
How 38 Monks Took on the Funeral Cartel and Won - YetAnotherAlias
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/07/how-38-monks-took-on-the-funeral-cartel-and-won/242336/
======
DCoder
_There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that
just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a
number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing
such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and
contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither
statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to
come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back._

R. A. Heinlein, "Life-Line", _1939_

------
skrebbel
I'm rather impressed that US states can, apparently, really make the case that
protecting particular businesses against competing businesses is a "state
function". What the hell? Shouldn't the _exact opposite_ be a state function?

Is this common in the US? (governments openly and clearly admitting to
favouring A over B, because people high up like A better) It sounds like the
direct opposite of a free market to me, and isn't that what the US is supposed
to be all about?

I mean, here in the Netherlands, we'd call that corruption and a scandal would
ensue (which doesn't mean it doesn't happen; it just means that governments
wouldn't admit such practices so openly).

Note: I don't mean to judge; I just genuinely wonder how these things are
viewed by common Americans.

~~~
cydonian_monk
It may not be common everywhere in the country, but it's a fact of life in the
poorer and less affluent states. Especially in Appalachia, where many state
governments are basically run by industry groups.

Case in point: [1] Caperton v A.T. Massey Coal Co: A recent case from my
former home state where a coal operator effectively bought a judge, who then
ruled in favour of said coal operator. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually made
sense of it [and unfortunately the case was later dismissed on a
technicality], but there are many, many other examples of this type of
"corruption" that never make it to a higher review.

So in that sense, no, we don't really have a free market. We have a Corporate
Republic that protects the interests of its largest citizens.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caperton_v._A.T._Massey_Coal_Co>.

------
ranqet
This isn't so much about the funeral industry in Louisiana. It's the
precedence it could set for anyone else out there who wants to challenge
another state regulated cartel (think of car dealerships for example).

From the article: "'defendants moved to dismiss based on the legal issue of
whether protecting a discrete interest group from economic competition
constitutes a sufficient legitimate government purpose.' Put more simply, it's
as if they said, Our purpose here is to protect profits in the funeral
industry, these regulations are a rational way to do that, and we're allowed
to pick market winners and losers if we so desire -- after all, its only
intrastate commerce we're talking about."

~~~
InclinedPlane
Car dealerships, optometry, beauticians, farming, general contracting, you
name it there's a regulatory blanket over it. In most states you can't get
glasses or contacts made without a prescription that is less than a few years
old, for example.

~~~
sandGorgon
is that why, probably the longest thread on fatwallet, is about ZenniOptical,
which ships from China ?

------
pessimizer
May I recommend "The American Way of Death" by Jessica Mitford (the entirely
human Mitford sister)?

The basic story is that the funeral industry completely captured the
regulating of the disposal of dead people a long, long time ago.

~~~
cpr
C'mon, all the Mitford sisters were fun people--one was a passing girlfriend
of Hitler, one of Mussolini, one married the head of the brownshirts (fascist
league) in Britain. Jessica married a Marxist professor at Berkeley (I believe
it was). Actually, wasn't it Nancy who was generally less wild (and the most
famous of the sisters)?

If you read Evelyn Waugh's Letters, there's a whole treasure trove of
exchanges with the Mitford sisters.

------
tantalor
Caskets on Amazon: [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-
alias%3Dap...](http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-
alias%3Daps&field-keywords=casket&x=0&y=0)

------
beaker
It seems like there is a market opportunity here for anyone motivated enough
to take on the old guard in this industry. It's not the most glamorous
subject, but there is a lot of money sitting on the table. If someone applied
to YC with something like "Funera.ly: the app that makes funeral preparations
simple, fairly-priced, and dignified", well I wouldn't be surprised if they
got accepted...

~~~
rfrey
Currently plastered all over the Toronto transit system: ads for
<http://www.basicfunerals.ca/>

~~~
rokhayakebe
Ok, I do not want people to be crying at my funerals, but I am not sure I want
them to be happily enjoying a bottle of cabernet at my expense. (referring to
the picture on their homepage)

------
koops
Just because we are bereaved does not make us saps!

------
smokeyj
Further evidence "regulation" is just legal favoritism.

~~~
njharman
Capitalism + regulation. Without profit there is no motive for favoritism.

~~~
smokeyj
Without profit there is no motive for anything. Don't assume only capital
yields profits.

------
rorrr
It's amazing that it's even an issue.

~~~
blantonl
there are many businesses around today that you might only once in a lifetime
come across - if even at all. Funeral homes, disaster restoration companies,
etc. However, they are amazingly competitive industries and have amazingly
high margins.

That means they will fight with all means they can to insure that their
ability to protect those margins is in place.

~~~
cjdavis
How can they be amazingly competitive industries AND have amazingly high
margins at the same time? I thought those were mutually exclusive things.

~~~
blantonl
the reason is because of the lack of players in the industry in any given
locale.

First, in my examples above, those businesses are highly undesirable
industries to be involved in as an owner and an employee, but highly
profitable. Second, most of those above listed businesses are family owned
with a lot of experience and background in the industry they represent.

Newcomers are viewed as strongly suspicious and since those existing entities
know the ins and outs, it is an uphill climb.

This doesn't mean that good innovation cannot overcome the obstacles that
these very established businesses have, but you can bet that tradition and
experience in those businesses will lead to a lot of ammunition for a fierce
fight when newcomers arrive on the scene.

~~~
Joakal
Or there's high costs to entry and this can lead to collusions "Lets agree on
100x mark up for this suburb". Eg telcos.

