you have a really bad habit of trying to lie about the content of information that disproves your assertions. How many times do I have to school you on the reality that you can't lie in a printed medium, much less present your revisionist rhetoric as fact when the chronology of the posts easily supplies the real facts for the reader. Case in point: the Kirchubel article, he is USING SOWELL'S OWN STATED "LOGIC" AGAINST HIM ...something you didn't get either due to poor reading comprehension skills or just willful ignorance. Here, so the readers know how intellectually dishonest you are; "...
Sowell “proves” that minimum wage laws increase unemployment by telling us that Switzerland and Singapore have no minimum wage laws and have low unemployment rates.
So, in our vast and diverse world, he was able to cherry-pick two places with low unemployment and no minimum wage.
Using the exact same “logic,” Sowell states that both New York City and San Francisco have rent control and high rents, thereby “proving” his point that rent control causes high rents. But Sowell seems to have forgotten what he wrote in his previous article: “correlation is not causation.” I wrote on the Daily Republic’s website: “There is no rent control in Podunk, Iowa and the rents there are very low. Also, there are no jobs there. An equally valid point could be made that rent control creates jobs. Why not give us that theory, Tommy?” Using Sowell’s own right-wing logic, I have proven that it only takes two data points for him to extrapolate a new theory.
Now if you STILL don't get it, put on your socks & shoes, toddle down to your local library and have one of the librarians explain it to you. Carry on.