Commentary

Walter Williams explains why the free market is better for consumers

4 Comments
Walter Williams

His column is here.

He is talking about whether we people should take their services and products from businesses or from government.

Excerpt:

Compare our level of satisfaction with the services of those “in it just for the money and profits” to those in it to serve the public as opposed to earning profits. A major non-profit service provider is the public education establishment that delivers primary and secondary education at nearly a trillion-dollar annual cost.

Public education is a major source of complaints about poor services that in many cases constitute nothing less than gross fraud.

If Wal-Mart, or any of the millions of producers who are in it for money and profits, were to deliver the same low-quality services, they would be out of business, but not public schools. Why? People who produce public education get their pay, pay raises and perks whether customers are satisfied or not. They are not motivated by profits and therefore under considerably less pressure to please customers. They use government to take customer money, in the form of taxes.

The U. S. Postal Service, state motor vehicle departments and other government agencies also have the taxing power of government to get money and therefore are less diligent about pleasing customers. You can bet the rent money that if Wal-Mart and other businesses had the power to take our money by force, they would be less interested and willing to please us.

The big difference between entities that serve us well and those who do not lies in what motivates them. Wal-Mart and millions of other businesses are profit-motivated whereas government schools, USPS and state motor vehicle departments are not.

Businesses can only make money by pleasing customers. Customers who freely choose to trade money for products and services. But government can make money by raising taxes. All they have to do is tell lies, win popularity contests and buy votes.

News

Is the Department of Justice refusing to defend the voting rights of whites?

Leave a comment

I wanted to update my readers about a case of voter intimidation by a group of black racists called “The New Black Panthers”. They intimidated white voters in Philadelphia during the 2008 election, by carrying weapons in front of a polling place. The Obama administration dropped the charges against them.

Here’s some of the raw video:

And here’s some eyewitness testimony:

Fox News reports on the original story and the latest development – an ex-DOJ official has come forward to explain what really happened behind the scenes.

Excerpt:

J. Christian Adams, testifying Tuesday before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, said that “over and over and over again,” the department showed “hostility” toward those cases. He described the Black Panther case as one example of that — he defended the legitimacy of the suit and said his “blood boiled” when he heard a Justice official claim the case wasn’t solid.”It is false,” Adams said of the claim.

“We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens,” he later testified.

The department abandoned the New Black Panther case last year. It stemmed from an incident on Election Day in 2008 in Philadelphia, where members of the party were videotaped in front of a polling place, dressed in military-style uniforms and allegedly hurling racial slurs while one brandished a night stick.

[…]Adams has described the case as open-and-shut and said Tuesday that it was a “very low moment” to hear Perez make that claim.

But he described the department’s hostility toward that and other cases involving black defendants as “pervasive.” Adams cited hostility in the department toward a 2007 voting rights case against a black official in Mississippi who was accused of trying to intimidate voters. Adams said that when the Black Panther case came up, he heard officials in the department say it was “no big deal” and “media-generated” and point to “Fox News” as the source.

I thought it might help my readers if I posted these videos of Megyn Kelly debating the head of the New Black Panthers, so you can see how they respond to the charges yourself. After all, it’s good to hear both sides.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Why would the Department of Justice side with the New Black Panthers against voters who just want to exercise their right to vote? This whole thing reminds me a lot of ACORN and the voter fraud problems they’ve been having. Obama used to work for ACORN, and the head of ACORN endorsed Obama.

Voter intimidation. Voter fraud. Barack Obama.

Commentary

How much do lawsuits against businesses cost consumers?

Leave a comment

Consider this article from the Pacific Research Institute.

Excerpt:

When deciding where to start a business, expand operations, or relocate, entrepreneurs prefer states with balanced tort systems that discourage abusive lawsuits. In 2006, job growth was 57% greater in the 10 states with the best tort climates than in the 10 worst states. Business leaders are leery of Michigan because of its sky-high tort costs and skewed courtrooms.

Fear of lawsuits also causes companies to withdraw or withhold beneficial products. Volkswagen planned to sell a 46 m.p.g. three-wheel vehicle. This “green machine” would have cost only $17,000, but VW decided not to market it in the United States because of lawsuit fears.

Total direct tort costs were $255 billion in 2008. Abusive lawsuits cost every American a hidden “tort tax” of about $2,000 a year in higher prices and insurance premiums, fewer jobs and new products, lower wages and benefits for working people, reduced access to health care, and higher taxes to pay for court costs. And the current system is very inefficient at its intended purpose – less than 15 cents of every tort-cost dollar goes to compensate plaintiffs.

Here’s a video about the Tort Liability Index, which tracks which states have the best environment for business based on tort costs.

This is one reason why states like North Dakota have low unemployment while anti-business states like New York have high unemployment. And North Dakota has massive budget surpluses whereas New York is running massive deficits.