The governor argues against Sunday sales because "legalizing Sunday packaged alcohol sales exacts a significant price that is paid by crash victims and their loved ones, health care providers, insurers, law enforcement and the judicial systems...Those additional crashes led to a 42 percent increase in alcohol-related fatalities on Sundays. If we apply these same percentages to Georgia’s highways, using 2006 data from the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, we can expect approximate increases of 371 alcohol-related crashes and six alcohol-related fatalities per year."
He goes on to say that a study (the one he's quoting) found that the same increase wasn't seen on other days of the week. I personally have a hard time believing that. It implies people drive fundamentally different on Sunday. They may drive more, either because they drive less during the week while they're at work or they drive more on Sunday because a lot of people are starting or finishing vacations on that day.
This also reminds me of the "bootleggers and Baptists" argument, which says that when the Baptists decide they want to have a dry county the bootleggers will side with them because that means more business for them. This seems similar to me. The only people who I think would be negatively impacted are restaurants and bars, because they can't sell to their normal customers. The grocery and package stores, though, will likely see an increase of sales as people who know they can't buy tomorrow will buy today. But if not selling alcohol decreases traffic accidents, why doesn't Purdue mandate that all liquor must be purchased on, say, Saturday between 8 am and 5 pm? Because his political supporters in that would be washed out by his political opponents.
"Regulatory Rethink" WSJ op-ed by Charles Schumer. He makes a few suggestions; I'll discuss a couple:
"Look closely at unifying and simplifying our regulatory structure, perhaps moving toward a single regulator."
I don't think this is that bad of an idea, per se. I don't like the idea of a super agency, but if it can keep existing regulation (not add more) and cut excess costs out of the "regulatory system", that would be a plus.
"Figure out how to regulate currently unregulated parts of the financial markets and opaque and complex financial instruments."
Who does he think is qualified to do this? It'll have to be either academics or Wall Street veterans, neither of which I think would be wiling to do it. If the investors are just learning about these instruments, how effective will a regulator be?
"There must be greater transparency...Ratings agencies, paid by the creators of products they were rating, essentially rubber-stamped collateralized debt obligations and collateralized mortgage obligations without providing accurate analysis to potential investors. The SEC ignored the inherent conflicts of interest and the risks that entailed."
Practically the exact same arrangement exists for auditors. Companies pay the auditors. Actually, better said, shareholders pay the auditors through the companies, but management chooses the auditors. There is definitely risk inherent in this relationship. The SEC has made steps to fix it, but whenever you have a company selecting and paying their own watchdog, you can bet you'll have conflicts of interests.
"Obama suggests pastor is contrite" from Reuters:
""Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church," Obama said."
This is just typical political backtrack. All politicians do it, so I'm not trying to single out Obama; he's just the one doing it right now. Even thought he's been going to that church for 20 years and considers the pastor a counselor, it isn't until now, when its a political necessity, that he feels he wouldn't feel comfortable going to church there.
"McCain not worried about trade politics" by Ian Swanson at The Hill (HT: Club for Growth):
"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will not backtrack from his support for free trade to win votes in a general election against either of his likely Democratic opponents, a senior adviser to his campaign said Thursday...
[An advisor] said McCain is not worried about losing votes to his Democratic opponent in battleground states such as Michigan or Ohio, where free trade agreements are blamed for the loss of manufacturing jobs."
I hope he sticks to this. I've had enough of the Nafta and Colombia free-trade agreement debates. I want a president who will stick by free trade in all forms. McCain, of course, probably won't do this to the extent I'd like him to, but I think he'll move in the right direction.
"Protection Racket" WSJ editorial by Pete DuPont:
"As liberal leaders, they are of course for higher income taxes, greater federal spending, and rapid withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. But passionate protectionism illustrates the pro-government, anti-market philosophy that is the core of their beliefs, and it reflects the seriously wrong direction in which they will take America if one of them becomes our next president...
And [despite the good] one of America's political parties and some of its supporters in the press believe that free trade is a bad idea. Sen. Max Baucus and Rep. Charlie Rangel, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee respectively, don't want Congress to approve the pending trade pact with Colombia. And CNN's Lou Dobbs amazingly just "cannot find anyone for whom free trade is good.""
Free trade, by definition, is good for both parties. If the person is truly free, they will only swap their money for things they value at least as much as the money they're giving up. If I walk out of the grocery store or drive away from the gas station complaining about the cost of milk or gas, it was still worth the $4.00 or $3.20/gallon I paid. If it wasn't, I wouldn't pay it (or at least as often as I do). I don't HAVE to drink milk; I don't HAVE to drive my car everywhere. I get very nervous about the direction our country is moving because even if McCain were to win the election, people are becoming more and more skeptical of free trade, fueled, at least in part, by our politicians.
"Food Sense" WSJ op-ed:
"Try this for a novel solution to rising food prices: freer trade. In an effort to access cheaper sources of food and lower prices for consumers, a growing number of governments are lowering tariffs...
[The difficulties of other options to keep prices down] leaves liberalization the only viable option. Many of the trade-freeing measures are being enacted on an emergency basis by ministerial fiat and are billed as temporary, in no small part to make them palatable to farm lobbies.
But economic liberalization can take on a momentum of its own. Consumers and food producers who enjoy lower prices on everyday foodstuffs won't be eager to see prices rise again."
No comments:
Post a Comment