It’s a small example, but it’s indicative of how markets work in general. The more that people engage in voluntary market transactions, the more that personal and societal wealth increases. Filmed in December 2008.

The post Show-Me Institute Free-Market Field Trip No. 1: Shoe Shines appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While there, the five of us were able to experience the joys of capitalism firsthand, as we exchanged a small amount of currency for a service that was not only enjoyable, but also improved the value of an asset — in this case, our shoes. Now, while I still feel that buying comic books is the greatest example of free-market capitalism, I still had a great time at Andre’s.

So, enjoy this short movie I edited together on our office Mac. It shows, in its purest form, what capitalism truly means.

The post I Wanna See My Face in ‘Em appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Luckily, this law has never been enforced. Even so, a Kansas City lawmaker is trying to have the law repealed, giving Missourians the smooth yellowy freedom they deserve. And yet, I ponder, who really cares? I mean, the law hasn’t been enforced and yet this lawmaker is taking the time to have it repealed. Is the inert I-Can’t-Believe-It’s-Not-Butter ban causing so much damage as to warrant such attention? Are there not more urgent issues to deal with? So, which is worse: having a useless uniformed law on the books, or having an elected official waste time and money to repeal it?

This seems like the kind of thing they deal with down in Springfield.

The post A Law Requiring All Ducks to Wear Long Pants appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I figured it was only a matter of time until some sort of scientist would muster proof that ethanol = bad. Finally, the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Energy & Environmental Science journal has published a study ranking alternative energy sources in terms of their relative abilities to address problems with “global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security,” and “other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.”

Surprise, surprise — ethanol finished dead last.

Hopefully, these findings will not fall on deaf ears. And, if you haven’t read it by now, here is the Show-Me Institute’s ethanol study. Still looking for more ethanol fun? Why not try searching for “ethanol” on Policy Pulse and seeing what pops up?

Oh, and if you didn’t already know, today’s blog title comes from Thomas Dolby’s classic ’80s hit “She Blinded Me With Science.”

The post She Blinded Ethanol With Science appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Sure, the latter of the three isn’t pure evil, but he still makes me uneasy. Edgar the “E” Man is the new mascot for EPIC, the Ethanol Promotion and Information Council. With a round short body, an inflatable mustache, and a hat that looks like it was stolen from Luigi, Edgar travels the land promoting ethanol to all the impressionable little minds that need molding. Yes, there is a form you can fill out to have Edgar appear at your party. He even has a Facebook account.

Is it possibly taking things to far to use an inflatable letter “e” to promote ethanol by manipulating children? Before you know it, we’ll see Eli the Eminent Domain Eagle and Karl the Tax Kredit Kangaroo. I just pray that Chester Cheetah, Captain Crunch, and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man can form some sort of mascot union, and keep Edgar the “E” Man out.

The post Get ‘Em While They’re Young appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I don’t know how I’m expected to follow this law when even the lawmakers don’t. Apparently, civil liberties are something to worry about only when your own are threatened.

*If you squint hard enough at the top right corner of the photo in the article, you can kind of see my apartment.

The post Red Light Cameras Fail to Watch the Watchmen appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I fear there are political motivations behind this tax break idea, and that the well-being of the environment is not the primary concern. A tax break to buy hybrids does two things: First, like so much green legislation, it gives the policymakers a green image in the eyes of the public. With green policies being so popular, especially with young voters, they have a political incentive to pass it. I’ll just call this a positive externality, regardless of whether the intentions are positive. The new law would act as a Pigovian subsidy, encouraging individuals to reduce the emissions they might otherwise create by, in this case, buying more hybrids. The second result is obvious: Creating an additional incentive to purchase new, American-made cars will cast policymakers as heroes to automakers — companies that are more than willing to fund future campaigns if it will lead to legislation that increases their sales.

Like so many green ideas out there, hybrids are seen as flawless vehicles, but there are drawbacks, some of which do not apply to standard cars. For instance, materials used in hybrid car batteries are known carcinogens, and some materials in these batteries are quite rare; an increase in demand will drive up the costs still further. Of course, standard car batteries aren’t exactly safe for consumption either, being composed primarily of lead. But that is neither here nor there. What is surprising is that throughout the lifespan of both types of vehicles, including production and disposal, hybrids require more energy than traditional vehicles. This is reflected in their higher production cost. People are still willing to pay this extra cost if means staying green, and that’s the beauty of choice. But the proposed subsidy takes only one set of externalities into account, and so may not be promoting real efficiency.

Just to make the issue personal, signs like this are popping all over the place — including down the street from the Show-Me Institute’s office. Where will this end? I, for one, am tired of being villainized because I drive a regular vehicle. Where’s my reserved parking spot and tax break? I blame all of this on Stan Marsh’s stupid little song.

The post Picking Favorites appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Ah, now there’s a thought — living in Missouri without a ethanol mandate. Already, Missourians are getting a glimpse of this eventuality every time the price of gasoline prices drop below the price of ethanol. Hopefully, we are on our way to having a choice of whether or not we want ethanol in our engines.

*Former Show-Me Institute intern Pat Eckelkamp contributed this terrible pun of a title.

The post Attention All Ears (of Corn): Ethanol Mandate Could Be Repealed* appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Recently, here at the Show-Me Institute, we’ve added a whole new section to our website that’s devoted to occupational licensing: “Show-Me: The Licensing.” There is a ton of great information there, including this piece all about how occupational licensing affects Missourians. And, as always, you can check out the rest of Show-Me Living for even more information.

And, hey, while you’re at it, be sure to take a look at Dave Stokes’ brand-new case study on the topic.

Luckily, no license is required to be a Show-Me Institute intern.

*You would not believe how many times I misspelled “licensing” when writing this. God, I love spellcheck.

The post James Bond Will Return, in: An Occupational License to Kill appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Although Dave Stokes beat me to the punch with his entry about this story earlier today, I’d like to reiterate that these programs are self-defeating. Their results run counter to the stated intent of program advocates: reducing the number of privately held guns. Instead, buybacks lead to a larger number of more effective weapons than before. Ultimately, these programs accomplish only one thing: creating an artificial price floor for weapons, thus increasing the value of otherwise useless guns. People can sell back worthless old guns and allocate the proceeds toward the purchase of bright, shiny, new, bigger guns with tricked-out scopes and lasers. These buybacks are counterproductive.

Now, I wonder which will be the larger factor in this year’s buyback: the possibility of increasing gun and ammo prices in the face of an uncertain regulatory future, or an alderman calling for Saint Louisans to arm themselves rather than depend on the STLPD?

The post D’oh! Buybacks Are Back appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to Missouri’s ethanol mandate, if gasoline prices drop below those of ethanol prices, then retailers are no longer required to sell the ethanol blend. The Kansas City Star covers the story here. Well, this is good news for Missourians. No longer will our engines be clogged with this substance that drives up the costs of gasoline and food and makes our cars less efficient.

Be sure to read the Show-Me Institute’s study of ethanol. Hopefully, gas prices will stay low — not only for the sake of my wallet, but also for the sake of Missouri residents who are no longer forced to purchase ethanol.

The post For Once, Loopholes Work in Missouri Consumers’ Favor appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Brown & Crouppen was started by two gents named Ron Brown (not to be confused with Don Brown at the entrance to The Hill) and Terry Crouppen. Now, for years, personal injury lawyers and used car salesmen have had local commercials in St. Louis that play 23 hours a day on all the local channels. Watching so many Brown & Crouppen commericals during Saturday morning cartoons on channel 11 is probably what drove me to choose a career path in law.

But there is a new Missouri law threatening these media gems from reaching our TVs, radios, and mailboxes. What I don’t understand about the new law is the harm, if any, that these ads are causing.

Lawmakers claim these ads influence individuals too much in their decisions when choosing an attorney. But there should not be a law restricting what lawyers can advertise because individuals do not put enough effort into their searches for the proper attorney. When you pick a lawyer from an infomercial, what exactly are you expecting? Atticus Finch? No. You should be expecting exactly what the commerical promises: a lawyer with a firm who specializes in whatever area of law they say, whether it be personal injury or family law.

Part of the proposed law would require any disclaimer to be read at the same pace as the phone number. Why should lawyers alone be forced to expand their disclaimers? Surely, if lawyers have to read their disclaimers slowly, then every other disclaimer should be slowed down as well. Why should Terry Crouppen be barred from advertising his services in the manner he wishes? He’s a Missouri business owner just like Ted Drewes, even if he doesn’t “put a little wiggle in it.”

The post The Choice of a Lawyer Is an Important Decision and Should Not Be Based Solely Upon This Blog appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Ameren claims the increased funds will go toward employee wages, construction materials, power plant fuels, and capital expenditures. Many people are raising an eyebrow or two because of this proposal’s timing. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that Ameren wants to raise rates at the same time it wants to build a new nuclear plant. But, of course, raising customers’ rates in order to fund plant construction is illegal, but I’m sure that Ameren officials know that. Also, it has that new renewable energy mandate to manufacture and pay for. But, hey, that’s supposed to save us all money in the long run. … I just wish those savings would get here sooner.

The post A Bad Day to Be an Ameren Customer appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post A Great Day to Be an Intern appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Once again, I think this is one of those feel-good laws that, when a layer or two is pulled back, does not make a ton of sense. Let’s take a look at this law for a moment. It penalizes any motorist who is not wearing a seat belt. Now, a seat belt is a device that protects you, and you alone, lowering the chance of injury or death in the instance of a collision. If I were driving my Danger Ranger down the road, it would make no difference to me whether every other motorist was wearing his or her seat belt. (Let’s ignore any association between not wearing a seat belt, risk-taking, and driving safely.)

Now, as with any decision, I have to consider the costs and benefits of wearing a seat belt. Some costs could be discomfort when wearing it, or the fact that my seat belt often gets caught in my car door. But these costs are offset by the benefits the seat belt offers, mainly the lower chance of injury or death that I mentioned earlier.

When talking about this law with fellow staff members here at the Show-Me Institute, a few more possible motivations for this law arose. For one, it may lead to a lower mortality rate for St. Louis County as a whole. This could be achieved in other ways, of course, such as drastically lowering speed limits, or through much stricter enforcement (as Josh Smith pointed out to me), but that would be detrimental to St. Louis County’s economy.

Here’s a fun way to look at it: The statistical value of a human life has been estimated to be $1.76 million. This figure comes from a 2002 estimate of $1.54 million, which I’ve adjusted for inflation. Now, while it can be seen as immoral to put a monetary value on human life, this number is thought to be what each person adds to society around them over the span of their life, sans all the mushy stuff like love and affection. Now, by drastically lowering the speed limit, millions of dollars would be saved in terms of human life. But the detrimental effects to our economy in terms of lost mobility and productivity would easily offset those millions. Rather, the government is able to set an equilibrium point for speed limits that is beneficial both to the economy and to human life — although the speed limit on Shrewsbury Avenue is ridiculous.

But what about seat belts? Well, it seems to me that if a person already considers the costs of wearing a seat belt to be too high, $10 will not change their mind at all. Statisitcally, it is said that you are 50 percent less likely to be hurt in an accident when wearing a seat belt. Now, the accuracy of this statistic is, of course, questionable, but shouldn’t the amount of the fine reflect it somehow? By not wearing your seat belt, you have decided that discomfort, or other costs, are a more important factor in determining your behavior than the $1.7 million you are adding to society throughout your life. But in St. Louis County, the cost for getting caught not wearing a seat belt is $10. I just wish there were more logic to this number. Sure, it’s round and ends in zero, but shouldn’t the fine at least reflect the increased risk? Why should a speeding ticket cost hundreds of dollars, and yet not wearing a seat belt only cost you 10? If you are going to make laws telling me how to drive, at least make them consistent.

Here’s a thought: How about establishing incentives to wear a seat belt (if the lower mortality or injury rates weren’t enough). Every time I drive a mile while wearing my seat belt, my insurance should drop by a penny. Sound ridiculous? It was kind of supposed to.

The post Cost-Benefit Analysis of Seat Belts, or: The Day I Couldn’t Think of a Seat Belt Pun appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I did know that red light camera aggravation was not exclusive to Americans, but now I know it’s not even exclusive to humans. Unlike in Missouri, German red light cameras require your face in the picture in order to press charges. Their cameras are specifically designed to block out the passenger’s face to keep them anonymous. Well, this could be taken advantage of by driving a British car.

This picture is not faked, altered, Photoshopped, or edited in any way. It’s Animal, in all his glory, sticking it to the man.

Any Muppet lovers or red light haters can find more info about the subject here.

The post The Muppets vs. Red Light Cameras appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Some highlights of the speech include Bush praising the free market as the best approach to promote business, and stating that smarter government — not larger government — is beneficial. Truly words to live by, as ironic as they may be coming from Dubya’s mouth. Say what you will, but the man has been the greatest cheerleader the free market has had of late.

Anyway, check out the article (link via Drudge) before getting into any yo momma battles in the comments section. There was once a time when I would not have had to give this stipulation.

The post Remove Foot, Close Mouth, Praise the Free Market appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a world congested with government mandates, this bit of news is a breath of fresh air. Next thing you know, Uncle Sam will be letting us pick our own schools and decide whether or not we want ethanol in our gas tanks. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

The post The Free Market Is My Copilot appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I’m just saying. That’s all. And, even though it’s too late to vote, here’s my original op-ed about Prop C.

The post Being a Sore Loser appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With the election still fresh in all of our minds, politics was the topic of discussion — more specifically, Proposition M. At some point, right around Eager and I-64, the two were surprised to hear that I was not shedding tears for the half-cent sales tax’s failure to pass.

While I tried to defend my position, noting how Metro has a poor history of managing funds, the possible reallocation of crime, and, of course, how just because you throw tax money at something doesn’t mean the problem will be solved. But, to my brother and sister-in-law, they saw no possible downside to public transportation.

There are always externalities, whether they are positive or negative. Yes, public transportation does lower carbon emissions and can lower our dependence on foreign oil, but I bet shop owners in the Galleria would say those benefits do not justify the costs of increased shoplifting.

Are there ways around this negative externality? Sure. The Galleria has already put into effect an age limit and curfew for young shoppers. Anyone younger than 16 is required to be accompanied by a parent after 3 p.m. How about on the Metro side? Is the honor system truly cost effective? I rode the MetroLink twice a day this summer for three months, and not once was I asked for a ticket. In fact, the first time I was asked for a ticket was this Monday. New York and Chicago have turnstiles and gates for their public trains. Would increased security in St. Louis be too big of a hurdle?

I see three occurrences that might result from adding new security infrastructure. First, people who need to ride the MetroLink and already buy tickets would continue to do so with little or no effect on their commutes. Second, people who frequent the Metro on a semi-regular basis, who sometimes buy a ticket and sometimes do not, will find only a minimal increase to their MetroLink costs. Third, individuals who often abuse the honor system — constituting a majority of the free rider problem — will either finally pay for their passes or use a different form of transportation. Either way, the only real cost Metro would incur is the initial installation of turnstiles and gates, and whatever maintenance and upkeep costs they require.

While Ben and Jenna are devoted to keeping public transportation cheap and available, I hope I can convince them that there are alternatives to a tax hike that might achieve the same end. I agree that any cuts in line service would be devastating to some people, but it is not up to the taxpayers to dig Metro out of trouble they put themselves in. Apparently, judging by the election results, a majority of people agree with me.

The post MetroLink Conversations on the Road appeared first on Show-Me Institute.