Quote of the Day
There's nothing new under the sun,
but there are lots of old things we don't know.
Ambrose Bierce
Image of the Day
Chart of the Day: Bipartisan Political Humor
The First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lawyers
To provide the context, Voltaire is a NYC French restaurant. A lawyer's wife wanted to order takeout; the restaurant replied that they don't offer takeout service. The wife then attempted to intimidate the restaurant with a do-you-know-who-I-am (or who-my-husband-is); at some point, her husband got on the phone, and when an unimpressed restaurant manager stood his ground, promised to post a negative review on Yelp. The manager sarcastically asked him in effect, "Are you a schoolyard bully?" The bottom line, the lawyer did post a negative review (which you can read
here), but the restaurant owner's response is epic and is quoted here in full (there's a minor question about the restaurant's risotto which I omit on basis of relevance):
I sincerely apologize that we don’t offer “take-out” food at our restaurant. Being a Yelp user, I’m sure you were aware that on our Yelp business page, on the right side of the screen, it lists details about our establishment. There is an item listed “Take-Out : No”. We have never offered take-out food as we believe the food we prepare should be presented as we see fit, (usually) on a plate inside the dining room.
On your previous visits, you say you have witnessed dishes being boxed up as proof that we provide “take-out” food. Although we do allow our guests to take their uneaten food with them in to-go boxes after they have dined with us, we have never offered “take-out” food.
If you were actually starving, as in a life threatening condition requiring nutritional sustenance, we would be happy to assist you..we do make exceptions for emergency situations.
Our general manager did question the age/maturity of your husband after he became combative and threatened us with a negative Yelp review if we did not alter our operational practice and provide him with “take-out” food. 15 minutes later you indeed came through with this threat. I can assure you that we don’t offer “take-out” food because we feel we are “too good” for our customers; we just prefer to have our guests dine with us, allowing for the proper presentation (and temperature) of their fare that has been skillfully prepared by our kitchen.
I am very pleased that you frequent New York. We travel often as well. And I can assure you that there are many restaurants in NYC that do not offer “take-out” food. Although there are many other options that do – in Kansas City as well (Go Royals!).
It was made REPEATEDLY clear in the conversation with your husband that he is a lawyer. Let me provide the following analogy/role reversal…it may assist in clarifying your request.
YOU: I want to hire you to handle my divorce.
ME: But, I’m a tax lawyer.
YOU: I don’t care…I want you to handle my divorce.
ME: Sorry, but I don’t practice that form of law.
YOU: Just handle my divorce, I’ll pay you…it will be fine.
ME: I don’t feel comfortable providing my services as a divorce lawyer, as I am a tax lawyer. You won’t receive the service you are wanting or that I am willing to provide.
YOU: Well, I travel to NYC often, and in NYC, Tax lawyers handle my divorce litigation all the time. I don’t know what the problem is. I’ve told you I’m a chef, right?
ME: Well, that’s nice sir, but I really can’t help you. It goes against my business practice.
YOU: If you don’t represent me in my divorce, I’m going to post it all over the [most frequented social media review of lawyers] that you refused to provide me with the service I requested, and make baseless allegations about how you are very pretentious, arrogant and unprofessional. I will also try to prevent you from getting any additional business by damning you on said social media platform. Now will you represent me?
ME: I don’t take kindly to threats.
Thanks for your feedback. We will let you know if we decide in the future to practice divorce law, I mean, provide “take-out” food.
Cronyism: The Truth
For readers of my FB Corner, IPI (Illinois Policy Institute) is familiar. They also publish some short films on Youtube, a couple of which I embed in today's posts; I don't recall them promoting the videos on Facebook, or I would have embedded them earlier.
I want to address briefly one of my pet peeves on leftist talking points about cronyism. They basically argue that businesses own the government and owe their success to the government, i.e., Cherokee Lizzie Warren's idiotic, debunked "you didn't build that" talking point. (See
here for a sample response.) Cronyism is often a consequence of political games, not nefarious Big Business bribery, and it often reflects undue influence of certain process mechanisms, like legislative seniority. For example, remember that Senator Barry Obama voted for the Bridge to Nowhere. Not singly, of course, but he was willing to support Alaska's boondoggles so long as they supported his, etc. Of course, the leftists will argue that a lot of these were to state governments or other "non-profit" entities, but let's be clear that all of these deals were done for political reasons. The building of the Gravina Island Bridge was a parochial concern; Alaskan state taxpayers could have paid it for its own intrinsic merits. But incumbency is an important advantage, and it is built on things like getting "our fair share" of federal tax dollars to the local community. Those favors can include things like getting a major employer in your district or state a special tax break. That company doesn't have to "buy" the Congressman or others; for example, a business expansion, plant closing and/or relocation has important consequences for the local economy and its tax base. (Even when we are talking about military bases, don't forget there are local merchants catering to base employees, military and civilian; for example, my Dad's last military assignment (in the San Antonio area) had a major boulevard through a neighboring town lined with nearly every fast food outlet I can think of, dry cleaners, etc. No doubt if the base closed, it would have a serious impact on those businesses, not to mention jobless local residents and the local government's tax base.)
We have a well-known political economic problem of
concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. There are many examples. Take, for instance, the national flood insurance program. Stossel notoriously
pointed out how he (and his wealthy neighbors) was able to develop his beachfront property, a flood-prone area, with the security of subsidized flood coverage. The uncovered costs of the flood program are dispersed among American taxpayers; compared to other government outlays, they are not significant enough for people to mobilize over, but this program is very important to people who live in flood-prone areas. Coastal states, for instance, will bitterly fight off attempts to reform or, better yet, privatize the program. Another notorious example is the protected sugar producers; we pay over world market price, generally to the concentrated political power of sugar growers. Even Marco Rubio, 2010's Tea Party poster boy, has voted with Florida's producers, a bitter disappointment to me. The losers are consumers who may pay up to
over twice the cost they should for sugar.
One of the things leftists overlook is the fact that corporations often have differing interests, and there are many corporate losers in the political process. Let us take the example of protected sugar. While growers may benefit from sweetheart loans, sugar import quotas, and price targets (Washpo
points out that in FY2013, the government lost over a quarter billion dollars by collecting sugar collateral to settle loans), sugar consumers, including candy manufacturers, bakers, and individual consumers, all lose in the form of artificially high prices. It's enough for Hershey's or other candy manufacturers to
open foreign plants with access to world market sugar prices, including Mexico
which has doubled its candy exports to the US over the past decade.
Big Government has essentially monopolized private sector businesses like college loans, home loans, flood insurance, etc. Over 60% of the federal government's expenditures involve individual benefits, like retirement and healthcare, which, if anything, cut out private-sector businesses. Government competes against the private sector for resources (investments) and manpower. The idea that Big Businesses want unpredictable activist government intervening in the economy, increasing regime uncertainty, the overhead, manpower and expense of accommodating business mandates and rules, punitive, globally noncompetitive business tax policies is patently absurd,
Now do some businesses gain at the expense of government spending? Of course: the military-industrial complex, government contracting... And no doubt many occupational cartels benefit from licensing or other restrictions on competition. And government cost burden (administrative and compliance) has a regressive effect on smaller businesses, and other restrictions (say, the minimum wage or price floors) may hamper upstart competitor attempts to gain market share.
But let's not pretend that corporations are the only beneficiaries of government policies; for example, protectionist tariffs are revenues for the government, and liberal policies also win benefits for special interests, e.g., teacher unions, alternative energy vendors, the legal profession, etc.
I don't really think that politicians of the left or right are bought by special interests; I believe they are more motivated by their political ideology tempered by certain parochial interests, and I think legislative sausage making as in the case of the Bridge to Nowhere is particularly nauseating, where politicians swap political favors to service local concerns.
But I submit that the way you control the odious aspects is to streamline tax and regulatory policy and engage in process reforms, like nonconsecutive terms and/or term caps, rotating committee chairmanships, transparency and review periods before votes, etc. The best reform is to limit the size and scope of government and to devolve spending and regulatory authority in accordance with the principle of Subsidiarity except for common services like defense and the courts.
Retirement Choice For Government Workers
Newest Nomination for JOTY: Wendy Davis Targets Greg Abbott's Disability
The Abomination of Mandatory Minimums
Facebook Corner
(Being Classically Liberal).
Leftists like Thom Hartmann like to portray the post WWII American economy as highly taxed, highly regulated, and with extensive social programs. In contrast, leftists think the contemporary American economy an example of unbridled free market capitalism. Obviously this is pure nonsense. Today, the United States economy is far more regulated than it was in the past, taxation and government spending as a percentage of GDP are both higher than they were in the period of 1950-1970, the so-called Golden Age of Capitalism, and finally government entitlement spending as a share of GDP is near all time highs. No one can seriously claim that the US economy is less regulated now than it was in the past or that government intervention in the economy is less pervasive now than it was in the past.
I had to go through the comments to see if anyone else noticed or objected fhe same thing. I think the phrasing is rather garbled: "Leftists like..... In contrast, leftists think..." I believe it would be clearer if you restated that "leftists believe that the economy in the post-WII era has transitioned from a well-regulated, optimally-taxed one to today's laissez-faire economy." This, of course, is reinvention of history and delusional. Not to mention that in the immediate post-war era, both Europe and Asia were rebuilding war-damaged economies, and the US was in a strong position to export goods and services. We now have a far more competitive global economy. The whole idea of progressive taxation is economically insane to begin with, and we are not competitive from a bracket perspective (so help me if I hear one more "progressive" retard argue we shouldn't lower brackets because no one pays them anyway...). We also have a tax regime which punishes savings and investment and high business income while rewarding things like mortgage debt...
Corporate taxes were higher. The effective tax rate was higher and the marginal tax rate was higher for big businesses specifically, while individual tax rates and small business tax rates were lower. We have more fetters now than we did in the past, too, but the regulations we had in the past, while fewer, were smarter, which is why they had a positive effect and why social programs were both cheaper and less necessary. The economy was strong, and strong economies don't require much social spending. You can't quote idiots and act like that's the opinion of people generally. That would be like conflating Stephan Molyneux with all libertarians, which would be unbelievably ignorant. That's why most people don't do that kind of stupid and dishonest shit.
Of course, with people posting comments like "Facts don't have feelings. That's why liberals reject them." I don't expect much of anyone here to have much ability to understand anything that doesn't fit with their preconceptions. That's the nature of these sorts of groups; to serve as an echo chamber where nobody ever calls anyone on anything and the moment somebody does, they're dismissed because of their "privileged" or "ignorant" or "idiotliberal" or whatever other stupid shit. Enjoy your circle jerk.
"Progressive" trolls like to make up their own datasets and are deliberately misleading; if this clueless troll ever took Econ 101, he would know corporate income taxes are economically inefficient. He would also realize the unfairness of a second bite of the apple by taxing the same income as a business and as an individual. Moreover, since the early 1950's, there are now pass-through entities (e.g., subchapter-S) where business income is taxed at the individual level, which means the troll is making invalid apples-to-oranges comparisons--i.e., much of what used to be business income is now included in individual income.
Yes, of course. What leftists believe this? The main concern of leftists is a growing income inequality gap and a degradation of the quality of life of the middle class.
You know, I'm tired of ignorant left-wing propagandists. Among other things (I think Mark Perry of Carpe Diem has pointed this out recently), the rapidly escalating costs of health care benefits at work have crowded out wage increases. Keep in mind the benefit cost is flat and higher relative to lower incomes. There's so much dishonesty going on; for example, the Gini coefficient (the classic inequality statistic) has barely budged since the Clinton era, and most of the inequality studies cited by the fascists are not longitudinal but snapshot data, which neglects both up and down mobility among income classes.
(Jeffrey Tucker).
Rothbard once wrote that socialism is a muddled middle: liberal goals through conservative means. The true radicals are the libertarians.
This quote idiotically confounds conservatism with authoritarianism.
"J Soc Psychol. 2005 Oct;145(5):571-92.
Is political conservatism synonymous with authoritarianism?
Crowson HM1, Thoma SJ, Hestevold N.
Author information
Abstract
The authors performed 2 studies that tested the distinction between conservative political ideology and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). Across these studies, moderate relationships emerged between RWA and our measures of cognitive rigidity, whereas the relationship between rigidity and mainstream conservative ideology was not as strong. The authors used partial-correlation and path analyses to assess the possibility that RWA mediates the relationship between (a) cognitive rigidity and (b) mainstream conservative attitudes and self-identified conservatism. The results indicated that conservatism is not synonymous with RWA. Additionally, RWA appeared to partially mediate the relationship between cognitive rigidity and mainstream conservatism."
(Independent Institute).
Senior Fellow John Goodman: "Economically speaking the war in Iraq is a sure loser for us even if we claim ownership of every asset in the entire country. Krugman goes on to make a more general point. Almost every major war in the 20th century made no economic sense – meaning that there was no way any protagonist could possibly have expected to capture resources more valuable than the cost of war itself."
Wait---isn't Krugman the same guy who talked about boosting the economy by pretending we were being invaded by space aliens? No joke--Google it about 3 years back.
(from yesterday's Independent Institute thread on immigration)
Name calling won't change the fact that illegal immigration is hurting this country
"Illegal" immigration is based on overly restrictive immigration laws stemming from the 1920's. These immigration laws have been counterproductive; there is effectively no worker visa program, family members and merit-based immigrants often have to wait several years, if ever, to navigate through them. If and when the government essentially prohibits anything, people will work around it, like our failed war on drugs.
There is no "fact" that immigration is hurting this country; immigrants from whatever source are net contributors to our economy; they are fellow consumers, taxpayers, and workers. Study after study from peer-reviewed journals bears this out. Stop reading crackpot bullshit from the anti-immigrant nut jobs.
Illegal and unconstitutional attacks on natural rights, including the right to emigrate / immigrate peacefully, is what's hurting this country. Voluntary labor agreements are attacked by ICE which enforces the labor cartel.
Amen. The unions want to manipulate the labor supply to artificially drive up wages, which is why they forced JFK to abandon the bracero program and have repeatedly rejected temporary worker permits in subsequent reforms. What bothers me is that a lot of the anti-immigrant conservatives who might otherwise champion the free market don't see the fundamental inconsistency of their views: why should an employer be a virtual INS agent to the State? Why should any citizen tell a business owner who he can or can't hire?
More Proposals
Another
right-hand engagement ring?
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of the original artist via IPI |
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists
Linda Ronstadt, "You're No Good"
