Don Boudreaux is a genius of the highest order

I am extraordinarily grateful that I currently earn more than the minimum wage. I hope misfortune, ill-health or other calamities never conspire to lower my earnings potential but I'm ever-wary that they might and I like to reason about such things on that basis. That is: I assume I am never more than one piece of bad luck away from the edge; there is nothing intrinsically "better" about me that means I "deserve" to earn more. Life is precarious.

The existence of a minimum wage in many countries seems, on the face of it, to be an unambiguously good idea: surely every civilised society should arrange for workers to be paid an honest day's pay for a hard day's work? Unfortunately, there's a problem: when you raise the minimum price somebody is allowed to pay for somebody else's services, you have just outlawed anybody whose labour is worth less than that level from taking a job.

Don Boudreaux explains why well-intentioned thinking isn't sufficient.

I know revenge is a dish best served cold...

... but waiting fourteen years is taking things a bit far :-)

I choose Virgin over BA whenever I get the opportunity so it's nice to see this little situation.

However, I do hope BA aren't crippled or broken by this little problem... strong competition is good.

Much needed inventions

Madsen Pirie is running a series on inventions he'd like to see.

I wish I had half his imagination.

He ranges from the borderline-trivial:

11. Something to pulverize fish bones into fine powder without damaging the soft fish. The lithotripter uses ultrasonics to do this to kidney stones, but I want a commercial one to do this to fish bones in supermarkets, restaurants, and even homes. Gone will be the unpleasantness of finding bones in one's mouth, with the attendant risk of choking. Instead the bone powder will add nourishment to the meal.

to the profound:

14. Something that makes mining easier, less life-threatening to its participants, and with less environmental impact bugs specially tailored to gobble up the coal, copper, manganese or whatever, and sent down to extract the stuff. They are flushed out, the desired resource extracted, and all organized by guys in white coats who are not exposed to the hazards associated with conventional mining.

I love the idea of little microbes in hard hats :-)

First batch (1-5)
Second batch (6-10)
Third batch (11-15)

Just as you should never buy a lottery ticket with numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6....

... you probably shouldn't bet on the advice of a fortune cookie.

When your chances of winning are so low, choosing the same numbers as everybody else is just a recipe for misery!

(Of course, 1/110 of a large amount is still a large amount... so perhaps I'm the fool).

How to upset a climatologist

Ask them who debugged their models..... Fantastic stuff.

My view on "climate change" is that it comes down to a value judgment: do you believe that the jaw-droppingly poor people of today should be kept poor in order to reduce the risk that the human race may die out sooner than it might otherwise have done so? If so, sacrificing economic growth and prosperity today (and hence reducing the number of people that are lifted from poverty thanks to trade) is the right thing to do. If not, it is clearly the wrong thing to do.

The problem is: how can we weigh the balance? Perhaps climate change will affect us far more savagely and quickly than many expect? Perhaps it's a mirage. Accurate computer models are critical if we are to come remotely close to guessing right. If they're wrong, our leaders will make the wrong decisions. Dangerously wrong decisions.

HT: Devil's Kitchen

Don Boudreaux puts his finger on why I'm scared to go into politics

We had a party a few weeks ago and one of the guests started up a conversation about multi-national corporations and the wickedness of the Australian Prime Minister. Implicit in what he said was not that John Howard was misguided in his economic policies but that he was, in some way, deliberately trying to "destroy" Australia.

I see this a lot in political debate. For example, if you believe in a smaller state, lower taxes or any policy that is seen as "economically liberal", you can expect to be attacked for being selfish, greedy or downright malign.

Professor Boudreaux writes at Café Hayek about an email he received after having a letter on taxation published in the New York Times today.

I am gratified to see that his response was similar to the one that I gave to my friend. I said: "It may well be true that John Howard is evil but let's assume that he believes he is not and that he genuinely believes what he is doing will be good for Australia. What thought process do you think he went through? Can you explain to me why what he is doing is wrong without needing to claim that he is evil?

Sadly, the argument took place after several glasses of a good Beaujolais and I forget the exact details of the economic policy in question or my friend's response...

Your purchase free if we don't give you a receipt

Bruce Schneier explains why shops do it

The macroeconomics of Superman

Tyler Cowen asks a perfectly reasonable question. If Superman existed, how could he best use his talents?

Dan Klein's suggestion seems the most sensible: "Perform amazing stunts on TV, become a big celebrity, and then preach the virtues of economic literacy" :-)

Via

The law of unintended consequences set to a disco beat

I never had the Pet Shop Boys down as economists.... but what do you know? The lyrics of "Twentieth Century" on their new "Fundamental" album could have come straight from a textbook!

I learned a lesson
From the Twentieth Century
That I don't think we can just dismiss
After one hundred years
Of inhumanity
The lesson that I learned was this:

Sometimes the solution
Is worse than the problem

So *that's* why I never seem to have any money

EIGHTY tax rises in the last nine years :-(