Wednesday, February 14th, 2007,
by Fred (,
competition, economics, government, mitsubishi, toyota
,
Don Surber points to a potential “War on Toyota” and asks whether the government is punishing winners. Of course they are - that’s what governments do. Can’t compete in the marketplace? Get the government to beat down your competitors. Never mind that the Big 3 are still stuck in a buck-a-gallon mindset in which relying on big SUVs and light trucks was a good idea. It couldn’t be that Toyota makes products that people want at a price the market considers reasonable.
A commenter at Don’s site claims that Toyota got where it is by dumping goods in the US at “less than the price of manufacture” and relying on Japanese subsidies. I don’t buy it . Dumping claims are often a refuge for scoundrels - after all, no one can sell below cost for long, and such claims are thus mostly a plea for protectionism. Besides, if it’s unfair competition and government that got Toyota where it is, how do you explain Mitsubishi?
Share This
Tuesday, February 13th, 2007,
by Fred (,
government, Henrico, politics, transportation
,
Henrico County looks poised to eliminate its vehicle decal requirement.
County Manager Virgil Hazelett announced this morning that the board would consider an ordinance to abolish the vehicle decal at its regular meeting on Tuesday. Hazelett said he expected board members to support the measure.Henrico previously had issued new permanent decals to vehicle owners and required that they be displayed by Feb. 15. Some residents expressed concerns about the size of the new stickers, which can be discarded if the new ordinance is passed.
The local news has been full of people bitching about the “giant” 4×4 inch decals. Local contractor Collin Shaffer, for example, says they’re poster-sized:
“It looks like a poster,†says local construction contractor Collin Shaffer, who received the tax decals for his two cars last week in the mail and suffered a case of sticker shock when he stuck the thing on the windshield of his Mazda Miata.
“They’re huge,†Shaffer says. “It blocks — it hinders the view.â€
The new stickers are an inch taller than the old ones. Scary to think we were all an inch away from a fiery death before. I’ll be happy to see them go, not because they’re too big, but because it’s pain to take them off when you get a new one (the county’s so-called “permanent” sticker would have been good for 5 years anstead of one). Be prepared for lines at the landfill, as the gate attendant checks everybody’s license instead of using the county sticker to identify residents.
Share This
Wednesday, April 12th, 2006,
by Fred (,
baseball, government, taxes
,
Boston politicos are bent out of shape over private parking fees at Fenway
Mayor Thomas “Mumbles” Menino issued a statement saying he’s going to seek a city ordinance capping how much private lots can charge for parking. One of those city councilors called the rates “criminal,” and city officials are looking at ways to punish the lot owners — such as rigorous inspections, citations, and even pulling their parking licenses.Pardon me, but when the hell did “cheap parking” become a Constitutional right? Especially “cheap parking to go see a baseball game?”
Here’s a simple test for the parking socialists: check out the lots that charge the most on game day. If they’re full, then they’re not charging too much. People who can not or will not pay that much will say “screw it” and find another way to deal with it. The lot owners are not sending armed attendants out into the street to force people to park there.
The real issue here is not that the prices are too high, but that the city isn’t getting their piece of the pie. They see some people making really good money, and are infuriated that they can’t get their hands on it. To be financially successful is a bad thing, and must be punished.
Jay Tea’s absolutely right. This is free enterprise at work. If the prices are too high, the lots will be empty. Don’t want to pay $90? Drive a little further and walk. Or find alternative transportation. It’s none of the government’s business what these private landowners charge for parking. Or what private businesses charge for anything, for that matter, absent abuse of monopoly power or price fixing. But you never go wrong in Massachusetts defending the wallets of Red Sox Nation.
Share This
Tuesday, April 11th, 2006,
by Fred (,
government, spyware, technology
,
Eliot Spitzer is an ass, a scourge on capitalism who doesn’t mind littering his path to Albany with the hollow, zombie-eaten corpses of employers providing good jobs to Americans. But even a clock smashed with a hammer is right twice a day.
New York’s attorney general, Eliot L. Spitzer, sued another Internet pop-up advertising company, accusing it of secretly installing malicious programs on personal computers and sending ads through “spyware” that is already installed.Spitzer said Direct Revenue has installed millions of pop-up programs that also monitor the Internet activity of users. He asked a state court to stop the practice.
Prosecuting fraud is a legitimate use of the power of the AG. Spyware relies on secrecy, subterfuge and fraud to exist and spread. Lawsuits are unlikely to stop spyware, but every little bit helps.
[via Ace]
Share This
Tuesday, April 4th, 2006,
by Fred (,
CAFE, economics, government, regulation
,
The Post-Dispatch, which never saw a problem that couldn’t be solved with more government, takes on the President for not raising light truck CAFE standards enough
Not only are the mileage standards not as high as they could be, but they also exclude popular styles such as pickup trucks. Worse, the new standards exempt light trucks from the so-called gas-guzzler tax, which is imposed on vehicles that fail to meet mileage standards. Buyers of some models of cars have to pay the tax even though their cars get better mileage than the light trucks that were exempted. That could encourage truck sales at the expense of more fuel-efficient cars.
The President’s plan raises the standards from 22.2 mpg to 24 mpg over four years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, an increase in CAFE standards of 3.8 mpg would cost the US economy $3.6 billion per year. You won’t, however, see any discussion of cost in the Post’s editorial. Apparently, we just pick the money from the money tree.
The market is already able to deal with fuel economy, if dealing with fuel economy is necessary. Rising gas prices are likely to reduce demand for gas guzzlers. If consumers demand more economical choices, manufacturers will provide them. Government mandates and new taxes are not the answer.
Share This
Thursday, March 30th, 2006,
by Fred (,
censorship, government, Missouri, video games
,
Undeterred by the numerous court cases finding such bans unconstitutional, Missouri Democrats are pressing forward with a bill making it illegal to sell certain video games to minors
The gory excerpts, taken from the most violent of video games [Postal II], were offered as Exhibit A this week in favor of a bill banning the sale of such content to minors. The bill would make it a misdemeanor to sell games rated M for “mature,” or AO for “adults only” to anyone under age 17. It also would impose fines as high as $5,000 to retailers who fail to post information about game ratings.While shocked members of the committee echoed the need to protect children, critics warned of certain legal assault against such efforts. And they needed only to point to St. Louis County and Illinois, where similar bans have been toppled in court.
The last refuge of the censor is always “protect the children.” Parents, however, already have all the tools they need to protect their children. All video games are rated, indicating the appropriate ages for such games. Here are the ratings in question in Missouri:
MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language.
ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.
If you are a parent and don’t want your kids exposed to these games, don’t let them play games rated M or AO. Don’t know the rating of a game? Use the ESRB’s handy search feature, which will tell you that Postal 2 is rated M for “Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Mature Humor, Mature Sexual Themes, Strong Language and Use of Drugs”. Or search by rating - there are nearly three times more games rated Teen (13+) than rated M or AO.
It’s just more Sesame Street Nation - lazy parents and the easily offended would rather have a society where nothing is inappropriate for a child than put the responsibility of raising children where it belongs, on the parents.
More discussion, including lots of parents asking the government to do their jobs for them, at the Post’s Talk of the Day.
Share This
Thursday, March 30th, 2006,
by Fred (,
Ballwin, government, nanny state, smoking, St. Louis
,
Restaurant owners who have been harmed by the Ballwin smoking ban have banded together with other concerned citizens, vowing to defeat the re-election bids of Aldermen who voted for the ban
Opponents of a smoking ban are hoping to prevent the re-election of three aldermen who voted for the ban.Aldermen banned smoking in restaurants that don’t serve alcohol and other public places last year. On Jan. 2, the ban widened, and fires went out in ashtrays all over town in bars and restaurants serving alcohol.
Some restaurant and other business owners and residents opposed to the smoking ban have formed Concerned Citizens for a Better Ballwin. The group says that business is down at restaurants and that bar and restaurant owners blame the ban.
The targeted Aldermen include Tim Pogue, 1st Ward; Jane Suozzi, 2nd Ward; and Charlie Gatton, 4th Ward.
Elsa Barth, who owns the Seventh Inn Restaurant on Seven Trails Drive in Ballwin, said her sales were down 35 percent under the ban. Alderman Charlie Gatton, on the other hand, says that employees at local restaurants report that the businesses were doing as well if not better under the ban.
The Aldermanic candidates the group is supporting propose to replace the ban with an ordinance requiring businesses to post notices on their doors to say whether they are smoking or nonsmoking facilities. This is essentially the compromise proposal put forth in the District of Columbia during debate over the DC smoking ban. Tobacco abolitionists are unfazed with this appeal to personal choice and responsibility. According to the Post, “Martin Pion, president of Missouri Group Against Smoking Pollution Inc., said the opponents’ proposal is ‘pure tobacco-industry inspired.’”
There are a lot of non-smokers (like yours truly) who oppose smoking bans, not because we like the smell of smoke or exposure to smoke, but because it should be the exclusive province of property owners and not government to determine whether smoking is allowed. There will always be non-smoking establishments to cater to that market - why can’t there be smoking establishments for that market as well. If a non-smoker doesn’t want to be exposed to the smoke, just go somewhere else.
The last word goes to Concerned Citizens:
Peggy McCain, a spokesman for Concerned Citizens, said business owners, not the government, should decide whether to allow smoking.
“To me, it’s not about smoking or not smoking, it’s about freedom - as a citizen, to go to a smoking or nonsmoking establishment,” she said.
Share This
Wednesday, March 29th, 2006,
by Fred (,
advertising, government, St. Louis, taxes
,
St. Louis set to unveil new slogan, logo
The St. Louis ads will begin running in mid-April, marking the first time the slogan and logo will appear before a large national audience. The local marketing campaign is part of a larger, $20 million economic development program that’s being led by the St. Louis Regional Chamber & Growth Association.The five-year program was crafted amid concerns that St. Louis has trailed the nation in job growth over the last 30 years. The plan is being funded with public and private dollars…
The agency also hopes to persuade national reporters to write stories about St. Louis topics such as the efforts to build a biotech hub and revive downtown. In addition, plans call for more face-to-face meetings with consultants who advise companies on where to locate and for promotions at events such as an upcoming biotech conference in Chicago. A redesigned Web site is supporting the effort, too.
Putting aside the aesthetic merits of the logo (which aren’t many - what’s up with that upside-down exclamation point), the endeavor is not likely to have significant effect on job growth in St. Louis. If the region wants to attract business and create jobs, it should start with tax policy by repealing the St. Louis wage tax that drives existing business out of the city. A government that welcomes business and that doesn’t drive it out of town through high taxes would do a lot more good than a fancy new logo and ad campaign.
Share This
Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006,
by Fred (,
government, Missouri, ofallon, St. Charles county
,
Here’s a novel approach to open government - require any critics seeking records to post exorbitant deposits before records are released
A special city attorney and the wife of a former alderman have been asked to pay more than $34,000 if they want to see what the mayor, city staff and elected officials have been talking about over e-mail and cell phones during the past year.O’Fallon special attorney Richard Fischer said the city will not comply with five public record requests he made last month unless he first pays a $17,250 deposit to cover anticipated attorney fees to determine what can be released.
This all relates to a series of messy disputes in O’Fallon, which is now stuck with paying outside counsel $225 per hour for legal support because it doesn’t want to have special counsel who question the powers that be. So much for transparency in government.
Share This
Friday, March 17th, 2006,
by Fred (,
art, government, military, spending
,
Boing Boing has a post linking to a pretty graphic of federal spending on discretionary programs in 2004. Pretty, but incredibly misleading. The image exists first and foremost to make a political point:
Most people are unaware of how much of their taxes fund our military, and those aware are often misinformed. Well here it is. Laid out, easy to read and compare. With data straight from the White House. I hope this makes people think and ask questions. Why do we spend more on jets than we do on public housing? Why is the Endowment for the Arts so small? Whats with all this foreign military financing?
To make this political point, the artist conveniently ignores entitlement spending to argue that half of federal spending is devoted to the military. But ignoring entitlement spending makes no sense, given the significant portion of the total budget made up by such spending.
According to the spreadsheets available at the Office of Management and Budget site, total spending in the President’s FY2007 budget is about $2.7 trillion. The Department of Defense accounts for $504 billion of the total. The Department of Health and Human Services gets $699.5 billion. The Social Security Administration is allocated $623 billion. The Department of Education gets $64.4 billion. HUD gets $44.6 billion. Include mandatory spending, which accounts for $1.5 trillion of the budget (56%) and the analysis is much different.
Why do we spend more on jets than on public housing? Because jets are expensive. Any budget that spent more on public housing than jets would be (rightly) laughed out of Congress. Why is the Endowment for the Arts so small? Because the arts should support themselves - why isn’t the allocation zero? How about this question - why have we spent so much on social programs and received so little benefit in return?
Share This
