Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons

by Federico N. Fernández

September 17th 2014 marks the 20th anniversary of Karl Popper’s death. Popper was indeed one of the most important philosophers of the past century, if not the most important of them all. But his popularity was rather unique. Instead of acceptance from professional philosophers, his ideas had their most impact in scientists and politicians. Perhaps this was the greatest honor he could have had, since methodology of science and political philosophy were the key areas of his thought. However, Popper deeply resented not having the peer recognition he thought he deserved.

This lack of recognition within academic philosophy sharply contrasts with Popper’s reputation in the realm of science. The list of scientists who openly declared their admiration and gratitude for his contributions includes –among others– four Nobel Prize laureates: Peter Medawar, John Eccless, Max Perutz and Peter Mitchell. No wonder then, that the prestigious scientific journal Nature noted, “what distinguishes Popper from a great dull army of philosophers of science is that reading him is good for us”.

→']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Image by © Dreamstime

Image by © Dreamstime

by Sanford Ikeda

If you have a superficial understanding of modern economics, the following argument sounds plausible: In the free market, employers have an incentive to lower costs by driving wages down, which is bad for workers. Since driving down wages is what efficiency requires, it follows that efficiency is bad for workers.

The argument dates back at least to Karl Marx. It’s wrong but it continues to have appeal because, like many of Marx’s arguments, it contains a half truth: Given the choice between paying a worker $12 or $11 an hour, other things equal, an employer would usually rather pay $11. I think it’s a useful exercise to think through why it’s wrong.

→']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Image by © Dreamstime

Image by © Dreamstime

by Samuel Gregg

I always thought it would be difficult to imagine a period in which the West would be more adrift than the 1970s. Being a child at the time, I was spared consciousness of most of that miserable decade. Thus far, however, the second decade of the 2000s seems likely to give the 10 years that spawned Watergate, stagflation, the Carter presidency, the Oil Crisis, Idi Amin, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, Jim Jones, Pol Pot, the Red Brigades, and the Iranian Revolution (to name just a few of the star attractions) a serious run for its money as a byword for Western decline.

One everyday sign of this malaise is the fact that much of the West remains, as in the seventies, mired in what’s now called the Long Slump. And persistently unhealthy economies are usually symptomatic of an unwillingness to acknowledge deeper problems. Examples are most Western governments’ reluctance to accept that it’s game-over for the regulatory and welfare state as-we-knew-it, or to do something about the growing cancer of crony-capitalism.

→']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Image by © Dreamstime

Image by © Dreamstime

by Daniel Hannan

Seventy-five years ago today, Red Army troops smashed into Poland. Masters of deception and propaganda, they encouraged locals to believe that they were coming to join the battle against Hitler, who had invaded two weeks’ earlier. But, within a day, the true nature of the Nazi-Soviet collaboration was exposed.

Continue reading…

telegraph_logo

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Image by © Dreamstime

Image by © Dreamstime

by Enrico Colombatto

The world’s financial crisis and Europe’s stubborn resistance to pull out of recession and experience economic growth have created difficulties for those wanting to invest. But after years of uncertainty people are taking a long-term view of how to get a return on their investments and are trusting the stock market.

→']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Image by © Dreamstime

Image by © Dreamstime

by Sydney Williams

Tomorrow, the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannock Burn that gave Scotland freedom from the English, resident Scots aged 16 and older will go to the polls to determine whether Scotland will remain part of the United Kingdom, or if it will become independent.

(The British and Scottish crowns were reunited in 1603 with the ascension of James I as England’s king. James I was already, as James VI, King of Scotland. However, it would not be for another 100 years, until May 1, 1707, that the Act of Union brought open borders to Scotland.)

→']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

 

von Prof. Dr . Emil Hierhold antialtrin

„Antialtrin“ is NOT a Freudian slip, it’s deliberately alluding to Aspirin®

(Sorry, for German-speaking readers only!)

Ein Abgrund an Unwissen verbindet die Nationalökonomie mit dummen Witzen.

Wie funktioniert die eine und warum lacht man über die anderen?

ANTIaltRIN, „Doktor Hierhold’s Pseudotherapeuticum“ präsentiert und analysiert Witze über das Altwerden auf Basis der Freud‘schen Theorien. Ziel des Buches und dessen tröstlicher Succus: worüber man lachen kann, darüber kommt man leichter hinweg. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Image by © Dreamstime

Image by © Dreamstime

by Iain Murray

On Thursday, Scottish voters will decide whether to dissolve the 300-year-old union with England and Wales or remain in it. Until a few weeks ago, a “no” vote seemed like a slam-dunk certainty, with the anti-independence movement enjoying a 20-point margin in polls. Thanks to a series of blunders by the Better Together campaign and some deft politics by Yes Scotland and Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, the result is now too close to call.

→']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
h

Image by © Dreamstime

by Finbar Feehan-Fitzgerald

Gold has played a substantial role as a medium of exchange in world history; a role whose importance is hard to overstate. Amongst other things, it was gold’s scarcity that made it so desirable to act as a medium of exchange. Due to this gold performed well as a store of value and method for deferred payments. As well as this, it is divisible, malleable, durable and differentiable; making it a prime candidate to act as a medium of exchange.

→']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Image by © Dreamstime

Image by © Dreamstime

by John Charalambakis

This Thursday (September 18th), the people of Scotland are called to choose between going alone as an independent state or staying under the umbrella of Britain and the United Kingdom. The pro-independence camp (that advocates a yes vote in the referendum) claims that going alone would mean that the people of Scotland would be better off because they will enjoy more democracy coupled with autonomy and national identity that comes with higher standards of living due to the oil revenues and less burdens arising from Britain’s debt level. The camp that advocates a no vote claims that Scotland would be much worse off, because the uncertainties that arise from the breakup of the union cannot be easily calculated. Moreover, they claim that Scotland will lose a 307-year old umbrella that is responsible for its well-being. An independent Scotland would be a major blow to Britain, possibly as big as the 1922 birth of the Irish Free State. Even worse, if the independence movement wins, it could signal the devolution of the EU itself, as explained below.

→']);" class="more-link">Continue reading

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
1 2 3 68