Matt’s Marvelous Mailbag seeks to provide marginally adequate answers to much better questions about politics, economics, social life, theology, or any potpourri you see fit to have answered. Send questions to mailbag.bereans@gmail.com.  

Boy, it’s been a minute, hasn’t it? Not that I’m complaining; I figure since I ran summer duty for the Bereans I can take it a little easier during the semester, right? Ah well, before we get going, let’s do another music recommendation. Beautiful Ohio by the Glenn Miller band. As far as nostalgia goes, there are few songs that drip with it to the same degree that this one does. Admittedly, it helps if you’re born in/actually like Ohio, but I stand my ground.

Q: Sam asks: “In your opinion, what should the government regulate?”

A: Not much. Not much at all. If you’re asking about price controls and most economic issues, then I’m absolutely against those regulations. I’m more of a free speech absolutist, though maybe there are some more apolitical cases where regulation might be ok (yelling “fire” in a crowded theater). Drug policy is kind of a tricky one that I’m still out on; the economics of it often tend to boil down to (a) do you want more powerful drugs flowing into the market due to a prohibition, or (b) do you want more overall users? That’s oversimplifying somewhat, but that’s the jist of it.

Ultimately, I personally am in favor of regulations that open up more information for individuals to make choices, though I won’t be naive and say that there won’t be perverse incentives somehow from those as well. As a general rule, just remember that the rightness of regulation is more of a normative question. The positive analysis can tell you what a regulation will do; the normative part is whether or not that’s what you actually want to happen.

Q: Dmitri asks: “Who would your top three Democratic candidates for 2020 be?”

A: Oh boy…well, if the gun is pressed to my head, and I must choose, I’d probably go with Biden, Delaney, and Bennet in no particular order. Andrew Yang would probably be an ok pick as well if push came to shove. Obviously, I’m not particularly enthusiastic about any of the Democrats, but I could live with these guys. There are worse fates…

Q: Alfred asks: “Why shouldn’t California be able to regulate the emissions of cars sold in there own state?”

A: Well, it’s interesting that you put it that way. If you’re asking about California’s right to regulate their own emissions, then I would say they should have the right to do so. It’s their own state; let them mess it up however they choose. I don’t think they should regulate the emissions of their own cars, but I think they actually have solid grounds to regulate their own cars.

Practically speaking though, the Supreme Court has taken a fairly broad view of the Interstate Commerce clause in years past. Want to do something but not sure how to get it past the judicial branch? Easy, just ram it through the Interstate Commerce clause; they’ll let you do just about anything you want if you cite that as your reasoning. I’m exaggerating somewhat, but there have been cases in the past where domestic farmers were not allowed to grow their own crops because of the clause (see Wickard v. Filburn). Depending on which judge you get, even the slightest connection to economic activity can be used as justification for federal regulation, and, though some limits have been placed on it in recent years, the federal government can still regulate a healthy chunk of activities.

Q: Joel asks: “Will autonomous cars survive the PR and regulation nightmare that will come with further usage?”

A: If autonomous cars add substantial benefit, I would hazard to guess that they’ll find their way into the mainstream one way or another. The nice thing about having a market economy is that you don’t need to convince a central set of decision-makers that a product or idea is worth bringing to market. You just do it and see if the people like it. If they do, you will be handsomely rewarded even if you have to fight through a bunch of regulation to get there.

I remember when Spotify was coming of age, I used to rail against it like a banshee. By golly, I had CDs and my Google Play music albums, and that was it. Who needs that many options anyway, right? Well, I did apparently, seeing as I am now a die-hard Spotify apologist. Time brings a lot of changes with it, and people’s preferences will change as new technologies become available, and individuals see what can be done with them. So, barring an outright ban on autonomous cars, I’d wager that their success will largely be based on how beneficial people end up seeing them.

Q: James asks: “Will Trudeau survive these blackface scandals?”

A: The latest polls give him about a 50% chance, which is just about as useless as saying, “Oh maybe, ya know?” I doubt the Canadians are the quite so fickle as to throw ‘ole Justin out over blackface, so I think he’s probably headed for re-election at this point. CBC has a nice interactive tool on this point if you want to look around at that.