Jeff Kosseff: Why Anonymous Speech Is Good—and Constitutional


Thumbnail (4)

In 2019, Jeff Kosseff published The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet, the definitive “biography” of the controversial law known as Section 230. Part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, Section 230 grants broad immunity to websites and internet service providers from legal actions based on user-generated content. Section 230 enabled the participatory nature of the web, from YouTube videos to Yelp reviews to basically all of Twitter. It’s the reason why Reason can’t be sued for libelous or defamatory content posted in our comments section (though the authors of such comments can be).

Now Kosseff, who teaches cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy, is back with The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online Speech. His new book looks at the history of and controversy surrounding anonymous speech and activism.

Before becoming a law professor, Kosseff worked as a journalist at The Oregonian, where he was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize and a winner of the George Polk Award. Nick Gillespie talks with him about why he thinks anonymous speech is generally a good thing but getting harder to maintain, why Democrats and Republicans alike keep freaking out over Section 230, and how his past as a journalist informs his interest in protecting freedom of speech and assembly.

The post Jeff Kosseff: Why Anonymous Speech Is Good—and Constitutional appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/gDsRlmh
via IFTTT

If Poland Hosts US Nukes, Russia Will Station Nuclear Weapons Along Western Border: Kremlin

If Poland Hosts US Nukes, Russia Will Station Nuclear Weapons Along Western Border: Kremlin

As fully expected, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Wednesday blasted Poland’s offer to the United States of its ‘readiness’ to host nuclear weapons for NATO. The recent words of Deputy Prime Minister of Poland Jaroslaw Kaczynski were widely reported this weekend.He  told Germany’s Welt Am Sonntag newspaper: “If the Americans asked us to store American nuclear weapons in Poland, we would be open to it.”

If the US were to ask us to host nuclear weapons in Poland, we would be open to this option. Such a step would enhance deterrence against Moscow,” he had said.

In fresh reaction, Peskov described that this would constitute a “serious threat” to Russia’s security. He described in the comments to French TV channel LCI on Wednesday that it would force the Kremlin to ensure its nuclear readiness is sufficient to repel the potential deployment of US nukes so close to Russia’s border.

Getty Images

Peskov additionally ensured it would be “inevitable” for Russia to respond in kind by sending its nuclear arms to its western borders. This would without doubt trigger a new Cold War nuclear arms standoff akin to the Cuban missile crisis. 

The Kremlin official had in prior statements underscored that Warsaw has gone full-on Russophobic in following the Washington line: “In general, the stance of the Polish leadership has recently caused deep concern: the line is extremely war-like, anti-Russian, and the proposed actions [to host nuclear weapons], of course, will only exacerbate tensions on the continent,” Peskov said.

Taking note of these recent Polish discussions to host Western nukes, the international nuclear weapons watchdog group Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists issued the following statement

“Perhaps one lesson from the war in Ukraine is that an invasion takes time, so there is no need to forward position theater nuclear weapons, for example as recently proposed by Poland.” They group expressed hope that the war will soon come to peaceful resolution, without build-up of nuclear arms on either side of the NATO-Russia standoff.

“Furthermore, forward positioning creates a use-them or lose-them pressure that makes it more likely that the nuclear threshold will be crossed early in a war,” the watchdog warned.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/06/2022 – 14:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/yFMIpGi Tyler Durden

Jeff Kosseff: Why Anonymous Speech Is Good—and Constitutional


Thumbnail (4)

In 2019, Jeff Kosseff published The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet, the definitive “biography” of the controversial law known as Section 230. Part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, Section 230 grants broad immunity to websites and internet service providers from legal actions based on user-generated content. Section 230 enabled the participatory nature of the web, from YouTube videos to Yelp reviews to basically all of Twitter. It’s the reason why Reason can’t be sued for libelous or defamatory content posted in our comments section (though the authors of such comments can be).

Now Kosseff, who teaches cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy, is back with The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online Speech. His new book looks at the history of and controversy surrounding anonymous speech and activism.

Before becoming a law professor, Kosseff worked as a journalist at The Oregonian, where he was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize and a winner of the George Polk Award. Nick Gillespie talks with him about why he thinks anonymous speech is generally a good thing but getting harder to maintain, why Democrats and Republicans alike keep freaking out over Section 230, and how his past as a journalist informs his interest in protecting freedom of speech and assembly.

The post Jeff Kosseff: Why Anonymous Speech Is Good—and Constitutional appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/gDsRlmh
via IFTTT

Major League Baseball: Don’t Nationalize it, Privatize it!


galaad-linosfil-f1BFXj1bTo0-unsplash

Thursday marks Opening Day of the 2022 Major League Baseball season, which means it’s open season for hot takes about how to fix what ails the National Pastime—disputes between labor and management, declining attendance and TV viewership, increasingly dull on-field product, etc.

The New York Times Wednesday probably won the MLB preseason hate-clicks derby by publishing a Matthew Walther op-ed under the headline, “Baseball Is Dying. The Government Should Take It Over.” It’s at least semi-satirical, so not worth getting exercised over (beyond the basic responses of “No it isn’t,” and “No it shouldn’t”), but both the essay and the spectacle of an ambivalent Opening Day are timely reminders that much of what plagues the sport is not solvable by government, it emanates from government.

It’s weird that baseball would still require rescuing, given that Congress as recently as 2018 passed the Save America’s Pastime Act (see how semi-satire works?). That law, which probably never could have been passed as a standalone bill, was actually crammed into a must-pass omnibus spending whatever, and as such is a fine example of what happens when you mix government with baseball.

Sold both by gullible congresscritters and arms-twisted Minor League Baseball (MiLB) owners as the last, best hope for maintaining small-town professional ball, the act in fact was something closer to the opposite: a way for bottomless-pocketed Major League Baseball (MLB)—which pays for, and dictates terms to, the captive feeder leagues—to use the threat of franchise-contraction for a federal exemption from labor laws, so that minor leaguers could continue being paid as low as $1,100 a month for their seasonal work.

Within seven months of the act’s passage, MLB started leaking out the names of MiLB franchises that would be euthanized anyway. By December 2020, the deed was done—40 of the original 160 teams were summarily severed. As I wrote in a feature on the topic last year, “Local governments were suddenly on the hook for a quarter-billion dollars’ worth of investment in event spaces that no longer held events.”

Hmmm, why would local governments invest in professional sporting facilities? Let’s hit the refresh button on one of the worst recurring examples of mixing public sector activity with a private sector business: Stadium welfare.

Giving out subsidies and tax breaks for sports business owners is self-evidently terrible enough, as have concluded virtually every non-corrupted economist who has ever studied the issue. (The eminent domain used for these projects, too, constitute abuse egregious enough to inspire Ry Cooder albums.) But let’s not sleep on how such a culture of welfare dependency has been bad for the recipients, and especially to fans of the allegedly boosted sport.

By acclamation, the single most spectacular facility to watch a football game is SoFi Stadium, home to both the Los Angeles Rams and Chargers, and host to the most recent Super Bowl. Unlike virtually every other National Football League facility constructed over the past three decades, SoFi was built without government subsidies.

In baseball, the handsomest stadium I’ve ever set foot in is Oracle Park, home to the San Francisco Giants. Opened in 2000, it was the first ballpark built without public money since the 1960s. Why, it’s almost as if people who spend their own money on a thing take extra care to make it real purty!

Self-funders are also incentivized to stay put, rather than jilting the local fan base. “When governments become landlords,” I wrote last year, “sports businesses, no matter how deep their pockets, start acting like tenants: always eyeing the exits for a potentially better deal. If you build it, they will leave.”

Baseball doesn’t need to be nationalized, it needs to be privatized—no more subsidies, no more finger-wagging congressional hearings, no more State of the Union address moralizing, no more unique-to-this-one-sport carve outs from federal law. It’s time for these welfare queens to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and compete for audience share as if their bottom lines depended on that as much as it does on the ribbon-cutting innumeracy of dull-witted politicians.

The post Major League Baseball: Don't Nationalize it, Privatize it! appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/rqWkBKu
via IFTTT

“Let’s See How We Can Be Helpful”: Joe Biden Wrote Letter To Help One Of Hunter’s Foreign Contacts

“Let’s See How We Can Be Helpful”: Joe Biden Wrote Letter To Help One Of Hunter’s Foreign Contacts

Authored by Jonathan Turley via jonathanturley.org,

We have been discussing the Hunter Biden scandal and the increasingly untenable position for Merrick Garland and the media as evidence contradicts past representations of President Joe Biden. 

That position further to deteriorate today with a Fox story that, in 2017, President Biden, wrote a college recommendation letter for the son of a Chinese executive who did business with Hunter Biden.

President Biden has long denied any knowledge or involvement in his son’s dealings — a claim that has been contradicted not only by emails found on the laptop but statements by Hunter Biden himself.

The letter is on behalf of the son of the CEO of BHR Jonathan Li. BHR features prominently in the influence peddling scandal. It was in a joint venture with Biden’s Rosemont Seneca. Hunter held a 10% stake in BHR and, while he claimed that he was entirely divested, he continued to hold shares as recently as last year.

Fox News Digital obtained emails between Hunter Biden and his business associates, including one dated Jan. 3, 2017, and sent to Hunter Biden and his business associates Devon Archer and Jim Bolger, CEO of BHR Jonathan Li writes:

“Gentlmen[sic], please find the attached resume of my son, Chris Li. He is applying the following colleges for this year,” Li writes, listing Brown University, Cornell University, and New York University.

Li goes on to attach an “updated version” of his son’s “CV” and listing Brown, Cornell, and NYU as target schools.

Hunter’s associate, James Bulger, responds with “Lets [sic] see how we can be helpful here to Chris,” Bulger writes.

Several weeks later, on Feb. 18, 2017, Eric Schwerin, who served as president of Rosemont Seneca, replied to Li. Schwerin states “Jonathan, Hunter asked me to send you a copy of the recommendation letter that he asked his father to write on behalf of Christopher for Brown University.”

Once again, it is baffling how Attorney General Garland can ignore the myriad of references to Joe Biden in refusing to appoint a special counsel.

The email direct reference to Joe Biden is a departure from the practice in these communications. People apparently were told to avoid directly referring to President Biden. In one email, Tony Bobulinski, then a business partner of Hunter’s, was instructed by Biden associate James Gilliar not to speak of the former veep’s connection to any transactions: “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u [sic] are face to face, I know u [sic] know that but they are paranoid.”

Instead, the emails apparently refer to President Biden with code names such as “Celtic” or “the big guy.” In one, “the big guy” is discussed as possibly receiving a 10 percent cut on a deal with a Chinese energy firm; other emails reportedly refer to Hunter Biden paying portions of his father’s expenses and taxes.

Despite President Biden’s repeated claims he knew nothing about these dealings, Bobulinski has said he personally met with the senior Biden to discuss Hunter Biden’s business activities. Bobulinski had been selected by the family to handle these deals.

As vice president, Joe Biden flew to China on Air Force Two with Hunter Biden, who arranged for his father to meet some of his business interests. Hunter Biden’s financial interest in a Chinese-backed investment firm, BHR Partners, was registered within weeks of that 2013 trip. Yet, President Biden repeatedly insisted that he never discussed such dealings with his son, a claim Hunter Biden has contradicted.

There are emails of Ukrainian and other foreign clients thanking Hunter Biden for arranging meetings with his father. There are photos from dinners and meetings that tie President Biden to these figures, including a 2015 dinner with a group of Hunter Biden’s Russian and Kazakh clients.

Justice Department regulations allow the appointment of a special counsel when it is in the public interest and an “investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances.”

The President of the United States is not only referenced in potentially receiving shares in some dealings, but he was named as one of those meant to share a Chinese-funded office and receiving funds from shared accounts. He is now directly linked to assist one of these foreign figures directly in this letter.

What was an untenable position for the White House and Garland is increasingly becoming laughable as these connections emerge.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/06/2022 – 14:21

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/BQnI0w1 Tyler Durden

FOMC Minutes Signal Bigger, Faster-Than-Expected QT, Multiple 50bps Hikes

FOMC Minutes Signal Bigger, Faster-Than-Expected QT, Multiple 50bps Hikes

Since March 16th’s FOMC Statement, and The Fed’s rate-hike, US equities have soared (giving some back in the last couple of days) and bonds have been battered

Source: Bloomberg

And thanks to the extreme level of hawkish jawboning, the market’s expectations for rate-hikes in 2022 have soared from 6 more to 9 more (with 82% odds of a 50bps hike in May)… and at the same time, rate-cut expectations for 2023/24 have soared from just over 1 cut to more than 3…

Source: Bloomberg

And the yield curve has collapsed (with 2s10s swinging into inversion and back out – the latter the real signal for an imminent recession)…

Source: Bloomberg

The big thing everyone is watching for in today’s Minutes is just how aggressive the balance-sheet reduction is going to be after Brainard’s comments suggested far faster-and-furiouser a contraction than anyone hoped for (an active ‘sell-down’ vs passive ‘run off’) because Powell specifically said at his Q&A that he is “sure there’ll be a more detailed discussion of our [B/S reduction] in the minutes.”

The Minutes were more hawkish than expected ($60-90 billion per month expected):

  • *FOMC: $95 BLN/MONTH CAP FOR ASSET RUNOFF LIKELY APPROPRIATE

    • *FOMC SUPPORTS $35 BILLION A MONTH ROLLOFF CAP FOR MBS

    • *FOMC SUPPORTS $60 BILLION A MONTH ROLLOFF CAP FOR TREASURIES

  • *FOMC BACKS ROLLOFF-CAP PHASE-IN OF 3 MONTHS OR MODESTLY LONGER

  • *MANY FED OFFICIALS SAY 1 OR MORE 50-BPS HIKES MAY BE WARRANTED

Developing…

*  *  *

Read the full Minutes below:

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/06/2022 – 14:04

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/gvq6Eph Tyler Durden

Major League Baseball: Don’t Nationalize it, Privatize it!


galaad-linosfil-f1BFXj1bTo0-unsplash

Thursday marks Opening Day of the 2022 Major League Baseball season, which means it’s open season for hot takes about how to fix what ails the National Pastime—disputes between labor and management, declining attendance and TV viewership, increasingly dull on-field product, etc.

The New York Times Wednesday probably won the MLB preseason hate-clicks derby by publishing a Matthew Walther op-ed under the headline, “Baseball Is Dying. The Government Should Take It Over.” It’s at least semi-satirical, so not worth getting exercised over (beyond the basic responses of “No it isn’t,” and “No it shouldn’t”), but both the essay and the spectacle of an ambivalent Opening Day are timely reminders that much of what plagues the sport is not solvable by government, it emanates from government.

It’s weird that baseball would still require rescuing, given that Congress as recently as 2018 passed the Save America’s Pastime Act (see how semi-satire works?). That law, which probably never could have been passed as a standalone bill, was actually crammed into a must-pass omnibus spending whatever, and as such is a fine example of what happens when you mix government with baseball.

Sold both by gullible congresscritters and arms-twisted Minor League Baseball (MiLB) owners as the last, best hope for maintaining small-town professional ball, the act in fact was something closer to the opposite: a way for bottomless-pocketed Major League Baseball (MLB)—which pays for, and dictates terms to, the captive feeder leagues—to use the threat of franchise-contraction for a federal exemption from labor laws, so that minor leaguers could continue being paid as low as $1,100 a month for their seasonal work.

Within seven months of the act’s passage, MLB started leaking out the names of MiLB franchises that would be euthanized anyway. By December 2020, the deed was done—40 of the original 160 teams were summarily severed. As I wrote in a feature on the topic last year, “Local governments were suddenly on the hook for a quarter-billion dollars’ worth of investment in event spaces that no longer held events.”

Hmmm, why would local governments invest in professional sporting facilities? Let’s hit the refresh button on one of the worst recurring examples of mixing public sector activity with a private sector business: Stadium welfare.

Giving out subsidies and tax breaks for sports business owners is self-evidently terrible enough, as have concluded virtually every non-corrupted economist who has ever studied the issue. (The eminent domain used for these projects, too, constitute abuse egregious enough to inspire Ry Cooder albums.) But let’s not sleep on how such a culture of welfare dependency has been bad for the recipients, and especially to fans of the allegedly boosted sport.

By acclamation, the single most spectacular facility to watch a football game is SoFi Stadium, home to both the Los Angeles Rams and Chargers, and host to the most recent Super Bowl. Unlike virtually every other National Football League facility constructed over the past three decades, SoFi was built without government subsidies.

In baseball, the handsomest stadium I’ve ever set foot in is Oracle Park, home to the San Francisco Giants. Opened in 2000, it was the first ballpark built without public money since the 1960s. Why, it’s almost as if people who spend their own money on a thing take extra care to make it real purty!

Self-funders are also incentivized to stay put, rather than jilting the local fan base. “When governments become landlords,” I wrote last year, “sports businesses, no matter how deep their pockets, start acting like tenants: always eyeing the exits for a potentially better deal. If you build it, they will leave.”

Baseball doesn’t need to be nationalized, it needs to be privatized—no more subsidies, no more finger-wagging congressional hearings, no more State of the Union address moralizing, no more unique-to-this-one-sport carve outs from federal law. It’s time for these welfare queens to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and compete for audience share as if their bottom lines depended on that as much as it does on the ribbon-cutting innumeracy of dull-witted politicians.

The post Major League Baseball: Don't Nationalize it, Privatize it! appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/rqWkBKu
via IFTTT

California’s Terrible Price-Gouging Law Puts Markets at Mercy of Ambitious Prosecutors


eggs_1161x653

California’s incredibly stupid, market-denying emergency “price-gouging” laws have struck again, this time hitting a grocery store chain for raising egg prices beyond what the state allows during pandemic-related shortages.

Value grocery chain Smart & Final has agreed to pay California $175,000 because, between March and June 2020, it increased the price of four different types of eggs during a period in which stores were struggling to keep their shelves stocked.

This was in the early days of the pandemic, when Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom  declared a state of emergency. That declaration triggered California’s “price-gouging” law, which says that businesses cannot raise prices by more than 10 percent during state emergencies unless they can prove the price increase is due to increased production or labor costs. According to Attorney General Rob Bonta, Smart & Final raised prices for some eggs by as much as 25 percent.

The Los Angeles Times notes that Smart & Final did have a reason for raising the prices—suppliers were also jacking up prices of eggs. But apparently Smart & Final acknowledged that suppliers were raising the prices of “standard” eggs, and that the chain commensurately raised the price of “premium” eggs.

Laws against price-gouging are bad, wrong, and counter-productive, and Bonta’s own observations about this case, quoted by the Times, explain why. He notes that, “When California first went into lockdown at the beginning of the pandemic, there was a run on essential supplies, and unfortunately, some businesses saw this as an opportunity to pad their bottom line.”

“While these were premium products, remember that during this time, shelves were often bare, there weren’t a lot of choices. Consumers had few, if any options.”

This is an economically illiterate grasp of why stores jack up prices in a crisis situation. The “run on essential supplies” caused absurd amounts of hoarding and over-purchasing, which many customers were able to do largely because stores were prohibited from raising prices. That sharp increase in demand travels up the supply chain, ultimately leading to some combination of empty shelves and higher prices as suppliers ramp up production.

Price-gouging laws simply attempt to legislate away basic economics at the retail point, and the end result is reasonable prices for goods that are seldom or never available. It doesn’t matter how much eggs cost when a supermarket doesn’t have any in stock. If people actually had to pay more for goods in an emergency situation, they’d be more careful about what they bought and we wouldn’t have had people pushing entire carts of toilet paper out of the grocery stores (and then attempting to resell them online).

The way Bonta describes the store’s situation is that people were buying the more expensive premium eggs due to shortages of the standard eggs. The same demand issues were most certainly going to come into play if people continued to purchase the premium eggs at the same rate they purchased the standard eggs. (And none of this even gets into how much of California’s higher food prices are the direct result of bad state policies.)

Bonta, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), trying to convince the public that supermarkets have big profit margins they’re trying to pad and that’s why they’re “gouging” consumers. The reality is that most grocery stores have very tiny profit margins—for 2018, Smart & Final actually reported a net loss of more than $100 million.

What’s more, the money that Smart & Final agreed to pay the attorney general’s office will not be going back to consumers who allegedly got “gouged” on fancy eggs. Under state law, when the attorney general gets a judgment or agreement for a civil penalty for violating consumer protection laws, half of that money goes to the county where the judgment was rendered—San Mateo county in this case—and half into the state’s General Fund.

San Mateo County is one of the wealthiest counties in the entire country with a median annual household income of $138,500. So, just to be clear here, a grocery store with a negligible (sometimes even negative) profit margin is being forced to fork over money to the wealthiest government in California, all in the name of protecting poor consumers, who won’t see a dime from this settlement.

The money does get earmarked, however, but for “the enforcement of consumer protection laws.” This creates some twisted profit incentives, then, for city and county attorneys to find businesses to sue because their offices stand to financially gain from the settlements. It’s almost like civil asset forfeiture, but for big businesses.

The post California's Terrible Price-Gouging Law Puts Markets at Mercy of Ambitious Prosecutors appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/Wvo148c
via IFTTT

Biden Reportedly Nominating Another Gun-Grabber To Head ATF 

Biden Reportedly Nominating Another Gun-Grabber To Head ATF 

The Biden administration is allegedly taking another crack at nominating a new anti-gun nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) after learning from their failed attempt to nominate radical gun-control advocate David Chipman last year, according to Politico, citing multiple sources close to the White House. 

The report states that two people familiar with the Biden administration’s discussions indicated ‘serious’ consideration is underway for Steve Dettelbach, a former federal attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, to become the new ATF nominee. 

Chipman was a disastrous pick by the Biden administration last year to only be rescinded in September. He has openly advocated to do everything in his power to strip Americans of their 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm, a move that is widely unpopular considering violent crime is still on the rise across the country. 

With the conflict in Ukraine and the US cities even more dangerous, the Biden administration could be attempting to pitch what may appear to be a ‘centralist’ nominee (compared to Chipman). However, not entirely, because Dettelbach’s failed run for attorney general of Ohio in 2018 revealed his anti-gun agenda, which includes reinstating the assault weapons ban, universal background registration checks, gun confiscation for misdemeanor crimes, and even disarming teachers, according to advocacy group Gun Owners of America (GOA). 

GOA said, “So, we know that Steve Dettlebach is a big-time gun control supporter. And, support for infringements on our constitutionally-protected rights should disqualify anyone from and every public office.” 

Also responding to the report is Maryland-based gun advocacy group The Machine Gun Nest (TMGN), who pointed out, “while Dettelbach on the surface may seem like less of a gun grabber than an activist like David Chipman, in reality, they are cut from the same cloth.” 

“Dettelbach serves only to appease those that couldn’t vote for Chipman because of Chipman’s obvious inherent bias. In reality, Dettelbach holds the same views as Chipman and, if nominated for ATF director, will ultimately be another instrument in Biden’s war on guns through subversion of the legislative process,” TMGN continued.

Multiple sources told Politico the announcement of a new ATF nominee could come as soon as mid-May. 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/06/2022 – 13:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/spSXraQ Tyler Durden

California’s Terrible Price-Gouging Law Puts Markets at Mercy of Ambitious Prosecutors


eggs_1161x653

California’s incredibly stupid, market-denying emergency “price-gouging” laws have struck again, this time hitting a grocery store chain for raising egg prices beyond what the state allows during pandemic-related shortages.

Value grocery chain Smart & Final has agreed to pay California $175,000 because, between March and June 2020, it increased the price of four different types of eggs during a period in which stores were struggling to keep their shelves stocked.

This was in the early days of the pandemic, when Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom  declared a state of emergency. That declaration triggered California’s “price-gouging” law, which says that businesses cannot raise prices by more than 10 percent during state emergencies unless they can prove the price increase is due to increased production or labor costs. According to Attorney General Rob Bonta, Smart & Final raised prices for some eggs by as much as 25 percent.

The Los Angeles Times notes that Smart & Final did have a reason for raising the prices—suppliers were also jacking up prices of eggs. But apparently Smart & Final acknowledged that suppliers were raising the prices of “standard” eggs, and that the chain commensurately raised the price of “premium” eggs.

Laws against price-gouging are bad, wrong, and counter-productive, and Bonta’s own observations about this case, quoted by the Times, explain why. He notes that, “When California first went into lockdown at the beginning of the pandemic, there was a run on essential supplies, and unfortunately, some businesses saw this as an opportunity to pad their bottom line.”

“While these were premium products, remember that during this time, shelves were often bare, there weren’t a lot of choices. Consumers had few, if any options.”

This is an economically illiterate grasp of why stores jack up prices in a crisis situation. The “run on essential supplies” caused absurd amounts of hoarding and over-purchasing, which many customers were able to do largely because stores were prohibited from raising prices. That sharp increase in demand travels up the supply chain, ultimately leading to some combination of empty shelves and higher prices as suppliers ramp up production.

Price-gouging laws simply attempt to legislate away basic economics at the retail point, and the end result is reasonable prices for goods that are seldom or never available. It doesn’t matter how much eggs cost when a supermarket doesn’t have any in stock. If people actually had to pay more for goods in an emergency situation, they’d be more careful about what they bought and we wouldn’t have had people pushing entire carts of toilet paper out of the grocery stores (and then attempting to resell them online).

The way Bonta describes the store’s situation is that people were buying the more expensive premium eggs due to shortages of the standard eggs. The same demand issues were most certainly going to come into play if people continued to purchase the premium eggs at the same rate they purchased the standard eggs. (And none of this even gets into how much of California’s higher food prices are the direct result of bad state policies.)

Bonta, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), trying to convince the public that supermarkets have big profit margins they’re trying to pad and that’s why they’re “gouging” consumers. The reality is that most grocery stores have very tiny profit margins—for 2018, Smart & Final actually reported a net loss of more than $100 million.

What’s more, the money that Smart & Final agreed to pay the attorney general’s office will not be going back to consumers who allegedly got “gouged” on fancy eggs. Under state law, when the attorney general gets a judgment or agreement for a civil penalty for violating consumer protection laws, half of that money goes to the county where the judgment was rendered—San Mateo county in this case—and half into the state’s General Fund.

San Mateo County is one of the wealthiest counties in the entire country with a median annual household income of $138,500. So, just to be clear here, a grocery store with a negligible (sometimes even negative) profit margin is being forced to fork over money to the wealthiest government in California, all in the name of protecting poor consumers, who won’t see a dime from this settlement.

The money does get earmarked, however, but for “the enforcement of consumer protection laws.” This creates some twisted profit incentives, then, for city and county attorneys to find businesses to sue because their offices stand to financially gain from the settlements. It’s almost like civil asset forfeiture, but for big businesses.

The post California's Terrible Price-Gouging Law Puts Markets at Mercy of Ambitious Prosecutors appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/Wvo148c
via IFTTT