Category: moral hazard

Whose Side Are They On?

Uber, Lyft, Taxi, protection, tax, crony, cronyism, illustration

Excuse me if I drive over familiar roadways. But we are witnessing one of the great revolutions in human cooperation.

And our governments and politicians are working mightily to block traffic.

I refer, of course, to Uber and Lyft and the like.

The innovation that these companies bring to market? Enabling everyday drivers to leverage their personal investment in a capital good — a car or SUV — to make extra bucks (or even a living) while efficiently serving people who want rides.

Ride-hailing apps on smart-phones provide more security and consumer guidance than the old taxi services ever bothered to even try. The elaborate online rating system, where drivers rate riders and vice versa, provides a new market in information that outstrips government “regulation” as a consumer defense system.

And consumers get better rides, cheaper.

The Uberization of ride sharing competes directly with taxis, of course, and that’s a problem … for taxi companies. And the politicians who have regulated them for years. This regulation never was about consumer protection, but politicians just feathered their own nests with campaign contributions through crony capitalism, helping some taxi services at the expense of others.

And customers.

The latest idiocy hails from Massachusetts, which has enacted a 20¢ per trip tax on all ride-sharing apps, with 5¢ of each charge slated for subsidizing the old, established taxi services.

Taxachusetts’s Republican governor, Charlie Baker, has been sucked in to the government racket, choosing to support old cronies rather than customers.

Still, it could have been worse. The advocates of the tax had initially demanded Uber be banned.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Illustration based on original cc photo by GörlitzPhotography on Flickr

Tags crony capitalism, Lyft, tax, tax policy, taxi, taxicab, taxicabs, Uber

Accountability media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

Too Dangerous x 2

CIA, Director, Michael Hayden, Donald Trump, danger, Libertarian, Gary Johnson, illustration

“If he governs consistent with some of the things he’s said as a candidate, I would be very frightened,” former CIA Director Michael Hayden says about Donald Trump.

These are the words that begin an ominous television spot from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The advertisement concludes that Mr. Trump is “too dangerous.”

Hayden was director of the National Security Administration under President George W. Bush, before becoming the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and then moving to head the Central Intelligence Agency. He served at the CIA for only a few weeks into President Obama’s first term, but obviously Mrs. Clinton wouldn’t broadcast his negative view of Trump before millions of us in TV Land if she didn’t respect Mr. Hayden’s opinion.

Funny, yesterday on John Catsimatidis’s New York City radio program, Hayden declared, “I’m uncomfortable with the nominee of both of the major political parties.”

“John, a lot of my friends are saying that’s nice, Hayden, but you have to vote for one of them,” the former top spy offered, “but I’m not so sure I do.”

He doesn’t. Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson will be on all 50 state ballots and Green Party standard-bearer Jill Stein will be on most. And there are others.

“Somebody is going to win, but … I’m hoping they don’t think they’re sweeping into office with some powerful mandate,” Hayden continued. “And for people like me … to vote for some other choice, might deny them that sense of mandate, which would make, I think, things even worse.”

I’m no fan of Mr. Hayden, but regarding this? I agree.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Photo of Michael Hayden Credit: TechCrunch on Flickr (CC License)

Tags CIA, danger, Director, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, illustration, libertarian, Michael Hayden

Accountability ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers Popular

Smash the Duopoly

presidential, debates, duopoly, two party, illustration

When Donald Trump called our country’s electoral process a “rigged system,” he was not wrong. The system is a legally secured duopoly.

I’ve discussed a number of the elements of this system previously. But one I may not have explored enough is the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).

The League of Women Voters sponsored the first televised presidential debates in 1952, and from 1976 till 1988 ran a “tight ship,” as How Things Work puts it. After the League refused to cooperate with the bullying major parties, the CPD was established by former R and D bigwigs aiming to fully accommodate the major party candidates.

And no one else.

The CPD calls itself “non-partisan,” but that’s a misnomer. It is a bipartisan commission, as everyone who knows its history knows. The commission raised the bar on minor party candidates to polling 15 percent in a number of polls.

Recently, we’ve been hearing that the commission is preparing a third place on stage, for Libertarian candidate Gov. Gary Johnson. But he still hasn’t quite yet hit the prescribed percentage, though he has met the most important qualification: he is the only minor party candidate likely to be on all state ballots.

And now there’s a kicker. According to Brian Doherty, historian extraordinaire of Reason, “The Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative PAC (Solifico) [yesterday] morning sent a letter to Janet Brown, executive director of the [CPD], threatening to send the IRS after them over their policy of not allowing all legitimate candidates for president in their debates.”

The case looks solid.

And could secure for Johnson a podium at the debates.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, debate, debates, Gov Gary Johnson, libertarian, Presidential campaign 2016

Accountability folly general freedom ideological culture meme moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

Two Headed Beast

Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Godzilla, beast, business as usual, presidential, meme, illustration, collage

More War, More Cronyism, More Corporate Give-Aways, More CrowdedPrisons, More Taxes, More Regulations, More Drug War, More PoliceMilitarization and Civil Rights Violations, More Assaults on Free Speech, More Economic Bungling, More Debt, More Control, More Corruption.

Tags beast, business as usual, collage, Donald Trump, Godzilla, Hillary Clinton, illustration, meme, presidential

Accountability moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies responsibility too much government

Population to Government, “Hello”

Post author By CS Admin
Post date August 12, 2016
2 Comments on Population to Government, “Hello”

population, government planning, social security, ponzi, illustration

Government “central planning”? I’m against it.

But it’s socialism, fascism, and allied isms that I oppose. I’m not against “government planning.”

We could use some.

Take population. When government sets up complicated institutions, like Social Security or Medicare, those institutions must match the general trend of the number and make-up of those served.

Or else fail spectacularly.

But as everyone knows, Social Security was set up when the population was growing, and expected to continue … at a positive rate. The whole logic of the system depended on population growth.

What if populations shrink?

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now reports that the general U.S. “fertility rate has dropped back to its all time low of 62.5 children per 1,000 American women ages 15 to 44 years,” informs science writer Ronald Bailey.

The “total fertility” rate is now “1.84 children over the course of an American woman’s lifetime.”

A steady-state population replacement rate is thought to be 2.1 children per woman.

Trouble is, if your main institutions depend on population growth, and instead, population declines, things are liable to go catawampus.

No wonder European nations, which are undergoing even more startling negative population growth, flirt with allowing huge influxes of hard-to-assimilate refugees. At the back of governmental minds may be: how do we keep going?

Some of today’s social anxiety may have to do with this shift in population growth, and government strategy.

Before politicians try to plan a whole industry — like, say, “single-payer” medical services — maybe they should learn how to arrange the existing government, to accommodate the direction society demonstrably wants to go.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul is Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags central planning, government planning, population, Social Security

Accountability general freedom moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies too much government

Politicians Must Suffer

Politicians make us suffer. Isn’t turnabout fair play?

No. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And equal suffering is not a worthwhile goal.

Nonetheless, politicians do indeed need to “suffer” — by which I mean to bear a serious and sobering cost for their service in pubic office, to view their relationship with power through the lens of sacrifice … not as cashing-in.

Like every other decent person, I’ve always been offended by midnight pay raises and the myriad sneaky, sleazy ways that our so-called servants enrich themselves at our expense. But, until recently, I considered politicians being over-compensated as a symptom of the problem and not a big problem in and of itself.

Now I’m convinced that lavish pay, pensions and other benefits for city councilmen, state legislators and congressmen constitute a serious problem. It breeds bad behavior when politicians line their own pockets — and laugh their way into retirement.

But even without the tricks, when our representatives receive too many treats for their, ahem, “service,” they tend not to serve us very well.

Some contend that compensation must be “competitive” to attract the best and the brightest. But with rare exceptions, we’re not getting those folks to run for office. Instead of enticing successful people or those committed enough to public service to accept less lucrative pay, we’re getting folks who see public office as their path to success — personal financial success.

One cannot serve two masters. If our representatives are in it for their own benefits, as opposed to making a sacrifice for the greater good … well, we wind up with government like we have now.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF