A couple of points: Much emphasis on greater freedom, is primarily the dialogue of those who already prosper. Meanwhile, millions lack the kinds of economic settings which would contribute to greater freedom and long term prosperity. Why has economic freedom not been promoted, for multiple income levels? In particular: where populations now have the least freedom of all: the welfare state. Libertarians could lessen today's political polarization, by generating better free market options which actually tempt individuals to leave the limited security promises of the state.
Perhaps libertarians have found themselves on the losing end time and again, because everyone imagines themselves as though stuck with the same set of economic circumstance. Unfortunately, the same set of economic rules for all concerned, is turning welfare states into debt burdens, in which income levels vary too much for a single system to work property.
Of course, the hardest part, is the natural inclination on the part of governments and their populations, to solve extreme income differences as a single equilibrium problem. Is it just me, or do people really become more strident and authoritarian, when a single equilibrium no longer responds to reason and common sense. Nevertheless, there is no longer sufficient room in today's general equilibrium conditions, for everyone to fully participate.
Consequently, too much human capital and knowledge potential is being squandered on a daily basis. Why not consider an alternative equilibrium option, which would be more fair for all concerned, given the constraints of monetary and time value as differently apportioned. It's better to create alternative welfare systems for alternative income levels, than to destroy a system which cannot be expected to work for everyone.
In "No More Roads", Henry Grabar writes:
The rural population, after three decades of declining growth, started shrinking in 2010. In America's metro areas, where more than 4 in 5 Americans live, the road network has been expanding faster than population growth since 1980...In and around cities, road mileage has grown at exactly twice the rate of population.David Beckworth for U.S. News, "Never before has the Fed had to shrink its balance sheet. It is effectively flying blind and the stakes are high."
Some counties have more problems regarding lack of mobility, than others.
Steven Durlauf at Vox, provides a summary of Kenneth Arrow's achievements.
Job growth has been underwhelming.
What is already happening, due to the impact of robots?
Money and Banking looks at "The Fed's Balance Sheet and the Stance of Monetary Policy"
Ricardo Reis: Is Something Really Wrong With Macroeconomics?
George Selgin explains his interpretation of aggregate spending capacity.
David Beckworth's interview with Tyler Cowen and a response from Scott Sumner, "Is the public opposed to NGDP Targeting?"
Even if the whole group acts like one individual, don't treat it as if that were actually the case.
(Arthur Brooks) http://www.aei.org/publication/protests-fact-life/
What did the Fed do wrong? Scott Sumner gets really specific.
..."capital" is the time-structure of production. Whenever you start a production process that has present costs and future benefits, you have capital. And the innovation itself is a capital project.Ed Dolan: What is the role of "big government" in prosperity?
Alice Rivlin: mutual support for budget matters in turbulent times.
Josh Hendrickson addresses "Some Myths About Interest on Reserves".
The economic consequences of partisanship in a polarized era.
Cashier or Consultant? Entry Labor Market Conditions, Field of Study, and Career Success
Is it realistic to attribute Rust Belt decline, to China and Mexico? The real changes took place before these countries became a substantial part of the economic equation.
Some interesting comparisons: http://www.investmentzen.com/news/this-map-ranks-the-affordability-of-houses-in-major-u-s-cities-relative-to-income/
Edward Glaeser: "Reforming land use regulations"