Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I Tried to Open a Lemonade Stand
Townhall.com ^ | February 24, 2012 | John Stossel

Posted on 02/24/2012 3:55:19 AM PST by Kaslin

Want to open a business in America? It isn't easy.

In Midway, Ga., a 14-year-old girl and her 10-year-old sister sold lemonade from their front yard. Two police officers bought some. But the next day, different officers ordered them to close their stand.

Their father went to city hall to try to find out why. The clerk laughed and said she didn't know. Eventually, Police Chief Kelly Morningstar explained, "We were not aware of how the lemonade was made, who made the lemonade and of what the lemonade was made with."

Give me a break. If she doesn't know, so what? But kids trying their first experiment with entrepreneurship are being shut down all over America. Officials in Hazelwood, IllinoisIll., ordered little girls to stop selling Girl Scout cookies.

It made me want to try to jump through the legal hoops required to open a simple lemonade stand in New York City. Here's some of what one has to do:

-- Register as sole proprietor with the County Clerk's Office (must be done in person)

-- Apply to the IRS for an Employer Identification Number.

-- Complete 15-hr Food Protection Course!

-- After the course, register for an exam that takes 1 hour. You must score 70 percent to pass. (Sample question: "What toxins are associated with the puffer fish?") If you pass, allow three to five weeks for delivery of Food Protection Certificate.

-- Register for sales tax Certificate of Authority

-- Apply for a Temporary Food Service Establishment Permit. Must bring copies of the previous documents and completed forms to the Consumer Affairs Licensing Center.

Then, at least 21 days before opening your establishment, you must

arrange for an inspection with the Health Department's Bureau of Food Safety and Community Sanitation. It takes about three weeks to get your appointment. If you pass, you can set up a business once you:

-- Buy a portable fire extinguisher from a company certified by the New York Fire Department and set up a contract for waste disposal.

-- We couldn't finish the process. Had we been able to schedule our health inspection and open my stand legally, it would have taken us 65 days.

I sold lemonade anyway. I looked dumb hawking it with my giant fire extinguisher on the table.

Tourists told me they couldn't believe that I had to get "all those permits." A Pakistani man said: "That's crazy! You should move to Pakistan!"

But I don't want to move to Pakistan.

Politicians say, "We support entrepreneurs," but the bureaucrats make it hard. The Feds alone add 80,000 pages of new rules every year. Local governments add more. There are so many incomprehensible rules that even the bureaucrats can't tell you what's legal. In the name of public safety, politicians strangle opportunity.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 last
To: ALPAPilot; bigheadfred
You continue to siddle by some salient points and miss the big picture.

Corporate leaders now define themselves as citizens of the world, not of the US. They chase maximum short term profits, using the cheapest labor in conditions that lack even minimal standards regarding safety, working conditions, or passing on the costs of production through gross environmental destruction. As to risk, no problem just be 'too big to fail'.

Concentrating solely on regulation is a red herring. Corporations have no problem with regulation. They even offer their expertise and campaign contributions to both sides of the aisle to ensure that said regulations in the US squash any upcoming competition.

We currently live in a globalized market which has been rigged to the advantage of capital and management. Globalists happily traipse the globe in search of the world's cheapest labor and most lax regulation, combined with tariff free access back to the US market, to wit outsourcing to China.

To repeat, even in the absence of onerous regulation, there is no way in the world any American worker can compete with neo-slaves in China who makes $.32 / hour, i.e. unless America's standard of living devolves to that of the third world.

I notice you have neglected any comment upon China's special status as a "nonmarket economy" with special preference under the WTO administered 'Free Trade' agreements or why tariffs are okay for China but not the US. Adam Smith would agree the FReepers who would tariff goods manufactured in China.

Up until recently declining real income of the American worker under global labor arbitrage has been hidden by access to cheap credit. The hidden costs of what is termed 'Globalisation' include the growing number of Americans who are long term unemployed, who are dependent upon some part of the government's largess for survival, and whose income is plunging.
41 posted on 02/25/2012 4:23:02 AM PST by khelus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; duckman
Sorry but this is bad grammar. It should be: Big difference from when my little friends and I tried to open a lemonade stand in the Bronx, NY

What a dipsh**! You don't have anything to add to the discussion except to pick on someone's grammar? No wonder we are drowning in regulations in this country, jerks like you think the important things in life are correcting others in order to make yourself look good, or so you think. It actually makes you look like a dumba**.

42 posted on 02/25/2012 10:42:30 AM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: calex59

Thanks for the input. Back in the days with IBM, now retired, I was a Systems guy with some responsibility as a Tech writer. So when I had to be grammatically proficient, I put on that ‘face’. Didn’t think that was required on FR. DM


43 posted on 02/25/2012 11:27:30 AM PST by duckman (Go Newt...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: khelus
Corporate leaders now define themselves as citizens of the world, not of the US. They chase maximum short term profits, using the cheapest labor in conditions that lack even minimal standards regarding safety, working conditions, or passing on the costs of production through gross environmental destruction.

Even by your arguments, that high tariffs would bring back jobs from China, this would leave the Chinese workers unemployed, and starving to death. Whether or not higher tariffs here would prevent gross environmental damage in China is questionable.

As to risk, no problem just be 'too big to fail'.

Corporations have no problem with regulation. They even offer their expertise and campaign contributions to both sides of the aisle to ensure that said regulations in the US squash any upcoming competition.

So you argue about how regulation and tax policy are harmful, or that the risk has been shifted to the U.S. taxpayer. Those are the type of regulations and incentives that push industry overseas, and I agree that it should be ended. As Milton Friedman said, one reason that he opposed big government was because they could be co-opted by big corporations to stifle competition. That is exactly what has happened.

To repeat, even in the absence of onerous regulation, there is no way in the world any American worker can compete with neo-slaves in China who makes $.32 / hour, i.e. unless America's standard of living devolves to that of the third world.

This is the specific point that Adam Smith argues against. Our wealth, or GDP is completely dependent on what we ourselves produce.

But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it.

The hidden costs of what is termed 'Globalisation' include the growing number of Americans who are long term unemployed, who are dependent upon some part of the government's largess for survival, and whose income is plunging.

We have high minimum wage rates, generous long term unemployment benefits, a porous border and easy welfare programs. We take profits from the industrious and give to the indolent. When the incentive is to prevent them from employing their capital (i.e. their labor), then of course the country will suffer.

It's not a zero sum game. Just because there is a rising standard of living in China, or they produce more stuff doesn't mean that we have to produce less. They are worse off because they have a much lower productivity rate there than we have here.

44 posted on 02/25/2012 12:44:49 PM PST by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot
... Even by your arguments, that high tariffs would bring back jobs from China, this would leave the Chinese workers unemployed, and starving to death. Whether or not higher tariffs here would prevent gross environmental damage in China is questionable. ...

Score one for the inroads of cultural marxism and redistribution of wealth! I was unaware that it was incumbent upon american workers to happily hand over their jobs and income so that Chinese workers don't starve.

... It's not a zero sum game. Just because there is a rising standard of living in China, or they produce more stuff doesn't mean that we have to produce less. ...

While it need not be a zero sum game, it's set up as one.

To repeat, even in the absence of onerous regulation, there is no way in the world any American worker can compete with neo-slaves in China who makes $.32 / hour, i.e. unless America's standard of living devolves to that of the third world.

You continue to siddle by Chinese trade practices which include under special WTO rules as regards tariffs and sundry other gimmicks to restrict imports.
45 posted on 02/26/2012 8:29:30 AM PST by khelus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: khelus
"Corporations have no problem with regulation."

True.

"To repeat, even in the absence of onerous regulation, there is no way in the world any American worker can compete with neo-slaves in China who makes $.32 / hour, i.e. unless America's standard of living devolves to that of the third world."

Double true.

46 posted on 02/26/2012 8:51:03 AM PST by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: khelus
You continue to siddle by Chinese trade practices which include under special WTO rules as regards tariffs and sundry other gimmicks to restrict imports.

Milton Friedman:

http://doc.cat-v.org/economics/milton_friedman/the_case_for_free_trade

A fourth argument, one that was made by Alexander Hamilton and continues to be repeated down to the present, is that free trade would be fine if all other countries practiced free trade but that, so long as they do not, the United States cannot afford to. This argument has no validity whatsoever, either in principle or in practice. Other countries that impose restrictions on international trade do hurt us. But they also hurt themselves. Aside from the three cases just considered, if we impose restrictions in turn, we simply add to the harm to ourselves and also harm them as well. Competition in masochism and sadism is hardly a prescription for sensible international economic policy! Far from leading to a reduction in restrictions by other countries, this kind of retaliatory action simply leads to further restrictions.

To repeat, even in the absence of onerous regulation, there is no way in the world any American worker can compete with neo-slaves in China who makes $.32 / hour, i.e. unless America's standard of living devolves to that of the third world.

To repeat, there wages are based on their productivity, our wages are based on our productivity.

China's GDP is around $7.3 Trillion or about $7,000 per person

The U.S. GDP is around $15 Trillion or about $50,000 per person

I was unaware that it was incumbent upon american workers to happily hand over their jobs and income so that Chinese workers don't starve.

I believe you were lamenting the lot of the chinese worker. I was just pointing out that tariffs would not help them.

Corporate leaders now define themselves as citizens of the world, not of the US. They chase maximum short term profits, using the cheapest labor in conditions that lack even minimal standards regarding safety, working conditions, or passing on the costs of production through gross environmental destruction.

Tariffs are harmful to us. Here is more Milton Friedman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0pl_FXt0eM

I've never heard these arguments successfully rebutted. I'll take the micro-economic argument over the macro-economic argument any day.

47 posted on 02/26/2012 11:59:28 AM PST by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot

You may have heard, but did not listen.

Freidman was a utopian cheerleader for ‘Globalism’ and ‘Free Trade’ whose essay on ‘The Case for Tree Trade’ is long on half-truths and obfuscation whilst short on facts.

Unfortunately Yuri was correct. /sigh


48 posted on 02/27/2012 12:30:15 PM PST by khelus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: khelus

I would enjoy reading any well reasoned arguments against Smith’s theories or Dr. Friedman’s interpretations of them. If you could point me in the right direction.


49 posted on 02/27/2012 1:32:05 PM PST by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson