Almost Classical

I dislike the notion of a "minimum wage" but recognize that it isn't about to be abolished. And, there is the sad reality that many companies don't recognize that employees are the value behind any business or non-profit. Organizations are their people. My first problem with the national minimum wage is that any nationwide standard ignores the cost of living variations from region to region. Beyond that, we have issues of how to set a minimum wage, how to index it to inflation, and many other complicated issues. If you set rates by region, would you also have regional inflation indices? What about tiered minimums, based on age or other variables? There are already odd exemptions to the minimum wage, namely in the dining industry. Should there be a full-time minimum wage apart from a part-time minimum? How many people working 40-hour weeks earn the minimum wage? If they do earn the minimum, for how long do they earn this before their first raises? How long before...

As I've written before, Paul Krugman exemplifies a problem with modern economics: his views swing with the politics of his choosing. For research supporting my assertion, see the post: http://almostclassical.blogspot.com/2010/06/do-economists-change-their-tune-on.html The New Year's Day column by Krugman is that frustrating mix of absolutely right and definitely wrong that come from economists. Again, I've posted on the astounding lack of accuracy among economists of all political persuasions, so this isn't a left/right debate: I'm opposed to the "scientism" behind dominant economic thought. Krugman's column left me with a dozen issues I want to address, so forgive the length of this post. I have beliefs (and they are beliefs) about economics that run counter to Krugman in several ways. At the same time, the differences between most (roughly) free-market economists and thinkers isn't as great as the media or the scholars might have the publ...

Some of my friends and colleagues in the "orthodox economics" camps have tried to make the case that debt is necessary at times for growth, or at least stability. While there is merit to this line of reasoning, it is also a risky simplification of economic realities. To argue their point, these traditionalists point to household spending. One friend, a left-leaning political scientist with solid economics knowledge, described it thusly: All of us assume debt to improve our lives, and government is no different. We take out loans on homes, cars, our educations, and to finance our businesses. Government has to do the same. You've taken on debt, I've taken on debt, and we did it for better futures. Arguments for a larger stimulus and more investment in some projects would have made sense ten years ago, but today those arguments ignore the experiences of Japan and southern Europe, where "investments" by the government did not revive flagging economies. I do...

While the Citizens United case has ignited righteous indignation on the political left, the Supreme Court ruling last week removing most caps on campaign advertising was not only the correct decision but represents a return to how our founders approached politics. Every newspaper, magazine, and "news" outlet was exempted from corporate finance restrictions even before this ruling. Why? Because you cannot limit the free press. But why should that logic apply to businesses? When our nation was founded the political parties, various organizations, the wealthy, and even many in the merchant class set about publishing "newspapers" that were little more than campaign ads. Printing was a huge business as a result. A single sheet newspaper could be prepared simply and distributed for a reasonable cost. Newspapers were named the "Middletown Press Democrat" or the "Anyville Republican Gazette" for a reason. Media bias was a given. Even small towns ha...