Tag: pricing

Categories
free trade & free markets property rights too much government

First, Stop Doing That

zoning, regulations, buildings, permits

If a government’s taxes and regulations are making shelter ever more expensive, what should that government do instead?

Stop pushing the disastrous policies, perhaps?

Unlike some other governors who shall remain nameless (one of them rhymes with “DeSantis”), Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin understands that you don’t make things better by making them worse.

In August, Youngkin bluntly told a state senate committee that Virginia homes are too expensive and that a major cause is government interference with the market: “unnecessary regulations, over-​burdensome and inefficient local governments, restrictive zoning policies, and an ideology of fighting tooth and nail against any new development.”

The many bottlenecks include low-​density zoning rules that permit only a single house per property. Arlington County, Virginia, is one local government working to reform zoning so that more houses can be built on a property.

In November, Youngkin proposed a Make Virginia Home plan to unravel many regulations. City Journal notes that although the plan is “short on details,” it’s a good start.

Under the governor’s plan, the state would streamline environmental reviews, investigate how to liberalize the state’s building codes and land-​use and zoning laws, impose deadlines on local governments to speed up approvals of development, and give local governments incentives to adopt their own market-​liberating reforms.

This agenda is indeed only a beginning. But it does recognize a major cause of sky-​rocketing housing costs and what must be done to begin to reduce those costs.

That’s just Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-​E2

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
folly nannyism property rights too much government

Fishy Schemes Against Human Beings

California Drought Fish

Arbitrary governmental pricing of water — as opposed to free-​market pricing — provides one major reason why it’s so hard for Californians and others to deal with drought.

I’ve talked about it before. And, as before — indeed, as is so often the case when government constricts our freedom to “solve” problems — the do-​badders are pursuing more than one line of attack.

Under-​pricing plus edicts about how we may use water are bad enough, sure. But that kind of central planning is just one method of making it harder to quench thirst and water lawns and crops. Another method? Diverting massive amounts of water from the service of human needs in order to “help” a few expendable fish.

In his Reason article “California Drought a Shortage of Water or Common Sense?,” Steven Greenhut laments fishy schemes to lower reservoir levels and drain a lake near the Sierra foothills “to help coax a handful of steelhead trout to swim to the ocean.” Handful? Maybe not quite. Nine fish. A mere nine.

The Lake Tulloch Alliance estimated that up to $2 million in water value would have to be expended to save each individual fish.

Thanks to coverage like Greenhut’s and Stephen Moore’s, and the resultant public outcry — plus the eventual resistance of local water district officials to the environmental demands of state and federal agencies — this particular attempt by radical environmentalists to elevate fish life above human life has been deflected. At least for now.

But there are more battles to come.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

California Drought Fish

 

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Biting the Apple

Apple is on trial for refusing to pretend that the company has done something wrong.

In 2009, Apple invited five major publishers to sell e‑books through the forthcoming iPad, on the basis of the “agency model.” The publishers would set the prices, Apple would take a 30% cut. Apple also required that the e‑books not be sold more cheaply elsewhere.

The publishers were happy to agree because Amazon had been buying new e‑books wholesale and steeply discounting them, sometimes at a loss to itself, in order to sell them at $9.99. In the eyes of the publishers, this price seemed too low a benchmark. Apple’s deal gave them new clout in negotiating with Amazon.

The government says average book prices rose in the wake of this “conspiracy.” Apple says prices declined. It’s irrelevant.

To charge a price that some persons dislike violates nobody’s rights. Nor does stipulating terms of contract that a prospective partner dislikes and may reject. Anti-​trust law has nothing to do with justice. It’s a bludgeon that some businesses — in conspiracy with the government — use to thwack competitors.

No violation of anyone’s rights has even been claimed in this case, let alone established. Yet five innocent parties have been forced to pay tens of millions to the government and accede to curtailment of their right to contract. And Apple, having refused to be bullied, must defend itself in court.

That’s the crime, and government officials are the ones committing it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Doctoring, Priced

Any number of economists will tell you that medicine just has to be different from other goods and services provided on the market. They will offer elaborate theories to explain, for instance, why competitive markets won’t work for health care, and why more government is necessary, and why, in fact, today’s hospitals don’t publish their prices.

I see this mainstream “explanation” as mere apologetics, designed to justify evermore government. The truth is that medicine is “different” because legislation — at local, state, and federal levels — has made the industry different. It’s an accident of history, not something “natural” to this particular market.

But, as Obamacare further consolidates medicine under the government rubric, there appear some daring examples of non-​compliance. The latest is from Dr. Michael Ciampi, of South Portland, Maine, whose family practice group has stopped accepting insurance payments of any kind, public or private.

Posting its prices on the Web, Ciampi Family Practice claims to offer substantial savings over other providers. And other benefits, too, including house calls:

Because we no longer contract with insurance companies, Medicare or Medicaid, we can be more flexible and innovative. We use technology when it helps us take better care of patients, but we refuse to use it for technology’s sake. We will not spend our visit staring at a computer screen instead of looking at you. We can also spend more time with patients than the typical provider in a “big box” medical practice.… We do not have physician assistants or nurse practitioners.

Ciampi is not the only (or biggest) provider to do this.

Could competition just erupt without a government-​provided “solution”? Could “the market” provide the leadership medicine needs now?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.