More Trans Fat Bans

Massachusetts is now talking about banning trans fats. As someone who's looking to eat healthy, I'm not very impressed by this approach. Yes, it's nice to know that trans fats are being limited. But what I'd really like to see is a general labeling requirement so that I could tell what was in the food restaurants serve more generally. Trans fat isn't the only unhealthy component of food.

What I'd really, really like to see, though, is restaurants doing this on their own, to cater to health conscious customers. Whole Foods should open a restaurant chain.

The Future of Television

The FCC is apparently thinking about taking steps to promote competition in the cable TV industry:

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, in speeches over the past few weeks, has said local franchise authorities at times "obstruct and in some cases completely derail" new attempts to bring video competition to an area.

His proposal is backed by Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc., which have poured billions of dollars into rewiring their old telecommunications networks so they can deliver television programming and other services.

I think there's definitely something to his concerns. But this has the feel of a debate that will be completely changed in 10 years or so. It's not hard to picture a time in the near future when people get all their video entertainment over the internet, either for free or through subscriptions. Thus, trying to promote competition by allowing additional companies to offer traditional cable TV may only matter in the very short term.

Krugman Goes After Some Straw Men

In his latest column, Paul Krugman criticizes the outsourcing of various government programs to private companies by the Bush administration, and complains:

And maybe, just maybe, the abject failure of this administration’s efforts to outsource essential functions to the private sector will diminish the antigovernment prejudice created by decades of right-wing propaganda.

That’s important, because the presumption that the private sector can do no wrong and the government can do nothing right prevents us from coming to grips with some of America’s biggest problems — in particular, our wildly dysfunctional health care system. More on that in future columns.

Wait a minute, there's a presumption that "the private sector can do no wrong and the government can do nothing right"? Has anyone ever said that? Where? Now, it is true that many people, myself included, would argue that on balance the private sector can do a better job of most things than can the government. But that's a very different proposition.

A Gallon of Overpriced Milk, Please

The Washington Post has an excellent piece on an Arizona milk producer treated unfairly by the federal government's regulatory regime for milk. Briefly, he was initally able to avoid the regime entirely by bottling milk from his own cows, thus allowing him to sell much more cheaply than his competitors who participated in the regime. Not surprisingly, his competitors didn't like this, and eventually succeeded in lobbying Congress to enact legislation forcing him to be part of the regime. It's a great illustration of how government can be used work on behalf of the powerful against the weak: Big producers win, while smaller producers and consumers lose.

He has has now brought suit to have the legislation declared unconstitutional as a bill of attainder. More background here and here.

The Perils of Government Regulation

According to the AP:

The Supreme Court on Monday sided with Philip Morris USA, refusing to disturb a court ruling that threw out a $10.1 billion verdict over the company's "light" cigarettes.

The court issued its order without comment.

Last year, the Illinois Supreme Court threw out the massive fraud judgment against Philip Morris, a unit of the Altria Group Inc., in a class-action lawsuit involving "light" cigarettes. Because the Federal Trade Commission allowed companies to characterize their cigarettes as "light" and "low tar," Philip Morris could not be held liable under state law even if the terms it used could be found false or misleading, the state court said.

So basically, because they had the government's endorsement for the product, they are not liable for false or misleading advertising. Perhaps it would have been better if the government had stayed out of the matter entirely.