Posts tagged with: Business/Finance

Who is the biggest enemy of the free market system? The late Milton Friedman, one of the 20th century’s most prominent free market champions, had a surprising answer: the business community.

Economist Arnold Kling explains why support for markets and business are not the same thing:
(more…)

Blog author: jsunde
posted by on Tuesday, February 25, 2014

facebook_ad_large_1On-demand ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft are on the rise, allowing smartphone users to request cab drivers with the touch of a button. But though the services are popular with consumers and drivers alike, they’re finding less favor among their taxi-company competitors and the unions and government bureaucrats who protect them.

Calling for increased regulation, entrance fees, and insurance requirements, competitors are grappling to retain their privileged, insulated status. In Miami-Dade County, an area with particularly onerous restrictions and regulations, Diego Feliciano, president of the South Florida Taxicab Association, argues that the change is bound to “ruin the very thing it’s trying to improve,” all because it threatens the fat cats who pay his salary, and who can afford to jump through the regulatory hoops. “When looking at new technologies,” he writes, “we must also be sure people’s basic civil rights and the safety of the riding public are protected.”

Bringing these petty municipal battles into the limelight, actor Ashton Kutcher, an early investor in Uber, recently appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live, decrying “antiquated legislation,” “old-school monopolies,” and “old-school governments” who continue to stand in the way of innovation and consumer demand. In areas like Miami, Kutcher says, there is a “Mafioso mentality” against letting the “new guys” in.

Indeed, as Miami’s Feliciano aptly demonstrates, the protectionist mindset only sees what is, viewing economic activity in static and self-centered terms, and failing to recognize or value the type of opportunity and possibility that comes with increased freedom and ownership. Feliciano claims that he’s interested in “safety” and “basic civil rights,” but the only folks being protected are those with power and pocketbooks. (more…)

Blog author: sstanley
posted by on Thursday, February 20, 2014

minwage11Acton’s Director of Research, Samuel Gregg, recently  wrote about the effects of raising the minimum wage at the National Review Online. The latest CBO report estimates that increasing the minimum wage to over $10/hour in 2016 will not greatly affect the poorest in society; it is estimated that this increase will only help 2% of those living in poverty. The benefit of the increase will go to people “already comfortably above the poverty line.” Gregg discusses this phenomenon:

Is that just?

Given the minimal (pardon the pun) effects of mandated minimum wages upon poverty, one must ask why some people invest so much intellectual energy and political capital in a policy that tends to benefit, for example, teenagers and young people from comfortable backgrounds who won’t be staying in minimum-wage jobs for very long.

In part it’s the top-down approach at work. Legislating minimum wages gives us the illusion that legislators and governments can flip a switch and make things better. Legislated minimum wages, however, aren’t immune from the workings of supply and demand. (more…)

Blog author: ehilton
posted by on Wednesday, February 19, 2014

The much-maligned 1%. Websites are devoted to getting them to spread their wealth. They are called self-pitying, greedy…just all-around bad folk.

Really?

In today’s Wall Street Journal, James Piereson says the 1% are actually hard-working people like the rest of us. They have jobs. They earn their money. Maybe they earn more money that most of us, but they do earn it; they aren’t trust fund babies or spoiled heirs. (more…)

Blog author: jsunde
posted by on Tuesday, February 4, 2014

In a new video from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the Green Family, owners of the embattled retail chain, Hobby Lobby, discusses the religious foundation of their business and the threat the federal government now poses to those who share their beliefs.

“What’s at stake here is whether you’re able to keep your religious freedom when you open a family business,” says Lori Windham, Senior Council at The Becket Fund, “whether you can continue to live out your faith in the way that you live every aspect of your life.” (more…)

Blog author: ehilton
posted by on Friday, January 31, 2014

Watch as employees at a small Pennsylvania business learn about their new benefits under the Affordable Care Act.

Blog author: ehilton
posted by on Monday, January 27, 2014

Hobby Lobby, an arts and crafts retailer with 588 stores across the U.S. is involved in a federal lawsuit against the HHS mandate. Aided in their legal fight by The Becket Fund, Hobby Lobby wants people to know what is at stake in their fight against the federal government’s mandate that employers must include birth control, abortifacients and abortions in employee health care coverage. David Green, founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby has stated:

My family and I are encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide our case. This legal challenge has always remained about one thing and one thing only:  the right of our family businesses to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the constitution. Business owners should not have to choose between violating their faith and violating the law.

In addition, the company has released this video:

RedistributionofWealthAre you a fan of redistribution? Do you think those with more money should willingly or unwillingly spread the wealth? Do you believe the government should step in and help with the redistribution process? Well, economist Donald Boudreaux has a few questions for you.

    • Do you teach your children to envy what other children have? Do you encourage your children to form gangs with their playmates to “redistribute” toys away from richer kids on the schoolyard toward kids not so rich? If not, what reason have you to suppose that envy and “redistribution” become acceptable when carried out on a large scale by government?

    (more…)

    250px-Bankruptcy_monopolyAaron M. Renn’s reflections on the implications of Detroit’s bankruptcy are worth reading, especially as relate to the DIA, a topic of some previous interest over the last year or so:

    In the case of the DIA, the city owns the museum and the collection. Hence the question of whether or not art should be sold to satisfy debts. If it were typical separately chartered non-profit institution, this wouldn’t even be a question.

    At this point, I’d suggest cities ought to be taking a hard look at whether they own assets like museums, zoos, etc. that should be spun off into a separate non-profit entity. Keep in mind, the tax dollars that support the institutions can continue flowing to it. But this does protect the assets in the event of a bankruptcy.

    I think Renn’s advice is spot on, but I would also caution that Detroit’s experience might not be replicable elsewhere. As DIA director Graham Beal put it previously, the DIA’s dilemma is “singular and highly complicated.”

    How many cities own art collections worth potentially billions of dollars? Not too many, I’d suspect. And just what would the motivation be for city governments to reduce assets that could be leveraged in bankruptcy negotiations? What is in the best interest of the institution may not be in the interests of the city government and pensioners.

    The DIA might be something like Detroit’s “Get out of Bankruptcy Free” card. (Or if not “free,” then less scathed than otherwise. And that’s not counting the loss of cultural treasures, of course!) But even so it’s a card that can only be played once, and it’s a card that other cities might not have.

    Blog author: jsunde
    posted by on Tuesday, December 31, 2013

    ????????????????????????????????????In a recent piece for the Wall Street Journal, Emory economics professor Paul H. Rubin makes an interesting argument about the way economists tend to over-elevate and/or misconstrue the role of competition in the flourishing of markets.

    “Competition plays a supporting role,” he argues, but “cooperation makes markets thrive”:

    The way we use the term competition instead of cooperation fosters anti-market bias. “Competition” carries a negative connotation because it implies winners and losers, and our minds naturally feel sympathy for the losers. But cooperation evokes a positive response: It’s a win-win situation with no losers. And in fact the word competition doesn’t depict market activity as aptly as the word cooperation. The “competitive economy” would be better described as the “cooperative economy.”

    Consider the most basic economic unit, the transaction. A transaction is cooperative because both parties gain from a voluntary exchange. There is competition in markets, but it’s actually competition for the right to cooperate. Firms must compete for the privilege of selling to consumers—for the right to cooperate with consumers. Workers compete for the right to cooperate with employers. Competition matters because it ensures that the most efficient players will gain the right to cooperate on the best terms available. But competition plays a supporting role, while cooperation makes markets thrive. (more…)