Consider the following hypothetical situation. Let’s say it was the federal government that had mandated segregation and not the states. Do you believe for one second that Martin Luther King Jr. would have opposed states nullifying that particular federal law? Martin Luther King Jr. was trying to crush Jim Crow and I find it patently absurd that he would neglect a non-violent method of doing so if the situation had been as described. I would submit that it was racism that Martin Luther King Jr. opposed much more than any legal justification those racists put forth to maintain segregation. And for anyone who thinks such a scenario is unbelievable—because the federal government can be trusted on racial issues—allow me to enlighten you.

Intellectuals have some very bad incentives according to renowned economist Thomas Sowell. He defines an intellectual as someone’s who’s end product are ideas (i.e. not an engineer, scientist, medical doctor, etc.). While admitting that he himself is an intellectual, he condemns that lunacy that pervades the intellectual community. The problem is there are no checks on their ideas. If an engineer builds a bridge and it collapses, that engineer has failed. However, if an intellectual pushes for certain policies that turn out to be disastrously wrong, they rarely face any ramifications for this whatsoever.

“Up to 20,000 people have died needlessly early after being denied cancer drugs on the [British National Health Service], it was revealed yesterday,” according to Daniel Martin of The Daily Mail. These unnecessary or unnecessarily quick deaths had to do with patients being refused cancer medication for rare forms of cancer.

The truth is that businesspeople discriminate in favor of the color green; money. Market economies discriminate mightily against those who discriminate. If it were true that men make approximately 33% more for the same work, companies that predominantly hired women would crush companies that predominantly hired men.

It is an undisputed fact that the average real income… of American households rose by only 6 percent from 1969 to 1996… But it is an equally undisputed fact that the average real income per person in the United States rose by 51% over that very same period. How can both these statistics be true? Because the average number of people per household was declining during those years.

Statistics are often seen as infallible, though. Unfortunately, the truth is statistics are often very difficult to gather and compute in a methodologically sound way. Furthermore, there are a host of reasons a particular group may want to fudge these numbers. If anything, I hope this series will shine some light on how statistics can be flawed, and perhaps raise some healthy skepticism.

You can see my take on the housing/financial crisis in Part 1 and Part 2 of my series on the subject. In this video, renowned economist, Thomas Sowell gives a brief explanation of who caused the housing bubble. A longer version can be found here and you can check out his new book on the subject; The Housing Boom and Bust.