Category: free trade & free markets

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

America’s Dirty Nuclear Secret

Before Cherynobl, we could sort of dismiss nuclear power’s danger. Afterwards, we could still say “Well, that’s the Soviets, for you.”

Now, with the ongoing Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster, the extent of what can go wrong is becoming horrifically clear, especially now that it looks like merely gaining control of the worst-off reactor could take months, not days.

It rightly makes us worry about the whole industry.

It’s a pity, too, because nuclear power concentrates its costs (spent fuel in containers) while providing enormous marketable benefits. Burning coal, on the other hand, disperses its “costs” in the form of pollution. Nuclear power would seem to be a perfect market solution.

But a “meltdown” — or just losing control of a fission process — concentrates harms in a manner hard to ignore or justify.

We hear that new nuclear tech is in development, and might become quite safe. But the promised extra-safe variety is not yet online anywhere, yet.

Why?

Could it be because government protects the currently unsafe technology? America’s nuclear power is protected from the rigors of risk as assessed by the cold, calculating insurance industry under 1957’s Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which shifts risk from investors to taxpayers in case of catastrophe.

Perhaps if that were repealed, better nuclear tech would emerge faster.

As it is, our old nuclear tech awaits a rare convergence of disastrous factors, like a major earthquake plus human error, or terrorism plus x.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom

Locavore Focus

As the federal government goes on a spending binge, continuing to tread heavily on the American people —

As the state governments, too, carry on the federal government’s wayward tradition —

As even county and metro governments get out of hand —

Perhaps it’s time to shore up truly local government, which might be a bit more concerned with personal freedom and individual responsibility.

And perhaps Sedgwick, Maine, is as good a place to start as any.

On the first Saturday in March, the folks assembled in the town meeting considered and passed a “Food Sovereignty” law. Designed to oust state and federal busybodies who prohibit farmers from selling whole, raw milk to neighbors, the ordinance states that the townsfolk “have the right to produce, process, sell, purchase and consume local foods thus promoting self-reliance, the preservation of family farms, and local food traditions.” Soon after, the Penobscot township passed a similar ordinance, but the notion failed in Brooksville.

Basically, these are attempts by townships to nullify federal and state regulation. It’s worth remembering such ideas are not exactly unheard of.

Thomas Jefferson advocated state nullification of laws — and historian Tom Woods has recently written a very popular book on the subject. The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises went further, thinking that liberalism (old-fashioned believing-in-liberty liberalism) entailed the right of secession down to the local level.

So it’s not just locavores and food puritans rejoicing over the victories in Maine. Freedom-lovers can rejoice, too!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
folly free trade & free markets national politics & policies Tenth Amendment federalism too much government

Derailing Washington’s Train Fixation

The great age of trains — the 19th century — spawned a few amazing political careers, not excluding the railway lawyer, Abraham Lincoln. Many major railroads depended on moving politicians first, earth and iron second.

More than ever, today’s passenger rail lines are creatures of the state. Amtrak loses money, and could only be successful as a private operation were politicians able to let its unprofitable lines go.

Congress insists, instead, on putting up more money-losing railways in as many places as possible. President Obama even tried to get a bullet train put through between Tampa and Orlando, despite the fact that the two Florida cities were too close to each other for a super-fast train to make any sense.

Worse for the bullet was the politics.

In 2000, Floridians had voted in high-speed monorail; in 2004, they voted in greater numbers to kill their own project. Voters realized that, with politicians in charge, railroad projects tended to go runaway.

Perhaps that helped convince Rick Scott, the new governor, to reject the federal government’s offer to pay $2.4 billion of a $2.6 billion bullet train. The billions of “free money” that the Obama Administration promised began to seem, well, costly.

So, of course, the federal government sued. In early March, a Florida court ruled that the governor did indeed have the power to tell the feds to play with trains elsewhere.

A minor victory for railway sanity. A major victory for federalism.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

National Public Railroadeo

The controversy about all the elitist condescension galloping through the halls and programming policies of National Public Radio are both on point and beside the point. Even if NPR’s appeal were universal, it is not the proper function of government to be funding and controlling media.

Just the same, NPR’s appeal is far from universal. It serves not “the public,” but a slice of it — about 11 percent, according to Sue Schardt, member of an NPR distribution committee. She concedes that those who built NPR “unwittingly cultivated a core audience that is predominantly white, liberal, highly educated, elite” but stipulates that it was “never anyone’s intention to exclude anyone.”

True, but not meaningful. Coca Cola would love to get all the Pepsi people, Mother Jones would love to get all the National Review people, plus Esquire and New Yorker people, plus CBS and NBC and ABC people. But every successful enterprise must target its product.

Schardt believes that the way to answer political challenges to NPR’s funding is to expand the base with a broader appeal. The 30-year incubation period is over, now let’s be all we can be! Prove the nay-sayers wrong!

Fine with me if NPR tries this — or any other audience-building strategy. Just not on my dime. NPR would probably do best preaching to the liberal choir as they’ve always done. But, again, in the marketplace. Don’t make the rest of us pay for it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Life, the Universe, and Everything

The answer is 42.

The question? Not Douglas Adams’s Ultimate Question concerning “life, the universe, and everything.” Instead, it’s the answer to the question, “How many mandates does the State of Oregon place on the medical insurance packages Oregonians are allowed to buy?”

Forty-two.

The number is far too large — and yet the number will likely increase this year, courtesy of the state legislature, despite the fact that the current mandates raise the cost of medical insurance for Oregonians.

Steve Buckstein, speaking before the state’s House Committee on Health Care, for-instanced Iowa, which sports 16 fewer mandates. The state has lower percentages of uninsured folks and lower premiums than in states with higher numbers of required services.

Buckstein, a policy analyst for Cascade Policy Institute, was arguing for HB 2977, which would allow Oregonians to purchase medical insurance from other states. This would add competition to the current highly over-regulated market.

Buckstein shouldn’t have to do this. The purpose of the federal union was to create a vast free trade zone. Misguided state mandates such as the ones he’s fighting rest upon prohibiting state citizens from buying outside the state, which runs up against the grain of the Constitution. For too long Congress has exempted the medical insurance industry from the correct application of the Commerce Clause, leading to a crippled industry and opening the way for disastrously unworkable ideas like, well, “Obamacare.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Stop the Mortgage Madness

The New York Times wonders how “home buying [might] change if the federal government shuts down the housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” Despite vague agreement that misguided government policy somehow encouraged short-sighted, irresponsible conduct, many want government to keep it up.

It’s supposedly “well understood” that Fanny and Freddie “misused” government’s support to back “millions of shoddy loans.” Shoddy how? Shoddy because awarded to high-risk debtors on terms impossible without the government’s easy credit, subsidies, regulations, exhortations and bailout net. Many of the loans would not have been made by creditors obliged to consider not only potential profits but also all the actual and potential costs, without government interference.

In the article’s very next paragraph, however, we learn that although the consequences of “misused” government support for untenable loans are now “well understood,” there’s a “much more divisive question” now in play: “whether the government should preserve the benefits that the companies provide to middle-class borrowers, including lower interest rates, lenient terms and the ability to get a mortgage even when banks are not making other kinds of loans.”

Huh? You mean, many politicians and beneficiaries of government largesse are “divided” over whether a policy of destructively encouraging irresponsible conduct should be clung to with only cosmetic, if any, changes — even though this policy sank the economy?

Scavengers picking carcasses may not care about the long run. But the rest of us should.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Bleaching the Bay

In economics, it’s called an “unintended effect”; in pharmacology, a “side effect.” In plumbing, it’s one heckuva stink.

Yes, it’s time again for a perennial Common Sense subject: Government messing around in our toilets.

The push to “save water” gushed into a number of proposals over the years, the closest-to-consumer one being the many government edicts demanding that toilets use less water.

Governments can make a regulation and process lawbreakers. But they can’t change the laws of liquid dynamics. Federal legislation for smaller-reservoir toilets yielded a generation of poorly flushing toilets — demanding double flushing to get solids down. It took years for inventive engineers and entrepreneurs to redesign toilets so that they could actually do their job right.

But Congress’s intrusion into your bathroom wasn’t enough for busybodies in San Francisco. They had to go further, with low-flow toilets that used even less water.

The consequence has now become pretty obvious: Too little water in the public sewage system, leading to slow-moving masses of ugh, clogging pipes, and, well stench.

San Francisco has proved that “well-intended” government regulation into our bathrooms quite literally stinks.

Frisco sewerage officials have stocked up on $14 million worth of bleach to “act as an odor eater and to disinfect the city’s water before it’s dumped into the bay.” Environmentalists are predictably and, well, understandably concerned.

What begins as an environmental concern ends as an environmental disaster.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

A Necessary Solution?

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is playing hardball. On Meet the Press, he defended himself:

Wisconsin is “broke,” and unions use their power to block necessary cost-saving measures, Walker said.

“It’s about time somebody stood up and told the truth in this state, and said, ‘Here’s our problem, here’s the solution,’ and acted on it,” he said.

But how sensible is his proposal to remove collective bargaining regarding benefits for most public employee unions? As everyone points out, the unions are agreeing to his other proposals, such as paying for more of their insurance than before.

Why is he being so unreasonable, so “arrogant”?

Last Sunday, I considered the whys on Townhall. Contracts with public employees are completely out of whack because compensation is negotiated outside market competition and by politicians more afraid of the political clout of the powerful unions than their principals (the taxpayers) whose money they’re spending. So, wage rates and especially promises of future medical and pension benefits are sky high and open to abuse.

The union reps can’t be trusted, either. So honed to getting the most for union members (their principals), their monomaniacal purpose washes away every other thought. Now that the corner they’ve shoved the state into has been made apparent, they’ll concede points, sure. But taking away bargaining leverage?

No way. They want to be able to do it all over, when good times roll.

And that is why Gov. Walker’s proposal seems so sound.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Why Such Slow Growth

Why such slow growth, after the federal government spent trillions to spark recovery?

Could it be that binges of throwing borrowed money around don’t matter? Spending money can’t be the solution if the problem is low or dark expectations of the future — and the spending of borrowed money feeds that dark view.

So what is the solution?

Well, take a step back. According to economic historian Robert Higgs, the key to economic growth is “private domestic business net investment.” And that’s down.

The peak occurred in 2007. The next two years saw the very opposite of growth, a precipitous fall in investments in private business. Last year, Higgs tells us, “net private investment increased smartly for three quarters, reaching an annual rate of $270 billion in the third quarter, then contracted sharply — by almost 47 percent — to $144 billion in the fourth quarter,” which is about a third of what it was at peak in 2007.

“Jobs,” which everybody’s thinking about, don’t come from spending as such. New jobs happen when people who save take their unspent money and invest it in production processes that they hope will yield goods that consumers in the future will spend money on.

So, private investment depends on positive expectations, a kind of rational hope.

What could government do?

Provide less reason for fear by putting a halt to doing things that elicit rational fear instead of rational hope.

Saner government, more productive economy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets tax policy

How Not To Be in Pictures

Everybody wants to be in pictures, it’s said. Michiganders, who’ve been funding moviemaking with their taxes for years, should try digital cameras and YouTube. The state’s governor, Rick Snyder, has proposed a new budget slicing and dicing the state’s generous (read: foolhardy) film subsidy and tax credit system.

This is called a “blow to Hollywood.” One nifty headline dramatizes the new situation: “Michigan to Hollywood — Get Off My Lawn,” with photo of Clint Eastwood on the porch of his Gran Torino house, wielding a shotgun.

Over the top.

Tax credits and tax subsidies given only to moviemakers are wrong on several grounds, as I’ve argued before (see “Knot Cannibalism” and “Cinema Without Subsidy”). Of course, the red tape and high taxes associated with setting up any business are wrong, too. You may say that the state’s gotta raise funds, but it most definitely shouldn’t kill the geese that lay the eggs, golden or Technicolor.

Taxes should apply equally, all around. Low taxes evenly spread will entice businesses — including moviemakers — into an area, if other locales remain over-taxed and confusing.

Some will cry “jobs!” but the word isn’t magic. Real jobs can be measured. Michigan’s subsidies created mainly temporary part-time jobs for Michiganders. According to a commissioned study, “Michigan spent $378,240.74 per job in 2008; $586,779.18 per job in 2009.”

No film incentive, it turns out, “has generated as much revenues as it has taken from the treasury.”

Cut. Print.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.