Feed on

(1) One of the most influential and long-lasting Supreme Court Decisions was the Wickard v. Filburn decision in 1942 which basically said that anything is interstate commerce. In this case, a farmer in Ohio decided to grow extra wheat for himself, wheat that was never going to leave his farm and be consumed entirely by his family/farm – but that this nonetheless constituted interstate commerce. I suppose good Heyakians could explain how this can be true. There Commerce Clause has been much abused since then and is basically example #1 for why the Rule of Law is a fantasy in the United States. If growing wheat for yourself can be grounds for imprisonment because it violates interstate commerce then so too could (insert your favorite example here for another $10 Tim Horton’s gift card).

(2) One of the most influential and long-lasting Supreme Court decisions was the Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League et al decision in 1922 which said that Major League Baseball is not engaged in interstate commerce and since it is not engaged in interstate commerce then the Sherman Antitrust Act cannot apply to it. Of course, baseball is over a 10 billion industry (itself) with 30 teams in over 25 markets. Yet that precedent still remains.

I will spare you the commentary and instead allow you to reflect on this dual absurdity.

One Response to “As Tyler Cowen Says, Model This”

  1. Greg says:

    Don’t you think that Wickard’s (if you think of Wickard as one of many similar farmers) decision to grow his own wheat and eat his own wheat has an affect on the interstate price of wheat? Many Wickards would mean less demand for wheat/decrease in price.

Leave a Reply