Ripped from the headlines: examples of government intervention in market (political/economic blog)
Ripped straight from the headlines: examples of government intervention in the marketplace. These stories are all verifiable. Therefore, people can draw their own conclusions whether or not government intervention was beneficial.
Wed. Nov 2: “US fights to defend troops’ pocketbooks,” Los Angeles Times (pg. B1). Holly Petraeus (wife of David) heads Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s military affairs office. Office wants to protect service members from being taken advantage of when purchasing financial instruments (or other debt obligations). Article states that service members are often too young and inexperienced to understand contracts. What is noteworthy is that the agency is saying that people who are competent enough to sign up for the military – and possibly death and disfigurement – aren’t competent enough to read contracts before signing. If someone is not competent to read and understand a contract (and not sign it if they don’t understand), how can said incompetent person be competent enough to sign life away to military?
Thur. Nov 3: “Hard road for poor needing cars,” LA Times (pg. A1). Article is about Buy-here-pay-here used car dealerships. Federal Cash-for-clunkers program has removed 650,000 used cars from potential secondary resale market. Article notes that poor have hard time getting financing and that used car market has seen decline in inventory. Article describes many people having cars repo’d from Buy-here when they could no longer afford. How did government-subsidized removal of 650,000 used cars from secondary resale market improve the poor? How did this action lower prices in used-car market? Didn’t free-market economists warn of such a scenario prior to implementation of C4C?
Fri. Nov 4: “As rail panel seeks funds, dissent builds,” LA Times (pg. AA3). Article states that projected price for California’s high-speed rail is almost triple the amount forecasted when public vote was taken to authorize bond sales for project. The projected construction timeline has been extended 13 years (more than doubled). Article notes that, if built, first 140-mile section will sit idle until other segments are funded and built. Further, California’s proportional cost has also gone up, as forecasters have scaled back the amount private and federal investments were to cover (by some measures, California’s possible financial exposure has gone up more than ten-fold). Despite all this, Times editorial the next day (“Still on the bullet train,” pg. A14) says “it’s still a gamble worth taking.” Note the word “gamble.” Why not gamble when the $100-billion is someone else’s money? Note also that despite all the alleged profit to be made by the line, greedy capitalists have yet to build it. Some might conclude that future-revenue predictions are false (lies, perhaps?).
That brings us to today, Sat. Nov 5. Again, LA Times: “Oakland’s roots of discontent” (pg. A1). In yet another article about OWS protesters (the west-coast faction) we learn that in Oakland thirty-percent of residents cannot read above fourth-grade level. How is this possible in a state where education is a right, guaranteed to everyone regardless of immigration status?
Can all these head-scratching examples be blamed on the rich not paying their alleged fair-share of the social contract? Or are there other actors/philosophies to blame?
Comments?
Wed. Nov 2: “US fights to defend troops’ pocketbooks,” Los Angeles Times (pg. B1). Holly Petraeus (wife of David) heads Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s military affairs office. Office wants to protect service members from being taken advantage of when purchasing financial instruments (or other debt obligations). Article states that service members are often too young and inexperienced to understand contracts. What is noteworthy is that the agency is saying that people who are competent enough to sign up for the military – and possibly death and disfigurement – aren’t competent enough to read contracts before signing. If someone is not competent to read and understand a contract (and not sign it if they don’t understand), how can said incompetent person be competent enough to sign life away to military?
Thur. Nov 3: “Hard road for poor needing cars,” LA Times (pg. A1). Article is about Buy-here-pay-here used car dealerships. Federal Cash-for-clunkers program has removed 650,000 used cars from potential secondary resale market. Article notes that poor have hard time getting financing and that used car market has seen decline in inventory. Article describes many people having cars repo’d from Buy-here when they could no longer afford. How did government-subsidized removal of 650,000 used cars from secondary resale market improve the poor? How did this action lower prices in used-car market? Didn’t free-market economists warn of such a scenario prior to implementation of C4C?
Fri. Nov 4: “As rail panel seeks funds, dissent builds,” LA Times (pg. AA3). Article states that projected price for California’s high-speed rail is almost triple the amount forecasted when public vote was taken to authorize bond sales for project. The projected construction timeline has been extended 13 years (more than doubled). Article notes that, if built, first 140-mile section will sit idle until other segments are funded and built. Further, California’s proportional cost has also gone up, as forecasters have scaled back the amount private and federal investments were to cover (by some measures, California’s possible financial exposure has gone up more than ten-fold). Despite all this, Times editorial the next day (“Still on the bullet train,” pg. A14) says “it’s still a gamble worth taking.” Note the word “gamble.” Why not gamble when the $100-billion is someone else’s money? Note also that despite all the alleged profit to be made by the line, greedy capitalists have yet to build it. Some might conclude that future-revenue predictions are false (lies, perhaps?).
That brings us to today, Sat. Nov 5. Again, LA Times: “Oakland’s roots of discontent” (pg. A1). In yet another article about OWS protesters (the west-coast faction) we learn that in Oakland thirty-percent of residents cannot read above fourth-grade level. How is this possible in a state where education is a right, guaranteed to everyone regardless of immigration status?
Can all these head-scratching examples be blamed on the rich not paying their alleged fair-share of the social contract? Or are there other actors/philosophies to blame?
Comments?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)