Tag Archives: legislation

Demolition Derby

Posted on by adamrule
1

The United States looks to be following Germany, France, Italy and Spain in subsidizing destruction.  On Tuesday, the House approved a “cash for clunkers” bill that would give car-owners vouchers worth up to $4,500 if they would trade in their old vehicles for newer, more fuel efficient ones.  The bill directs dealers to crush or shred traded in vehicles to ensure they cannot be resold.  Bill proponents hope the measure will boost the automobile sales and clean up the environment.

While new and fuel efficient cars are to be desired, destroying old vehicles is not the way to go about obtaining them.  The fact is this bill will actually lower the American standard of living, not raise it.  What is seen is the greater incidence of new vehicles on the road.  What is not seen is the number of goods that have foregone production because the money that would have been used to buy them was put into a new car instead.

Take for example a person owning a $3,000 dollar old car and having $20,000 dollars to spend, having a net worth of $23,000.  They take the government incentive, scrap their old car and buy a new fuel efficient one costing $20,000.  Since the Government subsidy is $4,500, the citizen went to purchase the car expecting to pay only $15,500, and having $4,500 of their own $20,000 left in pocket.  Thus with a $20,000 car and $4,500 in pocket, their net worth has gone from $23,000 to $24,500.  Imagine their surprise when they go to pay and have only $15,500 in their pocket!  What happened to the rest of the money?

Government subsides are supported by taxpayers, so last week this certain citizen had to pay $4,500 for the new “cash for clunker” tax, which they had forgotten about.  So in the end, they have only just enough money to buy the $20,000 car.  Being completely broke, their net worth has fallen from $23,000 to $20,000 dollars.

Look at Frederic Bastiat’s broken window fallacy for a better explanation of this phenomenon.

Adam Rule – MCPP Intern

We Can Fix That Too!

Posted on by jsrule
Reply

<>< Josh Rule : : 2008 MCPP Intern

Yesterday, I wrote about the Aerolineas Argentinas, which, although privatized for nearly 20 years, is now being nationalized again.  As I wrote the article, I was thinking to myself, “Why do governments always make the mistake of getting involved in private business?  At least nothing quite so blatant is happening in the U.S. right now.  We are all too focused on the election.”

I stand corrected. Continue reading →

A Simple Question

Posted on by jsrule
5
from 53x.org

from 53x.org

<>< Josh Rule : : 2008 MCPP Intern

I attend university in Illinois, and the past couple of years, a new law (well, lots and lots of laws actually…) has gone into effect.  It’s the ban on smoking in public facilities across the state of Illinois.  Most of the individuals I have talked with really appreciate this law, because it makes the air in restaurants, hotels, and most other public venues that much cleaner.  In fact, I am very appreciative of this law, because I simply don’t like cigarette smoke.

Yet, this law is in absolute defiance of the freedoms held by individuals and entrepreneurs throughout the state.  Why, many of the smoke shops have had to shut down their smoking rooms!  How is a quality cigar and pipe dealer supposed to do business?  Well, I know the answer to this question… repeal the law.  That is really the only way to restore people’s freedoms – get rid of the impediments.  Yet, what can the private sector continue to do, especially individuals, to encourage public facilities to go smoke-free?  Any ideas?  Let me know in the comments.

More Commentary on the Proposed RMGN Amendment

Posted on by jsrule
3

<>< Josh Rule : : 2008 MCPP Intern

(Remember, the views expressed at these links are not necessarily the views of Trying Liberty or the interns who blog here.  Thanks.)

Grand Rapids Pundit:  Grand Rapids Pundit also had a thing or two to say.

Greedy Capitalist: Greedy Capitalist writes a few paragraphs with its view of the situation.

Point of Law: Point of Law posted a follow up piece that simply notices how pervasive the RMGN powerpoint seems to be in the Michigan political blogosphere today.

Michigan Liberal: rich talks about how the proposed RMGN amendment is nothing like the reform it proposes to be.

Right Michigan: A bit of a rant, accompanied by a funny Youtube clip.

Mackinac Center: Mackinac Center Director of Labor Policy Paul Kersey thanks Jim Vote, the intern who discovered the powerpoint (and an ocassional blogger here at Trying Liberty) for his dedication and hard work.

Detroit News: Charlie Cain on the proposed Michigan Chamber of Commerce lawsuit against RMGN.

Detroit Free Press: Dawson Bell on the proposed Michigan Chamber of Commerce lawsuit against RMGN.

Michigan Liberal: Michigan Liberal devotes an entire section of Friday’s ‘Coffee Talk’post to the Mackinac Center’s discovery.

Lansing State Journal: LSJ reporter Derek Wallbank characterizes the powerpoint as an “epic fail”.

MIGOP: MIGOP mentions in a link-list post (like this one, really) the opinion from the other part of the partisan game.

Political Debris: Bill Baker writes a brief introduction to the Charlie Cain article mentioned later in this post.

Taking Care of Business: A quick blurb announcing the Mackinac Center discovery.

Our Midland: Midland Daily News-based forum with a thread on the proposed RMGN amendment.

Detroit News: Another Kathy Barks Hoffman article on the RMGN powerpoint discovery by a Mackinac Center intern.

mlive.com: Peter Luke writes a fairly long post about the discovery of the powerpoint, and how the proposal has been viewed by the Democratic Party prior to the Mackinac Center’s announcement.

American Courthouse: Dan Pero writes at American Courthouse and calls for action.

Point of Law: James R. Copland writes briefly with a slightly more legal analysis.

Detroit News: Charlie Cain comments on the discovery of the powerpoint, what it means, and how groups around the state, including the UAW 1-C and the MEA, have reacted.

Associated Press: Associated Press coverage of the news as it broke, by Kathy Barks Hoffman.  It is showing up on the mlive.com, examiner.com, Chicago Tribune, Detroit News, and Oakland Press websites, among others.

Detroit Free Press: Dawson Bell, Free Press Lansing Bureau, and his opinion on the matter.

Detroit Free Press: Ron Dzwonkowski wonders if the situation is “A partisan gotcha?”

Detroit Free Press: Stephen Henderson asks, “Does Anyone Play Fair?”

Mackinac Center: Official Mackinac Center commentary from President Lawrence Reed, Paul Kersey, Michael Jahr, as well as links to the original story from Trying Liberty and the powerpoint.  Mackinac is also tracking additional news stories.

The Frank Beckmann Show: WJR’s Frank Beckmann talking with the Mackinac Center’s Paul Kersey and Patrick Wright about the powerpoint and its significance.  The recording finishes with comments from Dianne Byrum, who spoke on the 16 Jul 2008 show.

Ballotpedia.org: The ‘Michigan Legislative and Judicial Restructuring Initiative (2008)’page on Ballotpedia mentions that a Mackinac Center intern “discovered a PowerPoint presentation.”

Jack McHugh’s post:  Jack has just been cross-posted at SFE (Students for a Free Economy), RightMichigan, and RedState.

Grand Rapids Libertarian:  loungedaddy at Grand Rapids Libertarian has some fairly pointed dialogue on the issue.

RightMichigan:  Nick at RightMichigan breaks down what he thinks are some of the more important ideas presented in the powerpoint describing the RMGN proposal.  It has been crossposted on colecurtis-colecurtis.

Yahoo!:  Yes, the discovery has made it to Yahoo! news.

(This post will probably be quite fluid in the next days and weeks.  Please continue to check back for additional links relating to Jim Vote’s discovery of the seemingly partisan nature of the proposed Reform Michigan Government Now constitutional amendment.)

More to Come…

Up Is Up

Posted on by hkmead
2

-Hannah Mead, MCPP intern, 2008

(Or, in Michigan’s case, down is down.)

As I crawled through legislative records, I found this charming provision in the Michigan Consumer Protection Act of 1976:

(1) Unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce are unlawful and are defined as follows:

…

(z) Charging the consumer a price that is grossly in excess of the price at which similar property or services are sold.

I, for one, am certainly glad to know that it’s not only economically impossible for me to sell a pencil for $1000 but illegal as well. While we’ve got the laws of supply and demand mandated in legislation, we may as well codify scientific laws. Why don’t they legislate that all goods displayed in stores are to rest on the top of the shelves instead of magically floating above them?