Love of Liberty : regulation

Those Small Government Republicans

ChrisR — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:27:00 GMT

Arianna Huffington writes:

Ronald Reagan, in his first inaugural address, famously declared that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

Twenty-seven years later, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and seven-plus years into the reign of Bush and Cheney, Reagan's anti-government battle cry should be on trial. But, stunningly, it is not.

Yet, when I bring up a chart of the federal budget, I have a hard time seeing even the hint of a downtrend.

The Federal budget under Reagan was around $0.5 trillion.....We're now over $3 Trillion!

It appears the Democrats are trying to re-live the New Deal years.

But will Americans buy it this time?

Will Americans believe that it is lack of government spending and regulating that is the problem?

You Can't Force People to Value "Health"

ChrisR — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:11:00 GMT

Over on the LRC blog, Karen De Coster wrote a post covering the news that Los Angeles authorities are going to ban the opening of new fast food restaurants within a 32-square-mile area of the city.

Karen then pointed out that:

"Obesity and the non-upkeep of one's body and/or health is the preference for immediate satisfaction as opposed to long-term maintenance, good looks, and good health. It is a choice. Greasy burger now .... umm good .... consequences later. "Later" means one can assign the ill effects of a choice to some point out in the future and convince themselves that later will never really come (or they won't really notice it), because it's not right now. Obesity is a time preference issue. The greasy burger tastes good now, and people with high time preferences care about right now - not later."

I think she makes a great point, and I'd like to add a few of my own thoughts on this issue.

First, each individual values his/her health in a different way. Some people take exquisite care of themselves...some not so much...and others can literally care less.

It's a choice.

In the marketplace, restaurants do their best to satisfy consumer desires. If a neighborhood contains a bunch fast-food restaurants, it's an indication that this is the type of food that is desired most. After all, if consumers were the ones who had a problem with fast-food places, they'd stop patronizing them and the restaurants would go out of business. Unfortunately, it is not the customers who have the problem, but the social engineers. The social engineers would like to force people to value healthier foods.

That's not going to happen.

If someone doesn't value healthier foods, no law will make it so. That individual will just find another way finding a supply of the food he/she desires. Perhaps he/she will go 32 miles out and "stock up" on chicken nuggets and bring them home to store in the freezer. Or maybe he or she will buy their unhealthy food at the supermarket, or convenience store. The point is, people cannot be forced into valuing anything.

I believe fast-food places serve a very valuable purpose. They provide cheap (and tasty) food, with very little wait time. Many times I've been out on the road, and places like McDonald's were there to supply exactly what I wanted. Perhaps I didn't have the time (or the funds) to sit down in a more expensive place for a full-course meal.

But what if the more expensive sit-down place was my only option? I would have been out of luck.

From the looks of it, lots of people in Los Angeles are going to have to expend more time and energy to get the food that they really want.

Central Planning Fuel-Efficiency

ChrisR — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:59:00 GMT

From AP:

Congressional Democrats reached a compromise late Friday to boost automobile fuel economy by 40 percent, clearing the way for a House vote probably next week...Automakers would be required to meet an industrywide average of 35 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks, including SUVs, by 2020...

My question is, how do they know 35mpg is the "correct" amount? How do they know it's not 30mpg or 45mpg?

Why can't car manufacturers look at their profit and loss statements and see what their customers really want? Suppose their customers want cars that average 20mpg?

Why use arbitrary figures, when the market can give you a very accurate description of what should and should not be produced?