PatrickR
- 97 comments
- 8 likes given
- 19 likes received
Bio not provided
some of IJ's work on the issue:
http://www.ij.org/portlandsedans
http://www.ij.org/milwaukee-taxis
http://www.ij.org/nashville-limos
The crony writer of this article and Paul Carr probably think tour guide licensing is good to protect customers too - same BS http://www.ij.org/dc-tours ... licensing and regulations of many industries is, many times, about protecting the profits of insiders by restricting competition.
Bull, regulators are focused on closing down new competitors to the market to protect the legal cartel - i.e. to protect the profits of the insiders. It has nothing to do with health and safety.
There is no good reason for customers or entrepreneurs to have these restrictions... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T2912EqJ0U
The regulations protect big company insiders and hurt independent drivers and customers alike... just look what happened in DC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T2912EqJ0U
"One of the reasons taxis are so tightly regulated is that they provide an essential public service; everyone deserves equal access."
Bull... the ONLY reason taxis are so tightly regulated is because the industry requested it to protect their own profits. Taxi companies lobbied government to legalize their own cartel. The government erects barriers to entry into the market to reduce competition and increase profits of the insiders. In exchange, the cartel gives the local government a cut of the additional profits through licensing fees.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT HEALTH AND SAFETY OR THE PUBLIC GOOD - this is about extracting additional revenue by force by preventing customers and entrepreneurs from making their own adult choices about what service to use or if they can create their own jobs.
Want to support true disruption of the market and free it from the bonds of greedy regulators and crony businessmen (and women... see above) then please support the Institute for Justice a civil rights law firm that has been fighting the taxi cartels across the country for over 20 years http://www.ij.org
I also want to note that it has been my experience that most journalists are undertrained (trained to write very well, but not how to think or comprehend economic or scientific studies). Basic math skills are sorely lacking and they don't seem to have any training in science or economics. Additionally, many journalists just repeat press releases... i think this is part bad training and part that many journalists are either overworked or on beats outside well outside their expertise. Confirmation bias is also a huge problem (you want to believe something so bad you are willing to ignore evidence to the contrary). My experience (5 years in Arizona and Nevada politics), of course, is anecdotal, and may not reflect reality.
@KenG @Calacanis And also capable of being highly successful without college.... :/
@revivek most universities are not fond of intellectual curiosity... Group think is highly encouraged... Universities don't like independent thinkers upsetting people... That said journalists are highly undertrained... And are generally incapable of spotting BS studies... Case in point.... See above
Most impact studies of higher end are crap... Like the one you cite. They don't take into account costs... Not just tuition but opportunity costs. When controlling for these factors the value difference plummets. Next, if you get into an elite school or top school you are already an outlier and will likely be successful with or without college. Note: part of the income gap between grads and non grads is simply self selection bias by highly skilled people. Finally as college costs sore and the value degrees confer on grads continues to stagnate ( journalism like most liberal arts is a crap degree... I know I have three liberal art degrees) higher Ed wont provide you many skills to get ahead you can't get elsewhere. I'm looking forward to the utter collapse of our corrupted self serving centers if higher pay for PhDs.... ;) Oh and drop out unless you are studying restricted fields like medicine, science or engineering.... College degrees allow you to join their respective cartels....
@joewardpr additionally, being forced to work at your Soup Nazi Kitchen doesn't make you a caring person. Again, you may care, but we will never know unless your employment was voluntary. (Voluntary by definition means you can't be coerced).
You may be a caring person, but you can't prove it, if you are forced to do x.
Under Islam women are required to be modest...under pain of death. They may be modest, but we will never know for sure unless the women are allowed to voluntarily choose modest or immodesty without threats of coersion.
Paying your taxes and paying your rent are two very seperate issues. You are torturing logic in assuming. You can always buy your own house, build your own house, move to a different apartment. You have choices without threats of coercion. You do not have the same luxury with government (even if you can, with great difficulty, switch your country).
@droskill and its not a weak argument to assume that the internet would exist in some form without the government. Again its opportunity cost. You are COMPLETLY ignoring this. You assume that because A) It exists and B) the government funded X) that it would not exist without government. THis is a fallacy known as "Things seen and unseen" Bastiat wrote about it over 200 years ago. The fallacy gives the "government is always right" type a blanket excuse to argue for more government always (especially as government continues to crowd out other areas of the economy). Its an unimaginative fallacious way of thinking.
@droskill Early highways were almost all privately built. THe fact there are few today is only because government offers a "Free" alternative. Its hard to compete against "Free"That said there is NOTHING wrong with arguing from a hypothetical alternative. Its called "opportunity cost" and economists recognize this as something very important to consider. If the private sector can build and maintain a road for $1 million and the government for $2 what are you giving up? A: $1 million in SOMETHING ELSE.
@joewardpr @s5 @JustinPollard @JudyWang
Nonsense Joe,
You cannot be modest if you are forced, under pain of death, to wear a hajib or burka.You cannot be caring, if you are forced to help others in need.
So on and so forth. You must CHOOSE to be virtous without the threat of jail, pain, death etc.
@joewardpr @s5 @JustinPollard @JudyWangTaxes are the price we pay for being uncivilized. If we truly were we would not need a monopoy on violence to force us to be good.That said, patriotism is a virtue and like all virtues requires a choice. You must choose to be patriotic. Choices must be free of coercion to be true choices (the choice between worshiping god and or being put to death by stoning is not a true choice because of the threat of coercion). The ONLY way for patriotism to = paying taxes is if paying taxes = voluntary. IE you pay the tax voluntarily because it is the right thing to do, not because you are forced to do so.
@s5 @joewardpr @JustinPollard @JudyWang Yes, you can go to jail for not paying your taxes... and given the fact that the tax code is thousands of pages long, "criminal tax evasion" isn't that hard to obtain, even when you are trying to honestly pay... Now, even assuming you cannot, are you under the assumption that taxes are voluntary? There is always a very real threat for not paying taxes. Its coercive by nature.Peer pressure to pay tithes is WAY different than jail, liens, fines from the government.I also am curious as to how you got your mind reading powers... How do you know Gates or Buffet are good people out to support others. Buffett makes pledges to support things after he dies and often donates to charities where his children work. He also uses government power to coerce wealth to his own pockets so I'm just wondering what magical crystal ball you're using to know he does everything out of the kindness of his heart.
@joewardpr @JustinPollard @droskill @JudyWang There is a very simple math problem... these programs cannot be sustained. Money out is greater than money in.And its nonsense to assume government has a compassionate interest. Laughable actually. Working for government does not magically make employees more compassionate and less greedy than private sector employees. Government also has the problem of ignoring if not distorting price signals in the market...thus creating government externalities that may make problems worse...
@s5 @joewardpr @JustinPollard @JudyWang
you mean like claiming paying your taxes is patriotic, when in fact you are obligated to pay your taxes under the penalty of incarceration... ;)Volunteering your wealth to help others is better than thinking you're doing good because you want someone else to pay more taxes.Romney still stinks but Obama is just as bad...if not worse...
Anyway, both Romney and Obama are pretty terrible candidates. I think most Americans would probably rather have someone else. But in case you're a progressive and still asleep here is why you should remain apathetic: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/Vote for a third party candidate to show your dissatisfaction or go volunteer your time to help a charity or person in need - you'll do more good than voting...
Vote for Gary Johnson... he's also rich with a networth of about $7m... thanks to a construction company he started called Big Johnson... gota love a good sense of humor! he's also the only candidate who doesn't want tot to tax you to death (if you weren't jailed for smoking pot first) while also bombing babies in developing nations...