Libertarians or libertarians in name only? “Servant of the People” wins Ukrainian elections

By Marcin Chmielowski I am by no means an expert on Ukrainian politics. However, thanks to education and experience, I know something about libertarianism. Surprisingly, these two areas are linked together due to the quiet political revolution that took place in our eastern neighbors. Exit polls are showing that something unprecedented has happened. For the first time in history, parliamentary election in a large, populous country are won by political party which identifies itself as libertarian. And it’s worth a comment. What’s crucial, this victory took place in a country that is placed as 147th in 2019 Index of Economic Freedom prepared by Heritage Foundation. It’s a country, which economy is supposed to be less  free on the whole European continent and it’s currently defending itself from Russian armed aggression. Certainly, this election’s result means a huge change in the two dimensions that I wrote above, and so in the Ukraine’s politics itself as well as in the libertarian movement, which may be able to capitalize this success. Due to my knowledge and interests, I will focus on the second aspect, although I will not run away from the brief commentary on Ukrainian matters. In this case, however, my voice is not the expert’s voice but only observer’s one. Important remark for the beginning: the success of the Servant of the People should be seen as a breakdown of the popularity of President Volodymyr Zelensky – politician, who can be seen as reformist but who is definitely not a libertarian. It should be seen as de facto introducing until recently a purely virtual, structureless party to general public. We do not know yet whether the Servant of the People will enter into a coalition with someone but even if it will do it as a stronger side of the system. …

Open Letter to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

By Lobo Tiggre Dear Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Your official House web page requires me to enter a zip code in your district to send you an email. I understand that you work for your constituents, but you’re going to vote on laws that affect everyone in the United States, and you’ve become a national figure. So, while I live in Puerto Rico and not New York, I’m writing you this open letter, hoping it reaches you. First, I want to say that while I disagree with every policy idea I’ve heard you advance, I don’t hate you. I’m not here to call you names, nor gain brownie points from “my side” by attacking the object of their fear, anger, and derision. Actually, I have no side. I’m not a member of any political party. Or perhaps we’re on the same side; you clearly seem to care more about people than parties. So do I. That’s why I’m writing. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, taking you at face value. You seem intelligent, well informed, and sincere. Your willingness to attack entrenched injustice regardless of the consequences for your career is admirable. And if you are what you appear to be, then you should be willing to engage in respectful dialog with those who disagree with the means you propose to achieve ends we may well agree upon. I suspect we’d both like to see a future in which people flourish in a world no longer scarred by bigotry and institutionalized violence, motivated more by positive dreams of the future than nightmare fears of the past. If so, I’d like to talk with you. I’d like to exchange ideas and—if either of us is as intellectually honest as we’d like to believe—find where either you or I might be wrong …

Minimum Wage Fraud Revisited–Again and Again

Federal and state politicians are eager to raise the minimum legal wage—again. They have raised the minimum legal wage many times before, but they complain that it is never enough. The last rise in the minimum wage wasn’t enough because the prices of food, clothing, and shelter keep going up faster than wages. Why do the prices of food, clothing, and shelter keep going up? Could this have something to do with the behavior of politicians and government? A general rise in prices is caused by government monetary policy. Yes, Ben Bernanke and kids at the Federal Reserve Bank had fun printing a couple trillion dollars over the past decade. As it takes more and more dollars to buy the same goods, the value of wages, savings, and pensions falls. Politicians could tell the Federal Reserve Gang to stop printing money, but they don’t. They don’t stop it because printing more money is useful to the spending plans of politicians. In this manner, politicians rob the value of wages, savings, and pensions. State politicians are also responsible for rising prices. They don’t print money, yet they raise prices by raising taxes on nearly everything. State politicians could give workers an effective pay raise by reducing taxes on the earnings, savings, and purchases of workers. But they don’t. Politicians don’t cut taxes because tax revenues are useful to the spending plans of politicians. Federal and state politicians could also lower prices in the islands by ending the Jones Act, a very old law that severely restricts shipping to the islands. Bloomberg editors recently commented on the effect of the Jones Act stating, “By some estimates, this makes goods in Hawaii a third more expensive than they otherwise should be.” Wouldn’t it be nice for politicians to end the Jones Act and …

How Land Use Restrictions Make Housing Unaffordable with Emily Hamilton

The following is an edited transcript from Economics Detective Radio, by Garrett Petersen. Listen to the full interview at economicsdetective.com.   Petersen: My guest today is Emily Hamilton. She is a researcher at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Emily, thanks for being on Economics Detective Radio. Hamilton: Thanks a lot for having me. Petersen: So, Emily recently wrote a paper titled “How Land Use Regulation Undermines Affordable Housing” along with her co-author Sanford Ikeda. The paper is a review of many studies looking at land use restrictions and it identifies four of the most common types of land use restrictions. Those are: minimum lots sizes, minimum parking requirements, inclusionary zoning, and urban growth boundaries. So Emily, could you tell us what each of those restrictions entail? Hamilton: Sure. So, starting off with the first, minimum lots sizes. This is probably what people most commonly associate with zoning. It’s the type of Euclidian zoning that separates residential areas from businesses and then within residential areas limits the number of units that can be on any certain size of land. And this is the most common tool that makes up what is sometimes referred to as Snob Zoning, where residents lobby for larger minimum lots sizes and larger house sizes to ensure that their neighbors are people who can afford only that minimum size of housing. Petersen: So it keeps the poor away, effectively. Hamilton: Exactly. And then parking requirements are often used as a tool to ensure that street parking doesn’t get too congested. So when cars first became common, parking was really crazy where people would just leave their car on the street, maybe double parked, or in an inconvenient situation near their destination. And obviously as driving became more and more common and that was just an …

The Loophole in Copyright Law: Make it Funny

Copyright law is strange.  While it’s almost impossible to copy someone else’s work of art and sell it as your own — there is one easy way to get around that.  Make it funny.  If you copy something and it’s funny for all the right reasons, no one can sue you.  That’s because technically, parodies are protected under copyright law. Parodies fall under “fair use” of the United States copyright law, which means, it’s legal to make fun of something.  But it’s illegal if it’s not funny. Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” has been parodied thousands of times on Youtube.  And by ‘parodied’ I mean, performed exactly the same way.  Groups of women (or men) will perform her routine with the exact same choreography and music as the original.  People debate about whether the new performances are better than the original video all the time.  But one thing’s for certain, lots of people profited from her work, and without a single lawyer getting in the way. Weird Al Yankovic has made millions of dollars stealing other people’s work and making it his own.  Lots of musicians protest, but because he’s ‘funny’, he’s protected by the law. When the song “Barbie Girl” became a hit in 1997, Mattel sued Aqua for copyright infringement.  The courts and lawyers debated endlessly about the ‘funniness’ of the song.  And in the end, the case was dismissed because “Barbie Girl” was indeed, hilarious. It’s odd that humor is so important in American law.  The argument is that no one should profit from someone else’s hard work.  But as soon as something’s funny, the courts all laugh and throw their hands up in the air,  yelling, “Case dismissed!” But how far could we take a parody? The hit musical “Wicked” is considered to be the holy grail for …

Mobile Apps Bringing a Taste of the Free Market to China

When Uber launched in Beijing, my first thought was that they were going to have a really hard time in China. However, this was not because I expected there to be protests from taxi drivers like in London or threats of jail time from city governments like in San Francisco, but because there is already so much existing competition from mobile taxi booking apps in the country. While in Shanghai this past March, I was introduced to the latest of these apps, DiDi Dache, which is built in to the popular messaging service WeChat. With DiDi Dache, you simply list where you are and where you want to go, leave a voice message for prospective drivers, and in my experience, within 5 minutes you have a taxi. Even more impressive than the speed with which your taxi appears, is the speed with which the technology has spread throughout the country. Within just a few months of the app being launched, nearly every cab in Shanghai now has it set up in their vehicles and is using it as their primary means of finding customers, which has greatly reducing the amount of time they must drive around searching for riders. Even my 70 year old great aunt was using it so frequently and naturally, it seemed as if she’d been using it for years. DiDi Dache, promoted itself initially with massive rebates and incentives for both riders and drivers, some have reported that they were able to take rides for just 2 yuan, approximately 33 cents. This is possible due to the company’s revenue model, where revenue comes not from taxi fares themselves, but instead from “location-based advertising,” which uses geo-tagging to target riders with advertisements related to their location. A unique feature of the app is that people seeking taxis …