BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Free Markets Archive

Wednesday

4

March 2009

0

COMMENTS

Here Comes The Nanny State After Your Cigarettes

Written by , Posted in Free Markets, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

They’ve been after them for years.  Nanny state do-gooders hate the idea that people can make their own choices about what risks to take.  Their latest freedom restricting plan?  Give the incompetent FDA control over the tobacco market.

In what appears to be the best chance since public health groups started pushing for it in the 1970s, Congress is poised to regulate tobacco, a product linked to 1,200 deaths each day but sold largely unfettered for centuries.

Legislation that the House Energy and Commerce Committee will take up today would place tobacco under the control of the Food and Drug Administration. Among other things, the bill would restrict the ways tobacco companies market cigarettes, require them to disclose the ingredients in their products and place larger warning labels on packages, and give the FDA the authority to require the removal of harmful chemicals and additives from cigarettes.

In what bizarro world has the Washington Post been living in that makes them think tobacco has been sold “largely unfettered?”  It truly boggles the mind.

Monday

16

February 2009

0

COMMENTS

The Car Czar Is Out

Written by , Posted in Free Markets

But the car politburo is in!

President Obama has dropped the idea of appointing a single, powerful “car czar” to oversee the revamping of General Motors and Chrysler and will instead keep the politically delicate task in the hands of his most senior economic advisers, a top administration official said Sunday night.

Monday

9

February 2009

0

COMMENTS

Kentucky And Federal Aid

Written by , Posted in Free Markets

Many of you may not be aware, since it’s getting virtually no media coverage, but Kentucky is reeling from a disasterous ice storm that has left more than half a million without power, perhaps for as long as a month.

Reason has done a good job of looking at the federal government’s lack of response, as well as a brief history of federal disaster responses.  Not surprisingly, Reason takes the position, which I share, that the federal government is incapable of competently dealing with such matters.

At the end of the article someone actually helping – by selling generators at marked up prices – is highlighted:

Enter David Strange, the enterprising figure the Associated Press calls the “generator man.” Strange drove the hills and hollows of backwoods Kentucky delivering and setting up generators to those without power—at a $50 to $100 mark-up over retail. Willing customers included a dialysis patient and a powerless 80-year-old woman dependent on an oxygen system. They called him a “godsend,” although Strange prefers “jack of all trades” or even “hustler.” To Adam Smith, he would be recognizable as an agent of the invisible hand.

If President Obama were nimble, he would give Strange a fancy federal title and take credit for his actions. That would make far more sense than trusting the federal government to come to the rescue in times of distress.

Not only will President Obama surely not do this, he’s as likely to throw the man in jail as anything.  You see, “generator man” is actually committing the horrible crime of “price gouging.”  That means that he’s delivering a product to the people who need it most.  Terrible, I know.

Thursday

29

January 2009

0

COMMENTS

A Last Minute Attack On Free Trade

Written by , Posted in Free Markets

The Washington Post reports on some regulatory parting shots the Bush administration took on free trade.

In its final days, the Bush administration imposed a 300 percent duty on Roquefort, in effect closing off the U.S. market. Americans, it declared, will no longer get to taste the creamy concoction that, in its authentic, most glorious form, comes with an odor of wet sheep and veins of blue mold that go perfectly with rye bread and coarse red wine.

The measure, announced Jan. 13 by U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab as she headed out the door, was designed as retaliation for a European Union ban on imports of U.S. beef containing hormones. Tit for tat, and all perfectly legal under World Trade Organization rules, U.S. officials explained.
ad_icon

Besides, they said, Roquefort is only one of dozens of European luxury products that were attacked with high tariffs. The list includes, among other things, French truffles, Irish oatmeal, Italian sparkling water and “fatty livers of ducks and geese,” which apparently is how Washington trade bureaucrats say foie gras.

While none of these particular barriers are going to have significant economic impact in America, this is simply bad policy.

Playing tit for tat with trade barriers may have emotional appeal, but it makes little sense practically, as we’re hurting ourselves almost as much as them when we do it.  Moreover, we’re just encouraging others when they play these games.  There’s little chance these tarrifs will get Europe to rethink their beef policy, and cutting off our nose to spite our face does not constitute good policy.

Tuesday

9

December 2008

0

COMMENTS

Bush: The Democrat's Useful Idiot

Written by , Posted in Free Markets, Labor Unions, Liberty & Limited Government

Having already decimated the free market ideology with his reckless acceptance of liberal economics, President Bush is set to deliver another blow to rational, limited government by preparing to compromise on a $15 billion bailout for the Big Three automakers.

Democrats have been frantic to get this passed while Bush is still in office. One has to wonder just why that is when Obama has already pledged support for a bailout. The democrats desperately want Bush involved because they need political cover for what is essentially a handout to the UAW. The public is against a bailout, so Democrats need a useful idiot to take the blame with them. Bush, it seems, is their man. Rather than force the democrats to wait only a month and a half until they control all branches of government, and thus would have take full political blame, Bush has once again muddied the political waters and stolen a winning issue from republicans.

Saturday

6

December 2008

0

COMMENTS

Happy Belated Repeal Day

Written by , Posted in Free Markets, Liberty & Limited Government

Friday marked the 75th anniversary of the end of Prohibition. Notice I use a capital ‘P’ in Prohibition, because lowercase prohibition is still alive and well.

For 13 years the 18th Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol, with trivial exceptions. The results were clear: a modest reduction in consumption, but also a significant increase in both the number of alcoholics and fatalities from contaminated liquor. It also created a black market, which lead to the rise of Al Capone and organized crime.

It turns out that, when you ban a substance, the net effect is a lot more complicated than just the predicted drop in use. Yes, there was less alcohol consumption. Prices rose significantly as predicted, and as predicted consumption went down. But demand didn’t completely go away. The rise in prices, unsurprisingly, served to attract new producers into the market. The fact that it was an illegal market insured that those with the least respect for the law were most likely to enter.

The high risk/high reward environment not only insured that competition would be fierce and deadly, but also that the product itself would be much more potent. Because of the uncertainties of smuggling and the ever increasing risk of police interception with every shipment, suppliers needed every shipment to be carrying the maximum value possible.  They weren’t going to risk getting caught just to sell cheap beer.  This is a large reason why there was an increase in the actual number of alcoholics.

What’s the relevance of all this today?  Isn’t Prohibition over with, never to return?  Unfortunately, the lessons of prohibition are very relevant to today.  Complete alcohol prohibition is unlikely to ever return, but there is a neoprohibition movement working away at the edges of legal drinking.

Restrictive state laws distort the market, enforcing a three-tiered system of alcohol distribution.  Granted significant government protections, middlemen distributors account for a significant percentage of the cost of alcohol, while taxes also raise costs by 20%.  Direct sale from manufacturers to retailers, or consummers is banned.  Wine is a notable exception, as direct sale has been allowed recently in many states, though often times they engage in protectionism that restricts consumer choice.

The attacks on legal drinking includes arresting citizens just for being drunk in bars.  Thousands of individuals have been nabbed by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in sting operations.  These people have done nothing wrong. They did not drive drunk, get in a fight or otherwise harm anyone.  Texas, however, thinks they are criminals.

The fascist attack on drinkers isn’t the only prohibition movement alive in the modern day.  There’s a well-funded and highly visible tobacco prohibition movement.  Fatty foods are also under attack, which achieved a temporary success with Chicago’s fois gras ban. Other movements have achieved even more success.  There’s currently a blanket prohibition on prostitution,  with the predictable result being the rise of a criminal class (pimps) and increased exposure to disease from those who (unsurprisingly) ignore the ban.

Worst of all, however, is the current prohibition on drugs.  Everything that went wrong with alcohol prohibition is being repeated with the drug war.  The rise of drug cartels and gangs is a direct result of the prohibition.  Our southern neighbor is seeing the worst of it, as Mexico is quickly turning into the next Colombia.  Chaos next door is a security threat to America.

While trillions of dollars have been spent on the drug war (which far exceeds the economic costs of drug use), little good has come from it.  Drugs are much stronger than they would otherwise be (if not for the drug war, there likely would have never have been such a thing as crack cocaine).  Police officers are becoming ever more corrupted by the fight, as happened during prohibition.  They are also increasingly militarized, executing raids on low level users (and often innocents) that result in numerous unjustified deaths every year.  Our prison’s are overflowing with non-violent offenders, and our court system is choking on the backlog.

So while we raise our glasses to celebrate the end of one of the worst legislative mistakes in American history, let us try and learn from it.  Prohibition was wrong in 1920, and it’s wrong in 2008.

Friday

28

November 2008

0

COMMENTS

Treat The Illness

Written by , Posted in Free Markets, Liberty & Limited Government, Waste & Government Reform

I recently sent the following letter to the New York Times:

To the Editor:

As “NASA’s Black Hole Budgets” (editorial, Nov. 24) noted, NASA has a “culture that has lost control of spending.” As a former employee, Alan Stern has seen this problem first hand. Unfortunately, the solution he offers is little more than a call to just try harder. Politicians can’t be counted on to “turn from the self-serving protection of local NASA jobs.” Moreover, the problems he describes in NASA are not unique to the space agency; they are the results of systemic flaws in the bureaucratic system.

We should be treating the illness rather than the symptoms. This requires a fundamental rethinking of how we approach space exploration. A good start would be to rely less on government bureaucracies and more on private endeavors, which can be promoted through tax breaks and prize offerings. But so long as bureaucrats are encouraged to feed on the public trough, we shouldn’t be surprised when they pig out.

Sincerely,

Brian Garst

Sunday

16

November 2008

0

COMMENTS

Bush Too Late To Defense Of Capitalism

Written by , Posted in Free Markets

In a speech the other day President Bush offered this eloquent defense of capitalism:

Like any other system designed by man, capitalism is not perfect. It can be subject to excesses and abuse. But it is by far the most efficient and just way of structuring an economy. At its most basic level, capitalism offers people the freedom to choose where they work and what they do, the opportunity to buy or sell products they want, and the dignity that comes with profiting from their talent and hard work. The free market system provides the incentives that lead to prosperity — the incentive to work, to innovate, to save, to invest wisely, and to create jobs for others. And as millions of people pursue these incentives together, whole societies benefit.

Free market capitalism is far more than economic theory. It is the engine of social mobility — the highway to the American Dream.

This is all very well and good, but the sad reality is that President Bush has done more to undermine market capitalism than any Democrat ever could.  By operating falsely under the flag of free markets, Bush’s massive $700 billion government assault into the market has amounted to, in the eyes of many, a surrender of the market ideology.  At least now that the statists are taking power, the right people, and more importantly the right ideology, will finally be blamed for the failures of big government.

Tuesday

11

November 2008

0

COMMENTS

Not Worth It

Written by , Posted in Free Markets

I recently sent the following letter to the LA Times:

Dear Editor,

The subheading of a recent editorial (“Kick the automakers’ tires first,” Nov. 11) declared that, “before getting any of the public’s money, the Big Three should have to prove they’re worth it.”

We already have a mechanism by which companies can prove they are worth the public’s money: the free market. In the free market, the public decides which companies are “worth it” by choosing which goods to purchase. Those businesses that thrive are worth it; those that don’t are not. The public has clearly decided that the Big Three fall into the latter group. The government should respect our judgment.

Sincerely,

Brian Garst

Monday

10

November 2008

0

COMMENTS

A Personal Choice For Some

Written by , Posted in Education, Free Markets

Compare these two stories.

Hundreds line up for school choice

Hundreds of parents lined up early this morning to sign up for the Brandywine School District’s school choice program, taking their place behind about 35 parents who had camped out overnight for a spot at the front of the line.

The sign-up was supposed to begin at 8 a.m., but the doors opened at 6:45 to accommodate the crowd.
Advertisement

Parents had been lining up since about 2 p.m. Sunday for the opportunity to sign up for the district’s limited number of spaces.

A Crucial Decision For the Obamas: Public or Private?

Like many parents moving their children to Washington, Barack and Michelle Obama will be told to avoid D.C. public schools. Is that good advice?

This is a tricky subject. School choice is very personal. The president-elect’s fifth-grade daughter, Malia, and second-grade daughter, Sasha, have been attending the first-rate, private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools. I bet they transfer to Georgetown Day School, a good fit because of its similarity to their current school, its historic role as the city’s first racially integrated school and the presence of Obama senior legal adviser Eric H. Holder Jr. on its board of trustees. It would be a sensible decision by two smart, caring people.
ad_icon

But it wouldn’t hurt to look around first. Georgetown Day, like other private schools, would charge them nearly $56,000 a year for two kids. Why not see what their tax dollars are paying for? One educational gem happens to be the closest public school to their new home. Strong John Thomson Elementary School is at 1200 L St. NW, three-fifths of a mile from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Go north on 15th, turn right on L and three blocks farther it’s on the right.

School choice may be personal for the Obama’s, but thanks to the policies of President-elect Obama and his friends at the NEA, many are denied that choice. Unable to afford to both pay taxes for public schooling and enroll their children in private schools, many are trapped in a failing government school system.  Or they have to line up all night to fight over a few school choice bread crumbs.  But why should Obama care? The two girls lucky enough to share his last name will do just fine.