Taxi warfare

There's so many different ways I could write about this news story where French taxi drivers set up a roadblock to attack Uber transportation vehicles, which terrified and injured two passengers who were in a van that they smashed and may have tried to lynch. This has happened about a dozen times in France so far.

I could say this demonstrates how much for-profit industries can hate the free market, as taxi drivers have been trying to get the government to shut down the app-based transportation service for a long time simply because the taxi companies can't compete with its superior service and prices.

I could also use this as an example of the brutality of union violence. While union supporters like to highlight anti-union violence, which was certainly a real problem, they habitually gloss over the violence that follows when you get a bunch of blue-collar men fired up about perceived injustices and organize them into an angry mob. Most of the reports I've read failed to mention that the taxi drivers belong to a union.

More importantly, I could use this as an example about the proper role of government in a capitalist society
proper role of government. This attack occurred in sight of police who allegedly did not interfere. Businesses can't operate, and people can't leave fulfilling lives, without the promise of protection from highway brigands. 

There's also a lesson here about how shocking it is to see modern adults in a civilized country resort to violence when their livelihood is threatened. This is news worthy because it doesn't happen normally, and that tells us something positive about how commerce is normally carried out.

But mostly, I wanted to share that this story happened. Passengers were going about their lives innocently when their driver was stopped by thugs and brutes tried to smash their way in, injuring both passengers. That's a terrible thing and it deserves our attention as a step towards making sure it doesn't happen again.
Read more...

Local solar is not a virtue in dark New England

Driving through Northampton, Massachusetts today I saw a banner that read "Keep Solar Local."

Solar pride is a common groan-inducing sight in the bay state. Massachusetts is filthy with solar panels, and not because this is a good place to make energy from the sun. In fact, it's a lousy place with long, dark winters. Bright deserts make great locations for solar arrays, but that assumes your goal is to produce energy. If you goal is to make a profit from government subsidies and you don't care how much energy you produce then Massachusetts is a great place to install them.

However, it turns out the "Keep Solar Local" campaign is really a campaign to do business with a single solar installer simply because it is "local." That company, Northeast Solar, is actually from Hatfield, a neighboring and therefore competing municipality, but they don't seem to care because it's more local than anyone else.

On its website Northeast Solar claims "We can provide competitive pricing today" but a recent article in the Daily Hampshire Gazette shows the company started this campaign when they couldn't compete in a fair bidding process:

Gregory Garrison, president of Northeast Solar in Hatfield, argues this is a short-sighted decision that does not help the state’s Clean Energy Center meet its self-described mandate to create high-quality jobs and economic growth through its renewable energy programs. 

He said these goals cannot be accomplished by selecting the lowest bidder within a Solarize community, whose intent is only to drive down costs and install as much solar as possible.

The emphasis was added by me, of course.

When a company can't compete with superior service or lower prices they resort to phony localist economic claims as a hail Mary play.
Read more...

Rent seeking runs more than skin deep

I've noticed a lot of the tragedy of the anticommons in video games since I wrote about it a year and a half ago, where a swarm of different permission, copywrite and trademark rights prevent a game from being sold. It often takes the form of music licensing rights preventing older games from being re-released, but occasionally someone tries to profit off the game by claiming something they own was depicted in a game that has already been released.

This new case sets a new watermark for frivolous copywrite claims that abuse copywrite laws.

Arizona-based tattoo artist Chris Escobedo gave mixed martial arts fighter Carlos Condit a lion tattoo. THQ made the game UFC Undisputed 3 which features Condit, and the graphics of the game depict the same lion tattoo. Escobedo is suing UFC because he owns the copywrite to the tattoo, not Condit, and wants a piece of the action since it can be seen in the game and the game's website.

The Constitution said that we have patents and other intellectual property rights to "promote the progress of science and useful arts.” What Escobedo is doing is rent-seeking; he is trying to profit just because he can while creating nothing of value, and in doing so he threatens to stifle creative expression.

The worst part is, this has come up before and the law may fall on the rent seekers side

Although it settled out of court, the makers of The Hangover 2 faced a similar situation for the reproduction without permission of Mike Tyson's facial tattoo in their film. Had it made it to court, legal experts suggest that the film makers would have lost.

It's bad enough that someone trying to negotiate the re-release of a game has to track down permission from all the voice actors and soundtrack, but now they might have to contact the guy who made a similar tattoo in real life? Good grief, this needs to change.
Read more...

What the crisis revealed about Anthony Weiner

I first heard about Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) a year ago when he was injured by a goat in a publicity stunt to fight against the mohair subsidy.

This is an issue I care a great deal about, as it's a perfect example of how politics welcomes concentrated benefits and dispersed costs and the awfulness of agricultural subsidies.

Basically, we needed lots of mohair for WW2 pilots, so subsidies were created to encourage goat farmers to produce more of it. We don't need any of it now, but the subsidy remains because its a tiny piece of the budget, but millions of dollars for certain producers. There's more political will on the mohair producers side as they make a ton of "rent" from the subsidy, as taxpayers are only out a little each.

I gained a lot of respect for Weiner there. He was willing to make a principled stance for something that won't woo a lot of voters. I've followed him ever since and although he's a liberal firebrand, he's a firebrand I can stand. Unlike that smug manatee from Florida.

But now Weiner finds himself in a stupid scandal with jokes too obvious to bother making. My occasional sparring partner Michael Hawkins sums up an idea nicely I've heard a lot lately, that Weiner's personal life isn't important enough to care about.

However, what is relevant is how poorly Weiner handled this crisis. As Popehat's Ken said,

If a politician can’t address a personal crisis without flopping all over the networks like a dying fish on a dock, then there’s reason to question whether he can manage crises of leadership. Hell, even if a politician is falsely accused of sexual impropriety, if he adopts a strategy that makes him look like he’s being controlled by that alien who wore Vincent D’Onofrio for half of Men in Black, then it’s reasonable to question whether he can hack the big jobs.

Weiner screwed this one up. I can perfectly understand why someone would lie about breaking the vows of their marriage. I think that's a rational thing to do. However, there's really no excuse for someone that bright to act like such an idiot about it and refuse to adopt a consistent story about it.

I lost a lot of respect for Anthony Weiner this month, but it wasn't about his Internet-based infidelities. It was his incompetence.
Read more...