Tag Archives: regulations

Regulation of the Day 111: Buying Wine in New York

It is illegal for grocery stores to sell wine in the state of New York. Only liquor stores are allowed to sell the stuff.

This regulation, a relic of Prohibition, lives on because of one of the central concepts in public choice theory: diffused costs and concentrated benefits.

The benefits are concentrated in one constituency: liquor stores. Regulations give them get millions of dollars in free business. That means they have millions of reasons to lobby to keep the status quo.

Consumers, on the other hand, are hurt by the ban by the exact amount that liquor stores benefit. But that hurt is spread far and wide. No one consumer feels enough pain to hire a high-priced lobbyist to open up the market.

That means New York’s misguided restrictions on competition are likely to continue for some time. It’s hard to imagine an aggrieved shopper suing New York’s wine cartel because she has to make an extra trip to get the wine on her grocery list. Or because she pays a bit more than if she lived in a different state.

(Hat tip: Jonathan Moore)

Regulation of the Day 49: Political Speech

The First Amendment famously reads, “Congress shall pass no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Congress, ever sneaky, has looked very closely at the First Amendment’s wording. If they can’t pass laws abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, maybe they can pass laws abridging the freedom of speech and of the press.

I kid, of course. No lawyer in their right mind would use that argument in court. The real justifications for most speech and press-abridging laws — collectively known as campaign finance regulations — are actually much flimsier.

They mainly have to do with protecting politicians from criticism. For example, a group called Citizens United released a partisan documentary last year called Hillary: The Movie. Basically a feature-length missive against then-Sen. Hillary Clinton and her presidential candidacy, the FEC blocked the movie from pay-per-view television during the 2008 primary season.

The movie was effectively censored because corporations (and unions) are not allowed to engage in certain types of political speech when an election is near. Citizens United lists some corporations among its donors, and thus was not allowed to show the movie as widely as they would have liked.

Citizens United got upset about all this, naturally. So they sued. Their case made it to the Supreme Court last year. Unwilling to make too hasty a decision, the Court re-heard oral arguments yesterday. The early bets are that Citizens United will win a partial victory, though one never knows until the decision is actually handed down.

Had the movie not been about politics, it would have faced no such obstacles. Political speech is treated very differently from other types of speech these days. This is a troubling trend. At heart, campaign finance regulations are a roundabout way of saying: no criticizing candidates!

Perhaps the First Amendment is a bit wordy. “Congress shall pass no law” is quite enough.

Regulation of the Day 48: Barbers in Nevada

Want to be a barber in Nevada? You’ll need to get a license first. One of the requirements is a chest X-ray, of all things. And a blood test.

More onerous is the 18-month apprenticeship under a licensed barber, which requires its own license – plus another chest X-ray and blood test.

Occupational licensing regulations are rarely in place to benefit consumers. Their primary purpose is often to limit competition by putting up barriers to entry. Why do this? Because keeping the supply of barbers artificially low means that existing barbers can keep their prices artificially high.

Three of the four licensing board members must be licensed barbers. They write the apprenticeship rules and the license examination. They decide who gets in, and who gets left out. They have plenty of excuses built into the rules for excluding potential competitors.

Owing child support payments, for example, is by itself grounds for exclusion. What this has to do with cutting hair is beyond me. And getting a job cutting hair is one way to be able to make those payments. But there it is, encoded in state law. The board can legally keep you from being a barber if you owe child support.

A sure sign of an anti-competitive practice is using the force of law to prevent competitors from entering the marketplace. Where is the antitrust investigation into Nevada’s barber licensing?

Regulation of the Day 47: Irish Potatoes

Until last Friday, it was illegal for certain producers to sell or import U.S. No. 1 grade “Creamer size” (long and skinny) Irish potatoes. Creamer size potatoes are identical in taste, texture, and weight to their stouter, rounder counterparts.

In the Idaho-Eastern Oregon growing region, this led to over $7 million worth of potatoes to go unsold. That’s a lot of uneaten meals. Hopefully the USDA will repeal similar aesthetic restrictions on other types of food. It is bad policy to keep perfectly good food off the market, especially during times of recession and high food prices.

Minimum Wage, Maximum Unemployment

Teenage unemployment is 25.5% — an all-time high, and nearly triple the general unemployment rate.

Maybe the fact that the minimum wage has increased three years in a row has something to do with it. Why would an employer hire someone unless they produce at least what they’re paid?

A lot of younger people have little experience and no marketable skills. Such things take time to develop. Until they do, they will remain unattractive hires unless they can be paid what they’re worth. Minimum wage laws, of course, make that illegal in many cases.

Another case of good intentions gone awry.

Regulation of the Day 46: Chemical Weapons

If your company exports chemical weapons, make sure you keep good records. Every year, on company letterhead, you have to list ten things for the government. This includes which chemicals you exported, in what quantities, to whom, etc.

Reasonable enough. Chemical weapons in the wrong hands could pose a legitimate security threat. And supplying people with the means to kill other people is, shall we say, ethically dubious.

Still, the sixth item of our ten struck me as superfluous: “Purpose (end-use) of export.” This is rather obvious, is it not?