Should Employers Be Allowed to Check Your Credit?

Business, Nanny Statism
By / / 6 Comments / 2 minutes of reading
Share

Should employers be allowed to check job applicants’ credit reports?

I debated that question on CNBC’s Street Signs today:

Of course employers should be allowed to check applicants’ credit. Why should they look only at the biased information you put on your resume? Credit reports provide a fuller picture.

My debate opponent, consumer advocate Joe Ridout, pointed out that there aren’t any statistical studies that show a correlation between bad credit and employees who rip off their employers. But why should we need such studies? How about a little common sense, which tells you that, say, someone who is routinely late in making payments just might be late for work?

The consumer advocates’ argument rests on the assumption that businesses are irrationally discriminating against applicants with bad credit.

But if we just assume that businesses are greedy and care only about making money — which, I think, the consumer-advocate types would normally grant us — then why would they spend money on credit reports that have no value? Do “consumer advocates” really believe that they not only know what’s best for you and me, but also know what’s best for businesses’ bottom lines?

Finally, let’s not forget the people with good credit and what a great service credit reports perform for them. A clean credit report lets you carry your good reputation with you wherever you go. Because of this market innovation, it doesn’t matter if you move to a new town where you don’t know the people at the bank or at your prospective employer’s office. They can check your report and see that, to that extent, you seem to be dependable.

It would be a shame if misguided activists and pandering politicians took some of this benefit away.

(Cross-posted at the Mises Blog.)

Should Employers Be Allowed to Check Your Credit? Read Post »

Statist The-daism

Anti-Statism, Political Correctness, Statism
By / / 3 Comments / 2 minutes of reading
Share

Political correctness is not the only source of damage to language. Indeed, outright implicit statism has been around much longer than PC. Take, for example, a common question asked when people move: “How are the schools in your area?” By this they of course mean government schools. Then there is the space program (NASA primarily), the post office, the police, the roads. These endless the-daisms are the not unexpected result of the monopolization of goods and services by the state.

The vast majority of people take these the-daisms for granted. One would suspect, however, that unless you lived in a heavily statist society, the majority of the population would reject the idea of having a single provider of homes, food, media or news. “How is the housing in your district?” or maybe “How is the grocery store?” In some states that’s already the case for liquor stores.

Even in industries where there is some competition, such as media distribution companies, we see the-daisms: the phone company or the cable company. Due to government intervention, these providers often obtain the monopolistic, legislative right to operate in a certain area, shutting out potential competitors.

It would sound ridiculous to ask about “the pencil system” or “the restaurant system.” Yet it is somehow perfectly fine to have, or to want to have, a uniform, government health system — the health care system. How unfortunate.

Statist The-daism Read Post »

Re: Rekindling my hatred for Republicans

Anti-Statism, Drug Policy, The Left, The Right
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share
"Excellent..."

The War on Drugs is one of the most  insidious, racist policies I can imagine, Rob. It’s the allegedly “unintended” consequences which create the kind of havoc in the black community that the staunchest racists could never have accomplished with a free hand to terrorize blacks. The only other policy nearly as destructive to blacks is the government “school” system. And consider that taken together, these policies create a brutal one-two punch on black males. By operating a “school” system which makes it virtually impossible for urban black males to become educated, the most entrepreneurial of that demographic are wiped out in the drug war, either via murder at the hands of fellow black entrepreneurs, murder at the hands of state agents enforcing the prohibition on drugs, or imprisonment in the state’s torture-and-rape institutions. These are the guys who, in a world without the nanny-police state, would be the risk-takers, starting businesses and peacefully satisfying consumers’ wants. Racists must love seeing them killed or imprisoned! I suppose those urban black males with a spectacular talent in sports or the arts, as well as those who can rap well, have a shot of escaping the reservations called “housing projects” blacks have been gathered into by government over the last few generations, but for the average urban black male, joining the military and going to war is probably less stressful than just trying to survive.

Really, I can visualize the long-dead Southern slave-masters  looking up from Hell, tapping their fingers together in glee a la Montgomery Burns from The Simpsons.

Re: Rekindling my hatred for Republicans Read Post »

Rekindling my hatred for Republicans

Anti-Statism, Drug Policy, The Left, The Right
By / / 3 Comments / 2 minutes of reading
Share

I’d let go of the hatred of Republicans for a while. I’d transferred most of the acrimony to Democrats, since Democratic policies have had the most devastating effects on my friends and family. Welfare has been incredibly destructive to blacks in America. The steady erosion of the family, the obsolescence of men within many black communities, and the reliance on government solutions to problems are things which I specifically associate with the programs supported by Democrats, and the popular support of the Democratic Party by blacks.

But just when I think I can forget about the Republicans, a reminder came to me, courtesy of The History Channel. During a discussion on cocaine, Nixon’s initiation of the war on drugs, and Reagan’s escalation of that policy were particularly highlighted. Looking at the ruin visited upon black communities, especially ones in urban areas, across the country, I found the old hatreds easy to resurrect. In my opinion, the war on drugs is the most destructive set of laws since slavery. Worse, in fact, than Jim Crow, since at least with Jim Crow laws, a black person could escape within the United States by going north. It is difficult to escape the war on drugs, even outside of the US.

Of course, the war on drugs cannot be blamed purely on Republicans. Democrats have waged the war on drugs very fiercely in their own right, yet few, if any, of the so-called black leaders who are commonly trotted out on various television programs bother to ever say anything negative about these policies. Those “leaders” are swift to take offense for all blacks for the smallest perceived slight or appearance of unfairness, yet they rarely attack the most savagely unfair laws on the books, drug laws. Indeed, looking at the issue without bias should lead any reasonable person to the conclusion that Barack Obama, due to his continued prosecution of the drug war, is the latest in a long line of racist presidents.

Rekindling my hatred for Republicans Read Post »

I Do Not Support Peter Schiff For Senate

(Austrian) Economics, Democracy, Vulgar Politics
By / / 11 Comments / 2 minutes of reading
Share

Peter Schiff is an excellent economist and his appearances on various financial shows (and the corresponding Youtube clips and blog posts) have contributed to the economics education and financial health of thousands of people. Why on earth is he running for the Senate?  1 Does he really believe that the political process has even a remote chance of limiting the size and scope of government? Such a belief is truly absurd for two reasons:

  1. The inherent inertia of the political workings of Washington D.C. makes it nearly impossible to slow down the growth of government; actually shrinking the government from the inside borders on impossible.
  2. Even if I am wrong that it’s an impossibility to shrink government from the inside, what it would require is more than three libertarians. Were Schiff to win, and Ron Paul’s son Rand Paul to win also, that would make 3 libertarians in Congress (I’m generously calling Rand a libertarian, mind you) vs 532 socialists of varying degrees; worse, their forces would be split, as Schiff and Rand would be in the Senate (2 vs 98) and Ron would be in the House (1 vs 434). You’ve got to be kidding me.

I’d prefer to see Schiff save his money and that of all the people who would donate to his campaign (freedom-lovers) so they can use it to brace for the impact of this onsetting depression. Tossing so much into the political advertising money pit is a total waste. That’s an enormous amount to spend ($30 Million or so?) in the hopes that Peter can get elected and make great speeches on CSPAN, given that he already gets invited to speak on the financial circuit with little or no out-of-pocket expense on his part. In fact, Schiff has already had to cease appearing twice per week on one of the financial shows due to campaign laws, so now we’re back to all Keynes all the time. And even if he were to win, it’s doubtful the Republican leadership would seat Schiff on any of the important financial committees, so what would he really accomplish in the Senate? Maybe introduce a few bills which never make it out of committee?

Worst of all, I fear Schiff doesn’t really have a shot of winning since libertarianism doesn’t really resonate with the masses (yet), so all of that time and money campaigning will likely be wasted. (Yes, I know I just made an objective truth claim about others’ subjective evaluations which is an Austrian no-no.)

  1. Schiff’s campaign website has been taken down. ↩

I Do Not Support Peter Schiff For Senate Read Post »

Scroll to Top