François-René Rideau: Capitalism is the Institution of Ethics#

J. T. Toman: The Papal Conclave: How do Cardinals Divine the Will of God? (PDF)#

Tyler Cowen: Market Failure for the Treatment of Animals (DOC)#

I examine the welfare economics of how humans treat animals, using ordinal welfare economics and the standard of willingness to pay. I therefore assume that animals count in the social welfare function only insofar as human animal lovers care about them. I do not defend these assumptions as the best available moral theory, but rather treat them as a minimalistic approach that counts animals as little as possible and looks for robust conclusions. Even under these assumptions we find systematic and significant market failure in the treatment and allocation of animals. Many of the common recommendations of animal rights advocates, however, fail to consider secondary consequences and therefore may decrease animal welfare. The effects of mandatory animal care standards, subsidies to animal care, and taxes on meat consumption all differ. Piecemeal and systematic reforms do not generally have the same effects on animal welfare. The results of this paper do not require any particular judgments as to exactly how much animal welfare counts, relative to human welfare.

A footnote about valuing animals because of the belief that "there was a chance you could have been an animal":

[We] might postulate an initial "entity" with varying chances of being born into each of the earth's creatures. This construct would place very high weight on the very numerous animals, such as insects, because the chance of "being born an insect" would be especially high. It is implausible to weight species according to how numerous they are.

These seems to mesh well with what I've heard practiced among Tibetans vegetarians, that they prefer to eat larger animals rather than smaller animals due to the amount of meat rendered and the principle of equality of souls.

One interesting result:

I argue that the intuition that animals matter does not suffice to support these claims. In fact we must think through animal policies very carefully to avoid the possibility of counterintuitive effects.

[...]

If tax policy is not available, individuals may try to replicate the effects of taxes through boycotts. A boycott of meat products alone, however, may simply induce animals to be shifted into the laboratory sector. Ideally the boycotters would like to boycott meat and the product of the sectors that are even worse, but such a broader boycott may not be possible. The boycotters may not be able to "reach" the animals used in the worst sectors. Not all such animals, for instance, are used to produce consumer goods sold in stores. Some laboratory animals are used to produce goods sold only to corporations, or are used for university research. The danger is that a boycott of meat will simply shift animals into very bad and harder-to-reach sectors. Instead, a subsidy to the better sector will have more predictable effects, by pulling animals out of the other, less favorable sectors, and thus should be preferred.

EconJournalWatch - April 2005 (PDF)#

The Ph.D. Circle in Academic Economics - Daniel B. Klein (PDF)

A potential problem with this paper is that it focuses on the monopoly of fact in academic economics. If there was an alternative way to run academic economics that was better for potential customers, then no law stops Klein or anyone else from implementing it and taking market share. You could say that some institutions already are.

Google Recruiting video with focus on women (MPG)#

Don Boudreaux continues on harmonious living.#

It's time we stop defining living harmoniously as having no effect on nature. Nothing intrinsic to the concept 'living harmoniously with nature' requires that humans live in such a way as to leave the environment as close as possible to what it would be like if we didn't exist.

Secret Sin Theory of Politics#

Totalitarianism Today on a book on feminism.#

Boteach asks his readers to imagine the following scenario:

"....a television show that took thirty Jews to a castle in France, and told them that the had the opportunity of befriending a megamillionaire. The twist in the program is that the millionaire is really a New Jersey construction worker. The objective of the show is to see if the Jews, who everyone assumes love money above all else (italics his), will terminate the friendship on discovering their new buddy is broke. And imagine that this show is so wildly successful that fully 50 million people watch its finale, and that a new international version is quickly readied for release during the fall ratings sweep. You would be justified in thinking that the show's creator is Joseph Goebbels and that the intended audience is Nazi Germany."

Shmuley goes on to note that the TV show in question already exists by the name of Joe Millionaire, only the group being denigrated is women. Granted, one might say that each women on that show really did care about money more than character or individuals-- this can be true without discrediting Shmuley's point that women don't even protest their misportrayal anymore.

Global Politician: EXCLUSIVE: Interview With Hezbollah Official Abdallah Kassir#

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on love in America.#

I've asked women in female audiences around the world, it's so funny to see this - no matter where you are, be it a non-Jewish audience in the Netherlands two months ago, to Jewish audiences in New York, "who here needs a man?" You will see three or four hands go up. I don't mean three or four percent, I mean three or four hands. And then I say to them, "Do you need a refrigerator?" All the hands go up. The inability to be vulnerable is the problem: it's the depth personality not the surface personality that has to fall in love.

Now that we no longer see love as a need, but as a luxury, what's the definition of a luxury? A luxury always has to be the best. When it comes to necessity, "good enough is good enough." When it comes to luxury: only the best. The luxury items are always Gucci… When love becomes a luxury not a necessity, "nah, I'm not gonna marry anyone. I need the best, because I could live without it. It's not a need." When it comes to food, I don't need the best restaurant. I need food that's good. But if food became a luxury, we'd all go to five star restaurants, because it's not a necessity and we could live without it. We're a generation that's incapable of identifying our core needs.