• Tag Archives regulation
  • This “Privatization” Is a Fake

    This “Privatization” Is a Fake

    “Welcome to the beginning of a new era for American infrastructure,” said Vice President Mike Pence while introducing Donald Trump for a press conference. “Starting today,” Pence continued, “this president will take historic steps to keep his promise to rebuild America.”

    Wow, that’s some serious hoopla. Excited?

    Well, curb your enthusiasm. What’s happening is not awful, and it is probably even essential, but it marks no new era.

    Trump was announcing… what exactly? It was a memo with a signature but has no force of law. Still, there was a big press conference, remarks by the President, multiple rounds of applause, and a formal signing that actually does nothing at all.

    This seems to be a pattern. The public relations element of this administration’s actions is wildly outstripping the reality. That is both good and bad. The unwelcome parts of the Trump agenda (protectionism, drug warriorism, travel restrictions) have so far proven to be as overblown as the welcome parts (health care reform, tax cuts, and privatization).

    Fake Privatization



    The memo Trump signed was an endorsement of an idea to “privatize” Air Traffic Control, but the word is in quotes because that’s not actually what the legislation does – and yes, there is legislation, pushed by Bill Shuster, the Republican chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The idea itself has been around since the 1970s. Some form of spinning off Air Traffic Control has already been successfully adopted by 50 other nations.

    The US, with air traffic control as part of a huge regulatory bureaucracy, is an anomaly at this point. Old-fashioned, unworkable. The proposed change does the following, according to Wired Magazine:

    Trump wants to hand over the nation’s air traffic control infrastructure to a private, nonprofit entity with its own board made up of airlines, unions, airports, and federal officials (like a real company!)… The FAA would oversee this new nonprofit entity, which would be funded through user fees – like takeoff and landing charges – instead of the excise taxes on passenger tickets and fuel that currently fund the country’s aviation system. Moving air traffic controllers from the FAA to this new organization would take about three years, the Trump administration estimates

    There you have it. It’s a new government-backed nonprofit organization, overseen by government with government officials on the board.

    It will probably be in a better position than the current government bureaucracy to be adaptive and that could translate to a better experience for consumers, eventually.

    Again, that’s probably an improvement. It is certainly not privatization. It looks more like what happened to the US post office: it became the US postal service, with independent operations and financing. Again, maybe an improvement. But this is not the new permissioning of competition, market-based pricing, or free enterprise. Not anywhere close to it.

    Real Deregulation 

    The first great strides toward introducing markets to the airline industry came in 1978 with the Airline Deregulation Act. It’s hard to imagine, but the government used to control all fares, routes, and industry structure. That meant flying was mostly for the elite who could afford it. After this partial deregulation, everything changed. Fares fell 30% over the next two decades, and another 25% since, and the number of passengers on domestic flights soared. It’s what made flying a normal experience in American life.

    However, none of it went far enough. There is still no free market in airports. The barriers to building new airports are almost insurmountable. Existing airports face an almost impossible time just making new runways. Airports themselves can be privately owned, but deal with a labyrinth of regulations on pricing. What John Meyer wrote 17 years ago remains true:

    Neither the use nor the supply of airport runways and air traffic control services is determined on the basis of their highest-value uses. A commercial jet with hundreds of passengers, paying thousands of dollars in ticket and jet fuel taxes, is given no more priority in departing and landing than a small private aircraft. Access determined by first-come, first-served queuing is a guarantee that demand and supply will be chronically mismatched and congestion and delays will ensue, with air travelers suffering as a result.

    Airlines themselves cannot manage their industry structure outside federal antitrust regulations. The FAA’s rules are stopping modernization in the use of drones, Uber for flying, and air space access.

    Then you have the security problem. The TSA was created by Congress after 9-11, effectively nationalizing airline security. The high costs and delays of that decision created 10 years of hell for consumers and airlines, and this never ends. No one is even talking about the privatization of this system, even though no institution has more incentive to provide security than airlines and their customers.

    The votes for nationalization in Congress were nearly unanimous, suggesting that the political class learns nothing from history. Put a government bureaucracy in charge of airport security? What do you think will happen? Exactly what did happen: massive inefficiency, high cost, pointless invasions of privacy, and no innovation.

    Real Reform

    It’s fun to dream about what a real infrastructure revolution would look like. This is my preferred slogan: sell it all! What if the federal highways were actually sold to private enterprise and managed entirely by them? What if road entrepreneurs could build and finance them as they see fit? 

    The economics of that would not be unlike the way the internet works today: advertising could fund management and ownership could change hands based on a profit-and-loss system. Bridges and dams could be sold as assets and owned by corporations, and renamed on that basis. Whole sectors of public property in cities could go private, like Atlantic Station in Atlanta, where even the policing is private.

    Maybe we could finally get our flying car.

    The main resistance to a serious and sweeping infrastructure reform is the fear that no one could know for sure what the results would be. But that is a feature and not a bug. The whole point of freedom is to discover new ways of serving each other in a voluntary society: no central plans, no bureaucrats predetermining results, no regulations killing creativity.

    That would indeed mark a new era for infrastructure.


    Jeffrey A. Tucker

    Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also Chief Liberty Officer and founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books. He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • The Left’s War on Grandma

    The Left’s War on Grandma

    The sharing economy is quietly changing the fabric of the country, but it’s not just homeowners or car owners who are benefiting.

    Slowly but surely the sharing economy is helping those parts of the economy that just can’t be reached by other means.

    The real winners of the sharing economy are those who have been marginalized from society and the economy for far too long.

    One example, of an 83-year-old woman from Stafford, shows why the benefits of the sharing economy are especially beneficial – vital, even – for those who are just about managing.

    The children of this woman were concerned that she stubbornly continued to drive, even though her eyesight was failing and she had more or less given up driving at night.

    However, every time the subject was mentioned, she hit back with the same riposte, which was stunningly effective. Driving might be costly and expensive, but it allowed her to maintain her independence and flexibility.

    This all changed when she was gifted a smartphone by her son. The deal? She gave up her car for four weeks and started using Uber instead.

    She had to keep a diary of the costs and compare them with one month of car use. After a month she had saved £100 – and reluctantly agreed that the app was not just convenient but had actually increased her independence, as she was now going out at night. Her only complaint was that the photo of the driver was a bit too small.

    It was such a success that she is now selling her car and is going to rely fully on Uber, saving a significant amount of money and increasing her independence at the same time.

    The Face of the Sharing Economy

    This fable of our modern times is extraordinary – but it demonstrates who are the real winners of the sharing economy. It is those who have been marginalised from society and the economy for far too long.

    It is this 83-year-old woman. It is the North African immigrant in a Paris banlieu, to whom no one will give a job, but who can now earn a living by offering his services on Uber.

    It is the young student who can do a variety of odd jobs thanks to the many apps that link those who need one-off services with people who have the necessary skills. It is the same young person who can share a car to get to a far-away city because they could never afford the train fare.

    Airbnb hosts aged 60 and older are the fastest-growing demographic for the company.

    It is also the residents of the favelas in Rio de Janeiro, who opened up their houses to visitors for the Olympics who had been priced out of the market by the hotels. In order to meet the shortage of hotel accommodation last summer, the city made Airbnb an official partner for the Games. This benefited both Olympic fans, who got cheap accommodation, and the favela residents, who earned a bit of extra cash.

    Airbnb now lists 25,000 units in Rio – a massive rise from only 900 in 2012. With Brazil’s economy in the doldrums, the platform was one of the few legitimate ways for residents of Rio to make extra money during the Olympics.

    For many of these people, a few hundred pounds extra a month, or a hundred-pound saving, can be the difference between making ends meet or not.

    A Blessing For the Elderly

    Back to our 83-year-old Uber customer who six weeks ago got her first smartphone. Despite that initial reluctance to use it, she now finds her grandchildren can send her pictures via WhatsApp and she can use the same phone to Skype a friend in South Africa. The app economy has transformed her life in a few short weeks. And she is not alone.

    A report from Airbnb, shows that hosts aged 60 and older are the fastest-growing demographic for the company, and women make up almost two-thirds of all older hosts, receiving a higher percentage of five-star reviews than any other age and gender combination.

    The elderly aren’t striking it rich from renting out their children’s old bedrooms. But they are earning a revenue stream from an unused resource, for which there is clearly demand.

    In America, one of the fastest-growing sharing economy businesses is DogVacay. It is an app that allows you to leave your dog with someone who will care for it, rather than rely on kennels.

    Again, it is a huge hit with the elderly. According to the company, it “allows seniors to care for dogs, keep active, enjoy the animal’s company with no long-term responsibility and earn a few dollars”.

    DogVacay didn’t design its business to address loneliness and inactivity in the elderly. But its by-product is doing just that. It is an example of how the sharing economy can bring those outside of the traditional economy back into a productive occupation.

    So the sharing economy is allowing us all to own less and to have access to more.

    The plethora of services it offers is becoming a lifeline both for those with services or resources to offer, and for those who want to make use of them, with substantial benefits from all.

    Why the opposition from the Left?

    And the major beneficiaries of this are not the comfortably off but the elderly, the poor, the students, young people. Those not catered for by the rigid, inflexible economy which predated the rise of the sharing economy. Those who may not be fairly represented in our political and economic systems.

    Somewhat perversely, it is those on the Right who have become the predominant advocates of the sharing economy whilst the Left pose the biggest threat to its future viability.

    Throughout Europe, it is Left-leaning (predominately social democratic) governments or city authorities which seek to clamp down on the sharing economy.

    If the Left embraced the sharing economy, it could help those people make ends meet, or make their lives a little better.

    Look at London, where TfL is doing everything it can to destroy Uber’s business model and to force 83-year-old women back into their cars or into a life where they can’t go out at night.

    It is the same story in France and in Brussels, where North African immigrants and young people, all struggling to land full-time jobs due to the rigidity of labour laws, see their governments blocking their only route to an honest livelihood.

    Or in Berlin, where the city authorities are doing their best to stop students and budget travellers from taking advantage of cheap accommodation, preferring to back the multinational hotel chains.

    The one common thread here is that all these cities or governments are run by politicians of the Left.

    This is absurd. The traditional Left is in malaise throughout the developed world, and there is such a rage against elites precisely because the elderly, the young, and the poor see politicians siding against them and with multinational chains and long-standing monopolies that offer little hope of change or of a better future.

    If the Left embraced the sharing economy, it could help those people make ends meet, or make their lives a little better.

    If allowed to thrive, the sharing model will dominate the economy. It offers marginal gains for the economy and for society that were simply not feasible before.

    It offers a tantalising glimpse of a future where we can all work when and where we want and we can all summon up whatever we need at a moment’s notice. It is truly revolutionary, and governments around the world need to embrace it, just as the 83-year-old woman from Stafford and the residents of Rio have.

    Republished from CapX.


    Daniel Dalton

    Daniel Dalton is a Member of the European Parliament.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • Another Week, Another 65 New Regulations

    As the Federal Register climbed above 87,000 pages for the first time in its 81-year history, agencies issued new rules ranging from landfills to movie theaters.

    On to the data:

    • Last week, 65 new final regulations were published in the Federal Register, after 85 the previous week.
    • That’s the equivalent of a new regulation every two hours and 35 minutes.
    • With 3,454 final regulations published so far in 2016, the federal government is on pace to issue 3,722 regulations in 2016. Last year’s total was 3,406 regulations.
    • Last week, 2,006 new pages were added to the Federal Register, after 2,292 pages the previous week.
    • Currently at 87,297 pages, the 2016 Federal Register is on pace for 94,071 pages. This would exceed the 2010 Federal Register’s previous all-time record adjusted page count of 81,405.
    • Rules are called “economically significant” if they have costs of $100 million or more in a given year. 30 such rules have been published so far in 2016, one in the last week.
    • The running compliance cost tally for 2016’s economically significant regulations ranges from $23.5 billion to $36.2 billion.
    • 277 final rules meeting the broader definition of “significant” have been published this year.
    • So far in 2016, 580 new rules affect small businesses; 99 of them are classified as significant.

    Highlights from selected final rules published last week:

    For more data, see Ten Thousand Commandments and follow @10KC and @RegoftheDay on Twitter.

    This first appeared at Competitive Enterprise Institute.

    Source: Another Week, Another 65 New Regulations | Foundation for Economic Education