The Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald identifies some inconsistencies among some of today’s feminists.

New York Post columnist Kyle Smith writes wisely and entertainingly on politically correct vs. politically incorrect doomsaying. (Both varieties are specious.)

Speaking of predicting the future, in Salem, MA, it’s illegal to work as a practicing psychic without a government-issued license.  (HT Roger Meiners)

Doug Bandow points out that the laws of economics apply to medical care.

Bryan Caplan poses some penetrating questions to supporters of a legislated minimum-wage.

And speaking of posing penetrating questions, Mark Perry has two of his own.

Finally, Frank Stephenson corrects an historical myth whose persistence can be explained only by a willful ignorance of politically inconvenient facts.

Be Sociable, Share!



16 comments    Share Share    Print    Email


nailheadtom May 30, 2011 at 11:18 am

Gee, I always buy tickets from scalpers at LESS than the face value. Do I owe somebody some money?

kyle8 May 30, 2011 at 11:21 am

Another question about the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is good for individuals and good for the nation, and does not adversely effect economic growth, but rather (as some claim) it puts more money into the hands of consumers.

Then, why not set it a lot higher? Why not a $30.00 an hour minimum wage?

Jonathan M. F. Catalán May 30, 2011 at 1:50 pm

Because I don’t think that’s the logic being employed. The logic probably finds its basis in Marxian exploitation theory, where those who support minimum wage see it within a firm’s ability to sacrifice profit in favor of increasing workers’ wages as a means of maintaining a standard of living that is deemed “fair”. So, it’s at least recognized that the limit to increasing workers’ wages is the profit margin of the company; nobody is looking to make the firm unprofitable, since that would be counterproductive.

What supporters of the minimum don’t take into consideration is the role of profits in re-investment and increasing productivity over the long-run, which is the only method of raising real wages. If they do, they would argue that higher workers’ wages should come at the sacrifice of the wages earned by the firm’s leadership, but they don’t realize that the majority of the firms that these laws impact are lower-income firms.

So, don’t get me wrong, the logic is still convoluted, but the argument is a little bit more complex than “raising the minimum wage raises consumption.”

kyle8 May 30, 2011 at 10:00 pm

Well, yes, it is more than that, but not a lot more. Minimum wage doesn’t even help the working poor who do manage to keep their jobs because it is quickly sublimated into the cost of production and leads to higher prices.

I suspect that politicians who use the minimum wage as a way to buy votes deliberately make it so small that in some parts of the country it is not even as high as the natural prevailing minimum wage. That way they gain political points while not doing something that they know could wreck the economy.

vidyohs May 30, 2011 at 12:35 pm

Sisterhood and the SEALS.

Another victims group beat the feminazis to the complaint by registering their complaint within less than a week. You only have to view the photos of the SEALS training or any group photo to figure out which victims group that would be.

The SEAL is not just physically strong and tough, he is also smarter than the average bear by far. It takes the whole package to be a SEAL.

On the other hand, I have known a few women that have the mental capacity and toughness to endure the SEAL training, but not the physical strength and toughness to do so.

On the flip side:

There are undoubtedly at least one or two women who could show the physical strength and toughness to endure; but doubtful they would also have the capacity and toughness.

Will the intelligent and practical be sacrificed on the alter of stupidity? Wait and see.

Methinks1776 May 30, 2011 at 4:27 pm

God help us if they lower the standards to accept women into the SEALs.

That article turned me stomach and it’s the reason I choose not to work with other women if I can help it. During my time at investment banks, I personally knew three different women working as financial professionals who were fired because…well…they weren’t any good. All three sued, claiming that they were fired because of their gender. The banks settled with all three – although, the banks were completely correct in firing them. One was such a moron I was shocked she managed to find her way to work every day.

Don Boudreaux May 30, 2011 at 4:31 pm

The economic theory underlying such gender-discrimination lawsuits necessarily is that the defendant firms are so attached to their irrational dislike of, or skepticism of, women, that these firms willingly forgo profits by firing valuable employees.

It’s a thoroughly unconvincing theory, yet it’s one that is widely held, especially among lawyers.

vidyohs May 30, 2011 at 6:19 pm

Lawyers need no theory other than sue, settle, and walk away richer.

A lawyer will take a case to trial if forced to do so, but trust me, they all would rather just arbitrate and settle. An every day story to vidyohs.

Right now in Texas there is a bill before the legislature that would instill “loser pays” in our state justice system……..I am solidly in favor of it though obviously it will make my income drop considerable……and I mean considerably. But, oh the moaning and bitching, the dire predictions of justice being denied to the poor people of Texas that comes from the lawyers as the converse across the table before and after a deposition.

I have to bite my tongue to keep from interjecting the truth…justice will be there for those that have a case, but there will be no more of this crappy lawsuits where a 5′ tall woman, weighing 350Lbs, who ignores all warnings from her doctor about controlling weight and the negative effects that weight will have on a normal healthy birth…….oh no, screw that, they bloat up and during birth their babies suffer defects from the actual birthing process itself…….and it is the doctors fault, they contact a lawyer, lawyer sues, fortunes are consumed in discovery, production, and depositions, until finally the insurance company settles and everyone but the doctor and justice walks away a winner.

Of course we have a screwed up child on Social Security disability for life, a mother who doesn’t give a shit and goes right out and gets her fat ass pregnant again, the lawyer walks away richer, and the doctor begins to think that he won’t take medicade/medicare patients anymore.

I am sorry to say it sir, but the economics underlying all this shit is the simple economics of “I breath, you owe me” that has been taught to them by the propaganda whores we call liberal professors and politicians.

Like the lawyer said to my brother after a deposition on asbestosis, (speaking of his clients) “They didn’t even know they were sick and until I convinced them.”

vidyohs May 30, 2011 at 6:58 pm

Arrrrrgh, need edit function or more patient mind.

purplefox May 30, 2011 at 4:38 pm

If they were working in such a “hostile” environment, why on earth would they be unhappy about being told not to come in any more? Probably because suing and staying on unemployment is easier than becoming competent and finding another job.

vidyohs May 30, 2011 at 9:45 pm

This is a thought that has long bothered me about people and the general concept of progress.

If I were laid off because a little black box could do my job better or as well, and never require a rest, therefore be worth more in productivity to the company, I personally would be humiliated to go beg for my job back.

“Take this job and shove it”, okay, “Take this worker and shove him”.

“I want my old job back”…… my old salary, and in a world where progress just flows right around and past me, so I become like a rock in a small stream……an obstacle to the flow of the productivity.

Life is. Get over it, eh?

vidyohs May 30, 2011 at 9:46 pm

purplefox, that last sentence was rhetorical and not directed at you. I am in agreement with you.

vidyohs May 30, 2011 at 6:07 pm

M’lady, I can’t tell you how routine this story is in my life as a legal videographer, of course it isn’t just Wallstreet, it is every field of endeavor, trust me, it is everyday.

Brad Hutchings May 30, 2011 at 1:09 pm

Sisterhood and the SEALS… Suggestion for next frat boy prank. Blank signs. Photoshop them later. Crowd source it, offend more people, denounce how base society has become, file a lawsuit against anyone who questions your intentions, win, win, win!

paulroscelli May 30, 2011 at 11:37 pm

And now tell me you’d pay a restaurant bill if the menu said the meal was 12$ but after it was over the owners came and asked for $98–from your children. (98$ = 12$ +86$). Medicare is doing the exact same thing

no one important May 31, 2011 at 1:31 am

Re: Licensing psychics

I wonder, if you hide the articles’ sources, how many people could tell the difference between real New York Times articles and satirical articles from The Onion nowadays…

‘“Many of them are not trained,” she said of her rivals. “They don’t understand that when you do a reading you hold a person’s life in your hands.” ‘


BTW, on a loosely related note, my pet theory about Krugman’s change from an economist to Democrat shill is that he and George Cloony swapped places in the late 1990s.

Previous post:

Next post: