/.
More of her deep thinking and research on usually different subjects than Arnold looks at. Has a fantastic, long series on changing minds:
https://www.thenewneo.com/category/a-mind-is-a-difficult-thing-to-change/
In the latest version the TLP, there's an added chapter on Trump & elites / populists as a separate axis. Which I think is true, but more accurately labeled as "Somewhere" vs "Anywhere" type people.
“...we were always doomed to lose at nation building.” Really? Invariably? I’d agree that our record is quite spotty these past sixty years. But is there not some natural instinct in the “big brother” to lend a hand to the “little brother?” It’s obviously much more complicated than that but “nation building,” economic development, etc. is not something you’ve discussed much in the many years (going back to the early days of Russ Roberts’ EconTalk podcast) that I’ve followed you. It would be worth exploring, particularly as it relates to your perceptive interest in human interdependence. Thanks and keep up the great work.
The Paris Peace Accords of 1973 show that we were NOT doomed to lose - but our anti-war elected Democrats of 1974 decided the US would NOT fight when the Soviet supported N. Viet commies invaded the peaceful S. Vietnam in 1975. (Coulda been a S. Vietnam like S. Korea).
Wars end when one side decides to stop fighting. Usually in history, it's with a loss or series of losses in battles - the US has been willing to stop fighting, and lose the war, without quite losing battles that it fights.
(I think Arnold's great - but sometimes wrong. He thinks I'm wrong, tho - the audience gets to compare evidence.)
It's worth noting that fighting against a country that invades another country is quite different than nation-building where the primary aggressors are internal. History shows more success in the first case than the second. Vietnam was a little bit of both so I suppose there could be a difference of opinion on which was primary and how important the secondary was. That might be a factor in whether success is achievable.
On that note, one could argue that most of the battles were lost but the war is being won.
" I say, “Markets fail. Use markets.” I think that markets will usually correct failures more quickly and more effectively than government. "
It's comments like that which make liberals, big govt fans, and out-right socialists think they are right. It ignores all the situations where there isn't an obvious market solution that doesn't involve a lot of govt intervention if not total govt operation. Candidates include:
Air pollution limits
Water pollution limits
Electric distribution
Sewer systems
Water supply
Flood control
Roads
Police
Fire protection
Courts
National defense
Etc
Some of these might have a market solution I'm not aware of and it's likely govt can use markets as a tool to address some of these but I'm pretty sure that leaves plenty of areas where markets can't do it alone, sometimes not at all.
Note: When I read Basic Economics by Sowell what stood out to me were the times he ignored the issues that could not be easily addressed using his economic philosophy. For example, how do we provide healthcare to those who can't afford it? Crickets. How do we properly incentive healthy lifestyle that reduces healthcare cost while not making insurance unaffordable to those who aren't healthy? Crickets. Who pays the high costs for those who are born with bad health? Crickets How do we keep healthy people from skimping on health insurance until they aren't healthy or keep insurance companies from dropping or raising rates on people who become unhealthy? More crickets.
Lots of issues aren't easy for government or for markets.
I never thought I'd look forward each morning to reading the thoughts of an economist, and I mean Every morning. Thank you for your generous contribution to my continuing education.
Arnold - Thanks so much for being here. I read some of your pieces referenced in other writings but subscribed after your conversation with Russ Roberts a few months ago. This was a nice intro that went beyond that offered by interviews on podcasts: As an anecdote, a result of your post today was knowledge of your Three Languages work such that I recognized the reference in Lorenzo Warbys post today .. hence, I just acquired a copy (on audible). I’ve also discovered several other writers referenced in your daily links. If I had 50 lives, at least one would be dedicated to the life, observations, and work of Arnold Kling. For now, I’m doing my best. Cheers,
[blush] FYI there are free downloads of TLP here: https://www.libertarianism.org/books/three-languages-politics
Thank you for this. Now I know why I’m such an Arnold Kling Fanboy.
"I am old. Born in 1954, I have vivid memories of the 1960s." Hell, I was born in 1947 so am really old . . . and have vivid memories of the 1950's, which really were the happiest of days in and for this country. I have been following your commentary haphazardly over the years, wherever I happened upon it, usually in an aggregation site. Great to have it in one place.
Why do you think the 1950s "were the happiest of days in and for this country?" Are you sure that isn't just "Rosy Retrospection" bias?
Thanks for taking the time to do this. I *always* find something interesting in your links to consider messages even though I don't read all of your notes. Among the best qualities of substack is the content filter it provides when you find the right brains to do the filtering for you.
I came on-board to learn more about the brewing financial crisis, but I feel as if I lack some basic knowledge about how banking and the financial industry operate. If anyone has reading recommendations to get me started, please share...
I have a chapter on Finance and Fluctuations in a book that can be downloaded for free:
https://www.libertarianism.org/books/specialization-trade
The most thorough book on the nitty-gritty of financial markets is Marcia Stigum's Money Market, but it's expensive and challenging to work through.
I will start with your chapter and see how I make out with Money Market. Thanks for the advice.
Another, older style list of some of Arnold's work is on his old but not rotten website:
https://arnoldkling.com/
I've enjoyed reading and mostly agreeing with Arnold for some 20+ years, from his EconLog & ASKblog. I hope more of the new readers try to contribute more thoughts in the comments. A great trait is to say something substantial about an issue, but clearly not trying to be complete -- so there's room for others to add what they think might be missing, as well as disagreeing if they think they have a better idea.
Great links with good thoughts.
It's a good moment to say how much I appreciate this substack (as one of your legion non-payers!). I would however pay if you were to write something of depth on organisational behaviour.
Your statement: "I identified Paul Krugman in his NYT columns as modeling how not to think (and he knows better, which makes it all the more painful to watch)" makes me think I may not be insane. I always viewed him as being more pure political with internal assumption that large governmental bureaucracy had "God" like properties of making wise decision, not just self-interest institutional decisions.
Great post! Like many others here, I appreciate your intellectual honesty and humility and your willingness to be a contrarian. Your posts are always insightful, pointing me to things that I had not seen or thought about. Wonderful!
And definitely worth being a paying subscriber!!