Two states have regulations for when stores can say their products are on sale. The Boston Globe editorializes:
This is a perfect example of a problem that the market can sort out on its own. If there’s one thing 21st century shoppers don’t lack, it’s information. The task of determining whether a “sale’’ is really a sale is best left to comparison-shopping consumers, not the authorities. And given the popularity of websites dedicated to nothing but price-watching and -comparing, doing so is easier than it has ever been. If a store offers an obviously phony promotion, it will be duly punished by its customers. The state needn’t pile on.
(Hat tip to Jonathan Moore)
Here’s my letter published in the Oct. 25th edition of the Boston Globe responding to an editorial advocating the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency:
Your editorial, “To Fix Financial System, Protect Consumers First”, claims that a Consumer Financial Protection Agency will prevent a “recurrence” of the “financial pathology” that caused the banking crisis. But the source of that “financial pathology” was bad government policy, and your editorial calls for more of it.
Government subsidized toxic mortgages through entities like Fannie Mae and mandated many of them through laws like the Community Reinvestment Act. Government imposes entry barriers to the market for new banks. As a result, existing banks claimed a greater market share than would have been possible in a free market, becoming too big to fail.
Also, contrary to the Globe’s claims, Frank’s bill would give the new agency power over many non-financial businesses who can be said to “extend credit,” probably including merchants with layaway plans. It would also give state attorneys general unique power to interpret Federal law and hire private plaintiff lawyers to harass Main Street businesses.
When government subsidized, regulated, and protected banks caused the crisis, why regulate Main Street businesses that had nothing to do with the crisis?
Jonathan Moore
Research Associate
Competitive Enterprise Institute
CEI’s own Wayne Crews is quoted in the Boston Globe this morning, explaining why real competition — not government-mandated ‘openness’ — is the best way to promote consumer choice.
Wayne takes issue with Ben Scott of Free Press, who describes cellular data access as “a classical net neutrality issue.’’ Apparently placing legal burdens on any new web platform is Mr. Scott’s strategy for encouraging the spread of mobile internet access…