PA considering online gambling ... bill introduced to committee

Story here.

The problem with this bill is that it's only "intra-state", i.e., it will be only within Pennsylvania.  For poker, the player pool will therefore be extremely limited, and I would be initially doubtful of that site's reliability.  

This line gives me some hope, however ...

"Pennsylvania would not be opposed to considering interstate compacts with other states, such as Nevada, in the future"

More on Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board

1.  The American Economic Review had an article about the PLCB:

Volume 103, issue 2, 2013

Public Monopoly and Economic Efficiency: Evidence from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board's Entry Decisions pp. 831-62 

By: Katja Seim and Joel Waldfogel

It shows an interesting model (well, economists may find it interesting), but the conclusion makes it clear that this paper has no relevance to the current debate on whether to privatize.  

In the conclusion, the authors discuss how their model assumes that government run stores are as efficient as non-government run stores.  I.e., they don't assume the case where government stores are less efficient.  That's the main argument for abolishing the PLCB: that these stores are inefficient and it likely would take fewer workers to sell the same amount of beer and wine if there was more competition.  So ... while the paper has interesting models, it unfortunately has zero bearing on the current debate.

2. As you may recall, the PA house passed a bill to privatize liquor sales.  Now the PA Senate is considering the bill.  

3.  A nice (new) oped on the issue.  Here's my old oped on the issue.

My oped on the prevailing wage

My oped on the prevailing wage law (and repealing it) ran in Sunday's Harrisburg Patriot News.

Link here.

An excerpt:

"Both Democrats and Republicans should want to eliminate the prevailing wage law, although for different reasons. While Democrats often want an expansion of government services and Republicans often want a smaller government, both parties should want our government to be efficient."

Assorted Links on Fracking

1. Tim Kelsey from Penn State comments in a story here ....


2. An article from the UK.  A quote from an MP here ... 

"It is still too soon to call whether shale gas will provide the silver bullet needed to solve our energy problems. Although the US shale gas has seen a dramatic fall in domestic gas prices, a similar ‘revolution’ here is not certain"


3.  The EPA reports lowers estimates of the environmental damage from Fracking - apparently from their regulations.  You should read the whole article, but here's an excerpt:

"Experts on both sides of the debate say the leaks can be controlled by fixes such as better gaskets, maintenance and monitoring. Such fixes are also thought to be cost-effective, since the industry ends up with more product to sell.

"That is money going up into the air," said Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, adding he isn't surprised the EPA's new data show more widespread use of pollution control equipment. Pielke noted that the success of the pollution controls also means that the industry "probably can go further" in reducing leaks.

Representatives of the oil and gas industry said the EPA revisions show emissions from the fracking boom can be managed.

"The methane `leak' claim just got a lot more difficult for opponents" of natural gas, noted Steve Everley, with Energy In Depth, an industry-funded group.

In a separate blog post, Everley predicted future reductions, too."

The need for objective research on fracking ...

There's controversy in NY about a group that released a fracking report and their potential industry ties.  Story here.

A quote:

"The state released the company’s letter after a top good-government group and Democrats in the Legislature held a news conference earlier Monday, calling called on Gov. Andrew Cuomo to rescind the DEC’s’s lengthy review of fracking because of Ecology and Environment’s “clear conflict of interest.”

"The consulting company’s work on the DEC’s lengthy environmental review has been criticized by fracking critics since it was released in September 2011."


Of course, these Democrats and the "good-government group" (whatever that means) don't like fracking, so they have a conflict of interest too, right?
 

I have no idea whether this report has merit. However, the problem with research on fracking is that it is so controversial many will believe there is a conflict of interest, regardless of the opinion.  If you have ties to the industry, that will cause some who have concerns over the validity of the research.  I don't think this is limited to groups with ties to industry, however. Some of the people without industry ties that have condcuted research on fracking publish it on sites calling for bans or moratoriums. (E.g., see here.)  This causes others to have concerns over the validity of the research.


As noted before, myself and Dave Ramsaran, professor of Sociology, are researching the sociological and economic impacts of fracking.  We form what could be called an "adversarial collaboration".  That's not to say we're personal adversaries, but politically, we have different views.  I have quotes from Milton Friedman on my wall, while he has a poster of Che Guevara on his.  The benefit of our teaming up is that you should feel assured that our results are not the result of some preconceived political philosophy.  

The first papers from us on this project should be out in the late summer.  Stay tuned!

Assorted Links

1. A story on Maryland's new "Rain Tax".  What I find fascinating is that Maryland wants to punish those who don't have lawns that absorb the rain, while Las Vegas has, for years, tried to reduce the number of lawns (to save water).

2. Bill Barnwell is my favorite sports writer.  He takes an analytical approach to sports decision-making, and his columns are almost always informative.  I really like this article where he discusses the difficulty in making predictions about potential NFL draft picks.  If you read and like this, I would recommend Nate Silver's book.

3.  I've stayed away from the Boston terrorism coverage, as much as possible. (I don't like terrorists influencing my life, if I can help it.  The less we focus on it, the less the terrorists "win")  If this news story is true, however, and the terrorists were getting taxpayer money in the form of welfare that may have subsidized their terror activities, that would add another layer of disgust to the situation.

The origins of prevailing wage laws ...

There is a push by some to repeal Pennsylvania's prevailing wage rates.  This is a good thing for many reasons.  Before getting into the reasons (I will be doing this over the next few days), it's good to remind people of the origins of these laws.  

Racism.  

That's what prompted lawmakers to pass prevailing wage laws.  Here's the Wikipedia page for the Davis-Bacon act ... 

A quote from that page:

"John J. Cochran of Missouri reported that he had "received numerous complaints in recent months about southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South".^[7] Representative Clayton Allgood, reported on "cheap colored labor" that "is in competition with white labor throughout the country".^{[7][26] [27]"}

Racism.  This law was passed by sleazy racists.  Don't forget that when you see lawmakers defending this law.

When left-wing groups try to tell you things like "Consistent with the original rationale for establishing prevailing laws" (As the Keystone group claims) you now know that the original reason for this law was to keep African Americans from competing with white workers.  That also should be enough information for you to realize you shouldn't trust anything these groups say about prevailing wage laws.

More on prevailing wages later this week ...