The main problem for liberals in talking about the “culture of poverty” is that any honest examination of behavioral roots of poverty will, almost certainly, diminish public support for the welfare state. Thus, any clear discussion of the links between poverty and behavior is to be scrupulously avoided.

Entities that are maladaptive — corporations, nonprofits, governments — eventually succumb to their own mortality and collapse. This is as it should be, as there are no reasons dysfunctional corporations unable to perform their most basic function — survival — should be preserved.

Democrats have never much claimed the mantle of fiscal responsibility. And they don’t deserve it. Republicans have made that claim, and they’re making it again now. But they don’t deserve it, either.

Indeed, economic development is the precursor of all things good and humane.

This should give you a bit of a pause when you consider the quality of economic thinking coming out of the Fed. If you trust the Fed, you shouldn’t. The only frame of reference these guys have is some form of Keynesian economics. It was the Fed that got us into this mess to begin with and it is like giving the keys back to the guys who drove the bus off the cliff.

Congratulations of sorts go to Chicago for having the most messed up pension plan of any city in the nation.

What this episode illustrates, like George W. Bush’s failure to do due diligence before invading Iraq, is how little information government typically gets before it makes huge decisions with huge implications. If you’re looking for a great example of a negative externality, an act, remember, that comes about because the decision maker doesn’t bear a large percent of the cost of his decision, look no further than Bush’s Iraq invasion or Obama’s “stimulus” package.

In general, radical change just isn’t good for economies. When the future isn’t predictible, people don’t invest–and I don’t just mean rich people clipping coupons on their munis. What you see a lot in developing countries is that people don’t want to make investments that should make them better off–investments in education, in agricultural equipment, in a new business. The reason they don’t is that they can’t predict whether the government (or roving bands of thugs) will let them benefit from their investment. If you aren’t sure what the rules will be tomorrow, you’re better off consuming as much as possible today, and saving only by hoarding currency in some hidey-hole. The result is a cycle of underdevelopment.

Many systems of law and international agreements tolerate a certain amount of minor cheating; it’s just too costly to enforce strict compliance.