February 1999
Note: This online version may contain additional material or otherwise differ from what appeared in the printed edition. |
Talking Points: Viagra's real benefit, scalping art, and how to best exploit a tragedy
EDITED BY MARC BEAUCHAMP
Disabled Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was supposed to mean more disabled Americans could enter the workforce. Yet this year, only 29% of disabled people are employed full or part time, according to survey results reported in the Washington Post (7/23/98). This figure is lower than before the law was enacted. In 1986, 33% of disabled Americans were employed.--Competitive Enterprise Institute UpDate, December 1998
Anti-antitrust
Even businesses that want to comply with the [federal antitrust] law often have no idea what is acceptable. Companies are sometimes accused of charging "too much" for their products, for instance, since this is assumed to be evidence of monopoly power. Yet companies that charge the same as their competitors are assumed to be colluding and price-fixing. Charging "too little" is also a no-no, however, since this behavior can be construed as predatory pricing. Needless to say, this does not leave a company many options.As Microsoft discovered, giving products away at no charge is somehow bad for consumers as well. These vague laws create needless uncertainty, and many observers believe politicians like it that way since companies often believe generous contributions are one way of avoiding selective and arbitrary enforcement.
-- Daniel J. Mitchell, Washington Times, December 16, 1998
Viagra to the rescue
The rise in the use of Viagra -- the Pfizer drug that can correct impotence in men -- may relieve pressure on endangered species that have been the source of folk remedies for sexual enhancement. Columbia University scientist Fran von Hippel, writing in the journal Science, says Asian consumers may find the cost of Viagra "trivial compared to that of rhino horn, or bear gall bladder, tiger penises, and other organs traditionally used by Asian men."-- Environmental News, November 1998
Uncle Sam, shareholder
Allowing the government to control Social Security investment could result in "a government bureaucrat sitting on every corporate board." It is obvious that allowing the federal government to purchase stocks would give it the ability to obtain a significant, if not a controlling, share of virtually every major company in America.Experience has shown that even a 2% or 3% block of shares can give an activist shareholder substantial influence over the policies of publicly traded companies. A nearly infinite list of current political controversies would be ripe for restrictions if the federal government began investing Social Security funds. Both liberals and conservatives would have their own investment agendas.
Should Social Security funds be invested in tobacco companies? Companies that pay high executive salaries or do not offer health benefits? Companies that extend benefits to the partners of gay employees?
--Cato Institute Press Release, December 1, 1998
Polling tragedy
[An updated edition of the Dick Morris book, Behind the Oval Office] reveals how Clinton's advisors weighed the political implications of even the most tragic events...On April 27, 1995 -- eight days after the Oklahoma City bombing -- Morris directed a discussion on how to reap political advantage from the aftermath, according to the agenda for the date. As the consultant saw it, Clinton's handling of the tragedy would lead to "temporary gain: boost in rating," and [discussed] how he could create a "permanent possible gain: sets up Extremist Issue vs. Republicans."
On August 1, 1996, among topics at the weekly meeting was how well Clinton had responded to the mid-air explosion of TWA Flight 800. Polling data showed that 84% of Americans had heard about Clinton's meeting with families of the victims. Fifty percent said the emotional meeting made them more likely to vote for Clinton over Robert Dole.
-- The Washington Post, December 22, 1998
Scalping van Gogh
Advance tickets for the National Gallery of Arts exhibit of more than 70 paintings by Vincent van Gogh were snapped up at once. The National Gallery, however, gives away about 2,000 tickets each day, good for that day only. Naturally, people line up early. Scalpers are arriving early too, and selling their tickets on the street.The fallacy underlying the prejudice against scalpers and their customers is the belief that the tickets are free. Of course they are not. They cost hours waiting in line. By giving the tickets away, the National Gallery favors people with lots of time to wait against those with little spare time. In the spirit of free enterprise, scalpers give the second group a shot at otherwise unobtainable tickets.
When government thwarts scalpers, it capriciously favors one group of peaceful citizens over another. People who pay for tickets in cash should not be treated as second-class citizens.
-- Sheldon Richman, The Washington Post, November 15, 1998
1998 Nanny Awards
"Nanny of the Year" Award:* Kelly Brownell. By calling for a "Twinkie Tax" on high-calorie food, Yale University professor Brownell simultaneously created a buzz for a new tax and reunited the Nanny nation, which was divided over what product they were going to attack after tobacco.
"Public Disservice" Award, honorable mention:
* The South Dakota House Health & Human Services Committee. For considering a bill which would have made it felony child abuse for a pregnant woman to order a glass of wine in a restaurant without a doctor's prescription.
The (Abuse of) Power of the Press" Award, honorable mention:
* The Nation Magazine. For their expose on "soda barons" trying to hook young kids on the "new drug of choice" -- caffeine. [The magazine wrote]: "Executive at Coke and Pepsi are pushing a drug on pre-adults, one that may have serious health consequences for a whole generation."
-- The Guest Choice Network, December 1998
Kill 'em, don't insult 'em
The Pentagon condemned Monday a sarcastic message about Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting, scrawled by a U.S. sailor on a 2,000-pound laser-guided bomb before it was fired at Iraq...Defense Department spokesman Kenneth Bacon said officials were "distressed to learn of thoughtless graffiti mentioning the holy month of Ramadan on a piece of U.S. ordnance during Operation Desert Fox," a four-day attack that ended [on December 19, 1998].
On the final day of the bombing raids, an Associated Press photographer aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise aircraft carrier in the Gulf took a picture of a graffiti-covered bomb that included the words, "Here's a Ramadan present."
The Pentagon said the message in no way reflected U.S. views.
"The incident is a rare exception that does not reflect American policy or views," [Bacon] said.
-- Reuters News Service, December 22, 1998
The health care "crisis"
Since virtually everything is called a "crisis" these days, perhaps we should not be surprised to hear about a health care "crisis." Those of us old-fashioned enough to believe words should have some meaning may wonder just what this crisis consists of. Are we getting worse health care than in the past? Worse than the rest of the world? Worse than we would like? Virtually every aspect of the so-called health care crisis boils down to the fact that everybody wants somebody else to pay for health care.How did we ever get into the present mess in the first place? There was a time when a patient simply went to a doctor and paid for treatment. The costs and the tradeoffs this would entail were very plain to everyone. If it was worth it to get a broken arm fixed, but not worth it to go in every time you had the sniffles, then you made such choices accordingly.
Employer-paid "fringe benefits" began during World War II, as a way to get around government-imposed wage and price controls. Politicians found it expedient to exempt these benefits from the heavy taxes they put on money income. From this has followed the grand illusion of something for nothing, which has created needless problems in health care, as it has in so many other aspects of life.
--Thomas Sowell, The Washington Times, December 6, 1998
Hairy rules
Technocratic rules stifle experimentation and stamp out plenitude. Consider the 30-year struggle against hidebound cosmetology regulations. Back in 1966, the heretic was Vidal Sassoon, the renowned British hairdresser whose precision cuts freed straight-haired women from the confines of permanents, teasing, and gobs of hair spray. New York's state cosmetology regulations allowed no such innovations.To practice his trade here, Sassoon was supposed to take a test based on the sort of hairdressing he hated. With high-profile stunts like giving actress Mia Farrow a $5,000 haircut on a Hollywood sound stage, Sassoon made the state regulators look ridiculous for questioning his authority over his own work. Only after the state cosmetology board said it would update the exam did he finally take the test, still in its old form. The real test of Sassoon's new ideas was in competition for respect and customers -- and there he won a decisive victory.
-- Virginia Postrel, The Future and Its Enemies (The Free Press, 1998)
