“Many of the greatest things man has achieved are not the result of consciously directed thought, and still less the product of a deliberately coordinated effort of many individuals, but of a process in which the individual plays a part which he can never fully understand.”
F. A. Hayek, “Scientism and The Study of Society” (1944), p. 67; later published in The Counter-revolution of Science
“Speech is either free or it isn’t” — a provocative argument from Bill Whittle. Even if you disagree with some or all of what he says, doesn’t he have a right to say it? And shouldn’t we defend that right?
On May 9, 1800, abolitionist revolutionary (and, technically, terrorist) John Brown was born. In 1883 on this date, Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset was born.
It’s time to talk minimum wage laws again!
Confession: I tend to understand some issues on the level of logic — of, even, common sense. A prohibition (which is what a minimum wage law is, forbidding payment at a rate below the “minimum”) doesn’t spur productivity, and it’s from increased productivity that we get general higher wages and wealth and progress itself.
Sure, there are “studies” that indicate otherwise. But, we don’t conduct field studies amongst chimps arranging their bananas to prove 2 + 2 = 4. If an experiment of chimp-arranged bananas comes up with 3, I look for the chimp with the banana-eating grin.
Anyway, there’s this new study about employment from 2007-2009, when the economy went into the toilet, and right after the national minimum wage was upped from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.
The study’s authors look at employment broadly. They pride themselves on their careful assessment of “the minimum wage from an anti-poverty perspective” and “its effects on the broader population of low-skilled workers. . . .”
Off the top of my head, I marvel that anyone can distinguish one cause for unemployment (financial crash) from another (minimum wage law), but the authors make a pretty convincing case.
Their conclusion? “Our best estimate is that these minimum wage increases reduced the employment-to-population ratio of working age adults by 0.7 percentage points. This accounts for 14 percent of the total decline over the relevant time period.”
So, yes, they say, the last minimum wage hike led to higher unemployment.
Which is what I would suspect. Because of, you know . . . Common Sense.
I’m Paul Jacob.
“All economic activity is carried out through time. Every individual economic process occupies a certain time, and all linkages between economic processes necessarily involve longer or shorter periods of time.”
F. A. Hayek, “Intertemporal Price Equilibrium and Movement in the Value of Money” (1928)
On May 8, 1899, Austrian-English economist and philosopher Friedrich August von Hayek was born. He signed the bulk of his books written in the English language as “F.A. Hayek,” and is best known for “The Road to Serfdom,” “The Constitution of Liberty,” “The Fatal Conceit,” and many essays, several of them which are widely cited, including “Individualism, True and False” and “The Use of Knowledge in Society.”
Years earlier, on the same date in 1873, English philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill died. Now best known for “On Liberty” and “Utilitarianism,” Mill’s letters were edited into book form by Hayek.
On May 8, 1946, two Estonian school girls (Aili Jõgi and Ageeda Paavel) blew up the Soviet memorial which stood in front of the Bronze Soldier in Tallinn.
This week I traveled to South Dakota to release an 18-page report on Attorney General Marty Jackley’s prosecution of Dr. Annette Bosworth. In less than two weeks, Bosworth goes on trial facing 12 felony counts carrying a maximum penalty of 24 years in prison and $48,000 in fines.
From my research, that’s the most severe penalty any American has ever faced on a petition-related charge. Conversely, the transgressions alleged against Dr. Bosworth are arguably the least sinister ever prosecuted.
She had made available, at her office, petitions to place her name on last year’s GOP primary ballot . . . for patients and visitors to sign. During that time, the doctor traveled on a medical mission of mercy to typhoon-devastated Philippines. While she was gone, 37 people — including her sister — signed those nominating petitions.
When Dr. Bosworth returned and the petition period came to a close, she signed as the circulator of those six petitions. But the circulator statement reads that she witnessed each signature being affixed.
So Attorney General Jackley charged her with six felony counts of filing a false document and another six for perjury.
While I empathize with Bosworth’s situation, my report was focused on the impact such an over-the-top prosecution has on the people of “the other Sunshine State” — the woman considering a run for public office or the fellow thinking about gathering signatures.
Our election system should be open and welcoming. Not frightening.
Petition rules must be enforced. But consistently, in a non-partisan and reasonable way — not by coming down in a draconian, disproportionate fashion.
And not singling out someone the AG just happens to have been at odds with personally and professionally for years.
“AG” ought not stand for “Atrocity Generator.”
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
“Never read any book that is not a year old.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson, “First Visit to England” in English Traits (1856)
On May 7, 1992, Michigan ratified a 203-year-old proposed amendment to the United States Constitution, thereby fulfilling the terms of amending the document, adding it as 27th Amendment. The amendment had been written by James Madison. He had presented it as part of the original twelve amendments that became the ten making up the Bill of Rights. It bars the U.S. Congress from giving itself a pay raise until after the next election, so that voters have a chance to decide whether those voting for the raise would remain in Congress to receive it.
On Monday, pushing an expansion of his “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative, President Barack Obama gave a talk about the recent rise in racial discord.
Does he ever ask himself, “Under whose watch?”
When the financial system melted down in 2008, candidate Obama — not without some justification — blamed President Bush and the Republicans. Why shouldn’t he and his party be today held somewhat responsible for rising racial unrest?
Wasn’t his very status as the First Black American President supposed to continue the healing process between blacks and whites?
In his talk, Obama recognized the “sense of unfairness, of powerlessness, of not hearing their voices, that’s helped fuel some of the protests. . . .” Well, sure. But there would be no occasion for this were inner-city blacks not treated unfairly in the first place.
The president wants to spend more money on education, for example, despite the high levels of per-student public ed funding in hot spot Baltimore.
It is quite clear that other programs have done the most damage. We still have a War on Drugs, which is unpopular enough that it turns cops “racist” perhaps even against their wills — as I’ve explained before, police tend to focus their unpopular policing against drug use to the classes of society that have the least direct political power, most especially against inner-city blacks.
But even more bedrock: we see protests and talk about inequality during economic downturns. Obama should learn from Bill Clinton’s initial presidential campaign: It’s the economy, stupid.
Or put more bluntly: It’s your stupid economic policies.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
