Friday, September 17, 2010


Ryan Ryals of the Covington Reporter has a great answer to the few beer and wine producers who pout that they are somehow deserving of current "legal protections" (which are unique to alcoholic beverages, but irrelevant to public health and safety considerations): "Follow the liquor money and decide on intiatives"
“But we need the current laws to protect the little guys!”, they might say. Well, what about other markets? I’d like to make a breakfast cereal called Ryan’s Raisin Flakes, which would be made here in Washington. However, I can’t compete with Kellogg’s and Post for shelf space, and their prices are far lower than I can sell my cereal for.

Should we make some new protectionist cereal laws so that I can employ 20 people to make Ryan’s Raisin Flakes? Should the state start opening breakfast cereal stores, and restricting wholesale cereal prices so I can compete? If you said no, then please tell us why you don’t support jobs in Washington.

And that’s the biggest argument you hear whenever a protectionist law is lifted; “We’re going to lose jobs in our state”. Yup, we probably will. But are those jobs worth saving? They’re artificially supported by higher prices charged to you and me, which are more like hidden taxes
Ryals concludes:
You can tell that I’m in favor of this initiative [I-1100], but please research it and decide for yourself. And remember, public safety and health are not at risk here; this whole issue is only about money. Where do you want your money to go? 

No comments:

Post a Comment