The only thing we have to fear is fear itself
nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror
which paralyzes needed efforts
to convert retreat into advance.
Martin Luther
Image of the Day
 |
| Via CAGW |
SPOT ON! I Did a Recent FB Comment on These Very Points
(Reason). Tip to Holder and Obama: Minority men will never trust police as long as police keep putting them in jail for things that shouldn't be crimes in the first place.
We can start, as Reason suggests, by eliminating laws enforcing victimless crimes. We can provide viable alternatives to failing public schools. We can allow households their liberty for self-defense. We can get the government out of the way of unemployed teens looking for that all important starter job.
Capitalism and Social Honor Have Lifted More People Out of Poverty Than All Religions and Politicians Put Together....
From one of Don Boudreaux's (Cafe Hayek) favorite economic historians:
Facebook Corner
(IPI). Senate Democrats defeated a Republican proposal today to put a limit of two terms on statewide officials, while the chances of a separate proposal to approve a graduated income tax in Illinois grew increasingly dim.
Why term limits? It's not that any Illinois governors have ended up in prison, right? Seriously, this state will never get its house in order so long as voters are in a state of denial of incumbency as a principal factor in corruption. Have we all forgotten how Obama's vacated seat was Blago's "golden ticket"? Voters need to send a message to self-serving politicians...
Corruption in Illinois will not end until we get rid of Speaker Madigan and that takes term limits.
Has nothing to do with term limits. Get out your common voters, get more repubs elected, then you can elect a speaker of the house. Once in power the Repubs wont be in favor of term limits because they wont want to loose their control either.
Not true. Only career politicians would be threatened. There are some career politicians in the GOP (McCain comes to mind). I can guarantee if Charlie Rangel was in the GOP, he would have been gone years ago.
(LFC). What is this???? I dont even....
First he is all like:
"There is nothing progressive about lowering earnings for working-class people, nor is there anything progressive about undercutting labor costs to the point workers are driven into poverty and homelessness. It's a game as old as the laborers in the days of the Bible and as recent as those sweating in the mines of Western and Southern Africa. Play the working class against one another for the benefit of the wealthy who seek to be served no matter the human cost."
And then he is all like:
"Most of the people who catch cabs in St. Louis are not hipsters, or yuppies or business people or college students. They're not out drinking and partying. No, the bulk of our passengers are the elderly and the working poor. People who catch cabs to and from work every day. Those who take cabs from the grocery store or to the doctor's office. Sunday is Easter and without a doubt I will be taking people to church and to their families homes to celebrate, There are others who we pick up from the emergency rooms of hospitals, rescue from domestic violence taking them to shelters or pick up from the Ronald McDonald house for sick children. No tips and usually not that much money."
Think about this for a second: The author is arguing in favor of the current taxi cartel because he believes that doing so will help the working poor in this industry earn living wages. He argues that Uber and Lyft undercut existing cab drivers and can even send them into poverty. He then makes a passionate plea to our soft sides by arguing that most of the customers he drives around are impoverished individuals in desperate need of assistance.
The author somehow is oblivious of the fact that he just contradicted himself in a major way. Yes, Uber and Lyft constitute a threat to the existing taxi structure. Yes, this will lower rates drastically and might even force some or many existing cab drivers into other professions. However, by cutting rates drastically, poor people who are forced to rely on taxis for their sole method of transportation (ie, the people who the author claims make up the majority of cab riders) will be made much better off.
You dont have to be an economist to understand that Uber and Lyft are good for the working poor: lower cab fares are more likely to help the poor people than are higher fares. Similarly, allowing any person with a clean driving record and a car to operate a cab (which is what Lyft and Uber essentially do) will do more to generate wealth among the poor than will restricting the number of cabs in order to artificially prop up the wages of a few privileged cab drivers.
No doubt he probaby still uses snail mail vs. email, because of the effect on those postal workers... We see similar muddled thinking when it comes to Chinatown buses and 1001 business model innovations. This guy is not going to be able to put the genie back in the bottle; the technology is here to stay. "Progressives" believe that they can manipulate labor markets by licensing, immigration restrictions, collective bargaining policies, and other corrupt practices. They conceptually don't get that economic growth lifts all boats and the demand for labor, that artificially high prices lessen demand and the consumer is left with less money to save, spend or invest elsewhere in the economy. In this case, the taxi industry needs to adapt if it hopes to survive.
I take cabs regularly in Austin. I'm always having to fight the drivers. There are a couple I like to ride with because they maintain their cab, are courteous and service oriented. The rest make me feel like I'm burdening them by making them do their job. Of course Austin banned Uber and Lyft for 'safety concerns', they also added some steep regulations to ensure if the services try to comply the customer will end up completely screwed. The point of all this is, I envy your ability to use Uber. Haha
It doesn't surprise me that Austin has sold out to the crony taxis; it was one of the most "progressive" cities in Texas when I earned my first Master's there.
(National Review). Elizabeth Warren wants to be president for your own good.
But I wouldn't vote for that...
(Drudge Report). BANNED FOR LIFE
Make a comment in private that we don't like? We will steal your property and trample on your rights of free association.
Rights to free association can't be abridged by a state function, a private company can.
The idea that one's constitutional rights are inapplicable if any mob chooses to ignore them is absurd. What particularly bothers me is this kerfuffle is based on a private message to a former girlfriend, whom apparently released it without his knowledge or consent; it was not in his capacity as an NBA owner. Now personally I thought what Sterling said was incredibly stupid and insensitive; if I were an owner, I would be proud to have an NBA legend like Magic Johnson in attendance at my team's games--I would probably give him the best seat in the house free for life. For Johnson to have worked with Sterling and find out later that Sterling didn't want his then girlfriend to be seen in public with him doesn't say much about Sterling as a man. Most fans like me would probably pay for an opportunity for a photo with Johnson or other NBA legends.
Sterling has already gone through a public tar-and-feathering; if and when he passes away, he'll probably be known more for his offensive soundbite than anything else he has accomplished in life. However, I have not looked at the ownership agreement with the NBA. It seems unfair that the league is punishing Sterling over a private, presumably confidential conversation, sacrificing him to the god of political correctness. Never mind the fact that NAACP gave Sterling a lifetime achievement award in 2009--presumably that was for positive reasons which should be taken into consideration of a single negative soundbite.
And now for the latest episode of troll stomping from an IPI thread :
Give up the TIF money. Stop the corporate handouts. The taxpayers, subsidize big business with food stamps, subsidized health care, and more for low paid employees of big business. Big business, needs to pay their own way, not rely on taxpayer subsidies.
"Progressive" trolls are economic illiterates. It's parasitic trolls responsible for the need for public bailouts of Dem-crony unionist corrupt bargains made behind the backs of taxpayers. Instead of reading the rants of self-serving thieves of taxpayer money, be aware that nobody supports corrupt morally hazardous policies like food stamps or subsidized health care for ANYBODY. Pretending you can pick a number out of your ass for the moronic concept of a "living wage" goes beyond economic illiteracy.
Traditional Marriage and Family
Twin sweeties! Beyond adorable!
Political Humor
Political Cartoon
Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series
ELO, "Do Ya?" Hands down, one of my favorite singles ever!
