Even at his worst, I doubt Longshanks would ever have done something as horrible as impose minimum alchohol prices throughout Scotland! Not only is this the nanny state at its stupidest, but it is bad economics, as well. How does the government have any idea what the minimum price for alcohol in Scotland should be? Markets, not governments, set correct prices. The Scottish health secretary said:

“Getting the price right is vital for minimum pricing to work — too low and it will simply be ineffective. After careful consideration, we believe that 45p per unit is the right price.”

The chances that the government set the “right” price are zero. There is no such thing as a “right” price set by government. The “right” price for alcohol, and everything else, is set by the interaction of constantly changing supply and demand curves. The “right” price is different for different people at different times, whether buyers or sellers. In fact, we just produced a video about the dynamics of market pricing — and I can assure that the video in no way involved any alcohol.

The Scottish policy is ostensibly being implemented for health reasons. I won’t get into the antitrust, anti-dumping implications of the regulation of minimum prices. I believe that is a separate issue, albeit related.

For advocates of free markets, St. Louis city presents a disturbing environment for the conduct of business. Indeed, the fact that so few construction projects occur here in the absence of subsidy necessarily makes the rare market-based development a news item in its own right. But what about projects that do not make the news?

Pictured above in August 2010 is the 1818 Washington Ave. Building in downtown St. Louis. Paired main entry doors punctuate the center of the building’s primary facade, while four ground-level storefront bays are at right. A pizza restaurant occupies this retail space, displaying a bright red-on-white background ”Now Open” sign, in addition to handsome neon signs for Bud Light and Bud Light Lime.

Two blocks to the southwest, at 2001 Olive St., a one-story building features plywood boards over the entirety of its glazed area. Permanent signage for the pizza place remains atop this building, while a banner reading “We Will be Relocating to 1818 Washington Ave. July 1st, 2010,” with red lettering on a white background, hangs from a ground-level storefront bay at left.

In a truly competitive free market, the story would end here: A business moved from one building to another. So what?

As this business relocation occurred in St. Louis city, however, legislated market distortion and an administrative exercise in symbolic violence likely contributed to the outcome pictured above.

On the legislative front:

Ordinances 67319, 67462 and 67463 designated 1818 Washington Ave. as a redevelopment area, executed a redevelopment agreement between the developer and the city of St. Louis, and authorized “$2,380,000 Plus Issuance Costs” in Tax Increment Financing (TIF) notes for the construction of 1818 Washington and another nearby project.

On the administrative front:

In addition to TIF, the 1818 Washington project stands to utilize “Federal and State Historic Tax Credit programs.” Combined, they could yield up to 45 percent of the project’s costs in tax credits for the developer — 20 percent for the federal credit; 25 percent for the state credit. (The building is a contributing resource in the “Lucas Avenue Industrial Historic District (Boundary Increase),” after all.)

In a free market, favorable lease terms or a street address on the vaunted Washington Avenue could prove enticements enough for a business to relocate. In St. Louis city, we are instead left to ask what role public monies are playing in a business location decision, and whether associated municipally approved TIF legislation is actually legal.

Missouri TIF law states the following in §92.805(4), RSM0:

For redevelopment projects or redevelopment plans approved after December 23, 1997, if a retail establishment relocates within one year from one facility to another facility within the same county and the governing body of the municipality finds that the relocation is a direct beneficiary of tax increment financing, then for purposes of this definition, the economic activity taxes generated by the retail establishment shall equal the total additional revenues from economic activity taxes which are imposed by a municipality or other taxing district over the amount of economic activity taxes generated by the retail establishment in the calendar year prior to its relocation to the redevelopment area;

If the pizza restaurant succeeds at growing its revenues dramatically at its new location, the rehabilitated building’s developer will prosper as government loses funds that it would receive were the restaurant not in a TIF district. Had the rehabilitated building attracted a business truly new to St. Louis city, government would receive a greater share of the TIF project’s associated revenues.

Subsidizing projects that displace economic activities from one site to another is a losing proposition for cities and their residents. In St. Louis city, the elimination of TIF would allow our community to awake from its current nightmare of ever-increasing taxes and instead move us toward broadly shared prosperity, courtesy of the free market.

From an article by the Associated Press (hat tip to Audrey Spalding):

Gov. Jay Nixon, who signed the legislation, has traveled the state promoting job expansions in other industries. He expressed little concern Friday about the potential loss of jobs for strippers and others in the adult entertainment industry.

“I do not believe that the economy of the future of my state will be built on that industry,” Nixon said.

If a person disapproves of the exotic services industry, then he or she may choose not to patronize those businesses. It is quite another thing, however, to prevent other individuals from engaging in voluntary market transactions.

The problem in Missouri is that the state government is propping up industries that are failing, and simultaneously squashing industries that are successful without subsidy in the private sector. Individuals and businesses should not be given special advantages over others — even if one economic activity (e.g., exotic dancing) is viewed as less glamorous or moral than another (e.g., filmmaking or computer services). Restrictions such as this one create inequality because they force unfavored businesses to compete at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace. This invites corruption as a consequence, because the restrictions incite individuals and businesses to petition the government for special treatment.

If the state government in Missouri were serious about promoting economic development, it would stop attempting to pick and choose the economic activities that occur within its borders. This strategy didn’t work for the Soviet Union, and it won’t work for Missouri, either.

Newsweek ran a good article on “New Orleans’ Charter-School Revolution” yesterday, and it shows the possibilities of a very open charter school system:

In most public school systems in America, students attend the school for which their neighborhood is zoned. But in the five years since Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans has created a school system unlike any other in the country. “We used Katrina as an opportunity to build—not rebuild, but build—a new school system,” says Paul Vallas, the outgoing superintendent of the Recovery School District, which, authorized by the state to turn around failing schools, took over most of New Orleans’s schools after the storm. Last year more than 60 percent of the city’s students attended charter schools; this year nine additional schools switched to a charter model, so that number will be higher. Vallas calls this new paradigm an “overwhelmingly publicly funded, predominantly privately run school system.”

In 2005 Orleans Parish was the second-worst-performing school district in the state, and in some schools 30 percent of seniors dropped out over the course of the year. In 2003 one high-school valedictorian failed the math portion of the state exit exam five times and could not graduate. Things were different at the charters: at New Orleans Charter Middle School, which in 1998 became the city’s first charter school, parents would put their head in their hands and cry if their child’s name didn’t come up in the admissions lottery.

In New Orleans today, students and educators have unprecedented leeway to mold educational experiences. Students can apply to and, if accepted, choose to attend any of the [...] 46 charter schools or 23 “traditional” schools. The vast majority of schools have open-enrollment policies that allow any student to attend, regardless of past academic success. (Schools with more applicants than spots hold lotteries.) The prevalence of charters means that in most of the city’s schools, educators can choose how their schools are run. Even in traditional schools, principals have unusual autonomy over the hiring—and firing—of teachers, since the city’s teachers’ union lost its collective-bargaining rights.

So far, the experiment appears to be working. Before Katrina, two thirds of students were attending schools deemed failing by state standards, notes Leslie Jacobs, a New Orleans education-reform advocate; in the 2010–11 academic year, she says, it will be less than one third. “The fact that we haven’t gotten everything right yet shouldn’t take away from the fact that we’re getting a whole lot more right,” she says. New Orleans schools are still performing below the state average on achievement tests, but according to Jacobs’s analysis of state data, the gap between New Orleans and the rest of the state has basically been cut in half.

Obviously, that’s far from perfect, but it’s more improvement than the city saw under the old regime. I also think that the teacher union’s loss of collective bargaining rights is a big reason that charters schools have the chance to succeed in New Orleans. Public school teacher unions typically act as a special interest groups hell-bent on stopping any kind of competition to the public school model, so they lobby for laws restricting options like vouchers, education tax credits, and charter schools. Missouri, for instance, has fairly strict rules on charters requiring them to have an academic sponsor and restricting their operations to the cities of Saint Louis and Kansas City.

Still, students in Missouri’s charter schools can be expected to outperform their public school counterparts over time, according to a study by Standford University’s Center for Research on Education, which my colleague Josh Smith blogged about last year. If Missouri offered an even more welcoming environment to charter schools — by, say, letting them operate anywhere in the state — we might be able to come closer to matching the impressive gains of the New Orleans’ schools. At the very least, the research shows that charter schools can replicate the academic accomplishments of public schools at a much lower cost, which is still a net benefit over the status quo.

Again, the evidence shows that schools are like most other institutions in that they perform best when their stakeholders have alternatives and choose which establishment to patronize.

The Wall Street Journal ran an article about how the state of New York is assessing taxes on sliced or prepared bagels — but not on unsliced bagels — at around $0.08 per bagel. The article illustrates the fact that selective taxes come with high costs of compliance.

It also shows the way in which high selective taxes negatively affect businesses — in this case, bagel stores. This tax could cause customers to patronize restaurants that are not subject to a higher marginal tax rate, instead of frequenting bagel stores. (This leads me to wonder whether the pizza or sandwich industries were behind this measure.)

What is the rationale of taxing sliced bagels over non-sliced bagels? Over other breads? Over other food products? Is consuming sliced bagels a behavior that should be deterred?

There are many calls to tax “sinful” products such as soda, cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, fatty food, and tanning because their consumption is linked to health conditions like obesity and cancer. Is consuming sliced bagels, as opposed to non-sliced bagels, similarly linked to a negative health condition?

I wonder whether restaurants in states that border New York are benefiting from increased sales of sliced bagels.

This is a teachable moment for the state government in Missouri. Instead of assessing a complicated myriad of selective taxes, like New York is doing, Missouri should implement a tax climate that is broadly based.

Santiago, Chile, is a city of more than 5 million people, with one of the highest standards of living in Latin America. In the latest episode of EconTalk, host Russ Roberts of George Mason University talks to Mike Munger of Duke about the city’s mass transportation system. In the middle part of the last decade, Santiago featured a flourishing system of private buses, with more than 3,000 companies offering quick and inexpensive transportation all over the city and mostly managing to turn a profit. The system was not without its flaws, however. The buses emitted a great deal of pollution, and overzealous bus drivers often caused accidents or hit pedestrians in efforts to pick up passengers before their competition.

Such problems led the government to scrap the private system in favor of a public one in 2007, and Munger explains how this led to far worse outcomes on pretty much every measure. The average commute for a mass transit rider immediately skyrocketed from 40 minutes to an hour and 40 minutes. This encouraged more people to drive or use small taxi services, feeding a vicious cycle. Furthermore, because bus drivers are paid based on how often they are on time, they have no incentive to stop for passengers at bus stops if they are running late. The extremely lengthy lines for buses routinely lead to pushing and shoving to board and fights often break out. Although the public system was specifically designed to solve safety problems in the private system, the number of wrecks actually increased because the city purchased extra long bendy buses, which require two lanes to turn, so cars frequently crash into them. Finally, the system as a whole went from running a profit of $60 million to requiring a government subsidy of $600 million — more than $100 for every resident of Santiago.

Munger argues that the problems with the private buses could have been solved relatively easily without resorting to socializing the system. A very minimal licensing requirement could ensure that the buses do not emit excess levels of pollutants, and the enforcement of property rights in private bus stops has been shown to prevent buses from driving recklessly to swipe passengers out from under the competition. Although Saint Louis and Kansas City do not have the same level of demand for bus services as Santiago, the city has shown that government ownership is not necessary for a decent mass transportation system.

There has been some great talk in the blogosphere about occupational licensing over the past week. Matthew Yglesias began the discussion, and Conor Friedersdorf, guest hosting at Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish, has joined in. I may be a few days late to the discussion, but I can ascribe that to two words: State Fair.

While some of the larger national think tanks regularly take on this issue, we here at the Show-Me Institute cover occupational licensing more than most other state-based groups. It is great to see people engaged in the conversation, and I hope they enjoy getting punched in the face as much as I enjoy throwing the punches.

There really isn’t a more accurate example of democratic failure than occupational licensing. It is public choice economics at its most concise. A small group of people stand to gain financially from a very narrow policy action, and passionately advocate for it. A large group of people stand to be harmed very marginally from that same issue and so don’t care about it enough to spend time and effort becoming informed and fighting back. Politicians measure the gains for them to be made from satisfying the small group (campaign contributions, union support, etc.) versus the fallout from harming the larger group (there’s generally no fallout), and — voilà! — an entire industry becomes regulated with a few votes and the stroke of a pen, while the only person who shows up to complain about it is some jerk like me. You grandfather in the existing practitioners (or exclude only a small portion of them), and put the screws to future practitioners and the general public, neither of whom realizes at the time that anything is going on.

The purpose of licensing is always the economic gain of those practicing the occupation to be licensed (the regulatory push never comes from the outside — always the inside), but advocates are usually smart enough not to say that. Instead, the arguments actually advanced in favor of licensing are twofold: safety and search costs. The safety argument might be legitimate for a few professions (i.e., drug testing for school bus drivers) but very quickly devolves into a love of the nanny state — unless you really believe that the threat of a bad haircut actually involves your “safety.”

The search costs argument was always wildly overstated. It assumes that we need the state to license heart surgeons, for instance, so you don’t have to check references on your own while you are having a heart attack. (This is sort of a bad example, given that I think doctors and nurses may be one field in which the benefits of licensing outweigh the costs, but stick with me.) This general argument fails in that the employer is unlikely to have hired an unqualified person in the first place (the hospital probably confirmed that the doctor graduated from medical school), and how often do people really hire someone cold? You get references for plumbers, electricians, pediatricians, etc., from family, neighbors, or friends who have used those people before, and who are willing to recommend them. License or no license, reputation and referrals are what keep people in business, or drive them out of it.

The scam artists who successfully operate in the underground economy and show up at your house to do the roofing right after the straight-line wind blows the shingles off won’t be stopped by licensing laws. Even if I thought licensing laws protected consumers by limiting scams, I still don’t favor giving the government more power over our economic lives and taking the responsibility away from individuals to make better choices by checking references, calling the Better Business Bureau, etc. Others might disagree, but the evidence that licensing improves quality and protects the public is lacking.

I could go on, but this post is long enough. It is great to see people participating in this debate. Now, as they told me during my very brief boxing career, keep your hands up. …

Are people inherently born with the right to an important and well-paying job? How about a decent house? The author of a recent article in the St. Louis Beacon certainly thinks so. He advocates a larger government role in job creation and cites Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Second Bill of Rights,” or a similar economic bill of rights, as the prism through which the entire economy should be viewed.

FDR’s Second Bill of Rights includes:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

The framers of the Constitution saw the need for a Bill of Rights as a means of protecting the people from an overbearing and oppressive government. They drafted a bill of negative liberties, or protections that define what the government cannot do. They gave no guarantee of housing, food, or employment because they saw the dangers that the notion of positive rights pose as a potential threat to liberty — the idea that, just by being born, people are entitled for others to provide them a comfortable life.

Because the government does not produce any wealth, even the most basic obligation to one individual must be paid for by taking from another. In order to guarantee one person a profitable job, a decent home, or adequate food, wealth must first be taken from those who have rightfully earned it, infringing on their liberty to do as they wish with their own money.

Unfortunate individuals who receive assistance do not receive those benefits because it is their inalienable right, but because it is irresponsible to let them starve or freeze in the streets. No one is entitled to anything that is not their own, no matter how basic of a necessity; however, it is the responsible duty of able individuals to help those in need through their charitable impulses.

Although the end result may be the same, in terms of the needy receiving necessary aid, there is a stark distinction between an unalienable right to something and the responsibility of an able man to care for their fellow man. The difference can be summed up in one word: liberty. The liberty of every individual to do as he pleases with his own money and resources. Although it is repulsive — and, at the very least, irresponsible — for an able individual to let those less fortunate starve, I have no right to infringe upon their liberty to do as they please with their own money.

This is by no means an argument against all government assistance. Obviously, the government cannot allow its citizens to starve or children to live on the streets, homeless. Rather, my objection is with the larger issue of entitlements justified through a notion of positive rights. When fully implemented positive rights lead to socialism, a concept that has been tried and found ineffective at growing economies, raising standards of living, or even helping the very poor. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

SEDALIA — I am writing this from the Show-Me Institute booth at the Missouri State Fair! We are talking about individual liberty and limited government with all of the fairgoers.

If you are in Sedalia, stop by the exhibition hall between corn dogs to talk to us about free markets. For those of you who haven’t had a chance to stop by, here is a picture of our booth!

* Title quote: Lenny at the State Fair, from That Thing You Do.

Last month, the Missouri Court of Appeals ruled that a St. Louis man cannot be compelled to purchase trash hauling service after he was able to demonstrate that he is a very diligent recycler and does not generate any trash. The Post-Dispatch had a story about the ruling yesterday. The trash plan for unincorporated St. Louis County was incredibly controversial about three years ago. It, along with ticket scalping, was one of the first major issues we debated and covered closely on this blog.

This is a very interesting ruling. I’m aware this ruling won’t actually establish a precedent for courts hearing lawsuits about the federal health care mandate (they’re in different jurisdictions, etc.), but it is still intriguing to note that one court has decided that the government cannot compel someone to purchase something for the public good.

Prior to the county’s trash plan, the law specified that you had to have trash service, but it was left completely up to the individual or neighborhood to acquire it. So, the man who won the lawsuit was probably technically violating the old ordinance for a long time, but nobody noticed or cared because he didn’t produce trash. Now, the hauler that exclusively covers his area wants his money. Thankfully, the court ruled in favor of the individual and against the county.

I think nuisance laws against allowing trash to accumulate on your property are sufficient legal powers for the county to enforce basic health codes against trash. If this man does not generate any trash, he should not have to pay for trash service. I agree with the appeals court ruling, and I wonder if future judges will think the same way about other goods and services. Replace “man who does not generate any trash” with “healthy 25-year-old person who does not need or want any health care,” and it will be interesting to see how the relevant cases are ultimately decided.

Last Wednesday, Show-Me Institute staff and interns ventured on our third free-market field trip. We went to Busch stadium to interact with one of the freer markets available here in Missouri: ticket scalping.

We assembled into four teams, starting out with either Cardinals tickets (two tickets normally valued at $39, although we bought them for $20 each) or money ($60). We each competed to try to improve our situation by engaging in voluntary market transactions.

Even ticket scalping can leave both parties better off! Without giving too much away, the video demonstrates a few key economics lessons, like information asymmetry — where one party has better information than the other. In this case, the experienced sellers understood the market much better than some of our teams did. Another lesson that comes up in the video is the idea of value: A ticket’s face value does not necessarily reflect how another party will value it, and thus it may be difficult to recoup a ticket’s nominal “worth” when selling it. Issues of supply and demand also came into play, as we were at a game on a hot day when tickets were not sold out.

Further lessons can be gleaned from the free-market explanations interspersed throughout the video. I encourage you to watch it!

Enjoy this op-ed in the St. Louis Beacon about ways to “help,” for lack of a better word, small businesses in the United States. You won’t really be able to enjoy it, though, unless you, too, believe that a centrally planned economy is what is best for our country. I have to keep this post brief. If I don’t keep it very succinct, it will turn into a word-by-word rebuttal of (almost) everything the author says, and I just don’t have the time to do that right now.

If you think I’m exaggerating about the call in this piece for pure economic central planning, enjoy these snippets (emphasis added):

Imagine if incentives were given to entrepreneurs in Missouri to renew an industry that previously was key to our state: manufacturing shoes. These new companies would provide jobs, ones that are conveniently commensurate with the skill levels of many workers. These companies would also re-establish the proper balance between the manufacturing and service sectors of our economy. It is true that stimulating manufacturing in our country will mean higher prices, but given a choice between a full-employment economy or Wal-Mart prices for everyone, I suggest that we put people to work.

Or how about:

Ultimately the government will have to be the “employer of last resort” in finding jobs for the 14.5 million Americans out of work. However, whenever possible, we should allocate new job opportunities to start-up businesses. Government contracts are key to helping small businesses create jobs.

Fortunately, there was a book written about 70 years ago that demolishes all this bunk beautifully. I am willing to bet the author of the op-ed has never read it. Although some have been criticized for citing The Road to Serfdom by economist F.A. Hayek too broadly, there is no doubt it applies perfectly here. We can have an economy determined by markets or arranged by planners. It is amazing to me that there are serious people out there who still pine for the planners.

P.S. — The comments in the Beacon article are just as bad as the op-ed.

P.P.S. — The guy I linked to who criticized Tea Partiers, Glenn Beck, etc., for referencing the book without understanding it does not really understand it himself.

“If all the economists in the world were laid end to end,” George Bernard Shaw famously wrote, “they wouldn’t reach any conclusion.” Although economists may disagree on many policy issues, they do agree on many others. The concept that free trade is beneficial is one of these areas of consensus. In fact, 90.1 percent of economists disagree that “the U.S. should restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries.” Even Paul Krugman supports free trade.

If free trade is one area that this contentious group can agree, why do elected officials in Washington and in Jeff City continue to pass measures that impede, rather than proliferate, free trade?

As the latest example of impeding free trade, the U.S. Senate is targeting companies that outsource, particularly to India:

Democrat Senator of Missouri Claire McCaskill on Thursday said the proposal would increase fees for particular companies that exploit two categories of visas — H-1B and L.

Not only do legislators seem to ignore economists, they also seem to ignore history. The fact that protectionist policies do more harm than good has been repeatedly demonstrated in the past (e.g., the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930, the steel import tariffs in 2002, and protectionism in the vehicle manufacturing industry).

When a country or a state protects certain industries, those companies do not have to innovate their product to compete in the marketplace. As additional negative consequences, such protectionism dampens downward pressure on consumer prices and reduces the variety of goods and services available to consumers in a region, who are more limited to that which they can produce themselves because goods from elsewhere are artificially priced out of market availability. If this proposal progresses, perhaps the same problems could plague the IT services industry.

Subsidizing favored companies and industries and simultaneously imposing restrictions on those that are not favored is an expensive and inefficient practice. In doing so, the government sends the fallacious message that it can pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Overall welfare would improve if the United States and Missouri both embraced the creative destruction of their respective economies, instead of cementing favored activities for reasons of nostalgia and/or xenophobia.

What a difference a month makes.

In July, the city of St. Louis’s Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) Board of Commissioners heard public testimony from six persons seeking to purchase property, and the board actually approved three of the sales! (Commissioners deferred action on one of the properties and offered a five-year “garden lease” on each of the other two parcels subject to public testimony.) Per its usual practice, the LRA sent buyers off with the encouragement that they “will receive a letter in the mail” enumerating their required next steps for taking title to the city-owned properties.

All other agenda items received their recommended actions.

The above may seem like nothing more than minutiae to persons unfamiliar with the problems associated with LRA ownership of formerly private lands, but for persons who live next door to any of the LRA’s thousands of parcels in the city or for taxpayers anywhere in the city, the above actions are of particular significance.

One person who testified this month seeking to purchase a vacant lot adjacent to her home spoke of how burglaries are “a constant problem,” and that she hoped the acquisition of the lot would allow her to better protect her property. Another potential purchaser expressed her desire to become a homeowner, only to be rebuffed by the commission with an admonishment that she “talk to the alderman,” demonstrate stronger financial abilities, and await further review by the commission at the next meeting. A husband and wife expressed their desire to purchase the lot adjacent to their home in order to provide space for room additions to accommodate their daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren. Two representatives from a church spoke about how the purchase of a fenced parking lot would greatly assist in the church’s programming and outreach.

Considered together, the myriad of motivations and the multitude of proposed uses for LRA-owned land parcels suggest to me that individuals, when free to conduct land transfers, make better decisions about land use than do any seemingly well-intentioned bureaucrats on an executive commission.

The LRA meets in the Board Room at St. Louis Development Corporation, 1015 Locust Street, Suite 1200, at 8:30 a.m. on the last Wednesday of each month.

From an editorial on Missourinet (link via John Combest):

So if Ford develops an all-new vehicle, it’s investing about $3 billion before it even builds the production line and hires and trains the workers to put the vehicle together.

Woe is Ford! It has a high cost of production! Boo hoo!

I have no sympathy for the company and its high cost of production, given that it made $2.6 billion in profit in the second quarter alone and forecasts even more growth in the immediate future. (By comparison, the $150 million in tax credits that the Missouri legislature decided to give Ford is just a drop in the bucket!) Cars and trucks may be costly to produce, but they are also associated with high marginal revenues that cover this cost.

The debate on subsidizing Ford could benefit from a refresher on the theory of the firm.

This $3 billion investment for a new vehicle is a one-time upfront cost, and because Ford produces vehicles in very large quantities, that cost is diffused. Ford is making billions of dollars in profit, so we know that the marginal cost of producing a car is lower than the marginal revenue. Ford is a firm that operates in (what is supposed to be) a competitive industry; the perfect competition ideal is illustrated in the following graph:

Ford in the Short Run

If, perhaps, Ford finds that the marginal cost of producing a vehicle is lower than the price it can charge, it will lose money and will eventually choose to leave the market. Other firms that are able to produce the good at a lower average cost will enter the market instead because they can realize profit. This is how the competitive environment is supposed to work.

It would be beneficial if, instead of providing subsidies to profitable companies like Ford, the Missouri state government took a laissez-faire approach. Consumers would benefit, because they would be able to purchase goods at a lower cost instead of subsidizing private firms with their tax dollars. Producers in other industries would also benefit, because they would not be forced to compete at an artificial competitive disadvantage.

Please join the Show-Me Institute and the John Cook School of Business at Saint Louis University in the fourth annual Friedman Legacy of Freedom event. The event will take place on Friday, July 30, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., and will feature a panel of economists from the region who will discuss Friedman and his lasting impact on economics. Economists Dr. Michael Podgursky from the University of Missouri–Columbia, Dr. Susan Feigenbaum from the University of Missouri–Saint Louis, and Dr. Daniel Thornton from the Federal Reserve Bank of Saint Louis will convene to discuss Dr. Friedman’s contributions and their continued relevance to our economy and our lives.

Click here to register online.

I was pleased to see that the Post-Dispatch ran a letter to the editor today that I wrote in response to its recent editorial calling for St. Louis officials to renew efforts to subsidize the NorthSide redevelopment plan. This is the text of the letter:

Developer Should Bear Risk of Failure

In responding to Judge Robert Dierker’s ruling that St. Louis officials lacked authority to offer hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize the NorthSide redevelopment plan, the editorial board, in the editorial “Celebrating Decline” (July 12), implies that the plan can proceed only if the city provides the anticipated subsidies. The developer’s own estimates indicate a belief that he will realize a profit of at least $251 million even without those subsidies.

Nothing in the ruling prevents the developer from pursuing his quixotic vision or from enjoying any profits that might result from its success; rather, it requires that, like all other entrepreneurs, the developer must personally bear the risks of failure instead of pushing them onto the taxpaying public.

Dave Roland — St. Louis

Policy Analyst, Show-Me Institute

While running errands last week, I was witness to an interesting phenomenon twice over. First, I passed a Walgreens that used yard placards to advertise $35 camp and sports physicals at their in-store clinics. Amazing! How rarely it is that one sees medical services competitively advertised with the true price right up front. Plus, it looks like customers can walk right in without insurance and without appointments, much like going to a restaurant and paying for a meal.

On the topic of food, my next stop along my journey was to grab a bite to eat at Bread Co. While scanning the menu on the wall, I noticed something I hadn’t ever seen before in Missouri — the calorie counts of all the food posted right next to the offerings. Amazing again! Free information at my disposal to make a decision about my health.

Why get excited over something so mundane? For one, there was a free exchange of useful information. The price system — much like the nutritional information system — is an amazing way of communicating information quickly and accurately. Second, in both instances the information was freely provided. Missouri restaurants, unlike some in New York City, are not required by law to include caloric information on their menus. But businesses here are still free to post that information as upfront as they’d like.

Best of all, businesses that choose to be more open with their information freely elect to bear the costs of collecting that information. The burden is usually on the customer to sort out the nutritional value of her food, but in some cases it may be in a restaurant’s business interest to display information more explicitly, or even to be more charitable. The result is a free and fair exchange of information or money that leaves both parties better off.

Ultimately, the most fascinating part of my journey was the fact that the businesses and I were free to choose. The businesses chose to offer certain services and bear those costs in the hope of attracting or retaining more customers. For my part, I could have purchased a sports physical if I wanted, but I didn’t need to. I could have purchased the healthiest sandwich on the menu, or the least healthy. I could have ignored the caloric content completely, and ordered dessert for dinner. No one got to tell me what to order, and I could have left the restaurant altogether if I had wanted. Information freely available at my disposal helped shape my decisions.

As usual, the more freedom and information we have as a society, the better choices we can make for ourselves and those we care about. And that’s always something to get excited about.

Google Alerts recently sent me this editorial about the debate surrounding the Ford Claycomo incentive package, by Samuel Lipari on OpEdNews. The following statement resonated with me:

The jobs were lost when healthcare costs of cars built in American plants like Claycomo became uncompetitive with those of Toyota and Honda.

This statement illustrates how, in the game of picking winners and losers, the government almost always picks losers. This is because the government chooses to protect companies and industries that the market has already rejected to some degree. If they were successful and viable on their own, they wouldn’t need to seek the favor of the government.

A knowledge problem exists. When the government picks winners and losers, it asserts that it knows the optimal level of something. In practice, such a level is impossible to determine. I do not know the socially optimal mix of any set of products and services, and neither do government officials. No one has access to perfect information. It would be beneficial if the state government stayed out of playing favorites in the market and instead let individuals determine their own optimal levels by engaging in unrestricted trade.

In the profit-loss system of our economy, the prospect of profits encourages individuals and firms to take risks and to innovate, and the losses weed out failure. By picking losers to subsidize, the government penalizes success and rewards failure, reversing to some degree the incentive structure that the profit-loss system would otherwise provide.

Instead of competing in the market on an even playing field, groups that are short-sighted and self-serving petition the government to tilt the field in their favor. We witness this behavior all too frequently in Missouri (in the form of targeted tax credits, rebates, sales tax exemptions, property tax abatements, occupational licensing requirements, and mandates, etc.). As a negative consequence of performing favors for a few losers, the government places winners at a disadvantage by making it harder to compete in the marketplace.

Government should cease offering incentives to losers in the market, and instead return the money to taxpayers to spend in the private sector on the goods and services that they desire.

One legislative sponsor of legislation to cap interest rates on Missouri’s payday loans, responded to my op-ed on the subject in this Sunday’s edition of the Joplin Globe. The end of the response quotes a line from The Merchant of Venice about the devil’s ability to use scripture for his own purposes, as a way of criticizing my use of fairly basic statistics provided by the payday loan industry. I’m not entirely certain whether this is meant to imply that I am the devil, or that payday lenders are, but I find it oddly flattering. No one has ever written about me as though I possess superhuman powers.

Hyperbole aside, the piece does make some good points about the lack of transparency in the hearing. Only representatives of the industry were allowed to speak, and the chairman of the committee does own a payday lending business — a clear conflict of interest. Although I happen to agree with the industry in this instance, the political process should be an open one. In the long run, legislative stalling and one-sided presentations will not preserve a healthy democracy or the free market. (It is worth pointing out, however, that town hall meetings on the issue also presented only the opposing side of the debate. Admittedly, those were not official government hearings, but the principle remains the same.) An open market produces better outcomes than a monopoly, and I believe that rule applies just as much to ideas as to physical goods and services.

Finally, I think this phrase shows a misunderstanding of my argument: “Mr. Payne’s point that usury today is not as bad as it was in Shakespeare’s time provides little comfort to the working poor and to those trapped in a spiral of debt.” My point is that if payday lending is regulated out of existence, people who currently rely on those loans for short-term credit will be forced to seek out loan sharks every bit as brutal as Shylock, who will demand a pound of flesh from those who cannot pay up.

According to a Post-Dispatch article, the housing market in Missouri is very weak, to the surprise of probably no one. Housing groups propose the following solution:

[T]hey would like to see more state money directed to counseling and prevention, to help keep more people [...] out of foreclosure. But with the tight state budget, they said a good first step would be a task force, to better organize and coordinate anti-foreclosure efforts, and to raise awareness of the problem.

It would be preferable if government stopped intervening in the housing market because then housing prices would return to their equilibrium level. The high foreclosure rate is yet another example of a government-created problem that would be better solved with less government, not more.

Throwing more state money at the problem is more likely to incite people to buy more expensive houses than they can afford than to reduce the rate of foreclosure. Programs that encourage homeownership already exist at practically every level in the government, but despite these programs, the rate of homeownership has remained steady over time. The $8,000 federal first-time home buyer tax incentive was recently extended, and there are additional ways in which Missouri homeowners can obtain financial assistance, such as a $1,250 tax incentive under the Missouri Homeowners Purchase Enhancement Program and additional incentives for energy-efficient home purchases or upgrades.

Is a task force really necessary “to raise awareness of the problem [of foreclosure?]” Last time I checked, everybody was well aware that the housing bubble burst.

When the government nudges individuals and families into homes that they may not want or be able to afford, the consequences are overwhelmingly negative. Missourians and Americans are better off when individuals live within their means, because fewer people will lose their homes, and fewer people will have to pay to keep others in theirs.

Owning a home may be preferable for some, but homeownership is not suited for all. There are financial and lifestyle factors to consider, and the government does not have enough information to know what is best for each individual and family. I know that homeownership is not for me. Although I am missing out on lucrative tax incentives from the state and federal governments, I choose to rent because it suits my lifestyle and budget better than owning. I have no desire to spend my time doing yard work, fixing things that break around the house, or cleaning guest bathrooms. Similarly, I don’t want to pay to repave a driveway, install new rain gutters, or have an insurance umbrella. I get much more utility from a new iPad than a new patio set. These are my preferences, which would be inappropriate to impose on others; similarly, it’s inappropriate for the government to set artificial incentives that encourage homeownership by individuals like me.

Additionally, encouraging homeownership over renting is poor policy. It could negatively affect the economic recovery, because it prevents workers from moving where the jobs are. Owning a home increases the cost of relocation because it ties an individual and his or her family to a geographic location. It is easier for a renter to relocate for a new job than for a homeowner to do so. Renters can relocate at the end of their lease or find a subletter, but homeowners have to sell their homes — a process that can take years.

Real estate is not a risk-free investment. I am reminded of an article that appeared last year in the Washington Post, “5 myths about home sweet homeownership,” in which Joseph Gyourko, chairman of the real estate department at the University of Pennsylvania, argues against the commonly held idea that homeownership is a investment with good returns and no risks.

Between 1975 and 2008, the price for houses of comparable quality and size appreciated an average of about 1 percent per year after inflation. You would have earned well over 2 percent per year after inflation had you invested in Treasury bills over the same period.

When a person invests her money, she assumes risk. Higher returns are supposed to be the payoff for accepting larger amounts of risk. With the possible exception of Treasury bonds, there is no such thing as a riskless investment. Unfortunately, real estate is all too often viewed as one. Buying a house is just like any other investment — there is a possibility that the purchaser will lose money. In some aspects, real estate is riskier than stocks because houses are not diversified (i.e., in the event of a natural disaster, a person’s entire investment is wiped out). Thorough research and cost-benefit analysis are crucial before potential home buyers make what will be one of the largest financial decisions of their lives.

According to the United States Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the city of Saint Louis has an estimated 21.5-percent residential vacancy rate. This rate compares unfavorably to the 12-percent rate for the nation as a whole and aligns closely with those found in Cleveland, Ohio, and Buffalo, N.Y. In raw numbers, this amounts to 38,743 empty housing units within the boundaries of Missouri’s second-largest city.

With vacancy pervasive throughout our community, St. Louisans may often logically conclude that said emptiness is the direct consequence of the stark reality that persons simply do not want to live here in the same numbers that they once did. In fact, it would be difficult to argue that losing nearly two-thirds of the city’s peak population would have a negligible impact on the appearance of the city’s landscape.

But does so much property necessarily remain vacant from a lack of market demand for single-family homes, larger yards, and new business locations, or could vacancy be the product of market distortion by a governmental agency?

At the urging of a colleague, I attended my first ever hearing of the St. Louis Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) on Wednesday morning, looking for an answer.

Within moments of its commencement, the meeting shattered every expectation that I had for a body with the following statutory mandate (emphasis and link added):

The land reutilization authority is hereby created to foster the public purpose of returning land which is in a nonrevenue generating nontax producing status, to effective utilization in order to provide housing, new industry, and jobs for the citizens of any city operating under the provisions of sections 92.700 to 92.920 and new tax revenues for said city.

Instead of operating in a manner consistent with its above-enumerated legislative intent, the LRA appeared to operate according to a morass of opaque cultural practices that stand divorced from any legislative language. Indeed, the insistence by the assembled commissioners that prospective buyers of tax-foreclosed properties have the express written support of the alderman representing the ward that is home to the vacant property struck me as patently absurd. (After all, the word “alderman” does not appear in Chapter 92 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.) Five people attempted to purchase property from the LRA this month without a letter of support from their alderman. Of those five, four offers were rejected, because the LRA purportedly treats a lack of aldermanic support as a reason to reject a prospective buyer’s offer.

After witnessing Wednesday’s proceedings and perusing the many purchase offers on the LRA agenda, I can say with great certainty that much of the vacancy subject to the LRA’s jurisdiction in St. Louis city is not a consequence of a lack of private demand for property; rather, much of it derives from government legitimation and infringements on the free market.

Phase one of the federal health care reform starts today! Those who indulge in a certain activity that could increase the likelihood of cancer will feel the effects on their wallet: tanning salons are now subject to a 10-percent tax that is meant to fund further insurance coverage expansion.

This can be seen as a form of Pigovian tax, which raises the costs of certain activities in order to correct for social costs or negative externalities that are not covered in the market price. In this case though, the externalities of tanning beds are internalized: If I choose to tan, I accept the increased risk that I may get skin cancer. If that were to happen, my insurance company and I would have to pay for the cost of treatment. (And it could be that my insurance company chooses to raise my premium if I indulge in risky behaviors, which is their prerogative.) One could argue that a hypothetical person with tanning bed–induced skin cancer could end up costing others in medical bills, but if that were the issue, the problem would lie in the structure of health care provision, not natural externalities.

What’s next? Should we impose more taxes on roller blades, lest I skin my knee or break my ankle? Or junk food? If we want to really get to the root of what causes skin cancer, shouldn’t we be placing the blame where much of it belongs: the sun? It wouldn’t be the first time someone proposed legislation against the sun.

Right now, our country is in the process of passing legislation that many see as badly needed reform in the financial industry. The reform comes as a reaction to the most recent banking crisis, which sent the world economy into a tailspin.

As we climb our way out of this recession, the last thing we need is monetary policies that would stagnate private capital flow. The second-to-last thing (but if anyone would like to convince me it should at the top of my list, I’d be willing to listen) we need is a rise in the costs of necessary consumer products. Financial products like savings and checking accounts exhibit relatively inelastic demand trends, which gives the producers of those products, the banks, better pricing power. If the proposed regulations are enacted, financial institutions across the nation will incur new costs. My bet is that at least a substantial proportion of those costs won’t come out of their profit margin — they will come out of our pockets.

A recent article in the St. Louis Beacon debates the pros and cons of the proposed regulations. In the article, Dr. Joseph Haslag, the Show-Me Institute’s chief economist and an economics professor at the University of Missouri–Columbia, points out that the proposed regulations miss the mark.

“It’s not the derivatives or the swaps or any of the other complicated financial contracts that are problems by themselves,” said Haslag, who holds the Kenneth Lay chair in economics at Mizzou. “They are mechanisms that parcel out risk. People see these as ways to make big gambles, and there are risks in the world. If you line up your gambles all in one direction, and the risks come out in a certain way, you can lose a lot of money.”

As people in the finance industry seek to maximize their profits, they will find ways around the new regulations. It may very well be the case that these regulations force bankers into even riskier behavior that is outside the scope of presently foreseeable action. The government has no way of knowing or policing the instruments that may be developed next. In fact, by mandating this type of regulatory environment they might very well cause a new variant of the type of behavior they were trying to quash.

As regulatory protocols are activated, the banks with the best chance to survive the rough waters are the the same banks that were implicated in the financial crisis in the first place. On the other hand, small community banks that keep capital localized will have a tough time staying afloat. This is all trouble for consumers.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran a piece titled “The End of Community Banking. From the article:

What does all this mean for our customers? Less credit will be available, costs will increase, and we will be less able to make loans to regular people who were creditworthy in the past. This is the perfect storm for the small retail banking customer.
[...]
Small community financial institutions care about the people in their communities. Unfortunately, the new financial regulatory reform bill will greatly inhibit our ability to help them.

St. Louis County, the city of St. Louis, and Kansas City are all seeing examples of preferred legislation for favored construction trade groups. Thankfully, some of the examples have not gone forward, but others have.

Let’s start in Kansas City, where the city council appears set to establish new code requirements for doors. That’s right — doors. Apparently, the incentive we all have not to get robbed isn’t good enough in KC; now you’ll be subject to mandates to install special doors on new homes, which will raise the cost of housing in KC (although probably only marginally). At least they got rid of one bad part of the proposal:

[Councilwoman Cathy] Jolly brought the idea to the council in April, but encountered resistance from some council members who worried that some of the new code requirements would give a competitive advantage to an Overland Park company that specialized in a device to reinforce door frames.

Jolly insisted she was not trying to play favorites, and the latest version of the ordinance deleted language aimed at a particular device or specification.

I still think the reinforced door requirement is unnecessary, but at least the most “rent-seeking” aspect of the proposal was removed.

On to St. Louis. Before I criticize, I shall praise. There was an insanely obvious example of rent-seeking this month as the fire sprinkler industry attempted to get a county code passed that would require a comprehensive fire sprinkler system in every new home built in the county. I give both the sprinkler industry and the union credit for not even trying to deny the obvious benefits to them. The next item will get no such credit. The article features this quote from the president of the Home Builders Association of St. Louis & Eastern Missouri:

“The sprinkler industry has been basically advocating mandatory sprinklers in all new homes for probably 20 years and realized, ‘We can’t sell this to the general public, so let’s focus our efforts on convincing the fire service community,’” he said.

Mike Mahler, business manager for the 500 members of Sprinkler Fitters Local 268, conceded [the] point but said that did not mean residential sprinklers were not a good idea.

“We got the ball rolling on this because this is a great product,” Mahler said. “We educated the fire marshals: Here’s what sprinklers can do, here’s how they can save lives. And the fire marshals carried the ball from that point on.”

I commend the St. Louis County Council for removing this requirement from the new building code. Mandatory sprinklers are not needed for safety in the county and were properly taken out of the bill.

But on the other hand, the council seems set to approve a new licensing requirement for residential HVAC workers in St. Louis County. The city of St. Louis just passed the same requirement in April. Jefferson County is supposedly going to consider it later this year. Wherever it passes, it’s bad. This type of licensing requirement is a totally unnecessary handout to current HVAC contractors who want to push current and future competitors out of their way. It is “rent-seeking” at its worst. I testified against the bill yesterday at a committee hearing. At least two of the councilmembers asked some terrific questions of the public works director, and appear set to vote against it — although it will still probably pass. One of them summed up the real reasons behind the move in the a Post-Dispatch article about the licensing proposal:

“There is no evidence of a dangerous situation,” [Councilman Greg] Quinn said after the committee meeting. The licensing “was not generated by the public. It was generated by the industry to protect itself from competitors and increase profit,” he said.

To sum up, the makers or installers of doors, fire sprinklers, and heating and air conditioning units have all sought protective measures from local government. The same thing happens all the time at the national level, and it is one of the most depressing aspects of democracy.

I do my best thinking at night. At least, that is how I justified my late-night walk this week through downtown St. Louis, where I could not help but feel a sense of utter helplessness. It was not simply seeing “Space Available” signs on every corner that prompted my emotional response; rather, it was my understanding that the slack in the retail, housing, and office markets represents a striking illustration of government’s inability to intelligently deploy our limited public resources.

After all, the image above is representative of dozens of corners recalled to ‘life’” with public funds in what some term “a vital pillar of Missouri’s economy.”

At present, the above-pictured TIFed and tax credited property is home to a small chain retailer, thousands of vacant square feet, quite a few presumably sold condominiums, two dozen available condominium units ranging in price from $250,000 to more than $750,000, many presumably leased apartments, and some parking.

If this building and its appearance were solely the products of truly private investments, I would feel far less concerned about its future. However, given that the city of St. Louis is going to start making me pay for trash service, I get a little upset when passing empty corners like the one pictured above.

All levels of government irresponsibly allow private actors to externalize their risks and costs to the public. In times of austerity like those that we now confront, these long-term public debt obligations increasingly become a drain on our individual resources.

So, how much did the corner shown above cost Missouri taxpayers? More than $30 million. (And likely more than $40 million, assuming that it also utilized the 20-percent federal historic preservation tax credit.)

Today, Show-Me Institute Research Analyst Christine Harbin appeared on the Sarah Steelman Hour radio show in Springfield, talking about tax credits in general and, specifically, the proposed credits for the Ford plant in Claycomo.

Economic development tax incentives, no matter how they are packaged, are not effective. They allow government officials, who have no special knowledge of how to maximize growth, to pick winners and losers in the market. As Show-Me Institute Executive Vice President Joseph Haslag has written before, lowering broad tax rates is a much more efficient method of stimulating the economy than targeted tax credits. This allows everyone to benefit, rather than a few select industries chosen by the state.

Empirically, studies analyzing the benefits that development tax credits deliver in comparison to their costs show that such tax credits have not worked. A recent Missouri state audit report found that tax credits are less effective (and more expensive) than their proponents claim. Yesterday, St. Louis Public Radio broadcast a segment featuring a study that examined another form of tax incentives in Missouri, tax increment financing (TIF). Kenneth Thomas, a political science professor at the University of Missouri–St. Louis, recently coauthored a study that found the use of TIF is not effective in most cases. He noted that the St. Louis area uses TIF more than nearly every other area in the nation. In the interview with St. Louis Public Radio’s Matt Sepic:

Sepic: That’s one longstanding criticism, is that TIF pits communities against one another. A prime example is that tussle between Bridgeton and St. Anne over a Walmart. Is that a bigger problem in the St. Louis area than elsewhere, with this panoply of municipalities that we have here?

Thomas: Oh, yes, certainly having more municipalities makes the competition more intense.

The study argues that, although many economists have found TIF to be ineffective, this method of funding continues to be used because of the competitive nature of tax incentives. When one area offers a tax incentive, other areas nearby often try to “win” a company’s business by offering competitive tax incentives. The result is a bidding war in which the taxpayers lose. This can be seen in the Claycomo Ford tax credit situation, as well — other states, like Kentucky, have offered tax incentives to Ford in an effort to persuade them to relocate their plant. In order to compete, Missouri would have to offer a better deal, while recognizing that this game will be played again the next time the credits run out.

Later in the interview, Thomas notes an important misunderstanding — the idea that tax incentives like TIF “create” jobs:

Thomas: [T]hose estimates never take into account the fact that, well, yes, we are going to create 200 jobs here, but what’s going to happen is we’re going to knock out 180 in the next mall over.

Tax credits and TIF tend to shift economic activity from one area to another, without creating wealth. Missouri’s tax dollars would be much better spent in the hands of individual Missourians than on enticements for companies like Walmart or Ford.

As Milton Friedman pointed out on his PBS TV series “Free to Choose,” even if other nations, states, or localities offer tax incentives to lure businesses, we’re better off if we don’t do the same — because we benefit from the lower prices their subsidy creates. Missouri will experience better economic growth if it unilaterally removes itself from the tax incentive bidding wars.

The Wall Street Journal recently highlighted some of the possible effects, including increased unemployment, of a bill on the governor’s desk concerning strip club regulation in Missouri. Similarly, Christine Harbin’s post earlier this month highlights some further potential economic ramifications of S.B. 586. Among other restrictions, included in the bill is a requirement that clubs close by midnight. There are further problems beyond the economic impact on those Missouri employees affected, though.

Tightening restrictions in Missouri gives an automatic boost to the strip club industries along Missouri’s borders, which in some cases may be even more unsavory. Closing the Missouri clubs earlier than in other states will also unwittingly create more post-midnight (including cross-river) traffic — a public safety concern that effects more people than the clubs’ patrons.

Well-intentioned measures frequently have unintended consequences.

Consider Springfield’s proposal to ban smoking in workplaces. Most workplaces are smoke-free by choice, but some businesses — like cigar bars and hookah lounges — are built around smoking customers. Although it’s likely that the ordinance will make some exceptions, those exceptions themselves create a tilted playing field for competition.

If you don’t like strip clubs and smoking (and I certainly do not), the simplest solution is not to smoke and not to patronize strip clubs or smoky bars. This an example of how the over-regulation of an industry potentially creates conditions favorable to further problems — while solving none of those it was intended to solve — and, in the process, harming the livelihoods of people who have elected to work in affected industries (after all, erotic dancers need to eat, too).

The fairest (and most effective) way to kill an unsavory business remains not to patronize it.

The city of St. Louis is debating a local legislative proposal that will, for the first time, impose a mandatory monthly fee for its residents’ garbage collection.

At present, the city supports its Refuse Division with an approximately $15 million annual appropriation, of which almost 90 percent comes from General Fund revenues. The controversial earnings tax is the largest component revenue stream of the General Fund, accompanied by property, sales, payroll, franchise, and license taxes, in addition to departmental fines and fees, intergovernmental revenues, and other fund sources.

If approved by the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, Board Bill 99 will institute a reported $11 monthly fee per dwelling unit for the provision of “Solid Waste Services.” Current spending on the Refuse Division totals $42.38 annually per resident, while the proposed fee should yield a comparable amount in revenue, considering our estimated number of occupied dwelling units.

Although I am confident that nearly all of my colleagues here would prefer that local government discontinue its direct delivery of service by perhaps privatizing the Refuse Division, I am personally more sympathetic to the notion that a public agency can operate according to market forces through a financing mechanism of user fees, passed through an independent enterprise fund.

This is precisely what Board Bill 99 attempts to do, which should make me and other free-market advocates happier than the status quo. That said, I believe that the proposed legislation presents many problems for those who support intelligent and limited allocations of public resources and deployments of governmental power.

The bill opens by obliquely identifying a fiscal problem:

[...] the City is no longer able to bear the entire cost of providing [solid waste collection and disposal services for residential dwelling units] from its general revenue [...]

It then proceeds to claim authority to impose a trash fee under Section 260.215 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri. (Incidentally, this is a heavy-handed mechanism to foist the fee upon St. Louisans, because the Missouri Supreme Court held in Craig v. City of Macon, 543 S.W.2d 772 (1976) that “the accumulation of garbage is a serious threat to public health” and, as such, a municipally-legislated “mandatory service charge” to facilitate “solid waste disposal” and enabling legislation are “valid as reasonable exercises of the police power.”)

Board Bill 99 then begins a series of legislative contortions to target those who shall pay the proposed “service charge for solid waste collection and disposal services.” From the bill’s text, it appears that both a “Customer” — or recipient of a city water bill — and an “Owner” — the person on file at the assessor’s office recorded as owning a parcel on which a “Dwelling Unit” sits — share responsibility for payment of the fee.

Collection of the charge will be the responsibility of the city’s collector of revenue, who must consult with the assessor to “determine the number of Dwelling Units for which each Customer receives water service [...]” The customer will receive a bill for the monthly charge.

If a customer fails to pay the assessed fee, then the collector, under Section 99.700 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, “may proceed to file a lien upon the Property [...] for the amount of delinquent Solid Waste Services Fee payments,” and also “shall have power to sue any Customer [...] in a civil action to recover any sums due for Solid Waste Services Fees, plus a reasonable attorney’s fee to be fixed by the court.” (In other words, the bill conflates responsibility for payment of the fee with the source of refuse and the site of its disposal.)

Enforcement of the ordinance falls on the Building Division, which must verify that the solid waste services fees for a dwelling unit are paid prior to issuing a certificate of inspection for the property. A failure to pay the fee or a failure to seek exemption from the fee is an ordinance violation, punishable by a $500 fine for each day that the owner of the property does not have “appropriate and adequate” solid waste service.

The bill offers a fluid mechanism for exemption from the fee. In an intelligent move, the bill seems to envision that certain properties may not actually produce solid waste and, therefore, not be subject to the fine for violation (page 8, line 16). In a questionable and dubious infringement on the market for private waste disposal services, the bill unfortunately affords the refuse commissioner discretion to grant exemptions from the disposal fee for housing units if the units receive “adequate Solid Waste Services from a Private Solid Waste Contractor pursuant to a binding contract [...]” (the St. Louis City Revised Code outlines regulations for private solid waste contractors). The city’s director of streets grants both “hauling” and “vehicle” permits to private trash haulers, who otherwise are ineligible to dispose of refuse in the city.

Legislative language is too often confounding at worst and annoying at best, but a close reading of Board Bill 99 elicits both reactions.

Firstly, how many city departments does it take to assess and collect a trash fee?

• At least five, but probably more. (Confounding.)

Secondly, why is the city instituting a mandatory charge for trash service?

• The Board of Aldermen’s penchant for selectively absolving powerful interests of their tax burdens without even pretending to account for the fiscal impacts of the board’s legislation. (Annoying.)

Wait, doesn’t this mean that the proposed “service charge for solid waste collection and disposal services” is nothing more than a subsidy to backfill unfunded grants of public money from the city’s General Fund?

• Yes. (Confounding and annoying.)

Consider this: Board Bill 99 proposes to use the city’s police power to take additional funds from its residents in order to provide continued funding for the city’s Refuse Division, whose present operating funds derive from taxation and grant funding. St. Louis’ decade of legislation that pretended there was no cost associated with special interest tax forgiveness is hitting home hard — and at the worst possible time. We simply do not have the funds to continue throwing money into public systems and agencies that stand unaccountable to the vicissitudes of the marketplace.

Board Bill 99 displays an unwillingness to account transparently for the forces and the decisions that have led us to the point of its economic coercion. Furthermore, the bill fixes service fees according to current levels of Refuse Division spending, not the true costs of service delivery in a free market. In addition, the bill appears to authorize a mechanism through which the city could very well attempt to profit from the sale of recyclable materials that its residents dispose of (page 2, lines 3–5, 18).

I would prefer to continue receiving trash service than to pay for an unneeded performing arts facility. Money is fungible, however, and government mandates are inherently oppressive, so city residents will soon begin paying for Kiel in monthly $11 installments. No wonder so many “developers” choose to reside outside the city limits. They aren’t chumps.

My only question to St. Louis city government is whether it will honor the spirit of Hancock Amendment by allowing a public vote on this fee. Tax forgiveness requires no vote, but the last time I checked, the addition of user fees and new taxes does.

Earlier this week, the Kansas City Business Journal reported:

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon has signed legislation that would enhance tax benefits for the state’s higher education savings program.

On Monday, Nixon approved Senate Bill 772, which eliminates a 12-month holding period for contributions made to the Missouri Higher Education Savings Program.

Well, not exactly. This bill may indeed be an effort to promote more savings by Missouri families for their children’s future education, but it doesn’t entirely eliminate the holding period for contributions made into a Missouri 529 savings plan. Instead of providing contributors with more freedom pertaining to the control of their accounts, it allows the Missouri higher education savings program board to establish a “minimum length of time that contributions and earnings must be held by the savings program to qualify” for the state tax exemption. Eliminating the language that sets the minimum length of time at 12 months, but keeping the provision that allows the board to set minimum limits, doesn’t provide contributors with more information.

Proponents of the bill suggested that eliminating the mandate would allow the Missouri Higher Education Savings Program to be more competitive with similar programs in other states. Had the legislation eliminated a minimum holding period altogether, it may have accomplished that goal. In reality, it only muddies the water.

I am all in favor of eliminating government mandates, whether it be in health care, energy, or any other area in which the government attempts to control the market, but the removal of this language does not return the pie-slicer to the marketplace — rather, it keeps control in the hands of the people who cut the pie the first time around.