Random thoughts

I took the bus this summer. I won't do that again, voluntarily. Other than horse-drawn carriage, I cannot imagine a more time consuming, uncomfortable, inefficient manner of travel. It quadrupled my commute time, increased my anxiety and reduced time with my family. On top of that, it didn't save me any gas money and cost taxpayers an additional 5X what I paid for the fare. Simply shocking that the nation is $15,000,000,000,000 in debt (not counting state & local debt).

Mark Perry continues to impress me and this piece about trade with China (and the supposed evils of their currency manipulation) is insightful and well worth your time... if you're willing to think a bit.

Milton Friedman was a national treasure. Thanks to Youtube and the interwebs, he remains so.

I thought about responding to the Forum's swipe at me but decided it wasn't worth it. If they want to be known for slandering minority opinions, they can continue to sink their paper along with that tactic. I will continue to fight for the liberty of Moorhead residents and I won't apologize for it.

Ron Paul is coming to Fargo/Moorhead. You may not agree with him (yet), but I believe he is the most important political thinker of my lifetime.

Moorhead Monday: A Troubled Bridge Over Water

As a free market proponent, I certainly have no objections to toll bridges in theory - I think it is a preferable model. However, I think the law should apply as equally as possible, even if it isn't a perfect one. This is the main reason I support converting the north Moorhead (15th Ave)/Fargo (12th Ave) to a cities-owned and maintained toll-free bridge as soon as the current contract expires - which is 1/1/2013. The alternative is to make all the bridges in Fargo-Moorhead toll bridges... and if that ever gets legs I'll go along with that.

The toll bridge owners have requested an extension but the Moorhead city council has not, to this point, agreed. I think the toll-payers, who have not been exempted from paying for the other bridges, have "paid their dues" for the last 25 years. Unfortunately, the owners of the bridge have decided to leave the bridge closed to protest our decision to stick with the existing agreement. If they stick to their guns, our choices are: 1) agree to 5 more years of tolls or, 2) live without the bridge for another 19 months and then take ownership. For now, I'll stick with what the parties have already agreed to.

Bullying and Slavery

Sen. Rand Paul's analogy of free health care being akin to slavery gets to the core of the "government is the solution" vs "government is the problem" argument. While Paul's example doesn't completely connect the dots, Tom Mullen's blot post brings the argument full circle. When the use of aggressive force (whether for laudable ends or not) violates another person's natural right to liberty or voluntarily acquired property, it is bullying. It is also, to a varying degree, a form of slavery.

Moorhead Monday: I Could Be Wrong

Yes, I know it's Tuesday. To be honest, I hesitate to write this piece because I'm not 100% convinced of my position. That's where you come in. Provide your feedback if you think I'm all wet.

We extended a 4 year property tax abatement to a new day care business last night. As you might imagine, I'm all for lower taxes - no taxes, eventually. I am also pleased that the entire council recognizes that lower taxes are important for economic growth. So where's the rub? Here are the arguments I've presented regarding "targeted tax cuts".

1) We establish a tilted playing field in favor of a single business (and potentially for that industry). My preference is for no property taxes, but if we tax, it should be the same among similar properties.

2) As the city grows, so does demand for services. I'd be happy if we could reduce those services to public safety and infrastructure, but even then additional developed properties consume additional services. If a property is exempted from paying for them, what is the result? Either the remaining payers get less service for the same tax, or they pay more tax for the same service.

My solution to half the problem was to offer an amendment to reduce city spending by the amount of the tax abatement. That motion died for lack of a second, so I didn't bother offering the second amendment: to extend the abatement to all day care businesses.

Some advocates of liberty say "support all tax cuts, no matter what". And I'm inclined to agree, but my desire for equal application of the law gets in the way. Alas, no abatement would be necessary if there were no property tax to begin with! More on that to come this summer...

Moorhead Monday: Unintended Consequences

At Monday's committee of the whole meeting, we discussed three well-intentioned (I think) city programs: rental registration, vacant building designation and code enforcement. All three clearly violate private property rights and I attempted to demonstrate that these "solutions" create larger problems.

Rental registration injects politics into otherwise voluntary transactions between landlords and tenants. As with many such regulations, the arrogant nanny state believes consumers aren't smart enough to find an appropriate place to live and that landlords are out to scam renters. The burden of such actions falls disproportionately on the poor who are willing to live with chipped paint, since landlords must adhere to the regulation and increased property costs or face fines and loss of rental "privileges".

Vacant building designation attempts to force people into actively using their improved property or put it up for sale. While few people think "progress" when they see a vacant building, the city should not be in a position to demand I do anything with my property unless I'm causing physical harm to my neighbor or his property.

Code enforcement has become a method by which the majority attempts to coerce a minority into "looking like" everyone else. Your grass must be this long, your fence must be this high, your walk must be shoveled, gardening equipment may not be in the front yard, etc. I don't have a problem with individual neighborhood associations enacting goofy restrictions with unanimous consent... but it is a poor policy for an entire city to pursue: we're essentially telling people we don't want them because of how they look.

It's easy to fall into the trap of believing that I should control the actions of other peaceful adults. I've seen paint colors that make me wrinkle up my nose, apartment carpet that I wouldn't walk on, and empty buildings that seem to be decaying. But when I attempt to use government bullies to enforce MY will on another - I've violated the human rights of those owners. And I won't have any part of it.

It's a Start

Reason.tv explores outsourcing local services. But, while Sandy Springs, GA has an improved model, it doesn't quite get to my property tax-free model (stay tuned for details).

Moorhead Monday: City Council Loves Liberty!

Well, maybe not quite yet. Here's my statement regarding an ordinance to repeal a part of the city code relating to tattoos, body art and body piercing.

I have to admit I got really excited when I saw this item on the agenda. Of course, I was quickly disappointed once I realized that even in repealing this ordinance, freedom was not advanced. We were simply relinquishing control to the State of Minnesota. Unfortunately, since we don't have the qualified staff to administer an amended ordinance that meets the state standard, I will grudgingly support this. My hope is that in repealing our ordinance, the state will do the same one day soon allowing these customers and merchants to freely conduct transactions without government interference.

Trade Deficit = Bad, I Thought

I have always been lead to believe that a US trade deficit is bad. Economist Don Boudreaux says, "No way!". While I'm not yet convinced, he makes a compelling case.

Job Beats Jobs

Economist Don Boudreaux poses a fascinating question... all else being equal, is it better to produce a higher standard of living with little human effort? Or with much human effort?

Salvation is a non-scarce good

Jeffrey Tucker at the Mises Institute is becoming one of my favorite writers. Although I would have picked a different title for his latest book, "Bourbon For Breakfast", this is an interesting article that touches on the intersection of faith and economics. And since salvation is a non-scarce good, there is no need to economize - it is an eternal wealth that you can spread around without taking it from another.

Moorhead Monday: Coercion or Charity

My statement at tonight's Moorhead City Council meeting regarding the contract with the Fargo Park District for Metro Senior Ride.

While the increase in the contracted cost from $6/ride in early 2010 to $9/ride as proposed tonight is enough to oppose this action, my objection has more to do with a matter of principles. First, by subsidizing 70% of the cost of this service, a virtual government forced monopoly is supported. Second, as only a portion of our citizens can use this service, I find it troubling that the majority of the cost is paid by those prohibited from using it. Knowing many seniors, I can't imagine that they are the kind of people that would insist that someone else pay for their transportation - I think our seniors are self-reliant and reject entitlement mentality. Third, many of the people that are forced to subsidize this service are living on fixed incomes, unemployed or teetering on foreclosure.

I do not doubt the benefit of this service to some, and I agree with the goal of this program. But I subscribe to a belief in voluntary charity. Government programs are delivered through funds appropriated via coercion and force and in this case from many who are less able to absorb those costs. On one hand we claim to care about people facing homelessness and on the other hand we implement policies such as this which directly oppose that claim. Additionally, when government uses force to enact charitable programs, it pushes out voluntarily funded religious and fraternal organizations. I reject this method of coercive "charity", regardless of the stated goals.

Finally, if I am aware of true need, have the means to help, and fail to do so; that is MY sin. But when elected bodies support government forcing people further into need, that is THEIR sin.

Can I Get a Refund?

Economics professor Art Carden provides this provocative property tax refund request in his Forbes column.

So Whose Property Is It?

More overreach from nanny-staters. This time removing a family's basketball hoop with the popular method of government threats and force.

Planning For Freedom

I'm enjoying Ludwig von Mises' short, FREE book, "Planning For Freedom". I just came across this nugget: "There is only one way that leads to an improvement of the standard of living for the wage-earning masses, viz., the increase in the amount of capital invested. All other methods, however popular they may be, are not only futile, but are actually detrimental to the well-being of those they allegedly want to benefit." He states later in that chapter, "All measures which - like our income and corporation tax system - aim at preventing further capital accumulation or even at capital decumulation are therefore virtually anti-labor and anti-social."

For any good economist, a discussion of wages and capital is incomplete without addressing the issue of sound money and the true definition of inflation: devaluing the currency or printing more money. One result, Mises explains: "Inflation can cure unemployment only by curtailing the wage earner's real wages." Think about that the next time Bernanke announces another "quantitative easing".

Moorhead Monday: Fiddling with Real Estate

Tonight's council meeting included a proposal to spend $25,000 for a housing market analysis. After pointing out that we consume the entire take home pay of a median Moorhead family to do it, I questioned the wisdom of meddling in real estate in the first place.

What would be the potential action we would take on these information in the analysis? If the study confirms what we already know, that MN burdens its citizens with high tax and regulatory costs, particularly in relation to our western neighbors, we are limited to two options (one in the same at the core): transfer wealth or change the rules.

A December 28, 2010 Forum article identified that Moorhead has the highest rental prices. Why aren't developers capitalizing on that? While our state's legislature has, for the past several decades, added greater tax and regulatory burdens, for which they deserve scorn, our own city has added to them. The fact that a business had to fight for 11 years to improve its property is a symptom of the underlying problems. Those city controls not only make it harder to do business in Moorhead, the costs fall disproportionately on the poor.

Part of the reason I opposed this measure is my apprehension about what a majority of this council will do that will ultimately make the situation worse. We'll probably shift some tax burden to another segment of our citizens or dream up new rules for otherwise voluntary transactions amongst buyers, sellers and occupants. After eight more years of interference we'll commission another study to see why there are new problems in the market.

Simply put; freedom is the answer. We should empower consumers to once again drive the housing market. Problems in this market, or any other, aren't caused by too much consumer choice but by too much political and bureaucratic meddling - at all levels of government. We should get politicians out of the real estate market and let the consumers spend their money.

The resolution to commission the study passed 7-1.

TIF = Incremental Problems

Tax Increment Funding is touted as a pain-free way to redevelop certain neighborhoods. But even Mayor (wow!) Rahm "every crisis is an opportunity" Emmanuel recognizes at least some of the unintended consequences of this wealth transfer scheme.

Amazingly, a fellow Moorhead City Council Member once told me in reference to TIF, "Sometimes you have to reach into people's pockets and invest their money for them". Seriously.

Redevelopment Finds Another Foe

It appears California Governor Jerry Brown unwittingly exposes another government central planning failure in the form of "redevelopment" and "enterprise zones". Special thanks to Reason.com for fleshing out the details.

Redevelopment Destroys the Market

Economist Thomas Sowell suggests, "In reality, what redevelopment does is transfer wealth from one place to another place, with no net addition to the wealth of the country as a whole."

Additionally, even if executed perfectly, redevelopment is a net loss to the country since it involves both a middle man (bureaucrats) and aggression (via taxation or eminent domain).

There's No Such Thing as Homemade Ice Cream

Jeffrey Tucker has a keen knack for pointing out the beauty and incredible complexity of capitalism. The idea of a "sustainable lifestyle" would lead to an 18th century standard of living.