Category Archives: political economy

Disparate Impact

Posted on by
Reply

Some folks sued RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co over its hiring policy that

allegedly gave preference to applicants with two to three years of job experience out of college and disfavored those with closer to a decade in the workforce. The company’s guidelines provided to its hiring contractor, according to the ruling, said the greener group of workers “adjusts easily to changes.”

The suit centered on the premise that this policy had a disparate impact on older workers.  In the words of Lee Parks, an employment and civil rights lawyer with Parks, Chesin & Walbert, the policy means that

Those over 40 need not apply[.]

Judge William Pryor, writing for the majority at the 11th Circuit, which heard an appeal from the trial court’s ruling, wrote Indeed.  Disparate impact questions only apply to job holders, not those who’d merely like to hold a job.

Apparently disparate impact as justification for “corrective” action or as a cudgel is good only for some groups of Americans, but those who aren’t currently the favored ones don’t get its use.

This is one more reason to do away with disparate impact as an excuse for anything at all.

How Many Layers of Bureaucracy

Posted on by
Reply

…whether government’s or private businesses’ will Big Government require before it will allow a failed enterprise to fail?

Regulators want to prevent taxpayers from having to ever again bail out big banks. Their latest idea: make the banks bail themselves out.

Previously, banks had struggled to persuade regulators they had a plan—called a “living will”—that would allow them to be dismantled and shut down if they got into trouble without taxpayers taking a hit. Now, banks are creating new structures that would allow their most important parts to keep functioning, even if the parent company has to file for bankruptcy. The aim is to avoid the kind of market chaos that could cause economic harm.

Never mind the far greater market chaos created by keeping these failed entities around, actively cluttering the market.

Make the banks bail themselves out?  Get regulators out of the way, and let the banks—or any other enterprise—prevent their failure with sound, market-driven business decisions, instead of facing a greater risk of failure by being trapped into decisions driven by Big Government regulations.  Those remaining businesses that fail will deserve to do so from their poor decision making.

The whole concept of a “living will” and a free market enterprise is internally contradictory.   Let a failed enterprise fail, and let the free market, consisting of all of its participants including the enterprises that rise from the bankrupt’s ashes, prosper.

Racism of the Left

Posted on by
Reply

Again.  Still.

A Black-owned bakery, Fat Cupcake, baked up a batch of cupcakes to honor our President, an American who happens to be black; they titled the cupcakes “Mr President.”  Fat Cupcake described their confection on their menu as an

Oreo (™) Cookie baked inside white cake, cookies n’ cream buttercream.

It didn’t take long for the Left to start manufacturing a racist beef where none exists, thereby displaying their own racism.  Via Yelp, for instance:

Very troubling. They were serving a cupcake called the “Mr President” that had an Oreo cookie inside. When I tried to point out the racism implied, they claimed that “our current president loves Oreos.”

Never mind that President Barack Obama (D) is well-known for loving Oreos; there’s no “claim” there.

This isn’t just an isolated anecdote, either.

Since opening in Southeast Portland, [Fat Cupcake owner Anjelica] Hayes said she’s had to field questions about whether her cupcakes are racist.

I’m surprised someone isn’t whining about the sexist nature of the establishment’s name.

Apparently Bureaucrats Don’t Have Enough Control Already

Posted on by
Reply

The European Commission is considering unilaterally expanding the scope of its authorities.

The European Union’s antitrust authority on Friday said it was considering changes to its merger review rules to include a wider swath of technology and pharmaceutical deals that normally wouldn’t fall within its purview but could possibly harm the bloc’s internal market.

…the European Commission said it was fielding opinions from the public on whether the regulator should also probe mergers involving companies with smaller revenues.

Because instructing the big companies on the business decisions the Commission would permit them to take doesn’t have enough juice for them anymore.

Such a move would be especially significant for the digital and pharmaceutical sectors, the EU said, where an acquired company might generate little turnover but holds commercially valuable data or owns products under development that haven’t yet been marketed.

That’s an area of regulatory vacuum, and we can’t have that, now can we?  Besides those data and nascent products represent action on which the EU wants its vig.