Jon Sanders studies regulatory policy, a veritable kudzu of invasive government and unintended consequences. As director of regulatory studies at the John Locke Foundation, Jon gets into the weeds in all kinds of policy areas, including electricity, occupational licensing, hydraulic fracturing, the minimum wage, poverty and opportunity, state rulemaking, film and other incentives programs, certificates of need, and cronyism.
To a monopoly, efficient and effective services are what give it the highest revenue. Not what serves the consuming public or local vendors' interests. That's why the North Carolina Constitution states that "monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free state."
Last week I wrote about how heavily involved the State of North Carolina is in controlling the distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages here. Here’s an example. This is a paragraph from Jon Guze’s Spotlight report on the “maze of alcohol rules” in North Carolina: Forty-three…
It'd be nice if our media wouldn't set their skepticism aside when it comes to climate cronyism. (You'd think this particular governor would have earned some skepticism from media when it comes to using environmental issues to promote cronyism.)
At the beginning of the 20th century, North Carolina was the nation's leader in wine production and the nation's leader in legal distilleries (with 745 registered distilleries, 540 that were operating). Then came prohibition, and then came liquor control vs. wine licensing.
In 2017, the ABC Commission reported a systemwide profit margin of 11.2 percent. In a competitive market, the profit margin for stores is 2.4 percent. Only 19 of the 428 government-controlled liquor stores fell below that.