Links for November 7, 2011: Lemonade stand license costs $50 per day; EU “bans” underage balloon inflation; others….

November 5, 2011
  1. I can’t get enough of these “cops bust lemonade stand” videos. This one actually tells you what the kids have to do to stay legal: Acquire a business license, food, and vendors permits at a cost of $50 a day, plus an extra $180 a year. What adult can afford those fees? … And it’s like….gee whiz? Where did all this unemployment come from? Don’t look too hard, people.

    And then…if a grown-up DID set up a lemonade stand, she couldn’t hire those girls. That would violate child labor laws. The girls are hosed!

    And don’t gimme this “We don’t know what’s in it,”crap. If the authorities, or anyone else for that matter, are so worried, then they should make the girls take a sip first before they buy some. If the girls vomit all over their shirts and keel over, then you know it’s no good. Isn’t that how tyrants do it?

  2. Actually not a bad way to look at it. Now consider how much work the government criminalizes through wage regulations and other red tape. …

  3. Official guidance notes: “For latex balloons there must be a warning that children under eight years must be supervised and broken balloons should be discarded.” Frank Furedi, professor of sociology at the University of Kent, warned that toy safety bans were part of a trend to micro-manage children’s lives at the expense of allowing them to explore, learn and have fun through play.

    “I would say that this is crackers but I sure children are banned from using them too. EU party poopers should not be telling families how to blow up balloons,” said the Ukip MEP.

    Omitting the most important fact of all, a citation to the actual legislation so that we may do our own research, is journalistic malpractice, IMO. Especially where the alleged regulation is as preposterous as this.

    The regulation is Directive 2009/48/EC. Quoted text in the article is not from the 37-page directive itself. Rather, it is from the 174 page “TSD Explanatory Guidance Document“. Further reading: European Commission, Enterprise and Industry: Toy Safety Directives; Europa, Summaries of EU Legislation: Toy safety.

    Ted Balaker at Reason made a big deal of the so-called ban in Reason.tv’s most recent “Nanny of the Month”</em installment. As far as I can tell, at least regarding balloons, the regulations require balloons to carry warning labels and to be designed in such a way so as to minimize the risk of choking and/or poisoning. It does not, as far as I can tell, make anyone into a criminal upon the inflation of a balloon by an unsupervised child. It’s still nannyism, but I don’t see the regulation as imposing such a broad and ominous ban.

  4. Kinda harsh, but kinda true. You’ll notice that this article was also the source of the above lemonade stand video.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.


Links for August 1, 2011: Debt Stuff; A Block of MoJo; others….

August 1, 2011
  1. Hitting a debt limit is not the same as defaulting.

  2. Failure to raise the debt ceiling need not entail default; but it would still ding Uncle Sam’s credit rating.

    A more in depth discussion on the limit vs. default issue. I have not yet fully evaluated it.

  3. This is how Congress has been behaving for quite some time. Creditors may start to call soon.  Read the rest of this entry »


Links for March 15, 2011: Backlog O’Links #1

February 13, 2011
  • One way to stimulate an economy is to get your foot off of it’s neck.

  • It is a crime, work? So I guess I’m a criminal. It is a crime to be working. lol.

  • I’m glad this point of view is getting out there. On one hand, I can see how the gold standard would constrain a growing economy. On the other hand, no, I don’t trust those people with the printing press.

  • Read the rest of this entry »

  • Links for July 19, 2010: To Stimulate or Not To Stimulate; What Police Can Do; much, much more….

    July 18, 2010

      Paul Krugman: Boost aggregate demand! Muahahaha!!!

    1. It’s good to hear Krugman speak and respond to questions. The thrust of this discussion is that the opposition to the stimulus is a visceral reaction, not an intelligent one. Although some guests early on questioned the empirical efficacy of the stimulus, we did really not hear from any Thomas E. Woodses or any Peter Schiffs who maintained, in quite an intellectual fashion, that the stimulus is simply bad economic policy. Krugman remarks toward the end that he doesn’t see stimulus jobs as “makework” jobs. I do not understand how this position can be honestly defended alongside the position that we now need government to “boost aggregate demand”, i.e. create demand where none existed before. What is the purpose of the stimulus if it is not to “make work”? If these were not “makework” jobs, we would do them anyway. We would not need an economic crisis as a pretense for passing $700 billion spending bills. For a response to the assertion that Roosevelt’s slashing of the deficits caused a recession in 1937, see this. For a response to the assertion that World War II spending lifted the U.S. economy out of the depression, listen here, starting at 32:17.  Read the rest of this entry »


    links for 2010-01-31

    February 1, 2010
    1. Mises Institute | How to Fix the Jobs Problem

      Boom. QED. This is an application of the more general theory that “markets clear”.

    2. Stop the Drug War (DRCNet) | Obama Launches YouTube Forum on Legalizing Marijuana

      April fool! Too funny. Although it is time we got some straight answers instead of snickering.

    3. Aggressive Progressive | Progressive Strategy on Jobs and Economic Justice

      No. The job comes first, then comes the spending. Read the rest of this entry »