Archive for ‘Regulatory Reform’

July 2, 2026

In Defense of Capitalism: Blaming the Engine for the Road Government Built

by Steve Dana

Young people today often say capitalism has failed them. They look at the cost of rent, groceries, gas, tuition, insurance, health care, and vehicles, and they conclude the system is broken. Then they look at Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, and the rest of America’s billionaire class, and they decide they have found the villains.

It is an understandable reaction, but it is the wrong conclusion.

Capitalism did not make ordinary life unaffordable.

Government distorted capitalism until ordinary life became unaffordable, and then taught people to blame capitalism.

That is the point we need to recover.

Capitalism does not operate in a vacuum. It operates inside a framework created by government. Government controls the money supply. Government influences interest rates. Government taxes income, property, fuel, payroll, investment, business activity, and consumption. Government regulates housing, energy, transportation, labor, health care, education, banking, insurance, construction, and nearly every other sector of the economy.

Then private businesses are expected to function inside that framework, absorb those costs, comply with those rules, pay those taxes, survive those mandates, and still keep prices low enough that customers do not revolt.

When they cannot, capitalism gets blamed.

That is dishonest.

A restaurant owner does not set the price of a hamburger in a vacuum. He looks at beef, buns, cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fryer oil, paper goods, napkins, cleaning supplies, rent, utilities, insurance, wages, payroll taxes, workers’ compensation, credit-card fees, repairs, equipment, spoilage, licensing, bookkeeping, regulation, and debt service. He adds all those costs together, hopes customers will still walk through the door, and tries to make enough profit to survive.

If the hamburger that used to cost five dollars now costs sixteen, the lazy explanation is greed. The real explanation is cost.

And where do many of those costs come from? Inflation, regulation, labor mandates, taxes, energy policy, insurance mandates, compliance costs, permitting delays, and the steady destruction of the dollar’s purchasing power.

That is not Bill Gates’ fault. That is not Warren Buffett’s fault. That is not capitalism failing. That is government interference showing up on the menu board.

The same is true of housing. Builders did not forget how to build houses. Developers did not suddenly decide to make starter homes unaffordable. Government made land use more complicated, zoning more restrictive, permitting more expensive, environmental review more time-consuming, infrastructure fees more burdensome, and construction compliance more costly. Then people look around and wonder why young families cannot buy a house.

The answer is not capitalism. The answer is artificial scarcity created by government policy.

If government restricts where housing can be built, what kind of housing can be built, how dense it can be, how long approvals take, what fees must be paid, what materials must be used, and what conditions must be satisfied before a shovel hits the dirt, the result will be fewer homes and higher prices.

That is not a market failure. That is a government failure.

Energy is another example. Fuel is not just something we buy at the pump. Energy is embedded in everything. It is in farming, trucking, refrigeration, construction, manufacturing, shipping, warehousing, heating, cooling, and retail. Raise the cost of energy and you raise the cost of everything.

When government restricts supply, discourages investment, blocks infrastructure, mandates preferred technologies, or punishes certain fuels before alternatives are ready, the cost does not stay in the energy sector. It spreads through the entire economy.

The customer sees the price of groceries. The business owner sees the fuel surcharge.

Again, capitalism gets blamed for a cost structure government helped create.

Money is the deepest layer of all. When government spends more than it takes in, borrows endlessly, and depends on monetary policy to keep the whole machine moving, the dollar loses value over time. That loss of purchasing power is not dramatic in a single year. It is devastating over decades.

A little inflation sounds harmless when politicians and economists talk about it. Two percent here, three percent there. But inflation compounds. Given enough time, it changes civilization. A five-dollar hamburger becomes sixteen dollars. A five-thousand-dollar truck becomes fifty thousand. A fifty-thousand-dollar house becomes a million-dollar house in some markets.

People then ask why everything costs so much.

The answer is simple: the dollar buys less.

Private business did not create that cycle. Government did.

Businesses respond to the value of money. They do not create the value of money. A business owner charging more dollars for the same product may not be making more real profit at all. He may simply be trying to keep up with a currency that has been weakened beneath his feet.

This is where the attack on capitalism becomes morally backward. Capitalism creates goods and services. Government debases money. Then capitalism gets blamed when goods and services require more dollars.

A free market creates abundance. Bad policy makes abundance harder to afford.

Consider the smartphone. Many of capitalism’s loudest critics complain about capitalism on thousand-dollar phones using private-sector technology, private-sector platforms, private-sector networks, private-sector software, private-sector logistics, and private-sector innovation. They carry in their pockets a device more powerful than anything kings, presidents, or generals possessed for most of human history.

Capitalism made that possible.

And yet they say capitalism failed because rent is too high, tuition is impossible, health care is unaffordable, and wages do not stretch far enough.

They are right that life has become too expensive. They are wrong about why.

The real problem is not that capitalism cannot produce. The problem is that government has made the basics of life too expensive by manipulating, regulating, subsidizing, restricting, taxing, borrowing, and inflating.

That distinction matters because a wrong diagnosis produces a destructive cure.

If young people are taught that capitalism is the problem, they will demand more government control over the very sectors government has already distorted. Housing is too expensive, so they demand more government intervention. College is too expensive, so they demand more government money. Health care is too expensive, so they demand more government control. Wages are tight, so they demand more labor mandates. Energy is expensive, so they demand more centralized planning.

Then prices rise again, shortages grow worse, small businesses disappear, choices narrow, and the same voices say, “See? Capitalism failed.”

No. Capitalism was never allowed to work honestly.

That does not mean every business is virtuous. It does not mean every wealthy person earned wealth honorably. It does not mean corporations never behave badly. Some companies exploit government favors. Some lobby for regulations that crush their smaller competitors. Some use political influence to protect themselves from competition. Some enjoy subsidies, bailouts, tax preferences, and regulatory barriers that ordinary entrepreneurs could never access.

But that is not capitalism. That is cronyism.

There is a vast difference between a free market and a rigged market. In a free market, businesses win by serving customers better. In a rigged market, businesses win by influencing government. In a free market, profit is earned by creating value. In a rigged market, profit is protected by political power.

The answer to cronyism is not socialism. The answer is less favoritism, less manipulation, less central planning, and more honest competition.

The local business owner understands this better than most politicians. He lives in the real world. He knows he cannot mandate a profit into existence. He cannot raise wages beyond what the business can sustain. He cannot sell a product for less than it costs to produce. He cannot keep the doors open by pretending arithmetic is unfair.

Labor matters. Employees matter. Good workers are valuable. But wages have to fit inside the value customers are willing to pay for the product or service. Government can mandate a wage, but it cannot mandate customer demand. It can raise the cost of labor, but it cannot force customers to buy a sixteen-dollar hamburger.

When no one applies for a job at ten dollars an hour, the market is speaking. The employer must raise the wage, improve conditions, change the work, or go without help. That is a market signal. But when government imposes wages without knowing the margins, the customer base, the cost structure, or the survival point of the business, it is not wisdom. It is political theater with someone else’s money.

And when the business fails, the politician does not lose the house. The owner does.

That is another truth our culture forgets: ownership is risk. Employees sell labor for wages. Owners buy risk with their lives.

The owner signs the lease, borrows the money, buys the equipment, hires the staff, pays the insurance, manages the taxes, satisfies the regulators, and lies awake wondering whether payroll can be met. If the business succeeds, people complain that the owner made too much. If the business fails, the owner absorbs the loss.

Employees may lose a job. That is serious. But the owner may lose the business, the savings, the house, the credit, the reputation, and years of work.

A society that resents reward while depending on risk-takers is living off capital it no longer understands.

There has to be the possibility of great reward because there is the possibility of great loss. If the upside is capped while the downside remains unlimited, rational people stop taking risks. They stop opening restaurants. They stop building companies. They stop hiring workers. They stop signing notes. They stop betting on themselves.

Then everyone has less.

That is why defending capitalism is not about defending billionaires. It is about defending the right of ordinary people to create, build, risk, serve, profit, fail, recover, and try again.

It is about defending the system that allows a poor person to become middle class, a middle-class person to become wealthy, and an idea in a garage to become a company that changes the world.

The tragedy of our time is that too many people have been taught to envy the builder rather than become one. They have been taught to look at wealth and assume theft. They have been taught to see profit as exploitation rather than the oxygen that keeps a business alive.

They see capitalism’s storefront.

They do not see government’s machinery behind the wall.

So when prices rise, they blame the merchant. When rent rises, they blame the landlord. When wages disappoint, they blame the employer. When billionaires exist, they blame capitalism.

But the deeper causes are debt, inflation, regulation, taxation, artificial scarcity, distorted incentives, and government interference in the capitalist system.

Capitalism is not perfect because people are not perfect. But capitalism remains the greatest engine of abundance, innovation, opportunity, and upward mobility the world has ever known.

Government can provide order, courts, national defense, basic rules, and protection against fraud and force. But when government tries to manage everything, price everything, subsidize everything, regulate everything, and promise everything, it corrupts the signals that make markets work.

Capitalism is the engine.

Government is the road, the fuel, the speed limit, the toll booth, the traffic cop, and sometimes the guy throwing nails in the lane.

When the ride gets rough, people blame the engine.

They should look at the road.

May 15, 2014

Mukilteo Landslide Buries Amtrak Train?

by Steve Dana

In the aftermath of the Oso/Darrington land slide there has been plenty of comment about possible litigation against Snohomish County because they knew the hill side was unstable and didn’t adequately protect the property owners below. (I doubt the County is liable.)

The Snohomish County Council is trying to decide if there are changes to the development code it can enact that might prevent catastrophic loss of life incidents in the future and I would only encourage them to look west as well as east as they do their analysis.

The topic of landslides is one I’ve contemplated in the past and even wrote about on my blog several years ago but for a different reason; railroad safety and reliability.

For those Snohomish County residents that work in King County and who ride the train to work from Everett Station to King Street Station, the landslides that routinely cover the tracks along the Everett-Mukilteo-Edmonds water front are a constant reminder of the instability of the bluff overlooking the railroad tracks.

What kind of public outcry would there be if the bluff collapsed on top of an Amtrak passenger train or a commuter train? How many times during the past three winters has the railroad been closed because of landslides? How many times have we seen television pieces done regarding property owners whose yards are sloughing off, down the hillside?

When I wrote about this topic I was focused on the fact that there is only one north/south rail line through the Puget Sound corridor. A significant slide would close the line for days and maybe even weeks. Without consideration for the potential loss of life, the economic impact would be severe.

I’ve never monitored the Puget Sound Regional Council since I don’t think they have Snohomish County interests at heart so if they’ve been promoting an alternative rail corridor north, I applaud them, but I doubt they have. As a matter of fact, I don’t think anyone in the legislature, Snohomish County government or any of the city governments have spoken to the issue.

The thing I find annoying with all these real and quasi-governmental agencies is the fact that they believe they are the only smart people in the room and if they didn’t think of it, it couldn’t have merit.

Establishing a rail corridor through east King County, east Snohomish County through Skagit and Whatcom Counties to Canada should be on someone’s radar even if the only reason is rising sea levels. There are bits and pieces of rail lines that are being considered as walking trails that could be refitted for freight and passenger rail service.

For those bright planners from PSRC on down to the counties and cities, this is a topic worth pursuing. Since there hasn’t been any loss of life in a slide event it’s not a front burner issue but will it take a fatality or two or twenty to increase its profile and be a hot topic? What if it was your husband or wife who was killed on the train when the bluff collapsed? Is there a warning on your ticked that riding the train from Seattle to Everett could cost you your life?

It’s about time that our elected officials had a little foresight and a lot less hindsight. Let’s see who can come up with a workable plan to get passenger trains off the waterfront to prevent the loss of lives and freight trains onto a rail line that is safe and reliable year around.

There is no doubt that the cost will be high but we have Capital Facilities Plans that demonstrate how a project can be completed over time in phases with funding coming from many sources.

June 16, 2012

Immigration Reform as I see it!

by Steve Dana

I don’t remember a time when we haven’t been talking about Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  Both political parties use the term and at different times each party has proposed legislation that ultimately failed to pass both houses of Congress.  I don’t know whether the content of Republican sponsored reform compared favorably with Democrat sponsored reform.

The fact that both parties drafted legislation would suggest there is common ground worthy of keeping the negotiations going. So what were the sticking points that prevented completion?

Why do we call it Comprehensive Immigration Reform?  Why don’t we just call it Immigration Reform?  So what’s wrong with our existing Immigration legislation?

From my perspective there isn’t a problem with our existing policy.  There might be some issues with the number of folks we allow to emigrate from foreign lands, but the process appears sound.  That would suggest the issue isn’t immigration reform at all.

In the context of the national debate the two issues are Border Security or a lack of it on our southern border and the large number of Mexicans who have entered our country illegally and have been allowed to stay for many years with the full knowledge of the government.  The justification being the need for workers willing to do jobs “Americans” wouldn’t do.

The truth is the old system worked well for Mexican workers who came over the border to work for the season with some sort of seasonal work permit and then returned home for the winter.  The agriculture interests needed seasonal workers and the permit system was one solution that worked but was abandoned in the 1980’s.

I had personal experience in the 1970’s of working on a corporate farm in Central Oregon where there were migrant workers who started in the spring harvesting something in Arizona and worked their way to the Canadian border as the harvest progressed north.  In my case we had a couple dozen Mexicans harvesting potatoes.  The important consideration was the fact that there wouldn’t have been work for those guys before or after the harvest.  They would have been temporary hires for a couple weeks and they would have been laid off.  The temporary worker permit system worked.

For me, the bigger issue is a lack of border security.  The vast majority of illegals who cross are Mexicans but there are some folks other than Mexicans who also cross whose intentions are not just working in America but maybe harming America.  Border security is a high priority for most countries in the world.  The penalty for illegally entering many countries is incarceration for lengthy terms. 

On our southern border we don’t send you to jail when you enter America illegally, we send you to college.

In my view the Comprehensive part of Immigration Reform is the dilemma of ten million illegal aliens who have lived here so long their kids are graduating from high school and college and who are now finding themselves in the spotlight.  What do we do with all the folks who have been well behaved illegal aliens who have become contributing members of our society? 

Once again it’s my view that people who enter this country illegally can never become citizens.  We might grant Mexicans resident alien status that allows them to live and work here but if they didn’t enter through proper channels they can never apply for citizenship.  How we might deal with foreigners of other origin is up for discussion.

And because these illegal aliens came into the country illegally they are classified similar to convicted felons in that they are never granted the right to vote or own a fire arm.  I don’t insist on calling them felons but the restrictions we put on felons should apply.

Amnesty is not an option for me.  There must be consequences for jumping the line and breaking the law which might also include a monetary penalty.

The bottom line for me is we don’t have to kick all of them out of the country but we do need to identify them and give them proper identification that includes fingerprints and or DNA so if they mysteriously disappear into the country there will be some way to identify them when they do turn up. The argument that aliens of any kind should not be required to have proper documentation on their person at all times when they are in public doesn’t work for me.  The feel good folks would have us believe that it’s inhumane to characterize illegal aliens as criminals but we don’t hesitate if the person breaks into our house or damages our property. What is breaking into our country?

If all they want to do is work and raise their families in America and give their kids the chance to realize the American Dream the restrictions I outline here shouldn’t be a problem.  The alternative is to uproot their families and go back to Mexico where the kids might be treated like foreigners.

The opportunity to become a US citizen should be a privilege reserved for aliens who entered through proper channels.

June 1, 2012

Insurance is the Devil of our Society!

by Steve Dana

I’ve come to the conclusion that INSURANCE is the root of most evil in our country today.  In my view, INSURANCE and LAWYERS together are to blame for most of what’s wrong. 

Think about how many insurance pools affect your life.  At home you have your home owner’s liability policy, your fire insurance policy and your auto policies covering your liability and your casualty loss.  If you have a mortgage, you probably have mortgage insurance.  If you are prudent you may have life insurance.

At work you are covered by Worker’s Compensation through Department of Labor and Industries and Employment Security (Unemployment Insurance) both paid mostly by your employer.

Increasingly, Health Care Insurance has come to dominate our lives.  Whether you pay for it individually or your employer pays for it, Health Care Insurance is becoming the most insidious form of insurance in our lives.

For a long time the discussion was focused on the “health care” part of the deal.  The thought was that the cost of care was driven by health care providers.  Then when we looked closer we saw that insurance companies were entrenched in the businesses of those providers it wasn’t about the quality of the care, it was only about what the insurance company would pay. 

Who hasn’t heard about Mal-Practice and Business Liability insurance for the doctors, the clinics and the hospitals?  It isn’t just the medical related businesses that are affected though; nearly every profession is impacted by Insurance policies.

The Lawyers compound the need for insurance because if someone fails to perform as they agreed in their insurance policy, an ambulance chaser, personal injury, mal-practice attorney will sue you and the insurance company for the failure.  Threatened with the loss of your stuff, you toe the line.

Insurance companies have been changing our behavior for many years.  Life insurance companies did it with smoking.  Auto insurance companies did it with seat belts and motor cycle helmets. 

If you engage in behavior they decide is “risky” your rates go up or your policy is cancelled.  And that is the central issue of this whole piece.

I guess the other component is not canceling your policy but reducing your benefits; which is happening everywhere we look.

This week, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested that sugared soft drinks larger than 16 ounces should be outlawed in New York City, citing the cost of health care paid by our health insurance carriers as the justification.  Obese people who are covered get subsidized health care because they are not as healthy as skinnier folks.  (Think about how far an idiot could extend that logic.)

The mayor focuses on how your personal bad choices affect insurance premiums paid by everyone.  Last time it was trans fats in the cooking oil used by restaurants.  Can you see how INSURANCE is becoming the dominant factor in our lives?

Insurance is the binding force that the government uses to change your behavior.  By making coverage mandatory you increase the size of the money pool supposedly making the unit cost less while giving the insurance company the leverage over the service providers to reduce their reimbursement rate.

Certainly the Supreme Court’s pending decision on Obamacare will be the deciding factor in whether the government and the insurance companies can require that you buy their insurance and accept their prescribed level of care without competition in the market.  It will also determine whether a doctor can set the price for his services or whether the insurance companies will have a strangle-hold on all the actual medical providers.

Don’t get me started about Medicare.  We supposedly paid into a pool that should have compounded and grown into a huge fund that would pay for our medical costs when we retired.  Unfortunately the government raided the fund and left it with a bunch of IOU’s so the actual cost of care today has to be paid out of current revenue.

Insurance companies will be the downfall of our society if the government requires that we all be covered for all perils.

Lawyers will be the enforcers since they will either sue you or threaten to sue you for whatever meager possessions the government allows you to have.

No doubt I would be in favor of “tort reform” limiting the dollar amount that could be awarded in a mal-practice or liability trial and providing that the plaintiff be held financially liable for the cost incurred by the defendant if the defendant is found to be not guilty.

Do I sound a little edgy?  Good!