NY Times – Why Conservati​ves Should Reread Milton Friedman


Gary Gutting is correct that everyone needs to re-read Milton Friedman, including Gutting himself.

Shelley, I don’t know if you are aware that Bernie introduced me to Friedman 3 or 4 times, once with Irina, and arranged for me to have lunch with Friedman and San Diego’s Catholic Bishop Brom.  I sat next to the Bishop across the table from Milton and was transfixed.   It was a wonderful, stimulating exchange.  Most memorable:  Friedman told Bishop Brom if he (Friedman) was the sort of person the Bishop thought he was he (Friedman) would have to advocate the Bishop’s positions and if the Bishop truly wanted to help others he (Brom) would advocate Friedman’s positions, spoken with a twinkle, wry smile and a little chuckle.

Gutting misunderstands Capitalism.   Neither Friedman, Mises, Hayek, Ben Rogge, or Ayn Rand thought Capitalism could include fraud or deception, since they basically thought Capitalism was the only moral social system ever devised (Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal).  I believe they all maintained a limited government was indispensable for making Capitalism work. (Hayek, The Road to Serfdom).

From my Romancing the Voters: “The capable, talented, and strong will survive under any economic system. It is only under Capitalism that the capable, talented and strong get ahead by serving those weaker (consumers) and as they wish to be served.” (Prof. Ben Rogge, Can Capitalism Survive?)

“Do not misunderstand; government is not a necessary evil, as often heard. It is absolutely necessary for a free society to work, but it should act as an umpire in enforcing the rules and should not be playing the game using its monopoly on force and violence.” We cannot afford to have politicians continuously discrediting the government by their actions. Only when government is limited to its proper role can it earn and retain our respect. (Paraphrase LvMises, Human Action).  https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/302807

http://www.romancingthevoters.com  Paperback

Compares Weekly Earnings Of Women And Men

 Fred Schnaubelt  This statistic, women make 77% of what men make has been refuted so many times, you cannot count them, but it never dies. As journalists are fond of saying, “Follow the money.”
Union Poster


Posted on Facebook 9/18/13

Bob R. You are the first person I’ve heard that said it was refuted; though I don’t doubt Glenn & Rush say it a lot. Most people believe women still get like 77% the same as men…


Bob, The 77% figure has been bandied about since at least 2000 and refuted numerous times.  It compares weekly earnings of women and men, not hourly earnings. On average, women work less than 35 hours a week and on average men work more than 40 hours per week, with far more working 48 hours than women.  Marilyn Vos Savant noted in her Parade Magazine column if women do comparable work and are 23% cheaper than men, and corporations are motivated by profits, would not the most competitive businesses hire all women and outperform their competitors.  Most corporations don’t come close to making a 23% profit so if it were true, you can immediately see the advantage.


More recently, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Published a study in its October 2011 Review, that when keeping other factors constant, and when considering “total compensation, the gender gap dropped to 3.6%.”  Other studies have shown it to be less than 2%.  Women tend to work in places that offer certain benefits and flexible hours for which they “willingly” accept lower pay in order to be home when their children get out of school, among several other factors. See the penultimate paragraph:


Respond To Minimum Wage Proposals

Gov. Jerry Brown said Wednesday (9/11/13) that he supports raising the minimum wage in California to $10 an hour, urging lawmakers to approve a bill that was amended Wednesday and awaits action in the Senate. (One way to respond to this counter-productive political issue below)
From: Romancing The Voters, Chapter 8

 Increasing Minimum Wage Would Generate Adverse Results

 “If we started in 1960 … then the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour” Sen.Elizabeth Warren

President Obama has called for raising the minimum wage, which in reality is a “learning wage,” to $9.00 declaring even this is not enough to live on. If people can’t survive on $9.00 per hour, why the hypocrisy? Why not raise it to the $22 Senator Warren suggests or $35 an hour as New York labor unions are advocating? Low skilled workers who receive minimum wages comprise only 4.7% of hourly workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012). www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm

The Department of Labor reports one-tenth of those receiving the minimum wage, who were heads of families qualified for Earned Income Tax Credits to supplement their wages. The primary beneficiaries of minimum wage increases are not the 4.7% but those ratcheted above the new minimum wage that will get a step up in pay grades, and those with Union contracts stipulating increases whenever the minimum wage increases.

My very first job paid less than minimum wage. My boss thought I should first learn to show up for work on time and docked me when I didn’t. He also insisted I learn to show up the day after payday when my buddies wanted to go to the beach. He started me out in his small five-man company at a “learning wage.” That’s really what a minimum wage is, a learning wage. It’s not supposed to support a family. After many years of wage increases I eventually wound up owning the company.

It’s extremely rare for a person who can read, write and speak English to be stuck at the minimum wage for more than a year. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 63 percent of minimum-wage workers receive raises within one year of employment. Less than 1 percent of all wage earners earn the minimum wage after three years.

While it’s claimed there’s no impact on employment, as government-imposed wage rates rise, unfortunately so do job qualifications rise requiring more experienced workers. Therefore, less skilled workers become “unemployable.” Advocates for increasing the minimum wage apparently believe it’s better to have no job than a low-paying one. It’s their “intentions” that count. One result of raising the “learning wage” has been millions of idle, restless teenagers on the streets with a lot of time on their hands for mischief.
Source: Courtesy Mark Perry, prof. of economics, University of Michigan-Flint

The irrefutable evidence from the Department of Labor shows that nearly every time the minimum wage has been raised since 1948, unemployment has increased. If you track the federal minimum wage, you’ll see that unemployment among teenagers, particularly minorities, increased from 9.4 percent among blacks in 1948 to 32.5 percent in 2004, and from 10.2 percent for whites to 17.2 percent in 2004. Yes, blacks formerly had lower unemployment rates than whites. (Handbook of Labor Statistics, pp. 153-55)

To update Nobel Laureate Paul Samuelson’s 1976 statement: “What good does it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $9.00 per an hour if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?”

There are six official government measures of unemployment, The media typically reports only U-3 of the six categories ranging from U-1to U-6. Like the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the definitions are changed periodically. The minimum wage makes many people unemployable while helping a few at the expense of others. Why is this so? Well, economic law tells us that if the price of any good increases people buy less. This is true for gasoline. It is true for cell phones. It’s true for blackberries. (I love blackberries. When they are $4.99 a box, I don’t buy them. When they’re $1.50 I may buy them. When they’re 99 cents I buy five boxes at a time.)

It is also true for labor services. Economist Thomas Sowell points out that, “Every one of us would be ‘unemployable’ if our pay rates were raised high enough.” You don’t think so? Go demand that your boss double your salary right now. Do you think your job would be any more secure if the government demanded that your boss double your salary?

When I was young all elevators had operators in every car; gas stations had people wash your windows when they pumped your gas and checked your oil; newspapers were delivered by teenagers (including myself); and millions of neighbor’s lawns were mowed by teenagers. Continuous increases in the “learning wage” over time abolished millions of these jobs for teenagers. Petty thefts and vandalism by restless teenagers have increased as their job opportunities have decreased.

If increasing wages by government edict truly has no significant adverse impacts, as many advocates claim, then we should tell the Chinese, Indian, African and South American governments that all that’s needed to be as rich as America is to pass a law and simply mandate higher wages.


Not a Legacy of Slavery

This week as the 50th Anniversary of Martin Luther King’s famous “I have a dream” speech is celebrated; there are a number of things not widely known.

For instance, some of the finest buildings in Washington D.C., including the White House and Capitol building were constructed in large part by Blacks, some free, some not — along with immigrants, some free, some not, (indentured servants) who worked side by side without conflict or antipathy. http://www.whitehousehistory.org/whha_timelines/images/whha_timeline-african-american.pdf For names and wages see: http://bobarnebeck.com/slaves.html

One traveler through the South during that era wrote he did not see a single white carpenter, bricklayer, or plasterer, as all skilled trades were performed by Negroes. In the Atlantic Monthly, in case you missed it, Booker T. Washington wrote in November 1889 that, “Under slavery, the Negro was taught every trade, every industry, that furnished the means of earning a living.”

Eight years later in the same magazine, John Stephens Durham cited a 1838 study by The Society of Friends (Quakers) that identified over 45 skilled occupations in Philadelphia in which Blacks were employed. Twenty-one years later an additional 41 trades were added that were not mentioned in the 1838 report. Durham continues, “…today (February 1898) one may safely declare that practically all the trades enumerated by Mr. Bacon (employed by the Quakers) are closed against colored workmen.”

The Labor Unions and the Negro, Atlantic Monthly February 1898. http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pagevieweridx?c=atla;cc=atla;g=moagrp;xc=1;q1=The%20Labor%20Unions%20and%20the%20Negro;rgn=full%20text;idno=atla0081-2;didno=atla0081-2;node=atla0081-2%3A8;view=image;seq=0228

This reminds me of my fourth grade class, the teacher told my friend Johnny to write his name on the chalkboard. He said, “Hey teach, I ain’t got no chalk.” Correcting him the teacher said, “It’s ‘I don’t have any chalk, you don’t have any chalk, he doesn’t have any chalk, she doesn’t have any chalk, they don’t have any chalk!” Little Johnny blurted out, “What the hell happened to all the chalk?”

Today we ask, “What the hell happened to all the jobs that Blacks formerly held with a Black unemployment rate today of 12.6 vs. 6.6% for Whites and nearly 24% for all teenagers. (Pew Research)

The broadest measure of unemployment (U-6) doubles the figures above.
Durham explains what happened. “Union workmen were not satisfied merely to refrain from working when they had declared a strike. They determined to prevent other men from taking the places made vacant… the unions protested against free blacks and foreigners … against any man who could be distinctively marked…. Some of the friends of equality of opportunity for colored workmen have felt impelled to denounce the trade unions.”

Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1913 introduced segregation of Negroes in federal agencies and “the Railway Mail Association, representing the railway mail workers, refused African Americans membership.” http://www.postalmuseum.si.edu/AfricanAmericanHistory/p5.html

Unions truly only became powerful when with the support of powerful politicians they were able to exclude non-union workers from jobs. They created an artificial shortage of jobs by reducing competition that gained them above market (free market) wages. Blacks were not allowed to become apprentices or join Unions, except for the Sleeping Car Porters union. The unintended consequences are felt today in high unemployment among all workers and especially among Blacks and teenagers. Teenagers without jobs, up to 40% of Blacks, become restless and often turn to crime and dealing drugs. When I was young,
teenagers worked at gas stations and filled your tank, washed your windows, and checked your oil. Millions of teenagers, including me, delivered the daily newspapers and mowed lawns for their neighbors. Laws, some well-intended, eliminated millions of jobs that paid less than union agitated federal minimum wages.

Perhaps a more detailed explanation of what happened to Black jobs is the Davis-Bacon “Prevailing Wage” Act. This is a federal super-minimum wage law (still with us) that originally was intended to keep Blacks, Hispanics, and immigrants from working on federal construction jobs.

Davis-Bacon requires the payment of prevailing wages on federally funded projects. At the behest of Congress, President Hoover who believed it would prevent wages from falling during the Great Depression signed it into law March 3, 1931. President Roosevelt subsequently concurred.

Regardless of what two Presidents believed, Davis-Bacon was approved by Congress after a contractor using “negro labourers” from the South won a contract to build a Veterans Hospital in New York. Alabama Congressman Clayton Allgood fretted about contractors with “cheap colored labor … of the sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country.”


Prevailing wages historically have meant the highest union wages. Non-union construction workers have a tremendous advantage over unionized competitors: They often can do a better job, more efficiently, at less cost to taxpayers. Prevailing Wage laws remove this advantage. Some politicians call this “unfair,” by attacking quality of work while never being able to identify non-union built buildings that are falling down in their districts.

It’s not just wages but also union work rules that cost the taxpayers. Until the 1960s, Walt Richardson, a union painter (and my parents’ business partner) told me the painters union prohibited him using wider than 6 inch paint brushes and he could not use paint rollers or spray guns. Not being subject to such onerous restrictions gave non-union workers a clear edge. I was best man at a friend’s wedding just out of high school when he went to work at National Steel and Shipbuilding. A union steward told Larry to slow down as he was making other workers look bad. Larry said he was just working, not fast, not slow. When he got off work one day all four of his tires were slashed in the parking lot. This was not an uncommon union tactic.

The sole reason for adopting the Prevailing Wage Ordinances is so labor unions will direct their generous campaign contributions to politicians, who vote for such ordinances. All other wondrous explanations are buffalo chips.

If we were in a foreign country this would be illegal under the “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” (15 U.S. C. § 78dd-1, et. Seq.). Unions give campaign contributions to politicians and politicians contribute “taxpayers money” to unions, via union workers getting “prevailing wages.”

Not only are Prevailing Wage Ordinances a throwback to Jim Crow laws keeping Blacks, Hispanics and non-union workers from competing for jobs but when a city’s residents are needlessly forced to pay more for public services they have less money for other necessities relegating them to a lower standard of living.

Undoubtedly, the union workers who get higher so-called “Prevailing Wages” will be grateful. The workers harmed are invisible to elected officials and probably don’t make campaign contributions anyway. It’s as plain as the nose on your face; politicians takes care of those who take care of politicians. “All political power is derived from what you can do to — or for someone.” In summary, based on experience since 1931, those harmed the most are minorities and non-union workers willing to do a better job at lower cost by adopting union prohibited new technology. Regardless of intent of the law, economist Walter Williams writes, “While today’s supporters of the Davis-Bacon Act talk differently, its racially discriminatory effects are the same.”

Other things not widely known are:
1. It was Democrats that put Martin Luther King in the Birmingham Jail.
2. The Ku Klux Klan was indicted by a Grand Jury as the “Terrorist” arm of the Democratic Party responsible for lynching an untold number of Negroes.
3. For 200 years the Democratic Party was the party of racism, slavery and segregation.
4. John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act. 5. Democratic Senators logged the longest filibuster ever to stop the 1964 Civil Right Act.
6. Attorney General Robert Kennedy authorized the bugging of Dr. King’s bed, and the FBI distributed the tapes to King’s wife 7. Bill Moyers distributed copies to the press?
8. Democrats stood in University entryways to block Black Students in the Civil Rights era.
9. Democrats turned fire hoses and attack dogs on peacefully marching Black children
Nonetheless, Martin Luther King was able to rise above it all proving one man of courage makes a majority.

Thomas Sowell notes that more economic progress was made by Blacks in the 20 years prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act than in the 20 years after the act was passed. Prior to the 1960s, “most black children were raised in two-parent families. At one time, a higher percentage of blacks than whites were married and working.” The evidence to date indicates the reversal in Black social and economic progress is due not to the Legacy of Slavery, as so often heard, but to the Legacy of Unions, Democrats, and Liberalism.

While, admittedly, the Democratic Party of today is not the same as the party of the past.
In spite of Democrats historically stacking the deck against Blacks, Oprah Winfrey and Bill Cosby are two of the richest people in the world along with tens of thousands of Black U.S. millionaires (variously estimated at 35,000 – 109,000). At least one report claims the collective wealth of Black Americans is greater than all of Black Africa. We have a Black President and Black Attorney General, having followed two Black Secretaries of State and have had numerous Black Senators, Congressmen and Mayors. Claims of America as a racist society appear stupid although undoubtedly some residual racism remains in a few places, among a few people.

Booker T. Washington, 100 years ago acknowledged “a class of Blacks that make a living from agitating for Blacks because it pays!” The media seems obsessed with these race-baiters forever shouting “racism.” You can find more at http://www.romancingthevotes.com/ by Fred Schnaubelt or in Former Democrat Delegate, Rev. Wayne Perryman’s “Unfounded Loyalty” and why he filed a class action suit against the Democrat Party for 200 years of oppression. http://www.amazon.com/Unfounded-
Loyalty-In-Depth-Between-Democrats/dp/1562290738 -

Fred Schnaubelt, Former San Diego Councilman Author of Romancing The Voters http://www.romancingthevoters.com

Fred Schnaubelt, a San Diego City Councilman from 1977 – 1981 was San Diego’s first elected official to hire an African-American Chief of Staff, Susan Love Brown; he brought Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams to address the City Council and the Urban League; and he was given credit by Clarence Pendleton for his conversion from Democrat to Republican when “Penny,” as he was called, was introduced to Sowell and Williams and appointed Chairman of the federal Civil Rights Commission.


Thomas Sowell argued that the federal minimum wage law has been used to undermine companies that employ blacks. In the fourth quarter of 2012, the black unemployment rate was more than double the rate for whites. But prior to the 1930s, Sowell said, black unemployment was actually lower than white unemployment. “What changed was the government intervention into the labor market,” Sowell said. “1930 was the last year in which there was no federal minimum wage. They brought in the Davis Bacon Act.” Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/16/minimum-wage-responsible-for-black-unemployment-author-says-video/#ixzz2bjcr6FLl