Isaac Schrödinger

Phantom Powers

Pejman Yousefzadeh writes about those nasty speculators.

I Confess: I'm an Idiot

Larvatus Prodeo:

What it shows is that the majority of people don’t understand why cutting the petrol tax is a stupid idea.

Link via Tim Blair who comments:

They want – let’s get this straight – cheaper fuel? Why, Australians must be idiots.

The King of Fruits is Pricey

Uber Desi writes about the high cost of bringing Indian mangoes to the American market. A mango from Mexico is around $1. That's how much they cost at my local grocery store.

The ones from India can be close to $3 each.

Link via Desi Pundit.

A Truly Bad Policy

The Examiner via Instapundit:

This year, it’s harder than ever for teens to find a summer job. Researchers at Northeastern University described summer 2007 as “the worst in post-World War II history” for teen summer employment, and those same researchers say that 2008 is poised to be “even worse.”

Terrible.

The percentage of teens classified as “unemployed” — those who are actively seeking a job but can’t get one — is more than three times higher than the national unemployment rate, according to the most recent Department of Labor statistics.

Why would that be?

One of the prime reasons for this drastic employment drought is the mandated wage hikes that policymakers have forced down the throats of local businesses. Economic research has shown time and again that increasing the minimum wage destroys jobs for low-skilled workers while doing little to address poverty.

The majority of voters are responsible for this.

According to economist David Neumark of the University of California at Irvine, for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, employment for high school dropouts and young black adults and teenagers falls by 8.5 percent. In the past 11 months alone, the United States’ minimum wage has increased by more than twice that amount.

Click here to read what I wrote about the minimum wage four years ago.

Is America (Still) Great?

The Apostate:

Our leaders, the best among them, don’t do a very good job of representing our values. Half of them are in power to prevent government from actually doing anything useful — on principle, because dammit! they believe in “small government.”

More:

The people give generously to charities for services the government should be providing.

Since when was it the job of the US government to provide money for charity? There are tons of charities that one might not support. Why should any government take your money and distribute it among them?

I'd rather have the government not tax me for that sort of stuff; I don't mind giving money to worthy causes -- causes which I doubt the government would finance.

Still if you're feeling generous, here's a sample letter for the feds.

"Dear Federal Government,

I have so little time and energy for charities. So, here's [insert amount of money]. I trust you'll use it well!

Hugs and Kisses
[Insert name.]"

Moving on:

The people vote. The people fight. It’s not their fault that they are being systematically disenfranchised and it’s not their fault they don’t have the time, between holding down two jobs and taking care of their kids and doing the housework, to look up “the issues” on candidates’ websites.

So ... whose fault is it?

Working with what's given, there's a lesson here: Manage your lifestyle and don't have too many kids so that you can follow "the issues" on candidates' websites.

Or you can cut down on the TV viewing a little.

“Freedom” rings hollow when one examines America’s recent crimes against human rights at home and abroad.

America has poured hundreds of billions of dollars into the grand enterprise of establishing democracy, freedom and human rights in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are no guarantees; history will eventually decide if she fails or succeed.

There is, however, nothing criminal about this matter. If you want to see "crimes against human rights", then just look at the other side.

You don’t have to have a college education or any kind of authority to have faith in your humanity in this country — as an American, you are free. I hope this spirit prevails over the impending disasters and Americans, when it comes down to it, fight to keep their freedom. They’ve lost it already on the books.

I'm a bit dense to see that loss.

P.S. Yes, Larry and I are buying guns if the jackboots do come. Larry’s always been an anti-gun liberal [...]

Some freedoms can be compromised.

A commenter asked why The Apostate supports Hillary over Obama. The answer starts off thusly:

For me personally? Because she’s a woman.

I wonder what the reaction would be if someone asked a Democrat, "Why do you support Obama over Hillary?" and the answer was, "Because he's a man. (Not much of one but still a man!)"

Later in another comment:

DCC, about letting the people off easy… I didn’t use to. But think about it: They did elect both Gore and Kerry, you know? If the Republicans stole two elections, that is NOT the fault of the people.

Wow. They "stole" the one in 2004 as well by winning the electoral college again. Why those dastardly Republicans!

By the way, the answer to the question is a resounding, "Hell Yeah!"

Chasing Away the Goose

The Wall Street Journal:

Massachusetts legislators, demonstrating a growing resentment against the wealth of elite universities in tight economic times, are studying a plan to levy a 2.5% annual tax on the portion of college endowments that exceed $1 billion.

The effort takes aim at one of the primary economic engines of the state, which is home to nine universities with endowments that surpass the $1 billion level, led by Harvard University's $35 billion cache, the nation's largest.

What a spectacularly dumb idea. Harvard ought to retaliate. Professor Greg Mankiw offers a good idea:

If this were to pass, here is what I would consider:

1. Instead of expanding the university into Alston, Harvard could create a second campus in another state. Call it Harvard South. (Put it in a better climate than Boston, and I would be one of the first faculty to volunteer for the move.)

Laissez Faire

Sepia Mutiny:

On the News Tab, KXB posted a link to an article in Time about the skyrocketing global price of rice, which has the potential to destabilize economic conditions (and governments) all over Asia. For those who haven’t been following it, the price of rice has more than doubled in the past six months, peaking recently at more than $23.00 per hundred pounds.

Later:

The question I have for those who understand these issues better than myself is this: what should the Indian government do, keeping in mind that the vast majority of Indian consumers of rice cannot afford the current price?

The Indian government ought to do nothing because their tampering with the simple market will make matters worse. One of the unappreciated advantages of the higher prices is that it signals to the farmers to produce more rice in the near-future -- so that they can cash in. If the Indian government were to squash that incentive, then this shortage will last longer -- and it'll signal to farmers and producers to not bother producing more of other foods as well.

Update
Here's what Gary Becker has to say:

The Moroccan government forced bakers there to hold the price of bread steady during the holy month of Ramadan. The European Union has suspended, unfortunately not rescinded, its rules that prevent farmers from planting cereals on a specified fraction of their land. Many other countries are also considering controls, subsidies, and regulations to prevent food prices from rising so rapidly.

Most of these policies are counterproductive because they discourage rather than encourage food production. This is especially true of price controls since farmers will grow less of the foods that have artificially low price ceilings.

Exactly.

Harsh Life of a Billionaire

Pejman:

For the first time in my life, being a billionaire seems like a bad thing.

He does have a valid point.

What Words Mean

Joseph Sobran via the Adam Smith Institute via Greg Mankiw:

"Need" now means wanting someone else's money. "Greed" means wanting to keep your own. "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer.

Ain't socialism grand?

The Neocon Identity

Ummah Pulse:

"Trickle-Down Theory", which first surfaced in the 1930s, is an old con-trick idea which promises that if rich people were encouraged to make themselves as wealthy as possible through huge salaries, tax cuts, bonuses, stock options and perks, their wealth would trickle down to the rest of the population and thereby raise the standard of living for all. Although in theory it appeared appealing, in practice it has always led to a drastic increase in the gap between the rich and the dispossessed. The rich always get richer and the poor are always swamped by more destitution.

So what if the income gap got larger? Relative poverty ought to be meaningless. What matters is that one can live a comfortable, individual, debt-free life in most of the US for under $1,000-a-month.

Another point: There will always be poverty because some people just do not know how to save and spend money. One can give them a million dollars and a few years down the road they would be broke and wallowing in debt. Blaming Neocons (hunh?) for the poor in the US is asinine.

During the Reagan administration, the Neocon darlings could not tout Trickle-Down Theory for it was by then thoroughly discredited through bitter experience. So they came up with a new disguise for it. Trickle-Down Theory was re-branded as the Laffer Curve, named after its inventor Arthur Laffer, a colleague of Milton Friedman who had famously written a column, Hooray for Magaret Thatcher, in Newsweek magazine urging American politicians to follow her example.

What will those Jews Neocons think of next!

Throughout the 1980s there was continuous decline in the long-term capital investment upon which growth and jobs are dependent. In that same decade a recession began, the Federal Reserve was forced to raise interest rates to dampen inflation and unemployment rose, for the first time since the 1930s, above 10 per cent.

Correct. The unemployment rate in 1982-83 was the worst since the Great Depression. So, an interesting question presents itself: Why didn't Americans vote out Ronald Reagan in 1984 like they did Herbert Hoover in 1932?

So Not Cool

This is discrimination. Via Instapundit.

Why can't there be a typical (*looks at arm*) beige person T-shirt?

Another Hopeless Politician

CTV:

Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.

Pejman Yousefzadeh writes:

Just utterly pathetic. Say one thing and do another--and anger a trading ally in the process. Weren't we told that these traits were a hallmark of the Bush Presidency? It would appear that the Politics of Hope resides in an especially fragile glass house.

Ouch!

Assaulting Incentives

Prof. Mankiw links to a depressing story regarding the poverty trap. And at the other end of the spectrum, he also discusses the deleterious effects of high tax rates. These are two excellent posts.

How The World Works

An Interview with Thomas Sowell:

We've frequently heard, and will hear much more I am sure if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, that women make 76 cents for every dollar a man makes. Can you give us a basic rundown of why that discrepancy exists?

There are lots of reasons. Men and women do not work the same number of hours. They do not work in the same occupations. They do not work continuously the same, and so on.

You know, if it was really true that you could hire a woman for three quarters of what you could hire a man with exactly the same qualifications, then employers would be crazy not to hire all women. It would be insane to hire men. Not only would it be insane, it would probably put them out of the business because the ones that were smart enough to hire women would have such a cost advantage that it would be really hard for the others to compete.

A lot more here.

Credit and Debt in America

Muslim Matters:

To owe someone $8,000, for about $6,500 worth of stuff, and be enslaved to paying a small fee of it every month, for 15+ years is normal to most Americans. The average American household, according to many statistics, is over $8,000 (if not 9,000) just in credit card debt.

Some monthly numbers are presented and then:

Such is the way of life for an average household. Enslaved, almost quite literally, to the monthly payment.

Who is "almost quite literally" making a slave of these Americans? These people freely picked the size and nature of their debt. Of course, it can be argued whether they were smart or not in doing so but slavery, or something quite like it, had nothing to do with it.

One article I came across said,

…experts say, your total monthly long-term debt payments, including your mortgage and credit cards, should not exceed 36 percent of your gross monthly income.

Sounds about right.

For every dollar you make (after taxes), you should keep only $0.64 for yourself, and pay $0.36 to the bank. That’s for your long term debts. As interest accumulates, is there any hope of ever paying it off? Of that 36 cents there is a good chance that 24 cents are going to interest/fees, meaning only 12 cents will actually go to the principal amount.

That doesn't sound right. This means that for every $1 spent on paying back the principal(s), $2 is paid for the interest. What rate are these people paying?

This drive to attain material goods is causing families to lose their homes, declare bankruptcy, have their marriages split apart - all because of their debts. It is a vicious animal that does not get much attention.

Thanks for covering this dangerous animal!

Coming up next… What Islam says about debts.

I'm dying with anticipation.

The True King, Yaar

George Will via Pejman:

McDonald's has 14,000 restaurants in America and an additional 17,000 in 117 other countries. The company will add 1,000 others in 2008, more than 90 percent of them abroad. Such is the power of the McDonald's brand, 48 percent of the people of India were aware of McDonald's before it opened its first restaurant on the subcontinent.

Why am I hungry all of a sudden?

Merry Christmas Rich Americans

Yikes!

My current effective income tax rate in Ontario is approx. 20% and that's just after one year of employment. By comparison the fourth 20% in the US has an effective rate of 17.4% on all federal taxes.

What's worse is that I've to pay a 14% sales tax on most items. Let's say I start with a pre-tax income of $2000 a month. The federal tax takes away $400. Then, since not all products have the sales tax applied, let's say the effective sales tax is 10%.

I go from $1600 to $1440. Thus, my overall combined tax rate on all income comes out to 28%. That is so not cool.

No Love for Longhorn

Aaron Edlin: The Operating System that Stole Christmas.

Link via Greg Mankiw.

63% Slave

International Herald Tribune:

As a self-employed software engineer, Thomas Sorensen broadcasts his qualifications to potential employers across Europe and the Middle East. But to the ones in his native Denmark, he is simply unavailable.

Why?

Young Danes, often schooled abroad and inevitably fluent in English, are primed to quit Denmark for greener pastures. One reason is the income tax rate, which can reach 63 percent.

Damn!

John Hawkins comments on what the rich can do:

They can move and if they have enough money, they can choose to just live on the fortune they've already earned or go live on a tropical island somewhere with a low tax rate, sipping margaritas for the rest of their lives. Then what happens to the tax revenue they're producing? What about the jobs that they're providing? What about the loans they're giving to entrepreneurs?

They all go bye-bye.

You Cannot Escape It

It being economics.

How The World Doesn't Work

A friend emailed the link to this news:

At first glance the supermarket off Avenida Francisco Miranda appeared to be a gourmet dream. Smoked salmon in the freezer. An aisle filled with Italian olive oil, balsamic vinegar and pesto. Another aisle stacked with Perrier, champagne and the finest Scotch.

But of milk, eggs, sugar and cooking oil there was no sign. Where were they? The question yesterday prompted a puzzled look from the manager. "There isn't any. Everybody knows that. Pasta is probably the next to go," he shrugged.

This is what happens when one disregards the law of supply and demand. Sadly for the miserable public, the socialist thug-in-charge is in no mood to reverse his destructive policies.

Mean Life

Greg Mankiw:

The Carpe Diem blog has an interesting table, reproduced above, that corrects life expectancy data for differences in the rates of premature death from non-health-related injury, such as homicide and car accidents. The resulting number reflects health-related mortality.

The result might be surprising for some.

American Dollar Dumped

The US dollar has really lost its status.

Link via Sandmonkey.

Squeezing the Rich

Greg Mankiw:

Some are using dissatisfaction over the U.S. health care as a Trojan Horse to push for more redistribution of income. Almost all sweeping health reform proposals involve higher taxes on the rich to provide benefits for those father down the economic ladder. The redistribution, rather than health reform, is sometimes the main objective.

Yup.

Perpetual Economic Nightmares

Thomas Sowell writes about political "solutions" in the US. His first example is the risky subprime loans.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, where housing prices are the highest in the nation, risky interest-only loans went from being 11 percent of all new mortgages in 2002 to being 66 percent of all new mortgages in 2005.

Study after study has shown that housing prices are highest where government restrictions on building are the most severe. That is the ugly result of pretty words like "open space."

The last example only requires the understanding of a supply and demand diagram. Still, many people support the policy out of misguided compassion.

Link via Gus Van Horn.

A Deceptively Cheap Lunch

Greg Mankiw on the new, as in the same old, Russian scheme:

The basic economics here is straightforward, but apparently it is not widely enough understood among the general population to make this kind of policy a political loser.

That is true for most economically inefficient policies.

Through Thick and Thin

A little over one hour: Market Failure and Market Design by Al Roth.

Link via Greg Mankiw.

Lunches Getting Expensive

Greg Mankiw:

Employer-provided health insurance is just a form of compensation that happens to be provided in kind rather than in cash. What the Times seems to be saying is that because companies like General Motors have promised levels of compensation too large to make them competitive in the international marketplace, we should shift the responsibility for some of that compensation from the companies to the taxpayer.

The Times agrees that this policy of providing health insurance has made GM less competitive in the global market. Doesn't it follow then that by shifting this burden to the taxpayers the US economy would, in the long run, become less competitive? Furthermore, why should workers of sensible companies pay for the awful policies implemented by GM?

Those Villainous Capitalists!

My heart bleeds:

The price of staple foods has increased by up to 100% this Ramadan in Muslim countries. Countries such as Jordan, Egypt and Qatar have all experienced many price rises at the supermarket over the past month causing poorer families to bare the brunt.

Salem Saeed, a school teacher in the Jordanian capital Amman, explains, "I have five children and had to borrow money to cope with a sudden jump in food prices during Ramadan".

I look at it differently. It's not that he has too little money for his kids, it's that he has too many kids for his money. If you're borrowing money to cope with the doubling of food prices for 30 days, then you're being irresponsible. (Imagine, if this guy got laid off and couldn't find a job for a few months. How would he pay for the essential food, shelter, and utilities for his family?)

Moving on, the resident economist at the Ummah Pulse explains:

Many Muslim countries - Syria being one - have large debts with the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank, which in exchange for loans set conditions on the borrowing country.

Okay.

The loan conditions have been heavily criticised by those that claim that such policies open up markets in poor or developing countries to large multi-nationals that are usually owned by wealthy individuals in first world countries. These multinationals can then exploit the countries' natural resources and often cheap labour for the production of goods. With this domination in the market and reduced powers for the government to intervene, multinationals can manipulate prices with little intervention from local or national governments.

And here I thought that demand for food went up and the supply slacked (because starving workers don't perform at an optimal level) which led to higher prices. Silly me.

Loving the Hammer

Gus Van Horn:

I have argued here before that the biggest shortcoming in the global warming debate is that two separate questions are being confounded. These are: (1) Is human activity causing the climate to become warmer through emissions of greenhouse gases? And (2) If so, should the government impose economic regulations to counteract these effects?

Later:

The government is the sole social institution that properly wields force (i.e., through the delegated rights of citizens to use force to defend their lives and rights). All questions regarding whether the government ought to "do something" are thus really questions about whether the government should use force. The proper answer to all such questions -- unless any given proposal would lead to the government better protecting the rights of all citizens -- is "No!" because the sole purpose of the government is to protect individual rights.

That's the problem. Far too many people have no qualms about using government force to mold, and often break, others.

It's for the greater good, damn it!

Let Go of the Tit Aready

Aaron Hanscom:

[...] Italy’s government will offer young Italians money to leave home. Most of that cash will be going to men, as they make up 67 percent of those staying alla casa. Close-knit family takes on a whole new meaning when you consider that eight out of 10 Italians under 30 still live at home, and the average age for moving out is 36.

Holy. Crap.

I've been largely living away from my family since the age of fifteen and now in my 20s, I'm financially independent. How can such a large majority of people not value that freedom?

It Feels Good

Clayton Cramer writes about the "Two Americas":

All this faux populism by billionaires seems to fool some people, but it sure isn't fooling me.

Read it all.

Dropping the Doe

Helicopter Ben cracked me up. The warning on the lower right is priceless.

How The World Doesn't Work

Horinomics!?

It sounds ... naughty.

America Relieves the Pressure

CTV.ca:

Liberal MP Belinda Stronach, who is battling breast cancer, travelled to California last June for an operation that was recommended as part of her treatment, says a report.

Clayton Cramer:

Some of the comments on the Canadian Television story from Canadians are very revealing. A lot of the liberals are basically saying that it is an invasion of Stronach's privacy to discuss what seems to be a failure of the Canadian health care system. Other comments by Canadians reveal some deep disgust with what is going on.

Click here to read them.

The Way the World Works

Amir talks about cheap labor and sweat shops. He quickly makes the point:

[...] the sad reality is that if people — without physical coercion — enter into a contract to work in a sweatshop then that means that they are deriving some benefit from that transaction; ergo, working in a sweatshop is preferable to not working in a sweatshop (being unemployed, starving, or turning to crime to earn a living).

Precisely.

Also read this post from last year, "Exploiting the Poor".

Odd Incentives

Greg Mankiw:

Looking at the new rankings reminded me of a conversation I had with a teacher at a mid-ranked university a few years. He told me that all classes of introductory econ at his school were, without exception, capped at 49 students. Why such an odd number?, I asked.

Click here to find out.

Everybody Loves Moving Money

Reason:

This is a story about some economists who set out to study altruism and ended up discovering something very frightening about human nature.

It's like they're describing the students at my university!

Dismal Results

The New York Times via Greg Mankiw:

Studies have shown that when students are tested about their knowledge of basic economic principles six months after completing an introductory economics course, they score no better, on average, than those who never took the course.

Yikes.

I knew many engineering students in university who had to take an econ course. Without exception, they all loathed it.

A few reasons why:

• The course was not related to their field. Ergo, it was a waste of time and little effort was put into it.
• The material itself was arcane and a pain in the ass. Who the hell cares about marginal cost / utility!?
• The professor was incompetent. Often unclear and sometimes he would, word-for-word, repeat a previous lecture.

So, we have problems on both sides.

On the 'supply' side, the university doesn't assign good teachers. (They're hired on their research ability mostly. This doesn't imply that they're good teachers.)

On the 'demand' side, many students won't take any further econ courses after finishing the introductory course. Also, after being subjected to the awful teachers many decide, "No thanks."

I have always found it ironic that economists who write about inefficiencies can't / don't apply the same logic to their own profession in the university setting.

This is truly a disgrace.

Human Relativity

The New York Times via Greg Mankiw:

When asked whether they’d rather have a 4,000-square-foot house in a neighborhood of 6,000-square-foot McMansions, or a 3,000-square-foot home in a zone of 2,000-square-foot bungalows, most people opt to lord it over their neighbors.

I have never fully understood this mindset since I would have chosen the 4000 square footer. This thought process doesn't stop with a hypothetical house. Some years ago, in one of my university courses, a student presented research which basically showed that most people would prefer to make $80,000 in a world where the average income was $60,000 rather than make $100,000 in a world where the average income was $120,000.

I've never cared what most people think about me, so that factor hasn't influenced me much. Still, I've always found this odd: many would prefer to be financially worse off for this small thing called status. I've seen people devote much time and energy to one-up their colleagues and their social strata -- that it often seems to be their purpose in life. Their appetite can't be satiated because there is always someone "better".

Such people remain forever poor.

The Logic for Cutting Taxes

Greg Mankiw: On Charlatans and Cranks.

The Equal Distribution of Misery

A friend emailed this link:

Zimbabweans are facing starvation as shop owners remove basic commodities from shop shelves ahead of police and soldiers' patrols to identify retailers who have defied government directives to reduce prices.

Welcome to socialist paradise.

The state-owned National Incomes and Pricing Commission enacted by cabinet on Monday ordered retail shops to reduce the price of bread from $46 000 to $22 000 a loaf, 10 kg refined maize meal from $130 000 to $85 000,2kg white sugar from $70 000 to $33 940 and Mazoe orange crush 2 liters from $600 000 to $120 000 among other goods.The price of fuel, which had reached an all time high of $180 000 per litre, was slashed to $60 000.

Don't these people ever get tired of being bitch slapped by the Invisible Hand?

The Worth of a Rupee

I find the material here quite funny.

Ignorant Twirps

The US Congress wants to make "price gouging" illegal. You see, the free market is free as long as it doesn't settle on a price that is "unreasonable" or "unconscionably excessive".

Simple prediction: many gas station owners will close down their places during emergencies. Why should they sell anything at a loss and risk fine / jail for "unreasonable" prices?

These politicians really don't get the basic supply and demand curves if they actually think that legislating in such manner will get them "reasonable" results.

Scaring Away The Goose

The Independent:

For a nation that invented the term "guest worker" for its immigrant labourers, Germany is facing the sobering fact that record numbers of its own often highly-qualified citizens are fleeing the country to work abroad in the biggest mass exodus for 60 years.

This statistic is incredible:

OECD figures show that Germany is near the top of a league of industrial nations experiencing a brain drain which for the first time since the 1950s now exceeds the number of immigrants.

That's what happens with consistent soak-the-rich policies--the rich get fed up, pack up and leave.

Competition Is Good

Even in the case of government.

Bedouin Economics

Why is Dubai so successful?

Read the shocking secret here.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

This is utterly asinine:

The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.

The Agriculture Department tests fewer than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. A beef producer in the western state of Kansas, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wants to test all of its cows.

What a blatantly anti-business move:

U.S. District Judge James Robertson noted that Creekstone sought to use the same test the government relies on and said the government didn't have the authority to restrict it. - A federal judge ruled in March that such tests must be allowed. The ruling was scheduled to take effect June 1, but the Agriculture Department said Tuesday it would appeal, effectively delaying the testing until the court challenge has played out.

There's a war waging on two fronts and the American government is putting efforts into stopping a private farm from testing all its cows.

Idiots!

Link via Instapundit.

Free or Not to Free the Yuan

Greg Mankiw:

The dollar-yuan exchange rate is an economic fetish of many people unschooled in basic economics (a topic previously discussed here). In today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Dartmouth economist Matthew Slaughter, fresh from a stint at the CEA, tries to bring some rationality to the issue.

Go read it all.

I think it's a terrible idea for American lawmakers to demand that China conduct her monetary policy in a certain way.

Air-Conditioned Exploitation!

Tim Blair:

Those vicious capitalists; how dare they improve everything!

Bonus Time For Mankiw

Ha!

The Irrationality of Sharia

Johnathan Pearce:

The moral prejudice against usury always struck me as irrational.

Same here.

The "logic" behind the prohibition of usury is simple: Muhammad was against it. That's all Muslims need to be "convinced".

Click here to read about another example and see just how injurious such a rule often is to Muslims.

Capitalism in Action

A perfect episode of Bullshit: in defense of Wal-Mart. I loved the part where the economist defended sweat shops -- even the ones in which children were employed. (No, I'm not kidding.)

Link via Pejman.

How The World Doesn't Work

Chavez shows us in real time:

President Hugo Chavez announced Sunday that his government's sweeping reforms toward socialism will include the creation of "collective property."

Vowing to undermine capitalism's continued influence in Venezuela during his television and radio program "Hello President," Chavez said state-financed cooperatives would operate under a new concept in which workers would share profits.

Assuming there are any.

Chavez — a leftist former paratrooper popularly known as "El Comandante" — said his government fully respects private property, but pledged to replace capitalist ideals with socialist principles on cooperatives such as cattle ranches and farms.

"It cannot be production to generate profits for one person or a small group of people that become rich exploiting peons who end up becoming slaves, living in poverty and misery their entire lives," he said.

From now on, everyone* in Venezuela will live in poverty and misery. Hurray for the equal distribution of suffering!

* Chavez and his cronies excluded, of course.

Link via Daimnation.

Oh No.

There will be, statistically, less mirth for me in the coming years.

The Greatest Economist of the 20th Century

Brian Doherty: The Life and Times of Milton Friedman.

Read it all.

Quote of the Day

Hugo Faría on Hugo Chávez:

Anyone who sees a 12 ½-cent coin as a remedy for this country's problems isn't thinking too clearly.

Link via Pejman.

The Rich Just Might Leave

Neptunus Lex quotes the beer story that relates to the progressive tax structure in the US. Link via Cold Fury.