Surely, it would be a giant shock to discover your memory was gone.

To be cut adrift from your own past is, literally, to lose your own life in the midst of living it. Suddenly, you have no friends, no background, no identity. You have lost any sense of meaning and purpose of the life you once led. And how can you even begin to think about the future if you don’t know your own past?

But what if we as nation were to wake up one day in the same condition—destitute of any knowledge or understanding who we are as a people and what was going on at different stages in the long and eventful history of our country?

If not yet there, we may be fast approaching that state.

“We’ve been raising several generations of young Americans who are, by and large, historically illiterate,” says David McCullough, two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for history. As someone who has lectured at scores of colleges and universities across the country, he adds, “I know how much these young people – even at the most esteemed institutions of higher learning—don’t know. It’s shocking.”

By way of example, he tells the story of being approached by a college sophomore at a top Midwestern University who told him, “Until I heard your talk this morning, I never realized the original colonies are all on the East Coast.” “McCullough thought, “What have we been doing so wrong that this obviously bright young woman would get this far and not know that?”

In The Nation’s Report Card: U.S. History 2010, the U.S. Department of Education found that only 12 percent of high school seniors performed well enough to be rated “proficient” in their knowledge of the rudiments of U.S. history. To put that another way, 88 percent of high school seniors flunked the minimum proficiency rating, and only two percent correctly answered a question about the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown vs. Board of Education.

When speaking in different forums about the dangers of historical illiteracy, McCullough puts “gratitude” high on his list of the many “benefits to history.” “Every day, we’re all enjoying freedoms and aspects of life that we would never have had if it weren’t for those who figure importantly in history.” And again he says: “I think that America has come further in giving opportunity to the best that’s in human nature than any other country ever in history.”

Yes, we ought to be grateful. At the same time, we ought to be keenly aware of the great danger to the good life that we are living posed by collectivist thinking – the kind of thinking that is the deadly enemy of individual liberty and the idea that people should be free to lead their own lives as they choose as long as they don’t impose upon the same freedoms of other people.

Metaphorically speaking, no country—not even the United States—is an island, entire in itself. In order to understand our own history, we also have to understand world history and how other people have coped in dealing with some of the same problems that we have faced in our own country.

Today, most Americans under the age of 40 are unaware of the millions upon millions of people murdered or starved to death by communist regimes around the world over the past century. They just have no idea.

Why? At both the high school and university levels, the true history of Marxist-inspired socialism isn’t being taught—or, if it is, it is being taught in a sanitized fashion to glosses over the enormous crimes against humanity committed by Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and other communist leaders.

In the hands of gifted historians like David McCullough—the author of best-selling books on Harry Truman, John Adams, and the Wright Brothers—stories of historical figures and important events tell us more about ourselves than we guessed possible.

In both our schools and our homes, we need to upgrade the teaching (and learning) of history. It really should be an eye-opening experience—something that makes us more aware of who we are and what we are capable of doing as a people and a nation.

The post The End of History as We (No Longer) Know It : A New Year’s Day Reflection appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It was not so long ago that Uber was not available in any city, much less Saint Louis. Heavy regulation restricted the supply of cabs in most large cities. With competition ruled out, it was often a sellers’ market for cab rides, especially at times like New Years’ Eve. It was the type of environment where someone could write an article like “How to Get a Cab in San Francisco and 4 Other Tips From Taxi Drivers,” which put the inability to hail cabs at the feet of “bossy” and otherwise clueless residents. In Saint Louis, on New Years’ Eves past, much of the taxi fleet decided additional fares weren’t worth their time and stayed home. Partiers waited hours for cabs that did not come.

With the introduction of ridesharing companies, findng a ride home is getting better across the country. People complain about surge pricing, but being able to make 2 or 10 times the normal fares keeps drivers on the road when it’s late or when it’s cold or when it’s New Years’ Eve. An expensive ride home is better than no ride home. Despite fears that ridesharing would lead to underservice of far-flung or economically disadvantaged areas, Uber provides transportation options where taxis are hard to find. At the time of writing, an Uber is within five minutes of my location in the Central West End. But it’s also available within six minutes of locations in Ferguson.

What of traditional cabs? Some may fear that Uber and its ilk spell the end of traditional cabs, but traditional taxis do have advantages. They have full-time drivers who could have more driving experience and knowledge of their cities. Taxi service is integrated into the civic environment, with cab lines at airports, hotels, and cab stands. Centralized operations could allow taxi companies to enforce standards of cleanliness and customer service that Uber cannot.

Some of these changes may already be happening. New data shows that increased competition from ridesharing is raising customer service levels for traditional cabs. Complaints against cabs have fallen greatly in New York City, and in Chicago there are suddenly fewer broken credit card machines. Whether traditional cab companies will survive is still an open question. We can only hope that in Saint Louis, and in other cities, the question is answered by potential customers, not regulatory bodies. 

The post As Uber Surges, Riders Reap the Benefits appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

1. Lyft and Uber have insurance gaps.

This statement may have had validity a few months ago, but this is no longer the case. In July, both Uber and Lyft changed their insurance policies so that cars operate under liability insurance whenever the ridesharing apps are activated. Commercial insurance becomes primary (not secondary as Mundy stated in the interview) when a passenger has been accepted. Both Lyft and Uber detail their policies, and no driver or customer needs to use these systems if they find them inadequate. But regulators and those of Mundy’s persuasion would rather legislate additional insurance (shown not to improve safety) or ban ridesharing.

2. Every time the taxi industry has been deregulated, it’s been reregulated.

This statement is empirically false, as a Reason study demonstrates.

3. Ridesharing companies do not perform adequate background checks.

Mundy claims Uber and Lyft drivers might be dangerous because they do not use the same type of background check as most cab companies. Peruse Uber’s qualifications for yourself:

According the Mundy, these tests do not go back as far as taxi checks and do not include arrests where there are no convictions. That seems like a contrived standard, and once again, customers can decide whether they feel Uber or Lyft drivers are safe. But Mundy and other regulators would rather residents did not have such options.

4. Uber and Lyft use price gouging.

Mundy, and other defenders of taxi regulations, do not like Uber and Lyft using variable pricing, such as charging more money at different times of night or when demand is higher. In reality, allowing for higher fares means drivers have a larger incentive to take fares at 2 a.m. or on New Year’s Eve. It allows the price mechanism to match supply with demand. But Mundy and other regulators would rather Saint Louisans wait hours for cabs that don’t come rather than have the choice to pay a higher fare.

5. Uber hurts the poor, because cab companies cannot cross-subsidize service.

It is well known that, despite stringent regulations, taxis around the country refuse fares and avoid depressed neighborhoods. The best protection against fare refusal and more service is a large, diverse supply of for-hire vehicles, which ridesharing can help provide. And what’s more, cities like Saint Louis spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on extensive public transit and para-transit services to serve the poor and the disabled. The for-hire vehicle market should not be regulated in order to duplicate those efforts.

If there is a common theme to Mundy’s and regulators’ arguments, it is that city officials, and not city residents, should decide whether ridesharing companies are safe enough, charge the right amount, and provide the right kind of service. But in reality, the corrective action of riders and drivers making their own decisions regarding Uber and Lyft are a far better test of all those criteria, and even Mundy admits the popularity of ridesharing where it has not been quashed by city government. The reality is that most Saint Louisans don’t see cabs as an option, because the service does not meet their needs. That’s a shame, because that hurts residents and hurts the city. But Mundy and the taxicab commission would rather keep it the way it is than let residents make their own choices.

The post Ridesharing an Option Regulators Want to Keep from Residents appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That story may seem preposterous, but we are dealing with a very similar situation today as Lyft, a new ride-sharing app (smart phone-based application), has upset the highly regulated Saint Louis taxicab market.

Lyft, Uber, and other companies like them allow users to schedule a ride from any registered driver in a geographical area. Lyft drivers need not be full-time cab drivers; they can be anyone with virtually any type of car that passes certain background and safety tests. After using Lyft, riders make an optional donation — not regulated fare — to the driver via electronic payment. No cash is needed. Drivers and riders rate each other, incentivizing both elevated service from drivers and generous rider donations. Lyft and other apps are rapidly expanding across the country and have many happy customers where they exist.

Not everyone is happy, however. Chief among the protestors is the Saint Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission (MTC), which regulates all for-hire vehicles in Saint Louis City and County. Under the argument of protecting rider safety and maintaining a balance between cab supply and demand, the MTC controls the number of taxis in Saint Louis, how they can conduct business, and what prices they charge. The MTC has taken legal action against Lyft, successfully pursuing an injunction against the company and directing police to fine drivers.

In the past, one could have argued that potential taxi users had too little information to avoid being ripped off, and no way to know which company was safe, so regulation was necessary. Today, the ease of checking fares and cab company records over the Internet and smart phones has solved those problems, but regulatory bodies such as the MTC have not gotten the memo. The MTC controls fares, requires potential cab owners to maintain a commercial address, and gets to decide — in a strange central planning throwback — if there is enough demand to justify more cabs.

These policies cause a significantly reduced supply of cabs when Saint Louisans need them most, such as on New Year’s Eve. Last year, there were less than 800 on-call cabs in all of Saint Louis City and County, and many decided that the fixed fare they would receive was not worth the hassle of working on New Year’s Eve. With no other options, many would-be customers waited hours for taxis that did not come.

Lyft and other ride-sharing apps can allow for a massive increase in the for-hire vehicle supply in Saint Louis. People in Saint Louis would be able to use some of the excess capacity of the cars we already own to greatly increase mobility in the Saint Louis area.

As for regulation, states such as California have already brought services such as Lyft into an established legal framework, called a Transportation Network Company. Companies such as Lyft can operate as long as they ensure that drivers have adequate insurance, clean records (in driving and otherwise), and safe vehicles. That seems like a fair set of regulations for Lyft’s operations in Saint Louis. In fact, it seems like a fair set of regulations for anyone who wants to give people rides in Saint Louis.

New business models relegate some regulations and regulatory bodies to the dustbin of history. If the MTC cannot change its policies to accommodate innovative companies, the MTC, not Lyft, should cease operating in Saint Louis.

Joseph Miller is a policy researcher at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Excessive Regulation, Not Lyft, Needs To Stop Operating In St. Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Opponents of taxicab regulation argue that regulatory bodies like the St. Louis Taxicab Commission (MTC) stifle innovation, but that does not mean they stamp it out completely. Some St. Louis cab companies have begun using apps and other technology to improve service. But small, bureaucratically approved technological improvements do not make the St. Louis taxicab industry innovation friendly.  The MTC controls how many cabs there are, how they operate, and what they charge. That leaves little room for new business models and little incentive for innovative practices.

The editorial itself talks about how innovative cab companies can be while openly bashing innovative pricing practices, like peak pricing, tacitly supporting regulations to stop them.  The author states:

“Cab fares are public and never change. Cab drivers don’t jack up prices in times of high demand.”

Peak pricing for cabs makes perfect sense for both companies and customers. It incentivizes more cabs to drive during times of peak demand and pushes customers to travel during less busy times. That better matches cab supply with demand. And, as many St. Louisans learned on New Year’s Eve, an expensive cab that will give you a ride is better than a cheap cab that decided to stay home. A shallow understanding of innovation and market forces runs throughout the editorial and likely explains why so few St. Louisans can rely on prompt taxi service.

If we believe the author, taxi regulations are all about safety. Suspending the issuance of new taxi permits? All about safety. Requiring that prospective taxi companies provide proof that there’s enough demand for more taxis? All about safety. Requiring a commercial address with 24/7 operations? All about safety. Set pricing? Safety. Barring airport cabs from serving the city? Safety. Dress code? Of course, safety.

The fact is that most of the MTC’s regulations have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with protecting existing cab companies. And while there’s little doubt that innovative taxi entrepreneurs would be able to compete with Lyft or Uber absent the MTC, why bother when you can keep competition out under the guise of protecting the consumer?

The post St. Louis Taxicab Regulations Needlessly Stifle Innovation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It is the same story of awful taxicab regulations in Saint Louis. Here is Uber, the nationwide, web-based private car service, explaining why they won’t enter the Saint Louis market. The same basic explanation applies to Kansas City, which means they are not giving consumers more choice in Missouri, while they do in many other parts of the nation. Are the safety and regulatory concerns in Missouri substantially greater than all those other cities? Of course not.

I know a little about taxicab licensing. I once opened a bribe for a county councilman from a taxicab operator looking for stricter regulations to protect his company from competition. That councilman and I reported the bribe to police instantly, but another councilman who had been taking bribes went to prison.

Taxicab licensing is there to protect the interests of the cab companies, not the public. Consumers now are more empowered by knowledge when dealing with cabs, like your cell phone and GPS telling you if a cabbie is taking you on a long route. Old rules such as uniforms, regulated fares, limits on cab licenses, and restricted areas (i.e., the airport) are no longer necessary. All that is needed is a basic cab registration with the city or county (for the protection of both the driver and passengers), driving record checks on the drivers, and inspecting meters (but not rates) to make sure they are accurate and properly posted. That’s all.

With these changes, maybe people in Saint Louis would be able to get a cab on New Year’s Eve.

The post Taxicab Reforms In Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Tomorrow, businesses in these states [that expand Medicaid] will have a significant competitive advantage – because as more people get health coverage, fewer people show up in emergency rooms, putting downward pressure on private health premiums.

But a “gold standard” study out of Oregon — released just two days after the governor’s statement — suggests that’s not true: that rather than decrease emergency room usage, a Medicaid expansion may actually make the problem worse. (Emphasis mine.)

Writing in Science, the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment researchers found that Medicaid did increase the use of preventive and primary-care services, but emergency-room use rose as well. Over an 18-month period, 100 low-income, uninsured adults in the Portland area would visit the ER about once each, on average. When Medicaid made health care “free” [for] these households, they made an additional 40 visits over that period — a 40-percent increase.

The increase was entirely comprised of people using the ER either for non-emergency medical needs, or for emergencies that could have been prevented with primary care. “Emergency department use increases even in classes of visits that might be most substitutable for other outpatient care,” the authors wrote, “such as those during standard hours (on-hours) and those for ‘non-emergent’ and ‘primary care treatable’ conditions.”

It’s irresponsible to expand a broken Medicaid program. That irresponsibility is accentuated when expansion proponents push arguments — like, “Medicaid reduces emergency room use” — that tend to fall apart when investigated. We all agree that Medicaid is in dire need of reform. It would be nice for policymakers to start recognizing reform as its own, superseding good, rather than just as a convenient rhetorical tool with which to repackage a Medicaid expansion.

The post Oregon Study: Medicaid Expansion Increases Emergency Room Use appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Show-Me Institute’s public information specialist, Audrey Spaulding, released a report on Friday documenting more than 100 discrepancies in the 2009 application for Distressed Areas Land Assemblage Tax Credits submitted by NorthSide Regeneration LLC to the State of Missouri. On New Year’s Eve, the state’s Department of Economic Development (DED) approved the inconsistency-riddled application, granting $20 million in taxpayer funds to the LLC.

Internal documents from the DED disclosed last week reveal that a state agency moving full-speed ahead to grant “the maximum allowed issuance ($20M) before the end of [2009],” while failing verify the applicant’s purchase price claims. Indeed, the DED’s outreach to a St. Louis–based independent private consultant consisted solely of a request to verify the number of parcels per acre in the area submitted for tax credit reimbursement.

In its typical bureaucratic fashion, the DED pressed ahead in its approvals without asking even the most basic question: What exactly is the state paying for, here?

Thanks to Audrey’s reporting, we can answer the question that our state’s bureaucrats failed to ask. Consider the following:

2829 Saint Louis Avenue, pictured above in June 2010, is a one-story, red brick, flat-roofed home with side entry, wood porch, and full basement. A raised limestone water table extends horizontally across the one-bay primary facade below a centered rectangular window opening, while a narrow band of white terra cotta projects outward from the brick wall above the window opening and below a band of white terra cotta coping. The west facade appears to be a former party wall, revealing a parapet that steps downward to the rear of the regular, 25-foot-by-130-foot lot. Presently in poor condition, the modest 908-square-foot home still retains remarkable stability — a product of its solid 1880s construction.

According to the city of St. Louis Assessor’s Office, the home has a total assessed valuation of $1,370.00, of which $360.00 is assessed land. During the past three years, its property tax bills were as follows: $119.06 (2009), $122.45 (2008), and $122.68 (2007). At present, the City of St. Louis lists the property’s appraised value at $7,200.

Prior to its acquisition by N&G Ventures LC in late 2005, the building appears to have served as a modest residence. Since its acquisition, the building’s condition has likely deteriorated, as evidenced by a collapsed rear wall and disintegrating side wood porch.

The above image places 2829 St. Louis Avenue in the context of its contemporary St. Louis streetscape. I could not resist adding a few annotations, courtesy of information contained both within the approved DALATC application and the St. Louis city Assessor’s Office.

I would venture to guess that most residents of St. Louis city would scratch their heads and dig a little deeper if confronted by such an outrageous claim.

Now, the DED says that they were not hoodwinked; they did their job.

I still have to ask — what did the DED think that it was paying for, here?

The post Did We Get What They Paid For? How Jefferson City Bureaucrats Erred on DALATC appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The inspection largely consists of giving the exterior a once-over glance and checking a few necessary things, such as brake lights and blinkers. Some cabs get a more thorough inspection than others, but it seems that the inspector is mostly looking for glaring defects or safety hazards. The inspector also verifies that the car’s meter has been recently inspected by a third-party meter inspecting agent, and that the car has proper insurance. The meter inspection is another required annual appointment, usually completed a week or two prior to the vehicle inspection. 

If the inspector finds a defect, it must be repaired before the car can continue to operate as a taxi in the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission (MTC) district (both St. Louis County and city — other areas have their own taxi certification agencies and processes). I’m pretty sure this is why the inspection is typically scheduled over two days, so that defects spotted on day one can be repaired and ready for day two.

Show-Me Institute scholars have spoken out a few times about the subject of professional licensing. This is certainly another example of an area where market forces, rather than government bureaucracy, would most efficiently produce the quantity and quality of services that people want. The MTC limits both the number and quality of taxis in its district, as well as the prices these taxis can charge. Limiting number or quality leads to increased prices, as basic economics would indicate. Price ceilings lead to shortages, made worse by the other limitations on quantity and quality. If you’ve ever been to Mardi Gras in St. Louis, participated in New Year’s Eve festivities, or even attended a Blues or Cardinals game, and tried to get a taxi, it is likely that you had to wait a long time — especially during those once-a-year holidays. Granted, I and other taxi drivers working at those times make a terrific hourly rate — especially for an occupation requiring practically no special training, education, or experience — but I care more about fostering a market in which customers get the taxi services they want than I do about making good money a few days per year.

Like most other businesses and services, you can get a pretty good idea about what kind of taxi you’re stepping into with just a superficial examination. Also like other businesses, it is difficult for taxicab companies to persist in the market if they don’t engender repeat business by offering good quality and reasonable prices. Market forces push toward price equilibrium, and entrepreneurs predictably exploit arbitrage opportunities, bringing people what they want more often in more efficient ways. The market would be a better steward of taxi services in St. Louis than the MTC is today.

The post Professional Licensing: A First-Person Perspective appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Louis Hamilton, chairman of the taxicab commission, said he suspects there are still too many cabs for the St. Louis market, and Mundy’s study should either confirm or dispel that notion.

You know what does a good job of determining the proper number of cabs? It’s called the free market, something the taxicab commission apparently has very little faith in or knowledge about. Here’s another commissioner, who works for the largest cab company in the area (emphasis added):

Rudawsky said the cab industry is "always feast or famine." When there are major events in town or on holidays such as New Year’s Eve, there are times when there aren’t enough cabs, he said. "But the majority of time, you could say there are too many."

This reminds me of P.J. O’Rourke’s writings on population control, which I believe he titled, "Just Enough of Me, Way Too Much of You." What are the odds that when Mr. Rudawsky says there are too may cabs, he means too many of his competitors’ cabs?

We have been discussing this issue around the office today, think-tank style. It seems that this new report they have commissioned is going to attempt to answer the question of whether there are too many cabs, but I doubt it will even consider the idea that a commission like this should not be setting any number at all. That said, there are some promising statements from the researcher, including this one about the fact that airport cabs can only take people away from the airport, but not to it:

"It’s not efficient at all," Mundy said. "And sadly enough, it’s not as unique as it should be. But most communities around the country are starting to realize that ? it really makes no sense to have one-way traffic in either direction."

The best thing the Metropolitan Taxi Commission has done is remove the restrictions for driving between county and city lines. Now, if they would get rid of those restrictions at the airport, too, that would be real progress — even if they continue to think it is their job to determine the "correct" number of taxis.
   

The post Are There Too Many Taxis In St. Louis? Let’s Ask the Taxi Companies … appeared first on Show-Me Institute.