Vegetables etc

By TT Tom -
To follow up on a recent post regarding gov't folks and the classification of tomatoes... Mr Callahan notes... Now, I suppose it's better the legislators spend their time that way than in passing some intrusive new law. Now that type of legislation is not as innocuous as it may appear. The potential ramifications of an unfunded mandate is paid for by someone. Just changing labels from manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, servicers etc adds up. The new and better info labels on foods we consume from the corner market cost, well, a lot of time and money. I can't imagine that the gov't bureaucrats are talking about something so inane unless someone makes money. Or perhaps it is a function of a topic I suggested as a sequel to the book "Economics for Real People". That book could be named "Economics for Real Gov't Bureaucrats". For instance if the tomatoe classification crisis is as it appears to be... useless and stupid, then why? Gov't job creation maybe. As the gov't doesn't create much of anything that anyone wants to buy, I think this could be an example of expansion of the very lucrative business of gov't bureaucracy. Perhaps some legislator's cousin's spouse needs a job. How about initiating a study on tomatoes?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more