The moderates strike back

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323734304578544912995560792.html

The presidential election in Iran is set to finish at the first round, if moderate reformist Hasan Rowhani manages to preserve the surprising 52% lead that he has taken as of now. And this sudden and apparent outburst of democracy might come as a surprise to those who are not very familiar with the peculiarities of Iranian politics.

According to the polls, Rawhani is leading pretty comfortably with about half of the ballots being counted. If the margin is preserved, the Iranian election might not need to go into a second round. Otherwise, if none of the candidates gets absolute majority, the second vote would be next Friday, and it'll be contested between the top two candidates.

( Read more )

Edit: Rowhani has been confirmed the new Iranian president.

Adventures in Overregulation, Continued

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I haven't had a ton of time to do much posting as of late, but two stories have been sitting open in my tabs that I wanted to share, both of which speak to a problem I've been talking about as well as a problem I haven't been talking enough about.

The first involves Uber, which is a newish app that connects users of the app with cars for hire. Why is Uber becoming such a problem for so many cities? Cass Sunstein explains:

In some cities, Uber’s services are limited to town cars, which are luxurious and cost more than standard taxis. Some people are willing to pay extra for one. Others aren’t delighted by the higher price. In some cities, you can use the app to order a taxi at the usual rate. The difference between Uber and the standard taxi service is that you can be essentially certain that the taxi is coming and when it will be there.

...

The basic problem is that the taxi industry is intensely regulated. One goal of regulation isn’t to protect consumers. It is to entrench current providers and to limit competition.

With respect to taxis, some states have a system that isn’t altogether different from socialist-style planning. Some longstanding regulations have the purpose and effect of squelching new entrants. And in the face of fresh competition, the industry has been creative and occasionally shameless.

Effectively, the existing taxi services have such a stranglehold on these cities that they do not want Uber to push in on their services even though their services aren't exactly similar, or, in some really interesting cases, where they are similar, they don't want Uber because of its impact on the market for taxis period. Regulations allegedly designed to protect consumers are really only in place in this case to protect the existing taxi companies who don't want the extra competition, especially since competitive pricing is regulated as well.

Another company, Airbnb, is also running into some regulatory issues. Airbnb allows common people to essentially rent out their homes or apartments while they're away, or during major events (a friend in Austin makes a killing on Airbnb during South by Southwest, for example). Airbnb ran into problems with another regulation that exists ostensibly to protect renters:

The city initially asked host Nigel Warren to pay $7,000 total in fees for violating a law that makes it illegal for property owners to rent out homes temporarily -- essentially mimicking hotel stays -- and for unrelated issues with building and zoning codes, according to the decision and order issued by the board.

...

The New York case is centered around a 2011 law that makes it illegal for New York residents to rent out a property for less than 29 days. It was originally aimed at landlords who bought up residential properties and turned them into hotels.

Airbnb and Uber are not the only innovations in place that benefit consumers, hurt the established order, and are hung up or being badgered by state and local governments due to outdated, protectionist regulations. San Francisco is trying to pass regulations on food trucks designed not for safety or consumer benefit, but solely to give brick-and-mortar restaurants a competitive advantage under the guise of "fairness," the issue with Defense Distributed and 3D printed weapons, and so on.

This is why I'm skeptical of giving the government more power. This is why I'm thinking we need fewer regulations as opposed to more. Who, exactly, benefits from these regulations? Most of the time, it sure isn't us.