Wednesday, January 12, 2011

The Weekly Radley: Protectionism At Work

I saw this on Radley Balko's site.  I hope you can't read the fine print at the very bottom of the advertisement, the obligatory "this ad paid for by.....".  
But first, try to guess who paid for it !  Doesn't it look like something designed by a group of concerned citizens? 
Give up? 
Ok, think "Bootleggers Dressed As Baptists"
You can hit the label at the bottom of this post to see more "Bootleggers And Baptists" stuff. 

Ok, go here to see who paid for the ad. 
It wasn't a "Parents Concerned About Kids Gambling Online" group, was it? 
It almost never is. 
The Indian Casino monopoly opposes online gambling.  Memphis, Tennessee wine shops oppose grocery store wine sales.  California's recent failed marijuana legalization proposition was opposed by almost all marijuana growers.  The funny thing is the way they all try to posture as guardians of our virtue, when all they're doing is blocking potential competitors.   
Big Bidness loves a monopoly.  And the only way they can have it long-term is if the government helps them preserve it.


Anonymous said...

Show me a politician that will honestly fight corruption and I'll show you where my vote is headed.

LarryE said...

Big Bidness loves a monopoly.


And the only way they can have it long-term is if the government helps them preserve it.

Uh - what?

First, by the description here, the bill Reid wants would undermine, not preserve, the interests of that Indian casino monopoly. So it seems a bad example.

Second, government regulation as we know it here and now (i.e., as it has developed over the last about 120 years or so in the US) came in response to the existence of monopolies and oligopolies. The idea was to regulate them, that being the compromise with the idea of breaking them up by government action.

That such regulation failed to actually regulate changes neither that that was the idea or that, more importantly, those monopolies/oligopolies existed before government regulation. To say that monopolies only exist, "long-term" or otherwise, by virtue of government protection is to deny their history.

And I'll also not just in passing that it was government action, not the market, that broke up, among others, Standard Oil.

Footnote: The word verification word is "prates" which is probably what you think I was just doing. :-)