Adam Smith's market never stood alone

Steven HorwitzSome of you may have seen a variety of blog posts in the last week or two discussing the results of a Pew survey in which people were asked whether they viewed a variety of political terms positively or negatively.  Tim Cavanaugh at Reason has most of the data and a libertarian perspective on it.  The results are not too bad for libertarian-minded folks.

It is very simple. Adam Smith understood it and commented on it. If you allow businesses to have control of the market they will take benefits they don’t deserve at the expense of society. And many business will seek every opportunity to collude with other businesses to stop the free market from reducing their profits and instead instituting anti-competitive practices. Unless you stop this you don’t get the benefits of free market capitalism.

|Peter Boettke| I had the great privilege of introducing Elinor Ostrom tonight.  She is a very special person and we were all very fortunate to have her join us tonight.  Here are my introductory remarks:

Via Steve Benen, a fascinating point from Jay Bookman—Republican politicians are much more conservative than the self-identified Republican electorate:

By Situm:A few months ago an interesting debate took place between Larry Smith, a retired biotech analyst who writes for Seeking Alpha as well as his own website, SmithonStocks.com and Adam Feuerstein who writes for the Street.Com regarding Northwest Biotherapeutics (NWBO). Mr. Feuerstein basically called out the data from NWBO's phase i/ii trials and Mr. Smith rebutted the critique.

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen criticised Modi's model of governance.

Amartya Sen said, "Modi could have first of all been more secular and he could have made the minority community feel more secure."

Arvind Panagariya hits out at Amartya Sen over his call to confront MPs with the "number of deaths" a delayed Food Security Bill can cause.