The recent wave of headlines about shoplifting and retail theft, accompanied by viral videos of people brazenly walking out of stores with stolen goods, has captured the attention of the media and politicians. The tough-on-crime crowd has advocated for a crackdown on shoplifters through more aggressive prosecution and harsher penalties. Others have emphasized the need for rehabilitation for offenders. 

One group of progressive California lawmakers claims to have found an even better solution: banning self-checkout machines from stores in the name of fighting crime. In reality, this "anti-crime" bill is nothing more than naked protectionism for union jobs. 

The proposed legislation would prohibit groceries and other retail stores from using self-checkout machines unless a host of conditions are met. These include having at least one staffed employee for every two self-checkout machines (and the employee must be exempt from any other duties), only permitting the machines to be used by shoppers with 10 items or fewer, and ensuring at least one regular cashier lane is also available at all times.

The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D–Los Angeles), calls her approach "smart" on crime instead of "hard on crime," telling The New York Times: "We have so many bills in this Legislature that are trying to increase penalties….We know that what makes our community safe is not more jail time and penalties. What makes our community safe is real enforcement, having real workers that are on the floor." 

To underscore her point, Smallwood-Cuevas cites a study suggesting that retail theft is up to 16 times more likely to occur at self-checkout machines than at traditional registers, leading to an estimated $10 billion in annual losses for retailers. 

A closer look at the fine print of the bill, however, reveals the true intent behind it. The legislation mandates that any store seeking to install self-checkout machines must first produce a study analyzing, among other things, the number of employees "whose duties would be affected by the workplace technology," as well as the "total amount of salaries and benefits that would be eliminated as a result of the workplace technology." The study must then be provided to employees potentially impacted by the technology (or their collective bargaining representatives) and posted "in a location accessible to employees and customers."

Were this a game of poker, this mandated study would be the tell: Smallwood-Cuevas and her fellow progressives are trying to tuck a pro–union jobs bill inside the Trojan horse of crime prevention. 

Smallwood-Cuevas was a labor organizer before her legislative career, and some of the bill's biggest sponsors are labor unions. A press release on the United Food and Commercial Workers' website lauds the legislation, with the president of the local chapter complaining that "employers have increasingly implemented automated checkout to drastically cut staffing and reduce labor costs." The press release does not mention the word crime at all and only uses theft twice and shoplifting once. In contrast, jobs, staffing, and worker displacement are referenced a total of 10 times. 

Efforts to limit self-checkout in other blue states provide corroborating evidence, such as a proposed anti-self-checkout ballot initiative in Oregon that labor interests tried to get on the 2020 ballot, explicitly positioned as a pro–union jobs measure. 

While a pro-labor bill in California may seem utterly unremarkable, some on the right may be buying the bill's anti-crime framing. Both Fox Business and the New York Post ran articles highlighting the bill as an anti-theft measure, with little reference to the real motivations behind the legislation. Given the right's increasing embrace of labor unions, it is not hard to envision an unholy alliance of pro-labor progressives and tough-on-crime populist conservatives supporting bills around the country to eliminate self-checkout.

Supporters of the bill and numerous media outlets have cited two examples of large retail chains making their own internal decisions to reduce or remove self-checkout machines to clamp down on theft. The aforementioned statistics about self-checkout lanes leading to more shoplifting are also frequently referenced. But these points ironically cut against the need for government involvement: If self-checkout machines are really leading to massive inventory losses for stores, then retailers themselves have a direct bottom-line incentive to scrap self-checkout. 

No one cares more about inventory loss than store owners, whose entire business model is predicated on customers actually paying money for their products. That is why some retailers are reevaluating the efficacy of self-checkout and experimenting with new monitoring tactics such as "smart video" cameras that can halt the self-checkout process if they notice a customer declining to scan any items. 

There already is a built-in market response to theft concerns around self-checkout—more government interference is simply not needed. If lawmakers still want to ban self-checkout machines anyway, they should at least be honest about why.

The post The Real Reason for Self-Checkout Bans appeared first on Reason.com.

As Argentine President Javier Milei continues to slash government spending, he aims to limit state support for local film production too, sparking protests from the industry. But rather than hinder the nation's film industry, Milei's reforms could encourage innovation among Argentine filmmakers and lead to a domestic cinematic boom. 

Government intervention reaches every facet of Argentine culture, from radio and television to music and literature, but nowhere is it more visible than in cinema. Argentina follows the French model of cultural protectionism, where a government agency farms taxes from the film industry to fund domestic production.

Except for a few countries with large film industries, several nations—especially in Europe and Latin America—have adopted different variations of the French model, arguing that their domestic markets are not large enough to sustain private movie studios. The allure of the French model lies in its potential for governments to promote specific values through film. It's equally appealing to filmmakers who believe studio interference and mass market appeal compromise their artistic visions. Video essayist Evan Puschak claims the French model "support[s] an independent cinema that is bold in terms of market standards and that cannot find its financial balance without public assistance." 

But the French model is flawed, and nowhere are these flaws more visible than in Argentina, where the National Institute of Cinema and Audiovisual Arts (INCAA) carries it out.

The main issue with the INCAA is its fiscal voracity: Beyond its 10 percent cut of every movie ticket, the institute collects taxes from the entire telecommunications sector. More recently, it has begun seizing revenue from streaming platforms. As a result, prices have skyrocketed, rendering movie theater outings and home movie watching unaffordable luxuries for many Argentines.

What does the INCAA provide in return to taxpayers? Very little. 

Since its establishment, the organization has been plagued with inefficiencies. Argentina's cinema law allocates half of the INCAA's revenue solely to administrative expenses, leaving the other half for its purported function of film production. But in practice, as much as 70 percent of the INCAA's funds end up in the administrative sinkhole while the institute operates at a deficit, relying on subsidies from the national government.

When it comes to film promotion, rather than tying its grants to commercial success, the INCAA distributes subsidies without taking into account any audience feedback. The results speak for themselves: Out of the 241 Argentine movies released in 2023, less than 20 had over 10,000 viewers in theaters, and only three of those made a profit at the box office. Most Argentines choose to watch foreign productions instead, with only around 10 percent of ticket sales going to domestic films. 

Argentine movie critic Gustavo Noriega wrote that "an Argentine filmmaker who doesn't find success is equivalent to an unproductive public employee."

The French model has failed to bring innovation and profit to the Argentine film industry. Film journalist Leonardo D'Espósito tells Reason that Argentine cinema has become "stagnant within a few themes" and "inoffensive, innocuous." Instead, D'Espósito says filmmakers focus on "surface-level, minimal, folkloric accidents."

But things are changing. In prioritizing Argentina's socioeconomic emergencies, Milei plans to reduce the state's footprint in cinema and the arts. While the INCAA falls under the Ministry of Human Capital, Milei plans to limit INCAA spending, establish criteria of accountability and efficiency, and offer incentives to supplement the grants with private investment. Ultimately, these measures have the potential to transform Argentine cinema from a fledgling industry to a market ripe with potential. 

"They shouldn't be afraid of the market," Argentine filmmaker Ariel Luque tells Reason, referring to his colleagues. In Argentina, "film schools don't teach any other way of funding besides the INCAA. People tell me they were never taught how to do a market study or seek investors." Luque's support of Milei has led to hostility from within the film community, which he says has been co-opted "for Gramscian purposes" by Kirchnerism, the left-wing movement that ruled Argentina before Milei.

"Cinema stopped being about the public and became about propaganda," Luque says. "There's no cinema without an audience….The state as a producer doesn't work. State intervention in art is always self-serving."

Although skeptical of a withdrawal of state support for film, D'Espósito is optimistic about some of Milei's reforms. "Great works," he says, are those that show "'the local' touch on universal themes" and can "captivate other spectators" from different cultures. And those can be translated to other cultures, captivate other spectators," he said. He is hopeful that Milei's changes could lead to a realistic, market-friendly, and export-oriented film policy, citing South Korea as an example.

Milei's plans do not mean the demise of Argentine cinema. Instead, they offer filmmakers an opportunity to showcase their ingenuity and tap into the financial resources available in the global market.

The post Milei's Free Market Reforms Can Reshape Argentine Cinema appeared first on Reason.com.

The White House this month announced plans for how it will direct billions of dollars in funding toward semiconductors, marking a new phase in the implementation of the CHIPS and Science Act.

The $280 billion legislation, signed into law in 2022, aims to bolster semiconductor production in the U.S. President Joe Biden's administration said Monday that it will funnel $1.5 billion to GlobalFoundries, a semiconductor manufacturing and design company, to increase its domestic output. Perhaps more significant, however, was Biden's dispatch earlier this month announcing the administration will use at least $5 billion to establish a National Semiconductor Technology Center (NSTC), which will, among other things, support "the design, prototyping, and piloting of the latest semiconductor technologies," according to the White House. 

This latest effort is part of the government's expensive and protectionist public-private partnership meant to address concerns over a reliance on foreign countries, like China, for chips.

"Semiconductors were invented in America and serve as the backbone of the modern economy," the White House said in a statement. "But today, the United States produces less than 10 percent of global supply and none of the most advanced chips."

The NSTC will supposedly also play a crucial role in expanding the semiconductor workforce to manufacture computing chips that can complement advances in artificial intelligence and related industries. Semiconductors are projected to become a $1 trillion industry by 2030, according to McKinsey & Company.

The CHIPS and Science Act has several eyebrow-raising elements, including $81 billion for the National Science Foundation—doubling the agency's budget over five years. Another $24 billion will go toward tax credits meant to subsidize and incentivize private companies to invest in semiconductors.

While the legislation was likely well-intentioned, it was doomed to have protectionist ramifications. "To defeat China, the argument goes, the U.S. must adopt the tactics of the Chinese Communist Party, at least when it comes to high-end manufacturing," Reason's Eric Boehm wrote in January 2023. But that ham-handed approach to industrial policy and corporate welfare drives up the deficit and hampers economic growth at very little benefit to the taxpayer, who are forced to fund these initiatives. 

It's likely unsurprising that many large corporations lobbied for the CHIPS and Science Act, including Meta, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Apple, Northrop Grumman, Carrier, Trane, and General Dynamics, as well as labor unions like the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations and the Communications Workers of America. "Big government means big lobbying," wrote David Boaz, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. "When you lay out a picnic, you get ants. And today's federal budget is the biggest picnic in history."

The CHIPS and Science Act passed with bipartisan support. But its detractors were also made up of strange bedfellows. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and then-Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) both referred to the law as "corporate welfare" and a "blank check." Sanders went as far as to call it a "bribe."

"When the government adopts an industrial policy that socializes all the risk and privatizes all the profits, that is crony capitalism," Sanders said.

He's not wrong. The law "is another episode of politicians granting favors to their friends in the semiconductor industry," Veronique de Rugy, a contributing editor at Reason and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, wrote last year. Such an approach "punishes those who aren't elite or can't organize to extract favors from politicians."

Michelle Nuzzo-Kelly is an apt example. She was among the residents of Burnet Road near Syracuse, New York, who received several offers to purchase her home. But those offers didn't come from private buyers: They came from the government, as Onondaga County sought to expand a plot of land so it could attract a developer. Micron, one of the world's largest semiconductor manufacturing firms, is now set to build a facility there, thanks to lucrative taxpayer-funded subsidies from the state and federal government.

"The offers to buy Nuzzo-Kelly's home were never really just offers," Boehm wrote when covering the case in November 2022. "They were demands backed by a threat to use government power to force her to sell."

The post Biden Pours Out Another $6.5 Billion for the CHIPS Act's Costly Protectionism appeared first on Reason.com.