Wednesday, December 07, 2011

Big Corporations in Overdrive: Regulation NEVER Helps Consumers

Proof # 456,987,321 that regulation never helps consumers.

Because it is actually not SUPPOSED to help consumers. It is supposed to help corporations.

NASHVILLE, Tenn.-- In June 2010 the Nashville Metropolitan City Council passed legislation raising the city's minimum fee for limo and sedan rentals, bumping it from $25 to $45. Drivers were prohibited by law from charging less. Other new regulations forbid limo companies from using leased vehicles, require cars to be dispatched only from the place of business, compel companies to wait 15 minutes before picking up a client, and ban parking in front of hotels and bars to wait for customers. More laws that take effect in January 2012 would also require companies to replace all sedans and SUVs over seven-years-old, and all limos 10-years-old and older. Vehicles older than five years cannot enter into service.

Passed under the guise of consumer protection, the net effect is to give large, existing car companies (also known as livery services) a huge advantage over smaller companies, and to effectively prevent any new companies from entering the market. Prior to the new laws, Tennesseans could purchase transportation from downtown Nashville to the airport in a limo or sedan for the same price as an average taxi ride. Nashville residents and visitors will now pay almost double for the same service.

Nashville folks in need of an affordable ride, and drivers looking to earn an independent living in a sagging economy, join a long line of people caught on the wrong end of a nationwide effort by big car services to squeeze extra profit by regulating competitors out of business. It's a case of regulations actually costing jobs and driving up costs, just as Republicans charge they always do. But this time, the regulations are being pushed by the GOP's so-called "job creators," the new name given to big business.


Two interesting things:

1. HuffPo admits "it's a case of regulations actually costing jobs and driving up costs..." Note the scare quotes implicitly surrounding "actually." Regulations really DO always cost jobs and drive up costs. There is no "actually" needed in that sentence. But HuffPo can't help itself; as a corporation herself (proving corporations are NOT human), Arriana may need her a slice of that good ol' regulation herself sometime. So there is that ridiculous, sarcastic "actually." Goofballs. (UPDATE: Radley B says the author is his intern. So perhaps I'm overreacting to the "actually." Mea culpa.)

2. On the other hand, the idea that "this time" the Republicans are on the wrong side of the issue is as naive as the "actually" was cynical. Of course the Republicans are on the wrong side of the issue. They are REPUBLICANS! Hypocrites.

Both of the state sponsored parties shake down corporations for campaign funds and support. Since the corporations aren't going to pay that, someone has to pick up the tab. Bend over, consumers! We are here to regulate you right up the gazotch.

Here's a fun game: Keith O and Arriana H talking about regulation. The object of the game...how long can you go before poking sharp sticks in both ears? I made it about 45 seconds. Perhaps YOU can do better.

(Nod to Joel R., who knows I'm right)

5 comments:

Joel said...

Joel R knows you are sort of right.

Does having a "state" make it harder or easier for the established players to screw the competition?

Jon P said...

Well, you have the Huffington Post article, and perhaps you have the collected wisdom of the female CEOs who recently testified about overregulation and regime uncertainty:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/05/female-ceos-point-to-over-regulation-uncertainty-as-major-hurdles-to-economic-recovery/

But the other side has a column by David Brooks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/opinion/brooks-the-wonky-liberal.html?hp

Sorry, bro, gotta knock your king over.

Mungowitz said...

Well, going all the way to WITHOUT a state is straw man move.

We need a state to enforce contracts, prevent theft, prosecute contract violations or thefts when they occur.

I would go so far as to say we could use the Sherman Act, and have the state prosecute attempts to monopolize or fix prices.

What I am objecting to is when the STATE fixes prices. That is a whole different thing.

So, I'm not sure why when I say "the state should not fix prices" you say "You think the state should do nothing?" It's just a non sequitur. The state should not fix prices.

Anonymous said...

Food safety and medical safety regulations have never benefited a single consumer?

Brittany said...

Such a great article it was which Nashville folks in need of an affordable ride, and drivers looking to earn an independent living in a sagging economy, join a long line of people caught on the wrong end of a nationwide effort by big car services to squeeze extra profit by regulating competitors out of business. It's a case of regulations actually costing jobs and driving up costs, just as Republicans charge they always do. Thanks for sharing this article.