BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Free Markets Archive

Monday

3

August 2009

1

COMMENTS

A Lesson Not Learned

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

Three republicans, including a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, argued in a Washington Post editorial that Republicans should cooperate with the White House on education reform.  They note three items that President Obama has called for which Republicans generally support: 1) merit pay for teachers, 2) dismissal of ineffective teachers, and 3) expansion of public charter schools.  Furthermore, they argue that this is a wonderful opportunity for Republicans to show that they aren’t just “the party of no.”

At the risk of being pegged an obstructionist, I beg to differ. There’s nothing wrong with free marketers, conservatives, libertarian, Republicans or anyone else working with President Obama when he is right, but this is not such a case. Yes, these items are things which education reformers want to see happen, but how these ideas are implemented is just as important to get right as the ideas themselves. The President offers a top-down approach. After the failures of No Child Left Behind, Republicans should know better than to fall for that again.

The best way to ensure teacher accountability is not through promises to strengthen the political resolve to hold them more accountable – which never really works – but to actually make them accountable to the most interested party in the process, namely parents. When parents have a real choice where to send their children to school, and individual schools have a real choice as how best to educate those children, then and only then will there be accountability for the performance of teachers and schools. Only then will successful teachers and methods be rewarded while unsuccessful ones are punished.

In order for this to happen, states need the freedom to experiment with different education policies. Hooking state legislators on generous federal grants places them at the whim of federal policy desires. Today’s Department of Education recommendations could easily become tomorrow’s requirements. Given the animosity directed at school choice reforms by interest groups with strong influence at the federal level, Republicans should be pushing for a reduced federal role in education, and not supporting the President’s efforts to expand it, as a necessary first step in moving to school choice and real reform.

Sunday

19

July 2009

0

COMMENTS

OpenRegs.com Beats Regulations.gov

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

Yet more evidence that markets do it better:

Remember Regulations.gov? It was launched by the federal government in 2003. While it’s a nice symbolic step for transparency, the site is poky, has a bad interface, and (in my experience) has a pretty spectacular record of not being about to locate the reg you’re looking for. It’s basically the online equivalent of a bored lady on the phone saying “I’m sorry, ma’am. I don’t have a record of that.”

Not to worry: A new privately run site, OpenRegs.com, launched yesterday. The very sexy-looking site is the brainchild of Jerry Brito of the George Mason’s Mercatus Center (also one of my fellow bloggers at the world’s foremost libertarian food blog, Crispy on the Outside), and Peter Snyder, a Chicago-based programmer. You can track specific agencies or specific topics.

The site also encourages commenting and offers tools to facilitate the exchange of gossip about each agency, which you’d better believe is frowned upon over at the .gov site.

Friday

17

July 2009

0

COMMENTS

Borrowers Should Have A Choice

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

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

To the Editor:

If states heed your recent editorial (“Borrowers Bled Dry,” July 13) calling for them to “drive out payday lenders,” it would harm the very people you claim to be protecting. It would also unfairly rob individuals of the right to manage their own affairs.

The issue here is one of choice. While many people are choosing to avail themselves of the loans provided by payday lenders, you think you know better and seek to deny them this right. The prevalence of these lenders, which you point to as a means to scare the reader, only serves to speak to the value they provide the community.

You accuse these service providers of engaging in “legalized loan sharking,” yet following your prescription would ensure that low-income borrowers seeking short loans will have no one to turn to but the real loan sharks.

Sincerely,

Brian Garst

Tuesday

14

July 2009

0

COMMENTS

CNN Pushes For Regulation Of Bottled Water

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

A CNN headline breathlessly asks, “Is your bottled water safe?”  One could be forgiven for thinking such a leading headline might be followed with actual evidence that bottled water is unsafe.  Though, as this is CNN, one should also know better:

Although you may think that bottled water is a safer option than tap, two new reports show that the store-bought stuff is actually less regulated than the water you get out of your faucet for free.

The implication here is that being less regulated than tap water means that bottled water is automatically to be considered less safe.  This is preposterous. More government regulation of bottled water is a solution looking for a problem.  There is no factual evidence of increased risk from drinking bottled water.

The other complaint being lodged is that bottle water products don’t provide enough information about their filter process and contents.  Some are accused of offering what is essentially bottled tap water.

This complaint may be valid, but it is not cause for government intervention or increased regulation.  If a consumer is faced with purchasing a product which they think comes with insufficient information regarding its contents, then they shouldn’t purchase the product.  If enough people are upset that bottled water companies don’t provide such labels, and resolve only to purchase from ones that do, then there will inevitably be enterprising companies willing to meet that demand.  And without the force of government, no less!   It’s almost like magic.

Thursday

9

July 2009

0

COMMENTS

Central Planning 101

Written by , Posted in Free Markets, Government Meddling

When foolishly given the task of running a business, Congress critters can be counted on to place political interests ahead of business interests.

By a unanimous vote, a U.S. House committee has approved a measure that would restore 2,100 dealers either cut or scheduled to be closed by General Motors Corp. and Chrysler Group LLC.

The vote comes amid growing support in the House for the proposal, with more than 200 cosponsors signed on to a similar bill. Dealers will hold a lobbying event next Tuesday to press for the plan in the House and Senate.

The bill would turn back the clock to before the companies filed for bankruptcy, restoring the 789 dealers cut by Chrysler and 1,300 dealers GM chose to wind down.

…“This legislation, if passed, would put our long-term viability at risk,” said GM spokesman Greg Martin.

Daniel Ikenson at Cato@Liberty calls for a boycott:

What makes these actions evil, and not just stupid, is that Congress really does not care about whether GM is profitable or not. The Henry Waxmans of the Hill only care that GM produces green vehicles, regardless of their exorbitant costs of production and scant consumer demand. And the John Dingells (among whom are included the 200 sponsors of the bill to restore the dealerships) only want GM to provide jobs, regardless of the fact that GM needs to scale back its labor force substantially to even approach the realm of commercial viability. In other words, Congress demands that Americans subsidize GM because GM’s short-term viability is good for their political fortunes.

Enough. Show Congress that you won’t comply and that you won’t be pawns. Boycott GM. Boycott GM until the government relinquishes its grip on the company’s decision making process.

I gave my own reasons for boycotting GM last month.

Thursday

9

July 2009

0

COMMENTS

Targeting Speculators, Again

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment, Free Markets

The democrats are dusting off an old enemy to trot out as part of their perpetual government circus act.  Oil speculators, come on down!

The Obama administration is also proposing an overhaul of financial regulation that would include tougher capital requirements for big banks, tighter regulation of hedge funds and a new consumer protection agency with broad power to regulate credit cards, mortgages and other consumer lending.

In the case of oil and gas trading, regulators made it clear that they were willing to move, without waiting for Congress to act on Mr. Obama’s overhaul, invoking their existing powers.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission said it would consider imposing volume limits on trading of energy futures by purely financial investors and that it already has adopted tougher information requirements aimed at identifying the role of hedge funds and traders who swap contracts outside of regulated exchanges like the New York Mercantile Exchange.

It’s not just democrats in on the act, this time.  Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy teamed up on the pages of the WSJ to call for more government when it comes to oil prices. This line of attack is based on pure economic ignorance.  I’ve responded to it in the past, so this time I’ll just point you to some bigger authorities than myself.

Reason Magazine: Rant: Burn the “Speculators”!
Cafe Hayek: A Win-Win and Oily Speculations
Robert P. Murphy: Oil Speculators: Bad or Good

Tuesday

7

July 2009

1

COMMENTS

Pope Calls For Global Tyranny

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Free Markets

The pope has the answer to our global recession.   Taking heed the overwhelming historical evidence that shows the failure of central planning in every nation it has been tried, the pope has solved the economic problem. No, it isn’t to reduce taxes and trade barriers, or otherwise remove government burdens on economic production. What we really need is a globally planned economy!

Pope Benedict called on Tuesday for a “world political authority” to manage the global economy and for more government regulation of national economies to pull the world out of the current crisis and avoid a repeat.

…The pope said every economic decision had a moral consequence and called for “forms of redistribution” of wealth overseen by governments to help those most affected by crises.

Benedict said “there is an urgent need of a true world political authority” whose task would be “to manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result.”

We can now count the pope among freedom’s many enemies.  He should stick to religion.

Tuesday

7

July 2009

0

COMMENTS

Come Get Yer Rhinos, Here!

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment, Free Markets

Animal rights groups are up in arms over an idea by the South African government to sell a couple hundred white rhino’s from Kruger National Park.

Up to 350 of the rare animals will be sold this year alone from the Kruger National Park under fundraising plans drawn up by the South African government.

Animal rights groups have criticised the move and warned it would undermine conservation efforts at the reserve, which is visited by 1.5 million tourists every year.

Steve Smit, spokesman for Animal Rights Africa, said: “The idea of herding up animals from a major wildlife reserve and selling them to private institutions is outrageous.

…Bosses started selling white rhino from Kruger in 2002 for around £12,000 (R150,000) each but have since sold an average of just 70 a year.

…Mr Smit added: “We have a huge amount of anecdotal evidence that suggests a large number of the animals that have been previously been sold have been shot by hunters – sometimes almost immediately.”

“Private institutions,” what horror! Mr. Smit’s concern that many of the rhinos will be bought by private hunters may well be true, and I object to any of them that might use drugs or tranquilizers when offering tourist hunters the opportunity to shoot them in controlled game parks.  I do not, however, object to their selling such an opportunity at all.

So long as parks are run by entrepreneurs (Kruger National Park is a concern in this regard, as it is operated by the South African government), then animals that are able to fetch a high price will remain safe from the threat of extinction.  Why would a park owner allow white rhinos (Kruger currently houses 4,500) to run out when there is a significant financial interest in ensuring their continued supply?  Allowing parks to sell large game, even for immediate killing, ensures the continued survival of those species and brings in the funds necessary to run the splendorous parks so loved by “animal rights groups.”

The real danger is that parks run by governments, rather than private groups, may not always be sufficiently motivated by long-term financial concerns to adequately protect such valuable commodities.  Examples of this are not hard to come by in Africa, where Marxist guerrilla governments slaughtered game to the brink of extinction to fund their wars.  But when they were convinced to grant hunting concessions to private owners – for a hefty fee, of course – animals fared much better.  Hunters who had a stake in running a profitable concession had strong incentive not to run out of stock.  They were also animal experts who understood how to keep a herd healthy, and they were vigilant in fighting off illegal poachers.  As far as I’m concerned, the more parks or hunting concessions that can be placed into private hands, the better.

Sunday

28

June 2009

0

COMMENTS

Investment Is Not Colonialism

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy, Free Markets

A recent article from the Telegraph on the growing trend of first-world nations purchasing farmland in third-world African countries contained the following short description:

India, once the colonial jewel of Britain’s empire, has been accused of ‘neo-colonialism’ in Africa where its business people have joined a race with China, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to buy up agricultural estates and take advantage of cheap labour.

The objective is to paint the investment in a negative light by comparing it to colonalism and accusing them of “[taking] advantage” of local labor.

The colonialism comparison is just absurd, as there is nothing remotely similar between the forced political and cultural subjugation of a people, and the voluntary exchange of goods (land) or services (labor) for money.  As to whether anyone is being taken advantage of, one need only ask the simple question of whether or not Africans would be better off without the jobs created by foreign investment in food production.  To ask the question is to answer it.  Of course they wouldn’t be.  Cheap labor is only available because the alternatives are worse.

Friday

26

June 2009

0

COMMENTS

UN Stumbles Upon Some Truth

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment, Free Markets

Coming as a pleasant surprise, the UN reported today that open trade and economic growth helps, rather than hurts, the environment.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, further liberalization of international trade can help combat climate change and support a low carbon economy, said a joint United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Trade Organization (WTO) report launched today in Geneva.

The “Trade and Climate Change” report stressed that an increase and opening of trade could have a positive impact on greenhouse gases emissions by accelerating the spread of clean technology and providing opportunities for developing economies to adapt those technologies.

Many of us have always challenged the “conventional wisdom” on economic growth – that it was destructive to the environment.  The reality is quite the opposite, as new technology is almost always cleaner than the old; so the faster new technology is adopted, the better.  If Barack Obama and the Democrats are serious about their goal of thwarting global warming, they should dump trade protectionism and their economically destructive cap and trade bill.