First, the structure was built to create the right balances and to spread the power around. The size, the sector Boards, the organizations, the control of patents, the power within the judicial department, the professional licenses, and among others, solves many issues of many common complaints.
Second, competition solves a great deal of issues created by politician control. Free market is allowing the businesses to have the choice on which CRA to choose from and for consumers to have the choice on which business receive their purchases.  Competition that is not distorted by cronyism, rather true free markets solves many issues and answers many complaints.  If you do not like a certain CRA, simply do not buy from a business regulated by them.  Bad business practices must change with business loss.  
Third, ratings completely understood with its structure of competing rating agencies solve many issues and could clear many misunderstandings.  Consumers will care about many of the items that are rated and will pay a premium for the better ratings.  Buying products and services with better ratings mean that you getting better products and you are supporting better business practices.  
Competitive Regulatory Agencies (CRA's) and Rating Agencies as Representatives
Currently our representatives and executive officials are expected to know and manage or direct far too many activities of which they are not knowledgable. Moreover, when they do have the knowledge, there is too often a one way solution that everyone must accept.

Under CRA's and ratings, which have real power, the leadership will be your representatives.  Their real power only affects those that voluntarily choose to be ‘governed’ by them.  These are not geographic areas, but rather about a dozen CRA's or rating agencies that either cover the state or the entire country.  Each business or individual would pick the CRA's that would govern them and the rating agencies they trust.
Standards would rise as ratings clearly show levels of standards each business has and the business’s desire to maintain high reputations and protect their brand.  Consumers would trust certain rating agencies, which would derive power and authority with that trust. 
CRA representatives would earn their power because of the businesses that voluntarily hire that CRA for their services.  The businesses within a CRA would elect the leaders of their CRA.  Leaders of CRA's would have expertise within that sector because there would be many CRA's competing for the regulatory services offered to business. badly regulated CRA's would loss business, thus their power. 
The more people who trust a certain rating agency, the more influence that agency will have in overall ratings.  While some would be only concerned with their chosen rating agency, the overall number (the weighted average of all the rating agencies) would be posted.  
The weighted average is the number used in rating floors, which are government floors for transactions that harm those outside of the transactions, such as pollution.  Rating agencies would have some power dealing with different CRA's. 
There are some that think science is too important for the free market.  This flies in the face of American exceptionalism and history.  Free markets with proper patents and copyrights have provided science with the quickest path toward advancement. 
When politician and government officials control science funding, corruption or incompetence is often to follow.  A clear example of this is AIDs funding.  In the early 1980’s major political pressure was put on politicians to fund AIDs research.  Other medical research that had many more deaths involved received far less. 
Advocacy groups learned that they could raise millions for AIDs research, however use the money to lobby and ‘buy off’ politicians to get hundreds of millions in tax payer funds.  Those with the loudest voice or the best in selling their case receive the most money. 
Scientists respond to incentives just like everyone else.  In the area of climate change, the people passing out research grants know what answers they're seeking, so they pass out grants to those predisposed to give their conclusions.  Scientists know from experience that they are far more likely to be given additional grants if they can conclude what the funder’s desire.  This becomes a loop that distorts scientific funding.
Media’s Lack of Credibility
I once saw a story on one of the three major news channels on their evening news.  The story was about how reduced amount of reindeer in a northern area was going to lead to greater global warming.  The claim was that reindeers walk on snow and pack it down, which leads to a better barrier from CO2 escaping from the ground.  This is incredible that this passed the smell test with any producer or science editor.  This story on wind turbines is just as unbelievable.

Wendy Koch, USA TODAY 9:48 a.m. EST February 26, 2014

Offshore wind farms can tame hurricanes rather than be destroyed by them, says ground-breaking research led by Stanford University that touts the benefits of wind power.

Billions of dollars in U.S. damage from mega-storms Katrina and Sandy might have been avoided with a perhaps surprising device — wind turbines.

That's the finding of a ground-breaking study today that says mammoth offshore wind farms can tame hurricanes rather than be destroyed by them. It says a phalanx of tens of thousands of turbines can lower a hurricane's wind speed up to 92 mph and reduce its storm surge up to 79%.

Unlike sea walls, which protect cities from storm surges, wind farms pay for themselves by generating pollution-free electricity, says lead author Mark Jacobson, an engineering professor at Stanford University. "The additional hurricane (protection) benefit is free."

No offshore wind farms currently operate in the United States, although 11 are under development — mostly off the East and Texas coasts. Most of the world's offshore turbines are in northwestern Europe, but China is ramping up its capacity.

Jacobson says his study, published online in Nature Climate Change, is the first to look at how offshore turbines interact with hurricanes. He says the impact may seem surprising but makes sense: Turbines produce power by taking energy from wind and thus slowing it down.

His team used complex modeling to simulate the impact that tens of thousands of turbines — more than exist in any single wind farm worldwide — would have had on three hurricanes: Sandy and Isaac, which struck New York and New Orleans, respectively, in 2012 and Katrina, which devastated New Orleans in 2005.

TAMING TWISTERS: Can giant walls stop tornadoes?

An array of 78,000 wind turbines — each 50 feet tall — off New Orleans could have slowed Katrina's wind speeds up to 78 mph and cut its storm surge up to 79%. An even larger phalanx off the East Coast could have reduced Sandy's winds up to 87 mph and its storm surge up to 34%. These farms minimize a city's storm surge most when located directly upwind.

Jacobson says smaller offshore wind farms also reduce a hurricane's wrath but at a lesser rate. Overall, "turbines cost much less than sea walls to protect a city given that the turbines also generate electricity," says the study, co-authored by Cristina Archer and Willett Kempton of the University of Delaware.

"It's potentially significant," Mark Powell, atmospheric scientist at NOAA's Hurricane Research Division in Miami, says of the research, adding it shows an extra benefit of a carbon-free energy source.

"This is a pretty neat idea, but it's expensive and borderline feasible," says Stephen Rose, an expert on wind energy at Carnegie Mellon University. He led a 2012 study that said hurricanes could destroy some turbines. Yet his team later issued a correction, saying there's only a 7% risk of hurricanes destroying at least half of turbines off the Gulf Coast and almost no chance of such damage on the East Coast.

"It's not practical — 78,000 turbines," says Dominique Roddier, an engineer who's working on a new design for a floating wind turbine by Seattle-based Principle Power, referring to the size of wind farms in Jacobson's study. "That's an insane number of wind turbines. You can't build that many."

The two largest pending offshore U.S. wind farms — the Deepwater Wind Energy Center in New England and the Baryonyx Rio Grande Wind Farms in Texas — are each slated to have at most 200 turbines.

Jacobson says large offshore wind farms can be a more cost-effective way to generate power than fossil fuels, given the additional benefits of reducing pollution and hurricane damage. He says even existing turbines can withstand wind speeds of up to 112 mph — typical of a Category 2 or 3 hurricane -- and a large array could slow the wind enough to prevent turbine damage from a more powerful storm.

The U.S. Department of Energy, which is promoting offshore wind development along the coasts and the Great Lakes, says it's capable of generating four times as much electricity as do all current U.S. power plants.

Colleges have made a business model out of government research grants.  The people getting the money become the experts in what should be studied and lobby for the funds.  This becomes very self-serving and perverts science.  This lacks serious free market benefits and misallocates important funding. 

End Government Science Funding

By Terence Kealey
April 11, 1997
The big myth about scientific research is that government must fund it. The argument is that private companies will not fund science, especially pure science, for fear that their competitors will “capture” the fruits of that investment. Yet, in practice, companies fund pure science very generously, and government funding displaces private research money.

Terence Kealey is professor of clinical biochemistry at the University of Cambridge, England, and author of The Economic Laws of Scientific Research.

There is a wide range of regulations and they have a great impact on society and the economy.  While some make a lot of sense and would be implemented by business regardless of whether they were mandated by law, others are harmful. There are some that designated to harm and other harm by people that think they are smarter than those running the businesses.  The largest problem is regulations that are too intrusive, limit new innovations.

Government has progressively gained control over education and at higher levels of government.  Parental rights have slowly, but now very seriously been compromised.  Similar to a frog in pot of water and the heat turned up.  The frog is boiled before he realizes the water is too hot. To endeavor to show people the high levels of control, I will compare food to education.  What if food was similar to education?

  Government taxes for food would rise very high and hidden throughout dozens of taxes, thus reducing economic activity. Government would then offer to fund your grocery bill if they control everything you ate.  If you wanted to choose the food you ate, you would be given the option, however all government funding would be forfeited. In the government food system, if you had religious objections or preference to eating certain types of food, you could not be accommodated.
Government control has always proven to be  more expensive so the price would be significantly higher.  The innovation in food production and farming would drop.  Politicians would put in place price controls  to rein in high food price inflation and would result in higher prices.  Food shortages and long lines at stores have proved to be the standard in other experiments in socialized food.  Farmers and processors would be government jobs and politicians always try to increase jobs.  
If you wanted to shop at another government food provider, you would have to move where you lived to another food district.  Government would try give people a feeling of control by allowing everyone to elect their food board, the board elected to collect all the food liberties and rights from all the people enrolled and then to exercise that control.  Everyone would live under the board's control whether or not you voted for them.
The food board would campaign on more vegetables or fruits, some would be vegetarians, while others would champion fast and junk food.  Whoever wins would control the food for all within that city that wish to get the benefit of their tax dollars back in the form of food.  If you wanted higher quality of food then you are offered, you would have to give up all funding.  If you could provide for your food needs at a less of an expense then the overpriced public sector, you would not have the option of being exempt from the tax and providing for yourself. 
Food advocacy groups would become much stronger because people would contribute a lot of money to try to influence who was elected and their food policy, to attempt to get their preferences. Many liberals would find local control not as good as state and state not as good as national control.  Advocacy groups would lobby hard for everyone in the nation to eat the way they wish.  They would claim that people are not competent to choose for themselves and attempt to force everyone currently outside the public food system to be forced by law to enroll.       
After a certain time of being ‘cooked’ by the high heat of control of government, people will forget about the benefits of free enterprise food and claim that food is just too important for ‘competition’ and how most people would starve if government did not provide. 

About 3 weeks after posting this article, Don Boudreaux posted this to Café Hayek.  In no way am I implying he copied my idea just that great men think alike (I state humbly).  Don is a great economics professor that I learn a lot from on his appearances on ‘ECON Talk’ and on this Café Hayek blog. 

If Groceries Were Supplied Like K-12 Education…by Don Boudreaux on January 23, 2015

in Education

… news reports would regularly include stories of “grocery experts” offering new and “pioneering” proposals to improve grocery distribution, and of the citizens of “grocery districts” meeting with their local “grocery boards” to discuss and debate these different proposals.  Each affiliate of a major national network (like each of the national networks), as well as each newspaper and other significant news outlet, would have its own “grocery reporter” (or “grocery correspondent”) to keep tabs on the latest efforts to improve the way government delivers groceries to citizens.

When new big-city mayors are sworn into office they would typically replace the incumbent “Grocery Superintendents” (or “Grocery Chancellors”) with their own preferred “Grocery Superintendents” (or “Chancellors”).  The local policy punditry would discuss in great detail the differences in the grocery-supply philosophies of the new Grocery Superintendents compared to those of the outgoing Superintendents.  ”Grocery-beat reporters” would often solicit from people on the street these people’s opinions of the different methods proposed to improve grocery distribution.  Questions such as “Do you think new Grocery Chancellor Smith’s proposal to allow a handful of people to buy their groceries from charter grocery stores is a good idea?  Or do you side with former Chancellor Jones in staunchly opposing charter grocery stores?” would be asked and seriously answered.

Ordinary men and women – physicians, electricians, cab drivers, auto mechanics, professors of economics, web designers, kennel owners, carpenters – almost none of whom have the slightest bit of expertise or experience to qualify them to assess the different methods proposed to deliver groceries, would nevertheless be expected to have such an opinion, and they would be applauded if and when they attend the next meeting of the “Grocery Board” to express their opinions on how best to supply groceries.

When some new method of supplying groceries is chosen, many people will await with great hope and joy the coming improvement in grocery supply – and such people will always suffer disappointment when (as would nearly always be the case) the expected improvement in grocery supply doesn’t materialize.  ”Professors of Groceries” in all the top “Schools of Groceries” across the land would debate with each other and with the public the whys and why-nots of the failure of the latest scheme to make America again #1 in international measures of grocery distribution.  Newspapers of record would regularly feature headline reports on the “grocery crisis.”

Anyone proposing to get government out of the grocery-supply business would, of course, be ridiculed as being totally unrealistic or being an out-of-touch ideologue, or accused of harboring a secret desire to see the the vast majority of people starve while only the top one percent of the population continues to enjoy excellent access to superb groceries.  Likewise, proposals to cut (or to not increase) grocery-district funding would be widely condemned as being pro-starvation proposals.  And efforts to measure the performance of grocery-store workers would be mocked as impossible as well as unfair to such workers.  Efforts to restrain the pay of grocery-store workers would be portrayed as efforts to deny ordinary citizens access to the best possible supply of groceries.

Ordinary citizens would, in short, be expected to ponder appropriate grocery budgeting as well as alternative grocery theories, and to have informed opinions on all grocery-supply matters – for, in the finest democratic tradition, these citizens, as voters, would be responsible for superintending the supply of groceries.

Be Sociable, Share!
The greater the power and control of the governments at all levels, the greater the weapons they have against their opposers. Politicians know the power of the laws and regulations could make or break a business.  A simple tax increase or hostile regulation could put your political enemy out of business.
The greater control politicians have over additional sectors of the economy brings additional weapons politicians and administration personnel can use against their enemies and to the benefit of their cronies and supporters. 
If fully implemented, the movement Haley2024 reforms eliminates over 90% of government control, reducing the tools and weapons used by those currently in government. 
Recent examples are the targeting of the Tea Party by the IRS, improperly using campaign laws to target Tom Delay, anti-environmentalist targeting coal and natural gas. The list is endless.

Many people think that it is obvious that government must own the power grid because it is too important for the private sector or that there is not proper competitive nature in the power grid.  Many are concerned with monopoly effects.  Please read my ‘Utilities page’ to see the structure and how ‘Corporate Proxy Groups’ reforms would be critical to the plan. 
To maintain and increase standards, cities, states and the federal government could mandate a certain minimum level of ratings regarding many factors of major concern. Consumers and buyers of the stocks would likely demand better standard then the government. 
The power grid would be divided into dozens of different areas across the nations with mandated high ratings on cooperation with the rest of the grid owners. Having many owners will allow for new innovations to be tried with the best always being topped.   
When the people of the area can buy stock and thus have ownership rights and using Corporate Proxy Groups to put in the right leadership of these corporations, many ills associated with monopoly will be reduced.  People need to also consider alternatives to the power grid such as natural gas generators or other methods of competition.     

The power grid would be owned separate from power generating plants.  They would have to have high ratings on cooperation with anyone that wishes to sell power to the grid to allow proper competition and to limit protectionist policies.  The grid owners would want to maintain high ratings on EPA related issues. Therefore they could pay for power coming into the grid at different rates based on how much pollution the power generating plants pollutes.
These ratings would be very dynamic and different rating agencies would rate differently and the free enterprise system is the best way to resolve these disputes.  Instead of elected or appointed government officials having the power and control over these important decisions, elected board of directors of the corporation and leaders of rating agencies would have a lot of control.
If someone has a mortgage of $300,000 on a $400,000 house, are they said to be in debt?  People will dispute this and look at it in a variety of ways, however two things are true.  First, the person with the mortgage cannot say they own the house outright. Second, the person can sell the home and pay off the debt and have capital left over. 
national debt
When the government claims $18 trillion in debt (January 2015), they are not showing a counter balance of assets they have.  The very unknowable level in Social security and Medicare debt is a major consideration also.  The purpose of this article is that many of the Haley2024 plans calls for significant reduction of the role of government leading to the government’s ability to sell many assets to the private sector where these assets will be needed. 
Roads, schools, buildings, land, military assets among others will go through a transition to the free enterprise system.  The assets will be sold over a ten year span and would total in the tens of trillions of dollars across the country. The exact amount is unknowable because most will be sold by setting up publicly traded companies and pricing the stocks to sell one percent a month until complete.
A Standard Transition from Government Control and Ownership to Free Enterprise

The federal government also owns a lot of land.  Selling much of this could be a significant amount as well.  This would have the added benefit of private owners taking care of the land far better than the government has proved they could.           

There are good arguments to have certain things done at different levels of government. The same concerns should not be in different levels of government, with most concerns returning to the free enterprise system.  Foreign policy and the military should be a national government level so that all of America can show a united force and speak with one voice. 
People often say 'better state than federal and better local than state'.  Haley2024 promotes that they are all government and the private sector is the best for most concerns.  While different localities could do things differently, giving people the ability to move to a more conducive location; should you be forced to move to get your way on a certain policy?  You also have to consider that wherever you move you have to take the whole package of policies in that city of state.  Moving away from ‘Home’ is also a particularly difficult burden as well. 

When you are living in a city, state and nation that allows most decisions to be in the free enterprise system through CRA’s and other policies of Haley2024, you get to live where you want and pick your preferences in many sectors government current controls.  You and all others living around you have the individual options to be a socialist or capitalist in any sector of the economy you wish.  There would be many CRA's controlling in different ways from heavy control to very little libertarian type of control.  Everyone choices for themselves.
Outside of foreign policy and military, state and city should take care of policing violent crime, leaving nonviolent crimes to CRA’s judicial authority.  The State and cities would monitor CRA’s and the transition of much of their responsibilities to the free enterprise system.  These government’s main power over these CRA’s would be mandating certain minimum ratings on items that effecting people outside the transactions of member of the CRA’s and the consumers such as pollution.  
Many people have looked though history and wondered why over thousands of years significant technical progress has not happened until America came into being. 

American exceptionalism is about many reforms regarding government allowing liberty, that allowed this country to flourish and advance like no others in thousands of years or across the globe.
One of the many reasons was a great free trade zone.  The US constitution: The United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce … among the several States… gave the federal government the power to stop trade barriers between the states creating one very large free trade zone.  While this causes disruption when one state's production is undermined by other states lower price, the great benefits overwhelm the disruptions. 
This was one of great impetus that advanced this country further and faster than any time or place in history.  There is great pressure on politicians from certain industries to create trade barriers when they are losing to competition.  These trade barriers are sold as “saving Jobs”, however this is very short sighted. 
The competition has jobs also and the people in your state could benefit from lower consumer prices. There are many businesses in your state that need the lowest cost raw material and non-consumer goods to make them competitive and keep their jobs.  Thinking past stage one or the counterfactual is hard for most people because there are too many variable to consider.
Trade barriers harm overall economic activity and make the vast percentage of the people less wealthy and have less opportunities.  Over the decades, greater trade barriers have been constructed because of political pressure, and campaign money have elected many politicians who either do not realize the harm they are doing or just want the power to control. 
Education is far from free trade. State rates verses out of state tuition is a barrier that needs to stop.  State funding of education moves the needle away from free enterprise towards socialism.  

Insurance of all kinds have long been state controlled and with major barriers that result in hirer prices and worse service.  It is hard to impossible to see the counterfactuals of no barriers, however right now competition is greatly curtailed. 

The farm bill in congress is full of very harmful trade barriers, from subsidies, bans, and paying people not to be productive.  The farm bill is one of the best examples of bad economics doing great harm.  People see that we have an abundance of food and claim the farm bill must be doing good.  This is short sighted, the counterfactual cannot be seen and is unknowable.
However, freedom and free markets always yields better results.  Many claim astronomical commodity prices if the law did not provide subsidies, they clearly cannot think past stage one.       

There are many more barriers out there and this article can cover them all.   

Whether across state lines or worldwide, everyone would be better off with lower and ultimately no trade barriers. I am in the camp that says that states and America will do a lot better if they stop all trade barriers regardless of whether other states or nations drop their barriers.  Our example of doing better after dropping barriers will influence other states and nations to drop theirs.    
    Competitive Regulatory Agencies Blog

    Bill Haley

    Bill Haley started Haley2024 in the spring of 2013 in an effort to his part of restoring freedom to America.


    January 2016
    February 2015
    January 2015
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    August 2013