Service!

As we contemplate a future in which the youth of today will find remunerative remuneration servicing the needs of the old and wealthy, let's pause and contemplate the wealthy they will be serving:

But the second-best thing is that the plaintiff, financier Alphonse Fletcher Jr., was moved to sue, according to the New York Times, after the Dakota board seemingly capriciously blocked his attempt to buy an adjacent apartment and expand his home into it "to accommodate his growing family":

Mr. Fletcher currently lives in an eight-room, 2,600-square-foot apartment with three bedrooms, three and a half baths, two maids rooms and Central Park views, according to an old sales listing kept by Michele Kleier of the brokerage firm Gumley Haft Kleier.

The Fletcher family, the Times wrote, consists of Fletcher, his spouse, and a two-year-old daughter. That's 867 square feet, 2.67 rooms, and 1.17 bathrooms for each person in the household.

Yes, indeed, the most pressing economic needs of this great land of ours is the deregulating of those pesky barbers with their haughty ways and whatnot.

The Word You're Looking for is Regulation

Because, all evidence to the contrary, I am optimistic that just around the corner there's a rainbow in the sky, so let's etc, some more from Matt Yglesias this time on AOL selling a service no one needs as reported by Ken Auletta in the New Yorker

I think this sort of issue deserves more attention in part because as the economic pie grows bigger and bigger, the number of hours in the day doesn’t grow. So in many cases the opportunity cost of taking the time to really check things out is rising. That means more and more often it’ll be the case for consumers to be rationally ignorant about what exactly they’re doing, and it’ll more and more make sense for firms to exploit that.

Regulations?  Like those protecting consumers from fraudulent locksmiths?  Or no?  Too progressive? it's like he doesn't pay attention to what neo-Liberalism is.

Regulations Drive Innovations

I am currently wearing some Levi's and now intend on going out and buying more:

We incorporate innovation in everything from new product finishes to the way we remodeled our home office building. From our new Levi’s® Curve ID jeans for women – based on fit, not size – to how we encourage consumers to save energy by washing their clothes in cold water and hanging them to dry.

It’s about going forward, not backward; leading, not following.

That’s why we oppose a proposition on the California ballot this November.

Proposition 23 would eliminate critical tools recently put in place to promote energy efficiency. It would discourage energy and climate innovation by making it more expensive for businesses to invest in necessary research and development. It would turn back the clock by removing incentives intended to move us ahead.

Four years ago, lawmakers here passed a law – the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) – that helped promote the clean technology industry and clean energy businesses. Even if you don’t live here, you stand to benefit – just as people everywhere benefited from the technological advances of the high-tech boom, which was largely centered in California. And just as we in California benefit from forward thinking elsewhere.

Prop 23 would essentially halt the benefits of California’s innovative climate change law. To me, that’s backward thinking. And it’s not the kind we support at Levi Strauss & Co.

via