TGIF: Libertarianism = Anti-racism
Libertarianism = Anti-racism
comments powered by Disqus
Tim Sydney - 5/28/2010
Banking deregulation is politically incorrect at present. But a relatively recent NBER paper (See here) has this to say:
"...We find that bank deregulation reduced the racial wage gap by spurring the entry of non- financial firms. Consistent with taste-based theories, competition reduced both the racial wage gap and racial segregation in the workplace, particularly in states with a comparatively high degree of racial prejudice, where competition-enhancing bank deregulation eliminated about one-quarter of the racial wage gap after five years."
One quarter of the racial wage gap after five years??
How many years ago was the Civil Rights Act enacted?
If any piece of social legislation did as well the liberals and progressives would wet themselves with publicity.
Competitive markets create a disincentive for discrimination. And unlike civil service agencies they don't take long lunch hours. They are, in short, a color blind anti-discrimination agency that never sleeps.
Modern liberals and progressives by pushing for statist policies that wrap the economy up in cartel friendly and cartel promoting regulations (i.e. almost all of them) do far more to promote and protect discrimination than the K.K.K. ever did. The few anti-discrimination policies and laws they favor are mere crumbs from the masters' plate.
- Florida professor to burn Confederate flag
- Could another English king be buried under a parking lot?
- Huckabee says archaeology supports the Bible
- George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public
- Unfinished film about the Holocaust made in 1945 to finally be seen by audiences
- Daniel Pipes calls the rulers of Iran "madmen" on official Iranian TV
- A Professor Tries to Beat Back a News Spoof That Won’t Go Away
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- Sean Wilentz is being called “Hillary’s Historian"
- Hundreds of British historians challenge assumptions of “Historians for Britain” campaign