Category: free trade & free markets

Drive Free or Die

Uber, taxi, sharing, free uber, Common Sense

Ever told your kids to share? That’s aiding and abetting, you know.

Sharing is illegal.

At least, it is in Portsmouth, New Hampshire . . . regarding Uber.

The popular ride-sharing company may be widely heralded as the flagship of the new sharing economy, but a Portsmouth city ordinance effectively blocks the service, requiring that the company provide background checks on all drivers, which Uber calls “draconian.”

While the company is trying to get the city to alter that mandate, several Uber drivers have ignored the ban, continuing to pick up passengers. In October, police stopped Stephanie Franz, who now faces a $500 fine.

Chris David has also continued to drive for Uber. After he recorded a verbal altercation with a cabbie on a city street and posted it to YouTube, David was charged with wiretapping — a felony.

Taxi companies are upset, too, claiming the ordinance creates “a free-for-all.” A Portsmouth Taxi executive bemoaned, “Anybody can come in.”

Before the ordinance took effect in September, only 28 cabs were allowed to operate. “That’s like limiting the number of restaurants and bars in Portsmouth to 28 to keep them full day and night,” argued Assistant Mayor Jim Spilane.

In the “Live Free or Die” state, barriers to earning a living and heavy-handed criminal charges have led to the pro-Uber slogan, “Drive Free or Die.”

Tonight at 6:30 pm, there’s a #FreeUber rally at the Portsmouth City Hall. If you’re nearby, please go help explain that government regulations ought to accommodate economic advances, not frustrate them.

That is, if you can find a legal ride.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags car, regulations, taxi, taxicab, Uber

folly free trade & free markets general freedom nannyism responsibility

The Uber-Huge Mistake

Uber, car, ride, London, taxi, regulation, waiting, Paul Jacob, Common Sense

Uber’s challenge to old-fashioned ride service — to the taxi industry — is at least twofold.

One, it shows government regulation to be counterproductive and kind of witless.

Two, it shows that innovation — particularly by decreasing transaction costs — can rapidly transform a market for the good of consumers.

Recently, politicians who play to special interests — in this case, to taxicab companies and taxi drivers — have made some spectacular blunders. Perhaps the best-known is Bernie Sanders, who claims to see severe “problems” with Uber’s online ride-sharing service, but whose campaign staff uses Uber for ride-sharing . . . and nothing else. Hah!

But the London transit regulators have made the biggest splash.

Their latest proposal? To require Uber drivers to wait five minutes before picking somebody up.

Evens the playing field, you see.

Uber is so much quicker to respond to the paying riders’ needs that taxicabs apparently cannot compete in Old London Town.

The folks at Uber publicized the expected company reaction: the regulation would be a “huge mistake.”

But really, it’s a HUGE ADMISSION.

It shows that Uber’s service is superior, and that government regulators are more interested in protecting providers (taxicabs) than customers (pedestrians seeking rides).

It also shows these regulations for what they really are: protectionism for special interests, not protection for the safety of consumers.

Remember what Frédéric Bastiat said about protectionism: it’s always about placing obstacles in front of some producers (and the market in general) to aid a select (literally privileged) group of producers, regardless of consumer wants and needs.

Hobbling Uber to save taxicabs! What’ll they think of next?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags car, London, regulation, ride, ride share, taxi, taxicabs, Uber

free trade & free markets general freedom nannyism national politics & policies tax policy

Pass/Fail/Pass

November 2015 vote, Washington, Ohio, marijuana, legalization, illustration

While the Ohio measure to legalize marijuana did not pass, this week, the Washington State measure to wrest tax limitations out of a recalcitrant legislature did indeed succeed, with a 54 percent win.

Win some, lose some.

But in both these cases, there is some evidence for a general smartening up of the voting public.

With Ohio’s Measure 103, the support for cannabis legalization, a few weeks before Election Day, seemed strong. But the more voters looked at the measure, the more they caught a whiff of stink — and it wasn’t skunk weed. It was crony capitalism and insider favoritism. So, while a solid majority reasonably favors legalization — even in Ohio — it strikes most reasonable people that the measure’s secondary provision of setting up a monopolistic/oligopolistic production cartel is as anti-freedom as the legalizations is pro.

Smart folks saw through the proposal. Cannabis legalization is proceeding, state by state. Better results for legalization next time?

Perhaps, provided a better measure is offered.

Washington’s I-1366, on the other hand, had several levels to it, too, but they worked together. Voters seeking a constitutional tax limit, got it — or, if the legislature balks at delivering it as a future referendum (as the measure instructs) then the initiative’s main feature would kick in and the sales tax would be lowered. Low-tax voters get low taxes either way, legislature cooperating or resisting.

As I’ve explained some time back, repeated legislative betrayal had forced Evergreen State super-activist Tim Eyman to concoct this rather clever ploy.

In both Ohio and Washington, what voters voted against was against politics-as-usual — and that is good, no?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags cannabis, legalization, marijuana, Ohio, tax policy, Washington

Accountability Common Sense folly free trade & free markets general freedom meme

Progressive Logic

Government is so corrupt that its power to intervene in the market can be bought and sold by the rich…

…Therefore government should be bigger and more powerful.

Click here for a large resolution version of this image:

Tags big government, corruption, crony capitalism, government failure, intervention, Progressive Logic

free trade & free markets general freedom national politics & policies

Why Protectionism

Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, economics, free trade, collage, photomontage, Jim Gill, Paul Jacob, Common Sense

Why do so many people (especially politicians) favor high tariffs, “managed trade,” embargoes and domestic subsidies, all of which — first as “mercantilism” and then as “protectionism” — have been debunked, repeatedly (demonstrated as ineffective economic policy), since Adam Smith’s famous 1776 attack?

Economist Donald Boudreaux, in an excellent defense of economic principles, explains why the Bernie Sanderses and Donald Trumps of this world support anti-free trade nostrums — out of sheer ignorance:

The typical politician opposes free trade because he . . . doesn’t understand that the purpose of trade — any trade — is to enrich people as consumers and not to enrich people as producers. He doesn’t understand that exports are a cost and that imports are a benefit; he thinks that it’s the other way ’round. He doesn’t understand that the specific jobs lost to imports are not the only employment consequences of trade; he doesn’t understand that trade also “creates” jobs in the domestic economy. . . . He, in short, doesn’t understand the first damn thing about the economics of trade.

But what protectionists do understand are direct appeals to “good results” (like more and better high-paying jobs). The fact that their proposals throw a monkey wrench into the diverse mechanisms of trade, yielding worse results?

They just don’t see them.

Why? Because real economies are complex, and protectionists lack the science that would help them trace the consequences of their policies.

The fact that they’ve focused their whole attention on the business of “governing,” and making simplistic, direct appeals to people who are also uneducated in economic principles, doesn’t help.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, economics, free trade, Presidential campaign 2016

crime and punishment folly free trade & free markets general freedom tax policy

Gold Leaf

cannabis, marijuana, legalization, tax, taxes, federal, Colorado, illustration, Jim Gill, Paul Jacob, Common sense

The experiment in legalized marijuana begun by citizens in the states of Washington and Colorado has, from the beginning, faced a huge obstacle: marijuana is still illegal, federally. State nullification of federal law is not merely “problematic,” it’s hard to “get away with.”

Take Colorado’s experience. The Centennial State, which has made the swiftest and most extensive progress regarding marijuana retail sales, has come up to an inevitable problem with the federal government.

Over banking.

Interesting Reason reporting tells us that “Marijuana-related businesses in Colorado are so profitable that the government doesn’t know what to do with all of the tax revenue they’re generating. But business owners face a more immediate problem: Where to stash their own profits when banks won’t take it.”

Congress has been very active making banking less and less private and less and less free for decades now, in part because of the War on Drugs. Existing banks refused to take new cannabis clients.

So a new credit union was formed, to handle the cash.

And now, NBC News tells us, our central bank, the Federal Reserve (dubbed by NBC “the guardian of the U.S. banking system”), said “that it doesn’t intend to accept a penny connected to the sale of pot because the drug remains illegal under federal law.” Which makes modern banking difficult, even for a credit union, apparently.

What are “weed” businesses to do . . . other than what they are doing, hiring security guards for all the cash?

Maybe Bitcoin will step in. Or old gold-warehouse banking, as was not unheard of even in the 19th century.

Or, maybe, the federal government will cease its over-reach?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF