Pro-Business or Pro-Market?

Tags

, , ,

Image

There is a big difference. The GOP can’t have it both ways anymore. The Grand Old Party would be ever so much grander if they’d shutter the rents dispensary (well, and a few other roles they favor for big government). Dolling out favors to politically-connected business elites really douses my libertarian lamp. That includes bailouts and escapades into regulation that only business behemoths can withstand.

Demanding Cultural Change By Fiat

Tags

, ,

Image

Megan McArdle says Government Can’t Fix Real Gender Pay Gap, and she’s right. As usual, her discussion is thoughtful. She acknowledges that “almost all of the gap (in average wages by gender) is driven by choice of occupation, and working hours, with an emphasis on working hours.” Of those decisions and any remainder, she thinks, “you can make a strong case that at least some of these decisions are driven by residual cultural sexism… But I also have to ask: What specific thing are we supposed to enact to fix this?”

There are no good choices, and neither the Paycheck Fairness Act nor Obama’s executive order on equal pay by federal contractors will accomplish much besides grandstanding and encouraging frivolous lawsuits. McArdle concludes: “To the extent that it’s needed, the remaining work to be done on the pay gap has to be done in places where the government, or indeed any explicit policy, has difficulty going: inside families, or the subconscious recesses of our minds.”

Global Yarning

Tags

, ,

Image

Two interesting opinions on aspects of the climate change debate on wsj.com today. The first covers the unmistakable change toward more guarded assertions on the science of climate change in the IPCC’s latest report: Second Climate Thoughts. Less alarmism is good, even if the responsible parts of the discussion were buried in the document after a lengthy summary containing juicy alarmist headlines. At least some honest inquiry has begun to influence the IPCC.

The second wsj piece discusses the bias against traditional energy sources holding sway at U.S. colleges and universities. It laments the failure of those institutions to direct students toward fields having anything to do with fossil fuels, despite the lucrative nature of careers in that area: How Climate Change Conquered the American Campus.

Limited Liability: Elixer or Fascist Monstrosity?

Tags

, ,

Image

Can Libertarians support limited liability for corporate shareholders with a clear conscience? Limited liability attached to corporate ownership is a wholly distinct form of property right granted by the state. As a result, many Libertarians view it as an “artificial” or “unnatural” right, casting the corporate form of organization as an institutionalized rent-seeker’s bonanza. However, limited liability can arise via private contract even without formal recognition of a separate form of property by the state, and there are strong arguments in favor of limited liability as an economic catalyst. Moreover, certain legal dimensions of property ownership are more consistent with limited liability than are often admitted by detractors. Preserving limited liability for corporate shareholders now may be more important than ever, given the way that exposure to tort actions has expanded over time.

The following articles illuminate some arguments in favor of limited liability:

Megan McArdle: Be Glad That Corporate Liability Is Limited.

From a Libertarian/Austrian perspective: Corporations and Limited Liability for Torts.

Gender Gap Claptrap

Tags

, ,

Image

The gender wage gap disappears after controlling for voluntary choices made by women and men regarding occupation, emphasis on family time and duties and/or personal preferences. These decisions often have sociological roots, but they are private decisions in the first instance and not amenable to engineering via regulatory action. For example, controlling for just one factor, marital status, accounts for 75% of the gender difference in average wages. In the post linked above, Mark Perry at Carpe Diem thoroughly debunks the wage gap myth.

It is already illegal to pay equally-situated men and women different salaries. Yet it is just too difficult for some politicians to resist using the difference in average wages as an excuse for regulating private employment decisions and wages. The pernicious effects of this kind of legislation are discussed in ‘Paycheck Fairness’ Will Lead to Fewer Paychecks, Less Fairness. It’s particularly interesting that the “Paycheck Fairness Act” would expose private employers to class action lawsuits over wage differences. Needless to say, trial lawyers are enthused.