By Douglas French over at Mises.org

Jad Houawad reports for the New York Times that airlines have been able to continue filling their planes while still increasing prices.  However, the airlines are worried, having

failed to raise fares in six of their seven efforts since March, suggesting that some passengers may be balking at the higher ticket prices. “Airlines have overreached,” said George Hobica, the founder of AirFareWatchdog.com.

Packed planes are a way of life for anyone who travels regularly.  And for anyone who understands economics, fewer flights (less supply) and more demand (full planes) mean higher ticket prices.

But Teamsters union representative Kevin Currie, who occasionally flies to Florida to see relatives, never received the supply and demand memo.

“It’s getting ridiculously expensive,” said Currie. “There are more people flying right now, so shouldn’t their prices go down?”

Reporter Houawad then writes, “Of course, the airlines do not think that way. Since more passengers are vying for every available seat, they can keep raising fares and still fill their planes.”

Of course, no one thinks that way.

LeBron isn't "vanishing" during the post season.  He just plays in the wrong league. 

Think about it.   If he played in the NHL making 3 shots out of 11 would be Gretzky-esque. 

Clutch 3rd period with nothing left for a 4th?  No problem.

Scoring once in an OT?  WINNER!

borrowed from Sportspickle.com

JOHN CARNEY: Why Are Conservatives Fighting for Tax-Eating Colleges? I’m guessing that a lot of people see Obama’s attack on for-profit colleges as primarily an effort to defend a traditional Democratic constituency. And also, of course, they’re noting that it’s not as if people who attend traditional non-profit colleges are necessarily getting jobs as a result of their education.

Once again POTUS is showing his tin ear.

The government recently released GDP by state information for 2007-2010. As the following graphic shows, eight of the nine states with the fastest economic growth are predominantly rural:

 Why does this matter?  Because within 24 hours of this data being released we got the following, as reported by ewsbusters.com

The Obama administration has apparently identified a significant constituency it hasn't been able to buy off, and is attempting to do something about it.

Of course, the ever-gullible Darlene Superville at the Associated Press is swallowing the White House line completely, as seen in these excerpted paragraphs:

Obama to create White House Rural Council

 

President Barack Obama plans to create a special advisory council to recommend ways to boost the economic outlook and quality of life for the estimated 60 million people who live in rural areas of the U.S., a White House official said.

Obama was expected to sign an executive order Thursday establishing the White House Rural Council and naming Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, of Iowa, to be its chairman.

Does golf keep him in good enough shape to keep running to try to get in front of parades?

I was a dupe.  For half a decade I worked in the Morgage industry.  Early 90's.  My best friend was my boss so I didn't come in cold.  I'd learned bits and pieces through casual conversation and just needed to polish up details to become a loan originator.  Did OK.  It was kinda silly.  We loaned money to people that probably wouldn't pay it back, and then sold the loans to companies who borrowed money from the government, which the government had made available for the express purpose of using to buy loans which people probably weren't going to repay.  It had started in the Carter Administration, languished throughout the Regan/Bush I years, but was revitalized and pushed to the fore during the "It's the Economy, Stupid" years of the Clinton Administration. 

And no liberal believes it happened.  I've told the stories dozens of times to libs, always to be, essentially, called a lier who had no idea what he was talking about.

Perhaps that's about to change.  And from the NY Times, no less.  Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon. By Gretchen Morgenson, one of America’s best business journalists who is currently at The New York Times, and noted financial analyst Joshua Rosner, Reckless Endangerment gives the best available account of how the growing chaos in the mortgage and personal finance markets and the rampant bundling of dubious loans into exotically toxic securities plunged the world, and millions of American families, into the gravest financial crisis since World War Two. It is gripping reading as well, and its explanations are clear enough that readers without any background in finance will have no trouble following the plot. The villains? An unholy alliance between Wall Street, the Democratic establishment, community organizing groups like ACORN and La Raza, and politicians like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Henry Cisneros. (Frank got a cushy job for a lover, Pelosi got a job and layoff protection for a son, Cisneros apparently got a license to mint money bilking Mexican-Americans of their life savings in cheesy housing developments.) . . . If the GOP can make this narrative mainstream, and put this picture into the heads of voters nationwide, the Democrats are toast. The party will have to reinvent itself (or as often happens in American politics, be rescued by equally stupid Republican missteps) before it can flourish.

go read WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: The Fannie Mae Scandal Is Bigger Than You Think: for more.

Government programs NEVER go away:

Pennsylvanians Still Paying Tax To Rebuild Town Flooded In 1936

WASHINGTON POST: Economic news is bad for Obama’s reelection bid. “Any notion that President Obama’s reelection campaign was gaining momentum was shaken this week by a string of worrisome economic reports showing weakness in the job market and new lows for housing prices.”

Heinlein: Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded- here and there, now and then- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.This is known as ‘bad luck.

It’s well-established that in good times and bad, Republicans call for lower taxes. Always. So lefty blogger Joel Mathis threw down a challenge to William Voegeli over at the NoLeftTurns blog.

How low is low enough?

Voegeli's response in 20th (and 21st) Century American political theory in a nutshell.  One way to describe the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals want government spending to be the independent variable that determines tax levels, and conservatives want government spending to be the dependent variable determined by taxes.

You might wanna read it all.

Two years ago she wrote of Clare Booth Luce’s observation that all presidents have a sentence: “He fought to hold the union together and end slavery.” “He brought American through economic collapse and a world war.” You didn’t have to be told it was Lincoln, or FDR. I said that Mr. Obama didn’t understand his sentence. But Republicans now think they know it.

Four words: He made it worse.

Obama inherited financial collapse, deficits and debt. He inherited a broken political culture. These things weren’t his fault. But through his decisions, he made them all worse.