Sociotropic voters with biased economic beliefs are more likely to produce severe political failures than are selfish voters with rational expectations.

In daily life, reality gives us material incentives to restrain our irrationality. But what incentive do we have to think rationally about politics?

Let us designate anarchism1 anarchism as you define it. Let us desiginate anarchism2 anarchism as I and the American Heritage College Dictionary define it.

There is a small minority of well-educated people with relatively sensible views on economics, and an extremely tiny minority of economists with highly sensible views. Then there's everybody else. ... To win, a politician needs to please the median voter. It makes little difference if a few thousand economists think you a fool.

The use of force is easy to rationalize in terms of basic economics. 'We should make them PAY for what they've done!' It's just the law of demand: raise the price of crossing us, and fewer people will cross us. Make the price another Hiroshima, and perhaps the quantity demanded will fall to zero.

There are two sources of error: Either you lack sufficient data, or you fail to take advantage of the data that you have.

In a modern democracy, not only can a libertarian be elitist a libertarian has to be elitist. To be a libertarian in a modern democracy is to say that nearly 300 million Americans are wrong, and a handful of nay-sayers are right.

The best social insurance is to make more progress, not to make more work