Economics

The Cancer of Government Regulation

How occupational licensing laws hurt the poor

|

Politicians care about poor people. I know because they always say that. But then why do they make it so hard for the poor to escape poverty?

Outside my office in New York City, I see yellow taxis. It's intuitive to think that government should license taxis to make sure they're safe and to limit their number. It's intuitive to believe that if anyone could just start picking up passengers, we'd have chaos. So to operate a taxi in NYC, you have to buy a license, a "medallion," from an existing cab company (or at a once-in-a-blue-moon auction). Medallions are so scarce, they now cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Licensing prices poor people out of the business.

"Compare New York City, where a license to own and operate a taxi is $603,000, to Washington, D.C.," George Mason University economist Walter Williams told me. "There are not many black-owned taxis in New York City. But in Washington, most are owned by blacks." Why? Because in Washington, "it takes $200 to get a license to own and operate one taxi. That makes the difference."

Regulation hurts the people the politicians claim to help.

People once just went into business. But now, in the name of "consumer protection," bureaucrats insist on licensing rules. Today, hundreds of occupations require expensive licenses. Tough luck for a poor person getting started.

Ask Jestina Clayton. Ten years ago, she moved from Africa to Utah. She assumed she could support her children with the hair-braiding skills she learned in Sierra Leone. For four years, she braided hair in her home. She made decent money. But then the government shut her down because she doesn't have an expensive cosmetology license that requires 2,000 hours of classroom time—50 weeks of useless instruction. The Institute for Justice (IJ), the public-interest law firm that fights such outrages, says "not one of those 2,000 hours teaches African hair-braiding."

IJ lawyer Paul Avelar explained that "the state passed a really broad law and left it to the cosmetology board to interpret."

Guess who sits on the cosmetology board. Right: cosmetologists. And they don't like competition.

One day, Jestina received an email.

"The email threatened to report me to the licensing division if I continued to braid," she told me.

This came as a shock because she had been told that what she was doing was legal.

"When I called (the commission) in 2005 on two separate occasions, they did tell me that, but then when I called (again) … the cosmetology lady told me that the situation had changed and that I needed to go to school now and get a license."

No customers complained, but a competitor did.

One cosmetologist claimed that if she didn't go to school she might make someone bald.

But this is nonsense—hair-braiding is just … braiding. If the braid is too tight, you can undo it.

The cosmetology board told Jestina that if she wanted to braid hair without paying $18,000 to get permission from the board, she should lobby the legislature. Good luck with that. Jestina actually tried, but no luck. How can poor people become entrepreneurs if they must get laws changed first?! Jestina stopped working because she can't afford the fines.

"The first offense is $1,000," she said. "The second offense and any subsequent offense is $2,000 each day."

"It is not unique to Utah," Avelar added. "There are about 10 states that explicitly require people to go get this expensive, useless license to braid hair."

Fortunately, IJ's efforts against such laws have succeeded in seven states. Now it's in court fighting for Jestina, which, appropriately, means "justice" in her native language.

Once upon a time, one in 20 workers needed government permission to work in their occupation. Today, it's one in three. We lose some freedom every day.

"Occupational licensing laws fall hardest on minorities, on poor, on elderly workers who want to start a new career or change careers," Avelar said. "(Licensing laws) just help entrenched businesses keep out competition."

This is not what America was supposed to be.

John Stossel is host of Stossel on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of Give Me a Break and of Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

NEXT: These Are the Charges That Require the Department of Education to Send a Dozen Armed Agents to Kick Through Your Front Door

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Politicians care about poor people.

    Poor people are an easy vote get for certain politicians. Once the constituent is no longer poor, he better be no longer poor enough to ply these politicians with $$$ if he still wants to be cared about.

  2. OK, so I was complaining to my wife about the St. Louis cab story the other day. I said wtf is a government commission doing regulating the image of St. Louis via cabbie dress codes? She said she could see it, that when people travel to the city they won't know much information about which cab to take, and if they get a way out there cabbie the city as a whole can be tarnished and lose out on tourism and accompanying business.

    I know people here are not going to agree with that, but what I think is interesting is that this is certainly a case where libertarians are not toady's to business per se, because it is likely area businesses who think along those lines and pushed for the commission and its regulations.

    1. We're all a product of our times. Most business people think in terms of the market and of the government, and not necessarily in that order. With the state being a much larger part of our lives, it's natural that people look to it to solve problems. . .any problems. Of course, the reality is that instead of persuading or even buying viewpoints of other citizens, they just use their political leverage with the government to force their preferences on everyone else.

      I honestly believe that the only real solution to our lower classes' woes is a much more robust economy, and I don't think that can happen without major changes in our political system. To some extent, both parties benefit by the lower classes staying on the dole (note how the GOP never really takes away the goodies, despite their rhetoric). That's not sustainable, as it creates a major conflict that will have to be resolved at some point. I'd prefer to avoid that conflict by dealing with it now.

    2. If you want to follow that logic, what is stopping the city from regulating the dress of every resident?

      1. Have you seen these laws about the droopy pants?

        1. Yes, and I think those are stupid, too. So where does this stop? Does your wife think that the city has the right to demand every man wear a suit and every woman wear a dress when they go out?

          1. I imagine that while she may not agree with you on what categories government can reach she can still rationally differentiate between degrees within any category.

            1. I'm guessing her ability to "rationally differentiate" basically comes down to what she personally finds to be appropriate dress, which is a totally subjective opinion.

              1. Lot's of legal and policy standards are going to come down to ultimately a subjective opinion ("reasonable force," excessive fines" etc). Welcome to human life in the big world.

                Are you saying there is no dress code you would support? People could walk buck-ass naked down the street with strap-on dildos on their heads? Any line drawn is going to have some subjective element at some point in its application.

                1. I've actually seen people walk down the street naked with a dildo on their head in San Francisco. That's why people who are into that live in SF, people who aren't live in Utah. And apparently people who like dress codes live in St. Louis.

                  1. Fuckheads.

                  2. Is it taped to their head? How does it not fall off? Or do they walk like a model with a book on their head?

                    Oh, and thanks for the visual.

                    1. i think you missed the "strap-on" part there Sage.

                2. I'm fine with private businesses having dress codes for employees or customers. I'm against any public dress code, though. If people want to walk around public streets buck ass naked, then go ahead. But good luck finding a job or being allowed into any place of business. Also, the example of walking around naked really isn't a good one to illustrate the subjectivity of dress codes. A public no nudity law, even though I don't support one, is pretty objective. Either your genitals are covered, or they aren't. Not much room for interpretation there.

                  1. "A public no nudity law, even though I don't support one, is pretty objective. Either your genitals are covered, or they aren't."

                    Dude, you really need to check out more bathing suit and lingerie innovations. Lot's of gray areas and blurred lines (sorry, couldn't make a joke here)

                    1. Private roads would solve all this nonsense. Private dress codes. There could be streets where nobody is allowed unless they were naked with strap-ons on their heads for all I care. It would also take away the rationalization for these taxi licensing laws.

                  2. "Either your genitals are covered, or they aren't."

                    Hey now!

                    1. Don't be stealing my line you little prick.

                3. MNG,
                  Should people be allowed to walk around naked? From a LEGAL/governmental standpoint, emphatically yes. People should not be arrested, fined, or put in prison for not wearing clothes.

                  What if the person is too poor to have clothes? They don't own a home so they can't stay inside, they don't own clothes so they can't be outside! Of course that's an rare example, so let me put it another way:

                  Obviously there are people who wouldn't like to see naked people walking around (Including me! Unless it's Jessica Alba--she can parade around naked all she likes IMO but I digress).

                  I have a right to be offended. I have a right to scold or yell at the crazy naked guy to put on some clothes. I have a right to offer him clothes if he doesn't have any and shout if he refuses to put them on. But I DON'T have a right to physically force him to wear clothes or point a gun at him if he doesn't. I don't have a right to take money from him if he refuses to wear clothes.

                  Similarly I don't have a right to tell the police to point a gun at him and demand he wear clothes or to tell the police to take money from him if he doesn't wear clothes.

                  Just because you're using the government as a proxy to do something for you doesn't suddenly make it right.

                  I can demand people wear clothes before they enter my house or my property, but on public property, or the property of someone who approves of nudity, it's not right for me to force them to wear anything--even by proxy.

                  1. Interestingly one can see the public nudity laws as a mandate-to wear a minimum amount of clothes in public.

                4. "Are you saying there is no dress code you would support?"

                  Certainly not any government-enforced dress code.

                5. "People could walk buck-ass naked down the street with strap-on dildos on their heads"

                  *sigh* one day... one day..

        2. As a libertarian, I'd handle that with nuisance laws. And any tar and feathers left over from political speech.

        3. Lookin' like a fool with your pants on the ground!

      2. I like the cut of your jib.

        1. They will regulate jib cut next.

          1. The Jib Cutters Local 47 is way ahead of you. Gotta get rid of all these scab jib cutters.

    3. what I think is interesting is that this is certainly a case where libertarians are not toady's to business per se

      This more than anything you have ever written shows you have no clue about what libertarian philosophy about.

      State and corporation in happy cooperation at the expense of the consumer and taxpayer is a progressive idea, in fact that very thing was the genesis of the progressive movement.

  3. Oh, btw she also had a justification for the barber licensing when I said wtf are they doing that for. She said that many procedures that women get can seriously hurt someone if the person doesn't know wtf they are doing so it's a consumer protection thing. As a guy who only gets the shampoo and clip I never thought of that to be honest.

    It's interesting how the more you know about a regulation that may seem immediately silly, the more you can at least understand the rationale.

    1. Good Lord you sound whipped.

    2. Concerned wife sounds concerned. Dumb husband no longer can think for himself.

      Yeah, marriage is sacred.

      1. After listening to my wife I found her arguments made me think about the issue different. Happens to me a lot and vice versa. I'm sorry if you haven't found such a relationship in your life.

        1. If the garbage your wife espoused on this issue actually made you think differently, then I truly am sorry you haven't found a relationship in your life with someone smarter than a statist mongoloid.

          1. Dude, I know I'm lucky in that area so don't waste your time trying to argue otherwise.

            But I do hope you find someone who shares your extremism and will be a sounding board for your one-sided strongly held opinions.

            1. Ok, so I guess one man's "luck" is another man's "statist mongoloid".

              Nice to know.

              1. I'm sure your rigid extremism is a hit with the ladies. Like I said, good luck with that, I hope you find someone you enjoy talking with about policy as much as I do with my wife.

                1. I hope you find someone you enjoy talking with about policy as much as I do with my wife.

                  They're a BLAST a parties.

                2. You haven't had good sex until you've fucked a rigid extremist. My wife is like a one woman extreme right wing militia of eroticism.

                3. @MNG: "I'm sure your rigid extremism is a hit with the ladies."

                  My rigid extremities are a hit with the ladies, Hiho!!

                4. "I'm sure your rigid extremism is a hit with the ladies. Like I said, good luck with that"

                  You a bigger asshole than I am.

            2. I love my liberal girlfriend. We have fun arguments, much like the best we get here on H&R. Sometimes I win and she becomes a bit less statist. Sometimes she wins and I become a bit less of a self-serving prick. It's win-win.

            3. Nah they are right. You're whipped and confused.

              My wife and I both started as NPRBots but through use of the brains evolution gave us both grew out of it.

              Hell you don't even address the issue. Even if you could make a cost vs gain argument to you the fact that you have to employ government force (at taxpayer expense) to restrict civil liberties doesn't even enter into the equation. To you one person saved from a chemical burn by hair dye justifies any amount of bureaucracy... despite the fact that licenses and bureaucracies don't actually prevent accidents anyway.

        2. but the question then remains was the woman doing any of those procedures or just brainding? Sure there are all kinds of things that can go wrong in a beauty salon with some of the nasty chemicals and irons, but just because someone performs one task in which the possibility of harm is really limited doesn't mean they should be subject to regulations that don't apply simply because they are touching someones hair and it tangentially relates.

          1. brainding sounds mighty dangerous.

          2. Not that I agree with cosmetology licensing but a large part of the training is hygiene related to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. Have you ever questioned how many people's hair they've used a comb on since last cleaning it? So a lot of the training does apply to braiding hair just as much as actually cutting it. They also cover skin and nail care issues in the same classes.

            1. Health codes =/= licensing

            2. Health codes =/= licensing

    3. Yes, but why does it have to be a government-issued license? Why not a certification by a nongovernmental entity? Like a UL for barbering?

      Especially these days, where information is more widely available.

      1. I think the argument there PL would be that the government is the only entity that can make all of them comply regardless of whether they want to or not.

        The average tourist is likely not to know which "BBB's" of cabbies in St. Louis is the trustworthy one.

        There are also these problems that we have seen recently in NYT articles about the BBB where the third party certifier was more concerned with keeping dues paying members than de-certifying bad apples. Similar thing went on with the credit ratings agencies.

        1. I don't think it's controversial to point out that most government regulators are captive to the industry they regulate.

          There are modesl for this. The Consumers Union, UL, etc. They peg their reputations on trust. While certification can be mostly B.S., people can assess that pretty easily in the marketplace.

          1. I don't disagree with that PL, I guess the response is that neither government nor third party regulation has worked out the kinks.

            1. Here's the flaw you're dealing with, either way: Soylent Green. I mean, people. Humans can't be trusted too far. Even in Libertopia, we'll be contending with the problem of the silliness of which our species is capable of.

              I think one difference between the systems (ignoring the obvious sliding scale) is that it is possible to benefit by earning trust in the marketplace. Government doesn't really have to do that. It's one of the more serious flaws in a less limited government--accountability becomes more indirect and vaguer.

              That's one of the reasons I strongly oppose Congress being able to delegate so much legislative authority to administrative agencies--how do we hold those agencies accountable? Which, incidentally, is precisely why Congress does that--to avoid the consequences of their actions.

          2. If you think about it, in a much less regulated society, there could be serious money in being a trusted certifier. In fact, that could go further, with certifiers certifying and recommending certifiers. Metacertifiers!

            1. You'd get the same potential problem all the way down, with the metacertifier facing a dilemma: decertify a client and lose their dues or certify to keep the trust of the consumer.

              1. Don't get me wrong PL, were I a libertarian I'd say "well, neither is perfect, but with the system I prefer one is still free to offer your uncertified services and a consumer is still free to take that offer, and while that may leave people at risk it also respects their autonomy and dignity. It also has the added bonus of never triggering boys in blue coming and wacking someone on the head for doing either of those two things."

                1. I wonder if UL has armed troops? Like the old Ma Bell Phone Cops?

            2. The only perfect solution is just to let MNG's wife decide what is right and wrong for all of us.

              1. Utopia is not an option.

        2. Why would they need to comply? Being certified is certainly a market segmentation advantage one might think could attract customers away from those that aren't certified.

          Certainly in the case of taxis it would be obvious on the cab's paint job.

          1. Well, it would be possible in a private system to operate without certification. I imagine uncertified suppliers would offer cheaper goods and services to counter their lack of certification.

            Even in that case, it would be possible to at least rate uncertified operations. Not as reliable, most likely, but it is possible.

            I've often thought that one thing we vitally need--in any system--are some people we can actually trust. It's the real flaw in just about any human process. Not sure how you could do that--breed a race of super-honest humans? Robot overlords? This lack is part of the reason our political system was designed with checks and balances everywhere and strictly prescribed powers. Because nobody could be trusted.

            1. Robot overlords?

              Yes. Next question.

              1. It does seem like the right answer to all our problems, doesn't it?

    4. I would think that regularly harming your customers and damaging their hair wouldn't exactly work as an effective business model, but what do I know?

      1. You'd think that selling people peanut butter that made them sick or dog food that killed their dogs would have the same effect, and it probably does, but only after a fair number of sick people and dead dogs...The regulations in question are meant to head some of that off before that result.

        1. Wait a second...I thought less people alive were better for mother nature's vagina?

          1. You'd have to ask the strawman who told you that.

            1. His name is Malthus among others.

        2. Buyer beware SHOULD apply to the government too - be careful about the government you are paying for. But in the case of the government, you can't opt out - going to the voting booth once every 4 years to voice your displeasure over your forced purchase is the stupidest way as proven by its ineffectiveness.

          1. One problem of dealing with government as regulator is there is no effective way to hold the agencies accountable in the voting booth. Both parties, for the most part, allow the agencies to regulate in the same way, with some minor modifications to ensure certain constituencies are rewarded.

            In addition, using the vote to solve a regulatory issue isn't necessarily going to solve anything at all. The core bureaucrats all remain the same, no matter how you vote, and the enabling legislation doesn't change unless people you don't get to vote for agree to change it.

            1. "Both parties, for the most part, allow the agencies to regulate in the same way"

              It certainly need not be that way. It seems the same stupid consumers that would plague your system are the stupid voters who would plague mine.

              1. I can decide to no longer rely on an untrustworthy certifier. I can't do that with the government. And if a certifier became generally untrustworthy, then a market opportunity for a new certifier would exist.

                If you think about it, in a private system, there'd probably be room for a whole host of certifiers, even within the same area. I might have a different view of what needs to be reviewed in any given good or service than someone else.

        3. What the regulations are meant to do and what they actually do are two different things. I've seen little evidence that regulation by government bureaucracy is more effective than the discipline imposed by the market.

          1. Interesting idea, but it would be counter to basic economic thinking that raising the cost of something (having potential fines available for doing dangerous activity x) means less of it will be done.

            1. Causing harm to your customers also carries an economic cost, which results in an incentive to do less of it. What I am saying is that I have seen no evidence that the potential costs imposed by government regulatory bureaucracies are MORE effective at disincentivising harm to customers than the costs imposed by the market for doing so. And at least with the market doing the regulating, we retain more freedom.

            2. Who is the better regulator, the SEC or the investor off the street who investigates Chinese reverse mergers and then shorts the suspicious ones?

        4. "The regulations in question are meant to head some of that off before that result."

          Government has only one means by which to "head off" anything, and that's force. Which is why sending SWAT teams to shut down Amish dairies is perfectly reasonable to food regulators.

        5. The government should set up rules and standards to ensure these things never, ever, ever, happen.

        6. The flaw in your argument is that those regulations were already in place and they still didn't stop people of dogs from getting sick.

    5. Shampoo? Geez, MNG go find a real barber shop.

      Here are tips for recognizing a real manly man's barber shop:

      1) All the barbers are men. The head barber will be in his 80's and crusty as hell.
      2) No women will be seen anywhere.
      3) The waiting chairs are placed along the wall and all face the barbers and the guys getting their hair cut. That is so everyone can be heard when telling dirty jokes.
      4) There is no receptionist, just a ticket machine.
      5) No barber will have a repertoire of more than 3 styles.
      6) High class joints will also have issues of Playboy available.

      Do yourself a favor and go find one of these joints. Dump the Great Clips fiasco.

      1. What kind of girly barber shop has a ticket machine? The camaraderie of real men is more than adequate to manage customer flow.

        1. RC, the girly barber shop I used to frequent in Memphis used tickets so that you could pop next door for a quick beer while waiting for your turn. They even put a display in the bar showing what number they were on.

    6. Then please point me to the masses of injured and dead that must inhabit the states without such laws.

    7. "She said that many procedures that women get can seriously hurt someone if the person doesn't know wtf they are doing so it's a consumer protection thing."

      Is braiding hair one of those procedures? Is there any evidence the woman who was put out of business was performing any of those procedures? If not, why should she need a license?

      Also, why is it that liberals only care about people getting hurt in consensual transactions when money changes hands? Surely the risk is the same whether you're braiding a customer's hair for money, or braiding your child's or friend's hair for free. The risk is in the act, not the payment. You should help her get in touch with her true feelings: her actual motivation is a moral aversion to making money as strong as any social conservative's disdain for sex.

    8. Whoa! You think that barber licensing laws are for the consumer's safety?

    9. Unless someone is putting a hot iron directly on skin, no, they can't be "seriously hurt." Color the hair a funny color, damage the hair, sure. But that's not seriously hurt.

      Worried about the tools they use? Bring your own. Duh.

      I'm a woman, I've had all those procedures. The regulation is still silly.

  4. The cosmetology board told Jestina that if she wanted to braid hair without paying $18,000 to get permission from the board, she should lobby the legislature. Good luck with that.

    This is one of the things that kills me about statists. They often fall back on this "well, just get the law changed" as if an ordinary person can actually do that.

    1. Agreed. My little brother is an assistant state's attorney. Every time I mention how stupid it is to lock someone up for possessing a drug, his response is along the lines of, "if you don't like it, change the law." He's turned into quite the smug, little shit shit, and I have serious problems being around him for more than a few minutes at a time. Oh, he also throws out the, "so you don't want to lock up rapists and murders?" bullshit. Drives me nuts.

      1. Tell him you never broke a law you agreed with.

      2. Can siblings get divorced? I'd ask him to prepare the papers.

        1. Funny thing, before he started working for the state, he actually handled my divorce.

      3. Every time I mention how stupid it is to lock someone up for possessing a drug, his response is along the lines of, "if you don't like it, change the law."

        Ask him if he is aware of the fact that you are not the God-Emperor, and lack the authority to impose any laws that you wish.

        For which he should be very grateful, the smug little shit.

        1. Better yet, inform him that you ARE the God-Emperor, and tell him it was an order, not a hypothetical.

          And then proclaim your control over his spice rack. WHOEVER CONTROLS THE SPICE, CONTROLS THE GALAXY!

      4. Dude, just plan a coup to overthrow the government and replace it with a dictatorship run by you. If he gives you any shit about it, you can just point out that he was the one who told you to do it.

  5. Why do I feel like I read this same article once a week?

    1. So go drink a juice box and watch Barney.

      1. Suit up!

  6. The point about "politicians care about poor people" reminded me of this from PJ O'Rourke-

    "There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money-if a gun is held to his head.

    When government quits being something we use only in an emergency and becomes the principal source of aid and assistance in our society, then the size, expense and power of government are greatly increased. The decision that politicians are wiser, kinder and more honest than we are and that they, not we, should control the dispensation of eleemosynary goods and services is, in itself, a diminishment of the individual and proof that we're jerks. "

  7. Professions for which I see a good rationale for government-approved licensing:

    Doctors, dentists, armed guards, bounty hunters, maybe trial lawyers.

    That's just about the complete list.

    1. You know, it just occurred to me, but it's surprising that strippers aren't regulated.

      1. They are subject to the pole tax though.

    2. No, these things can be handled by voluntarily by the market.

    3. Your forgot florist and interior decorator.

      1. Dammit! Your = You

  8. How about this for any profession:

    (research in what ever order you choose)

    1. Seek out providers with a good reputation.

    2. Seek out providers that are insured by a reputable agency.

    3. Seek out providers that belong to one or more reputable trade groups.

    4. Seek out providers that have gone to and graduated from a reputable course of instruction covering what services they offer.

    If you don't do any of these things it's your own damn fault if you get fucked over.

    1. A lot of times it stops right at number 2 because you can't get insurance unless you are licensed by the state.

      1. I meant this in place of state licensing.

  9. Not this is why I like John Stossel. Unlike other libertarians, he's not focusing on poor cop killers in prison, on SWAT raids, and on the rights of old pot smokers.

    http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

    1. True. How can anyone worry about black-suited armed men working for the government invading families' houses in the dead of the night and filling them with lead, when hairdressers are being put out of business by red tape.

  10. "she can still rationally differentiate between degrees within any category."

    Were that true she wouldn't have married you.

  11. "The Cancer of Government Regulation"
    ...John Stossel

    Government regulation is not a cancer. The result is simply that more and more people rely on barter. That might scare the political class, the middle class and the wealthy, but for those of us without fiat money, the barter system works or death. (Simple choice)

    I got charged about 500 times (500x) too much by the Utah-State-Tax-Commision (1996) for taxes for withdrawing a simple IRA account, and in the process learned many new tricks in bartering. My choice was barter or death. Thank you, Utah-State-Tax-Commission!

  12. Look on the bright side -- at least you don't need state approval to be a drug dealer!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Sure you do, you just won't get it.

  13. In my 'hood few pay greenbacks for a haircut but prescription drugs (and other not-so-prescription drugs)are fungible.

  14. I finally get online to find no one liveblogging in my place? Boo, Team Stossel. Boo.

  15. Is this a repeat? I can't believe that President Obama would visit Fox Biz twice.

    1. It's hard to find good help anymore

  16. I finally get online to find no one liveblogging in my place? Boo, Team Stossel. Boo.

  17. Time for the people of this country to mount an offensive against the Government. Remember there are more people than than there are soilders. Bullets can only stop so many people. Any military tactician will tell you overwhelming manpower is a formidable advantage in any conflict. Time for the old colonial militias to be resurrected and usurp power from the corrupt. Hey they helped give birth to this country and they can do it again

  18. I am an aspiring architect and I am appalled

  19. Do you want to find cheap corsets online? If you do you won't be the only one. Everyone is trying to cut back on what they spend these days, but most of us are reluctant to stop spending money altogether, especially when it is on something that makes us feel so good.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.