Free the Price-Cutters! Don Boudreaux In the current issue of _Regulation_ (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/index.html) , law professor Daniel Crane has a _well-worth-reading article_ (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv28n4/v28n4-4.pdf) on the perverse consequences of prohibitions on so-called "predatory pricing." Here's an especially interesting part of the article: A study by Case Western law professor Arthur Austin is telling. Austin interviewed jurors in four antitrust trials, including Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson, the latest predatory pricing case decided by the Supreme Court. Austin's interviews revealed that "the jurors were overwhelmed, frustrated, and confused by testimony well beyond their comprehension.... [A]t no time did any juror grasp -- even at the margins -- the law, the economics, or any other testimony related to the allegations or defense." Austin reports,
At no time have I encountered a juror who had the foggiest notion of what oligopoly, market power, or average variable cost meant, much less how they applied to the case.... Typical is the response I received when I asked a juror whether he remembered average variable cost. The juror replied, 'Yes, explain it to me. I still don't know what it means.' Mind you, the jury found that Brown & Williamson engaged in predatory pricing, which required a finding that it had priced below average variable cost. If the jury did not understand the legal test, on what basis did it award a $148.8 judgment against Brown & Williamson? Fortunately, in 1993 the U.S. Supreme Court _found in favor_ (http://www.ripon.edu/faculty/bowenj/antitrust/brkevb&w.htm) of Brown & Williamson on appeal. Posted in _Law_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/law/index.html) , _Prices_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/prices/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/free_the_pricec.html) | _Comments (0)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/free_the_pricec.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/free_the_pricec.html#trackback) January 19, 2006 Shoplifting as Governance Russell Roberts In _this very nice piece_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011801873.html) , George Will looks at the Maryland's General Assembly's _recent mugging_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/maryland_malfea.html) of Wal-Mart. This is part of the tawdry drama of state politics as governments grasp for novel sources of money. Forty-eight states are to varying degrees dependent on revenue from gambling. Forty-six states are addicted to their cut, to be paid out over decades, from the $246 billion coerced from the tobacco industry by using the specious argument that smoking costs their governments huge sums. As a result, 46 states have a stake in the long-term profitability of tobacco companies. Maryland's grasping for Wal-Mart's revenue opens a new chapter in the degeneracy of state governments that are eager to spend more money than they have the nerve to collect straightforwardly in taxes. Fortunately, as labor unions and allied rent-seekers in 30 or so other states contemplate mimicking Maryland, Wal-Mart can contemplate an advantage of federalism. States engage in "entrepreneurial federalism," competing to be especially attractive to businesses. A Wal-Mart distribution center, creating at least 800 jobs, that has been planned for Maryland could be located instead in more hospitable Delaware. Meanwhile, people who are disgusted -- and properly so -- about corruption inside the Beltway should ask themselves this: Is it really worse than the kind of rent-seeking, and theft tarted up as compassion, just witnessed 20 miles east of the Beltway, in Annapolis? The first part of the piece has some very thoughtful analysis of rent-seeking and the Founders worries about it. If the legislature wants to give money or health care to poor people, it should raise taxes and make the people who elect the officials sanction it via elections. Taxing Wal-Mart's customers and stockholders is the wrong route for a democracy. The title of Will's article, "Shoplifting as Governance," says it eloquently. Posted in _Politics_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/politics/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/shoplifting_as_.html) | _Comments (10)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/shoplifting_as_.html#comments) | _TrackBack (2)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/shoplifting_as_.html#trackback) January 18, 2006 For Whom the Governor Tolls Don Boudreaux Virginia's new governor, Tim Kaine (D), _gave a speech_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/17/AR2006011701465.html) earlier this week proposing to help solve Virginia's (terrible) traffic-congestion problem by restricting economic growth. The idea, of course, is to keep population growth down so that less traffic than otherwise clogs Virginia's roads. Kaine is also opposed to placing tolls on existing roads. _In his own words_ (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/cgi-bin/a.cgi/CO9fCmecEdqcEIJ61nsxIA) : "as a general rule, I don't believe in tolling existing roads." While I can find no reason expressed by Kaine to justify his opposition to tolling existing roads, a good bet is that -- like _many other people opposed to tolls_ (http://www.notolls.org.uk/sep05news.htm) -- he believes that tolls are an unfair burden upon the poor. Does Gov. Kaine not see that any plan, such as his, to restrict the building of new homes causes housing prices to rise to heights higher than they would otherwise reach and, hence, creates a larger burden for the poor to bear? Or perhaps the Governor believes that higher prices caused by government-imposed restrictions on housing supply are inherently more fair than are the burdens that arise from pricing inherently scarce road space. Posted in _Myths and Fallacies_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/myths_and_fallacies/index.html) , _Prices_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/prices/index.html) , _Regulation_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/regulation/index.html) , _Travel_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/travel/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/for_whom_the_go.html) | _Comments (8)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/for_whom_the_go.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/for_whom_the_go.html#trackback) January 17, 2006 Should We Worry About Chinese Dollar Holdings? Don Boudreaux _This story_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600450.html) in today's Washington Post reports that the Chinese now hold $819 billion in reserves of foreign currencies -- presumably mostly in U.S. dollars. And presumably we Americans are supposed to worry. But I can't figure out why we Americans (or anyone else, for that matter) should worry. Take the extreme case: the Chinese continue to stockpile U.S. dollars without every spending them. What a boon this scenario would be for Americans, for it would mean that the price we paid to China for the many valuable goods that we bought from producers in that country is green-ink-smeared paper. We got electronics, textiles, and other things that make our lives better; in return, China got lots of miniature, monochrome portraits of dead American statesmen. Of course, this extreme case doesn't describe reality. The Chinese are no fools; nor do they so intensely love American history that they'll accumulate without end U.S. currency for the sake of possessing U.S. currency. So they plan to spend this currency. Does it matter when they spend it? Not much. Consider the opposite extreme from the one described above: the Chinese (and other foreigners with whom the Chinese deal) spend each dollar they earn the moment they earn it. In this case, the Chinese accumulate no dollar reserves. Each dollar Americans spend on imports from China returns immediately to the U.S. as demand for U.S. goods, services, or assets. This scenario apparently is the punditry's preferred one, for in it China holds no dollar reserves. But how does this spend-their-dollars-immediately scenario differ from what is the likely, actual scenario? In this most likely scenario, the Chinese accumulate lots of dollars and then spend them over time -- sometimes spending them in big lumps (say, to buy several Boeing 777s), other times spending them more gradually, and always holding on to a few as a part of their portfolios or as part of a plan by the Chinese government to keep the dollar's value higher against the yuan than it would otherwise be. In both scenarios -- one in which the Chinese spend their dollars immediately, the other in which the Chinese spend their dollars eventually -- the dollars are spent and return to the U.S. as demand for U.S. goods, services, and assets. The only difference is the timing. I know that some people worry that the Chinese will suddenly dump their stash of U.S. dollars on the foreign-exchange market. A sudden drop in the d ollar's value would indeed be unfortunate. But the fall in the dollar's value in this case would be from a height that the dollar reached only because the Chinese accumulated the stockpile of dollars in the first place -- the same stockpile of dollars whose sudden dumping on foreign-exchange markets caused the value of the dollar to fall. Also note: insofar as people with a serious stake in the matter -- namely, currency speculators -- really are worried about the Chinese suddenly dumping their dollars, these traders would start to short the dollar as soon as their concern became serious. These actions on world currency markets will tend to smooth out the change in the dollar's value. That is, the value of the dollar will start to fall before the Chinese begin to dump their dollars -- thus reducing, if not eliminating, the quickness of the dollar's fall. It's possible, of course, that world currency traders and speculators are naive and never accurately anticipate what the Chinese will do with their dollars, but, if so, you'll pardon me for paying no attention to pundits and politicians who fret about the size of Chinese dollar holdings. Posted in _Trade_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/trade/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/should_we_worry.html) | _Comments (16)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/should_we_worry.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/should_we_worry.html#trackback) Maryland Malfeasance II Russell Roberts In its ongoing effort to make the workplace less friendly to working people, the Maryland legislature voted today to raise the minimum wage in Maryland to $6.15, overriding a veto by Governor Ehrlich. This vote comes quick on the heels of _its earlier decision_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/maryland_malfea.html) to make Maryland a less hospitable place for Wal-Mart to do business. Both of these pieces of legislation make it harder for low-wage, low-skilled workers to find work in Maryland. The opening of the Washington Post _story_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/17/AR2006011700581.html) treats the debate over raising the minimum wage as a worker vs. business struggle: The Maryland General Assembly today voted to raise the state's minimum wage by $1 an hour, brushing aside concerns by Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) that the move would hurt small businesses. For those of you keeping score at home: Good Guys: Maryland General Assembly that cares about the poor. Bad Guy: Governor Ehrlich who cares about business. Or: Friend of the worker: GA Friend of business: Gov You have to go farther down the page to find out that the Governor actually cares about workers: In his veto message last spring, Ehrlich called passage of the bill "a bad decision that elevates politics over economics and ultimately hurts the people it claims to help." He argued that small businesses would either have to raise costs for consumers or fire low-wage workers, arguing that "more than half of minimum wage workers nationally are of high school or college-age, and minimum wage jobs for them are a means by which to enter the labor market and acquire skills necessary for career advancement." _Here's_ (http://www.gov.state.md.us/billvetoes/2005/message_HB391.html) the Governor's statement from last spring. It closes with this observation: I believe that each working person deserves an appropriate wage that reflects his or her work, skill level, and productivity. Accordingly, I believe employment and education provide the necessary foundation for future success in life. Raising the minimum wage reduces employment opportunities for those who need it most, thereby limiting an individual's training, experience and skills. For the above stated reasons, I do not believe Maryland should break from its long history of respecting the federal government establishing a minimum wage. Accordingly, I have vetoed House Bill 391. It is a bad week for Maryland. Posted in _Regulation_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/regulation/index.html) , _Work_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/work/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/maryland_malfea_1.html) | _Comments (7)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/maryland_malfea_1.html#comments) | _TrackBack (2)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/maryland_malfea_1.html#trackback) Rapacious Bullies? Don Boudreaux Jonathan Yardley -- the Washington Post's generally excellent chief book reviewer -- began _his review_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/12/AR2006011201694.html) of a new biography of Milton Hershey this way: During the Gilded Age of the late 19th and early 20th centuries -- the age of rapacious corporate bullies characterized by Theodore Roosevelt as "malefactors of great wealth" -- Milton S. Hershey was a man apart. Yardley's history, of course, is the standard one. But while the so-called Gilded Age had its share of rent-seekers (Jay Gould springs to mind), most of the alleged 'robber barons' were simply successful businessmen in an age when the U.S. market was made truly national by railroads and telegraphy. Without getting into history here, I offer the following mental experiment. Suppose farmer Jones works tirelessly to plow his fields, plant his crops, and tend them until they're harvested. In his spare time, farmer Jones experiments with different recipes for fertilizer and pesticides. As a result, he invents vastly more productive fertilizers and more effective pesticides. He's a workaholic, spending every waking moment trying to increase his crop yields. Over time, because of his success, he buys additional land and plants additional crops. His output expands both intensively (more output per acre) and extensively (more acres under his cultivation). Compared to average farmers, farmer Jones produces vastly more crops at much lower per-bushel costs. Is farmer Jones greedy? Is he rapacious? Is he a malefactor? Are the farmers who voluntarily sell their land to him, or who are undersold by him, bullied by him? Does farmer Jones deserve scorn? Or admiration and applause? Posted in _Myths and Fallacies_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/myths_and_fallacies/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/rapacious_bulli.html) | _Comments (7)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/rapacious_bulli.html#comments) | _TrackBack (0)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/rapacious_bulli.html#trackback) January 16, 2006 Missing Portraits Russell Roberts [This post has been edited since it was first posted] A picture is worth a thousand words. So the New York Times Sunday Magazine _article_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/magazine/15wage.html?pagewanted=1) (discussed earlier _here_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/on_legislating_.html) and _here_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/vertical_demand.html) by Don and me) that found so many reasons to love living wage ordinances and so few reasons to be skeptical of their virtues, included powerful photographs of workers who expect to benefit from the Santa Fe living wage ordinance with poignant descriptions of what these workers plan to do with their raises: (javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/01/11/magazine/15cover.1.html', '15cover_1', 'width=456,height=600,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')) (javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/01/11/magazine/15cover.1.html', '15cover_1', 'width=456,height=600,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')) Alessandra Petlin for The New York Times Name: Manuela Soto. Marital status: Single mom. Occupation: Assistant hotel housekeeper. Home: Santa Fe, N.M. Hourly wage before local "Living Wage" ordinance: $7.50. Hourly wage now: $9.50. What she'll do with raise: Pay bills faster, offset higher gas prices, buy more supplies for sons. _More Photos >_ (javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2006/01/11/magazine/200 50115_WAGE_SLIDESHOW_index.html', '20050115_WAGE_SLIDESHOW', 'width=750,height=600,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')) Strangely enough, there were no pictures of the workers who expect to lose their jobs because the legislation will price them out of the job market, though some of the pictured workers may tragically fall into this group. Nor were there any descriptions of how anyone who loses their job plans to cope with being unemployed. I am proud not to be a progressive. Posted in _Seen and Unseen_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/seen_and_unseen/index.html) , _Work_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/work/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/missing_portrai.html) | _Comments (15)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/missing_portrai.html#comments) | _TrackBack (5)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/missing_portrai.html#trackback) Vertical Demand Curves Russell Roberts A key issue in the debate over the virtues of the so-called living wage is whether the demand for labor slopes downward—will employers hire fewer workers when legislation forces employers to pay more? ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is the most important advocate of living wage ordinances as reported in _this_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/magazine/15wage.html?pagewanted=1) New York Times Sunday Magazine article. (Don's post on the article is _here.)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/on_legislating_.html) I have read elsewhere that ACORN in 1995 tried to get itself exempted from the state of California's minimum wage legislation. I have always wondered whether this was an urban legend. Could it possibly be true? It appears to be true unless someone has hacked into the _Findlaw_ (http://lp.findlaw.com/) website. (_Here's_ (http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/41/298.html) the Court's judgment against ACORN. If that doesn't work, try googling this: Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. Department of Industrial Relations (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 298 , 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 486. I'd like to see ACORN's brief as well if someone knows how to dig it up.) Most of ACORN's critics delight in pointing out the hypocrisy of ACORN. How could an organization that fights for higher wages deny its own workers those higher wages? But I'm more interested in the arguments that ACORN used to make their case. Here, from the court's decision, is why ACORN argued that applying the minimum wage to ACORN would have an adverse impact on the organization: According to ACORN, this adverse impact will be manifested in two ways: first, ACORN will be forced to hire fewer workers; second, its workers, if paid the minimum wage, will be less empathetic with ACORN's low and moderate income constituency and will therefore be less effective advocates. The first argument was that demand slopes downward. The second argument is why I'd always wondered whether this story was an urban legend. The second argument seems worthy of Saturday Night Live if the show were written by economists. I am proud not to be a progressive. Posted in _Work_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/work/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/vertical_demand.html) | _Comments (5)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/vertical_demand.html#comments) | _TrackBack (1)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/vertical_demand.html#trackback) The Market for Health Care Russell Roberts Any time someone complains to you about how bad the market for the health care works, it's important to remind them that most areas of the health care system are highly regulated in a top-down fashion or heavily subsidized. The top-down part is often hidden, but today, at least, it's out in the open. >From the _New York Times_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/16/politics/16drug.html?hp&ex=1137474000&en=f9353ff31dd315be&ei=5094&partner=homepage) (rr): With tens of thousands of people unable to get medicines promised by Medicare, the Bush administration has told insurers that they must provide a 30-day supply of any drug that a beneficiary was previously taking, and it said that poor people must not be charged more than $5 for a covered drug. Someone should ask Samuel Alito why this is constitutional. Posted in _Health_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/health/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/the_market_for_.html) | _Comments (3)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/the_market_for_.html#comments) | _TrackBack (1)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/the_market_for_.html#trackback) January 15, 2006 On Legislating 'Living Wages' Don Boudreaux Jon Gertner’s _cover article_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/magazine/15wage.html) in today’s New York Times Magazine offers no surprises. It’s as predictable as what you’ll read here. Gertner reports on the movement for a “living wage” – a movement working mostly at the local level, trying to persuade local governments to legislate minimum wages well above the national minimum wage of $5.15 per hour. Of course, Gertner mentions the famous (or infamous) 1995 study by David Card and Alan Krueger in which the authors claim to find evidence that a hike in New Jersey’s minimum wage caused no fall in employment and might even have caused employment to increase. Card and Krueger are quoted, each predictably insisting that their data exposes the error in the standard economists’ analysis in which legislated minimum wages increase unemployment among low-skilled workers. Gertner makes no mention of the many critical responses to Card’s and Krueger ’s study. (He does quote critic David Neumark – once – but only on the success of the political movement for ‘living-wages,’ not on the Card-Krueger study.) A good summary of the criticisms of Card-Krueger is _this essay_ (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html) by Donald Deere, Kevin Murphy, and Finis Welch. (I must also recommend _this outstanding blog-post_ (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/05/infinite_contra.html) by my colleague Bryan Caplan, over at EconLog.) Maybe Gertner can be forgiven, for Krueger told him that (in Gertner’s words) “Some recent surveys of top academics show a significant majority now agree that a modest raise in the minimum wage does little to harm employment.” If a “significant majority” of “top academics” accepts the Card-Krueger finding, why bother to talk with the lunatic fringe who cling to the archaic superstition that higher minimum wages cause greater unemployment? But look more closely at what Krueger told Gertner – namely, “top academics” (we’ll assume those to be economists and not sociologists and experts on French literature) “agree that a modest raise in the minimum wage does little harm to employment.” It seems as if Krueger is saying that economists now agree that “modest” increases in the minimum wage are justified, or at least not harmful. That is certainly Gertner’s reading of Krueger’s meaning. But taken literally, the economist consensus that Krueger reports is neither new nor inconsistent with the traditional understanding that higher minimum wages reduce employment. This understanding has nothing to do with the extent of the effect that higher minimum wages have on employment; it has to do with the direction of the effect: higher minimum wages, lower rates of employment of un- and low-skilled workers. Because more than 95 percent of American workers have skills sufficient to enable them to earn wages higher than the federal minimum, any “modest raise in the minimum wage” is unlikely to have an effect on employment that is more than modest. But let’s assume that Krueger really means something more substantive – namely, that economists have been wrong to assert that higher legislated minimum wages increase unemployment – and that, therefore, the economists’ case against the minimum wage is without merit. (Again, this meaning is the one that Gertner takes from Krueger.) Because there are margins other than pecuniary wage rates upon which employers and employees can adjust, it’s possible that higher legislated minimum wages don’t so much reduce employment as reduce the quality of available employment. Most obviously, employers of low-skilled workers can reduce (or not increase) fringe benefits, or they can work their employees harder (thereby extracting more output per hour from them). If the brunt of employer and employee adjustments to higher minimum wages take place on these non-wage-rate margins, even the finest empirical studies will show little or no effect of higher minimum wages on the rate of employment. But it would still be a grotesque error to conclude that low-skilled workers are generally better off as a consequence of the higher minimum wage. Posted in _Prices_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/prices/index.html) , _Reality Is Not Optional_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/reality_is_not_optional/index.html) , _Regulation_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/regulation/index.html) | _Permalink_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/on_legislating_.html) | _Comments (21)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/on_legislating_.html#comments) | _TrackBack (3)_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/on_legislating_.html#trackback) Recent Posts * _Free the Price-Cutters!_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/free_the_pricec.html) * _Shoplifting as Governance_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/shoplifting_as_.html) * _For Whom the Governor Tolls_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/for_whom_the_go.html) * _Should We Worry About Chinese Dollar Holdings?_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/should_we_worry.html) * _Maryland Malfeasance II_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/maryland_malfea_1.html) * _Rapacious Bullies?_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/rapacious_bulli.html) * _Missing Portraits_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/missing_portrai.html) * _Vertical Demand Curves_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/vertical_demand.html) * _The Market for Health Care_ (http://cafe hayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/the_market_for_.html) * _On Legislating 'Living Wages'_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/on_legislating_.html) _Archives_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/archives.html) * _January 2006_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/01/index.html) * _December 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/12/index.html) * _November 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/11/index.html) * _October 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/10/index.html) * _September 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/09/index.html) * _August 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/08/index.html) * _July 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/07/index.html) * _June 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/06/index.html) * _May 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/05/index.html) * _April 2005_ (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/04/index.html) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
