OnlyFans is not like Big Brother apparently

I've never been on OnlyFans, but I've read that there is a lot of explicit (adult) content there.  They recently had announced an intention to ban all of that sort of content from their platform.  I get it, they may not have intended to be that sort of a platform (and obviously not all content on OnlyFans is adult type content).  It's their prerogative  to make that sort of policy change.  But then something interesting happened that made me sort of become a fan of OnlyFans, despite never having been on their platform even once.  They listened to their users (both producers and consumers):

The content subscription service announced plans last week to block sexually explicit photos and videos from October.

On Wednesday, it tweeted that it has "suspended the planned 1 October policy change".

It is currently unclear if the delay will be permanent.

OnlyFans wrote on twitter that it would "continue to provide a home for all creators".

"Thank you to everyone for making your voices heard," said the company.

"We have secured assurances necessary to support our diverse creator community and have suspended the planned 1 October policy change.

"OnlyFans stands for inclusion and we will continue to provide a home for all creators."

OnlyFans might be a much newer platform and unwilling to take the hit of a producer/consumer revolt.  So this could end up being a temporary change of heart.  They could end up being as heavy handed and autocratic as Twitter or Facebook.  But for now they are not, and that is a win.

Why am I suddenly a fan?  They just did something other platforms  have refused to do, serve the community.  The heard the backlash and changed their minds.  That is called being responsive to the marketplace.  It's how capitalism is supposed to work.  This flies in the face of other decisions by the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Patreon, YouTube, Pinterest and Tumblr.  It's refreshing.  So much so that I plan on checking the platform out to see if there is anything of interest.  Not because of the adult content, but I will be checking it out as a result of their willingness to allow creators and users to produce and consume the content they prefer to produce and consume.  Hopefully there ends up being some political content or something worth keeping my attention because I'd like to be able to reward OnlyFans for their responsiveness.

Carly Fiorina goes Laissez Faire

For those unfamiliar with the French term,

Laissez-faire (/ˌlɛseɪˈfɛr-/, French) is an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government interference such as regulations, privileges, tariffs, and subsidies. The phrase laissez-faire is part of a larger French piece and literally translates to "let (it/them) go", but in this context usually means to "let go"

In other words, it's about free market economics. Apparently so is Carly Fiorina. Her position on vaccinations is simple, and well, a perfect laissez faire approach. You do what you want, but we'll do what we want in response to concerns from more rationale parents. The market will dictate actions:

She argued for some degree of parental choice back in February when BuzzFeed asked her about it. But now that she’s cracked the GOP field’s top tier, I guess the “gotcha” effort needs to begin in earnest. What better place to start than with an issue that tripped up Chris Christie and Rand Paul earlier this year?

She draws the line where most Republicans would, I imagine: The state can’t dictate to a parent over their child’s health, but that parent has no right to put other parents’ children at risk in the schoolyard.

Seems simple and difficult to refute. Are you one of those parents who want no one getting vaccines? Convince us that's a bright idea. (Tip: You won't). Score one for Carly Fiorina.

The perverse backwardness of progressivism

Progressivism, perversely, is regressive and backwards.  In a great post about the marvelous accomplishments of the 20th century and beyond, Yevgeniy Feyman claims out that the Golden Age is Now and points out the most every great advancement of the last 100+ years have come as a result of capitalism.  Feyman argues that technological progress comes from the economic freedom that market economies both provide and enable.

Simply put, technological progress is the key to these gains—and market economies have liberated, and rewarded, technological innovation.

People are not just living longer, but better—sometimes with government’s help, and sometimes despite it. Even people in the developing countries of Africa and Latin America are better educated and better fed than ever before. Hundreds of thousands of children who would have died during previous eras due to malnutrition are alive today. Here, we can thank massive advancements in agricultural production unleashed by the free market.

Progressives believe that markets need deeper regulation, that no one should be allowed to succeed too much and that success is a zero sum game where those who are successful must be achieving only at the expense of someone else.  Such a notion is absurd.  Centuries ago when someone was busy inventing the water mill, they were not making anyone's life more difficult by doing so.  They were in fact making it easier to cut lumber, grind flour and do numerous other tasks - thus enriching everyone's lives.  

Feyman points out many of the advances that have helped millions if not billions of people and notes that they come not from those who oppose technological progress but those who embrace it.  Free market capitalism embraces it.  What progressives are progressive about is social progress, a Utopian equality of outcome rather than a real equality of opportunity to which America and a few other countries are much closer to achieving.  

Progressives come down on the anti-business side of every issue - more red tape, more taxes, more superfluous climate protection are all prime examples of wanting to slam the brakes on progress.  Oh sure, progressives believe that they are helping humanity by taking these positions, but their belief is a blind and ill-considered belief.

Equality of opportunity is a much more worthy goal than equality of outcome.  Someone who wants to do nothing or very little all day will not achieve the same success as someone who wants to achieve something.  What drives that achiever is the opportunity to benefit from their hard work.  But they do not only benefit themselves.  Finding a cure for cancer will likely help even the lazy guy in our example.  The lazy guy benefits from the innovation because a cure he had nothing to do with now is available to him.  Take away the incentive to succeed and the cure does not get found.  In fact you lower the bar and encourage the achiever to become someone who does only what is necessary to survive and stop pursuing his dream.

Viewed another way, the removal of the incentives progressively halts technological progress and causes complete stagnation at some point. Everyone ends up equal, but in a less able society.  How anyone can call that progressive is incomprehensible.

Saturday Learning Series - Crony Capitalism Corruption

From Mises TV, there's a great series of lectures, panels and talks from Mises University, several of which are great explanations or arguments around sound economic policy.

This video explains how crony capitalism corrupts the free market.  There's a truly important distinction between free market capitalism and the distortion of capitalism when crony capitalism perverts the free market into much of what we see happening today.  Such distorted capitalism holds no moral or operational superiority over socialism.  It is a flawed system that bends itself ever more towards either socialism or oligopoly - neither of which serve the general public in the way the Invisible Hand can.

Obtuse Americans

Costco is a great American success story.  America itself is a free enterprise, capitalist success story that has been struggling to overcome, among other things, it's balance of trade problems. In light of that, why would anyone want to discourage people from other countries spending their money on American goods, particularly in an enthusiastic and persistent way?  Obtuse Americans, that's who.

These people are the same people who don't get that if you have a successful business, you created it.  Why do I say that?  Because they clearly do not understand that customers come first.  This isn't about Costco, it's about the money being pumped into the local economy, the extra hiring and jobs created because of the demand.  The free market is creating a boom for these people and they don't seem to appreciate it.  I can only surmise they they haven't done the cost-benefit analysis of economy versus personal convenience.  They haven't realized that a problem of too many customers isn't a bad problem to have  - for Costco or for the town.

Thankfully, some people there clearly get it, and Costco itself understands the need to expand.  As far as Canadians parking poorly - I have no comment.

Setting Nancy Pelosi Straight

Nancy Pelosi loves to talk about holding insurance companies accountable. Never mind that she seems to be fine with no one holding an out-of-control government accountable, especially the super-minority Republicans. Nevertheless, she insists that out of control insurance companies are the demons of health care;

“I have always said that any health care reform had to make the Triple-A test. It had to have affordability for the middle class, accessibility for many more people and accountability for the insurance companies. No longer would they have it all their way. And that’s what this legislation does.

“We had this on the agenda and then the snows came, and we had to put it off. And in between the time when we all got snowed out, Anthem Blue Cross in California announced that it was going to raise its rates 39 percent, 39 percent for health insurance. Over the past decade, insurance rates have gone up over 150 percent. And this continues in Michigan, Kansas, other places in the country. These insurance rates have gone up because the insurance companies simply have not been accountable, and this has worked to the disadvantage of the American people.

[Emphasis added]

Nancy, there you go again. Let me set you straight.

I know you are supposed to respect your elders but Pelosi makes it so hard some times. Nancy, you know what holds insurance companies accountable? Getting sales. Getting customers. You know how an insurance company gets customers? By offering them something the customers perceive as beneficial. It's called a value proposition. By providing a quality product at an affordable price.

What you are arguing Nancy, is that the insurance companies are not offering either a quality product or are not doing so at an affordable price. Clearly you do not think health insurance is not a quality product or you would not be trying to mandate coverage for everyone. So the issue must be price. That is not rocket science, you keep talking about everyone getting insurance so what you are really talking about, or think you are talking about, is the poor. Yes, there's some pre-existing condition issues, but I'll save that discussion for another time. Let's talk about the poor.

Here's a tip on making health insurance more affordable - increase competition. More providers mean more choice for consumers, which means suppliers must offer products priced competitively. Failure to do so will result in NO BUSINESS (or maybe just the business of those worthy of the Darwin Awards). What creates more competition? Less regulation - allow companies to compete across state lines. Give the companies the freedom to operate in a less restrictive environment when it comes to frivolous lawsuits. You have given companies the freedom to offer the best product they can, and consumers access to the most possible producers. Smart choices will result. In essence what you would be doing is letting the free market, a process that seems to work effectively in the donut market, operate effectively in the health care market - something that is not currently the case. Why can Dunkin Donuts compete in every state but health insurance companies can't? That is anti-competitive, and your proposed solution would only make things worse. Worse still, you are blaming the supplier for the problems of a distorted marketplace. Either you are being dishonest, or you simply don't understand (was that just a false choice argument? Nah.).

Look, the single argument you can make is that some people simply cannot afford health care coverage. That would be the poor, and the elderly. But aren't those people supposed to be covered by Medicaid and Medicare? So why isn't the system working already? Could it be that as soon as you start thinking you know what's best for everybody, in every case, you lose all credibility? The cookie cutter solution does not work. The collective subconscious of hundreds of millions of people and businesses know better than you or I. Period. Those who truly lack for health care are not operating in a void. People are charitable, help is available, even if it is government mandated via Medicare and Medicaid.

Start over? Why not? Those two behemoths need fixing. Your health care ally, the President even says so. So why not start there, unless this all just political theater?

The free market trumps the government - empirical evidence

Every conservative worth his or her salt knows that the free market trumps government when it comes to filling needs and meeting consumer demands.  You probably don't need another example of how well the free market works and how poorly the government does when people are put in charge of making decisions best left to the free market.  Nonetheless, some empirical evidence never hurts.  After all, not everyone shares in the enlightenment. Now you probably don't care about the specifics of this example, but don't lose sight of the fact that it is meant to serve as yet one more weapon in your anti-socialism/anti-fascism arsenal.

Back in March of 2009, the municipal government of the city of Toronto, in it's infinite wisdom decided that for a city as ethnically diverse as Toronto, there was a distinct lack of diversity in the a la carte menus of Toronto's street vendors.  There were too many hot dog vendors, and not enough ethnic food vendors, or healthy food vendors.  Keep in mind that Toronto municipal government is very left leaning.  Voter turnout in municipal elections is abysmal.  But the socialists seem to turn out en masse, and the city keeps paying the consequences. Unfortunately, those consequences include the trampling of the free market.

In a city, like any other, with budget issues, transit issues, crime issues, the fact that the city even bothered to consider this 'issue' is a travesty.  Nevertheless they did.  What was the solution? The city announced 8 new vendors (yes 8, in the 5th largest municipality in North America after Mexico City, New York, L.A., and Chicago) that would serve Thai, Afghani, Persian, Greek, Middle Eastern, Eritrean, Korean and Caribfusion fare.  Not only that, they mandated where each type of food would be sold - at various locations around the city. Talk about micro-managing.  Of course in addition, the vendors each had to pay a registration fee of $25,000 to $40,000 for licensing to be in the program.  Clearly the whole approach is antithetical to free market solutions to the problem.

Don't forget, any street vendor could, in their application for a license, include the specifics of what they planned to offer outside of the hot dogs.  The free market has ensured that the city's needs are being served: there's a reason vendors sell hot dogs and sausages - it's what sells!  Meanwhile vendors complain that they are choking on the red tape.  It also appears that not many vendors are pounding down the door to get in on the program.

The real issue, though is that many of the vendors are experiencing, shall we say, less than brisk sales.  Since the government has taken away the free market approach to hot dog street food vendors, the free market is still acting rationally and people are looking elsewhere for their eats.  Like I always say, you can pretend supply and demand don't exist, but they are real.  Government interference in the free market ALWAYS causes more problems than it solves.  And it doesn't seem to matter how many times you tell the sophisticated intelligensia, they don't seem to get that the free market is smarter and more responsive than them. 

The lesson is obvious - keep the government out of the hot dog business, let the free market handle the heavy lifting.  The inference is even more important - keep the government out of health care.  If they can't manage the simple hot dog business then what could possibly lead anyone to believe they can do any better in the complex health care field? You listening President Obama?

UPDATE: Just to prove that it's not about the food ethnicity, in Portland Oregon the ethnic food carts are thriving. It isn't about the food, it's about the interference.

More Must Reading: The Failure of Economic Interventionism

The following essay, written in 1994, speaks quite emphatically about the failures of socialism, and the dangers of creeping socialism. A great read for some historical perspective on why the government solution is usually NOT the way to go.

Ironically, it's hosted on the Congressional Website. Perhaps there's a few conservatives, Republicans and libertarians left in the nation's capitol. Or, it's just another great example of why government oversight can't get done what it wants to get done. I don't know which explanation is more enjoyable to consider.

Below is an excerpt from the essay;

It is certainly not a merit of governments, politicians and labor union officers that the standard of living is improving in the countries committed to the principle of private ownership of the means of production. Not offices and bureaucrats, but big business deserves credit for the fact that most of the families in the United States own a motorcar and a radio set. The increase in per capita consumption in America as compared with conditions a quarter of a century ago is not an achievement of laws and executive orders. It is an accomplishment of businessmen who enlarged the size
of their factories or build new ones.

One must stress this point because our contemporaries are inclined to ignore it. Entangled in the superstitions of stateism and government omnipotence, they are exclusively preoccupied with governmental measures. They expect everything from authoritarian action and very little from the initiative of enterprising citizens. Yet, the only means to increase well-being is to increase the quantity of products. This is what business aims at.

It is grotesque that there is much more talk about the achievements of the Tennessee Valley Authority than about all the unprecedented and unparalleled achievements of American privately-operated processing industries. However, it was only the latter which enabled the United Nations to win the war.

The dogma that the State or the Government is the embodiment of all that is good and beneficial and that the individuals are wretched underlings, exclusively intent upon inflicting harm upon one another and badly in need of a guardian, is almost unchallenged. It is taboo to question it in the slightest way. He who proclaims the godliness of the State and the infallibility of its priests, the bureaucrats, is considered as an impartial student of the social sciences. All those raising objections are branded as biased and narrow-minded. The supporters of the new religion of statolarty are
even more fanatical and intolerant than were the Mohammedan conquerors of Africa
and Spain.

A lecture to Obama from a Czech

When President Obama is being warned by Vaclav Klaus not to endanger free markets, you know we've gone from the real world to bizarro world. Not since the fall of communism, and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall has there been such a fundamental shift in geopolitics. However this time its in reverse.

Vaclav Klaus, the former leader of the Czech Republic, a former Soviet captive nation, has been a champion of free markets. In a speech at Columbia university, he said he'd never expected to see this type of government interventionism in his lifetime. He's someone who has lived under communist rule and has seen the dangers it encapsulates for personal liberty and economic growth suggested an obvious alternative.

"The best thing to do right now would be to temporarily weaken, if not repeal,"
business regulations on labor, the environment, social issues and health, he
said.

It seems so obvious to some.

When conservatives don't like the free market

There's a segment of the conservative base in America that feels the government should not be involved in profit-making ventures. It's important to make a distinction - there is a difference between the government being in business in general and the government making a profit where it is required to be in business.

For example, for years the Post Office had been run as a government agency with some business-like attributes, but not the world's most efficient one.

In 1970, the Postal Reorganization Act established the USPS as a government agency that could be operated with tax support as a semi-independent federal monopoly. The postal service was also mandated to be revenue neutral, or
in other words, to be a not-for-profit organization.

In 1982, U.S. postage stamps were deemed a type of "postal product" rather
than a form of taxation. Since then, the primary cost of operating the postal
system has been paid for through the sale of "postal products" and services,
rather than tax revenues. Furthermore, the various classes of U.S. mail (for
example, first class, parcel post, etc.) are each expected to cover their own
costs with their own "postal product" sales. Effectively this means that each
class of mail is like a stand-alone entity that must, at the end of each year,
demonstrate a net profit of zero. This explains why, when postal increases are
levied, the percentage of change may not be uniform from one class to the next.
This is because the post office examines each class of mail by itself, and only
increases rates as much as is needed to maintain a net profit of zero.

Today, the U.S. Postal Service delivers to more than 141 million businesses
and homes each day. It is the only U.S. government sanctioned monopoly, and it
operates very efficiently in spite of having no competition. From its humble
origins in a Boston tavern in the 17th century, The United States Postal Service
has gone on to become the organization we all know and rely upon every day to
deliver our mail.

But despite turning occasional profits, that's not the mandate. The USPS however does compete in the private sector realm. In addition to FedEx, UPS and the like, there's also email to consider and telecom. So instead of treating it like a quasi-GSE, why not free it up to compete in the open marketplace?

Why is it that some conservatives, who normally have a fundamental connection to free market capitalism, don't see the advantages of letting the government compete in the free market? There are several reasons to consider the option.

If the entities (there are other options besides the post office) can compete;

1. they can reduce their inefficiencies by having to operate like a real company

2. turn a profit and reduce the tax burden associated with funding these government entities

3. reduce their contribution to the deficit

4. free up funding for other areas that the government wants to impose taxes on to fund.

On the other hand, if they fail to compete;

1. they go bankrupt and fail to be a tax burden on citizens.

2. they reduce economic inefficiencies by freeing up resources (e.g. labor) for more efficient organizations.

3. prove conservative views that the government should not be in business and hopefully help quell the rise of socialism in America.

Think of it as a type of surreptitious privatization. All the more reason to endorse the idea that government entities in some cases should be allowed to make a profit. Of course there are risks that would have to be mitigated. For example, Congress loves to meddle in things and if you give them the opportunity to meddle here it could prove disastrous. The primary reason to argue against the idea is that they would indeed meddle.

The reason it would be dangerous is that the government would have incentive to step in and alter regulations that would make it easier to compete for the government 'corporation' and provide unfavorable advantages to it. Continuing our USPS example in an extreme way, they could make it so that carriers had to ensure that a certain percentage of their business was domestic. This would effectively require FedEx and UPS to shut down some or all foreign operations permanently or at least temporarily - allowing the UPS a chance to catch up to its smarter, more efficient and more global competitors. That's an unfair advantage that the Congress might consider reasonable. So in tandem with the 'profitization' of government entities there would have to be strict restrictions put on the Congress that limit its ability to legislate in this area (restrictions on Congress are another plus for conservatives). We know what meddling did to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the entire banking industry as a result. No one wants that to happen again.

It's not an idea that should be discarded out of hand. There are risks in it, including the possibility of it causing a backslide into socialism if the entities over perform (fairly or out of government meddling). But there's a lot of potential upside to it that we shouldn't reject simply because the idea of government being in business is anathema to conservatives. The fact is they are already in businesses. More importantly, we could borrow from the Democrats' playbook page on incremental progress and look at it as a small, first step towards finally privatizing the USPS entirely. And that, as a conservative is something that makes the most sense of all to me.

Free Market or bust

A recent Rasmussen poll indicates that,

As the incoming Obama administration and the Democratic congressional leadership scramble for ways to right the U.S. economy, 70% of U.S. voters say a free market is better
than one managed by the government.

Just 15% say a government-managed economy is best, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.

But indicative of the mixed feelings that beset many of the nation’s leaders, a majority of voters (52%) also believe there is a need for more government regulation of big business, although 35% disagree. Thirteen percent (13%) aren’t sure. (Last month, just 26% of adults were at least somewhat confident that U.S. policymakers knew what they were doing with regards to the economy).

Two disturbing things show through in these numbers for me. Firstly, 15% of Americans are apparently socialists or communist or useful idiots for the other two categories. A government managed economy is best? As Jerry Seinfeld would say "Who are these people?" Secondly, and perhaps scarier, is the fact that 52% of the population believe there is a need for more regulation of big business.

The surest way to kill business is to over regulate it. You think the federal government isn't complicit in the problems facing America's automakers? Corporations shouldn't be getting away with fraudulent or otherwise criminal or unscrupulous behavior. But there are already laws on the books for these things. A better way to look at it is that perhaps the government needs to look not at more regulation but smarter regulation, or better enforcement of existing regulations.

How is it that so many people - in this case a plurality of Americans - do not understand that American greatness was created by free markets, with the role of government limited to ensuring public safety and compliance with laws to prevent unfair business practices that hurt competition or consumers? At 52% that means some conservatives feel that way too. When basic principles such as free market get so eroded, it's hard not to think apocalyptic thoughts about the future of America. Luckily there's enough intelligence and perseverance around to reverse the trend through education and dissemination of better ideas.

Is bankruptcy so bad?

The Big 3, no longer face the imminent threat of bankruptcy that they should be facing thanks to yet another Bush betrayal of conservative principles. Bush, by saying he'd like to stick to his principles but these are not ordinary circumstances so to resolve it let's throw money at it.

If you abandon your principles when the going gets tough, are they really your principles? I don't think so. They are convenient talking points to placate your party faithful. But they don't placate those who listen closely.

Conservatives believe in the free market system. That system entails both risks and rewards. Innovation comes from America more than any other nation because it rewards that innovation. It has made America a wealthy and powerful nation. If you contrast that to the direction of many European nations who chose a socialist leaning path, clearly the United States has fared better. That's the upside of the system. People are willing to take risks because the payoff can be well worth the effort.

The Big 3 automakers revelled in that reward for decades, while over time making foolish decisions that deteriorated their ability to continue to innovate and prosper. And that's the downside of the system. Risk. Trying to innovate, trying to run a business does not guarantee success. There is typically no safety net. You try because the reward, you try work hard to avoid the risk, but the risk is always there. As it should be. Risk and reward guide market efficiency.

If you privatize profit and socialize failure the mixture cannot possibly succeed. The numbers just don't add up. Businesses have to be allowed to fail. It's the responsible course of action. Efficiency comes from investing where it makes the most sense. Larry the liquidator said it best:

Yes, there will be jobs lost. But if you continue to prop up an unsustainable business, you are maintaining jobs that really aren't efficient. Why can foreign auto makers run their plants so much more efficiently than the Big 3? It doesn't matter - they just do. But the government wants to reward failure and support its continuance. As an investor in America, is that what you want with your money? I wouldn't.

The thing is, in this case, bankruptcies would not be an all-out shutdown. And perhaps this is where a compromise can be reached. If the auto makers were to have a managed Chapter 11 protected restructuring, bankruptcy protection, they could reverse so much of the damage they have caused themselves, allowed themselves to be subject to and they could perhaps even entreat government to standardize the CAFE 'standards' so that the external forces buffeting their ships could be calmed somewhat.

They would not shut down. They would continue. The jobs would exist. And if a worker is unhappy about making a combined $44 per hour instead of a combined cost of $71 per hour then let them see if they can find that pay working at some other employer. I'm sure there are thousands of capable people who would be happy to be gainfully employed at the lower rate.

As for the American public perception of a bankrupt Big 3, it's a canard. A ruse. I'd still buy a Chevy if GM were under bankruptcy protection. Woudn't you? And if the answer is no, would you have been a potential customer of GM in the first place? Is the reputation of GM so fragile that the perception would be any worse under Chapter 11 than it is today? I really don't think perception would change substantially. In fact, I bet it would inspire a bit of patriotism, perhaps even guilt, and people would be willing to give them a shot at their business. And even if they don't, remember the words of Larry the Liquidator, 'who cares'?

I've always said America needs a strong manufacturing base. I don't think being a service economy has a future. A mixed economy that has both elements is absolutely required. When Rome started outsourcing it's military it was doomed. Today's armies are both military and economic. Offshoring everything is the first step down the road to being a dependant nation.

But why is so much being offshored? Efficiency. Well guess what, the only way to fix that is to fix efficiency at home. If Toyota can make a car here cheaper then so can GM, so can Ford. If you are willing to let them. The same is true in a broader sense. Government has to stop making it difficult to manufacture in the United States. Social engineering is a major detriment to free market efficiency. The efficiency has been grossly distorted in so many industries by government interference that business has become unrecognizable. Union employees continue to operate with a 1950's mentality in a 2000's world, distorted by damning laws that their votes helped create. Sorting that out is the only real way out of this mess.