
The parable of the parking lots (1971) [pdf] - aleyan
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080523_197102302theparableoftheparkinglotshenrygmanne.pdf
======
syllogism
About the author:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Manne](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Manne)

Interview arguing insider trading should be legal:
[http://capitalismmagazine.com/2004/09/legalize-insider-
tradi...](http://capitalismmagazine.com/2004/09/legalize-insider-trading/)

------
prawn
Obvious parallel with food trucks versus bricks and mortar restaurants.
Funnily enough, I see pro-free-market candidates (funded by commercial
property owners and restaurant owners) suddenly talking about regulations when
their slice of the pie is threatened.

If you're a fixed restaurant and you have the opportunity to start a food
truck in addition to your established restaurant, then fair's fair.

------
PhantomGremlin
One important item discussed in the parable was the "slush fund", and how it
succeeded in influencing the city council. This is the most corrosive aspect.

About 35 years ago the FBI's Abscam[1] public corruption investigation and
sting operation brought down quite a few people, including Congressmen. My
favorite excuse was from the Congressman videotaped stuffing cash into his
pockets, and who later claimed he "was only pretending to be involved with the
bribery" and "was conducting his own operation dealing with corruption and
that the FBI was ruining his own investigation".

IIRC Congress was so upset about being caught taking bribes that they actually
cut the FBI budget the following year!

Public corruption needs to be investigated and prosecuted more often.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abscam)

------
wesleyd
"All professions are conspiracies against the laity" \-- GBS

------
CapitalistCartr
The only reason we don't have more actual stories similar to this is we don't
know the inside scoop on what happens. We aren't a fly on the wall for such
meetings.

~~~
prawn
It's a fairly broad representation of what has happened in thousands of cities
and thousands of industries in the past. The lobbying, the promise of self-
regulation, the meagre efforts to improve, etc - anytime you see mention of
any aspect of this, you can reasonably assume what's gone down. Self-interest
is a powerful force.

------
serve_yay
So... hotels = APPLE and AirBnB = homeowners parking cars in their driveways?

~~~
dferr
I was going to say something about Uber and traditional taxis in the same
vein.

But then I was also going to say something about doctors, lawyers, and other
professionals that form some kind of barrier around themselves... being
someone who is in one of those groups.

the further I take this down the road(no pun intended), the more perplexed I
find myself.

:: edited for clarity

~~~
serve_yay
Me too, the question mark in my post is real. Although regulatory capture is a
problem, it's rather easy to use that as justification for the idea that any
regulation is simply a boondoggle and exists for no other reason than to
hinder the economy.

~~~
logicallee
but the actual definition of regulatory capture is that _regardless of_ the
reason regulation exists (which usually is a real reason, not an invented one
as in the article - the article doesn't have regulation resulting from
anything any member of the public actually objected to), the regulating bodies
will be captured. So take a real reason: let's say we (the public) want to
improve Comcast's level of (notoriously bad) service, even in areas where they
happen to be a sole provider. So how do we do this - we can only do it through
some regulating body. So, okay, let's improve Comcast's atrocious service. The
idea of regulatory capture is _even though_ we have a great reason to do this,
Comcast can still capture that body, and be better-off than before the
regulator existed - at the expense of the public. Which is why we don't do it!

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture)

~~~
sukilot
But the general argument applies to _all_ regulation, yet we still have
regulation. And Comcast's business was literally created by regulation: it is
a municipal monopoly.

Your argument needs more nuance. Regulatory capture happens when no one in the
general public is organized or invested enough to be part of the lobbying
pool, or generally due to attrition caused by government corruption.

------
aleyan
TL;DR of the parable. Incumbent businesses will lobby and use professionalism
as an excuse against individuals using their own resources to do ad-hoc
business. Article makes an argument that this is bad.

I found this article as print out on the floor of a bathroom on an equities
trading floor of Goldman Sachs circa 2010. It intrigued me and since then I
have shared it with my friends and family, who seemed to have enjoyed it. I
post it now because it reminds me of the arguments surrounding new car hailing
services and on demand short term housing rentals. Our problems aren't
entirely new, so why not leverage some wisdom of decades past when reasoning
about them?

~~~
jakewalker
Thanks very much for sharing. Do you know more about its source?

~~~
dmckeon
Not OP, but for more, see: [http://truthonthemarket.com/2009/12/29/the-
collected-works-o...](http://truthonthemarket.com/2009/12/29/the-collected-
works-of-henry-g-manne/)

As a thought experiment, in an environment where for-profit entities will tend
to try to increase their profits, consider: in what cases is it appropriate
for governments to interfere with economic activities?

To protect individuals, or _caveat emptor_?

To protect businesses, or "free market"?

------
dang
Url changed from [http://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/detail/the-
pa...](http://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/detail/the-parable-of-
the-parking-lots), which points to this.

