This month the topic is "Should We Have a Consumer Financial Protection Agency?" The supporter of such an agency makes a bizarre argument: Regulation failed to protect consumers from predatory lending, so we should use regulation to protect consumers from future predatory lending. Why does Ira Rheingold think that future regulatory agencies will be free from the political pressures that caused them to fail last time? He doesn't say. If consumers were genuinely defrauded by lenders, perhaps we should look at their civil law alternatives. Is there something wrong with tort or contract law that has prevented them from suing? Lawyers can take cases on contingency; it can't be a matter of consumer budget constraints. The guy on the other side of the debate, Chris Stinebert, doesn't really make any impressive counterarguments, but he does point out that better-educated and better-informed consumers might help. If there is a role for regulation here, I would say that it is at most that of mandating and standardizing information disclosure.
I'll give quick answers to some other Costco Connection questions. Last month the topic in Costco Connection was "Should We Rely More on Wind Energy?" The entire debate was silly; the answer is quite simple: We can't know until we get the prices right. That means taxing polluting forms of energy, and letting the various forms of alternative energy sink or swim. A policy that consists of picking winners according to political influence, and then subsidizing them, is sure to get the answer wrong.
The topic in August was "Should Mail Delivery Be Cut to Five Days a Week?" Let's end the postal monopoly on first-class letter mail and see what happens. If people had a choice of who they wanted to deliver their mail--much like their email--maybe they would choose a company that delivers five days a week. Maybe they would choose one that delivers six days a week. Maybe some people would choose one, and some would choose the other. Maybe the post office would go out of business. Let competition work and we'll see what happens.
In July it was "Should the U.S. Develop High-Speed Rail Lines?" We've massively subsidized the car with (mostly) zero-price roads. Should we subsidize high-speed trains, too? Why not just stop subsidizing the car instead, and see if trains can compete? We used to have a vigorous private passenger rail system in the U.S. prior to the highway system. Seizing private land for train tracks is one of the least-upsetting uses of eminent domain, since that's the sort of thing for which it was originally intended (not railroads specifically, but canals, roads, and transportation in general). I can imagine a future U.S. in which train travel makes sense, if we give it a chance. The key here is to let different forms of transportation compete on even footing, without encouraging or discouraging them, rather than subsidizing some or all of them.