45 Responses

  1. My sentiments exactly.

    Like

  2. Carried over, per instruction:

    No fact finding, QB –

    And not clearly decided by the Supremes on All Writs, but written as if it were an injunction pending final appeal. So my best guess now is that they want to treat this case in a bundle with Little Sisters.

    Like

    • McWing:

      Scott and Brent, something to worry about?

      Not sure. But the liquidity they are concerned about is liquidity of Treasury notes, not cash. A negative repo rate means that a lender is willing to pay you to borrow his money, in exchange for you putting up certain T-notes as collateral. It is driven by demand for particular T-notes, not a reluctance to lend. So it is not indicative of the kind of liquidity crisis that we saw in ’08, when banks were afraid to lend to each other, sometimes even on a collateralized basis. As long as libor rates remain low (o/n libor today was 10 basis points) we are not seeing a repeat of a Bear/Lehman crisis.

      Like

  3. Great!

    At an increasing pace, your local government is spending your tax money paying lobbyists to get some more of your own tax money sent back to your community.

    http://www.dailybulletin.com/government-and-politics/20140706/who-pays-the-most-for-california-government-lobbying-in-sacramento-government

    Like

  4. The Horror

    ““As soon as you do away with limited access, over a period of years, the taxi industry will wither away and die,” says Michael Shakman, a Chicago attorney who is suing the city on behalf of investors and companies whose business would not exist without medallions. “You will be left with whatever the free market generates by way of transportation.””

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/20/taxi-medallions-have-been-the-best-investment-in-america-for-years-now-uber-may-be-changing-that/

    Like

  5. I still weep for all the displaced buggy whip manufacturers and telephone operators.

    Literally.

    Like

  6. 5 highly compensated law firm types piled into an uber SUV this morning. and didn’t think twice about it. it’s over. trying to put that genie back int the bottle isn’t happening.

    Like

    • Good column by Punnuru on the hysterics (a perfect characterization, it seems to me, given the subject) over Hobby Lobby and Wheaton.

      To review: The court majority, in the Hobby Lobby case, declined to rule on whether the accommodation is compatible with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and put off consideration of that issue for another case. In its Wheaton order, it again declined to rule on the legality of the accommodation while it awaits a full review. There is no inconsistency, no “retreat” (as Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor put it).

      The three justices who dissented on Wheaton, on the other hand, have gone in a few days from complaining that the majority hadn’t blessed the accommodation to complaining that they had taken back their blessing.

      The language they use seems designed to fool gullible or ignorant commentators. Drum condemned the “PR games” at the Supreme Court. He’s right about that; he just has the wrong justices in mind.

      Like

      • Those remarks of punnuru nail it. The dishonesty is the dissenters’, and that absolutely know it.

        Like

  7. Heh.

    Brent is having dinner with a bunch o’ liberals tonight. Don’t think we’re giving him back, either!

    Like

  8. So now reason to go all ZeroHedge. Cool.

    Thanks!

    Like

  9. Sorry I’m missing it Michi.

    Like

  10. NoVa & George, the interesting question is this – does a regulation change to end a previously granted monopoly count as a taking:

    “In February, he sued the city on behalf of medallion owners, brokers, managers, financiers and cab affiliations. The suit argues that the city has violated their rights by allowing new companies to provide an essentially identical transportation service without complying with existing regulation. By eliminating the exclusive right of medallion owners to provide that service, the suit argues, the city has taken away the thing that gives medallions their value as property under Illinois law.

    “If you think it’s an improvement to change the rules, maybe you can do that,” says Edward Feldman, a partner with Shakman. “But you have to provide compensation for the property rights you’re destroying. And that’s the Constitution.”

    Medallions represent a promise, he says. And on that promise, medallion owners took out mortgage-size loans. If the city backs out of that promise, it must make them whole.”

    If it does, then under that logic EPA rules that inhibit say a power company’s ability to pollute are a taking as well.

    Like

    • jnc:

      If it does, then under that logic EPA rules that inhibit say a power company’s ability to pollute are a taking as well.

      I think the difference is that the logic behind EPA pollution regulations is that pollution itself is a taking (of a sort), ie the polluter is imposing a cost on third parties who are not purchasing the polluter’s product.

      I actually have some sympathy for the medallion owners who were simply playing by, and relying on, the rules established by the government. This is a good example of the types of inevitable injustices that the government unavoidably creates when it subverts the natural operation of free markets.

      Like

  11. Generally a license to do business is not a guarantee of profit or even revenue. That’s like a Real Estate company suing a school district because their performance dropped and property values suffered.

    Like

    • McWing:

      Generally a license to do business is not a guarantee of profit or even revenue.

      The “taking” being suggested isn’t the taking of profit or revenue, but of a thing that has actual value. There are different kinds of licenses. Real estate licenses are issued to anyone who qualifies, and so are essentially unlimited. Therefore any individual license has no market value. It is valuable only to the person who has obtained it. Taxi medallions are quite different. They are deliberately limited in number by the government, meaning that any given medallion does have a real market value. The question is, does someone who purchases a medallion from this government-created market have a reasonable expectation that the government won’t arbitrarily alter the rules, thus destroying the value of the thing purchased?

      Your real estate example does suggest to me a possible analogy. Someone buys a piece of property under specific zoning regulations that make the property more valuable than it would be without the zoning. After purchasing the property, the government decides to change the zoning rules, thus destroying your property value. Is this a taking?

      Ultimately, I suppose, anyone who makes money doing something that depends on the government preventing others from doing the same thing deserves what they get.

      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zOXtWxhlsUg

      Like

  12. Excellent comment at the Daily Caller:

    “This is like back in the day when a monarchy would get stuck with a petulant 14 year old as king.”

    Wouldn’t it be a relief to have a President who is an adult and has a little dignity and deportment? Not to mention isn’t a conscience-free lawbreaker.

    Like

  13. Orwell could never have dreamed of the 24/7 Orwellianism of today’s left, as in that ridiculous Obama tweet.

    The Chicks on the Right comment about it hits the nail on the head: isn’t it incredibly ironic for the President who took away everyone’s health care choices to be spewing that kind of nonsense.

    Like

    • QB:

      isn’t it incredibly ironic for the President who took away everyone’s health care choices to be spewing that kind of nonsense.

      It is a standard ploy of the modern left to incessantly accuse political opponents of the very things they are guilty of themselves.

      Like

  14. Business models change. Should taxi medallion owners have veto power over, say, parking rates or public transportation fares? What about car rental rates? There’s a lot of ways things change that could effect a business.

    Like

    • McWing:

      I’m not saying that medallion owners should be compensated. I’m just saying that I sympathize with them. As I said, it shows how government interference in the market produces inevitably and unavoidably inequitable situations.

      Like

  15. “This is like back in the day when a monarchy would get stuck with a petulant 14 year old as king.”

    They should show more balls and just go ahead and call him “boy”.

    Like

    • yello:

      They should show more balls and just go ahead and call him “boy”.

      You should show more balls and just go ahead and call QB a racist.

      Like

      • You should show more balls and just go ahead and call QB a racist.

        Maureen Dowd was inordinately fond of calling George W. Bush The Dauphin, once also extensively quoting someone who called Dubya “a neglected thirteen year old” and a “petulant teenager”.

        I guess she is racist too.

        Like

        • yello:

          I guess she is racist too.

          Actually I am quite sure you don’t “guess” that, which just demonstrates your own racism. You think Obama’s race is his defining characteristic. Hence a critique that isn’t even remotely racist when aimed at a white president suddenly, to you, carries racist undertones when aimed at a black president.

          Anyway, rather than insinuating that qb is a racist and then pretending that you weren’t with a non-sequitur about MoDo, you should have the balls to be more direct and honest.

          Like

  16. Are same sex “marriages” statistically less stable than traditional marriage?

    Since we are studying gay couples, it turns out their kids aren’t any worse off.

    Children from same-sex families scored about 6 percent higher on general health and family cohesion, even when controlling for socio-demographic factors such as parents’ education and household income, Crouch wrote. However, on most health measures, including emotional behavior and physical functioning, there was no difference compared with children from the general population.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/

    Like

  17. They should show more balls and just go ahead and call him “boy”.

    Jesus you’re a bigot. You know “boy” in that context is a pejorative, right? First you admit a bigotry against gays and now racism.

    Like

  18. Or, in other words, they are more likely to be gay!

    In honor of its 25th anniversary, you forgot the obligatory Seinfeldian “Not that there is anything wrong with that.”

    Unless there is.

    Like

  19. You know “boy” in that context is a pejorative, right?

    Obama as a man-child is actually a fairly common conservative trope. George Will spent an entire column detailing at great length all the ways that Obama is an “arrested-development adolescent”. You can always count on the OG Bow-Tie Guy to use three words when three letters will do.

    Like

    • yello:

      You can always count on the OG Bow-Tie Guy to use three words when three letters will do.

      As you surely know, the “three letters” wouldn’t “do” because they mean something entirely different than the three words he actually used.

      Why don’t you just come out and say what you mean…you think Will’s critique is racist.

      Like

  20. Or, in other words, they are more likely to be gay!

    That was funny!

    Like

  21. Anyway, rather than insinuating that qb is a racist and then pretending that you weren’t with a non-sequitur about MoDo, you should have the balls to be more direct and honest.

    But that’s not my insinuation at all. My amusement is at the lengths the Daily Caller commenter and George Will and others go to avoid the appearance of racism by studiously dancing around the word ‘boy’ while ascribing emotionally immature attributes to him. Real racists have no compunction about calling Obama a “boy” or a chimpanzee.

    Rachel Maddows has also used the boy-king metaphor to umbrage real or faked, so this Daily Caller commenter has that in common with her.

    Like

    • yello:

      But that’s not my insinuation at all.

      You are either lying or you are as dumb as a box of rocks. (For the record, I don’t think you are that dumb.)

      The historically racist implications of using the term “boy” to describe a black man are well known, as you seem to understand. So, the only reason to suggest, as you do, that a critique of him as immature is the rhetorical equivalent of calling him “boy” is to ascribe racist motives to the critique. That this is/was your intent is further confirmed by your suggestion that it takes “balls” to call him “boy” rather than what was actually said. Only if one believes that a racist point is being deliberately implied through the use of non-racist language does the suggestion that it takes “balls” to use the openly racist language makes sense. If it is understood that there was no racist intent, then it wouldn’t take “balls” to use the term “boy”, it would take utter stupidity.

      Like

  22. Dude’s another cao. He won’t own up to how own bigotry but nuts every time he can put a pejorative in someone else’s mouth.

    Weird.

    Like

  23. “They should show more balls and just go ahead and call him “boy”.

    yawn.

    Like

Leave a Reply to Let the mutherfuker burn! Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: