I have spent some time recently discussing Bryan Caplan’s theory which rejects the idea of rational voters. However, I cannot blame this on the voters. Apparently Rep. Charlie Rangel wants to vote on re-instituting the draft. This is obviously some political ploy that has gone over my head.
Pages
Blogroll
- Assymetrical Information
- Back-of-the-Envelope Economics
- Becker-Posner
- Big Picture
- Blogging Heads
- Brooks Wilson
- Café Hayek
- Club For Growth
- Consensus View
- Dan Drezner
- DataPoints
- Division of Labor
- Don Luskin
- Econbrowser
- EconLog
- Economic Indicators
- Economic Investigations
- Economic Statistics
- Economist’s View
- Econopundit
- Econospeak
- Eidelblog
- Freakonomics
- Greg Mankiw
- Hayek Scholars’ Page
- Instapundit
- James D. Miller
- Jimmy P.
- Kudlow’s Money Politic$
- Macro and Other Market Musings
- macroblog
- Marginal Revolution
- Mises.org
- New Economist
- Nuccio
- Pajamas Media
- Political Calculations
- QandO
- Sabernomics
- Subprime Crisis Forum
- Supply and Demand (in that order)
- TCS Daily
- The Ambrosini Critique
- The Austrian Economists
- The Sports Economist
- Think Markets
- Three Sources
- Wall Street Journal
- Watching America
Other writing
- A New Holiday: Division of Labor Day
- Another Supply-Side Revolution is Needed
- Are Workers Really Being Left Behind?
- Big Dance, Billions Lost?
- Dr. Detroit
- Empty Rhetoric
- Health to Pay
- How Economists Lost Hayek, and Then Found Him
- Is Inequality a Useful Measure of Prosperity?
- Microeconomic Microcosm
- Organs Anyone?
- Snow Job
- The Elusive Xbox Price-Point
Recommendations
Tags
Austrian Business Cycle Theory bailout Bastiat Bernanke Big Players capitalism credit crisis David Beckworth deflation economic growth Federal Reserve financial crisis fiscal stimulus free markets free trade gas prices gold standard government intervention Great Depression Hayek housing inflation Keynes Krugman Medicare Milton Friedman monetary policy monetary theory multiplier NAFTA Obama oil prices Paulson plan Pigou Club Pigouvian taxes prosperity protectionism recession Schumpeter Stimulus stimulus package subsidies TARP taxes uncertaintyArchives
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: Cutline by Chris Pearson.
1 response so far ↓
Alan Gunn // November 20, 2006 at 2:12 pm |
The ploy is pretty obvious, though it’s based on a misstatement of the facts. Rangel claims that the burden of casualties falls disproportionately on poor people and minorities. and that a draft would be fairer in this regard. In fact, casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan have fallen disproportionately on non-minorities. (I don’t know about the poor, but I doubt it: the very poor aren’t found much in the military because they tend not to be able to pass the tests.) The army, at least, does tend to be disproportionately rural and small-town, but I don’t think Mr. Rangel (of “who would want to live in Mississippi” renown) worries much about that.
It’s interesting to note, too, that the casualty burden in Vietnam, when we did have a draft, did fall heavily on the poor and minorities. But hey, who cares about facts when the issue is political?