Promoting the Wealth of Nations before Adam Smith

It is a truth universally acknowledged that an economics students at the University of Glasgow at some point has to discuss and research Adam Smith. Preparing for this weekend at the Austrian Economics Meeting in Europe (AEME) in Krakow, Poland, I did precisely that. The result of this little project is available as an essay here (‘Promoting the Wealth of Nations Before Adam Smith’). The work was not as comprehensive as I would have liked, but then again the literature on Adam Smith is a black hole, an endeavour which I had neither time nor motivation to pursue.

Assar Lindbeck On How To Be An Economist

Continuing my tradition of reviewing books years after everyone else, I recently picked up Assar Lindbeck's biography of his life as an economist, Ekonomi Är Att Välja (Eng: "Economics is about choosing"). Lindbeck, who turned 87 a few months back, is one of Sweden's most prolific and well-known economists (even my dad, who's only vaguely heard of Keynes and may have been somewhat familiar with Piketty or Krugman from some of my rants, instantly recognised Lindbeck's name and photo on the front cover: "I know this guy. Economist, pretty famous!"). He's been involved in almost much every major event in modern Swedish economic history, frequently features in major newspapers and TV debates. For over 60 years he has, both in public and in academic outlets, argued for a reform and repeal of rent control. Safe to say, this is one great economist I wanted to know more about.

Beauty and the Beast: Are Conservative Politicians Prettier?

In my job-hunting for the Swedish Research Institute of Industrial Economics (abbreviated IFN in Swedish), I stumbled across what seems like a legit article that made me laugh as much as Nicolson's The Romantic Economist or Messerli's infamous correlation between Nobel Prizes and chocolate consumption. I mean, the kind of research that comes out of IFN in the first place is jaw-dropping, ranging from the Swedish equivalent of Thomas Piketty – Daniel Waldenström – to one of my favourite Swedish economists Andreas Bergh (check out his Sweden and the Revival of the Capitalist Welfare State for a great and balanced view on the Swedish welfare state). And now there's another triumph to add to IFN's list: 'The Right Look: Conservative Politicians Look Better and Voters Reward It', recently published in Journal of Public Economics in February this year, by Niclas Berggren, Henrik Jordahl and Panu Poutvaara.

I Love Tax Season!

Econ lends itself very naturally to personal finance. People with above-average economic literacy and some insight into the world of finance tend to take better care of their own personal finances. Or so I claim with absolutely no empirical data to support it. However, according to Charlie Söderberg – the famous Swedish personal finance-guy whose lecture I attended last summer – people spend more time brushing their teeth than pondering their financial decisions, let alone system-wide things like economics or taxation. Tax season is, consequently, most people's nightmare, whereas I kinda love it. This year I decided to report my result, which gives me a good entry to discuss some pros and cons with the Swedish system of taxation.

Caldwell on Economics and Hayek

Bruce Caldwell is a well-known historian of economics, professor of Economics as Duke University, but perhaps most associated with running the Centre for the History of Political Economy at Duke. Since 2003 he has been the editor of the collected works of FA Hayek and safe to say, he is the go-to-guy for knowledge about Hayek, his life and his ideas. A few weeks back, while attending events in Prague I had the great pleasure of meeting him, chatting a bit (read: fangirling) and take a few compulsory photos. He gave us a heads-up about his own major biography of Hayek coming out soon enough, which I am very much looking forward to.

What Commodity Would You Pick In a Doomsday Scenario?

I'm fairly sure that most of my late-night discussions with my flatmate are superior to most university classes (perhaps we should invite people along and start charging for the privilege?). About a week ago, we celebrated several good news with a 3-hour discussion beginning somewhere around governments' ability to ensure stable CPI-inflation, ending in the emergence of one-cell organisms, with many fascinating arguments in between. The most exciting of which is this one: if faced with some doomsday scenario (breakdown of civilisation, Day After Tomorrow or I Am Legend style), what commodity would you want to hold?

My intuitive response is gold; after all, throughout human civilisation precious metals have quite often ended up being currency (even though salt and hides and grains and weapons have occassionaly held the status of money), and so sitting on a pile of currency in a doomsday scenario would be insanely useful (even though the capital loss from holding it would be quite large). Máté's intuitive response: seeds or furnaces. Let me walk you through the various cases and then tell you why my choice is better than Máté's (note that the example we discussed goes much beyond the standard "hedge against equity market declines" most gold-bugs advance as rationales for holding gold)

Can Moral Psychology Explain Our Political Convictions?

In these times of hostile political discussions, with the rise of far-right movements on one side of the spectra and increasingly intolerant privilege-obsessed SJW on another, bridging ideological gaps between groups has become incredibly important: Trump and Brexit shocked more than one poll, pundit or political group, and not for lack of trying to get different messages across, but for lack of receiving them. In the field of politics and philosophy (and, of course, economics) I sometimes rant about those who believe different things from me: ignoring, overlooking, strawmanning, insulting, patronising – which perhaps contributes to the problem. During my most happy moments, this is all done with a friendly smile on my face; when I'm upset or particularly annoyed about something, I wish to go much further in my attacks. Let me spend the next few paragraphs on the content of a book that so radically changed my perception and understanding of moral opinions themselves, answering the basic question of why "it's so hard for us to get along" (p. xviii).