James Fussel has an excellent article in the Kansas City Star detailing some of the potential avenues for combating rising fuel costs in the long term. If you take just one thing away from the article, it’s that there has been a flurry of innovation as gas prices have risen. From plug-in hybrid cars to pure electric cars to hyrdrogen fuel cell cars, small breakthroughs have been made across the board in attempts provide cheaper alternatives to conventional gas-powered cars.

This is precisely what we should expect from a well-functioning market. As the price of gas increases, it becomes more profitable to both conserve and seek out alternatives. The practical result is exactly what we’ve seen. Consumers are buying more fuel-efficient cars while producers are looking for ways to make cars more fuel-efficient, as well as seeking alternatives to gasoline.

This is all occurring despite misguided political efforts, such as Missouri’s E-10 mandate. I shouldn’t have to point out that ethanol was not mentioned in the Star’s article as one of the promising new technologies. A better strategy for lawmakers would be to cultivate the competitive environment that is necessary for the innovation we are seeing. In other words, enforce property rights and that’s it. Any attempt to "fix" the market is apt to cause worse problems than it solves.

Regular readers may readily recall my writings about utilities. So it is with some surprise that I was not more aware of efforts in the general assembly to deregulate telecom prices in rural Missouri. Then again, I am pleased to report that my job is NOT to sit over the computer and memorize every single bill that gets introduced. So with that happy shrug, let’s get to the point.

The Springfield News-Leader (link via Combest) has the story of a bill passed yesterday that will substantially reduce the regulation requirements for rural telecom companies. I must say that I find parts of this bill to be quaint. The telephone industry seems to be the MOST competitive industry out there. Have you ever noticed that they have these companies that sell these portable and wireless phones that occasionally advertise on TV? Do you remember when Sprint and MCI literally sent checks to people in order to get them to switch their long-distance providers back in the ’90s? Come to think of it, do you remember long-distance charges? Anyway, I think for most people the assumption is that there is plenty of competition in the telecom industry. But apparently there isn’t in some rural parts of Missouri. Isn’t that just adorable?

So when thinking of ways to increase competition, our legislators actually have decided, and I assume the governor will agree, to reduce regulations and price controls. This is exciting and admirable. The concern a few have is that rates will not rise in areas that don’t yet have competition, but if the history of capitalism proves anything, you can be assured that higher rates, and the potential for more profit, along with less regulation, will bring more competition into those areas and ultimately improve access to new services. And by "new," I mean the Internet. I shall gladly point out that this bill passed with substantial majorities and bipartisan support in both houses. All of our legislators deserve to be commended. The Kansas City Star has a story on it here. As one representative I know has an excellent understanding of free markets says:

“This bill is about access for rural Missouri,” said Rep. Charlie Schlottach, an Owensville Republican.

Indeed, it is.

Periodically here at the Show-Me Institute, we like to look through the rolls of
pending bills in the Missouri General Assembly and offer insightful, balanced
commentary about select pieces of legislation. Granted, sometimes these insights
turn into week-long rants about milk, ice cream cones, or beer, but more often than
not they can lead to thoughts about issues such as this: Senate Bill
786.

SB 786, properly known as the RFID Right to Know Act of
2008, is a bill introduced by Sen. Maida Coleman that seeks to require that
every item sold in Missouri containing a Radio Frequency Identification chip be
conspicuously labeled as such. This bill has been introduced in various forms
twice before, but its failure to pass is in no way indicative of its value as an
article of legislation. If nothing else, the time that has passed since the
bill’s first introduction in 2006 has made it more relevant.

RFID chips,
for the technologically disinclined, are tiny devices that consist of a
combination of electronic circuitry and a tiny antenna. RFID chips have long
been used as security devices in bookstores and libraries, but the continual
march of technology (as well as Moore’s Law) have made the chips smaller and the
circuitry better to the point where RFID chips are now being used in tag form in
supply chain management, as a replacement for UPC barcodes, and in implantable
form in veterinary medicine, as a method to identify stray pets. Use of these
implantable chips, in particular, seems to be growing the fastest, as a number of
companies have begun to use them for security identification, and some high-end
nightclubs are using them to allow VIPs to pay for drinks with a wave of the
arm.

While such convenience may seem appealing, the privacy issues that
come along with RFID chips are considerable. Most of today’s chips are passive,
meaning that they will sit idle, hidden in a pair of jeans or a sweater, until a
radio signal activates them and triggers a response. The problem is that their
size makes them nearly impossible to find, and their passive nature (which is
not destroyed by a bout with the washing machine or dryer) makes them
susceptible to being activated again — possibly while you’re walking down the
street.

This isn’t to say that RFID chips should be banned. Quite
the contrary — they offer an enormous potential for consumers and advertisers
alike. However, if they are to be used effectively, bills like SB 786 would provide a valuable service to consumers, letting them know that the devices are embedded in their purchases. Such
identification allows customers to choose whether they would like to purchase the
item, and gives them the knowledge they need to destroy the chips if they wish
(as a corollary, passage of this bill may drastically increase the number of
people who regularly microwave their clothing — as such an action is an effective
method of disabling RFID tags).

Technology can open up some frightening
doors (and, apparently, can be seen by some as the "mark of the beast"), but if we act now
to account for it, we can assure that privacy and the other individual liberties
of citizens can be assured.

Missouri Sen. Scott Rupp, for his recently introduced bill that seeks to end cyberbullying in the wake of the tragic "MySpace suicide" of Megan Meier, the Dardenne Prairie girl who hanged herself after being the target of hateful messages on the popular social networking website.

First, the details of this case are harrowing, and should provide an excellent cautionary tale to parents in the age of Web 2.0. Now, more than ever, it is essential that attention be paid to what children do and have access to online (the Washington Post has an excellent discussion about this topic).

The problem I have with Sen. Rupp’s bill, though, is that it sets a dangerous precedent for online regulation. The Internet is an entity that has grown and changed lives largely because of anonymity. This anonymity brings freedom in cyberspace, allows a shield of privacy to protect users from having their lives put on display for the entire world, and protects online residents from the actions of others. After all, a law that punishes a "cyberbully" could be applied to the wrong user of a guilty account, because it’s difficult — if not impossible, in many cases — to prove whether a given users was the one at the keyboard, or whether it was a bystander unaware of the harm being done.

Sen. Rupp’s bill has the good intention of attempting to right a new and unfamiliar wrong, but I cannot agree with his remedy. The Internet may be the greatest common good that the modern economy has ever seen, and any attempt to manage it with a political agenda will bring far more harm than benefit.

The Southeast Missourian has an article today on broadband access in rural areas. The piece reports, "Since 2002, USDA Rural Development has administered a program that
gives loans to broadband Internet service providers to install service
in unserved or underserved rural areas," but that misuse of these funds in non-rural communities has led some in Congress to question the program.

Broadband Internet has become an indispensable part of life for me — essential to work, recreation, shopping, staying informed, paying bills, playing games, staying in touch with friends — so I can understand wanting to spread the technology to underserved areas. High-speed Internet access is simply useful, in a wide variety of ways. But it’s not a problem that requires a government solution.

The economist David D. Friedman briefly described the concept of "opportunity sets" in his book Price Theory: An Intermediate Text:

Your problem as a consumer is to choose among the various bundles of goods and services you could purchase or produce with your limited resources of time and money. There are two elements to the problem–your preferences and your opportunity set. Your preferences could be represented by a gigantic table showing all possible bundles–collections of goods and services that you could conceivably consume–and showing for every pair of bundles which one you prefer. We assume that your preferences are consistent; if you prefer A to B and B to C, you also prefer A to C. Your opportunity set can be thought of as a list containing every bundle that you have enough money to buy. Your problem as a consumer is to decide which of the bundles in your opportunity set you prefer.

When people decide where they’re going to live, they choose between a variety of opportunity sets, each of which contains some combination of positive and negative factors. A house’s low price may be seen as a positive factor, while its low quality of construction, or risky surrounding neighborhood, may be seen as a negative. A group of friendly neighbors may be mitigated by their unkempt yards or loud music at night. And the pastoral beauty, seclusion and relative safety of rural life might have other drawbacks — distance from the nearest hospital, perhaps, or a limited selection of stores and restaurants. It may also have fewer (or no) options for broadband Internet access.

It’s not clear that any of this is a problem for government to solve. I may have hundreds of great reasons to live in the country, but there are always going to be drawbacks. There’s no reason limited Internet access should be treated as more of a government concern than, say, the lack of good Thai food or multiplex movie theaters. Similarly, the fact that I choose to live in an urban area, with access to a wide range of things to do, doesn’t mean the government should try make my life a little better by tearing down a few buildings to install an artificial lake next to my apartment. Lack of immediate access to nature is one of the drawbacks of my otherwise favorable opportunity set, and it’s simply not government’s job to fix it.

I have a friend in rural Idaho who depends on broadband Internet access for his telecommuting job. None of his options were entirely reliable, so his solution was to pay multiple providers for different kinds of high-speed service — and he can always revert to dial-up in a pinch. It’s more expensive that way, but he’s taken responsibility for his choice of where to live, enjoying the many benefits of rural life and improving his technological opportunity set at his own expense.

Governor Blunt has been on tour recently, promoting a new system for cataloging and sharing patient information between doctors and hospitals. According to Senate Majority Leader Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph:

"The amazing thing, if you listen to the hearing and the testimony," is that "there’s widespread agreement that we need to do this. This is about changing the health-care system to focus on patient needs, to focus on wellness, prevention and be patient-centric. That’s not a Republican issue. That’s not a Democratic issue. That’s a Missouri issue."

The idea is pretty simple: keep track electronically of a patient’s past medical history, current ongoing treatments, potential future problems, etc., and make those records accessible to any doctor in the state treating that patient. This will ensure a continuity and consistency in treatment, making it easier for doctors to anticipate and react to problems quicker, catching and preventing illness earlier while its easier to manage. 

The potential for savings is great, as most diseases, especially cancer, are most easily treated at their earliest stages, eliminating the need for more expensive and risky treatments later in the course of the illness. It will also enable doctors to more effectively collaborate in treating the same patient, avoiding problems with overlapping or conflicting treatments. As described by Sen. Shields:

"Every day you see the elderly person come in with a bag full of prescription drugs in a Ziplock. There may be 12 drugs in there, and three of them interact with each other, and then they wonder why they’re sick," he said.

Electronic records will be an excellent way of overcoming these difficulties, saving patients and taxpayers money by eliminating the need for treatment of side effects from prescription drug-related complications.

With the cost of healthcare in America spiraling out of control, and more and more Americans finding themselves without coverage, something must be done to bring costs down and make care more affordable for everyone. Keeping healthcare systems at the technological forefront by combining Information technologies with medical technologies will help achieve this.