Posts

“Green” corporatism is just as bad as any other corporatism.

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu is undaunted by the federal government’s massive and costly failure in subsidizing Solyndra.

He is still pimping out the “progressive” green corporatism of giving tax money to company’s that can not otherwise raise capital.

He thinks thin-film technology used in solar panels has “huge market potential.” No, Mr. Chu, if it had huge market potential, the market would fund it.

What the technology has is huge political potential. By giving tax money to private companies, private executives can buy beach houses and boats. Then those same executives can afford to support more politicians who, in turn, will give them more tax money for a mountain condo and a Mercedes.

It is beautiful in its corrupt simplicity.


Thankfully the PUC is there to save them from their folly. Whatever would we do without smart people in government? Without them, private individuals would spend private money to provide services that the market does not want. How silly of them!

Those private business people sure are stupid for wanting to invest their own money somewhere it is not needed. They should thank the PUC for saving them the trouble of failing.

Of course, there is another way to look at it. It is a quaint, old-fashioned and completely discredited idea called "supply and demand." It is supposed to work like this:

If a private person thinks he can provide a good or service to those that want it, he provides it. If enough people want it, he makes money. If not enough people want it, he goes out of business.

It is rather radical. Only crazy right wing nuts - you know, those ignorant "tea baggers" - profess to believe in such magic as a "free market."

The scariest part of this "supply and demand" concept is that it is supposed to work without any government oversight. Crazy! I know. Thankfully, the PUC is there to make sure such unbridled lawlessness does not take over our economy. The collective judgment of the PUC is far superior to the business judgment of cab owners.

Can you imagine if cabbies were just allowed to enter the market and compete without any government permission at all? The thought is horrifying. It would be complete anarchy.

Thankfully, we have central planning. Historically, central planning has worked very well. (After all, why would we still be using it if it had a history of failure?) Central planning is based on the premise that the free market is way too complicated to be left on its own, and that smart regulators in government need to decide how much of a good or service is needed to best serve the public. The Soviet Union did an excellent job of this when it came to deciding exactly how much bread to produce for its people.

It is pure coincidence, of course, that existing cab companies just happen to be opposed to further cabs on the street. After all, they only want what is best for the public. More cabs on the streets means more competition for them and less market share and less money. But that is beside the point.

Existing cab companies do not care about additional competition. They only care about the good of the collective, and they know central planning is the best way to make that determination.

Central planning lives!

David K. Williams, Jr.
Right here in Colorado, the state Public Utilities Commission is its own little politburo.
The PUC sits in judgment of how many taxis are needed in Denver. They study, they take testimony, they listen to arguments and they decide exactly the number of taxis needed to best serve the people of Denver.
Recently, they decided Denver has exactly the correct number of taxis and denied applications for an additional 300 taxi licenses.
PUC Commissioner James Tarpey explained the decision: “Cabs would rather be downtown no matter how long the lines (at taxi stands). The market has more than it can handle.” (See the Denver Post story “PUC denies taxi permits.“)
See, Mr. Tarpey and the rest of the PUC are only looking out for the best interest of the public. See, they are smart enough to tell potential cabbies that they will only fail if they invest their privately raised money. See, the ignorant cabbies are so stupid that they are willing to invest their own money – even though they are only going to fail. See, the ignorant cabbies’ private market research is inferior to the government’s superior knowledge.
Thankfully the PUC is there to save them from their folly. Whatever would we do without smart people in government? Without them, private individuals would spend private money to provide services that the market does not want. How silly of them!
Those private business people sure are stupid for wanting to invest their own money somewhere it is not needed. They should thank the PUC for saving them the trouble of failing.
Of course, there is another way to look at it. It is a quaint, old-fashioned and completely discredited idea called “supply and demand.” It is supposed to work like this:
If a private person thinks he can provide a good or service to those that want it, he provides it. If enough people want it, he makes money. If not enough people want it, he goes out of business.
It is rather radical. Only crazy right wing nuts – you know, those ignorant “tea baggers” – profess to believe in such magic as a “free market.”
The scariest part of this “supply and demand” concept is that it is supposed to work without any government oversight. Crazy! I know. Thankfully, the PUC is there to make sure such unbridled lawlessness does not take over our economy. The collective judgment of the PUC is far superior to the business judgment of cab owners.
Can you imagine if cabbies were just allowed to enter the market and compete without any government permission at all? The thought is horrifying. It would be complete anarchy.
Thankfully, we have central planning. Historically, central planning has worked very well. (After all, why would we still be using it if it had a history of failure?) Central planning is based on the premise that the free market is way too complicated to be left on its own, and that smart regulators in government need to decide how much of a good or service is needed to best serve the public. The Soviet Union did an excellent job of this when it came to deciding exactly how much bread to produce for its people.
It is pure coincidence, of course, that existing cab companies just happen to be opposed to further cabs on the street. After all, they only want what is best for the public. More cabs on the streets means more competition for them and less market share and less money. But that is beside the point.
Existing cab companies do not care about additional competition. They only care about the good of the collective, and they know central planning is the best way to make that determination.
Hiding behind a tribe.")

Last legislative session, the General Assembly all but put the payday lenders out of business in Colorado with new regulations. Our elected representatives decided these lenders were "predatory" and taking unfair advantage of their customers.

Ignoring, of course, that none of the payday victims customers were forced to use the payday lenders nor lied to or defrauded in any way. In short, the benevolent know-it-all legislature substituted its judgment for that of people that voluntarily used a service. The legislature decided that those poor, uneducated dumbass poor people using the service were too dang stupid to be allowed to make their own decisions and needed their betters to protect themselves from their own stupidity.

Ain't government grand.

Now, it appears, some Indian tribes have the void and gotten into the payday loan business. Indian tribes, as sovereign nations, are not subject to state regulations. Republican Colorado Attorney General John Suthers is aghast*. He believes the Indian tribes have teamed up with payday lenders and are committing a ruse to avoid state regulation.

So what?

The entire scenario demonstrates the abject absurdity of state attempts to control markets. When there is a demand for a service, people will have that demand met, regardless of state regulation.

The government should not spend a dime restricting voluntary transactions between adults. I know, that simple proposition makes me a crazy radical, well outside the norm of modern political thought.

Thank god.
=======
*Aren't Republicans supposed to believe in free markets and less regulation? It is a rhetorical question. Of course they don't. Not unless it's politically expedient.



Payday lenders, government force, and the power of the market.

Denver Post Editorial Writer Alicia Caldwell has an article on the effects of the Colorado legislature’s regulation of payday lenders. (See “Hiding behind a tribe.“)

Last legislative session, the General Assembly all but put the payday lenders out of business in Colorado with new regulations. Our elected representatives decided these lenders were “predatory” and taking unfair advantage of their customers.
Ignoring, of course, that none of the payday victims customers were forced to use the payday lenders nor lied to or defrauded in any way. In short, the benevolent know-it-all legislature substituted its judgment for that of people that voluntarily used a service. The legislature decided that those poor, uneducated dumbass poor people using the service were too dang stupid to be allowed to make their own decisions and needed their betters to protect themselves from their own stupidity.
Ain’t government grand.
Now, it appears, some Indian tribes have the void and gotten into the payday loan business. Indian tribes, as sovereign nations, are not subject to state regulations. Republican Colorado Attorney General John Suthers is aghast*. He believes the Indian tribes have teamed up with payday lenders and are committing a ruse to avoid state regulation.
So what?
The entire scenario demonstrates the abject absurdity of state attempts to control markets. When there is a demand for a service, people will have that demand met, regardless of state regulation.
The government should not spend a dime restricting voluntary transactions between adults. I know, that simple proposition makes me a crazy radical, well outside the norm of modern political thought.
Thank god.
=======
*Aren’t Republicans supposed to believe in free markets and less regulation? It is a rhetorical question. Of course they don’t. Not unless it’s politically expedient.

Does Antitrust Protect Consumers or Harm Individuals?

Most people react to the term “antitrust” with favor, and support the antitrust efforts of our government.  But is it possible that instead of protecting consumers, the government is actually hurting individuals with their antitrust cases? Considering the government’s track record, I think it’s fair to say that it’s at least worth looking into.

I recently read a book by Dominick T. Armentano that completely challenged my thinking on antitrust. Whereas I was always taught that the government should protect consumers from companies that became “too big”, I found that they were actually stifling individual rights, hampering industrialists and entrepreneurs and doing no good for consumers. You can read Antitrust: The Case for Repeal online in its entirety thanks to the Mises Institute, and I highly recommend that you do.

A recent story in Idaho makes an excellent case for why we should not support the government in its antitrust actions.

The US Department of Justice recently settled a case against doctors in Idaho for conspiring to “…boycott treatment of injured workers…”.  Sounds like a bunch of meanies doesn’t it?  However, if you are like me and are suspicious of most government efforts, this should sound like a bunch of baloney and prompt further investigation of the matter.

great article posted in the Christian Science Monitor makes the case that the government is essentially trying to tell these doctors how much they should charge for their services – and they are succeeding.  While the government makes the claim that these doctors are “price fixing”, what is clear is that it is the government who is setting prices and forcing physicians to go along with the prices they determine, even if it is a detriment to doctors themselves.

While many individuals believe that people have a “right” to be treated by a doctor, they often forget the right of a doctor (or any service provider) to charge what they see fit for their services, and to deny treatment if they feel they are are being forced to make a deal that will leave them worse off than they were before.  We cannot forget that the reason people trade (i.e. offer services for payment or payment for services) is because they benefit from the transaction. Who wants to work hard only to lose money? Is that why people open businesses? Or go to medical school?

If we want to continue to see aspiring entrepreneurs and innovators as well as hard working members of society, we must allow them to decide their own fee schedules in a free market environment. And if you argue that doctors have a “duty” to care for the sick, don’t forget to consider the very real possibility that we will lack many great doctors when we completely restrict their freedom and ability to operate in their best interest. In this situation, everyone loses.