The Liberal Order

Juan Williams on the shooting of Trayvon Martin and on black-on-black crime.

Journalist Juan Williams offers strong criticism of black civil rights leaders in today's Wall Street Journal.

While civil rights leaders have raised their voices to speak out against this one tragedy, few if any will do the same about the larger tragedy of daily carnage that is black-on-black crime in America. 

Some data from the Justice Department cited by Williams:

1. Blacks make up 13% of the U.S. population but were victims of 49% of all murders in 2005. 93% of these black murder victims were killed by another black.
2. Less than half of black kids graduate from high school.
3. 22% of all black and Hispanic students in K-12 were suspended from school at least once compared to just 5% for whites.
4. 22% of all blacks live below the poverty line.
5. 72% of black babies are born to unwed mothers.
6. The unemployment rate for blacks is 13% compared to the national unemployment rate of 8.3%.

Williams aptly concludes: 

The killing of any child is a tragedy. But where are the protests regarding the larger problems facing black America?

This is not to absolve whites of responsibility for at least some of the negative stereotyping of blacks, especially black males, in our society, but to instead hold black civil rights leaders accountable for the greater problems facing blacks. 

Unfortunately, people like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have been making similar arguments for years, as has Bill Cosby, and they've been routinely shouted down and accused of siding with whites - acting like "Oreos" - having afterwards to defend theselves. But it's a courageous piece by Juan Williams and he should be applauded for making this case.

Supply and demand, Justice Scalia. It's all supply and demand.

In countering Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during today's Supreme Court debate over the constitutional legitimacy of the health care bill, Juscie Scalia argued:

When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg observed that “the people who don’t participate in this market are making it much more expensive for those that do,” Scalia interjected,“You could say that about buying a car. If people don’t buy a car, the price [that car buyers] will pay will be more.”

I'm not arguing for or against the outcome of this case, but two things are worth noting in just this paragraph.

First, Justice Ginsburg is making a valid argument for requiring everyone to purchase health care insurance: those who don't have health care insurance and then end up going to emergency rooms when they get sick or hurt impose costs on the rest of us who do have health care insurance and must pay resulting higher premiums. It is a free rider problem that seemingly is abated by requring everyone to purchase health care insurance.

Second, ceteris paribus, if some people don't buy cars the demand for automobiles decreases. If demand decreases, the price of automobiles decreases, not increases. Now to what Justice Scalia may be referring is that the automobile manufacturing industry benefits from economies of scale and therefore producing more cars drives down the average cost of producing automobiles. But given the nature of the market (i.e., oligopolistic with cars serving market niches and buyers largely ignorant of market conditions), that doesn't automatically result in lower prices paid by auto consumers. Justice Scalia needs to better clarify, and possibly correct, his argument.

Do as I say, not as I do.

In a story about something that actually occurs more often than you would think, a woman responds to the question of whether she would stop to steal (yes, it is stealing) money on the highway dropped from an armored car.

"Of course I would," she said. "If the armored car had been in an accident of something, I'd make sure the drivers were OK and I'd call 911. But I'd put as much money in my pockets (as I could) and run."

Obviously the woman has questionable morals. "Questionable" because maybe she's not familar with Kant's categorial imperative, but she does seem to have it at least partially in mind when she makes the following statement:

But what if her kids were there? "I absolutely would not take any money," she answered again without hesitation. "I wouldn't want them to get the message that grabbing money that is not yours is the right thing to do." 

Another guy later in the article notes:

[H]e would get out to pick up the cash, with a few conditions. If he had kids and they were in the car, he wouldn't do it. He also wouldn't risk his safety.

Parents, kids learn by your actions, not by your words. They are fully aware of hypocrisy when they see it, especially when they can pin it on their parents. 

Your pop caught you smokin' and he said, "No way!"

That hypocrite smokes two packs a day.

Lastly, this comment from a different clown:

Another kind of karma occurred to Dennis Lowe, 30, of Providence, R.I. He said it's simple human nature, especially if the money is from an armored truck. He said plenty of Americans are fed up with banks, insurance companies and other corporations that move cash in armored trucks.

"The money is insured," he said while waiting downtown for a bus. "They've been taking money from me, so it's just karma."

First, that money stolen is paid for by the rest of us in the form of reduced stock returns in our retirement portfolios, lower wages, or increased prices.

Second, in a world of specialization and voluntary exchange, how have banks, insurance companies and corporations taken money from Mr. Lowe without his willing consent? Oh I know of one all-too-common way, a way that maybe, just maybe, legitimizes stealing from the government. (I disagree with this too, but can see how people legitimize it.) But don't blame companies for getting rich by enriching you. 

BTW - Speaking of armored car mishaps, watch this humorous documentary of a Loomis Fargo theft in Charlotte, NC in 1997. 

Danish Government Acts More Like Nigerian Thugs

Three hundred Danes believed a dream lifestyle of champagne and caviar awaited them this week after they were announced billionaire lottery winners - until they discovered it was a mistake.

All 300 had received an email from the head of the Danish state-run lottery company, Danske Spil, congratulating them on the astronomical sums they had won, Danske Spil spokesman Thomas Roersig said.

"Three hundred of our lottery players who won the lottery, the Keno, received a message saying they had won a sum in the billions. And they never won that amount ... We are of course very sorry. We have now written to them to inform them of the sum that they really won," Roersig said.

Come on, I receive these scam emails all the time; it's no different just because the government sent it. This is especially so given that the prize was listed at $3.8 billion.

HT: Mike Munger

 

Markets In Everything; There Is No Great Stagnation . . .

. . . whatever, this is one of those.

The Bodymetrics Pod, which launched in the United States during the Denim Days celebration at a Bloomingdale's in Los Angeles, uses Kinect for Windows to digitally ogle your curves and body-map your butt. This is all in the name of hooking you up with a pair of jeans that will flatter you rather than make it look like you crashed into a denim factory at 55 mph.

Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?

 

HT: Steven C.

Even taking your social media pages private may not protect you during a job search.

In their efforts to vet applicants, some companies and government agencies are going beyond merely glancing at a person’s social networking profiles and instead asking to log in as the user to have a look around.

Story here. 

This is why students have to protect what is said on their social media pages. 

Says Orrin Kerr, a highly respected law school professor,

“It’s akin to requiring someone’s house keys,” said Orin Kerr, a George Washington University law professor and former federal prosecutor who calls it “an egregious privacy violation.”

I liken it to a prospective or current employer asking to listen in to all of my telephone conversations. It's not likely to withstand legal challenges for a current employee, but difficult to prove as a basis for a prospective employee not being hired. But then again, maybe some bright ex-military ranger with a law degree from Indiana could make it stand.

How susceptible is your state to corruption?

The map is here. I've lived for at least five years in two of the states with the worst scores - neither surprise me. New Jersey, Illinois and Mississippi are ranked much higher than I would have thought. North Carolina is at a C-.

It doesn't surprise me that Michigan is so susceptible. For example, it was obvious to me that the insurance lobby basically controls insurance legislation. Our insurance costs increased by more than 50% after we moved there. Since moving away, it dropped considerably. And the number of insurance agents in such a sparsely populated area always made me suspicious (of the lobby, not of them individually). 

The Legacy Airlines and Bankruptcy

The following is a neat visual explaining the problems facing the legacy airlines and why they all have ended up in bankruptcy. (NB: Continental Airlines never filed for bankruptcy protection, but they are now part of United Airlines, which has.) 

The problem with the legacy carriers is that the model that emerged through decades of regulation that protected the airlines from market competition is not viable in a world of market competition. Since deregulation these airlines have still never adjusted. Labor costs and inefficiencies, such as the hub and spoke system, bleed the companies of profit. Yes, they have no core, but that hasn't prevented the newer low-cost airlines from operating in the black year-after-year.

I believe it was former CEO of American Airlines, Robert Crandall, who famously quipped that he would never own stock in an airline company.

HT: Michael S.

 

 

  

 

What is causing the increase in gasoline prices?

David Henderson offers his insight.

Mark Perry offers his.

Here is some relevant information, but as Perry correctly notes, the demand for gasoline in the U.S. has been on the decline. Here is more information.

There are many reasons for why gasoline prices are higher today relative to last month, so what else is happening? 

I can hold my wealth as money in the bank (or some other financial asset) or as oil in the ground (or some other durable commodity). If the interest rate paid on deposits exceeds the expected increase in the price of oil, then I'll hold my money as deposits in the bank. If the interest rate paid on deposits is less than the expected increase in the price of oil, then I'll hold my wealth as oil in the ground.

Interest rates are at an all-time low and inflation has increased more than expected (2.9% for 2011). The past few jobs reports have been favorable, which bodes poorly for Fed Chairman Bernanke's pledge to maintiain the currently low interest rates and keep inflation at or below 2%. The price of oil futures increased about 12% through the month of February, falling slightly as of March 6th. I'm guessing that people are betting on higher oil prices over the coming year rather than rising interest rates. It's a buy and hold strategy. This is not to say a bubble is on the horizon - it's fundamentally sound and beneficial if speculators are correct and shift the supply of oil from when it's plentiful and prices are lower to the future when the supply is expected to be less and the price higher. If they guess incorrectly, they lose their shirts. And even if interest rates do rise, holding current financial assets is then a losing strategy.

 Note: The black line plots the price for oil futures, not the spot price.