When rentable electric scooters began appearing on sidewalks across American cities in 2018, some local governments lost their minds while others allowed the new transit tech to flourish, reasoning that these “e-scooters” were no more a public safety concern or nuisance than are bikes.
This summer, cities that welcome innovation could see the next big thing in “micromobility”: rental mopeds.
“This idea of micromobility, I think it’s here to stay in the U.S.,” says Ivan Contreras, co-founder and CEO of Muving, which hopes to bring fleets of canary-colored two-wheeled mini motorbikes to city streets in 2019. The company already operates more than 2,500 rental mopeds across Europe.
Last year Muving launched a pilot program in Atlanta with about 100 such vehicles. By the end of this year, Contreras says, it could be operating in Washington, D.C., with plans to expand into other cities in the South and along the East Coast.
Mopeds have several advantages over e-scooters. They’re larger, which means they’re more easily seen by vehicles, while still being small enough to park unobtrusively. They seat up to two riders and can reach speeds of 30 miles per hour. Each Muving moped will come with helmets tucked into a small trunk behind the seats. Otherwise, they’ll work the same way as most e-scooters: Users download the app, enter their driver’s license and credit card info, and get automatically charged 80 cents per minute.
E-scooters might have an edge for short trips of a few blocks, but Muving plans to fill a slightly different niche for cross-city trips that now often require a bus or Uber.
It’s yet another example of how entrepreneurs are finding “fun and exciting ways to solve” the infamous “last-mile problem,” says Jennifer Huddleston Skees, a transportation policy research fellow at the Mercatus Center, a free market think tank based at George Mason University. “Rather than imposing regulations that can prevent the successful launch of such products, cities should look for ways to work with innovators and think beyond our present transportation options.”
While e-scooter companies took an ask-forgiveness-rather-than-permission approach, Muving is trying to win approval from local governments first. Contreras says cities should be willing to hop aboard, since mopeds not only increase mobility for residents but also help ease congestion, parking, and pollution by reducing reliance on cars.
Cities should indeed stand aside and let residents decide whether mopeds should be part of an increasingly diverse transportation menu.
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2V4IMqy
via IFTTT
“We can’t expect Kim [Jong Un] to believe that we won’t overthrow him if he gives up his nukes, when he sees us threaten to carry out regime-change war in Iran and Venezuela.”
—Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) in a February 26 tweet
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2GPh6w4
via IFTTT
Midnight Cowboy is “our darkest blend yet,” advertises the Portland coffee company Ristretto Roasters. “This full body blend is ideal for those who prefer the smokey flavors of darker roasts.” That would be me. And Ristretto’s Cowboy coffee did not disappoint, offering a rich cup of joe that went down smooth, with a creamy aftertaste and none of the bitter notes that come with my usual Folgers.
Alas, the same can’t be said for a recent Ristretto controversy. Last December, Nancy Rommelmann—an author, an occasional Reason contributor, and the wife of Ristretto’s owner, Din Johnson—launched a YouTube series called #MeNeither, in which she and Penthouse columnist Leah McSweeney discuss, among other things, recent controversies surrounding sexual impropriety and abuse.
The fledgling series’ attempt to be nuanced about issues that many prefer to see in dark blacks and spotless whites got Ristretto Roasters in hot water in very progressive Portland. Some current and former employees blasted off a protest letter to the media regarding the boss’ wife’s ideas. “We believe it is a business owner’s responsibility to create a safe and supportive working environment for their employees,” reads the letter, which goes on to accuse Ristretto of failing on that front because Rommelmann’s YouTube show exists.
Rommelmann had previously been involved in Ristretto’s management. But owner Johnson explained in a letter to The Oregonian that “Nancy is neither an owner nor employee of Ristretto” and “the company has zero involvement with her work.”
Nonetheless, several local retailers dropped Ristretto products, and in Portland many folks promised to boycott. But direct online sales (at rrpdx.com) make it possible for folks far outside Portland to sample Ristretto’s whole bean coffees ($14–$17 per 12-ounce bag) and loose-leaf tea ($20 per tin) while taking a small stand against the sort of scolds who would harm a local business because the owner’s spouse dares to say things they don’t want to hear.
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2V9ohZK
via IFTTT
Police in Normandy, Missouri, issued a warning to a boy for shoveling snow from his grandmother’s home without a permit. The authorities defended the move by saying they’ve gotten calls about teens pretending to offer snow shoveling services while actually casing homes for potential theft opportunities.
The Okaloosa County, Florida, sheriff’s office has charged a teacher and two aides at a school for the disabled with abusing autistic students. Deputies say they locked a 10-year-old and two 8-year-olds in a dark room as punishment. In addition, deputies say they blew a whistle close to one child who is sensitive to noise and held his arms down to keep him from covering his ears.
An Australian police officer has been sentenced to six months in jail for illegally using police databases to snoop on potential dates. Adrian Trevor Moore looked up information on 92 women he found on dating websites. His attorney says he was trying to do “due diligence” before deciding whether to meet them in person, but Moore accessed several women’s information on multiple occasions (in one case, 13 times) over a number of years.
A Lethbridge, Alberta, police officer is under investigation after being caught on video repeatedly running over an injured deer with a police truck. The officer responded to a call reporting an injured animal in the street and decided it needed to be euthanized. Police Chief Rob Davis says officers in these cases typically shoot animals, not run them over.
A city ordinance in St. Peters, Missouri, requires all lawns to be at least half grass—but Janice Duffner says she’s allergic to grass. Her yard is instead filled with shrubs, flowers, and a small fountain. After a neighbor complained, the city ordered her to tear out some rose bushes and plant grass in their place.
The University of Virginia has suspended the Señoritas Latinas Unidas sorority for “hazing”—because it requires members to study 25 hours a week.
After the city of Raleigh, North Carolina, started charging providers $300 per electric scooter (among other regulations), the company Bird added a $2 transportation fee to the $1 it charges local users to unlock its scooters and the 15 cents a minute it costs to ride them. Mayor Nancy McFarlane insists the price increase was a “profit-making decision [that] has nothing to do with our requirements” and that the city fee is not a tax.
Ashim Mitra, a professor at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, has resigned following complaints from graduate students from India that he used them as personal servants. The students claim he threatened to have their visas revoked if they didn’t mow his lawn, care for his dog, and serve as staff at his social events. They also say the university was aware but did not take action because Mitra was so successful in bringing in research money.
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2GPgXZy
via IFTTT
The Dropout, a fascinating new podcast from ABC, charts the rise and fall of the Silicon Valley huckster Elizabeth Holmes and her now-defunct company, Theranos. The show’s weekly installments mix high production values and a wealth of interviews with those who saw the fraud play out in real time.
The narrator, ABC business reporter Rebecca Jarvis, explains how Theranos sold itself as a visionary company that promised to make an affordable, over-the-counter tool capable of diagnosing cancer or diabetes with a single drop of blood. The tantalizing and lucrative product attracted a number of A-list investors and boosters, including Henry Kissinger and Bill Clinton.
They were kept around by another vision Holmes was selling: that of herself as the next Steve Jobs. The Dropout‘s early episodes describe how Holmes tried to copy everything about Apple’s famous founder, from poaching designers from his company to donning his iconic black turtleneck, all while leaning on the “genius college dropout” trope made famous by Jobs and others.
But unlike Jobs’ creations, Theranos didn’t do what it claimed, and the company collapsed in 2018 amid charges of massive fraud. Unfortunately for the investors who shelled out millions and for the patients who used the company’s error-prone product, innovation requires more than mimicry. It’s a lesson that echoes throughout the podcast, serving as a powerful reminder that society-changing products aren’t so easily planned.
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2V9zYjm
via IFTTT
“Earth Day is a designer holiday crafted to dramatize the ascendancy of style over substance, a feel-good feast enabling sentimentalists to live out the ultimate power fantasy: patronizing an entire planet. Nobody has calculated the cost of Earth Day in terms of wasted resources, but during the nearly 30 years since its founding, this foolish fête has surely racked up billions.”
Tama Starr “April Frauds”
“In 1999, Washington discovered the politics of the insane. President Bill Clinton, fresh from procedural exoneration in a dismal impeachment trial, was credibly accused of having brutally raped a woman 21 years earlier. Then, nothing happened.”
Charles Paul Freund “The President in the Attic”
“It’s the public policy version of one-stop shopping. Those who manufacture the problem sell you their solution. When a policy flops—hey, who better to peddle the next sure-fire fix? The marketing campaign is impressive and well-established: congressional hearings, press conferences, cable talk shows, the televised speech on C-SPAN.”
Thomas Winslow Hazlett “Prosecutorial Abuse”
30 Years Ago May 1989
“When the vice president of the United States argues for Stealth weapons technology because he reads about it in a Tom Clancy novel, when television preachers lose their pulpits in sex scandals straight out of a Jackie Collins miniseries, when Spiderman gets married before 55,000 people at Shea Stadium, and when Americans take their drinking-and-driving advice from a dog named Spuds, we can only come to one conclusion: the boundary between fact and fiction has been breached!”
T. Keating Holland “Modern Living: The Movie”
45 Years Ago May 1974
“The minute the very idea of decriminalizing crimes without victims rears its head, the conservative ‘movement’ falls into pieces, one side, mine, taking a strict libertarian line, the other retreating to the collectivist fold: let us have government enforce morality, by all means, by any means, some say. Mr. Stanmeyer’s forthcoming book should make its case well, as he did in debate with me in Philadelphia. I fear that his view is destined to prevail for some time yet, perhaps for many decades more. It is repugnant to the libertarian mind, but then, the American is no more a libertarian than he is a vegetarian, perhaps less the former than the latter.”
David Brudnoy “The Individual, the Government, and YAF”
“It is worth noting that, at least since the Renaissance, the frauds and thefts of monetary history have been interwoven with a new element: lunacy. The alchemists of the Middle Ages, for instance, searched in vain for the philosopher’s stone that would change lead into gold. The alchemists of today (often known as ‘new economists’) haven’t found the philosopher’s stone either—but they have found a substitute: the Keynesian stone. It turns gold into paper. Which is not too bad. Paper, after all, is a worthwhile commodity.”
Eugene Guccione “Gold: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow”
“Why does our government declare it illegal for us to own gold? Is it not because Congress steadily abdicated its functions in favor of the President until in recent years he became sovereign? He alone engages us in wars. Control of money was given by Congress to the Federal Reserve, a bureaucracy held in fief by the sovereign. Constitutionally both war making powers and the regulation of money are Congressional functions. When power is so centralized, it is fought over by power hungry men. From such conflicts emerge men unfit to govern. Instead they steadily restrict our freedoms so that they can rule without restraint. The freedom to own gold is among the first to be lost.”
Alden Rice Wells “The Federal Reserve vs. Sound Money”
50 Years Ago May 1969
“Student terrorists have succeeded in bringing down campus after campus in much the same way that any random collection of gas and dust rushes in to fill a vacuum: by default. For decades, the American university has been in a state of virtual philosophical bankruptcy. Eventually an accounting had to come. And it has, in the form of gun-toting, slogan-chanting leftists who, swooping down on universities like vultures, plan to use the charred remains, the burned-out libraries and lifeless classrooms, as revolutionary staging grounds.”
Lanny Friedlander “No One To Stop Them”
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2GLnZhQ
via IFTTT
Most people like new stuff more than they like paying for it. Poll a few thousand Americans about whether they’d enjoy having a BMW, and most would probably say yes. Ask how they’d feel if told it would cost them $40,000, and the prospect of a new 3 Series would likely become markedly less popular.
This facet of human nature explains an iron law of American politics: People like government benefits; they just don’t like paying for them. Ask people whether they like Medicare for All, as the Kaiser Family Foundation did in January, and you’ll find a clear majority—56 percent—giving it the thumbs up. Tell them it would require higher taxes, and support plummets to 37 percent. Everyone wants a BMW; few people want to pay for one.
Granted, single-payer health care is more like a Yugo than a BMW, but the same principle applies. That’s why enterprising lefty politicians are touting an economic theory some say could allow the federal government to fund programs like Medicare for All, enormous new infrastructure, and ambitious environmental legislation of massive scope and untold cost—perhaps without paying for it at all.
Proponents of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) argue that the government can afford to purchase anything, because it can create unlimited amounts of its own currency. In this model, bond markets and deficits aren’t meaningful checks on government spending. The only real constraint is inflation, which can occur when the economy is at full employment, and which should be addressed via tax hikes and spending reductions.
Essentially, MMT is an argument that inflation and employment should be managed through fiscal policy—spending and taxation—rather than through interest rates set by a central bank, as monetarists like Milton Friedman preferred. It puts Congress rather than the Federal Reserve in charge of macro-economic steering.
In its more nuanced form, there is something to MMT: Strictly speaking, the government always can print more money, though whether it should is another question. And most economists would agree that government spending and taxation do affect inflation.
Some MMT adherents in Congress and online political debates, however, have taken this complex idea to mean something rather more simplistic: Deficits don’t matter. Not right now, anyway, and maybe not ever.
That’s part of what drove a brief squabble in January over whether the new Democratic majority in the House would adopt pay-as-you-go rules, which require offsets—either spending cuts or tax hikes—to new government expenditures, in order to curb the deficit. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) favored the rule, but a handful of left-leaning up-and-comers including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) argued that the requirement would hinder Democratic efforts to pass big-ticket legislation such as single-payer health care. The underlying question—do deficits matter?—will be a part of liberal policy conversations heading into 2020, as Democratic contenders decide whether to back proposals that would radically increase outlays. Leading candidates, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.), have already challenged the idea that new government spending must be offset.
That notable lawmakers like Ocasio-Cortez and Warren are flirting with this notion is, perhaps, a sign of a flaw in MMT thinking: It relies on Congress to raise taxes and cut spending in order to combat inflationary spirals, should they occur—yet congressional adherents are mostly drawn to the allure of being able to spend more without commensurate spending cuts or tax hikes.
It’s an economic theory deployed selectively for political convenience—and also, perhaps, out of envy. For roughly 40 years, Republicans have embraced an overly simplified version of “supply-side economics,” which posits that tax cuts spur economic growth, which in turn generates additional tax revenue. That means tax cuts can “pay for themselves” by leading to more total money paid in taxes, thanks to the growing economy, than what was lost from the rate cuts. In theory that can happen, but only rarely, when tax rates are very high to begin with. Yet many Republicans legislate as if tax cuts always pay for themselves, thus sparing them the political consequences of offsetting lost revenue by trimming spending.
Like the simplified version of MMT, it’s a way of enacting popular policy preferences while pretending there’s no downside. Not only can legislators give the people what they want—they can promise it will be free, and let some future sap deal with the bill when it comes due.
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2V9w6yC
via IFTTT
Nancy Pelosi is employing a new weapon in her desperate battle to keep a lid on the restive progressives and “Democratic Socialists” who now represent a sizable voting bloc in the House: Invoking the legacy of President Barack Obama. According to Bloomberg, as the House prepares to vote on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’ resolution, Pelosi is using Obama’s ‘leadership’ on climate change – like joining the Paris Climate Accords – to support her reasoning that there might be more moderate ways to deal with climate change short of banning air travel and calling for the reconstruction of nearly every building in New York City.
The report precedes two climate-change-related votes in the House this week: One on the GND resolution, and another proposal, which has Pelosi’s explicit backing, that would seek to stop President Trump from pulling out of the Paris Accord. Pelosi has made it clear that the latter bill both has a better chance of ultimately becoming a law and producing a tangible accomplishment, while the GND would simply hand Trump and his fellow Republicans a cudgel with which to bludgeon the moderate Democrats in swing districts who were responsible for the Democrats’ mid-term victory in the House.
However, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other far-left Dems, who have done a much better job of amplifying their voices on social media, successfully drowning out their more moderate peers, have made it clear that while they wouldn’t oppose Pelosi’s plan – it’s still a good first step, they’ve said – it falls far short of their goal.
And to be clear, that goal remains: Prevent the imminent climate-change-driven destruction of planet Earth, which – in case you’ve forgotten – is only 12 years away.
“The idea that we can just reintroduce 2009 policies is not reflective of action that is necessary for now in the world of today,” said Ocasio-Cortez. She added that “there is no harm in passing” Pelosi’s bill, but ultimately, the GND is what’s needed.
Fortunately for Pelosi, her approach is popular with moderates, who still outnumber progressives like AOC. The climate change bill by Florida Democratic Representative Kathy Castor already has 224 Democratic co-sponsors.
“That administration put forward real solutions for the American families,” Representative Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus, said of Obama’s tenure. “There is no sort of ‘moderate response’ here. It’s just that we are at the beginning of this process.”
But that hasn’t stopped progressives from deriding it as “the junior varsity bill”.
Yet that won’t do for progressives who are pushing for more aggressive action and are worried that the vote would be a substitute for meaningful legislation.
“Simply put, it’s the junior varsity bill,” said RL Miller, the chairman of the California Democratic Party’s environmental caucus and co-founder of the Climate Hawks Vote, a political action committee. “It’s nice but extremely insufficient.”
Focusing on the Paris accord allows Democrats to paint Republicans as opposing solutions to global warming and highlight what they say is a lack of leadership on the issue by Trump, who has dismissed climate change as a hoax.
As BBG points out, Pelosi’s strategy on climate change mirrors her tactics on health-care, too, as she has opposed Medicare for All and instead pushed for ‘improvements’ to Obamacare.
But as the progressives have made it clear that they won’t stop pushing until they’ve seized control of the Democratic agenda, all of this might be too little, too late for Pelosi.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2J9oNA3 Tyler Durden
It’s the list of workarounds – always growing, never shrinking – that’s telling us the true story of inflation in America.
Today I’m publishing a guest post by writer Bill Rice, Jr., on “real inflation,”which as everyone knows far exceeds the “official” inflation rate of 2%. Bill and I corresponded earlier this year when he was researching and writing his recent article What Does Your Toilet Paper Have to Do With Inflation?Manufacturers have been engaging in “shrinkflation,” leaving consumers paying more for less, but stealthily. (The American Conservative magazine)
Bill’s extensive list of links (50 Dots…) follows his essay. Thank you, Bill, for sharing your insightful research with Of Two Minds readers.
‘Workarounds’ galore: How real Americans deal with ‘real’ inflation By Bill Rice, Jr.
While working on a story on inflation and shrinkflation, I quickly zeroed in on the concept of “workarounds” as an alternative, perhaps superior, way to gauge the true state of our economy. I define workarounds as the changes individuals or families (or businesses) must make in their daily living to adapt to a world of rising prices. If nothing else, these examples, taken in the aggregate, challenge the conventional wisdom that inflation is “low” or “contained,” or that the economy is just fine, thank you.
As decades have passed, the list of workarounds families have utilized to deal with rising prices has rapidly grown.
Women and mothers entering the workforce in massive numbers – the disappearance of families where one income was sufficient to maintain a “constant standard of living” – might be the earliest and most important workaround on my list. Other trends from this expanding list include:
Shoppers switching to less expensive store or private-label brands, families “substituting” hamburger or chicken for steak, buying from “value” menus, couponing, shopping at discount or “dollar” stores more often, buying in bulk to get the lowest unit-cost (think Costco), buying more items at yard sales or from Internet swap meets, “cutting the cord,” cancelling the land line, getting fewer haircuts per year, taking clothes to the dry cleaners less often, cutting out the maid service or paying for it fewer times each month, attending sporting events less often (here, here, here and here), going to the movies less frequently, playing golf or hunting less frequently, dropping out of country clubs and civic clubs, going to the dentist less often, cancelling newspaper and magazine subscriptions …
Cremation instead of burial, casual instead of (more expensive) “business” attire, eliminating or “rationing” prescription medications, moving from high cost-of-living states (or cities) to lower-cost-of-living communities, adult children moving back in with their parents (and aging adults moving in with their grown children), car-pooling and now “car sharing,” the growth of “do-it-yourselfers,” delaying or “reversing” retirement, taking on a part-time job … the list of “workarounds” goes on and on.
Americans have always resorted to workarounds to counter rising prices or help “make ends meet.” However, the list of necessary workarounds has “absolutely” been increasing Ron Paul told me, a trend he said is “going to continue to grow.”
As it always has, the market place has rewarded businesses that helped families save money.
Then again, lower prices do not necessarily equal a higher standard of living, a point made by John Williams, the creator of ShadowStats, the best known “alternative” measure of inflation.
To illustrate the difference between simply compiling prices without taking into account reductions in the quality of goods (or of “buying experiences”), Williams cited the example of his long-time tailor, who eventually had to close his haberdashery as customers fled to the mall and more affordable prices.
Yes, Williams could still buy clothes (in fact for a lower price), but the quality had diminished; so too had the level of service. The experience of acquiring clothes was not as satisfying or memorable. His question: Had he in fact maintained a “constant standard of living” by “substituting” suits from, say, JC Penney for the finer suits and richer experiences he had grown accustomed to?
Walmart assuredly saves consumers money. However, it also helped kill the downtown merchant, and with it our Norman Rockwellish memories of downtown America. “Self serve” killed the neighborhood “full-service” filling station, saving customers 40 cents a gallon on a fill-up, but also taking away our grandmother’s ability to get her tires and oil checked and her windshields cleaned on a regular basis (not to mention eliminating a popular first-time job for many males).
Netflix killed the neighborhood video store. Clothes that don’t require pressing, as well as employers allowing casual attire in the workplace, thinned the ranks of dry cleaners. iTunes largely killed the record store. Craigslist helped kill the (more expensive) newspaper classified section, expediting the slow death of the journalism industry. Barnes & Noble placed the independent book store on the extinction list, before Amazon threatened this same retailer.
Today, Uber is killing the taxi driver. Hulu and streaming video services threaten cable and the TV networks. TD Ameritrade threatens the traditional stock broker. Aldi (with its more affordable private label brands) threatens Kroger. Walmart, once unchallengeable, is today threatened by Amazon and Dollar General. People choosing to make their own turkey sandwich probably contributed to Subway closing more than 1,100 of its stores.
Most of these innovations/trends/changes kept CPI lower than it would have been otherwise, but did they actually allow people to maintain the same “standard of living” they enjoyed in prior years? Some innovations probably did; others probably did the opposite.
And how exactly did families from prior periods of time (often with just one income) afford to pay those full-service gas prices, or trade with the downtown hardware store instead of Home Depot?
Today it’s uncomfortable to think about, but in working on this story, a question I’d never thought about suddenly occurred to me. Namely, how did so many middle and upper-middle class families (families with just one income from the “poor” South) actually afford the full-time domestic “help” depicted in the movie and book of the same title?
Was everyone richer back then? Or is inflation higher today? Or, in “real” terms, is it possible the answer is “both?”
Labeled by Ron Paul as the “cruelest tax,” inflation is not a trivial topic, especially for the poor and those on fixed incomes. Even if people manage to “get by,” their new “standard of living” cannot be described as improved, superior or welcome.
Yes, the “Ten Percent” are doing better than ever, but is this really the case for the bottom 50 or 60 percent? If real standards of living were rising would it be this easy to identify so many “workarounds?”
All of these workarounds and business trends have been noticed. Details have been provided in journalism, academic papers, books and seminars.
What’s missing from much of this coverage is any effort to connect all the dots. That is, for some reason, the elephant in the room is too often ignored. The “elephant?” Practically every trend mentioned above shares one common antecedent – prices that, in the minds of consumers, had become unaffordable.
Perhaps we never pause to add up all the workarounds we are using. We might think about our decision to drop out of the civic club (and save on those membership dues), but we don’t tally up the other 10 changes we made for the exact same reason. If more people did this, inflation might become a bigger political issue than it is.
In fact, this might already be happening. In a country where so many people are forced to employ so many workarounds to make ends meet, politicians of a certain ideological bent might see a grand opportunity. In such a nation, for example, one might see a surge in presidential candidates suddenly espousing more liberal or even socialist “solutions.”
At least at the micro level of the economy, families are increasingly forced to deal with a reality they’ve been told is not a reality. Today’s economic conventional wisdom tells us that rising prices are no big deal. Indeed, we’re told what the economy really needs is more inflation.
But in a country where 46 million Americans rely on charity food banks to supplement their food intake, and 42 million qualify for food stamps, and millions more Americans are forced to max out credit cards to purchase necessities, do we really need higher prices?
Another trend I identified was the proliferation of payday and title loan businesses. Montgomery, AL (population 200,000) has nearly 100 such businesses, according to one city councilman. (By way of comparison, the city has 11 McDonald’s restaurants.)
One council member proposed an ordinance to limit the growth of such “stores.”
“If you see 18 of them on a main thoroughfare going into our city, it makes you think that the people who live around here must be desperate,” he said.
Well… yes. Apparently providing “quick cash” is another workaround created by entrepreneurs to serve (some say exploit) “desperate” people.
In researching this topic, I read dozens of stories on inflation. I also read the Reader Comment sections that followed these stories. As a measure of “Man on the Street” sentiment, these message boards were often more illuminating than the articles proper.
While Fed governors, academics and the business press declare that inflation is “low” and “contained,” real, live Americans are calling BS.
If one is seeking to determine whether inflation is a bigger deal than we are being told, simply read the Reader Comments. And then add up all the changes Americans have been forced to make in their lives to keep up with rising prices.
At least in my opinion, it’s this list of workarounds – always growing, never shrinking – that’s telling us the true story of inflation in America.
Bill Rice, Jr. is a freelance writer in Troy, Alabama. He can be reached at wjricejunior@gmail.com.
Connecting 50 dots…
Do headlines, presented in aggregate, reveal a story that’s not being fully told?
The 50 headlines listed below support the thesis that – perhaps more than ever – families and individuals must adopt “workarounds” to deal with rising prices and an economy that may not be as robust as portrayed in the media. The list is not comprehensive. Others can certainly identify trends or workarounds not immediately identified by the author. (Research by Bill Rice, Jr.)
Women enter workforce…
“Women enter workplace in massive numbers, death of 1-income family” (source)
Private label and store brands…
“Surge in customers buying Private Label brands described as retail ‘revolution’”(source)
Chicken, it’s what’s for dinner…
Chicken vs. Beef Consumption Comparison 1960 to 2018 – Chicken catches, blows past beef (source)
“2014: (Cheaper) Chicken more popular than beef for first time” (source)
Couponing…
“Coupon use (traditional and digital) soars, trend expected to grow” (source)
Shopping at ‘discount’ stores…
“Dollar General now has more stores than McDonald’s” (source)
“Fast food prices are rising, but so are deals” (source)
Yard sales, Swap meets…
“Why an old-school tradition is more popular than ever” (source)
“550 million people visit formal ‘buy-and-sell’ Facebook Groups each month” (source)
Cutting the cord…
“Cord-cutting keeps churning, 33 million people abandon pay TV in 2018” (source)
Cancelling the landline…
“Most households have given up the landline” (source)
Fewer haircuts…
Number of people getting 4 or more haircuts a year declines by 10 million (59 million in 2018 compared to 71.X million (?) in 2011) – Statista chart (source)
Using dry cleaners less often…
“In Illinois: Dry cleaning establishments decline by 50 percent over last 20 years”(source)
Payday, title loan stores proliferate in many states…
“Payday lending has blossomed over past 20 years” (source)
“Number of Americans who took out title loans doubled in recent years” (source)
“Councilmen seek moratorium on payday lenders” (source)
* * *
If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com. New benefit for subscribers/patrons: a monthly Q&A where I respond to your questions/topics.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2XWdBeb Tyler Durden
Democracy and ballot box voting have often been held up as central elements of the American political tradition. Less emphasis has been placed on the centrality of “voting with your feet.” Yet in many ways, it is an even more fundamental and distinctive feature of American politics than electoral democracy. Many nations have had democratic governments, and the idea of democracy long predates the founding of the United States.
In modern times, a good many political systems have been more democratic than the US, in the sense of giving greater power to political majorities. By contrast, few if any other nations have been so heavily influenced by “foot voting,” through both internal and international migration. Both immigration and internal migration between states are, in most cases, forms of foot voting: the use of mobility to choose which government policies one wishes to live under.
Part I of this chapter provides a brief overview of the role of immigration in the American political tradition, which has deep roots going back to the Founding. Part II focuses on internal foot voting. Unlike immigration, the importance of the latter was not well understood by the Founding Fathers. They nonetheless designed a political system that facilitated it in crucial ways, and it has had a profound impact since.
Finally, Part III considers the continuing importance of foot voting in modern times, and emerging threats to its effectiveness, in the form of nationalist movements hostile to immigration and regulatory barriers that impede internal foot voting.
Other contributors to the book include prominent legal scholars Richard Epstein, Cass Sunstein, and Gerard Magliocca, historian Gordon Wood (probably the leading historian of the American Founding), David Blight (author of major works on race, the Civil War, and Reconstruction), Jim Banks, Spencer P. Boyer, Eleanor Clift, former Senator John C. Danforth, Cody Delistraty, Nikolas Gvosdev, Cherie Harder, Jason Kuznicki, Markos Moulitsas, Alan Taylor, James V. Wertsch, and Ali Wyne.
I thought it interesting that both Yale historian David Blight and I begin our respective chapters with quotations from Frederick Douglass’ 1869 “Composite Nation” speech, which I previously wrote about here. Hopefully, our two chapters will stimulate new interest in Douglass’ underrated classic rumination on the meaning of America and the right to freedom of movement.
In June, the Volokh Conspiracy will be hosting a symposium that will include many of the contributors to Our American Story. Stay tuned!
from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2PGQJw9
via IFTTT
