Usually Greg and I comment on each other's posts the way you do--in the comments, but as you may have noticed, he's a little sensitive on the topic of gays, and so a post of mine on the economic ascendancy of Christian film, gets a rebuttal post because it mentions peripherally mentions Brokeback Mountain, otherwise known as the gay cowboy movie.

Now is as good a time as any to discuss theatrical film economics.

First of all, the public never gets to find out what a movie really costs or whether it made money or not. The arcane quality of the film industry's accounting was highlighted by Art Buchwald's lawsuit against Paramount concerning the Eddie Murphy film "Coming to America", a wildly successful film that according to the books, "lost money".

The film's production entity will typically only receive about 65-80% of the box office receipts and the film budget; quoted at 14 million for Brokeback Mountain, covers only the actual making of the film, not the distribution, marketing and other exhibition costs. In fact the gross receipts are often significant less than this when it involves backend deals, as I suspect there are for BBM. Keanu Reeves received 20% of the box office for the sequels to the Matrix, meaning that he got a fifth off the top. The reality is that the public always significantly inflates the money that a movie actually makes.

Nevertheless, the budget for the film and its domestic box office do have some relevancy. The budget for the film gives you a peek into the expectations for the film. Judging from the very small budget for BBM, the expectations were not large, which begging Greg's pardon, is a reasonable position to take.

Total life-time revenues are generally calculated as 1.5 times domestic take (this includes foreign screens and DVDs). There are notable expections to this--Titanic garnered almost 200% of its domestic box office of 600 million.

Most films make 60-80% of their revenues in the first 4 weeks, so at 15 million, BBM isn't doing well by industry standards. In fairness though, the "plan" is to seek a wider release for the film, hoping that its initial limited success can be translated into something broader.

The liberal media's estacy over the controversial subject matter of the film has been a windfall of free advertising, so yes, it makes sense to try to get the broader release, but let's be realistic, 300 additional screens is a rather tentative step and the Christmas movie-going season is over with at this point.

Even if you conservatively estimate that the films production and marketing cost are no more than 30 million, BBM would still have to gross, in the most optimistic terms, 40 million just to break even. That assumes no back-end deals of any kind, and no further costs for the second release, which of course is impossible.

Of course, BBM almost certain does have a back-end (no pun intended), since a 14 million dollar budget does not get you young buck stars like Heath Ledger or Jake Gyllenhaal. They are lesser stars than Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise, but they could probably swing a shared 5-10% backend deal together (probably the higher figure if we include Anne Hathaway).

I would have to expect that the distribution deal was onerous as well, since renting your screen from BBM during the Christmas season meant not having it for "Fun with Dick and Jane" or other less critically-acclaimed, but more profitable fare. The reality could well be that BBM has only earned 8-10 million and cost three times that.

Of course, a little more time will tell, but BBM would have to emulate a Christian film to recoup its investment, rising Lazarus-like from the tomb of public apathy.

P.S: I did a search on Technorati looking for others blogging BBM but turned up almost nothing. I guess its not as controversial as some might suggest.

Last week I commented briefly on disclosures that the NEA was spending big bucks on things not remotely connected to education. Now this on the UFW. I don’t think it’s a surprise to anyone who’s remotely engaged on the issues that unions have been falling down on their supposed mission of late.

Keep Reading:

The DOW hit 11,000 today, the first time in 4-1/2 years.

You have to ask the question how a president with an economy like this one could be barely scrapping the bottom of 50% approval ratings? I think its due to a number of factors:

1. The media doesn't see the economy as a story. There are a number of reasons for that--the war on terror is generating a lot of controversy, and unlike the White House, the media can't do more than one thing at a time. Its also conceivable that a Republican administration with a good economy "isn't news". What I mean by that is that Republicans are expected to be good on the economy, whereas the boom economy of the nineties under a Democrat administration was "unusual" in the context of a popular view that Democrats are a net drag on an economy. Take a look at media coverage of Democrat governors--if their states are doing well economically, it gets prominent mention. No one ever mentions a billion dollar surplus for Utah.

2. The Bush administration isn't really capitalizing on the economic performance of the country. I am not sure why this is, but its not all that unusual since Bush won reelection. The administration has seemed reluctant to engage in politics, which may be the best argument for replacing Karl Rove. The Democrats have consistently managed to drive the news cycle with their stories. The Democrat effort is to be expected, but they are largely winning by default.

I must concede that in the final analysis, it may not really matter. A good economy isn't something you read about, its something you experience. Cheerleading, or conversely, slamming the economy may simply not have much effect.

Its usually hopeless to talk economics to most (but not all) Democrats. Its a demographic fact that most hard-core Democrats are removed from the hurly-burly of the private economy, and thus can entertain fanciful notions about poverty, wealth creation and "fairness".

Its not surprise then that Maryland Democrats have voted to override the governor's veto of the "Walmart Tax", a special 8% payroll tax that specifically and uniquely targets Walmart (the only company that fits the criteria of the bill).

This is a power grab by the unions, who of course are threatened by the economic example of Walmart. Union apologists allege that Walmart underpays its retail workers by 5 billion dollars and that Walmart is a drag on medicare costs, yet as is typical for such disingenuous arguments, they ignore the central principle of economics that demands that costs must be discussed in the context of benefits and vice-versa. Walmart is actually about average for large firms in the percentage of its workforce that get medicare benefits, but what is really remarkable is how much keeping costs down, including worker wages, really improves the lot of (not just) the poor in this country.

Walmart consumers save 50 billion dollars just on food. To give you an idea of the scale of that savings consider that the food stamp program was worth about 30 billion in 2004.

In comparison with other major retail chains like Target and Costco, the typical Walmart shopper earns $35,000 a year compared with 50K for Target and 75K for Costco. As I written before, you can see this anecdotally by just looking at the parking lots of your respective Walmarts and Costcos.

Ironically, the alleged terrible working conditons and low pay still attract job-seekers in record numbers. The unions and their Democrat allies, unable to affect peoples free economic choices, are seeking instead to legislate them for the benefit of a few.

Notably, its not Walmart that is going to suffer--the extra taxes will be passed on to Maryland consumers, particularly those who make $35,000.00 and less. What everyone who actually knows something about business understands that apparently very few Democrats do, is that corporations DON'T PAY TAXES, CONSUMERS PAY TAXES. God help the poor in the blue states.

The Political Teen

Soccer Dad

Ace of Trump doesn't think the law will pass constitutional muster.

The Not So Free State

A Newer World represents the typical Democrat view I think--Walmart must pay "its fair share" of taxes. He also notes with worry that Walmart may not build a distribution center on the eastern shore, a plan that would have created 1000 jobs. Gee, would you? Unions and their Democrat legislator lapdogs don't give a damn--they have jobs.

Old and Evil

Bending the Rail

Patridiots: No politics here folks, move along.

Crazy Politicos Ranting muses about what actions Walmart could take, and they are numerous.

They could start laying off to get under 10,000. By closing stores that are on the low end of the profitability chain, and moving their distribution centers out of Maryland to another state, they could get under the magic number. If that happens are the 7,000 workers who are affected better off than they were?

Honest Partisan lives up to his billing.

So you can put all the mandates on Walmart that you want, but it still strikes me as an inadequate response to a real problem. Maybe the strategy is to make big employers cry uncle and push for national health insurance (the auto industry seems to be moving in that political direction). But it's a bit of a bank shot. I guess what worries me the most about it is the extent it shows Democrats giving up on national health insurance and accepting employer-based health insurance as a lame substitute.

If you want to work at home, you will have to find about the adequate work insurance. Regarding your older home mortgage or any other mortgage deals, you will have to be thrifty. That means keep a check on the credit card.

A Chicago area Walmart has received 25,000 applications for 325 positions. You've got a little more than a 1% chance of getting hired, somewhat better than winning the lotto, but a similar dynamic nonetheless.

Walmart haters are despondant:

“We just think them coming out and telling the press that they have 25,000 applications is disingenuous,” says Tim Drea, legislative director for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 881. “I think it’s a PR stunt.”

Mr. Drea says he’d like to see the applications himself before putting faith in that number.

Plus, he says overall he worries that the store will hire more part-time workers rather than full-time employees with benefits.

“Wal-Mart is lowering the bar in retail from what wages once were,” he said.

I'll just point out that unions like the UFCW are the reason that 25,000 people are applying for 325 jobs. One just has to look at the automobile industry to understand that unions mean fewer jobs. There is nothing wrong with the automotive business, but there is something wrong with American manufacturers who are saddled with egregious Union contracts. The relative efficiency of a non-union Japanese or German plant to an American plant is just astonishing. Its not that Ford or GM don't know how to be efficient, its that the unions preclude them from implementing these efficiencies. American manufacturers do a lot of outsourcing to save money, but at the scale its being done at, its highly inefficient. Its also worth noting that the unions control the loading docks--they limit by contract, how many trucks they will unload in a given day.

This would be a book instead of a post if I wanted to point out every single obstacle to efficiency the unions throw into the path of American manufacturers, but efficiency is perceived as bad for unions and therefore they fight it anyway they can--ultimately to their own detriment.

The unions have to impose major reforms or they have to disappear.

Are you better off than you were 5 years ago?

Yes.

Yes you are.

Unemployment rates

February 1998 (Glory years)

3.9 - Whites.
9.7 - Blacks.
6.8 - Latinos.

On the other hand:

February 2006 (Imperial Bush McHitler dark ages)

4.1 - Whites.
9.3 - Blacks.
5.5 - Latinos

H/T Polipundit

Chuck Schumer for all his "Ali-G" antics isn't really as stupid as he sounds, but he thinks you're stupid which ranks among my top three "irritating things Democrats do to alienate me as a voter..."

Now apparently George W. Bush thinks you're stupid too.

President Bush, responding to political pressure over the high price of gasoline, ordered the Justice Department today to investigate price gouging, halted deposits to the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the summer, eased environmental rules and urged Congress to roll back tax incentives to energy companies.

I know economic ignorance is pervasive, particularly among liberals who spent their college years studing English literature and political science, but how does anyone get out of highschool without some basic economic education?

Regardless of how willfully ignorant some Americans choose to be, should we prefer education over pandering? I am not even talking "high principle" here but just good sound politics--lying to people is a short term solution with long term disadvantages. If Republicans pander to ignorance in ways indistinguishable from Democrats, then we deserve the same credibility problems.

Ironically, its possible to have legitimate disagreements about the war in Iraq, but the economic realities behind current gas prices aren't arguable in the least.

Price gouging can only occur under a very specific set of circumstances--when supply is articially constricted. Would you be surprised if I said that Democrats love price gouging?

The moronic proposal of a "windfall profits tax" is a case in point. Taxing profits (and in spite of the billions in profits the oil giants are making, they have very modest profit margins on the order of 10%) only serves to drive people out of the exploration business. Americans can be forgiven for not know that most land-based exploration is conducted by small private companies who risk their capital with the hope of a profit, almost always a far larger margin of profit that what big oil manages. Taxing the profits insures that no new supplies will be discovered and exploited, creating the artificial shortage that constitutes price gouging.

The Crats have a very good reason for this--public transportation means big government, big unions and big campaign cash for Democrats. All these private cars are just bad for the party. The fact that all public transport is highly subsidized is of little consequence--its the political advantages that make it worth the price.

Consider also the current regime of "price gouging" brought to you by the long dark reign of Democrats in Congress--the lack of refining facilities in this country is a deliberate policy of supply constriction, i.e. price gouging.

We desperate need more refining facilities in this country and you can place the blame squarely on the Democrats shoulders.

What other price gouging policies have the Democrats foisted on us?

Democrat-run states invariably have the highest gas prices because of the legislated mandate for so many different types of special blends. Now one might argue that this is an environmental measure, but if so, shut up and pay the four bucks a gallon.

Large oil and gas reserves exist of the coasts of California and Florida, in Alaska and other locales. These are blocked by legislative fiat.>/li>

Anything that limits the free market is a form of price gouging and you only have to look to your nearest Democrat politicians if you need a target for your wrath.

It's commonly said that in terms of how we live - the things we have, the things we do, the things we take for granted - Americans are pretty well off compared to the rest of the world. How much of this difference can be attributed to our historically low energy prices? Do higher energy prices suggest our standard of living falling to that of Europe?

More beyond the fold:

Running some errands yesterday, I was amused at the ubiquity of "help wanted" signs. The demand for labor exceeds even that of the late nineties dot.com era--largely because it is far more broadly based. A good friend of mine sells steel--about as mundane a product as you can imagine, but the demand is just ridiculous and his company is running at capacity.

With the anecdotal evidence before me everyday, its little surprise to read Larry Kudlow's column informing us that since the Bush tax cut was passed, 11 quarters ago, the U.S. economy has expanded by 20%

Twenty Percent!!!!

In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy, and much larger than the total economic size of nations like India, Mexico, Ireland, and Belgium.

The drive-by media and Democrat hacks continue to find economic clouds in the silver lining, but the reality is that by every significant measure, we are kicking the doors off economic growth.

So how can the liberal-left still oppose low taxes?

Oh, I'll let you explore their talking points on this subject rather than risk being accused of "misrepresenting" the liberal-left position. Nevertheless, the bottom line for liberals is a puerile definition of "fairness", which like for any five year old, means that whatever doesn't favor them is by definition--unfair. The macroeconomic effect, as demonstrated by every socialist "paradise" in the world, is anemic economic growth, high unemployment, high prices, poverty, illness, environmental degradation and a laundry list of other social ills.

Frankly, the whole "fairness" issue is just one more head fake--the most devout liberals are millionaires and billionaires with fleets of accountants protecting their asses, er-r-r assets. The reason for their support of socialist economic policy is answered by the question of who threatens them.

Certainly not high-taxes.

I've got pictures of the parking lots in Monaco which would blow your mind--not one car under 100K in the entire lot. In high-tax Europe, how can this be? Well, even socialist countries have to perform lip service to job creation, and that means preferential tax treatment to business investment. I can hear the cogs turning--yes, rich people in Europe or in Canada pay no more taxes than Theresa Heinz-Kerry does because they've struck a deal with the government that insures that their stash is exempted from the very policies they insist should be applied to everyone else.

What the very rich are most afraid of is asymetric economic warfare--basically ambitious, smart and driven people with a better idea that could wipe out their fortunes overnight. Low taxes and consequent business investment (expanded 37% since the Bush tax cuts) keep rich liberals awake at night, because it means their buggy whip business--the foundation of their vast fortune, is at risk. Socialism does two great things for rich liberals--it beggars the "economic terrorist class" and consequently, forces them to come to rich liberals for start-up capital. How great is that? Not only does socialism forestall the threat, but it actually enhances their fortunes by making certain that they get a piece of any promising business models that may spring up.

Perhaps no other aspect of the Democrat party alienates me more than they way they callously exploit the poor and middle classes and even though we might take it for granted, the economic policies of the Bush administration, and by extension the Republican party, are the single greatest reason to support them in the coming elections.

Everybody likes to visit Europe, but nobody (except the very rich) want to live there. Swedes have an inferior standard of living to African-Americans in spite of their vaunted social-welfare system, but if you want the same for yourself and your children, by all means vote Democrat this fall. If not, then hold your nose and vote for Rick Santorum or whatever other wacko the primary process has foisted on you.

Its more important that you could possibly realize.

This from Professor Bainbridge:

I freely admit that much of my dislike for Wal-Mart is rooted in aesthetics, but it's also got a free market component. I'd find Wal-Mart much less objectionable if it stood on its own two feet instead of leaning on government subsidies.

This is why the debate over Wal-Mart is so uninformative. Wal-Mart's liberal critics would have to admit that big government is part of the problem, while Wal-Mart's conservative defenders would have to admit that their hero would have a much harder time competing in a truly free market. And neither is willing to do so.

This is just silly. Lets first call things by their right name--these aren't subsidies, they are incentives and as well all should know, incentives are the foundation of the free market. The fact is that Walmart and other retailers generally negotiate with local government, not "big" government, unless of course we are talking about a warehouse that can have a regional, state and even multi-state impact

Ask yourself the question--if potential tax revenue is estimated at 5 million a year for the foreseeable future by having a Walmart located in the city limits, would you hand back a million to insure that they build in your town? What about 2 million? 3 million?

The answer of course depends on the opportunity cost. Walmart competes against a broad range of retailers and other tax-generating entities. Any reasonably competent city manager is going to understand the market value of raw land in tax terms--which makes this comment so incomprehensible:

even if the subsidies given Wal-Mart by many local communities to encourage opening a store are not as large as Wal-Mart's critics claim, does anyone seriously doubt that Wal-Mart often gets breaks on things like zoning, property or sales taxes, and other regulatory issues that small business competitors don't receive?

What is the point of this comment? Of course Walmart receives greater discounts--they provide greater potential tax revenues than Joe the Cobbler does for the same square footage. A better question would be whether Walmart would get preferential treatment over Neiman-Marcus.

I seriously doubt that.

The bottom-line is that so-called government subsidies are part and parcel of a free market in tax jurisdictions. Retailers have a choice of where to build, which of course creates a natural competitive environment among municipalities hoping to attract big sales tax dollars.

There is another element to consider in the negotiation for a Walmart site--Walmart is an anchor that attracts all sorts of other businesses to the area--businesses without the same market clout as Walmart, and therefore not subject to the same level of tax discounting.

Consider a major commercial development in my city.

For years, several hundred square acres of land, between two exits off of the I-15 lay fallow, zoned for commercial development, but unable to get over the very large hurdle that there was no existing commercial base there. Finally, a few years ago, a Super Walmart and Home Depot were contracted to build on the site. The road infrastructure was improved to handle the new volume of traffic. I have little doubt that Walmart and Home Depot drove killer deals--woe, woe woe--the tax revenues that we foreswore!

Yet almost immediate, subsidiary development began occuring--an IHOP, a Chilis, a few banks, some strip malls, a few fast food restaurants. Then came a Kohls, a multiplex, more strip malls. The decrepit old K-mart was redeveloped into a new Sears site. A Target was installed, Pier 1 Imports and finally--the piece de resistance--a Lowes and Costco.

Building continues and there is substantially more land available. What kind of discounts did this second, third and fourth wave of retailers get from the muncipal tax man?

Right.

Don't feel sorry for Joe the Cobbler--he's collecting the Benjamins at his new digs in the strip mall...

Since yesterday was Labor Day, I suppose it’s appropriate to take a moment to consider the increased productivity yet shrinking compensation of the American worker.

Continue beyond the fold:

I'm asked by a friend who trades inflation for a bank what I think. So....

"Sell in September and go away.
I dunno. UK housing is just unaffordable. We'll have to emigrate to Poland. That's not a joke, it makes sense to base an office in E.Europe, eg the Baltic States. In Poland you can get cheap Ukrainian plumbers.

US housing is more efficient than in space restricted, bureaucratic UK, so I expect the price signals to work earlier (as they are) with consequently smoother markets and less knock-on to general consumer confidence. The UK is hard to predict. As English is the lingua franca, so London has become World City and new capital immigration (eg from India and China and Russia) can propel UK asset prices further than history would suggest.

Commodities have peaked, absent much greater tension in the middle east or somewhere unexpected.

Inflation in general has stayed low despite the commodity boom, despite mid-east war, despite China and India. Reason is China and India (abundant cheap, skilled human assets) plus tech advance plus floating currencies to permit tensions in purchasing power parity and expectations to disssipate rapidly rather than by currency earthquakes.

So :

Commodities down
US housing down 25% ish, but no hard landing for economy.
UK housing is a big fat wobbling bubble which will probably both inflate and deflate bigtime with an eventual big fat splatty pop.
E. Europe pretty good.
France will improve for sure.
Germany still stuck. Talent gets out, but they're not really hungry.
China - no idea but capital will get more of a 2-way flow.
India will boom. Tremendous talent, finally, finally starting to liberalise.
Inflation overall not a bigtime problem.
Sterling steady - really it's a better reserve currency than Euro.
Dollar strong. Say it again - strong dollar. More hawkish Fed, purchasing power parity, lower oil prices. President Romney will be more of a deficit hawk.

Politics in the UK is rancid. Cameron's an utter scumbag and Labour/the vast public sector/the BBC will try to capture Gordon Brown away from markets and the US. That might lead to 1970's type national gangrene for a while."

George Will had an interesting column recently discussing the politics of Wal-Mart. He points to a suburban store just a block outside of the Chicago city limits and how it’s bustling with city shoppers - and employees. Moreover, jobs are in demand. Over 25,000 applications were received for a mere 325 jobs when this particular store opened last January.

More beneath the fold

There's less buzz about flat tax these days, so let me make a modest proposal:

What is called "flat tax" is really "less progressive tax." Ignoring the fiddly bits like thresholds, if I earn 100k and you earn 50k, I pay twice as much tax as you, for no good reason except that you have a vote worth as much as mine (more if your vote is thought more biddable).

"Flat tax" should mean we pay the same tax. That would be a glorious revolution.

The only enforcement need be a public list of those who've paid the tax. That's a strong sanction if you think about it.

For a lively essay on what I call "flat slope tax" see The Economist.

The Labor department had to revise its September jobs report by 810,000 jobs--upwardly.

Seems that the labor department likes to ignore the household survey, new jobs are persistently understated and then "revised" after the media has already driven by.

Most of the media has ignored all this and instead focused on the disappointing 51,000 "new jobs" number from the establishment survey for September. But even in that survey, the jobs number for August was revised upward by 62,000 and the U.S. jobs machine continues to roll out an average of about 150,000 additional hires each month. Even the loss of residential construction jobs in September, due to the housing market slowdown, was nearly matched by payroll gains in commercial construction.

This boom in employment started in August of 2003, roughly coincident with the economy's growth acceleration in the wake of the Bush Administration's 2003 tax cuts on dividends, capital gains and in the top marginal income rate on the highest earners. Yet on the same day that the Labor Department discovered 810,000 new jobs, Nancy Pelosi promised that if she becomes Madam Speaker next year, within 100 hours of taking the gavel the House will vote to repeal those tax cuts and raise the minimum wage. Never underestimate the ways that Washington politicians can do economic harm.

Democrats: Coming to a screw near you.

If your economic acumen qualifies as grounds to sue your school district for incompetence, then check out Captain Capitalism. He provides pro bono remedial help. I thought of this entry on foreign aid when I read Mick’s post about who is likely to contribute to charity. Captain Capitalism rightly points out the free ride Europe (and Japan) get because of America’s willingness to foot the bill for our collective security. If you’re finding it difficult to pay for health insurance check out his thoughts here, including a method to use your house to help. Oh, and check out his charts on the real tax rates levied by the developed world.

Lots of papers today reported that Iran's oil industry is slated for collapse in about ten years. This is from USAToday:

Iran earns about $50 billion a year in oil exports. The decline is estimated at 10% to 12% annually. In less than five years exports could be halved and then disappear by 2015, Stern predicted.

He said oil production is declining and both gas and oil are being sold domestically at highly subsidized rates. At the same time, Iran is neglecting to reinvest in its oil production.

Iran produces about 3.7 million barrels a day, about 300,000 barrels below the quota set for Iran by the oil cartel, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

The shortfall represents a loss of about $5.5 billion a year, Stern said. In 2004, Iran's oil profits were 65% of the government's revenues.

"If we look at that shortfall, and failure to rectify leaks in their refineries, that adds up to a loss of about $10 billion to $11 billion a year," he said. "That is a picture of an industry in collapse."

The AP article is based on a forthcoming paper by Roger Stern, an Economist with the Department of Geography and Environmental Environmental Engineering at John Hopkins.

Notably, the paper is not about Iran's imminent collapse, but rather about the error of some long-standing assumptions about oil scarcity and U.S. national security. The AP barely conceals an agenda to stop any military action against Iran in conjunction with its nuclear program. In some version of the article, its even explicitly stated that Iran may in fact need nuclear reactors as a result of its burgeoning domestic energy needs and its declining production.

Someone needs to put the AP out of business before it writes again.

Great advice likely to fall on deaf ears.

Dobbs engages in populist rhetoric because he thinks populism brings in the viewers. Nobody got rich telling people the truth.

Senate Republicans are giving Democrats a taste of their own medicine, holding up the minimum wage bill by voting against cloture.

The minimum wage is an abomination, designed to effectively evaporate entry-level jobs so that Democrats can make a show to their economically-ignorant constituencies. Since Democrat want this very badly, the opportunity to extract concessions is correspondingly high. Ironically, tax breaks for small business actually does create jobs, which means of course that Charlie Rangel is against it.

Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York and chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, has suggested he will block any minimum-wage measure that includes tax provisions.

A spokesman for Mr. Rangel, Matthew Beck, said Wednesday: “The Senate needs to pass a clean bill. They shouldn’t hold the minimum wage hostage.”

Anything that annoys Charlie Rangel has my unqualified support.

The Economists damns the Democrats legislative centerpiece with faint praise.

It is probable that the minimum wage increase will not cost enough jobs to make its effects readily distinguishable from random economic variation. It is also probable that it will improve the lot of a few poor people, though not many, as fewer than 20% of those who earn the minimum wage live in poor households now. On the other hand, it also seems probable that much of any benefit that goes to poor families will come out of the pockets of other poor people—very probably even poorer people, such as convicts, who are currently barely hanging onto the fringes of the labour force.

Screwing poor people is what Democrat do...

.. animated graphics are worth a book. Hans Rosling says "Why are we not using the data we have?" and dispels some myths about the developing world.

The presentation is twenty minutes, but if you are in the business of analyzing and presenting data you don't want to miss this.

via Captain Capitalism

Hang on for the housing ride!

h/t Capt Capitalism

From an article by Niall Ferguson this is neat:

..subprime is a euphemism for poor. And consequently, in Detroit and Memphis, it is a euphemism for African-American, which is itself a euphemism for black.

Interesting how little effect the credit events are having.
Non 'subprime' US property is down because of 'irrational exuberance' and easy money on the way up yet the US economy is thriving and will benefit from more affordable housing. CMOs and other real estate financial packaging have dispersed risk more widely than in the past. Bearstearns isn't bust, but so what if it were ? Meanwhile the stock market is at record highs and the US's vast foreign debt is growing smaller by the day as the dollar depreciates.

Actually the financial sophisticates in the subprime sector are often the borrowers - "These dumb white guys in suits want to throw money at me and, if things work out, in 2 years I'll have a house worth more, maybe much more, than it cost. If they don't work out, I'll be foreclosed and the smart money-men will own a house worth less, maybe much less, than it cost."