Market Failure: Supposedly not enough diversity
1) Just because Nike wasn't producing these shoes, I would have liked some evidence that shoes weren't already being produced for this segment of the market. I looked up some shoes on the internet and it seemed that this market niche was well covered see here, here, and here. You get sizes from EEEEEE to XW, and I haven't even heard of some of these sizes since they are so wide. I see no evidence that the basic claim in this article is correct.
2) "That's why Friedman condemned government allocation. And yet the market made the same choice." If the size of the particular group is so small or if those in the group aren't willing to pay that much for the shoes, you might not get a product specifically designed for each small group, but it is a long way to implying that the market doesn't produce a lot more diversity of products than the government.
3) "The company took too many years to bring the shoe on line . . . ." There is a cost and benefit from producing this diversity of products. I would guess that the benefits now exceed the costs. Possibly the cost of making products for such small niches has gone down. The article mentions that these wider feet might be a result of "diabetes and related conditions" and possibly more people generally are suffering from this problem. (It isn't clear from the piece what percentage of the 1.5 percent of the population who are Indians have these wide feet, but presumably it is less than 1.5 percent.) Bottom line: what evidence is provided here that it took "too many years" to provide these shoes. That is, "too many years" in the sense that the costs of doing this were less than the benefits (total costs including the costs of figuring out that such a market existed) and yet it was not provided.
Big UN push for more gun control
In what U.N. officials say is an "overwhelming" response, almost 100 governments have submitted ideas for such a treaty, to be reviewed over the next year. There's an "extremely urgent" need for controls on the international gun trade, says Kenya, echoing the sentiment in much of guns-besieged Africa.
But in the U.S., the NRA says it sees a creeping attempt to limit civilian gun ownership within nations - even though the focus now is on setting standards for arms exports and imports.. . . .
"Jodie's got a gun: Foster finds social meaning in 'Brave One' "
subversive ... ". . . .
This seems like quite a change from Foster's earlier statements on guns discussed here.
Jonathan Turley: "A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all"
I wish them good luck with this, but . . .
On April 16, 2007, twenty-seven students and five faculty members at Virginia Tech lost their lives to a madman who possessed one distinct advantage over his victims—He wasn’t concerned with following the rules. Undeterred by Virginia Tech’s status as a “gun free zone,” this mentally unstable individual carried two handguns onto the university campus and indiscriminately opened fire.
During the week of October 22-26, 2007, college students throughout America will attend classes wearing empty holsters, in protest of state laws and campus policies that stack the odds in favor of armed killers by disarming law abiding citizens who are licensed to carry concealed handguns virtually everywhere else. . . . .
Newt Gingrich's Potential Presidential Run is Victim of McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Regulations
Democrat Economic Proposals
-- Shades of George McGovern's 1972 campaign? This would cost about $20 billion per year. We give everyone $5,000 at birth but they have to pay higher taxes later to pay for that. I assume that the point of all this is to increase progressivity, but the notion that you are taxing people to give all newborns more money. If you means test the money to the poor, you dramatically lower how much you have to pay out. Presumably one reason for this could be to encourage people to have more kids, but the Even assuming that someone thought that it was necessary for yet another government program to transfer money, why would you want to give every newborn more money?
Note: I am not a big fan of the.
2) Congressional Democrats want a $35 billion increase in government health care financed by a $1 tax increase on cigarettes.
-- Also sorts of states are starting government programs with the promise that cigarette taxes will pay for them. Not only were states unlikely to get the money that they wanted to begin with, but this Federal tax increase would make that all the less likely.
Racially motivated stress as an explanation for infant mortality rates?
Here is my question: how has the gap between black and white infant mortality rates changed over time? The 1950s and 1960s should have had really high relative infant mortality rages, but they weren't. Well, I looked up some numbers: