Featherbedding?

To paraphrase a Democrat’s remark, never let a tragedy go to waste.

The union for Amtrak’s locomotive engineers urged the railroad on Tuesday to put a second crew member at the controls of trains on the busy Northeast Corridor, where a derailment killed eight people and injured more than 200 others.

Of course. Never mind that an existing technology, cheaper than adding an unneeded employee, should have been in place, and will be in place after this accident.

The featherbedding contained in this union urging is made manifest in the union’s own statement:

Amtrak hasn’t had a second crew member in the locomotive of its Northeast Corridor trains since Congress ended the requirement in the early 1980s, the union said.

How many accidents caused by the lack of a second crew member has Amtrak had over those 30 or so years?

“How Much Should a Currency Be Worth?”

That’s the title of Ian Talley’s piece in a recent Wall Street Journal online edition. The question arises from the People’s Republic of China’s open manipulation of its currency through its control of the yuan’s exchange rate in the currency markets. The PRC executes this manipulation by limiting the range of values within which the yuan is permitted to trade in those markets.

The question gains currency (sorry) as Congress contemplates adding an anti-currency manipulation clause to the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade pact or to the fast track trade bull currently in progress of a sort. But that’s currency manipulation from the other side of the matter: instead of a country manipulating its own currency, this clause says the currency must be manipulated according to our imperatives:

Some US lawmakers are channeling their constituents’ long-held grievances by pressing to incorporate enforceable currency provisions….

The problem from this side of the coin (sorry, again) centers on the determination of what is a “fair” value for a nation’s currency, who gets to make that determination, and on what grounds. The point of Talley’s article concerns the difficulty of making those determinations.

It’s really quite simple, though. There are only two ways to determine the value of a currency. One is that a currency is worth what the nation’s government says it’s worth. (This, incidentally, blows up the gold bug argument that the US should go back to a gold standard for the dollar, that being the only way to bring stability to our currency. But the gold would have the value our government says it has, and nothing else, as FDR demonstrated when he devalued the dollar against gold in the ’30s.)

The other way, the free market (and so most moral) way, is this: let the currency float; its value is what the market says it is, empirically, by what the participants in that free market—free men and woman, acting voluntarily according to their own wants and needs—are willing to exchange currency for.

Sloppiness

South Carolina Republican Senator [Lindsey Graham], speaking on “CBS This Morning,” said he’ll formally unveil his campaign plans in his hometown of Central, SC.

But he also repeatedly used the phrase “I’m running….”

Regardless of what we might think of Graham’s work in the Senate, in particular concerning immigration, foreign policy, and our handling of the Daesh, this is a level of indiscipline that we don’t need in the White House.

Market Disruption

…is what happens in a free market, and one result is wealth redistribution, not by inefficient, politically motivated government mandate, but morally and efficiently by voluntary exchange among market participants—folks like you and me. One example of this is the price of taxi medallions.

…leading cabbies and fleet owners throughout the USA worried that their industry will be decimated if local and state government doesn’t intervene.

In Chicago, which has the country’s second biggest fleet with roughly 7,000 taxis, the median sale price for a medallion hovered around $70,000 in 2007 before reaching a median sales peak of $357,000 in late 2013.

Since reaching that high point more than a year ago, the value of medallions in the Windy City have sharply declined and sales have ground to a near halt—with the city recording only seven medallion transfers in the first quarter of 2015….

(Aside: can you see the bubble in that?)

Now cabbies and fleet owners are worried about the prices of their medallions and want government to “intervene.”

Cabbies around the country complain that drivers for services like Uber, which use a smartphone app to connect riders with freelancers using their own vehicles, are disrupting the market and playing with an unfair advantage.

Not so much of an unfair advantage. Nothing is stopping the “official” cabbies from using the same sort of smartphone application to achieve the same thing: on demand, low cost rides for the customer. It’s certainly true that the price of a medallion is tanking (but really: 70 large for a license to drive a car for hire? What supports that sort of pricing other than a government protected monopoly?)

Let’s look at the wealth redistribution of a medallion-for-sale monopoly and an Uber or a Lyft, in which anyone can play for as long or as briefly as they wish.

With the medallions—especially with their cost—cab fleets charge high prices per fraction of a mile on the trip, with government-mandated price floors (in addition to the monopoly aspect, a need presumably driven by the necessity of recovering the cost of the license to operate represented by that medallion). Wealth is transferred from the customer to the cab fleet owner, and the customer gets a ride to his destination. When the cabbie can, or is willing to, get to the customer’s location.

With an Uber-like operation, a customer can make his wish known via his smartphone, and a ride-share participant arrives promptly (because there are a lot more of these than there are formally licensed cabbies), and the customer gets his ride, at a rate commensurate with the area and the demand for rides in the area, but at a significantly lower price than the medallioned cabbie. The wealth redistribution is at that lower rate—competition, you know—and the money transferred goes directly to the driver (minus some Uber overhead, which isn’t much compared to that medallion, just for starters).

The fact of that lower price, and the ubiquitousness of what are essentially part-time and wholly voluntary drivers (who are driving as an additional thing, not as their day job) demonstrates that the fleet cab pricing is excessive relative to the industry needs: the alternative to the formal fleets simply have a much lower cost structure.

That’s a thing to be celebrated, however disruptive it may be to the establishment. Medallion cabbies and buggy whips….

Lots of folks are getting a service they want at a lower price than heretofore, and lots of folks are getting some extra money—lots more folks than the special few who drive medallion-permitted cabs.

Those Are Some Bills, Bill

“I gotta pay our bills,” says Bill Clinton about his $500k per speech fees. That’s nice work, and I don’t begrudge him a penny of it or the easiness of his earning it.

But is it really just to pay some bills?

Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton earned more than $25 million combined in speaking fees since January 2014, Fox News confirmed Friday.

Hillary, by the way, gets upwards of 200 large for her gigs.

Those are some bills.