Individuals who post about cats on social media are more neurotic than the general population.… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…—
Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf) November 08, 2017
Alden Abbott and I recently co-authored an article, forthcoming in the Journal of Competition Law and Economics, in which we examined the degree to which the Supreme Court and the federal enforcement agencies have recognized the inherent limits of antitrust law. We concluded that the Roberts Court has admirably acknowledged those limits and has for the most part crafted liability rules that will maximize antitrust’s social value. The enforcement agencies, by contrast, have largely ignored antitrust’s intrinsic limits. In a number of areas, they have sought to expand antitrust’s reach in ways likely to reduce consumer welfare.
The bright spot in federal antitrust enforcement in the last few years has been Josh Wright. Time and again, he has bucked the antitrust establishment, reminding the mandarins that their goal should not be to stop every instance of anticompetitive behavior but instead to optimize antitrust by minimizing the sum of…
View original post 791 more words
The New York Times continues its move toward the Regressive Left (really, Lindy West as a columnist?) with the op-ed below (click to go to the piece). The author, Martin Patriquin, is a journalist from Montreal who writes for iPolitics.
The story is that in mid-October Quebec passed a law banning face coverings (not hijabs or niqabs, but any covering of the face itself, which would also include face-obscuring scarves, sunglasses, or anti-disease masks) for those receiving public services or working in government jobs. Face coverings are not banned in most other circumstances, but of course nearly all those affected by the law will be face-veiling Muslim women, which the article at the top estimates to be about 100 women in a province of about eight million Quebecers. The link in the first sentence of this paragraph leads you to this:
The Quebec provincial legislature on Wednesday barred…
View original post 1,337 more words
Donna Brazile’s disclosure of an agreement between the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton Campaign has recreated a firestorm in confirming widely held views that the primary was rigged to guaranty Clinton the nomination. Even before the disclosure, many of us had reached that conclusion after debates schedules and other conditions during the primary seemed to uniformly favor Clinton. Brazile however is now insisting that she never said the primary was “rigged,” though she stands by her disclosure of the agreement as well as her statement that the Clinton campaign was “cult-like.” It was a classic Brazile moment — reminiscent of her prior false statements to the media about leaking questions to Clinton before the debate and even suggesting that her emails were altered. Now Brazile is caught in her own Clintonian “meaning of is” distinction on what she wrote in her book.
View original post 1,173 more words