Category Archives: Business

Counter Strike Global Offensive Gambling Correlation

Posted on by
Counter Strike Global Offensive

Almost everyone knows about Luigi Mangione and the murder of Brian Thompson but most of you are probably unaware of what is happening with Counter Strike Global Offensive. Much like the murder of Thompson, there are no good guys in this story but the news of both gives us an insight into some of the problems facing the world right now.

Counter Strike Global Offensive, technically Counter Strike 2 now but most call it CS:GO, is a gambling website and computer game. Many people who play the game simply do so to gamble and this includes a lot of young people. There is tremendous damage being done and people are angry.

Counter Strike Global Offensive and Skins

Valve, the developer of Counter Strike Global Offensive, introduced skins to the game back in 2013. These skins are cosmetic items applied to weapons. No big deal so far. These skins are popular and Valve runs a cash store where people can sell their skins to other players for money. Valve takes a percentage of this money, estimated at over a billion dollars in 2023. That’s Valve’s cut, not the entire value of the sales. Just their cut of it.

How do people get skins? They get them by playing or buying in-game weapon cases for $2.49. The items in the weapon case are randomly generated, with most of them being of low or no value. The rare skins sell for many thousands of dollars. This created an industry where influencers purchase these weapon cases live on their streams and, when they get high value items, respond with over-the-top excitement.

These influences draw in young people who want to win. They, in turn, spend enormous amounts of money on the weapon cases, hoping for financial return. It’s, for all intensive purposes, gambling. Many young people suffer enormous negative outcomes from this gambling. They use their parents’ money and cause financial hardships.

It’s bad.

Personal Responsibility with Counterstrike Global Offensive

Don’t get me wrong. I do think people who purchase these weapon cases are largely to blame for their own financial suffering. No one forced them to buy the cases. That being said, there is a lot of rage out there against the influencers who promote this destructive gambling. The same rage we see from people who are delayed, deposed, and denied in the healthcare industry.

Think if your child destroyed the family finances and their own future because they emulated an influencer who was pretending to gamble.

No Legal Recourse

Fueling the rage is the lack of legal recourse, both in Counter Strike Global Offensive and the Healthcare industry. People suffer, for years, horribly, and the courts ignore them, finding for the side who can pay for better lawyers.

The Palpable Rage

The rage is enormous. People who suffered want someone to pay, in the same way Mangione wanted Thompson to pay. Coffeezilla just released the first installment of his take on this and it’s a fascinating watch.

People are organized, they harass, they threaten, they incite. They think they are doing the right thing; they are certain our courts have abandoned them, that they, the little guy, has been sold out. They might be right.

Big money is winning and we the people are losing. Rural, urban, right-wing, left-wing, Christian, Atheist, young, old, sick. Liberté, égalité, fraternité doesn’t always end politely.

Tom Liberman

What is Back to the Office Really About?

Posted on by
Back to the office

There’s a lot of talk about back to the office for not only federal workers but workers all over the country. It’s usually couched in insulting terms like slackers, lazy, unproductive, and words of that nature. The rational isn’t fully articulated by the people espousing back to the office.

If they do talk about why they want it, it’s usually about the lack of teamwork, personal associations, team building, and productivity. I’m not going to say there are no arguments for back to the office but the primary force driving it is office space.

Office Space is the Back to the Office Reality

Large companies are heavily invested in enormous office buildings. Realtors are heavy invested selling square footage in large office buildings. Construction companies spend money to build these structures. In short, there’s a lot of established money tied up in office buildings all over this country. From urban centers to rural town. Office space is big business.

When people work remotely, they aren’t in those office. Who does that hurt? As they always say in detective shows, follow the money.

People Like Working from Home

The vast majority of everyday workers enjoy working from home because they don’t have to get dressed, drive in rush-hour traffic in two directions, and make or buy a lunch. They don’t like being away from small children and having to pay for daycare and other services.

Again, I’m not an absolutist. Some people like the social aspect of the office. They enjoy happy hour after work. Still, I think it’s safe to say the average worker prefers working from home and the average business owner doesn’t like paying rent for empty office buildings.

It’s really pretty simple. Who stands to benefit from back to the office? Average workers or those associated with office buildings and their financial stake in them?

Tom Liberman

Louisiana Business-Friendly Tax Policy

Posted on by
Business-Friendly

I just read an interesting article about the business-friendly tax policy enacted by legislators in the state of Louisiana. The state of Louisiana already has some of the highest sales taxes in the country when state and local taxes are combined.

The new business-friendly policy reduces corporate taxes and personal income taxes to the tune of about $1.3 billion and this revenue is made up by increasing sales taxes to an even higher level. The rational for this is the desire to be competitive in attracting businesses to the state.

Business-Friendly Taxation State Competition

At its heart, the business-friendly taxation plans implemented all across the United States are a giant competition to bring in corporations. Every state and every municipality has long championed this tax structure. If we make it so a company has to pay little or often no taxes, they will build their factories here.

Businesses now hold bidding wars with various states and municipalities in order to get not only low taxes but enormous refunds and credits on the little taxes they do pay.

The rational expounded in Louisiana is just that. Their neighbor states have created enormous tax shelters and attracted businesses away from the Cajun State.

The Problem with Business-Friendly

Let me say I’m not a Bernie Sanders loving socialist screaming tax the rich from my soap box. I’m a Libertarian who believes in limited taxes and smaller government.

That being said, the problem with enterprise companies paying no taxes is the state still provides services for those factories. The state spends enormous sums to build and maintain roads so trucks can carry goods. The state pays for sewage and utilities. The state pays to clean up waste problems associated with spills. The state pays for the port facilities and the airports.

If the companies aren’t paying that money, then it falls on the citizens to pay via sales taxes. This is a horrendous solution. Taxes should be tied to the government services associated with them. Gas taxes should be spent on road maintenance. Gambling taxes should be spent on helping problem gamblers.

The current system is nothing more than taking money from the bottom income earners in this country to pay the bills for the wealthiest.

The system isn’t rigged as Bernie Sanders and many others in poor, rural communities like to argue. The system is working exactly the way it was designed to work. To siphon money from the bottom to the top.

The Solution is Simple

The solution to the entire business-friendly, take money from the poor and give it to the wealthy, is relatively simple. The government shouldn’t be involved in business enterprises in any way. They shouldn’t be giving tax breaks to incentivize companies to build in particularly locations.

This cuts both ways on the political spectrum. As an example; it’s obvious to me that electric car companies shouldn’t be getting $7,500 from tax-payers every time someone buys one of their cars because the government thinks it’s good for the environment. Nor should oil refineries and oil companies get enormous tax breaks because the government wants to drill-baby-drill.

I wrote about this in my Pretty Woman post when I suggested Edward is the protagonist of the movie. A business owner shouldn’t be shopping around to local government, it’s a perversion of capitalism and it’s doing dirty the great people of this country, democrats, republicans, and all the rest.

Tom Liberman

Dark Chocolate with Cadmium and Lead is not Premium

Posted on by
Dark Chocolate with Cadmium and Lead

I just read about an interesting false advertising legal case making its way through the U.S. Court system involving dark chocolate with cadmium and lead. In this particular case it’s Lindt Chocolate made in Switzerland.

I’ve written about false advertising in the past and I do think manufactures should give a fairly reasonable description of the product. In this case, Lindt advertises its chocolates as expertly crafted with the finest ingredients. They do not write dark chocolate laden with cadmium and lead on the label, for obvious reasons.

Study Reveals Dark Chocolate with Heavy Metals

The reality is that dark chocolate is usually laden with at least some heavy metals. The Cadmium generally arrives from the cocoa plant itself while lead gets there during the processing phase. The study that led to the lawsuit examined a number of dark chocolate brands including Lindt.

The result from Consumer Reports showed Lindt dark chocolate contained high-levels of Cadmium. Cadmium is generally considered a dangerous heavy metal that can lead to a variety of negative healthy effects.

Of the dark chocolate tested, Lindt wasn’t the highest for cadmium and lead nor was it the lowest.

The Lawsuit over Dark Chocolate with Cadmium and Lead

At issue is the advertising statement of expertly crafted with the finest ingredients. The argument goes that this statement might lead a consumer to pay for Lindt with the expectation that it did not have some of the problems associated with dark chocolate of a lower quality.

Lindt lawyers call the advertising statement puffery. Puffery is a legal term indicating that a reasonable consumer knows it’s merely exaggeration, boasting, and blustering. That it isn’t a real indication of the product quality. Anyone who has ever seen any advertisement knows all about puffery.

Lindt Dark Chocolate Conforms with Regulations

There are regulations about how much cadmium and lead is allowed to be in various food products and there is no question that Lindt chocolate comes in under this level. The Food and Drug Administration considers it safe for consumers in the United States.

The Fate of the Lawsuit

I strongly suspect the suit will result in no damages for the plaintiffs but that, perhaps, is not the point. The lawsuit, in my opinion, aims to educate the average buyer as to what they are consuming when they eat dark chocolate. Which is often advertised as healthier than milk or white chocolate.

We’ve seen quite a few lawsuits of this nature. Tuna in Subway sandwiches. Strawberries in Pop-Tarts. Various ingredients in supplements. It’s an interesting way to illustrate, Caveat Emptor. Let the buyer beware.

While I suspect the lawsuit is going nowhere, I do applaud the effort. In this modern age it pays to be aware of what you are consuming. The origin of the product, the quality of the product, the way labor is treated by the manufacturer, the environmental impacts of production.

Whether it be dark chocolate with cadmium and lead or any other product, I think most people want to make the world a better place. The government can’t save us and neither can the courts. Your purchasing power is the last line of defense. Use it wisely.

Tom Liberman

Joey Chestnut Banned from Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Spectacle

Posted on by
Joey Chestnut

** Update **

I’ve read several comments suggestion that Chestnut insisted on his new brand of hot dog being used for the contest. If this is the case; then he is to blame. It’s Nathan’s contest and they should use whatever dog they want. However, the updated articles I’m reading still state he was “banned” and therefore what I’ve written stands.

** End Update**

Well, color me jaded. Joey Chestnut banned from Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating spectacle not for performance enhancing drugs, not for cheating, not for criminal activity; but because he now sponsors a different company.

Crazy me, I thought it was a competition open to everyone. Apparently, you’re only allowed to compete if you shill for Nathan’s. Welcome to the sad state of America.

Not a Competition at All

I am triggered. You heard it here first; Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Contest is not a contest. It’s just an advertising campaign. Who knows how many competitors weren’t allowed to take part in the past because they chose not to hawk Nathan’s wares? The entire thing is a sham. A sham!

Every single “winner” is tainted. The entire spectacle is invalid. I refuse to call it a contest anymore. It’s not. For it to be a true competition you must allow everyone to play. When you ban your most famous competitor you void the entire thing.

Shame on Nathan’s! Shame! I point my finger at you! Shame! We want Joey Chestnut!

Competitions are Open

Do they ask the spicy competitors at the county fair if they sponsor one of the hot sauces? No, they do not. Do they ask the apple pie eating heroes if they sponsor one apple producer? No, they do not. Are professional athletes forbidden to have contracts with sports apparel companies that compete with league apparel sponsorships? No! No! No and no again!

What happened to the spirit of competition in this country? Are we so afraid of competition that we ban anyone who represents a rival brand? I guess so if you’re Nathan’s.

Conclusion

Rise up! Take to the streets. Take to Social Media. Rouse your neighbors, set your dogs barking. Get it, dogs?

Get Joey Chestnut back in the contest and let him sponsor whomever he wants.

Tom Liberman

Randall Emmett Taxpayer Funded Movie Industry

Posted on by
Randall Emmett and the Taxpayer Funded Movie Industry

I just read a fascinating story from the Los Angeles Times about how states are conned in the Taxpayer funded movie industry. Taxpayer funded movie industry, you rightly ask? I’m afraid so. How is that possible, you ask? Because we live in a free money, crony-capitalism country.

Basically, fly-by-night movie companies come to your state and film low-budget movies with aging name stars and get almost the entire thing paid for with tax dollars. From what I can tell, it’s largely a Ponzi scheme with the next state in line paying the overdue bills from the previous production. Let’s get into it.

Randall Emmett is Running the Show

Who is Randall Emmett? A movie producer who was accused of various sexual transgressions on his movie sets and in his personal life. This did not stop him from producing movies. He just started up a new production company making low-budget movies.

How is this a Taxpayer Funded Movie Industry?

The scheme is relatively simple. Many states are eager to have a movie made in their confines. They use Taxpayer money to “reimburse” film-makers who shoot in their states. The film-maker usually makes various promises about how long the shoot will take, where, and how many jobs it will create. The usual business mantra for fleecing states of Taxpayer money.

In any case, they film the movie on a shoe-string budget paying a high-profile, but usually late in his career actor, seven figure salaries for a day or two of shooting. They then lollygag on payments to the rest of people involved, including the law enforcement teams assigned to the set.

Then it’s off to a new state, with new promises, a few million dollars to pay off the old debts and a new actor. Rinse repeat. The movies themselves are largely trash although they probably generate enough money to make the entire enterprise profitable as long as there is another gullible governor lined up to dish out your money.

Scummy?

You bet. This is the world we live in. It’s easier to make a profit with Taxpayer funds and a bad movie than it is to produce a quality product.

The obvious problem here is that states are willing to dispense money to businesses on the promise of new movies, new factories, new jobs, etc. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The state and the corporations need to be separate for the health of both.

There should be no tax-breaks, no reimbursements, and no incentives of any kind to conduct business in a particular state or municipality. A business should only survive and thrive on the merits of its product or service.

Businesses and politicians are far too chummy, and it is not working for We the People. It’s not.

Tom Liberman

California Pork Supreme Court Ruling is good for Small Farmers

Posted on by
California Pork

The Supreme Court recently ruled California pork rules for items sold within the state are constitutional. The ruling itself came from an unusual 5-4 split decision but that’s not really what I want to discuss today.

The ruling is roiling politicians from pork producing states like Iowa and the leaders of factory farm proponents. Scott Hays of the National Pork Producers Council and Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst of Iowa all lambaste the ruling as working against small farmers. They are lying. Those three and others like them are not the friend of small farmers. Let’s get into it.

The Rise of the CAFO

Small farmers are being decimated by Concentrated Animal Feed Organizations. I wrote about them recently in a ruling that went in their favor in Missouri. The rule upheld by the Supreme Court for California hurts not the small farmer but the CAFOs.

Small farmers are under tremendous pressure from CAFOs. We’re losing small farmers at a tremendous rate to these enormous operations. Bankruptcy, suicide, and the selling of the family farm to bankers. That’s the reality of being a small farmer today.

Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst aren’t on your Side

Small farmers are largely not affected by the California rule or, at the worst, can fairly easily comply. That’s why a number of organizations that support small farmers filed briefs in favor of the California rule. The organizations that are badly hurt are CAFOs. They cannot easily change their operations to treat animals in a more humane fashion.

When Grassley, Ernst, and Clark begin their wailing and weeping they show their true colors. They are all for the destruction of the traditional family farm. They hate the family farm. They want the big CAFO and the big campaign contribution. This is largely the state of the Republican Party. People in rural communities are voting for politicians that actively work to destroy the family farm all the while lying and telling the farmers the exact opposite. It’s vile.

Your Vote Matters

If the rural community continue to support politicians like Grassley and Ernst then it gets exactly what it wants and exactly what it deserves.

Conclusion

I’m not telling you for whom to vote but I am saying there are alternatives. It’s easy to get into a mindset where one party is the cause of all your ills and you vote the opposite. Remember, there are third- and fourth-party choices who offer a different vision.

Tom Liberman

A Plus Sized Passenger on the Airline

Posted on by
Plus Sized Passenger

There’s an article making the rounds about a plus sized passenger who is unhappy she has to pay for two seats in order to fit into the airline seat. As you might suspect, comments are running pretty heavily against Jae’lynn Chaney. Most people think if she wants a free seat, she should simply lose some weight.

While I don’t disagree with the general sentiment, I do think there’s a larger issue at play here than simply Chaney’s weight.

Airline Seats

As most of you readers probably know, I’m a robust 5’ 7 1/2” tall and 160 lbs. of twisted steel and sex appeal. In other words, I’m short and thin. Airline seats are comfortable enough for me but not by a lot. I don’t have much room to either side and if anyone even moderately larger sits next to me it starts to be a squeeze.

I have tall friends and they aren’t happy with the seat size in airplanes. People are getting bigger and seats are getting smaller. That’s reality. If you’re a plus sized passenger or even just a tall person, it’s not comfortable to sit in them.

We all know the reason seats are shrinking. It’s to get more seats on the plane. More seats. More tickets to sell. At this point, I’d say the average person doesn’t find airplane seats comfortable.

Define a Plus Sized Passenger

This is where things get tricky. How do we define a plus sized passenger? If the average person in the United States cannot comfortably fit in the seat, is that the problem of the passenger or the airline?

If the airlines continue to shrink seats so almost no one can fit comfortably, should we all have to pay for two tickets?

Competition

Certainly, as a Libertarian, I think the airline can make the seats whatever size they want and charge people accordingly. It’d be nice if the government hadn’t subsidized air and car travel to the tune of trillions of dollars and we had competitive rail.

Sadly, that’s not reality. If we want to get from one place in the country to another in a reasonable amount of time, airplanes are pretty much our only choice. If you’re a plus sized passenger, you’re going to be uncomfortable or pay twice the rate.

Conclusion

It’s my opinion air travel has never been nor will ever be a profitable enterprise without government subsidies. We don’t have viable alternatives because the government squeezed passenger rail almost out of existence.

We’re stuck with ever decreasing seat sizes and uncomfortable travel. One day you’ll be the one who no longer fits in the seat.

Buy Marijuana in Missouri

Posted on by
Buy marijuana in Missouri

Everyone once in a while I need a reminder as to why I’m a Libertarian and my recent attempt to buy marijuana in Missouri gave me such. You see, I wasn’t trying to buy marijuana in Missouri for myself, that’s what the whiskey is for, I was trying to buy marijuana in Missouri for an 84-year-old woman with degenerative arthritis in her hip which causes chronic pain. Hint, it’s my mom.

Turned away. Why? Because I was buying for someone else. I can purchase recreational marijuana for myself. No problem. Credit card please. It’s for my mother who is in chronic pain, can’t walk, and can’t really get into the store without causing herself agony. Out you go, Tom. No demon gummies for you.

The Purpose of a Law

What is the purpose of this law? All I need do is go in and tell the clerk I’m buying it for myself. It’s not an impediment. This is the sort of thing that gets my Libertarian blood in a huff. A huff, I tell you. I rolled my eyes and left. I suppose I could have stayed and purchased the marijuana for myself but I figured I didn’t want to get the clerk in trouble. I’ll go back later.

Who Wrote this?

Someone wrote this law. A group of legislators voted to pass it. The governor signed it. I understand some people don’t like the fact marijuana is legal in the Missouri. That’s fine, at least that’s a defendable position, one I disagree with categorically, but at least an opinion.

Even if you oppose the sale of legal marijuana in Missouri you can’t possibly defend this nonsense. It’s totally useless. It does nothing. It stops nothing.

What could you do?

The simple solution is to limit the amount of marijuana I can buy. If I’m buying for ten people then this precludes me from purchasing so much. It’s still pretty stupid even then as the ten people can just come in themselves and buy it on their own, they don’t need me.

The Problem with the Law

My mother does need me to purchase because she isn’t particularly mobile. The only effect of this law is presumably to prevent me from buying marijuana for my mother, although, it obviously does not do that. Useless law.

Conclusion

Stupid laws are stupid. Legislators that pass stupid laws are stupid. Vote Libertarian.

Tom Liberman

Conservatives Screw Conservatives with CAFO Regulation

Posted on by
CAFO

I’m happy for the chance to use my Libertarian platform to defend rural farmers against conservative lawmakers in regard to CAFO regulations. Too often in the last few years I’ve found my Libertarian ideals deeply at odds with authoritarian so-called conservatives but this case brings us together. At least some of us.

At issue is legislation making it illegal for local counties to regulate CAFOs. The Missouri Supreme Court recently upheld the Missouri legislature’s law to that affect. The people fighting against this are largely rural farmers and landowners who do not want a CAFO on nearby land and wish to enforce sensible regulations on them.

What is a CAFO?

A CAFO is a concentrated animal feeding operation. Fun name. Disgusting result. Basically, industrial farms house tens of thousands of animals, or even a hundred thousand animals, at a single facility. This is done because it can be extremely profitable for the company doing so. This concentration of animals results in an enormous amount of manure. The manure contains nutrient pollution, pathogens, salts, odorous compounds, antibiotics, pesticide, and hormones.

The Danger of a CAFO

The danger in such a large concentration of animals at a single facility is obvious. The waste product as listed above can easily destroy the local ecosystem and the smell can be unbearable for neighbors. The air quality in the region of a CAFO brings health risks to anyone living nearby.

Then, of course, there is the reasonable concern for the welfare of animals. While they are to be slaughtered, the conditions in which they sometimes live their lives can not unfairly be described as vile.

In addition, these facilities largely drive down the price of meat and make it difficult for local farmers to make a living. Naturally, this is also a good thing in that consumers pay less for their dietary needs.

The State’s Role in a CAFO

It is the state’s obligation to pass laws in regards to CAFO safety. Laws in regard to how much waste a facility can dump, how it manages that waste, and how the animals are treated are in place.

Local Rule

In Missouri we have a Right to Farm. That means local counties can pass rules regarding how farming is in done in their region. Small farmers, generally conservative in their political beliefs, do not like having a CAFO in the region. This aligns them with environmentalists and animal rights activists, generally considered liberal groups.

The Missouri legislatures passed a law which makes it illegal for local counties to make any regulation on a CAFO stricter than the state’s own laws.

Naturally, the local farmers weren’t too happy about the state coming in and telling them what they can and cannot do. I agree wholeheartedly. Keep in mind I also agree when it comes to transgender issues or when the school year starts. This is where my Libertarian philosophy doesn’t run into any conflict. I think the local community has every right to pass regulations regarding things not protected in the Constitution of the United States.

If the local community wants to pass rules on a CAFO or a drag-show, it’s absolutely their constitutional right to do so. The state cannot, in my opinion, restrict this right. The Missouri Supreme Court thinks differently. They think the state can make rules for the country or municipality. This implies that state leaders know better than local leaders what the people of the region desire.

Conclusion

If the people of St. Louis City have no desire to outlaw drag shows then the state should have no power to overrule them. Likewise, if a rural community wants to restrict how a CAFO goes about their business, the state should not be able to overrule them.

If you are for one of those things but against the other, then you are neither a conservative or a liberal. I don’t know what you are, but I do know you’re not a Libertarian.

Tom Liberman

Tom Brady and FTX

Posted on by
Tom Brady and FTX

I don’t like Tom Brady. I’m convinced he and his teammates cheated the Rams out of a Super Bowl. I’m certain he was heavily involved in Deflategate. He left his pregnant wife for a super model. I don’t think he’s a good person. I think he’s a liar and a cheat.

There are now news stories he and his super model ex-wife were heavily invested in FTX and they might well face financial ruin. Am I happy about that? Does it make me feel good to see someone I dislike so intensely suffer? It’s a good question and I think it goes to the heart of a lot animosity we see in world today, particularly with politics.

Is the Tom Brady and FTX Misery my Joy?

The real question becomes, should I take joy in the misfortune of others if I don’t like them? I totally understand why people feel this way. If I don’t like a person then their misfortune makes me feel good. I’m guessing to feel this way is human, normal.

Then I start thinking about it a little more. Do I really want to be the person who cheers in joy when someone else is suffering? There is not only Tom Brady to think about. What about all those other investors in FTX who are suffering? People I don’t hate, probably people I like.

Then there is Brady’s family, his children, his friends. They also count on the money Brady provides to enjoy their life.

Should I feet bad about Tom Brady and FTX?

Taking into account the general misery of the entire situation and the total number of people affected, should I feel bad? I’ve spoken about the nature of Cryptocurrency scams. How the lure of easy money causes people to lose sight of their better judgement. How scammers steal from people with false promises.

Now Tom Brady is a victim, just like any other. I’ve written that I feel bad for people who are taken in by such scams but I also don’t excuse their greed. Tom Brady, like a lot of other people, got greedy. Maybe it was his financial advisors, maybe it was all Brady, I don’t know. Someone got greedy and is paying the price.

I feel bad for Brady and others, I do. It’s a terrible blow to lose your fortune like Kevin Bacon and so many others did in trusting Bernie Madoff. This disaster might well have played a role in Brady’s divorce, his decision to return to the football field and risk his health. Lack of money, or the pursuit of it, makes people do things they don’t want to do, sometimes dangerous things.

I really do feel bad for Brady.

The Bigger Picture

It’s my opinion this wishing ill upon people we don’t like his problematic in the United States these days. Every time I see thousands of likes on stories where a Democrat or a Republican figure suffers misfortune I think about it. Thousands of people relishing the horrific car crash that killed Anne Heche. Why are so many people happy to see those they dislike suffer, die? Suffering is terrible. I wish we lived in a world where no one suffered.

I’m not the most empathetic person in the world. I don’t feel the suffering of others. I’m far more intellectually inclined. Still, I do feel bad for Brady. I don’t like him, never will, but I get that his suffering isn’t my happiness. Anyone’s suffering is not my happiness.

Conclusion

Does this all make me a better person? I actually think so. I think people who relish in the suffering of those they dislike are not doing themselves or anyone else any good. I certainly understand it’s human nature. Believe me, when I first heard Brady may have lost his fortune, it made me smile. “Good,” I said. “No one deserves it more.”

Then I started to think about it and changed my mind. Maybe you can do the same when you see the misfortune of someone from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Maybe you can admonish friends who do the same. Maybe you can’t.

Tom Liberman

Gambling is a Problem for a Libertarian

Posted on by
Gambling

I’ve written on the topic of gambling numerous times over the years and generally from the perspective of a Libertarian. That is to say, it’s your money and how you choose to spend it is up to you.

That being said, I’ve seen the destructive potential inherent in gambling from when I worked in the golf industry. Even then I thought the problem so wide-spread and influential on young golfers that I made a point not to gamble just to be a possible role-model.

Gambling in the United States is now easily accessible to just about everyone. Casinos are everywhere. Video games have Loot Boxes. Smart phones give access to betting games at all times of the day and night. Problem Gambling is an incredibly destructive addiction and, with greater access to gambling, more people are affected.

What’s a Libertarian to say about Gambling?

In various blogs on the subject my position is fairly clear. The government should not be in the business of enforcing gambling bans and putting people in prison for gambling. If people want to gamble, they will find a way and the prohibitions only create black markets and misery.

I also think government shouldn’t be facilitating gambling. Government should tax gambling houses in the same way it collects revenue from any other store. The rational being the government provides roads, utilities, and other things necessary for the operation of the store. The only special tax on gambling should be used to fund treatment facilities.

State run lotteries are antithetical to my understanding of how government should operate. They should not exist.

Problem Gambling

The reason I’m writing this article is the increase in problem gambling. It’s a serious problem. Gambling addiction is real and it destroys lives. The greater access we have to gambling, the more lives are destroyed.

Prior to 1979, gambling was largely in the hands of the states and quite restricted. With the advent of Native American Gaming, that all changed. Soon lotteries followed, video poker, sports gambling, and more.

As a child, I remember reading the raffle games rules on the back of cereal boxes. Not valid in Missouri was often in the footer text. Such games were illegal in my state. Not anymore, not by a long-shot.

I’m not going to try to pretend because I’m a Libertarian and support legal gambling that it’s all wine and roses. It’s not. It’s a big problem and growing fast. It’s likely you know a problem gambler, I’ve known a few over the years.

What’s a Libertarian to do?

Where does that leave me? Should I change my mind and support prohibitions on gambling? Can I just pretend the people who suffer terribly in part because I advocated for gambling don’t exist? That their problems are not my fault, not my business?

My position is not simple or easy. As I’ve mentioned before, I think Critical Thinking skills must be taught to children starting at the earliest levels of education and reinforced every year thereafter. These lessons must include the basic principles of gambling. How it affects the human mind, the methods used to entice gamblers.

Biology classes should discuss the release of Serotonin and Dopamine into the human brain and why some people are much more likely to become addicts.

Treatment

Facilities for treating gambling addiction are on the rise, as can be expected, and that’s a good thing. As I mentioned above, I don’t think it unreasonable to have added taxes on gambling to fund these places.

Conclusion

I don’t think banning gambling works and I’m strongly opposed to the government funding itself from gambling. Banning gambling means those who are capable of doing it responsibly cannot do something they enjoy.

The only real solution is not a complete solution at all. It relies on educating people to the potential dangers, giving them the information they need, and then trusting those individuals to make good decisions.

Will this solve problem gambling? No. People will still make bad decisions. Brain chemistry will still bring on addictions. People will suffer and partially because I advocate legal gambling. I bear some responsibility for this enormous problem and that’s why I say gambling is a problem for a Libertarian.

Tom Liberman

The Twitter lesson: Workers and Management

Posted on by
Twitter Lesson

There’s a Twitter lesson to learned and it involves both workers and management. A lot of my friends find delight in the apparent demise of Twitter and I can’t say I blame them. I find it an interesting opportunity to examine the relationship of workers and management to the success of a business endeavor.

It seems to me; most people are not learning the correct Twitter lesson. A large group of people blame Musk for the ongoing situation. A second group blames lazy workers not willing to put forth enormous effort to save the company. What’s the reality? Let this Libertarian answer all your questions.

Twitter’s Problems

In order to determine the appropriate Twitter lesson, we need to fully understand the difficulties the company faces. Twitter was never immensely profitable. It had a couple of good years where income exceeded expenses but it largely lost money. Now, add the enormous loans new owner Elon Musk must pay back and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the company is in deep trouble.

This being the case, the simplest solution in these situations is always to cut payroll. That means firing people. So many people the platform is barreling toward destruction. This solution means Musk must hope his remaining employees will do the jobs of two or more people while still earning their current salary.

I wrote about when this sort of expectation can work in an article about Reciprocity if you’d like to read that. I’m not going to discuss it further here.

What is the Twitter Lesson?

With one side calling workers lazy and the other blaming Musk for his business decision it seems like one of those two things must be the Twitter lesson, right? Wrong.

So many people want to blame lazy workers and so many people want to blame bad management. It’s the same when a business succeeds. Half the people want to give the credit to management for financing the operation, hiring the people, creating the business. A second group of people claim it is the workers who achieve the success. It is their efforts that build value.

The problem is both groups are right and wrong at the same time. The business owner who comes up with an idea, hires people, takes out loans, and builds a company should be lauded for this effort. It’s dangerous from a financial point of view and she or he should be praised. Meanwhile, the workers who buy into the vision and perform the day-to-day tasks are absolutely vital to success. Without them there is nothing.

This seems very obvious to me and I think most people, after reading this, will agree. Yet, before reading this, people eagerly and vocally assign all the credit to the owner or to the workers, ignoring the cooperation between the two groups required.

That’s the Twitter lesson. It’s workers and management that lead to success and to failure. Sure, in this case, Musk badly overvalued Twitter and took out a big enough loan that success became a near-impossible task.

Crony Capitalism

The entire situation is further complicated by the fact politicians now pass laws and extend financial aid to favor one company or attack another. This Crony Capitalism is something I’ve talked about elsewhere but it is part of the equation.

The reality is Musk’s previous ventures were largely financed by taxpayers. Government agencies gave him direct money and tax breaks. That fact plays no small part in what is happening today but is, perhaps, a topic for another day.

Conclusion

My conclusion is pretty simple. A business does not succeed or fail solely because of workers or management. Good managers and good executives value their employees’ contributions. Good employees recognize that management and executives want the business to succeed and often have to make difficult decisions.

Tom Liberman

Hard Work without Reciprocity at Twitter

Posted on by
Reciprocity

The fallout from the Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter is all over the news and a story about Musk demanding hardcore work from his employees brought to my mind the concept of reciprocity.

The idea of reciprocity is fairly simple. If you do me a favor, I feel an obligation to return that favor. It’s sort of like a personal version of the Social Contract I wrote about a while back. In this case, Musk is asking his employees to work considerably harder, whatever that means, in order to save the company.

The Reactions

While reading comments, I found that reactions largely come in two flavors. The majority of people argue hard work is expected and if the employees don’t like it, tough. Get out. On the other hand, some argue that overworking your employees is not a recipe for a successful company.

Does Musk ask for Reciprocity without Giving it?

My thoughts are probably closer to the second group but my real problem with Musk’s ultimatum is simply the expectation of reciprocity. I’m of the opinion Musk has a long record of working his employees hard and taking more than the lion’s share of the profits for himself.

He fired nearly four thousand Twitter employees largely without bothering to even look at the work they do. He fired people without notice. He implemented policies that ended doing far more harm than good.

I see no evidence Musk will reward hard-working employees who work enormous hours of overtime. If, by some miracle, Twitter begins to turn a profit, Musk will take most of the money for himself.

Working Hard with Reciprocity

Don’t get me wrong. If you work for a struggling company and have confidence the owner will work with you, reward you for your efforts, pay you when profits return; I’m all for working extra hard. If you don’t believe your boss will do so, all you’re doing is giving the boss your money. Your time is money, your money, not the boss’s money. Yours. A boss who tells you that you must work extra hours without pay and doesn’t plan on giving you a reward at the end of the day is stealing from you.

Working Hard without Reciprocity

It’s hard for me to imagine anyone thinking Musk is the sort of person who gives reciprocity. He threatened the same work hard or go bankrupt scenario with SpaceX not long ago. He ran SolarCity into bankruptcy. The much-famed Hyperloop is now abandoned along with all the people who poured their hard work into it.

The Boring company is a mess. The Gigafactory in Germany is largely unable to start because of water issues of which he was warned, long in advance. I could go on.

Conclusion

I am not telling Twitter employees how to react to this offer. That’s their business. If they believe Musk will eventually reward them for working long hours, if they think said work can somehow save Twitter, have at it. They have families, obligations, quitting is not an easy thing to do.

I’m just saying, if you give something, the other party isn’t obligated to reciprocity. In this case, I wouldn’t expect it.

Tom Liberman

The Pump and Dump Suicide of Gustavo Arnal

Posted on by
Gustavo Arnal

An alleged Pump and Dump scheme led the Chief Financial Officer of Bed, Bath & Beyond, Gustavo Arnal, to kill himself by leaping from a New York Skyscraper. This suicide is a symptom of an untrustworthy market environment destroying lives all across this country, and not just for CFOs like Gustavo Arnal.

Heavily involved in the death of Gustavo Arnal is GameStop Corp. Chairman Ryan Cohen who allegedly convinced Gustavo Arnal to engage in the pump and dump scheme, only to sell out his shares for a massive profit.

I don’t much care about Gustavo Arnal or Ryan Cohen to be honest. If what is said about them is true, they are thieves and, frankly, murderers. What I do care about is the complete bankruptcy of ethics in the stock market that destroys the lives of many citizens of this country.

What Happened

Gustavo Arnal and Ryan Cohen reportedly created an artificial interest in purchasing Bed, Bath & Beyond shares. The did this in a number of ways but the important thing here isn’t the details, but the result. They hoped to make millions of dollars by selling their own shares of the stock at inflated prices. The stock went from $4.38 per share to over $30 per share over the course of about a month.

The Result

The result of all of this is quite predictable. Cohen, who sold his shares, made a huge amount of money. Now, I’m a big believer in capitalism so you’d think I’d say, good for him. Well done. Not in this case. In this case the price of the stock went up not because the company showed any signs of being more valuable, but simply because people were manipulated into thinking they could get rich.

The problem is not that Cohen got richer, it’s this money came largely from average investors who trusted the false information they were fed. Many people lost money they cannot afford to lose. This money was, for all practical purposes, stolen from them.

Caveat Emptor

Let the buyer beware. I agree. The people who bought into the Bed, Bath & Beyond stock manipulation should have known better. My financial advisors were not fooled. I lost no money. That being said, stupidity does not excuse fraud and theft. What Gustavo Arnal and Ryan Cohen are accused of doing was not only illegal but it was highly unethical and extremely harmful.

Pump and Dump is Rampant

This sort of stock manipulation is rampant in the market. People are losing their life savings in cryptocurrency scams, penny stock manipulations, and more. Celebrities, influencers, politicians, and more are leaping at the chance to steal from you to enrich themselves. It’s working.

Prison

Now, finally, law enforcement is catching up to those who engage in this behavior. Charges are being filed, lawsuits are pending, and people are going to jail. That doesn’t help someone who lost their child’s college fund or their retirement nest egg. That money is largely gone and will never, ever come back to anyone except a few law firms who successfully sue the thieves.

Solutions

One of the things I try to avoid here is simply laying blame without providing solutions. The solution here is multilayered. Law enforcement stepping in is a good thing but there will always be scammers when people can be scammed. There will always be drug dealers when people want drugs. The enforcement and interdiction side of the equation is the smaller part of the battle.

What must happen to stop this is people learning and applying critical thinking skills. I’ve written a number of articles touching on the topic which I’d encourage you to peruse.

We cannot stop people from stealing when millions of dollars are available for the taking. For everyone we arrest, five more will take their place. Cutting the head off the snake does no good. It is only when people learn to think critical and not let the allure of riches cloud their judgment that we will leave this scourge behind.

It is a scourge, of that there is no doubt. The suffering engendered by pump and dump schemes cuts a wide swathe across this country. From urban to rural. From farmers to fast food workers. People lose more than their money, they lose hope. They lose faith in the system.

Tom Liberman

The Government funds itself like a Loan Shark

Posted on by
Loan Shark

I just read an interesting article about five million dollars in late fees that sums up why the government is largely nothing more than a mobbed-up loan shark, bleeding citizens for all their money. In Branson, Missouri, there are four customers who have an outstanding sewage bill of $19,000. With the late fee tacked on top of this, they now owe over five million dollars.

The government has no incentive to make you pay your bills, they want you to rack up fees. It’s not only for utilities, as in the story in question, but it’s driving the Student Loan Crisis. It’s the main reason law enforcement issues as many fines as possible. It’s rampant in private business as well. It largely caused the housing bubble crisis.

How a Loan Shark makes Money

It’s pretty easy to be a loan shark and the methodology isn’t difficult to understand. Basically, get someone to owe you money for whatever reason. Then allow them to pay in installments with an interest fee tacked on. Then simply let your client pay the minimum amount so that the principle never gets paid down.

This is called a predatory loan and the reason loan sharks used them is because government, banks, and established businesses, at one point, refused to loan to someone who could not eventually pay it back. Times have changed.

Envy of the Loan Shark

In modern times the government, in the form of utilities, city fees, penalties, traffic and parking violations, student loans, licensing, and anything else they can think of; uses the loan shark methodology. Why? Because it works.

Sure, a lot of your loans will never be repaid but that’s the cost of doing business and business is booming. Once you’ve bled your mark for more than the principle loaned it’s all gravy at that point. This is how government survives. Penalties, over-due fees, escalating and leading you to bankruptcy. At the end of it all, in the case of this article, they simple turn off your water, having collected far more than was owed. Win!

The Causes

The cause of all this is complicated to be sure but a big part of it is increasing government expenditures largely related to infrastructure and lowering of taxes as a political win. The government simply doesn’t have enough revenue from taxes to pay their bills. Government’s innovative solution was to become a loan shark. They might claim there is a surplus, as here in my home state of Missouri, but this is just an excuse to lower principle taxes for wealthy people, while sticking it to poor people with increased fees.

The Solution

Good luck, there isn’t a solution. Almost every level of government, local, state, and federal; is leveraged up to their ears in loans. Just keeping up with infrastructure maintenance takes up the entire yearly budget. It is never going to be able to pay back the principle. Government takes money from citizens to pay off their own masters, the banks.

Meanwhile, they create misery for an increasing percentage of the population that lives month to month. Is it any wonder people are angry? Their anger is, of course, completely misdirected. They want to blame the politicians on the other side of the aisle.

The job of government is to improve the lives of citizens. Our government has failed.

Tom Liberman

Can you Ban your Cake and Eat it Too?

Posted on by
Cake

I just read an interesting article about a restaurant that charges a fee to bring your own cake. It’s tearing up the internet and it gives me a chance to focus on my Libertarian ideology for the first time in a while.

The question is fairly basic. A restaurant doesn’t want you bringing your own cake, food, or beverages to consume. Almost all restaurants have a corkage fee for bringing in your own wine and no one really has a problem with this. The fee in question at the unnamed London restaurant was £10 per person at the table. It was a birthday celebration with a dozen people and I’ll leave the math to you.

In any case, my question today is if the fee is justified.

£120 for a Cake

The sticking point largely seems to be the high price for the cake. Most people seem to agree that some fee is in order but a great deal of debate on the amount is raging. The price does seem rather high to me but, that being said, it is replacing twelve desserts. I can easily see each dessert running around that individual price.

In other words, I absolutely see both sides of the argument. I do understand the restaurant is out the price of all those desserts but, on the other hand, they’ve made a tidy profit on the rest of the dinner. A table of twelve at a celebration is certainly going to eat a lot of food with appetizers, mains, and drinks. Is it worth it to alienate good customers with such a policy?

The Internet is Divided

Based on the comments I read, the internet seems fairly divided on the topic. I certainly understand both points of view as I mentioned. However, this is where my Libertarian ideology turns such conundrums from difficult to simple.

While most of the commenters put forward various arguments in support of the restaurant and against it, my answer is easy and came to me even before I finished the article. I’m sure most of you loyal readers already know exactly what I’m going to write.

The Libertarian Cake Answer

The restaurant is well within their rights to charge an extra fee for bringing a cake onto the premises and substituting it for desserts ordered on site. The customer is equally within their rights to resent the fee and refuse to eat at the restaurant again, cake or not.

That’s where life gets pretty simple for a Libertarian. It’s clearly not a situation in which the government should intervene although I suspect a bi-partisan panel of “conservatives” and “liberals” will introduce legislation to ban charges for bringing your own cake. They will tout the legislation as common sense and good for the children who get to eat the cake. Afterall, we must protect the children!

Conclusion

Putting aside the sarcasm for a moment, though it pains me; if the restaurant wants to charge whatever amount for bringing your own cake, that’s their business. If the customers decide they’d rather eat somewhere else, that’s their prerogative as well.

That is all. Continue with your daily lives and don’t forget to stop and taste the cake.

Tom Liberman

My Story with Imperia Vodka

Posted on by
Imperia Vodka

With the disgusting invasion of the Ukraine by Russia, a number of politicians ordered banning the sale of vodka produced in Russia. I’d like to talk about that today. I’m more of a whiskey and gin drinker but before covid one of my favorite neighborhood hangouts was Sub-Zero Vodka bar.

The thing I’d like to address today is if banning the sale of Russian Vodka is an appropriate response by various parties, the government, a tavern, my friends, and myself. It’s an interesting question for a Libertarian from the perspective of its legality and usefulness.

How I met Imperia and Hammer and Sickle Vodka

Ah, the good old days of Sub-Zero. My favorite bartender, Cailyn, introduced me to two premium vodkas, Imperia and Hammer and Sickle. Both are produced by Russian Standard. They accurately belong in the category of actual Russian vodka, unlike many of the brands being boycotted.

I spent many a pleasant hour snuggled up to the second bar sipping on icy-cold Imperia, or Hammer and Sickle when the aforementioned wasn’t in stock. The second bar because the ice top to the main bar proved more of a nuisance than a benefit, and the side bar was generally Cailyn’s station.

What if Sub-Zero was Still Open?

Sadly, Sub-Zero closed but what if I could still walk over? Would I order an Imperia? Do I think the mayor of St. Louis or the governor of Missouri should ban Russian vodka? Should the owners of Sub-Zero refuse to sell the vodka?

As complex as the question might be, my answer is pretty simple. I’d find a Ukrainian vodka to drink. That being said, if the owner continued to sell Imperia and Hammer and Sickle, I’d still patronize that establishment. I suspect, knowing what I know, they would likely stop selling it but that’s their business. I also wouldn’t give anyone else a dirty look or yell at them if they chose to order Imperia or Hammer and Sickle.

One of the important lessons I learned in my four years at the University of Idaho was not to criticize the way someone else goes about their business.

On the other hand, there is no way local, state, or federal government needs to get their sticky hands involved in the situation. It’s just not the business of government to tell me which vodka to drink or a business owner which vodka to sell.

This is what small government means. Sub-Zero can refuse to sell a brand of vodka or refuse to let me in if I’m not wearing a mask. They are a private business and the government has no business telling them what they can or cannot sell or telling them how to enforce a dress code.

What if Russian Standard hates Putin?

This is an important question. What if the owners of Russian Standard oppose Vladimir Putin and his amoral war? What if by not drinking their vodka, I actually help Putin by bankrupting those who oppose him?

This is the general problem with feel-good boycotts. When a boycott becomes some Cause Célèbre it ends up hurting many of the people it is designed to help. Meanwhile the self-righteous boycotters pat themselves on the back for a job well done. It’s a false sense of doing good when often you’re doing harm and it’s prevalent on both the Republican and Democrat sides of the aisle.

Conclusion

It’s entirely possible by not drinking Imperia or Hammer and Sickle I might be hurting a manufacturer that doesn’t support Putin. It’s also possible they are ardent Putin backers. I don’t know and I don’t care. I find what’s happening to be disgusting and wrong and I’m not drinking Russian vodka because of it.

Maybe I’ll never drink another glass of Imperia or Hammer and Sickle. That’s my business, not yours and not the government’s.

Tom Liberman

Sweet Drinks Advertised Deceptively

Posted on by
Sweet Drinks

I just read an interesting article about how beverage manufacturers advertise sweet drinks directly to children. This advertising, along with lower prices, steers consumers to those products. This is aided by deceptive labeling on bottles that confuse parents.

When children consume sweet drinks, they become unhealthier. There is no question about the link between poor diet and health. There is also no question that advertising works. Advertising designed to make a product appealing to a child does so. Labeling designed to fool people does so.

The question the article poses is if government has any role in all of this. I’ve certainly written about the role of government in sweet drinks in the past. Taxes were my topic of discussion at that time but today I want to talk more about regulation.

Regulating Sweet Drinks

As a Libertarian I’m not as opposed to regulation as you might think. I think false and misleading advertising definitely fall under the purview of criminality and the government. The problem is that we have laws to prevent false labeling and false advertising and, as usual, manufacturers find ways to bypass those laws.

It’s incredibly difficult to create an effective law to modify human behavior. We often see a law designed with the best intentions ending up being more harmful than that which it purports to stop. We need go no further than the War on Drugs to see this.

Deceptive Advertising and Labeling

If we examine the picture included in this blog you see Glaceau vitamin water with a label clearly reading Naturally Sweetened. We also see a wonderful reference to electrolytes which any fan of Idiocracy will appreciate. A perusal of the nutritional content on the back reveals a large amount of sugar in the drinks.

What is naturally anyway? If companies are not allowed to use the world naturally or electrolytes, they will find other deceptive words, it’s an endless cat and mouse game. That’s the problem with trying to regulate human behavior, be it through the War on Drugs or buzzwords like Organic and Naturally.

Companies will find ways around your rules.

The Goal

What we want is people to have healthier diets. If people have healthier diets, it is good for our society. Our healthcare system is largely broken. In part because of the enormous number of unhealthy people in this country. People, particularly poor people in rural areas, need the services of Doctors without Borders as if we were a Third World Country. I hesitate to use the words “as if” but I don’t want to get into that debate today.

The Solution

The manufacturer loves obfuscating the product and does so with misleading labels and advertising that comes right to the edge of legality. No matter how much we try to regulate this, companies will find a way.

I’m convinced the most helpful remedies to the problem lie with us, with the store owner. Don’t stock sweet drinks on the same shelf as unsweetened drinks is one that comes to my mind. One shelf is marked Sweetened and the other marked Unsweetened. If the store owner refuses, if the manufacturer pays extra to be on a certain shelf, there’s not much to be done, unfortunately.

I don’t think there are magical solutions to these problems but I also think individuals can focus on both informing the consumer and making the world a better place. Go to your local grocer and ask if they’ll separate the sweet drinks onto their own shelf, the worst that can happen is you’re told no.

Tom Liberman

Comments on Trucking Capacity Article

Posted on by
Trucking capacity

I saw an interesting headline about long haul trucking capacity. I then read the article about long-haul truck drivers being seriously under-utilized. After reading the article I got to the comments section. That’s what I want to talk about today, the comments on the article.

The comments seemed largely based on the headline rather than the article. The headline indicated some 40% of trucking capacity is not used on any given day. The part of the headline that seemed triggering for many was the person proclaiming this is an MIT expert.

What you talking about, Willis? Some MIT expert thinks he knows better than blue-collar, hard-working, good old boy trucking industry people how to run their company! Damn liberal, educated no-nothing! I’m going to give them a piece of my mind!

Overview

I admit I immediately jumped to the same conclusions as a lot of the commenters. Did the MIT expert want the truck drivers to drive more hours? Were the schedules that badly messed up? Wouldn’t the industry experts know how to properly schedule? Aren’t there laws about how much a long-haul trucker is allowed to drive in a day?

My confusion was cleared up once I took the time to read the article. A point many of the commenters failed to do. The MIT expert explains the biggest problem in trucking capacity under-utilization is loading and unloading the trucks early in the morning and late in the afternoon.

Apparently getting a truck fully loaded in a timely fashion at any other time than 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Monday through Friday is a serious problem. This is particularly detrimental in the morning because it throws off delivery times and pick up times for loads the rest of the day.

The Comments

The comments, as you might expect, went after the MIT expert as an educated elite who didn’t have a clue about what he spoke. I read a lot of ad-hominem attacks, working-man indignation, and general you don’t know what you’re talking about comments.

Then I started to come across comments from actual long-haul truckers. These comments showed unanimous support for the MIT expert. They all confirmed the problem of loading in a timely fashion causing trucking capacity shortfalls on a massive scale. The truckers provided anecdotal evidence that rang true to my ears. They not only confirmed the MIT expert but indicated their complaints about this problem were long standing and
largely unaddressed.

Congress

The article then went on to explain what Congress planned to do about the problem. None of the solutions presented addressed the actual issue. Most of the solutions being pursued involved more drivers and more women drivers.

This is a bang for your buck issue. I’m not saying we don’t need more drivers or more women drivers. I’m saying listen to the expert and listen to the actual long-haul truckers. If you want to solve your trucking capacity problem, go after the largest issue first.

In addition, government might consider getting out of the way in regards to automated cars and trucks. Our online society is moving away from the brick-and-mortar store model. We want to order goods and have them delivered to our door. If we don’t address the capacity issue in a pragmatic and realistic way this problem is only going to get worse.

Conclusion

While the problem of trucking capacity is real, my actual goal today is to shame you armchair experts, unlike the MIT expert. You made an assumption based on a headline and didn’t bother to do any research into the actual issue.

Why didn’t you bother to read the article? You spouted off without knowing what you were talking about. Exactly what you accuse the MIT expert of doing.

My verdict? You, pompous commenter, are guilty!

Tom Liberman