This is from about a year and a half ago. Deirdre McCloskey wrote an excellent piece criticizing the modern progressive narrative about needing more government. McCloskey points out that the history of government interventions simply does not square with this narrative. In fact, supposedly well intentioned government interventions have typically benefited the well connected incumbents at the expense of the common man. This, quite literally, hits the nail on the head. Reproduced in full:
"To a discussion by political philosophers a mere fact woman like me, an economic historian trained in the 1960s as a transportation economist, has really only one thing to contribute. It is, to slightly modify Cromwell’s imprecation to the Scottish Presbyterians in 1650, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be [factually] mistaken.”
Yes, I know, you want to reject all these factual findings because they are “right-wing” or “libertarian.” All I ask you to do is, once in a while, consider. Don’t believe everything you read in the papers."
Keep this is in mind next time you read someone like Paul Krugman. Krugman, among others, constantly criticizes others for not changing their views in the face of contrary evidence.
Yet, Krugman himself keeps on advocating the same progressive, statist policies despite the overwhelming record of failure.