Susan Pendergrass and Dominic Pino, the Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow at the National Review Institute, discuss the current state of U.S. tariffs and trade policy, tariffs as a hidden form of taxation, common misconceptions about trade deficits, provide historical context for America’s protectionist tendencies, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps:

00:00 Understanding Tariffs and Economic Perspectives
02:51 The Impact of Trade Deficits
06:05 The Role of Government in Trade Policies
08:59 The Consequences of Protectionism
12:02 Future Economic Predictions
15:05 Historical Context of Tariffs
18:03 The Confusion Surrounding Current Policies

Episode Transcript 

Download a Transcript of this Episode

Susan Pendergrass (00:00) Well, this is going to be interesting. Dominic Pino, thank you for joining us from National Review. Every day feels like a month now, but it was a couple of weeks ago that this all started, and since then so much has happened in our economy. This is a great opportunity for me as a non-economist. I have seen, as many people have, Thomas Sowell out talking about what’s happening in the economy right now and our current economic approach. And it doesn’t seem like he thinks it’s great. What’s your opinion? And can you explain what the potential upside is of how we are approaching tariffs right now?

Dominic Pino (00:34) Yeah, thanks so much for having me on. First thing — I’m not really an economist. I do have a master’s degree in economics from George Mason, but I’m a journalist. I write about economics. Thomas Sowell most certainly is an economist and he is someone we should be taking seriously. His book, Basic Economics, lays out some of the best arguments for free trade that anyone has ever put to paper. He was recently talking, as you mentioned, with the Hoover Institution at Stanford, where he is still located. He was talking about how these tariffs from Trump are not an exception to the rule — they are not a good idea. What the U.S. has been doing is unilaterally, through just the president acting alone under supposed national emergencies that quite frankly don’t exist, imposing tariff rates that are higher than any country in the developed world on basically every other country in the world, for the mere existence of a trade deficit. That is what they think is the problem. The formula they use to calculate those tariff rates is not based at all on other countries’ tariff rates. They try to say it’s a reciprocal thing based on other countries’ tariffs, but that’s not at all what they did. All they did was look at other countries’ trade deficits and say, based on that, there’s a national emergency that we need to solve with unilateral action from the president to raise taxes on Americans. And it’s probably the largest peacetime tax hike in U.S. history.

Susan Pendergrass (02:00) Yeah, so the Show-Me Institute — we’re firmly on the books as being a free market policy think tank. That’s what we do. We talk about free market state policy for the most part, and we are pretty anti-tax and limited government. The idea that tariffs are taxes — why is it such a leap these days? Why are tariffs now seen as not taxes but as a skilled negotiating tool? How did that come to be, do you think?

Dominic Pino (02:22) Mostly because Donald Trump just believes it to be true. And he’s believed it to be true since the 1980s. You can look back — this is a pre-political thing for him. He just thinks that tariffs are a good idea. And he thinks that foreign countries pay them. It sort of sounds that way when you describe it as, say, a United States tariff on Japan — that makes it sound like Japan is the one paying it. But it’s really a tariff on Japanese goods, and that tariff is paid by Americans who buy Japanese goods. The fact that these are a tax increase is not in dispute. And you know it’s not in dispute because even the White House says it’s going to raise a ton of new revenue from these taxes. Where’s that revenue coming from if it’s not a tax? And why are American businesses upset about having to pay this tax if the tax is actually paid by foreigners? It doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Susan Pendergrass (03:13) So then why the trade deficit as the boogeyman? The way I see it — and again, we’re free trade, free market — trade deficits exist because we have a comparative advantage in some industries and other countries have a comparative advantage in others. I want to be able to buy all of it. I want to buy my vanilla from Madagascar. What is the problem with a trade deficit, or how did it become such a boogeyman?

Dominic Pino (03:37) Donald Trump seems to believe that a trade deficit means you’re getting poorer. And I just don’t know how you can get there. The United States is the richest country in the world. We have the world’s largest economy. We have that despite increased competition from China, and China has been slowing down while the United States has continued to plug along. We’ve seen countries that adopted free trade after being protectionist become very rich in a very short amount of time — places like Hong Kong, Singapore, or even those supposedly socialist Nordic countries like Sweden and Denmark. They have very liberal trade regimes, and they do that because they know it makes them richer. For the United States, we should absolutely be embracing free trade. We have actually embraced free trade less than a lot of other countries have, if you look at the proportion of our economy that is due to international trade. We’re in the low 20s as a percentage of GDP when you add up imports and exports. The world average is 63%. Most other countries are much more exposed to trade than the United States is. And we could be even better off if we reduced a lot of our own trade barriers, which there doesn’t seem to be any appetite for the president to do.

Susan Pendergrass (04:54) So walk me through what would be, from what you can understand of whatever the plan is — let’s say this is a plan — what would be the optimum outcome that the administration gets out of the approach they’ve taken?

Dominic Pino (05:07) Well, from my perspective, the optimum outcome would be that other countries remove their tariffs and we remove ours and we all get along. I think that would be great. There is a case to be made that you can use the threat or imposition of tariffs in this way to do that. That is a thing that we have in law and it makes sense in theory. It’s just not what the administration is actually doing. For example, Israel, in anticipation of these tariffs, removed all of their tariffs on U.S. goods. Now, they basically didn’t have any to begin with because we’ve had a free trade deal with Israel since 1985, but the few that were left — a couple of stragglers on some agricultural products — they got rid of them before Trump made his announcement. Trump comes out and puts 17% tariffs on goods from Israel. So why are we doing 17% if they’re doing zero? That’s not reciprocal at all. And it’s not being used to get a new free trade deal because we already have a free trade deal with Israel. If the administration had exempted the 12 countries with which the United States already has bilateral free trade deals, and the other countries that are part of multilateral trade deals, and said that’s what we want, then you could bring other countries to the negotiating table and say, hey, we want a free trade deal with you too. But if countries are learning the lesson that even having a free trade deal with the United States doesn’t protect you from U.S. tariffs, then what incentive do they have to come to the table in the first place?

Susan Pendergrass (06:38) You may have seen the news today about a potential extra 50% tariff on China, which seems a little impulsive. I’m just going to read what Thomas Sowell said in the last couple of days. He said, “It’s not a bad idea if you’re doing this within a system of rules. If you are the one who’s making the rules, then all the other people have no idea what you’re going to do next. And that’s a formula for having people hang on to their money until they figure out what you’re going to do. And when a whole lot of people hang on to their money, you get the results you got during the Great Depression of the 1930s.” I would say more than anything, we don’t know what’s going to happen next. Wednesday, supposedly the tariffs go into effect unless there’s a pause or some minds get changed. Don’t you think that’s what’s really driving the chaos right now — how unpredictable it is? You open the news and it’s like, maybe 50% more on China. What do you think?

Dominic Pino (07:33) For sure, I think that’s a big part of it, absolutely. This is why the founding fathers put the tariff power in Congress. They didn’t want one president, one guy by himself, to be able to do this kind of thing. They wanted tariffs to have a democratic legitimacy coming from the legislature that’s elected by the people. They wanted it to involve other voices from around the country so that certain regions aren’t left out. And they wanted it to go through two branches of government so that it’s more difficult to change. Congress over the past several decades has given away large portions of its power over trade. There were some good reasons to do that because it was done under the assumption that the president was going to use that power to liberalize trade — there were lots of public choice problems when Congress had control over the trade agenda by itself. And so for several decades, presidents of both parties did use that power to reduce U.S. barriers to trade and to negotiate lower barriers for other countries. That process played out and worked very nicely. Now we’ve had the last two presidents — both Trump and Biden — use a lot of those powers to increase trade barriers. And they’re doing so at a time when polling shows that trade is actually more popular than ever. The Gallup survey has been asking this question for many years: do you believe that international trade is more of an opportunity for the United States, or more of a threat? The number of people saying opportunity is at an all-time high right now, at about 80%. And yet politicians have convinced themselves that Americans are demanding protectionism. Really, it’s good for politicians because when they have the power to determine which exemptions get made, which tariffs apply to which industries, that creates lots of opportunities for lobbyists to come in and say, hey, you should give me that exemption. We’re already seeing that happening. Tim Carney at the Washington Examiner wrote a piece today saying there are about 160 new lobbying organizations that have spawned so far this year to lobby about international trade, and that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

Susan Pendergrass (09:44) So they’re coming in and saying, we want you to exempt our industry, our country, our region. They’re being paid millions of dollars to get the carve-outs. Have any carve-outs happened?

Dominic Pino (09:58) For the Canada tariffs, they put a lower rate on energy and on fertilizer than on other things. For some of the auto parts stuff, it’s not entirely clear exactly what’s going on at the moment, but there does seem to be some exemptions made there. But yeah, the exemptions are going to get made, and they’re going to get made not based on what’s best for the country in general — they’re going to get made based on who’s the most politically connected, because that’s how politicians work. That’s their job. That’s what they do. It’s in the name: politics. And so when there’s all this high talk of the national interest and national security — we’re going to bring back defense industry and things like that — it’s all cover for what they’re really doing, which is redistributing profits from companies they don’t like to companies they do like, and destroying a lot of wealth along the way from all the inefficiency that comes about.

Susan Pendergrass (10:48) So where do you see this headed? If you could fast forward to summer, where do you see this going? A lot of experts — Jamie Dimon and others — are talking about what they’re seeing in the tea leaves right now around the economy. What do you think?

Dominic Pino (11:01) I don’t think the stock market is done going down yet. I think traders are still holding out hope that the president is going to see the mistake here and reverse course. I’m not really optimistic that’s going to happen because during the first term there were a lot of voices saying contrary things, a lot of discussion and debate going on. And you also had a vice president in Mike Pence who was much more free market and much more traditionally conservative, and his team did a lot to run the policy decisions that were being made. This time around, JD Vance is an unabashed protectionist — he’s not making any secrets about that. And the people who are close to the president on this are people like Peter Navarro, who just really believes in protectionism. He finally has a chance to achieve his lifelong dream of raising taxes on Americans for having the nerve to buy stuff from other countries. Trump has other advisors who do know better, but they’re not going to be super likely to speak up because quite frankly, a lot of Republicans are just afraid of Trump and afraid of the consequences of speaking out against him. They would really be helping Trump to speak out. Republicans in Congress hopefully will realize this eventually, because these policies are going to be damaging for the American worker and the American consumer, and Trump shouldn’t want his name associated with that. Republicans shouldn’t want their party’s name associated with that. So Republican members of Congress should man up and be willing to override a presidential veto if they need to, to get rid of these damaging policies.

Susan Pendergrass (12:32) They tried somewhat, right? They tried with the Canadian tariffs. Rand Paul did, but it didn’t really make a difference.

Dominic Pino (12:39) Yep, they tried. Four Republicans voted with the Democrats to overturn the national emergency declaration on Canada. That’s a real thing that our federal government has right now. And it’s still in place because the president says so.

Susan Pendergrass (12:53) Yeah, I don’t know why I’m laughing because it’s not funny — a national emergency with Canada. What about this idea that we’re going to quickly move all production of autos back to the United States? During COVID, we were able to quickly ramp up production of masks and PPE. Can we do the same with cars?

Dominic Pino (13:20) It’s a whole lot easier to make a fabric mask than it is to make an automobile. That’s the first difference. The second is, you can look at the investment decisions that car companies make — they always take many years. That’s true of foreign automakers that build plants in the United States, which lots of them have done, and it’s supposed to be the point of this tariff policy. But they’ve done it without the tariff policy, so that should lead you to ask, well, if they were already doing that, why are we trying to make it harder? Those decisions take a long time. They’re reliant on the existence of a skilled workforce, and those skilled workers absolutely exist in the United States, but a lot of them are already employed doing other things. You have to pull them off of those other things to move them into car factories, which in many cases are going to be less productive than the jobs they were doing before, because the jobs they were doing before existed without the government taxing people in order to make them possible. It’s not that the United States doesn’t have a skilled labor force — we have an amazing labor force. They’re just already doing stuff. The unemployment rate continues to be very low, and that’s something we should be happy about. But we’re acting as though we’re in the middle of a depression and need the economy to rebound, when really we just need to build on some successes we already have.

Susan Pendergrass (14:35) Yeah, it’s so perplexing to me because at the Show-Me Institute, we talk a lot about governments trying to use levers to induce people to behave in certain ways — tax increment financing and things like that. If the government just pulled back and stayed out of the way, these things would happen organically. Baseball stadiums would go where the owners think they’re going to make the most money. These things will happen on their own rather than having the government step in and try to make them happen the way it wants. We talk about that all the time. And then this policy to me seems so counterintuitive — the idea that you hurt something so badly that giving a little relief becomes leverage. As a human being that just doesn’t make intuitive sense to me. We’re going to beat this dog, and when we give it a little water it’s going to be so grateful — it won’t be. That dog will hate me if that’s how I treat it. And I feel like that’s what we’re doing. We’re not bringing Canada around to our side.

Dominic Pino (15:38) No, not at all. And Canada was already on our side. They’re a NATO ally, they are our number one trading partner, and we basically have the world’s largest unguarded border with them. And it works fine — it’s great. There’s really no issue. The trade deficit issue there is also crazy. Even if you think trade deficits are bad — which, to be clear, they aren’t — but even if you do, the only reason the United States has a trade deficit with Canada is because of cheap imported Canadian energy. Canada has the thick tar sand oil out in Alberta, and it’s very difficult to refine because of its chemical makeup. The United States — the richest country in the world — has the best petroleum engineers and the best refineries in the world. We have some of the only refineries on the planet that can refine that type of oil. Canada is willing to sell it to American refiners at a discounted rate below the global price because that’s the only way they can get it out of the country. Then the United States refines that oil and turns it into a valuable product, because crude oil by itself is not very useful — you can’t run a car with it, you can’t make plastic with it. You have to refine it. And then we export the refined products out of the Gulf of Mexico, out of Louisiana, and it creates all sorts of economic value for the United States the entire way. And for some reason, that’s the reason for our trade deficit with Canada. How is the United States losing there? How is Canada losing there, for that matter? Both countries are better off. Canada can sell their oil, we can sell the refined products, everybody’s better off.

Susan Pendergrass (17:06) Yeah. I know there are some smart people around the president, and I think I must be missing something. I must have a blind spot. To me, this mostly seems crazy and damaging. So when I read Thomas Sowell and I listen to you and others, maybe I’m not crazy. I just assume there’s some big master plan that I’m not privy to. And all of this is starting to make sense of why I had to give up 15% of my retirement savings when I’m really close to retirement age. Maybe there’s some big plan, but I feel like I hear you saying there may not be a plan.

Dominic Pino (17:50) I’m not seeing one, unfortunately. And it’s not an encouraging sign when you can’t even get the administration to be on the same page with itself when talking about these things.

Susan Pendergrass (17:59) Yeah. What is the base rate? They’re all over the map. I think there was a leak today that there was going to be a pause, and then the White House said there’s not going to be a pause. They don’t even seem to know what page they’re on. Do you think we are heading towards a recession?

Dominic Pino (18:18) I don’t know that, but it’s certainly not going to help our GDP growth. We still have decently strong GDP growth — we have since COVID, and we had before COVID too. COVID was sort of an aberration. We’ve been growing at around two and a half percent a year since about 2018, give or take, which is pretty solid for a developed country as advanced as the United States is. So we still have some room before we get into recession territory. But it’s not going to make GDP growth do better, that’s for sure. And once people start to lose jobs from this, once people start paying more at the store, you’re going to see a lot more backlash. Quite frankly, if you have a recession that you can pretty clearly attribute to one person — which is Donald Trump, because again, he’s doing this unilaterally — it’s going to be hard to argue to voters that it wasn’t his fault.

Susan Pendergrass (19:11) Yeah, and I think it’s interesting that people used to use gas prices as a gauge because you just drive by them and see them every day. But now we all have our bank accounts and our 401ks on our phones, and we’re not waiting for a quarterly statement to find out. We see it going up and down like gas prices. And I believe that’s causing more of the backlash, the anxiety, the angst — we can just see it in real time.

Dominic Pino (19:35) Yeah, for sure. The guys from Americans for Tax Reform talk about how market research shows that people who are actively engaged in the stock market are much more likely to be Republicans. And that’s not just true of rich people — that’s true across the board. Even casual retail investors are more likely to be Republicans than Democrats. So in more ways than one, this is hurting Trump’s own voters.

Susan Pendergrass (20:01) Yeah, that’s perplexing. I know you’re probably in high demand now because people want information about what’s going on. Tariffs — it’s just not a word I ever thought I’d be saying so much. I think of them as very much a thing of the past. Anyone who knows about Smoot-Hawley knows that’s a long time ago. Just give us a little refresher course on what happened in the 30s.

Dominic Pino (20:24) Sure. In the 1930s, there was a big stock market sell-off that spurred a recession that then became the Great Depression over time. In large part it became that way because of government policies — including the Federal Reserve making some terrible decisions on monetary policy that guys like Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz have written entire books about. The federal government made some bad decisions, including New Deal programs that were basically make-work jobs that were drags on productivity. But also the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act didn’t help things either. The theory at the time was: we need high tariffs to protect America from unfair foreign competition, and once we rebuild our domestic economy we can go out and engage with the world again. It was completely wrong. Not only was it completely wrong for the United States, but it spurred a global wave of retaliatory tariffs that really helped to wreck free trade that had been growing as a global norm. This happened right between World War I and World War II — obviously not a happy time in world history and not a time we should look back on fondly. It was really bad.

Susan Pendergrass (21:35) It was 100 years ago too. We should have learned from it.

Dominic Pino (21:40) Yeah. But the average tariff rate under Trump’s plan is now higher than the average tariff rate under Smoot-Hawley. So if the tariffs stay in place for any extended period of time, you can expect — and I’m not promising another Great Depression — but it’s certainly not going to be good.

Susan Pendergrass (21:54) Yeah. I think one thing I can say confidently is that people’s impatience is escalating. The “don’t worry, we have a plan” response is wearing very thin. This idea that it’s going to work and you just have to take your medicine — when you haven’t really asked people to step up and sacrifice for a policy that most people don’t even really understand or want to get behind, that’s starting to really wear down. Republicans and — well, Democrats clearly don’t like it — but even some Republicans are coming around. If we were in a war and we all had to get blackout curtains, that’s one thing. But asking everyone to sacrifice their savings for something that no one has explained very well is not going to last. I think there’s going to be backlash.

Dominic Pino (22:50) And that style of argumentation is one that Democrats use all the time. They use it when they talk about clean energy and the transition to green energy. They say, yeah, there’ll be higher energy prices for now as we transition, but it’ll be better in the long term because we’ll have zero emissions and it’ll all be domestically made. They say it’ll help us get off foreign oil, and so on. Now, when Democrats make that argument, Republican voters recoil — and they vote for Republicans. But now Republicans are in office making the same kind of argument. It’s not about the environment, it’s about the global trade system, but the structure is identical: sure, in the short term there’ll be some higher costs, but don’t worry, the government has a plan. That’s just a Democrat style of argument. This is a situation where I actually wish there were a little bit more partisanship — Republicans just having the instinct to say, wait a minute, that sounds like what Democrats say when they’re talking about green energy.

Susan Pendergrass (23:48) Yeah, and another thing I wonder: people I know who are defending this approach — at what point is somebody going to say the emperor has no clothes? I’m a little bit dialed in, but I think most people are seeing it and wondering why people are going on the news every night and defending this approach. It’s confusing. It’s just confusing.

Dominic Pino (24:11) Yeah, absolutely. It’s confusing to all of us. And it’s confusing too because the justifications that get trotted out by different supporters can’t be true at the same time — and this is really the giveaway that it’s nonsense. For example, if the point of the tariffs is to bring back manufacturing jobs, to benefit domestic producers by allowing them to charge higher prices because they don’t face foreign competition, then the tariffs need to stay in place permanently. They can’t go away after negotiation. Similarly, if the purpose of the tariffs is to raise revenue to pay for other tax cuts — which is something the president has been talking about — that means the tariffs have to stay in place not just for now, but for 10 years, because that’s the budget window. So that would mean it’s not a negotiating tool. Now, if it is a negotiating tool, then you need to be willing to remove them. But if we’ve already made a commitment based on projected revenue over 10 years, we can’t remove them now because that would blow up that part of the plan. And if it’s a negotiating tool, it can’t protect domestic industry either, because if we remove the tariffs and foreign goods keep coming in, domestic industry will be right back where it started. The fact that these justifications can’t all be true at the same time should help you understand that there’s actually not a plan here. What’s unfortunate is that I think the administration is taking the keep-them-in-place-for-a-long-time strategy, because they’ve been talking much more recently about how it’s not a negotiation, how it’s going to raise revenue, and how the purpose is to restructure global trade. Those are their words.

Susan Pendergrass (25:47) Yeah, so it’s going to raise $6 trillion over 10 years — the amount they need to extend the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, basically.

Dominic Pino (25:55) Yeah, $6 trillion. So we’re going to do the largest tax increase in American history to pay for keeping the tax rates the same. Because again, extending the TCJA just means keeping the rates what they are right now.

Susan Pendergrass (26:09) So to do that, we have to raise taxes. That’s incredible. Well, Dominic, thank you so much for coming on and talking to us. I do understand it better now. I’m still perplexed, but I wake up every morning, look at the headlines, and think, now what’s happened? The chaos factor is getting on my nerves, but I appreciate you coming and explaining it in such a concise and clear way.

Dominic Pino (26:32) Good, I hope it helped. And if it makes you feel any better, I’m probably just as confused as you are.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Tariffs, Trade, and Economic Risk with Dominic Pino appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Occupational licensing increases costs to consumers and people entering the workforce, favors politically influential groups, and serves, in most cases, as a protectionist measure designed to benefit incumbent practitioners of the licensed occupation at the expense of future practitioners and the public. Show-Me Institute analysts have long written about the harms of occupational licensing in Missouri.

While we may finally be moving in the proper direction of less licensing, there remains a bureaucratic minefield of licensing apparatchiks who have to justify their positions on the public payroll. They do so by filing absurd cases like this one involving dentistry in Bridgeton. (For the record, one study found that dentists’ incomes and dental prices were 12 to 15 percent higher in states with more restrictive dental licensing rules.)

In Bridgeton, we have someone replacing rubber bands on braces—which many people simply do themselves. My son does it with his braces every day. You don’t need a dentist to replace a rubber band any more than you need an orthopedic surgeon to autograph an arm cast.

The second part of the case is, I admit, more complex. This person being sued has also apparently been applying cosmetic veneers to teeth.  They are, as the link describes, entirely cosmetic procedures. Why can’t this person apply veneer to a willing customer? Provided that her customers are fully informed that she is not a dentist, I see no problem with any of this. The article gives zero indication that anyone has been harmed. It simply appears that someone—possibly a dentist with nothing better to do—came across the ads and filed a complaint.

There could also be a middle ground here. Perhaps a basic license similar to those required for nail salon technicians could be required for cosmetic veneer sales instead of a full dentist license. That is another thing about occupational licensing: even in cases where it may be beneficial, the government goes way beyond what it needs to do in order to get the other aspects (usually protectionism), into the mix. Taxi cab licensing is a perfect example of this.

This lawsuit seems to me to be another overreach of licensing boards in Missouri. I hope the lawsuit gets tossed, but I also hope this goes the way of hair braiding laws and the legislature fixes the licensing rules here.

The post A Thin Veneer of Protectionism appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One such very bad policy idea is right of first refusal, which grants major Missouri utilities the automatic right to win all bids on new electric construction lines if they so choose. You may want to read that again. It doesn’t just give major utilities the right to bid on all projects—that goes without saying. It gives them the right to win any project they want, no matter what any other utility or construction company may bid. The idea here is to funnel projects to Missouri companies and “protect” Missouri jobs at the expense of out-of-state competitors. If you think this raises prices on consumers, as any grade school economics textbook would predict, it does. Significantly.

My former Show-Me Institute colleague Jakob Puckett wrote about this issue last year.  The same bills have been introduced again this session, so we shall return to Jakob’s arguments from last year:

Wouldn’t it be better for the legislature to propose subjecting transmission lines to competitive bidding, rather than shielding them from it? Since transmission costs are ultimately passed on to customers, it’s customers who bear the brunt, or receive the benefit, of cost-inflating or cost-saving policies.

Missouri will need more electric transmission lines built in the coming years. To build those lines at the lowest possible cost, Missouri needs more free-market activity in transmission projects, not less.

The state-based protectionism here is really something. While you frequently see such types of anti-market, anti-consumer protectionism at the national level (such as the administration’s ill-conceived plan to require only American-made products in our infrastructure efforts), you rarely see it at the state level. But here we have it. It is bad at the national level (with some exceptions, of course), but at least one can understand where it is coming from. As for this one, I’m at a complete loss. Are we really willing to cast everything aside because a company based in Arkansas that hires workers from Oklahoma might offer the best bid (and thereby save Missourians’ money) for a project near Joplin? (That’s a hypothetical project, for the record.)

As Jakob said, we need more markets in electricity, not less, and these bills power us in completely the wrong direction.

The post ROFR Makes Me ROFL appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If these students do one day get into the food truck business, one thing they will learn about is government regulation. Food trucks in Missouri are overregulated in many parts of the state—sometimes they are outright banned from operating in certain cities. While everyone would agree there are some safety rules that should apply to food trucks, such as not blocking busy intersections or parking in dangerous places, many places still engage in protectionism against them in favor of sit-down restaurants.

In some locales food trucks can operate, but not within a set distance from brick-and-mortar locations. That compromise is better than a total ban, and it may be a political necessity in some cities.

How are the food truck regulations in Joplin that these students may one day encounter? The good news is that the city allows them in the first place, and there does appear to be an active foot truck scene in the community.

But the regulations for food trucks appear to be heavy-handed. Don’t get me wrong, I know they are heavy-handed for restaurants, too. The obsession with “safety” in health regulations has led to things like banning popular (and perfectly safe) bake sales at schools. For example, in Joplin’s regulations I fail to see why a food truck has to:

“report to an approved commissary daily for servicing, food prep and cleaning”

There are other regulations on the list that seem unnecessary, but that is typical for the field.

But at least Joplin kids will be able to operate a food truck if they so desire, getting a real-world education in government regulations at the same time.

The post Joplin Students Learn About Food Trucks and (Perhaps) Government Regulations appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So why is President Donald Trump taking Harley-Davidson—another U.S.-based global super-brand—to task?

A day after the company announced plans to serve the European market with motorcycles built in Europe, the president thundered: “A Harley-Davidson should never be built in another country—never!” He accused the company of hoisting the “white flag” of surrender and predicted “If they move, watch, it will be the beginning of the end.”

Harley-Davidson, Inc., made its announcement after the European Union raised tariffs on U.S.-made motorcycles by 25 percent—in retaliation to the 25 percent tariff on European exports of steel to the U.S. imposed by the Trump administration. Noting that the higher EU tariff would add approximately $2,200 to the average cost of a motorcycle exported from the U.S. to Europe, the company said:

Increasing international production to alleviate the EU tariff burden is not the company’s preference, but it represents the only sustainable option. Europe is a critical market for Harley-Davidson. In 2017, nearly 40,000 riders bought new Harley-Davidson motorcycles in Europe, and revenue generated from the EU countries is second only to the U.S.

The president said that he had “chided” Harley-Davidson executives on an earlier occasion for moving production to India as a way around high motorcycle tariffs in that country. But is it reasonable to expect a profit-seeking enterprise to keep all production and employment in the U.S., regardless of the cost in lost sales, profit, and overall competitiveness?

Certainly, the Trump Organization has not followed such a policy. Under licensing or other arrangements, it has fancy hotels bearing the Trump name in four different cities in India (Mumbai, Delhi, Pune, and Kolkata). Apart from Chicago, however, the Trump Organization has no luxurious hotels anywhere in the great American heartland. Why not?

Presumably, it made more sense from a business perspective to build hotels for the super-rich in India—though other cities in the American Midwest would have welcomed the same investment.

The president faulted Harley-Davidson for not being more “patient”—suggesting that his deliberately provocative approach to trade negotiations would force other nations to bend to his will for fear of losing access to the rich U.S. marketplace. As he said a couple of months ago— “Trade wars are good, and easy to win.”

But as Joe Haslag, the chief economist for the Show-Me Institute, notes, the president is playing “a very dangerous game,” because “the size, scale, and scope of the products that we are now talking about in increasingly acrimonious trade negotiations are staggering—a potentially U.S.-GDP-changing event.”

A grand strategy? Maybe, but early results are not promising. Mid Continent Nail in Poplar Bluff says its orders have dropped in half as a result of having to raise prices to make up for the higher cost of importing steel from Mexico. It has laid off 60 workers and says it may have to dismiss all of its 440 remaining workers by Labor Day.

In 2017, the Trump administration withdrew from the Trans Pacific Partnership—an agreement that would have reduced tariffs in Asian markets on motorcycles made in the U.S. That seems to have prompted Harley-Davidson’s earlier decision to build a manufacturing plant in Thailand. It may also have been a factor in the company’s decision to close its Kansas City manufacturing facility by 2019.

What caused the world-famous company with the “HOG” stock exchange symbol to make those choices? Surely it was rising tariffs on manufactured goods—a problem that does not exist in the luxury hotel business.

The post Trump vs. Harley-and the World appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It seems so, if we take him at his recently tweeted word (“Trade wars are good, and easy to win”) and take the liberty of injecting him into the center of the argument found in the “Candlemaker’s Petition,” a satire of protectionist tariffs written by the great French economist, Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850).

In this classic economic parable, published in 1845, the manufacturers of “candles, tapers, lanterns, and street lamps” join forces with the producers of “tallow, oil, resins, and alcohol” in demanding protection against a powerful foreign competitor – namely, the sun. They ask for a law ordering their countrymen to keep all windows and doors covered during the day. Their petition states:

We are suffering from the intolerable competition of a foreign rival, placed, it would seem, in a condition so far superior to ours for the production of light that he absolutely inundates our national market with it at a price fabulously reduced.

Even in pre-electrical days, if a government were to order everyone to switch from sunlight to candlelight, it might create a number of jobs in candlemaking and related industries. However, it would also impoverish a far larger number of people by forcing them to replace a free and plentiful resource with an inferior yet costly product. In this case, the money people would spend on additional lighting products would raise profits for candlemakers – but as a needless expense for everyone else, it would lower disposable incomes and reduce productivity across the board (forcing even candlemakers to work in poorly lit conditions).

The same logic applies today if the president proceeds with plans to slap a 25-percent tariff on steel imports, along with a 10-percent tariff on aluminum imports. Above all, such duties would hurt a thousand or more people for every one they help – limiting choice and pushing up prices for most consumers, while imposing a significant burden on steel-dependent industries that employ 6.5 million people, or close to 50 times the number of U.S. steelworkers (140,000).

In the opening words of his essay, Bastiat paid mocking tribute to politicians opposed to free trade, saying:

Gentlemen: You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.

Free markets and free trade come down to the same thing: voluntary exchange for mutual benefit. It makes no difference whether that happens within a country or across national borders. In the absence of job- and growth-destroying government coercion, the buyer or consumer holds the upper hand. In a competitive marketplace, unless buyers agree to part with some of their money for someone else’s product, there is no trade and there are no transactions.

With his recent tweet, President Trump seems not (or pretends not) to understand that basic idea. Let’s hope it is pretends.

The post Would Trump Banish Sunlight to Protect American Jobs? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The author of the quote above is Ian Schrager, creator of boutique hotels and nightclubs, including Studio 54. In a recent Wall Street Journal piece, Schrager talks about the threat and how he is designing hotels to maximize efficiency and deliver a superior service to modern customers. Unfortunately, rather than innovate, some hotels are seeking to use the power of government to thwart competition. And governments are too often willing to do their bidding.

According to The New York Times, the American Hotel and Lodging Association trade group has launched a “multipronged, national campaign approach at the local, state and federal level.” One document shows that the group seeks to work with “a broad coalition of affordable housing advocates, community groups, neighborhood associations, labor, and other progressive entities.” The entire document is worth reading.

We’ve already seen some of this play out in Missouri, although the AHLA document does not cite efforts in the Show-Me State. Some neighborhood association activists have raised unsubstantiated fears about increases in crime. Kansas City’s own Planning and Development Department is exaggerating complaints against short-term rentals such as Airbnb. If Kansas City wants to present itself as a tech-friendly millennial magnet, it ought not keep fighting tech innovations such as Uber and Airbnb. Yet fight them it does.

In the 2017 legislative session, HB608 was an effort to pre-empt the current hodge-podge of municipal regulation that is being driven by the hotel industry’s concerns. The bill kept political subdivisions from imposing fees or prohibiting short term rentals outright, while permitting those subdivisions to impose “reasonable regulation” to “protect the public’s health and safety.” It may have been this last part that doomed the effort, as supporters of STRs feared that “reasonable regulation” was too broad a concession. As of this writing, January 4, there does not appear to be a similar bill proposed for 2018.

More recently, Airbnb announced a deal with Missouri in which it would start collecting and remitting state and local taxes on behalf of their owners. In their statement they estimated this would amount to $1.1 million in tax revenue.

New internet platforms such as Airbnb and VRBO (Vacation Rentals by Owner) offer great opportunities for consumers and for business innovators like Schrager who are up to the task. The churn of the free market—although sometimes ugly in the short term—is the reason why our country enjoys so many technological advantages and conveniences. Allowing big business to use its influence over government to thwart innovation by protecting existing markets isn’t just bad for Airbnb, it’s bad for hotels, government revenue, and consumers.

The post Want Better Hotels? Then Support a Free and Open Market appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The essence of the dispute is that Tesla, uniquely among U.S. car companies, does not use middlemen (dealerships) to sell its cars. MADA, which represents those middlemen, wants it to be illegal for a car company to directly sell its vehicles to consumers. They claim it already is illegal, under the Missouri Motor Vehicle Franchise laws. But the Missouri Department of Revenue disagrees, claiming the laws are only applicable to manufacturers that have dealerships in the state and are not designed to enshrine dealerships as the only method of selling cars.

Along with their legal and legislature maneuvering, MADA is publicizing why Missouri should create more regulations to enshrine the dealership model as the only way to sell cars. They argue that without car dealerships the state’s economy would suffer and that consumers need the type of long-term car care that only they, and not the manufacturer, can provide.

Without a doubt, using car dealerships as a sales and maintenance unit has many advantages for manufacturers and consumers. After all, it became the dominant mode of selling cars for a reason. However, it is not an intrinsically superior way to buy and sell a car and certainly should not be afforded new legal protection.

For example, according to a report from the Department of Justice, dealerships can raise the costs of selling cars. Experiences from General Motors sales internationally have shown that manufacturer-direct sales can lower the cost of a car by 8.6 percent. Furthermore, consumers may prefer manufacturer-direct sales over the uncertainty of haggling with car dealers, if they are given the choice. One poll conducted in the United States found that half of respondents would prefer to buy from the manufacturer even if they were not offered a lower price.

MADA’s efforts would take that choice away. They claim that buying a car is an important financial decision and that dealers provide the long-term care customers need. But there is no shortage of ways consumers could choose to service their vehicles if they buy directly from Tesla, including agreements with auto-repair shops. Car buyers are no less capable of looking after their assets than homebuyers, who somehow manage to purchase and maintain houses without house dealerships.

As for the economy as a whole, protecting a certain way of selling cars is no way to increase jobs or increase competitiveness. Business models change constantly and create new opportunities and products even as they replace older ones. That sentiment underlined the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) criticism of Missouri’s legally entrenched franchise system. They stated, “[C]onsumers are the ones best situated to choose for themselves both the cars they want to buy and how they want to buy them.” That may not always be to the benefit of car dealers, but it’s good economics and good for the state.

The post Don’t Ban Tesla to Protect Middlemen appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The last time I bought a MacBook I made the purchase from an electronic goods store, but I could have bought it from one of Apple’s retail locations. In fact, millions of Americans purchase products directly from manufacturers rather than through a local storefront under independent ownership. Should Missouri pass a law barring Apple from directly selling computers? Such a prohibition would strike many people as an abridgement of freedom of choice, but that sort of policy is exactly the approach some lawmakers want when it comes to selling cars.

In Missouri, like other states, it is illegal for any car manufacturer with franchises to sell directly to the public. Dealerships fought for that regulation, implemented in the 1980s, under the argument that they needed to be protected from predator car companies.

Tesla, a new electric car company that has no dealerships, is selling cars directly to Missourians. Instead of welcoming a new business model to the state, car dealers and politicians like Mike Kehoe (himself a former dealership owner) want to ban direct-manufacturer car sales entirely.

Supporters of direct sales bans claim dealerships just want a level playing field, and that Tesla is getting special treatment. They claim, as all middlemen have, that their position is necessary, that allowing direct competition from manufacturers could allow car companies to destroy the dealership model. That would be bad for Missourians, they assert, because dealerships protect consumers and provide competitive markets. Having many dealers supposedly creates competition, leading to the lowest possible price for consumers.

In reality, vehicle distribution through dealerships can be costly to the consumer. The 2009 Department of Justice paper “Economic Effects of State Bans on Direct Manufacturer Sales to Car Buyers” reported that as much as 30 percent of the cost of a new car is due to auto distribution. Enshrining the car dealership model in law has limited the ability of car manufacturers to both reduce inventory costs and increase customization, practices common in other markets. In Brazil, where GM can engage in direct sales, cost savings from order to delivery averaged 8.6 percent through direct sales.

Car buyers in Missouri, and in America, might prefer directly buying from manufacturers for lower prices, customization, or simply to avoid bargaining at a dealership. A J.D. Power and Associates poll found that half of Americans profess a desire to buy manufacturer-direct, even if the prices are equivalent. If dealerships cannot lure customers the way they operate now, why should Missourians be forced to buy their new cars only from them?

Allowing manufacturer-direct car purchases does not necessarily mean the death of dealerships, as long as they can be of service to both buyers and car companies. From the manufacturer perspective, dealerships allow the company to devolve responsibility for advertising, selling, financing, and maintaining a car, which allows the company to focus on car production.

I bought my MacBook from a store, but I wouldn’t force that choice on others in the market. The next time you purchase a computer, you will have the choice to buy from many types of stores or even directly from a manufacturer—business models that meet the needs of customers in different ways.

That’s a vibrant marketplace, and there is no reason the same type of market cannot exist for cars in Missouri. Indeed, if the playing field between Tesla and other car companies needs to be leveled, we should do so by scrapping the ban on direct car sales. There is no reason manufacturer-direct sales cannot exist side-by-side with competitive dealerships.

Joseph Miller is a policy researcher at the Show-Me Institute.

The post Give Tesla and Missourians a Fair Deal appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That said, it must be noted that although Tesla is being wronged by the proposed amendment, policymakers would do well not to proclaim the heavily-subsidized company to be some spirit animal of the free market. Indeed, many businesses are quick to proclaim their love of the market while simultaneously marshaling special protections and subsidies to themselves. Tesla fits that description to a T; hit up that last link for a list of examples.

The Tesla episode reminds me of an old video featuring famed economist Milton Friedman. Asked some decades ago about who can save the free market, Friedman framed his response this way:

You talk about preserving the free market system. Who has been destroying it? The business community must take a large share of the responsibility. … You must separate out being pro-free enterprise from being pro-business.

The short video, which I commend to all of our readers, is below:

There is a difference between being pro-business and being pro-market. Clearly the proposed legislation would be pro-dealers; it would not, however, be pro-Tesla or pro-consumer.

The post Tesla, Car Dealers and Milton Friedman: The Problem of Protectionism and Cronyism appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Policy analysts for the Show-Me Institute have written extensively about food truck regulations, and now Maplewood has jumped on the regulation bandwagon. City Council members who voted in favor of the ban said they were concerned that the food trucks would “cannibalize” existing businesses in the area. I think they are confusing cannibalism with another “c” word that is vital to any market-driven society: competition. Protectionism is bad for new vendors in the short term, but also bad for consumers in the long run because competition improves choice and helps keep prices reasonable. Yet, in Maplewood, because a new food concept is creative, mobile, and relatively inexpensive, it has brick-and-mortar restaurant owners running to the City Council crying foul. Government should not be putting limitations on ingenuity and entrepreneurship.

As if the food truck prohibition was not enough, Maplewood officials moved forward with the plan to redevelop the Deer Creek Center, likely to be paid in part with TIF. Although the Saint Louis County TIF Commission rejected the request for $8.5 million in public funding in January, it would only take a 5-2 vote from the Maplewood City Council to approve the funding. According to the Post-Dispatch, that is expected to happen when the City Council meets later this month. This is yet another example of a city overriding a county TIF commission so that the city can impose its will on the entire county.

The post Double Trouble In Maplewood appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes. The price of legally imported tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act of 1773.

Wait, what?

Let’s go back a bit. For years, the British East India Company enjoyed a monopoly — granted by the British crown — on importing tea to Britain. Because the American colonies were under British rule, this also meant that all their tea had to come from the East India Company — first imported to London, then shipped to America by a third party. At the time, Britain had high import tariffs, which raised the price of all East India Company tea. Colonists could buy Dutch tea smuggled into the colonies  much more cheaply because it never touched a port with high tariffs. In 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act, which allowed the East India Company to import tea to the colonies duty-free. Suddenly, all the people who imported tea to the colonies, legally and illegally, were priced out of the market by a competitor that received special government favors. Some of the people on the boats in Boston Harbor the night of December 16 were concerned about overreaching government authority and a pattern of abuse, but lots of them were smugglers or legal shippers who were rebelling against the loss of their livelihood to a government policy that favored one business at the expense of others.

Here’s another quote from Wikipedia:

In 1772, legally imported Bohea, the most common variety of tea, sold for about 3 shillings (3s) per pound.^[33] After the Tea Act, colonial consignees would be able to sell it for 2 shillings per pound (2s), just under the smugglers’ price of 2 shillings and 1 penny (2s 1d).^[34]

So the colonists got their tea cheaper than before. Where’s the problem? Well, in addition to the problem of taxation without representation, competing businessmen lost out under the new tariff regime. There were other losers as well — namely every British citizen who paid higher taxes because the East India Company had this duty-free dispensation.

My co-workers at the Show-Me Institute have talked about targeted tax credits before. Targeted tax credits are just one way that governments pick winners and losers in the marketplace. When this happens, the logic of the market is overturned and almost everyone suffers — except those the government selects to receive its largess. It’s easy to point to these people and conclude that the tax credit was a success, but maybe that’s because the injured parties so seldom throw a historic party to make their plight known to the world.

The post The Boston Tea Party and . . . Targeted Tax Credits? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Together with the United States, Brazil produces nearly 88 percent of the world’s ethanol supply. However, Brazil uses sugar cane as a preferred alternative to corn in its ethanol production.

With an annual yield of nearly 370 million bushels of corn, many Missourians are deeply connected to the corn-based ethanol industry. If the industry were to dry up, thousands stand to suffer in the short run. Even so, could there be a sweeter alternative?

Well, quite literally, yes. The Brazilian sugar cane industry is said to be seven times more efficient than that of the United States, and less expensive, too — nearly 30 percent cheaper, in fact. Regardless, it appears that the federal government has little interest in the more viable Brazilian blend.

In order to offset a federal tax credit targeted to ethanol blending companies, the United States has levied a tariff on Brazil’s ethanol, perhaps as a way to keep the international market out while spurring on its own domestic product.

Current and past administrations have vowed to reduce foreign oil imports, claiming that we have become too dependent on them. So, why a virtual ban on Brazilian imports? If ethanol is federally promoted as a solution to the so-called national security issue of dependence on Middle Eastern oil, why wouldn’t cheap, clean-burning ethanol from friendly Brazil be satisfactory? If officials are serious in addressing this as a national security issue, they would invest in other forms of energy — namely, those which are not harmful to our country’s environment and well-being.

Thankfully, it appears that lawmakers might be making a move in a better direction. Last week, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) fathered an amendment that would slash government subsidies of the corn industry while also lifting the tariff. Unfortunately, Coburn’s amendments may never become actual laws. Nonetheless, the Senate has shown an ever-increasing readiness to bring ethanol subsidies to the curb.

So, is investing in the precarious, ever-expanding corn-based ethanol industry worth the higher food prices, loss of necessary agricultural groundwater, and increased pollution that result? Well, some would argue that the aforementioned are a small price to pay to support an industry. I contend the contrary. Surrounding Missouri’s ethanol industry, we have corn farmers benefiting from subsidies, cattle farmers suffering from feed shortages, and mandates that often require we burn at least 10 percent less-fuel-efficient ethanol in our cars.

When subsidies are involved, benefits for some lead to costs for others. So, who’s right? You be the judge.

The post Do You Take Sugar With Your Ethanol? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

State lawmakers want to turn Saint Louis into an international cargo hub. Sounds great, right? Who wouldn’t want that?

Unsurprisingly, state lawmakers decided to do this by providing millions in tax incentives to private companies. They want to give up to $60 million in tax credits to companies that export by air from Missouri, and $420 million in incentives toward the construction of storage facilities. My colleague Audrey Spalding already argued that this policy would subsidize the construction of warehouses abroad, and that trade will occur independent of government intervention. Essentially, we’re paying our trading partners to buy our products.

In this post, I will introduce some additional arguments against using taxpayer monies to boost foreign exports. Don’t get me wrong; I am an enthusiastic supporter of foreign trade. (And, as it turns out, 90.1 percent of economists agree with me on this.) I just disagree that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.

The air hub would benefit some groups in the Saint Louis area, but taxpayers throughout Missouri have to pay for it.

People living in Saint Louis will receive more of the benefits, but the other taxpayers in Missouri will have to help shoulder the cost. A taxpayer in Joplin or Sedalia will pay proportionately the same as a taxpayer in Saint Louis, despite the fact that he doesn’t directly benefit from the policy. This is an unfortunate case of concentrated benefits and diffused costs, a phenomenon I have described before on the blog.

Tax Credits in Missouri are already out of control.

From 1998 to 2010, tax credit redemptions have grown from $102.7 million to $521.5 million, and they’re continuing to grow. At the same time, state revenues are falling. This is not sustainable in the long-term. Both the Tax Credit Review Commission and the state auditor’s office have recommended changes that would limit tax credits, but so far lawmakers have adopted none. I wish that lawmakers in Missouri would implement measures that limit — not expand — tax credits in Missouri.

Other government services compete for these funds.

Because Missouri is strapped for funds, lawmakers have made cuts to education and public safety in the state budget. Does this indicate that they believe being an export hub is a higher priority than education or public safety?

The subsidy steals activity from one location in order to give it to another, and will lead to an interstate bidding war.

The purpose of this bill is to steer cargo away from other cities, particularly Chicago. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Eric Schmitt, recently said this in an article in the Saint Louis Beacon. From the perspective of a state legislator, this make sense. They want to get reelected, so they will focus on projects that are large and very visible to voters. However, the policy makes Illinois worse off because it causes businesses to leave the area.

Once enough companies leave Illinois to come to Missouri, it’s only a matter of time before Illinois retaliates by providing its own set of incentives to lure them back. We see this in the auto industry, in particular. As a result, targeted tax credit programs encourage states to engage in a bidding war. This is a problem because taxpayers are left to pick up the tab. Even though subsidies don’t create new economic activity (they merely shift it from one location to another), taxpayers are forced to devote increasing amounts of their tax monies toward attracting businesses and industries. They’re paying more, but they’re not getting more.

Local economies would be wise to stop viewing each other with antagonism. Saint Louis would be better off if it focused on its comparative advantage and let exporting activity stay in Chicago.

The post Subsidizing Exports Will Do More Harm Than Good for Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So it would be better to not subsidize these programs and allow them to not exist? It’s not worth it to let them become proven while working toward the longer-term goal of eliminating the subsidies?

The writer introduces infant industry argument, which supporters of subsidies commonly use. The argument implies that emerging industries need to be protected temporarily in order to develop the economies of scale that established companies and industries possess.

My answer is an emphatic yes. For reasons that I am about to describe, it would be better if the state did not subsidize these programs.

If these subsidies were eliminated, many groups would be better off. Consumers represent one group that would certainly benefit. Protecting industries hurts consumers because it: (1) restricts new suppliers from entering the market (which restricts supply and increases the price to the consumer); (2) removes the incentive for existing suppliers to innovate (which decreases product quality); and, (3) restricts their access to consume non-protected competitive products. Furthermore, eliminating subsidies to particular industries will not restrict the variety of goods and services available to consumers. When industries focus production according to their comparative advantage and then trade with others, Missourians will still be able to consume in the absence of subsidy.

Taxpayers would be better off in the absence of such subsidies, as well. The subsidies distort relative prices, which consequently distorts the mix of goods and services available for consumption. A firm that receives a subsidy from the government can charge a lower price to consumers, who consequently have an incentive to consume a greater quantity of it. Additionally, if the subsidies were eliminated, taxpayers would be able to keep a greater percentage of their earnings that they can save, invest, and/or spend on the goods and services that they naturally prefer in the private sector, rather than the goods or services that happen to have artificially lower subsidized prices.

Another group that would benefit from the elimination of subsidies is businesses and industries that do not currently receive subsidies. The government places this group at an artificial competitive disadvantage by dispensing political favors to its competitors.

Milton and Rose Friedman disputed the infant industries argument in their book Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. They wrote:

[T]he “infant industry” argument [is] advanced, for example, by Alexander Hamilton in his Report on Manufactures. There is, it is said, a potential industry that, if once established and assisted during its growing pains, could compete on equal terms in the world market. A temporary tariff is said to be justified in order to shelter the potential industry in its infancy and enable it to grow to maturity, when it can stand on its own feet. Even if the industry could compete successfully once established, that does not of itself justify an initial tariff. It is worthwhile for consumers to subsidize the industry initially–which is what they in effect do by levying a tariff–only if they will subsequently get back at least that subsidy in some other way, through prices lower than the world price or through some other advantages of having the industry. But in that case is a subsidy needed? Will it then not pay the original entrants into the industry to suffer initial losses in the expectation of being able to recoup them later? After all, most firms experience losses in their early years, when they are getting established. That is true if they enter a new industry or if they enter an existing one. Perhaps there may be some special reason why the original entrants cannot recoup their initial losses even though it may be worthwhile for the community at large to make the initial investment. But surely the presumption is the other way.

Additionally, subsidized industries have difficulty weaning themselves off government assistance. I have previously discussed this in the context of film tax credits. When a state protects a particular industry and/or provides financial aid, the industry tends to remain dependent on that protection or subsidy. Furthermore, industries that are subsidized do not have an incentive to innovate because they are not subject to the same competitive pressures as those that are unsubsidized.

More often than not, when an industry refers to itself with the “infant” term, it’s simply seeking rent through legislative favoritism. Milton and Rose Friedman also discussed this concept in Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. They wrote:

The infant industry argument is a smoke screen. The so-called infants never grow up. Once imposed, tariffs are seldom eliminated. Moreover, the argument is seldom used on behalf of true unborn infants that might conceivably be born and survive if given temporary protection; they have no spokesmen. It is used to justify tariffs for rather aged infants that can mount political pressure.

The post The Case for Eliminating Subsidies to Industries appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Platters appeared in the mid-’70s and, suddenly, instead of two projectors showing individual 20-minute reels of film, projectionists were taking all the individual reels and building them into one monster reel that lay on its side on a spinning platter, and the entire film would feed through a single projector. Films would still have to be built—assembled from individual reels into platters—but with no need for reel changes and a consistent light source, projectionists were no longer needed to run the movies. The unions tried to hold back the inevitable, but chain theaters wanted to get away from expensive union contracts, and the first thing to go were licensing standards.

“Giuliani came in and started to change things to be more favorable to management, and we sensed it was going to be a problem,” Rivierzo says. “They wanted to get rid of the projectionist license completely. We fought it at city council, and eventually what they did was water down the test so anyone could pass it.”

“Before, you used to have to take a 100-question exam to become a licensed projectionist,” Ramos says. “And you had to know electricity, you had to know your currents and your storage and so forth, and you also took a practical exam. But they dumbed it down to a 40-question exam, and the department of consumer affairs took over testing rather than the bureau of gas and electricity. So managers were able to get their license and run the theater, run the box office, run everything, for ten bucks an hour.“

This is a pretty clear example of unions using licensing standards to protect jobs which are being threatened (or eliminated) by technological improvements. If it were up to the union in this story, theaters would still be required to follow the old projectionist rules despite the fact that technology has made the old job pointless in most cases. Some union jobs would have been maintained, albeit at a higher and totally unnecessary cost to filmgoers. They used political power to fight the advance of technology as much as they could. Using the term “dumbed it down” in reference to the test is absurd, because the test only eliminated the necessity of knowing information that was no longer applicable to the new technology.

This is, of course, a familiar story. We are seeing it play out right now with HVAC licensing in St. Louis County. Business down because of the recession? Expand licensing, claim you are protecting safety, and drive your small or non-union competitors out of business. “Drive out of business” may be an exaggeration in this instance, though, because the protectionism here entails more of a restriction on how non-licensed competitors can grow their businesses, by restricting what they can work on. It also prevents future competition by making it harder for people to enter the market in the first place.

Occupational licensing serves primarily to protect the interests of the people already working within an occupation. It always has, and always will.

The post Slate Article About Film Projectionists Provides Insight Into Occupational Licensing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Gov. Jay Nixon is travelling to Taiwan later this month, and a gaggle of subsidized special interests is tagging along. From a news release from the governor’s office:

Joining Gov. Nixon on the trade mission will be First Lady Georganne Nixon; David Kerr, director of the Missouri Department of Economic Development; Jon Hagler, director of the Missouri Department of Agriculture; and senior leaders from the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Missouri Soybean Association; Missouri Corn Growers Association; Missouri Rice Council; Missouri Energy Development Association; Missouri Biotechnology Association; Boeing Corporation; Pfizer; Advantage Capital Partners; and other major industry associations and businesses.

All else being equal, increasing the exportation of subsidized Missouri goods will have the negative effect of forcing Missouri taxpayers to subsidize the consumption of their trading partners.

How does this work? Let’s say that the price of a particular good on a store shelf is $5. Let’s also say that that the production of that good received $2 in government subsidy. (The production of agricultural and technological products is subsidized at the federal, state, and local levels.) That means that the total price of the product to the domestic consumer is $7. When the foreign consumer purchases this same good, he pays the $5, but because he does not contribute tax monies to subsidize the production of the good, domestic taxpayers still pay the $2 in subsidy.

Missourians would be able to achieve higher overall levels of productivity and consumption if they focused on profitable non-subsidized economic activity and then engaged in voluntary trade with others. Eliminating agricultural subsidies would have positive consequences because taxpayers would be able to keep more of their earnings. This is because they would not be forced to continue to prop up agricultural industries so that they produce at a level that’s higher than optimal, nor would they be forced to subsidize the consumption of foreign consumers.

If public officials are serious about promoting economic growth in Missouri, they should avoid public policies that remove wealth from the regional economy.

The post Governor’s New Trade Policy Will Lead to Subsidization of Foreign Consumption appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What is his point? That cheap imports are causing unemployment in our current recession, and the proper solution is to raise tariffs on imported goods. From his article:

The only conceivable way to revitalize the American middle class — the little engine of consumption that pulls the global economy — is to impose labor tariffs on imported goods, making their cost comparable to those manufactured here.

Let us now quote famous men and women writing about the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which did almost exactly what Guzy calls for, and is near-universally derided as one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress. Here is Great Depression historian and economist Amity Shlaes:

This lack of concern resembles many Americans’ disregard for the effects of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, signed into law by Hoover in June 1930. Republicans told themselves that the tariff couldn’t hurt much since trade was a small part of the U.S. economy at that point.

But that view overlooked the signal that markets were sending. Long ago Jude Wanniski noticed that the progress of the Smoot-Hawley legislation tracked declines in the stock market. More recently Scott Sumner, a professor of economics at Bentley University in Waltham, Massachusetts, has argued that the tariff reduced investment all over the world, and therefore produced deflation.

Shlaes’ great book, The Forgotten Man, goes into much more detail about the harm of the tariff.

And now we turn to Paul Krugman for his views on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff:

Just to be clear, I don’t think the Smoot-Hawley tariff was a good thing — it was a really bad thing. Nasty protectionism! Bad Smoot-Hawley! Bad! Bad! Bad!

Krugman is clear that although he doesn’t think protectionism and the tariff caused the Great Depression, it was nonetheless a terrible idea.

When legislation makes the goods that we import, and voluntarily choose to purchase, more expensive, it limits our choices and our freedoms, and increases our costs of living. It also immediately harms the enormous number of Americans who depend on trade, shipping, and related industries for their employment, and results in retaliation by other trading partners that would limit our exports. Instituting higher tariffs for protectionist purposes is always a net loss for our economy.

The post Free Trade Does Not Cost Too Much appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The controversy surrounding this act raises two questions. First, how can we create more reliable sources for medical supplies that are difficult to produce? Both economic theory and our own history of imports and exports make it obvious that tariffs and bans on trade disproportionately harm the country that refuses to trade with others. Domestic production of medical isotopes would require massive government subsidies in order to upgrade nuclear reactors, such as the one owned by the University of Missouri for research purposes. Cutting off outside supplies of the isotopes, which is the intended purpose of the act, would drastically reduce efficiency in the production of medical isotopes and decrease the welfare of patients who need regular treatments with them. Although other countries are capable of making this product at present, and we are not, supporters of the act suggest that closing our doors to our current suppliers of medical isotopes would result in a more reliable supply.

The second question raised by the Isotope Production Act is more emotionally charged. What if terrorists get hold of the HEU and use it to construct bombs? Often, when fear is highlighted in a policy issue, it is used to distract voters from facts. Whether dealing with phone calls, airport security, or ingredients that could potentially be used to create weapons, it is important not to become so carried away by suspicion that we sabotage ourselves in other ways. Cancer and terrorism are both scary, but isotope technology can do something about cancer. Restricting it so severely, on the other hand, won’t put a dent in the many readily available materials that can be used to hurt people. The real market for medicines is too important to allow paranoia to dictate supply and demand.

The post Tumors, Tariffs, and Terrorism appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This strategy worked like a charm. Professional associations would horrify lawmakers with stories about the dangers citizens faced from untrained, unproven service providers, arguing that the only reasonable course of action would be for the state to forbid citizens the right to work in these professions (or, alternatively, the right to hire someone of their choosing) unless the government had first given its stamp of approval. Then, the established practitioners would “capture” the regulatory agency put in place to oversee that profession, steadily broadening its powers and making it more and more difficult for competitors to enter the market — again, all in the name of customer protection.

Eventually, unlicensed people would be legally prohibited from providing even perfectly harmless services for which they were well qualified, all because the established interests in that profession had been able to persuade the legislature that consumers could not be trusted to choose competent professionals in the absence of a prohibitory licensing regime. As David Stokes has pointed out, this sort of occupational licensing does nothing to improve customer service or satisfaction, but it sure does make these services more expensive for the consumer! Numerous lawsuits have been filed challenging the validity of these absurd licensing requirements, but courts have upheld almost every licensing scheme ever concocted, taking the position that if any rational person anywhere could have ever considered the licensing requirements to be reasonable, they must be upheld. Today, nearly 30 percent of American workers must get formal government permission before they can earn a living in their chosen profession.

Does it sound like I’m just blowing this out of proportion? Consider that a number of states require citizens to become licensed funeral directors before they are allowed to sell caskets. For years Louisiana was the only state in the nation that required citizens to obtain a license before they could lawfully arrange and sell flowers until, in the face of a federal lawsuit and a withering public relations campaign by the Institute for Justice, the state legislature finally repealed the law. All across the country, interior designers have been actively pushing for laws that would make it illegal to offer unlicensed advice about throw pillows. Courts have been upholding these patently absurd laws — and others like them — all because the regulatory agencies deemed them necessary to protect the health and safety of the public!

Not only is Missouri’s state government taking part in this paternalistic, protectionist pastime, in the midst of a devastating economy the Missouri Division of Professional Registration has gone on the warpath against ordinary citizens whose only offense is attempting to earn an honest living in a harmless profession.

In a case currently pending before the Missouri Supreme Court, the Missouri Real Estate Commission is trying to shut down an apartment-locating service in Kansas City. The service employs a handful of single mothers who may not have book training, but they are experts at helping people new to the area find quality apartments. The government admits that the information provided by the service is truthful and entirely harmless, and the government’s own expert witness said that the service they provide should require no specialized training. According to the Real Estate Commission, not only does state law require that these women be added to the ranks of the unemployed, they should also be considered criminals. All for providing helpful, honest, and harmless advice.

African hair braiding is a cultural art form passed down from generation to generation for hundreds of years. Braiders use no harsh chemicals, nor any cutting implements on their customers, and, because excellent braiders have a highly-desired skill, this profession offers a tremendous opportunity for people to provide for their families even if they don’t have a college degree. For years, however, the state Board of Cosmetology has been adamant that no one should be permitted to make a living as an African hair braider until first completing 1,500 hours of formal cosmetology training and passing the obligatory tests established by the board. Out of those 1,500 hours of training, how much is likely to be spent learning African hair braiding? Zero. Most cosmetology schools don’t even offer it. But, as far as the Board of Cosmetology is concerned, if braiders haven’t obtained a cosmetology license, society would be better off with them being unemployed.

In just the latest example of the state’s outrageous efforts to put hard-working people out of work, the Missouri Veterinary Medical Board has followed the unfortunate lead of several other states in launching a lawsuit to prevent anyone but a licensed veterinarian from working with horses’ teeth. Why is this so outrageous? Because equine dentistry is a centuries-old profession that has never been the exclusive province of veterinarians, and most veterinarians don’t have anything like the training or experience held by the very workers they are now trying to push out of the market. The board’s action to shut out competition has absolutely nothing to do with the health and safety of horses; it has everything to do with lining the pockets of the licensed veterinarians.

In each of the above examples, the governmental actions against these workers had nothing to do with their competency or the quality of the services they provided. In fact, most of the targeted workers had a broad and satisfied group of clients who were eager to continue receiving those services. The decisive factor in erecting licensure barriers was the licensing authority’s passion for blocking out competition that might force their constituents to work harder. Politicians are currently paying a lot of lip service to the idea of saving money as a means to preserve or create jobs. A great place to start would be calling off this bizarre witch hunt against hardworking citizens whose only crime is to have made customers happy without first paying off the powers that be.

The post Missouri’s Licensing Boards: Killing Jobs Every Day appeared first on Show-Me Institute.