For more than a decade, Kansas City leaders treated Sun Fresh at 31st and Prospect as both a grocery store and a public policy tool to address food access and economic development. According to KCUR, the city has invested  $17 to $21 million since 2015, plus a $750,000 operating and security appropriation in May 2025. Yet customer traffic reportedly fell from about 14,000 a week to roughly 2,000–4,000 by mid-2025 (sources differ by date and estimate). According to The Washington Post, the store’s insurance costs rose 45% year-over-year, thefts mounted, and by this summer the store’s shelves were bare. Less than three months after the latest infusion of taxpayer money, the store closed.

This should not have been a surprise. I wrote as early as 2015 that the effort would fail. I saw this not because I’m imbued with a mystical power of prediction, but because I’m roughly familiar with some basic economic principles.

Friedrich Hayek described the price system as “a mechanism for communicating information” that enables millions of separate decisions to coordinate without central control. Prices, sales, and profit margins signal what customers want and whether a business can supply it sustainably. Subsidies blur those signals. Falling sales normally push owners to change their product mix, improve service, or close. If government funds fill the gap, a business may avoid—or delay—those choices until the underlying problems are too great to fix. This is exactly what happened with Sun Fresh.

Ludwig von Mises argued that without real market prices, decision-makers cannot allocate resources rationally. A subsidized store like Sun Fresh is insulated from these tests. Are prices too high? Is the product selection wrong? Are operating costs out of line? In a subsidy environment, these questions may go unanswered because survival depends more on political approval than on customer satisfaction.

And what do politicians want?  Ribbon cuttings and pretty pictures. Sound economics doesn’t photograph so well.

Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, warned that the interests of producers and the public often diverge. A subsidized grocery may fulfill a political need to “do something” about food access, but it may not deliver what shoppers actually want at prices they will pay. If a store cannot sustain itself even with taxpayer support, the model—not the market—is the likely problem.

Supporters of the subsidies might argue that they were necessary to correct a market failure, and that the store’s closure proves even more support was needed. But the record suggests the opposite: prolonged subsidies masked underlying weaknesses, delayed inevitable closure, and diverted resources from other food-access efforts such as mobile markets, independent co-ops, or smaller-scale grants. Subsidies likely harmed other grocery stores as well, such as an ALDI on Prospect within about 1.5 miles.

Markets provide important information that no city hall central plan can replicate. Public funds cannot replace this information; they can only distort it. It’s true of sports stadia, entertainment districts, and the hotel industry. When those signals are ignored, the cost falls not only on taxpayers but also on the communities policymakers aim to help.

Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, this debacle is an example not only of the city doing what it shouldn’t, but also failing to do what it should. Many of the challenges the shopping center endured—theft, prostitution, open drug use, and violence—were the result of the city failing to do something we (should) all agree is a basic function of government: public safety.

Even if one believes subsidized stores could work, nothing can succeed amid the bedlam surrounding this store.

I wrote of this project in 2015: “When [the grocery store] fails, the city and its residents will be no better off than before, just poorer. And the infrastructure, crime, and education issues that really need to be addressed will be that much worse.” This is exactly where we are now.

The post Sun Fresh Failed Because of Subsidies, not Despite Them appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Take Missouri’s 2018 decision to remove the 174-day minimum school year requirement. The goal was to give school districts greater flexibility in structuring their academic calendars. It worked. By 2023, nearly one third of Missouri districts had adopted four-day school weeks. The policy also had an unintended consequence—students now spend significantly less time in school.

While schools are still required to meet the minimum 1,044-hour requirement, Institute research shows that the average Missouri student is going to school 17 to 29 fewer hours per year than before. Over the course of an entire K–12 education, this equates to losing nearly a quarter of a school year.

This phenomenon is not unique to education policy. Unintended consequences abound in economic and social policies.

• Raising the Minimum Wage: The intention is to help low-income workers earn a living wage. In practice, however, higher labor costs often lead businesses to cut jobs, reduce hours, or replace workers with automation—hurting the very people the policy was meant to help.
• Housing and Zoning Regulations: Efforts to control urban development often result in reduced housing supply, making homes and apartments more expensive. In places with strict zoning laws, such as California and New York, these regulations have contributed to skyrocketing housing costs and homelessness crises.
• Corporate Tax Increases: Policymakers impose higher taxes on corporations to generate more government revenue, but companies respond by moving operations overseas, reducing investment, or passing costs onto consumers.

Public policies are often crafted with the best intentions, yet they reshape human behavior in unpredictable ways. When policymakers overlook economic incentives and fail to anticipate secondary effects, the result is often worse than the problem they set out to fix.

As Missouri’s school calendar experiment shows, flexibility in education policy may be valuable, but policymakers must exercise caution. Legislators should weigh not just the direct outcomes of a policy but also the unintended consequences that ripple through society.

The post Unintended Consequences: When Well-Meaning Policies Backfire appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For a better understanding of these issues, we can look to Friedrich August von Hayek, the great twentieth-century Austrian economist. In 1945 Hayek published his essay, “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” in which he challenged the idea of central planning.

First, Hayek pointed out that the issue is not whether there should be a plan or no plan. The issue is whether there should be one plan by a single central authority, or millions of plans by the millions of people coordinating in the open market.

But having millions of plans by millions of different people seems chaotic. In order for all those plans to be effective, they would have to take into consideration all the relevant knowledge about the availability and possible uses of different resources. In a decentralized system, how is the relevant knowledge being coordinated? The answer, according to Hayek, is the price system.

Prices convey important information. Higher prices tell us that a good is relatively scarce; lower prices tell us it’s relatively abundant. This information then shapes the way people plan for the future and how they allocate their own resources. For example, say steel suddenly becomes scarcer. This will cause the price of steel to rise, telling everyone else in the economy that their use of steel needs to be economized.

Some businesses that use steel might reduce production or find cheaper alternative methods of production. Consumers of products that use steel might reduce their consumption. Other producers of steel, seeing higher revenue potential, might try to find ways to expand output and bring more steel to the market. The actions of all of these different people and companies are coordinated because of the information they gained from prices.

There’s no need for a central authority to gather all the relevant information to create a single plan. In fact, much of the relevant knowledge cannot be conveyed to a central authority at all.

Characteristics such as quality and an employee’s ability to learn cannot be precisely measured. Therefore, any datasheet given to the central authority will not give a full picture of the economy. Furthermore, all of this information is constantly changing, so that even the information that is quantifiable becomes obsolete by the time it reaches the central planner. Prices solve both of these problems. People’s implicit, unquantifiable knowledge can be reflected in constantly changing prices.

Hayek’s insight is significant when we think about modern policy issues. The government cannot know how best to set up a healthcare system, how to regulate production, or what wage employees should be paid.

Missourians should keep this in mind when the government pretends to have these answers. While it may be reasonable for the government to make adjustments when the market can’t provide—such as public goods and addressing negative externalities like pollution—more often than not, the best policy is to leave it to the market.

The post What Hayek Can Teach Us About Government Planning appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Ludwig von Mises, a mentor to Friedrich Hayek and a major figure in economics in his own right, set out his views on capitalism and inequality in a slender book (just 113 pages) called The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality. First published in 1954, and readily available online for less than $10, it is well worth reading today.

Mises’ treatise on why capitalism sits in the dock, falsely accused of various crimes against humanity, is a classic: bravely saying what still needs to be said. It offers a robust rebuttal to the jaundiced view of capitalism found (most recently and conspicuously) in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

In The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, Mises asks: Why do so many people “loathe” capitalism? He gives a threefold answer.

The first factor is simple ignorance. Few people credit capitalism for the fact that they “enjoy amenities that were denied to even the most prosperous people of earlier generations.” Telephones, cars, steel-making, and thousands of other advancements are all “an achievement of classical liberalism, free trade, laissez faire, and capital” — with the driving force being the profit motive and the deployment of capital used in the development of better tools and machines and the creation of new products. Take away capitalism and you wipe out most or all of the extraordinary progress that has been made in raising living standards and reducing poverty since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

The second factor is envy, the green-eyed monster, which causes many people to think they have gotten the short end of the stick. As Mises observes: “Capitalism grants to each the opportunity to attain the most desirable positions which, of course, can only be attained by the few … Whatever a man may have gained for himself, there are always before his eyes people who have outstripped him … Such is the attitude of the tramp against the man with the regular job, the factory hand against the foreman, the executive against the vice-president, the vice-president against the president, the man who is worth three hundred thousand dollars against the millionaire, and so on.”

And finally, the third factor is the unceasing vilification of capitalism by those who seek to constrain or destroy it. As Mises notes, the critics and anti-capitalists go on telling and re-telling the same story: saying that “capitalism is a system to make the masses suffer terribly and that the more capitalism progresses and approaches its full maturity, the more the immense majority becomes impoverished.”

Indeed, that is the story Piketty tells in his book, which has soared to the top of the New York Times and Amazon best-seller lists. Does inequality rank as the great defining issue of the twenty-first century? If you agree with Piketty, it does. He contends that disparities in income and wealth are spiraling out of control, setting the haves- against the have-nots. Without “confiscatory” taxes to create a new social and economic equilibrium, he warns, today’s democracies may ultimately collapse, taking capitalism and the capitalists down with them.

Piketty makes much of the seeming fact (some dispute his statistics) that those at the highest levels of income in the United States have claimed a sharply rising share of total U.S. national income over the past three or four decades. From there he leaps to the conclusion that the vast disparity in income between the top 1 percent and the bottom 90 percent will lead over time to the emergence of a new “patrimonial capitalism.” With nothing (save perhaps violent revolution) to worry about, the heirs to big fortunes will turn into a new class of rentiers, living off the rent they receive from owning land and other forms of capital.

In his analysis, it is set in stone that return on capital (r) outstrips economic growth (g), which means that the heirs to great fortunes stay on the fast track to even greater wealth – without even having to work – while the lower and middle class are condemned to economic stagnation or utter hopelessness. His little formula, r>g, is supposed to be one of the great takeaways from the book, but it points up one of the problems of presenting a far-too-static picture of how people behave in a competitive marketplace.

That would not have escaped Mises’ attention. Mises would have challenged Piketty’s assumption that the heirs to great fortunes would manage their money wisely, or that they would have the same success as others (more driven than they) in searching out the best investments. Mises maintained that “the dull and stolid progeny” of people who built business empires were likely to “fritter away” their heritage and “sink back into insignificance.”

Under a capitalist system worthy of the name (meaning, to Mises, a competitive market economy free of the crippling effects of state planning and controls); it is neither the powerful industrialist nor the rich investor who calls the shots; it is ordinary people in their capacity as consumers. Through their “buying or not buying,” consumers provide “a daily referendum on what is to be produced and who is to produce it.” They have the whip hand – the power to “make poor suppliers rich and rich suppliers poor.”

One may almost pity the poor capitalist portrayed by Mises. However hard he might work or fast he might run, someone is probably gaining on him. At all times, other suppliers are striving to unseat the incumbents by discovering new and better ways of serving their customers. In comes a Wal-Mart or Target and out goes a Sears or K-Mart. It is a battle fought with an unending supply of fresh recruits, and it is never the case (as Piketty claims) that “The past (i.e. wealth accumulated from previous success) devours the future.” Rather, it is the future (whatever the next big thing may be) that replaces the present with something better.

In The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, Mises states unequivocally: “Nobody is needy in the market economy because of the fact that some people are rich. The riches of the rich are not the cause of the poverty of anybody.”

Look at the fastest-growing countries in today’s world. Is there not a natural compatibility – as opposed to an inherent contradiction – between major advances in the standard of living in some countries and the ability of their most enterprising citizens to make spectacular gains? That is what has happened in China as a result of economic liberalization: the number of Chinese billionaires has skyrocketed (and is now close to the number of U.S. billionaires), while hundreds of millions of people inside China have worked their way out of poverty.

Is it true – as Piketty contends – that we are witnessing a hyperconcentration of wealth inside the United States?

It might be true if the people with the highest incomes remained the same from one year to the next – over an extended period of time. But they are not the same people. Just as Mises would have expected, it is an ever-changing cast of characters. A recent report from the Tax Foundation data shows IRS data on people reporting a million dollars or more in income over a nine-year period. Fully half of these people made a one-time-only appearance. Only 15 percent of them reported at least a million in income two of the nine years and only 5.6 percent made it all nine years.

There is no danger of an oligarchy of the rich taking shape here to rival the power and permanence of the landed aristocracies in the pre-capitalistic France and Britain. (Note: This assumes that governments do not intervene, as they have been doing, to favor certain groups and enterprises. For more on how government increases income inequality, see Frank Hollenbeck’s article on income inequality, and Andreas Marquart’s work on this topic.)

But there is something else to worry about – something that caused Mises to lose sleep. That is the thought that the natural tendency under capitalism “towards a continuous improvement in the average standard of living” will be stymied by a growing “absence of capitalism” due to “the effects of policies sabotaging the operation of capitalism.” Among those perverse policies, Mises pointed to credit expansion, gunning the money supply, and raising minimum wage rates. Still more, he railed against progressive policies that diminish individual choice and leave more and more economic decision-making in the hands the state. Mises’ greatest fear was that people would “renounce freedom and voluntarily surrender to the suzerainty of omnipotent government.”

Ironically, the most ardent proponents of big government are those who carry on the most about inequality. Do they want nothing more (to paraphrase Churchill) than an equal sharing of misery?

Andrew B. Wilson is a resident fellow and senior writer at the Show-Me Institute, a free market think tank based in St. Louis, MO.

The post Thomas Piketty and Mises’s ‘The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality’ appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last night was obviously Snowmaggedon, and I hope everyone is staying safe out there as some of the roads are still nasty. The previous night, Wednesday, we hosted the second Show-Me Institute Saint Louis Book Club meeting of the year. We discussed the classic The Road to Serfdom, by Friedrich Hayek. The central theme of the book is that fascism is a natural outgrowth of socialist central planning. Hayek’s desperate wish was to warn the western nations, especially England and the U.S., not to pursue the path of central planning. Hayek believed that a descent into fascism was more likely than it seemed to his audience: the citizens of non-fascist western nations in 1944.

But all that just makes the book sound like a dated warning against something no one really advocates anymore, right? Well, the book has staying power because of two timeless features which are perhaps separate sides of the same coin: Hayek explains why the price system not only works, but is the best system possible for maximizing individual welfare while also making a strong case for individual liberty and limited government, which Hayek calls (using the connotation of his time), liberalism.

It was a wonderful meeting and a rousing discussion. Book club meetings start at 7 p.m. and usually wrap up about 8:30 or 9 p.m. But Wednesday’s meeting did not end until shortly after 9:30 p.m. — we all had so much to discuss. Here are some of the topics and ideas we discussed:

• Whether a person’s concept of what is possible constrains their action.
• The important distinction between freedom and power: what it is and why it is important that they not be confused.
• This wonderful quote from Adam Smith (introduced roughly by Hayek): “[the regimentation of economic life puts governments in a position where] to support themselves they are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”
• Where Hayek drew the line on the proper role of government and how that might undermine his overall message of liberty.
• Whether market competition is inherently violent (hint: it is not).
• Whether a legal system is necessary for competition, and David Friedman’s “the discipline of constant dealings.”
• The contradiction and ugliness of “competitive socialism.”
• An extended interlude about “Little House on the Prairie.”

The reading for next month is The Machinery of Freedom, by David Friedman, another classic. Friedman is an economics and law professor with a Ph.D. in physics, and the son of free-market titan Milton Friedman. From the Amazon description: “This book argues the case for a society organized by private property, individual rights, and voluntary co-operation, with little or no government.” I am looking forward to some excellent discussion on this one at our March meeting, so please join us if you can (date of meeting to be announced, check here).

The post February Book Club Recap – The Road to Serfdom appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Our discussion started with introductions around the table. Among our 10 attendees, some have been attending book club regularly for years, some have come in the past and had not attended in a while, and one person had never attended. Former Show-Me Institute intern Mary Chism gave a synopsis of the story for the few people who had not read it. Next, I gave a brief summary of the history of intellectuals’ views on the concept of value, from Aristotle’s “value for use”/”value for exchange” dichotomy, to the Labor Theory of Value, to the modern marginalist conception of value, attributable to Alfred Marshall.

We then started addressing the discussion questions I had prepared in advance (with Mary’s help). Leading from those questions, here are some of the topics we discussed:

• Whether anything can be exchanged for anything else
• The how and why of international currency exchange
• Government policy relating to the supply of money and exchange rates
• Whether sweatshop laborers, especially children, are making a free choice to work where they do
• The opportunity cost of reckless behavior
• Risk aversion and diminishing marginal utility of income
• A question from one attendee: “When a participant in a market has more resources, how does that affect that party’s ability to make beneficial exchanges?”

Some topics were discussed on an introductory level and others on a very high level. Many questions were asked and much knowledge shared. In addition to the lively discussion of economics and such, we talked about what our next reading selection should be and when we should meet again. The respective decisions were Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” and Wed., Feb. 20. If you are interested in the book or related topics, stop by our office at 7 p.m. on that evening for pizza, soda, and interesting discussion. See ya there!

The post January Book Club Recap – The Cambist and Lord Iron appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In fact, the TCRC’s new recommendations actually kick the tax credit reform can even further down the road, presenting an even less ambitious reform proposal than it did in 2010. Among other things, the TCRC recommended higher caps than it did just two years ago on giant fiscal violators such as the Historic Preservation Tax Credit program. Missouri’s tax credit disease has become worse over the last two years. In response, the TCRC has recommended . . . dialing down the reform dosage from its previous reform prescription.

What a disappointment.

That does not mean that nothing worthwhile came from the TCRC, or at least, despite it. Based in part on commission member Craig Van Matre’s early draft report, eight commission members also produced a blistering minority report. That report actually cites free-market luminaries such as Frederick Hayek and Henry Hazlitt for intellectual support and takes a rhetorical hammer to the state’s tax credit woes. That report is embedded below.

It really would have been something if the TCRC had adopted the minority report rather than retrenched the tax credit status quo. Sadly, the body on the whole took the tax credit debate in precisely the wrong direction.

Minority Reportbycertainmembersofthetaxcommission dec2012 FINAL (Text)

The post MUST READ: The Minority Report From The Tax Credit Review Commission appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As a long-time teacher of economics in Missouri, I believe that Hayek’s words are just as apt today as they were 50 years ago. Here we live in a country that has been singularly successful both in creating material prosperity and enabling more and more people to enjoy the blessings of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Yet despite this unrivaled record of success, many of those entrusted with the education of our children regard capitalism, the engine of the nation’s prosperity, not as something to be celebrated, but as something deplorable or shameful.

I have seen first-hand how an aversion to free markets, competition, and economic logic permeates our classrooms. To cite one example, a good friend of mine once invited a professor of education to collaborate in designing a summer curriculum on entrepreneurship for disadvantaged youth in Saint Louis. The professor, a prominent member of his university’s college of education, was aghast. He told my friend that entrepreneurship is the very antithesis of education and the teaching of good citizenship. And over the past 12 years, that is the world view that he has inculcated in hundreds if not thousands of future teachers at all levels of education.

Consider the daughter of my friend. Her teacher, while discussing the environment and the spotted owl, denounced the meat and fur industries. The daughter, parroting her teacher, told her mother that the government should ban both industries. Noticing the obvious slant to the curriculum, mom challenged her daughter to compare the benefits and costs, including the loss of jobs and income. Daughter, resorting to ideological labels in lieu of reasoned response (a sure sign of educational neglect), declared her mother a “capitalist pig.”

Why this bias? Could it be that educators identify entrepreneurial free markets as win-lose zero sum confrontations? One’s gain must be another’s loss? Perhaps they imagine the violent overthrow of kind cooperation in favor of brutal aggression and profit. Self-esteem is sacrificed to the survival of the fittest. The very thought, however fanciful, rattles the nerves of educators.

Market competition, in fact, brings people together through voluntary exchange. You satisfy your own needs by discovering ways to satisfy the needs of others. This evolution from self-sufficient individuals to interdependent beings elevates social cooperation from a generous impulse to the essential linchpin supporting our means of survival. This should warm the hearts of educators everywhere.

Now consider what happens when governments replace entrepreneurs in picking the winners and losers. For example, analyze the multitude of tax credits that Missouri government gives away to insiders with lobbyists. Here, taxpayers are coerced into financing the Taj Mahals of wellconnected developers. Far from a cooperative game of willing participants, this is favoritism for the few, which eliminates competition and promotes waste.

Competition and free markets are the best assurances of social cooperation and peaceful coexistence. That is what we should be teaching our children. Even more, it is what we should be teaching our teachers.

Gregory Aubuchon is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri Public Policy.

The post Reappraising – and Praising – Capitalism appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• The afternoon of April 21, from 2:00 to 3:30 p.m. at the University of Missouri–St. Louis, in the James S. McDonnell Conference Room (331 SSB) (building 11 on this map). This lecture is free.
• The evening of April 21, at the Discussion Club. This lecture includes a dinner beginning at 7:00 p.m., which costs $37.00 for those who are not already Discussion Club members. For those who wish to attend the lecture only, beginning at 8:00 p.m., it costs only $5.00. The Discussion Club has provided more information about the speaker, as well as general club information.

I’m excited about these events. I watched this video a few days ago, and discovered that, as speakers go, Caldwell is a delight. I never wasted an opportunity in school to write about Hayek, so I can’t wait to see this speaker live.

The post Bruce Caldwell – the Hayek Expert – to Speak in Saint Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If you are not in the happy position of earning at least slightly more than you spend, what portion of your household budget comes from borrowing, or selling the family silver? Is it the seemingly modest 3 percent that spelt M-I-S-E-R-Y for Dickens’ character, who wound up in debtors’ prison? Or is it even worse than that? Say, a mind-boggling 43 percent? In percentage terms, that is the expected shortfall between U.S. government receipts and expenditures in the 2011 federal budget.

According to revised numbers released last week, the Barack Obama administration expects its annual revenues for fiscal 2011 to come in at $2.173 trillion, versus annual expenditures of $3.818 trillion. That leaves a deficit of $1.645 trillion. As a result, our government will have to borrow (or find other ways to paper over) 43 cents out of every dollar that it intends to spend.

The Obama administration has more than tripled the national deficit since the last full year of the George W. Bush administration. In doing so, it has achieved a remarkable feat: It has made the gap between federal receipts and outlays even wider than it was at the height of World War II.

U.S. spending during the war increased by a factor of eight, rising from $8.5 billion in 1940 to $70.6 billion in 1945. The huge increase in federal expenditures happened for many reasons. Among other things, it supported the 12 million men and women serving in the U.S. armed forces at the peak of the war. It also supported a hundredfold increase in annual production of military airplanes, on the way to annual production of more than 96,000 fighters, bombers, and transport aircraft in 1944.

To raise additional revenues during the war, the government came up with the ingenious device of a withholding tax on payroll checks. Federal tax receipts rose from $8.2 billion in 1940 to $41.5 billion in 1945 — a fivefold increase. That left an annual deficit in 1945 of $29.1 billion, or 41 percent, on total expenditures of $70.6 billion.

Thus, during the greatest war in human history, the United States — supplying not just its own forces, but those of Britain and Russia — had a budget deficit two percentage points below the gap that now looms for fiscal 2011.

When a nation is at war against a deadly enemy, many people accept that the government will demand sacrifices on the part of citizens. During World War II, this included not just increased taxes, but rationing, price controls, conscription, and other limitations on individual freedom. As Nobel laureate economist F.A. Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom, “The only exception to the rule that a free society must not be subjected to a single purpose is war and other temporary disasters when subordination of almost everything to the immediate and pressing need is the price at which we preserve our freedom in the long run.”

Does the Obama administration live up to Hayek’s test? I believe not. The all-encompassing unity of national purpose of which Hayek spoke disappears under all but the gravest and most immediate peril.

Federal spending will reach an estimated 25.3 percent of gross domestic product in fiscal 2011, up almost five percentage points since 2008. To what end? Far from kick starting the economy, the government’s heavy reliance on deficit spending has only served to expand an already bloated public sector and to constrict the private sector. This is, indeed, the road to serfdom.

Andrew B. Wilson is senior editor at the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post A Sky-Is-the-Limit Federal Budget appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

By contrast, the modern State of the Union address is carefully orchestrated both by politicians and the media to instill a feeling of awe in viewers. Like a well-rehearsed religious ceremony, participants rise and show their approval at predetermined breaks in the speech as the president releases a steady stream of policy proposals, like mystic prayers that he is confident will elevate his people. This spectacle places government — especially the president — at the center of our lives, but this is as backward as the medieval idea that the sun revolved around the earth.

Last night, Obama briefly acknowledged that America’s free-market system “sparks the creativity and imagination of our people,” but quickly moved on to extol government subsidies for, among other things, high-speed rail, broadband Internet access, and renewable energy sources. All these projects stifle individual creativity and imagination by attempting to direct innovation and economic growth from on high — they are a kinder, gentler central planning and reflect what Nobel Prize–winning economist F.A. Hayek called “the fatal conceit” that politicians know better than the dispersed knowledge of the people they rule.

In fact, it is everyday people using bits of knowledge in their particular areas of expertise who keep the economy functioning and drive it forward. Not only does the president not possess the knowledge necessary to understand and successfully redirect that multitude of choices to his preferred ends, it is impossible for him to possess it. Only an entrepreneur facing the discipline of profit and loss can discover which new energy source will prove popular. Only a rural resident weighing the costs and benefits of faster Internet access can decide whether it makes sense for him. Only a commuter running late for work can decide whether high-speed rail is more efficient than driving. The economy, Hayek explained, is the product of human action but not human design, so it must be steered by the choices of individuals free from government influence and coercion.

In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith wrote about the arrogance of the “man of system,” who “seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.” But, as Smith points out, we are not chess pieces; each of us has different hopes, goals, and dreams — and different ideas about how to achieve them. We naturally resist the hand of the man of system when it tries to move us away from our chosen paths and ruin all the grand designs of politicians and their planners. People will flourish most when an equitable set of rules is enforced, but they are otherwise left to move about life’s board as they see fit.

Political rhetoric like last night’s speech may sound exquisite and offer hope for great improvements in the human condition, but, almost without exception, the improvements we know of came about not from a government plan but from individuals going about their lives and pursuing their own goals. Presidents may flatter themselves with the idea that they are the center of the universe, but as King Solomon, who knew something about the arrogance of public officials, wrote in Ecclesiastes, “vanity of vanities; all is vanity.”

The post A State of Arrogance appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Roberts and Papola are producing another video with the same actors playing Hayek and Keynes, and applying their theories to the present situation. You can catch a preview of the video, along with a short interview with Roberts and Papola from a conference sponsored by The Economist magazine, embedded below.

The post Rapping the Recession appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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.

The post It Doesn’t Get Much Worse Than This appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Like all things, health care is a finite resource. As such, it is always rationed in some way. The important issue to determine is who — or what — is doing the rationing, and what criteria is used. After all, people ration in their daily lives when they choose how much of their paychecks to spend on groceries, clothes, or movie tickets. When individuals ration, they decide between individual trade-offs. The difference is not the mechanism, but the actor.

The price system is arguably the most efficient method to allocate resources. As Nobel laureate economist F.A. Hayek articulated in “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” the price system contains information for both the seller and buyer. With health care, however, true costs are largely veiled by what can be termed a “health care wedge” — a separation of consumers from knowledge of costs. A patient may face a decision of whether to seek treatment in the form of high-cost, high-intensity care or low-cost, low-intensity care (or no care, as the case may be) but lacks real price information to make an informed decision about whether the expected outcome will be worth the cost. This lack of information makes the high-cost, high-intensity care more appealing in situations where it might not otherwise be chosen. Because of the skewed incentive structure that this creates in the current health insurance market, costs will continue to rise. This leads some to believe that it is necessary for the government to establish new ways of rationing care, which ignores the real problem: the separation of consumer and cost of treatment. By finding a way to mitigate that health care wedge, the decisions about when and why to ration can be returned to individuals and their physicians.

How can this be done? Nearly two decades ago, Show-Me Institute scholar Susan Feigenbaum suggested a different mechanism for health insurance: indemnity insurance. She likened the process to automobile insurance. When an illness is diagnosed, the insurance company would follow a process that is similar to when an automobile claim is made. The company would assess the medical issue and write a check for the probable cost. The customer would then be able to choose how to spend that money.

This system would create an incentive to shop around. Less intensive — and less costly — treatments become would more appealing, because thriftiness is rewarded. Some people would choose to use the entire amount for intensive health care. Others, especially those with terminal illnesses, might opt for minimal hospice or palliative care and set aside the remainder in a trust fund for a child or grandchild. Depending on how this type of plan were implemented, certain caveats could be included, like specifying a minimum level of required care, or precluding autonomy in making medical choices for those deemed too sick to make a sound decision. Those issues aside, indemnity insurance would place the decision in the hands of the individual.

The important thing is that this mechanism would introduce competition into one of the more expensive areas of health care, end-of-life care. Competition is necessary to bring down health care costs in the long term. Indemnity care is not the only possible solution, but it is one that must be considered, alongside other market-based solutions like health savings accounts. Missourians would benefit with an opportunity to choose from a variety of market-based health care options.

The post Death Panels and the Market appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So with apologies to Messrs. Friedman and Hayek, here’s the likely game summary on the free-agent season that was: The free market ended up making the NFL’s players poorer and its owners richer than ever.

Removing a salary cap would not cause salaries to decrease — it would cause them to either increase or remain unchanged. If the salary cap were ineffective (i.e., above the equilibrium price), then removing it would result in no change in salaries. A football team owner is going to hire q* football players and pay them a salary of p* nevertheless. If the salary cap were effective (i.e., below the equilibrium price), then removing it would cause salaries to increase to the equilibrium level.

From what I can tell from the article, the author is incorrectly assuming that the salary cap for football players was effective (i.e., their past salary was below their market value). On the contrary, the salary cap was probably ineffective (i.e., their salary equals their market value), which would explain why nobody is “throw[ing] irresponsibly large sums of scratch at the sport’s top free agents” upon its repeal. This is evidenced by the fact that, while under the cap, many teams hadn’t used up all the funds they had allocated in salaries. According to a recent article in the Post-Dispatch, this group includes the Saint Louis Rams:

The Rams have only about $76 million committed to salaries so far in 2010, and with projections of $30 million or $35 million in cap space when all is said and done.

The post Free Agents and the Free Market appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Another round of challenges to the $8.1 billion development of the city of Saint Louis’ north side will be heard in court tomorrow.

If you’re about to skip reading this post because the word “development” seems boring, hold on a moment. The project, put forward by developer Paul McKee, is contentious because it’s enormous — about two square miles — and because it has been approved for a large amount of public financing. McKee has asked for about $380 million in city tax increment financing (TIF), received approval for more than half, and will likely receive the rest in a few years. In late December, the state granted the development company, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, more than $19 million in tax credits (which can be used dollar-for-dollar to pay off taxes). Interestingly, the Department of Economic Development did not issue a press release, which it generally does when it issues tax credits.

One of the issues that will likely be raised at trial tomorrow is whether NorthSide unfairly characterized the area as being blighted. In its TIF application, NorthSide submitted a blighting study that systematically categorized more than 4,600 properties within the redevelopment boundary as being blighted. Along with its classification of properties as blighted for being dilapidated, unsafe, or unsanitary, the company also included blighting factors for properties with excessive vegetation, properties that had neither increased or declined in assessed value between 2003 and 2005, and properties with an increase in assessed value that totaled less than the city average from 2003 to 2008.

Another issue that could be raised at trial is that of eminent domain. McKee, along with the city aldermen who backed the project and pretty much every other public proponent of the project, have sworn repeatedly that eminent domain will not be used on owner-occupied property. What that means for the fate of non-owner-occupied properties within the boundary is less than clear.

Publicly available court documents also reveal some interesting details:

• NorthSide is curious about how the plaintiffs’ court costs are being financed, and requested that Sheryl Nelson and Elke McIntosh (two of the plaintiffs) reveal how they’re paying for litigation. Judge Robert Dierker did not grant the request.
• Both sides have taken deposition from Michele Boldrin, an economics professor at Washington University.
• NorthSide submitted a letter of interest from the Bank of Washington (in Missouri) as evidence of financial backing of the development. However, NorthSide has not submitted evidence of a contract with the bank, which has less than $800 million in total assets.
• According to NorthSide’s application for state tax credits, the company has spent about $25 million to purchase property in the redevelopment area.

The trial will start at 11 a.m. in Division 18 of the city’s Circuit Court. Judge Dierker, who quoted economist F.A. Hayek when rejecting the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, will hear the case. You can read that ruling here.

The post NorthSide Trial on Tuesday appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Deteriorating house in St. Louis’ north side.

SAINT LOUIS — A circuit court judge ruled on Thursday that a contested 1,500-acre development of the city’s north side can move forward. Critics had claimed in court that the city ordinance authorizing the development was invalid because the city hadn’t thoroughly vetted the development company’s funding before granting it up to $390.6 million in tax increment financing (TIF). However, Judge Robert Dierker wrote in his ruling that it isn’t the job of the courts to second-guess the city’s decision to approve the project. You can read that ruling here.

“The Court is concerned not with wisdom but with legality,” Dierker wrote. “If St. Louis ordinances 68484 and 68485 are within the scope of the authority conferred on the City’s Board of Aldermen by relevant statutes, the Court has no further role to play.”

Developer Paul McKee and the development company, NorthSide Regeneration, LLC, can count this as a win, but barely. Dierker peppered his ruling with offhand remarks about the wisdom of such a large-scale plan, and even began his ruling with a quote from economist Friedrich von Hayek about the weaknesses of centrally planned cities. And Dierker isn’t done with the case yet. On Feb. 16, he will hear another set of arguments against the ordinances from attorneys Eric Vickers, W. Bevis Schock, and James Schottel, Jr.

D.B. Amon, the attorney who had originally brought the lawsuit against NorthSide, had claimed that the city’s TIF Commission hadn’t investigated the ownership of NorthSide, nor had it received sufficient evidence of a financing commitment for the $8 billion project.

“The ownership and capitalization of Northside Regeneration is rather hazy on the record to date,” acknowledged Dierker, but he wrote that unclear financing alone isn’t enough to render the redevelopment ordinances invalid, and doesn’t show that the city necessarily violated procedure.

During the hearing, TIF Commission Chairman David Newberger had testified that NorthSide’s evidence of financing, a letter from the Bank of Washington stating that it was excited to provide financing for half of the project, was typical of the evidence submitted for other TIF projects.

“No TIF project ever has a firm commitment,” he said during the hearing. “Reason is, financial institutions are sitting on the side and waiting to see what the financial incentives are going to be.”

“As evidenced by the testimony of the chairman of the City’s TIF Commission, the Commission’s review is rather superficial, and the Commission relies heavily on staff employed by the City or one of its agencies, as well as on the redeveloper, for practically all of its information,” wrote Dierker.

But, as NorthSide argued in its post-hearing brief, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that courts should refuse to second-guess local government legislation unless fraud, collusion, or bad faith was involved.

Dierker echoed that decision in his ruling.

“[I]t must be borne in mind that legislation is usually presumed valid, and that the Court does not enjoy the authority to second-guess the judgment of the Board of Aldermen,” he wrote. “Absent evidence of bad faith, fraud or collusion, the burden on the plaintiffs in seeking to invalidate the ordinances is a heavy one.”

Furthermore, Dierker wrote, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they would be harmed if the project continued to move forward.

“Plaintiffs’ property may have suffered a diminution in value, but there is not evidence that they have attempted to sell any property without success or that defendants have intruded in any way on their use and enjoyment of their property,” he wrote. “As to the balance of hardships, a preliminary injunction is likely to do more harm to defendants than benefit to plaintiffs.”

Of course, Dierker wrote later, if things got much worse, the plaintiffs could always renew their motion to halt the project.

Full disclosure: W. Bevis Schock, one of the intervening attorneys in the case, also serves as the secretary of the Show-Me Institute’s Board of Directors. Schock is involved in the case through his private legal practice, not through his capacity as an institute board member.

The post Judge Rules NorthSide Can Move Forward, for Now appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post The Road to Serfdom appeared first on Show-Me Institute.