Daniel J. Smith

@JackBurtonMercr He is one of the top economists to be included in history of economic thought books: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

@Smithdanj Was Malthus an actual economist?

Grok’s ranking of famous economists of all time by how polemic their writing is: Marx > Krugman > Stiglitz > Bastiat > Hayek > Friedman > Keynes > von Mises > Malthus > Buchanan/Galbraith/George

Beyond economics, this reminded me of Elements of Justice:

Theory of the Firm:

It is amazing, looking back, at the early conceptions of important economic concepts that Mises developed in Socialism (1922).

This is what Grok said about Smith: “Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations contains sharp critiques of mercantilism and the “man of system,” but the work is overwhelmingly a positive, system-building treatise on how markets coordinate prosperity. Polemic is incidental, not structural. • David Ricardo: Principles of Political Economy and Taxation is abstract, deductive theory (comparative advantage, rent, etc.). Almost no rhetorical combat or public warning; purely analytical. • John Stuart Mill: Principles of Political Economy and related essays are reformist and nuanced, engaging opponents philosophically rather than through demolition or alarm. The tone is balanced and synthetic.”

@Smithdanj @tylercowen I am surprised that neither Adam Smith nor Ricardo is on this list.

But redistribution based on income statistics would encourage this behavior. I don’t know the magnitudes of how pervasive this problem is or if it is even worth factoring in at all. We need more theorizing, on the margin, to inform modern empirical debates, especially when contributing to policy debates.

This naturally extends to people making lifestyle choices to reject higher valued uses of land (Corb Lund’s song “S Lazy H” highlights this). One of the economic efficiency arguments for property taxes, of course, is to discourage unproductive (or less productive) uses of land.

Mises (1922): “it cannot be “artificially” imitated under Socialism.”

Mises also had to deal with socialists attempting to draw a distinction between state socialism and social democracy:

@EndLibertarians @HayekianBanker @ajxyred Well this is awkward then: jstor.org/stable/48583518

@HayekianBanker @ajxyred Public choice theory is not economics, it is far right propaganda created by James McGill Buchanan, the architect of the radical right.

The median voter be like:

So clearly, I would prefer Grok if we were going to use AI to plan the economy. Others would obviously prefer an AI set up with parameters to favor central planning. Thus, central planning, even with AI, succumbs to some of the very same problems.

Grok says, even if granted the power to plan the economy with its AI capabilities, that it would allow the market to operate.

I asked @Grok if it would engage in monetary discretion or adhere to a rule if we haded monetary policy over to it. Grok: “A monetary rule.”

This problem still exists even with AI:

In Socialism (1922), Mises writes, “Society is best served when the means of production are in the possession of those who know how to use them best.” Private property, prices, and profit & loss achieve exactly that. They solve the knowledge & incentive problems that make central planning impossible. While capital is nominally owned by investors, it is constantly being reallocated to best serve customers, who direct the investment of capital with their decisions or risk losing it. AI can optimize known data and run predictive models. But without entrepreneurial discovery and adjustment of economic actors under dynamic prices and profit/loss, new information, innovations, and even better AI uses itself stop emerging (also those in charge of the AI and interpreting and executing AI decisions, will face substantial incentive problems).

A problem for all major political parties identified by Mises (1922). Quick to defend Constitutional rights and other values when out of power, but drop their concern when in power.