Posted by
Barbara Hunter on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:05:37 PM
When Is a "Playing Field" Level?
by Barbara Hunter
It seems that these days the words "level playing field" are cropping up on almost a daily basis, resembling the latest buzzwords from the late-night TV hosts. All the people (and businesses) want one of those level playing fields for themselves, especially when some new or revised competitor appears on the horizon.
Take a close look, and you'll discover that each one's standard for "levelness" depends on what produces the most advantage to oneself. Corporations want tariffs or import quotas to gain or maintain an advantage over foreign competitors. They claim that some condition from abroad is "unfair," and that the tariffs or quotas are needed to level the playing field. It is generally not necessary to show that the advantage they had prevously possessed, or that they now covet, actually constituted or would constitute levelness. The victim paradigm can be exceedingly mighty.
Labor unions have their own techniques for their special versions of playing field leveling, the most egregious of which is the Davis-Bacon Act, as explained below from the article "Governments Assault on Freedom to Work," by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, in the magazine The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, September 1991:
Davis-Bacon Laws. Another related measure of labor market intervention is the existence of laws, such as the Davis-Bacon Act in the United States, which mandate that government-specified wages be paid. In the case of Davis-Bacon, the government-specified “prevailing wage” in an area must be paid on all Federally supported construction projects, even if the Federal support is less than 1 percent of the cost of the project. The “prevailing” wage is almost always the union wage, and the effect of the Act is to drive lower-wage, nonunion labor from the market. Making wages artificially high restricts competition from lower-wage firms, depriving their owners, managers, and employees of economic opportunities.
Now, even retail stores have gotten into the level playing field act. As reported in the October 9, 2006 Wall Street Journal, Target Corporation, the management of Target stores, has threatened the producers of DVD movies with economic harm, such as decreasing the store space allocated to their products, if they offer direct downloads of their new releases to users at prices below that charged by Target for the DVD discs. (Punish the comsumer - that will teach them!) The company's "leveling" solution is for the downloads to cost at least as much as the retail store's DVDs. One noteworthy point is that when downloads were costing more, the store had no problem; the level playing field issue simply never arose.
So far, it seems not to have occurred to Target and the other DVD retailers participating in this hissy-fit that pressure of that type could actually backfire by driving more customers, and potential customers, to their computers to do more downloading. No, the only acceptable answer to those who would rule is to try to force a "level playing field" that is anything but level. The simple measure of levelness (a condition which in itself is a dynamic entity, changing day by day and minute by minute with the actions of all who participate in the economic process) is whatever people, peacefully and without coercion, decide is most advantageous to themselves. Nothing levels better than freedom to choose.