Tag Archives: political economy

The FTC Misunderstands

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal Trade Commission in its 100-year history has never agreed on formal principles for policing companies engaged in “unfair” competition. That looks set to change.

Members of the FTC are close to a bipartisan agreement to lay out for the first time how the commission views its authority to bring cases against businesses it believes compete unfairly, according to people familiar with the deliberations.

An accord would be a breakthrough for Democrat and Republican commissioners who have clashed over when and how the FTC should deploy the century-old Section 5 of the FTC Act in enforcement matters. The provision declares “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce” to be unlawful. But the agency has faced criticism that with no formal guidelines or parameters, it is hard for anyone—businesses as well as regulators—to know what may be considered unfair.

“Unfair” in this context is a purely legal definition, and there already are laws on the books governing what is and is not permissible in our commerce. We have anti-trust laws that govern abuse of monopoly power. We have truth-in-advertising laws that govern how businesses can market their products. We have contract laws that sanction dishonesty in contract negotiations and that define liability when mistaken, but fundamentally honest, statements are made in those negotiations.

That’s all that we need, that’s all the FTC needs, and the FTC has had that for well over 100 years, dating at least to the Sherman Antitrust Act. This new “accord” will be just another bureaucratic nightmare, adding layers of compliance requirements and determinations to any FTC action—and so elevating costs for any business the FTC contemplates violating in some way.

Underlying all of that is all of this: Americans don’t need a rule, or a “guideline,” to govern every aspect of every action in their lives.

Free College

Posted on by
Reply

Hillary wants to rein in the rising cost of a college education.

States would have to increase their own spending on higher education, and universities would be required to control spending[.]

With those strings, Clinton would send an additional $350 billion of your tax money (including your higher taxes she’s proposing to pay for some of this) over the next 10 years to the states for their public universities and community colleges.

And

…new rules would ensure a certain portion of total spending is directed to instruction….

How like a Progressive to think the answer to stopping a rise in the cost of a thing is to spend more money on the thing. And then to add to the cost of the thing with compliance cost imposition.

Can our nation really afford another four or eight years of this lack of understanding about how a free economy works?

A Proper Rejection

Posted on by
Reply

The New Hampshire Executive Council has refused to allow the expenditure of $640 thousand on the State’s Planned Parenthood facilities. Councilor David Wheeler (R) said,

You can’t divorce what’s going on nationally from Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and we need a real investigation[.]

If the State legislature intends to do the right thing, it will follow the Executive Council’s example and reallocate those $640k to other women’s health centers. If the legislature chooses not to, it’ll be supporting the arrogance of Jennifer Frizzell, Vice President for Public Policy at Planned Parenthood of Northern New England:

Today’s decision will have a direct impact on New Hampshire women and their families,” Frizzell said in a statement. “Without these funds, PPNNE will be forced to cut direct program costs, which could mean shortening health center hours, eliminating staff positions, and reducing patient access to affordable care.

Because Planned Parenthood is the only women’s health facility in all of New Hampshire. The Concord Feminist Health Center, Joan G Lovering Health Center, Weeks Medical Center, who are getting roughly $360 thousand out of the cool million that the State had appropriated, and other facilities don’t exist.

Crony Capitalism

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s an exchange between Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) and Donald Trump (Business Mogul) during Thursday’s GOP debate.

“I gave to many people before this,” Trump said at the debate today. “When they call, I give. And you know what, when I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me.”

His comments came in response to an attack from rival Sen Rand Paul.

“You’ve donated to several Democratic candidates. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related affairs,” Paul said. “And you said recently, quote, ‘when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.’”

“You better believe it,” Trump responded.

In the end, then, we’ve got a crony capitalist who wants to be President of all the crony capitalists.

Hmm….

Another Thought on SEC “Courts”

Posted on by
Reply

The SEC runs its own courts as it looks to punish those it has decided have engaged in civilly, if not criminally, wrong doings. As I’ve written before, the SEC brings its cases, appoints and pays the judges who’ll adjudicate the cases, and it has first say on any appeals.

In just such a case, an accused person facing a flipped witness (one to whom the SEC has made certain blandishments regarding is own misbehaviors in return for his testimony against a fellow misbehaver) is worried about the effects of those blandishments over the course of his trial.

Critics…worry that key safeguards on the use of cooperators in criminal cases are lacking in the SEC’s administrative courts, where the agency…[has] the power to decide what to fine the cooperator after he or she testifies.

The agency’s multiple roles strike at the “fundamental fairness” of its hearings, violating the checks and balances required by the constitution, [accused’s’] lawyers said in a court filing.

Because the SEC is in an even better position—its in-house position—to effectively “encourage” proper testimony from its “cooperating” witnesses than are prosecutors in actual State or Federal trial courts.

Naturally, the presiding SEC administrative judge demurs.

The SEC in-house judge overseeing the case rejected this argument, saying it was an “attack on the administrative framework” of the SEC’s internal tribunal.

Well, NSS. It’s a valid attack, too, against a tribunal sorely lacking in fairness, much less due process.