Friday, May 06, 2005

Save the planet:

Thursday, May 05, 2005

I saw this headline on Microsoft's Channel 9 site:
Do you think FF would ever support WEFT?. My first thought was, "Oh, neat, a post about Frostfire." My second thought was, "What in the hell is WEFT?"

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Home schooling reason #29:
Via BoTW, a public school in the state of Washington taught students how to make meth.
More on the nefarious Wal-Mart
at Cafe Hayek:
The rest of the article is a surreal discussion of whether Wal-Mart can afford to pay higher wages or not.

If Wal-Mart spent $3.50 an hour more for wages and benefits of its full-time employees, that would cost the company about $6.5 billion a year. At less than 3 percent of its sales in the United States, critics say, Wal-Mart could absorb these costs by slightly raising its prices or accepting somewhat lower profits.

No doubt they could. The New York Times could also afford to raise its subscription prices and send the extra money to Wal-Mart workers. Or they could lower Steven Greenhouse's salary by 5% and send the difference to Mr. Mrkwa.

That sounds silly, but that's really what the activists want. They want Wal-Mart to charge higher prices, implicitly taxing Steven Greenhouse and anyone else who shops at Wal-Mart in order to raise the well-being of Wal-Mart workers. Exam question for economics undergrads: Explore the ramifications of such a policy. Who wins and who loses? What businesses will expand and which will contract? In your answer, please reference Bastiat's insights into the seen and the unseen.
50,000 points for mentioning Bastiat.

I may have to start shopping at Wal-Mart as a sign of solidarity, that is, if I ever went shopping.