You know you’ve seriously annoyed progressives when you get singled out for a hit piece in the UK’s Guardian newspaper by one of their New York-based columnists. According to Arwa Mahdawi writing in today’s Guardian, I am a “toxic politician” whom the UK was able to "successfully export."
What was it that prompted Miss Mahdawi, whom I don’t believe I have had the pleasure of meeting, to launch such a highly personal attack on a private citizen in a national newspaper? (Besides Brexit, of course).
Her tirade seems to have been prompted by the fact that I had the temerity to point out that the United States is more prosperous and innovative that Europe.
Well let’s consider the facts, for a moment. Here is a table showing how the richest countries in Europe compare the US states in terms of GDP per capita. Germany, Europe’s richest country, ranks below Oklahoma, the 38th richest state in America.
The UK is poorer that Arkansas and West Virginia. Even my own state, Mississippi, ranks above Italy and Spain. If you break the UK down by regions, Mississippi is more prosperous than much of the UK outside of London and the south east.
According to Miss Mahdawi, the US can’t be more successful because she lives in New York, where she “pays way more” for her “mobile phone plan and internet than she would for comparable services in the UK or anywhere in Europe.
Apparently the relative cost of her New York phone bill proves the Europe is better than America. Or something.
Perhaps if Guardian columnists made a little more effort to try to understand what those they write hit pieces on actually thought, they might recognize that free marketers favor more free markets.
But if they did that, then they might be forced to acknowledge that one of the reasons why certain sectors of the US economy have become cartels, without enough consumer choice and competition, is precisely because America is currently led by an administration that seeks to expand the role of government and make America more European. Much easier to make childish insults.
The interesting question to ask is why so many of Europe’s elite feel the need to lash out at anyone that suggests that the American model works better that the European.
In the UK, it is constantly implied the America’s health care system is vastly inferior. Really? Five years after diagnosis, only 56% of English cancer patients survive, compared to 65% of American patients. Poorer Americans in poor states often have healthier outcomes that many in Britain.
But again, these facts are overlooked. Anyone with the temerity to mention them gets vilified (“toxic”). And the many shortcomings in the US system are cited as evidence that nothing good ever happens stateside.
When Europe’s elites talk about America, often what they say – or won’t say – tells us more about them, than anything happening over here. The reality is that by most measures the United States gives ordinary citizens far better life chances than the European Union is able to provide for her people.
Deep down Europe’s elites know this. And they fear that their own citizens know it, too. So they constantly put America down in order to maintain their own status across the pond.
Mississippi’s regulatory code is a massive body of laws with thousands of pages and about 8.9 million words. Unsurprisingly, such a large amount of rules has immense potential to burden Mississippians, inhibit economic growth, and continually increase the size of the government.
While it can be easy to get lost in the specifics of potential reforms, one basic proposal could help to simplify the deregulation process and put the state on a path to better and better reforms. This proposal would require that for every new regulation implemented by the state government, there would have to be two regulations removed.
While this is a seemingly simple proposal, the federal government applied this rule to federal regulations in the Trump Administration starting January of 2017. In turn, the federal government saw a relatively low amount of new regulations in the Trump administration. In January of 2021, President Biden repealed the rule. Thus, although the rule is no longer in effect on the federal level, states still have the opportunity to apply the rule in a state context.
Such prior success on the federal level suggests that an effective approach to deregulation is to recognize that business regulations do not occur in a vacuum. If a company does not have to deal with one specific regulation but faces burdens and obstacles from other regulations, the company may be in just as bad a position as it was before. Thus, while incremental deregulation is effective in some circumstances, the true way to see economic prosperity from deregulation is to implement broader reforms that do not just apply to a specific line of legal code.
Furthermore, while regulatory burdens can substantially affect businesses of all sizes, it is also important to note the particular burden that a strong regulatory environment can have in the Mississippi context. With a large percentage of small businesses, the weight of even one or two additional regulations could be just enough to tip the scales against many such businesses in the state. At the same time, having a regulatory model that proactively removes burdensome regulations could spell the difference between stagnation and growth for businesses across the state.
Using a one-in-two-out model, Mississippi could see a reduction in the total amount of regulatory burdens imposed on Mississippians. While the state has been effective at repealing many of the burdensome regulations, such a policy would help place a statutory cap on the amount of regulations. This is significant so that the state does not find itself incrementally growing the regulatory burden with every passing year of lawmaking.
The legislature should continue to take the lead on removing the regulatory burden in the state. While specific repeals of certain regulations can be an effective method of cutting down red tape, broader deregulation policies could make a real difference in the Magnolia State.
Last September, Toyota, one of the nation’s largest manufacturers of cars with respect to magnitude, announced that the company was going to take a three-week production break. This was due to the company’s slowdown in auto manufacturing across the globe. Workers were allowed to take unpaid leave, work at the plant at various jobs, or take paid time off. This was part of a larger issue that the company is facing as it is cutting global production by 40 percent due to a worldwide shortage of computer chips and vehicle supply parts.
Situations like this often arise when supply chains are not properly handled. California, for example, has become a very weak center for business in this respect. Meanwhile, states such as Texas and Florida have open ports and have invited shipping companies to bring their cargo.
What is the difference? One of the possible reasons is that California policies creates unnecessary barriers to efficiency. For example, California has adopted a law called AB5. This law recategorized truck drivers so that they could not operate as independent contractors working for several companies. In addition, environmental regulations have inhibited the expansion of storage facilities, leading to even more logistical challenges.
It is these kinds of environmental and labor policies that lead to deficiencies in the supply chain. While supplies in Toyota have rebounded and the company plans to make up for lost time, it goes to show how much of an impact a shortage of supplies can have on a given company.
Covid has certainly been a factor in these issues; however, the government cannot use Covid as an excuse for bad policy. On the federal level especially, government has taken prescriptive action for things that do not ultimately help the problem. Anti-contractor legislation, EPA truck emission regulations, and even Biden’s vaccine mandate have all contributed to the nation’s supply chain issues.
Mississippi should seek to counteract these policies as it builds an economy of free-market principles. While they seem justified, government regulations all too often stifle the growth necessary to have a self-sustaining economy. The state legislature should commit to examining the apparent deficiencies in the supply chain system and explore ways to alleviate the burden on private companies that aid the state economy. Giving up government control is the most effective way to manage supply chains.
Agriculture continues to be a token flagship of the Mississippi economy. However, a specific kind of farming continues to grow within the state that has cause for attention. This area of farming is aquaculture, the process of producing farm-raised fish in a water environment.
Over the last couple of years, Mississippi’s aquaculture has grown greatly. According to the most recent data from 2017, the Mississippi aquaculture industry hosts 205 catfish farms, valued at $219.7 million. Mississippi has risen to one of the top producers of aquacultural farming products, so much so that the rest of the country consumes much of what Mississippi produces, bringing in $230.7 million in sales.
This growth is very timely as global demand for seafood and aquacultural products is expected to grow by 70% over the next thirty years thus increasing demand and providing business and jobs. Not only that, but an increase in productivity in aquaculture means an increase in general agricultural business as well. According to a study by the Food and Water Watch, this additional economic benefit comes from the broader agricultural sector producing the food and materials necessary to sustain aquaculture enterprises.
The aquaculture industry is clearly a vital element of the rising Mississippi economy and the state should look to competitive growth as other states expand aquaculture as well. For instance, the New England states have taken advantage of this opportunity and are now generating $150 million annually. The state of Washington also benefits from this, generating $270 million annually.
Expanding this opportunity and taking advantage of this growth would be an excellent area for legislative attention in Mississippi. This is especially true considering that American aquaculture farms have barely scratched the surface of what total demand is necessary to exhaust the industry (America only meets 5 to 7 percent of the current demand for seafood).
Furthermore, when farmers see that one can succeed in aquaculture, new technologies like computer-controlled oxygen monitoring systems have emerged. This enables farmers to monitor and control the oxygen levels in farming ponds. People find something they want to pursue. They find solutions to making that pursuit easier through innovation. That innovation in turn, inspires others to participate. The cycle goes on and on.
This is another perfect opportunity for legislators to make positive changes in Mississippi communities. Fewer regulations and more motivations to participate in markets like these provide opportunities for innovation and growth in the economy. It is a faulty assumption to presume that government needs to compel or even incentivize individuals for growth to occur. The reality is that neither of those things are needed. For growth to occur, as it has in aquaculture, individuals should be able to pursue their interests without fear of undue government interference. If interference is apparent, growth may actually take a downturn. State leaders would do well to further recognize the growth of the aquaculture industry and encourage its free market expansion.
As the world continues to grow in innovation and technology, it continues to shrink in scale. What would be accomplished in weeks or even months a couple of decades ago can sometimes be achieved in a matter of hours. Trade is no exception to this.
Due to innovation in the transportation industry, it is becoming easier and easier for states to benefit from producing and consuming goods from across the globe. Mississippi would do well to continue this trend as it engages in issues of international relevance.
Mississippi has historically benefitted significantly from international trade and investments. For example, in 2013, Mississippi exported $13.2 billion in goods and $2.2 billion in services across 193 countries. As a direct result of this growth, the Mississippi trade sector saw a 154 percent increase in jobs (from 8.6 percent to 21.8 percent). One of the essential elements for this growth came from the existence of free trade agreements which promoted an increase in growth in trade by 469 percent in just ten years (from 2003 to 2013).
Today, while trade is still part of the economy, Mississippi’s export value has slightly dropped. While explaining the reasons behind this decrease are beyond the scope of this article, Mississippi can certainly do more in promoting its engagement in international trade. Today, it ranks 30th in the United States in exports and 28th in the United States in imports.
The Mississippi legislature should keep in mind several key exports that play a role in Mississippi’s international trade scheme: oil & mineral fuels, precision instruments, motor vehicles & parts, industrial machinery, and electrical machinery. These five goods total approximately $8 billion in exported capital and creates and sustains vital parts of the economy.
One way this can be achieved is by promoting Mississippi’s goods across the globe by educating businesses on how to engage in international trade. This can be a daunting task, especially in a small to medium business context. However, the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce has found success in this area as it has brought $16.7 billion into the state economy by providing support for exporters engaging in international trade. Agriculture is one of the state’s top industries, but imagine if that same engagement occurred on every other major export in the state. Economic growth would certainly be in the future.
Another area that can promote international trade growth is simply decreasing regulation and trade barriers. As mentioned previously, the existence of free trade agreements, minimizing or eliminating the existence of such barriers, played a substantial role in promoting significant growth.
International trade agreements are a little more complicated than a simple “no regulation” principle (it should often operate on a standard of mutual advantage as well). Yet, the idea still stands that governments should encourage companies to engage in trade without penalizing them at same time through high tariffs and regulatory duties.
The greatest element of these free trade agreements is that they encourage competition and innovation -the very things that have placed America in such a strong international trade position to begin with. Mississippi should proactively seek to engage in more international trade and replicate the success the state has seen in the past.
Tesla is now worth over $1 trillion. Not only is Tesla the first car company in the world valued at over $1 trillion, but Tesla is now worth more than twice the combined total of Toyota and Volkswagen.
Not bad for a car company that was only founded in 2003.
Tesla joins a string of companies, including Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet, worth over a $ trillion (Facebook is not far behind, valued at a mere $914bn.).
What is so striking about these firms isn’t just their astronomical value. It’s the fact that they are all relatively new companies. Microsoft and Apple were founded in the mid 1970s. Amazon and Alphabet in the 1990s.
What also stands out is that they are all American.
The largest companies in Europe today – Volkswagen, BP, Shell – were big companies a generation ago. Many of the largest firms in America hardly existed a few decades ago. New, too, is the underlying technology and economic activity on which they are built.
Perhaps any European reflecting on this should ask themselves where their Teslas and Apples are? Or perhaps, more important, ponder what their versions of Bill Gates or Elon Musk are up to? Working in local government, no doubt.
It seems extraordinary that any American politician should want to make their country more European.
What about Japan? I cannot think of a single significant consumer innovation to have come out of Japan since the Sony Walkman. Japan, which in the 1970s and 80s seemed so promising as a center of innovation and technological advance, has stagnated. Perhaps having an economy dominated by zombie companies, weighed down by debt but sustained by cheap credit, isn’t a recipe for success after all.
America has been the epicenter of innovation precisely because Microsoft, then Apple, were able to compete with IBM. Tesla with General Motors. Dozens of start-ups against AT&T. In Japan and Europe, the equivalents of IBM, GMs and AT&T were able to keep out the competition.
For America the lesson is clear; avoid becoming more European or more Japanese. Keep taxes and regulation low. Make sure that however economically important they might be, no big business is able to rig the market through the rule book.
In 2019, the Mississippi legislature passed the Broadband Enabling Act. This legislation gave Electric Power Associations (EPAs) the legal permission to use their existing infrastructure to bring broadband service to their ratepayers. While this has seen some success in expanding broadband access in the state, some key accountability reforms could cause better outcomes.
To grasp how broadband services are being brought to citizens via the EPAs, it is important to understand how they are structured. Most of the EPAs in Mississippi were founded in the 1930s and 1940s to bring electricity to rural areas. These entities are non-profit organizations operating under the direction of elected board members. They are also known as “electric cooperatives” or “electric co-ops.” They have a monopoly over their service areas, and the costs of operation determine the electricity rates that members pay.
This provides the context for the broadband rollouts authorized by the Broadband Enabling Act. Before the Act, EPAs were not permitted by law to operate as broadband service providers for their members. In the wake of the law’s passage, several of the state’s EPAs began conducting feasibility studies to determine the cost of broadband integration and the effects of such integration on electricity rates.
Upon review of the cost, some of the EPAs opted not to integrate broadband operations directly within their organizations, many due to cost concerns. Instead, some EPAs opted to enter into collaborative agreements with private sector internet service providers that permitted the use of electrical infrastructure for broadband deployment.
However, some EPAs did decide to become internet service providers for those in their services areas. The funding for these operations has been provided through a combination of federal, state, and local grants, along with the revenues generated from the electricity rates themselves.
Because individuals within an EPA’s service territory are subject to potential rate increases because of broadband network operation costs, accountability is important. Unlike a typical free-market context in which there is the element of consumer choice, electricity is different. In Mississippi, the government permits consumers to acquire electricity only from the entity that has been granted that particular service territory.
Thus, in the case of EPAs operating as electricity providers and internet service providers, mismanagement of the EPA’s broadband program can lead to increased costs for electrical consumers if a broadband program cannot sufficiently pay for itself.
This establishes the necessity that EPAs are accountable in the way they finance these broadband operations. While EPAs are required to regularly report to the state’s Public Service Commission regarding the legal compliance and financial records of electrical operations, the law is less clear on the extent of oversight for broadband services. Broadband service is not quite the same.
The Broadband Enabling Act does require an annual compliance audit for broadband-offering EPAs. However, financial and performance audits are not currently required by law. This presents potential issues for the citizens in the service territories of these electrical cooperatives. An EPA might be technically in compliance with the law, but that does not fully account for the finances of the broadband program that could ultimately lead to higher rates for those in the service territory.
In order to see a more financially sustainable future for the citizens who live in service territories under EPAs providing broadband, the state should consider enacting broadband financial auditing policies that will ensure more accountability. Such reforms would help ensure that mismanagement does not lead to electrical consumers paying for unreasonable utility bill increases because of EPA broadband buildouts. Broadband growth has immense potential for Mississippians, and the state should ensure that this growth through EPAs does not lead to unreasonable increases when it’s time to pay the electric bill.
Why is Bitcoin worth as much as it is? For the same reason that anything is worth what it is.
The price of Bitcoin reflects the extent to which people want it relative to the amount of it out there. With the total supply of Bitcoin fixed, the massive rise in the price of the world’s first cryptocurrency – from a few cents to over $50,000 in a few years - is a reflection of soaring demand.
The fact that one Bitcoin is worth tens of thousands of dollars, however, seems to offend some folk. Why is it, they want to know, that a piece of software code should be worth so much?
There are no shortage of those that have compared the Bitcoin boom today with the 17th century Tulip bubble in Holland. Tulip mania saw vast sums invested in tulip bulbs, which ultimately proved to be more or less worthless.
Bitcoin, the skeptics often point out, has little utility. It’s just a piece of code – you can’t use it for anything. So why are so many people pouring so much money into it? Its not even a very effective method of payment, given that the value of Bitcoin is so volatile.
But surely many of the same things could also be said about gold?
Gold, too, has limited utility. Beside jewelry and a little electronics, you can’t really do a lot with it.
Nor is gold, even in coin form, a very good way to pay for things.
Not so long ago, the economist John Maynard Keynes dismissed gold as a ‘barbarous relic’. It was, according to this Cambridge-educated technocrat, absurdly old fashioned that a base metal should serve as a reserve currency.
Twenty years ago, British finance minister Gordon Brown, thought something similar when he ordered the Bank of England to sell off its gold reserves.
But, of course, what Keynes called a relic retained its value long after he had passed on. When Brown began to sell off Britain’s gold reserves, he did so for $275 per ounce. Gold today is worth over $1,700 per ounce.
Gold, like Bitcoin, is not valuable because it does something. It is valuable because lots of people want it, and there isn't much of it about. That is all.
With neo-Keynesians running many of the world’s central banks, I suspect that demand for an alternative to their paper fiat currencies will only increase.
Certifications and training are a key part of occupational regulations. Amid the pandemic, many occupational licensing authorities have allowed applicants to take required education courses online instead of exclusively in-person. While online courses are a good step in the right direction, additional technologies could also carry potential.
Many occupational licensing structures require individuals to take certain courses to get certified and then take additional continuing education courses. In the not-so-distant past, applicants would have to take required education and certification courses at the physical places and time determined by government authorities. In addition to the licensing fees and other burdens, such courses often required individuals to set aside time away from their usual course of business for travel. Sometimes they had to drive many hours to attend a class or take a test.
This can change in the context of online courses and certification. While some licensing, certification, and continuing education generally still occur in an in-person context, there has been an expansion in online courses, particularly after the pandemic. Facing the pandemic reality that many individuals would not be able to meet continuing education and/or licensing requirements without online accommodations, several regulatory boards were all but forced to allow for online integration.
These advances suggest that additional technologies could also carry the potential for occupational licensing reform. For instance, virtual reality (VR) headsets are already being used in a variety of extremely technical contexts, with a great degree of success. The military has used VR to prepare soldiers for the battlefield. The medical sector has used VR training for emergency scenario simulation. Industrial and manufacturing sectors have incorporated VR into technical training, and first responders have utilized it for emergency preparedness.
These technologies, such as online learning and VR have expanding adoption, and there has been real-world success -including in some high-intensity fields. It would make sense for government regulatory agencies to incorporate such technologies as an option in their approval processes. Of course, not all applicants would prefer to use such technologies for their licensing or continuing education requirements, and legacy options should remain available. Yet, having new technologies also approved as an acceptable option for occupational certification and education could encourage occupational participation from tech-savvy citizens -especially the younger generation. Mississippi and other states would do well to consider incorporating emerging technologies into its regulatory licensing systems. New technologies are continually proving their value for training and certification. Occupational licensing is already a big enough burden. The government should make every effort to incorporate effective technologies so that its citizens have greater flexibility in their occupational certification and education.