 Originally published on Substack. Artificial intelligence isn’t an existential threat. It’s not magic, and it’s not going to swallow society whole. AI is simply advanced computing, the next logical extension of tools humans have been building for thousands of years. Yet politicians—especially here in Texas—are treating AI as if it’s a radioactive substance that must be contained through sweeping regulation. State Senator Angela Paxton and a few colleagues recently urged Congress to reject a federal “moratorium” on state AI laws, claiming Texas has taken “important steps” to protect children and consumers. Their letter and justification can be seen in her tweet.  I understand the desire to protect kids. I’m a dad of three. But overregulating technology out of fear—and surrendering parental authority to capitols—only creates bigger problems. The Texas AI laws passed last session weren’t “responsible.” They were a case study in correlation-over-causation thinking, moral panic, and political control dressed up as child protection.
This is why a federal pause, though not ideal, is needed. Texas Isn’t Protecting Families. It’s Expanding Government. Texas’s AI bills created vague liability standards, broad mandates, and bureaucratic authority with almost zero grounding in sound economics or constitutional limits. These laws shift decision-making away from parents and toward politicians and regulators—the opposite of what a free society demands. Illegal acts using AI—fraud, exploitation, child endangerment—are already illegal under decades of existing statutes. We punish outcomes, not inputs. We don’t ban cars because someone might speed. We don’t ban pencils because someone wrote something awful. Yet Texas is regulating AI as if every computing tool is a pre-crime device. This is not classical liberalism or the limited-government Texas Model I defend in my work at Ginn Economic Consulting and my research on economic freedom. It is paternalism that undermines parents, weakens competition, and slows innovation. The Precautionary Principle Isn’t Prudence—It’s Paralysis Texas lawmakers are leaning heavily on the flawed precautionary principle: regulate now “just in case.” But public policy driven by hypothetical harm consistently produces:
If applied historically, this principle would have stopped electricity, airplanes, automobiles, calculators, and the internet. Every transformative technology looked scary before it became essential. AI is no different—unless government freezes it in place. Freedom—not fear—is the best safeguard. AI Is a Complement, Not a Substitute, If Politicians Let It Be Much of the panic ignores basic economics. Automation enhances human productivity. It creates new jobs, new opportunities, and new industries—as I’ve explained repeatedly in my work on economic growth and technology. AI can empower:
Politicians frame AI as a threat to children and jobs. In reality, political overreach is the threat—not the technology. Why a Federal Moratorium Is Necessary—for Now I’m no fan of Washington micromanagement. But when states begin passing contradictory, constitutionally questionable laws that strangle interstate commerce and innovation, a temporary federal pause becomes the lesser evil. Otherwise, the U.S. will repeat the disaster of California’s CAFE standards, where one state distorted the entire nation’s auto market and made cares more expensive for everyone. A patchwork of 50 incompatible AI regimes would be even worse. AI isn’t a local zoning matter. It’s core to:
A short-term federal moratorium is not about controlling AI—it’s about preventing states from crippling innovation before the country fully understands the technology. Meanwhile, China Isn’t Slowing Down While Texas and other states push fear-based restrictions, China continues racing ahead in AI and robotics. But as the Wall Street Journal recently noted in a recent piece on China’s robot boom, the appearance of progress masks deep structural problems. Their surge in automation reflects demographic decline, state coercion, and misallocated capital. Still, Beijing is moving fast, and America will not win by second-guessing ourselves to death. As I argued in my recent commentary on China’s misguided industrial push, America’s strength isn’t central planning—it’s free people, free markets, and open competition. We don’t beat China by copying their control. We beat China by unleashing our creativity. My Take Texas lawmakers mean well, but they’re wrong. Overregulating AI today will harm:
The federal moratorium is a temporary brake on a runaway train of fear-based policymaking. Texas should use this moment to peel back its flawed AI rules and return to the pro-growth, limited-government principles that once made this state the envy of the world. AI is part of our future. Liberty—not regulation—is the best way to shape it. Let’s get back to trusting people, empowering parents, and letting innovation drive prosperity. That’s how we let people prosper—even in the age of AI.
0 Comments
 Originally published on Substack.
The federal government finally reopened — on my 44th birthday (Nov. 12), no less — after the longest government shutdown in American history. Forty-three days of drama, political brinkmanship, and leadership failures from both parties ended with a massive spending deal that…cut no spending, kept Biden’s bloated post-COVID spending levels, but preserved the provisions in the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill”: expanded Obamacare subsidies that were supposed to expire years ago when Biden ended the emergency declaration but now represent $1.5 trillion in new spending over a decade. In other words: Congress ended the shutdown by agreeing to spend more with continued trillions of dollars in deficits…to avoid talking about spending. But somehow, in the middle of all this dysfunction, they did find one thing they could agree on: A nationwide ban on hemp-derived THC products starting a year from now. Yes — the government that can’t pass a real budget and running $2 trillion deficits for a $38 trillion national debt that’s 120% of GDP suddenly found laser-like focus when it came to shutting down an entire estimated $28 billion industry, destroying more than 300,000 jobs, and throwing thousands of small businesses under the regulatory bus. As I’ve been saying for years: When politicians panic, liberty is the first casualty. The Ban: A Disaster Wrapped Inside a Spending Bill Tucked into the agriculture portion of the spending package was a provision banning any hemp-derived consumer product containing more than 0.4 mg of THC per container — far below what many products contains. For context:
The ban takes effect one year from passage — unless Congress reverses course. That means the clock is already ticking. And as always, when government swings a hammer, real people get crushed:
The result? More crime. More cartels. More Al Capones. And less safety, less transparency, and less personal responsibility. Thank You, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul — One Who Tried Let’s be clear: not every Republican supported this nonsense. US Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) offered an amendment to strike the hemp ban outright. It was the right move — grounded in constitutional principles, federalism, and basic economic sanity. He deserves credit for standing firm for small businesses, property rights, and individual liberty. But most of the Senate ignored him and voted for prohibition anyway — many of whom preach “limited government” while voting like central planners. Ask yourself: Are lawmakers protecting public safety…or protecting alcohol lobbyists who don’t want competition Because this looks less like moral conviction and more like the oldest story in politics: Baptists and Bootleggers working together. Economics 101: There’s No Market Failure Here For government to intervene in a market, there must be a clear, demonstrable market failure — something the private sector cannot solve. That simply doesn’t apply here. There is no imbalance of information: consumers know what a THC gummy is. There is no externality beyond personal choices: adults consume responsibly or not, like alcohol, caffeine, or Tylenol. There is no monopoly requiring intervention: the hemp market is one of the most competitive sectors in America. What we have instead is a classic case of politicians treating adults like children and industries like political bargaining chips. Prohibition is not regulation. Prohibition is not safety. Prohibition is not limited government. Prohibition is force — and force fails every time. The Real Path Forward: Freedom, Federalism, and Civil Society If Congress wants to keep communities safe and entrepreneurs accountable, here’s the path: 1. Legalize and Decriminalize, Don’t Criminalize and Ban Prohibition empowers criminals, cartels, and fentanyl. Legal markets empower consumers, safety, transparency, and competition. 2. State-Level Regulation, not Bans, Work Better Hemp is overwhelmingly a local and intrastate industry — making it a textbook case for federalism. Let states set testing standards, retail rules, and age limitations, not bans like Texas tried this year and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott vetoed and issued an executive order for 21+ purchases and not near sensitive locations like schools (should be legislation instead of EO as executives are getting too much power these days among populists). 3. Civil Society > Federal Bureaucracy Addiction and misuse require family support, churches, nonprofits, mental-health expertise, and community care — not another round of federal raids or one-size-fits-all bans. 4. Respect Adults, Respect Markets Consumers deserve choice. Entrepreneurs deserve opportunity. Liberty requires both. Conclusion: If Congress Won’t Protect Liberty, We Must This entire episode — the shutdown, the spending bill, the hemp ban — reveals a simple truth: Washington will spend endlessly, regulate recklessly, and ban freely unless the American people push back. But there is good news: Liberty is resilient. Entrepreneurs are resilient. And Americans overwhelmingly prefer freedom over prohibition. The hemp ban doesn’t take effect for one full year. That means now is the time — for advocacy, legislation, litigation, and education. And as someone who’s spent his career fighting for pro-growth, pro-freedom, pro-prosperity policy, I can tell you: This fight is winnable. Let’s get to work. — Vance Ginn, Ph.D.  Originally published at The Daily Economy.
Washington never misses a chance to promise “fairness” while tightening its grip on the financial system. For more than a decade, regulators and central bankers have stretched their authority far beyond the original intent of the law, distorting markets, punishing savers, and concentrating economic power in the hands of bureaucrats. The latest example is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Section 1033 rule, which marks a new front in Washington’s quiet campaign to nationalize financial data under the guise of “consumer empowerment.” Section 1033 was intended to help consumers access their financial information. In practice, the Biden-era CFPB twisted it into a sweeping mandate that forces banks, credit unions, and fintech companies to share customer data with third parties, regardless of cost, security, or consent. Regulators call this “data portability.” But it’s really data coercion, forced transfer of private information directed by the government. By compelling institutions to open their systems to outside actors, the CFPB is creating massive cybersecurity risks and legal uncertainty. Once that data leaves a secure bank environment, who’s responsible if it’s hacked or sold? The agency doesn’t say, because it doesn’t have to. It operates as a mostly unaccountable branch of government funded by the Federal Reserve. This new rule fits a pattern that stretches across administrations of both parties. The Federal Reserve has spent years manipulating the economy through its own version of central planning. Its balance sheet exploded from about $4 trillion before the COVID lockdowns to nearly $9 trillion at the peak, and even after years of “tightening,” it still sits around $6.6 trillion, roughly 20 percent of US GDP. That extraordinary expansion, coupled with record federal deficits, monetized Washington’s overspending and triggered the inflation surge Americans are still feeling today. The Fed’s interventions distorted credit markets, inflated asset prices, and fueled the illusion that easy money could substitute for productivity. The result has been slower growth, declining real wages, and a public that no longer trusts the dollar — or the institutions that manage it. At the same time, agencies such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have extended open-ended guarantees to ever-larger deposits up to $250,000, signaling to financial institutions that risk doesn’t really matter because taxpayers will always clean up the mess. The more Washington insulates these institutions from market discipline, the more reckless behavior it encourages. That’s not consumer protection; that’s moral hazard on a national scale. The CFPB’s Section 1033 rule compounds that problem by politicizing access to financial data. It hands Washington the ability to dictate not only how money moves but also how information about money moves. Once regulators can decide which companies may access data and on what terms, they effectively control the competitive landscape of American finance. This is industrial policy in digital disguise. And it’s already spilling into state politics, where legislators are introducing new caps on credit card interest rates, limits on interchange fees, and other well-intentioned but destructive interventions. Each of these measures increases costs for consumers, reduces credit access for the poor, and consolidates power among the largest incumbents who can afford the compliance burden. If this sounds like central planning, that’s because it is. A handful of bureaucrats now wield more influence over the financial system than the millions of Americans who depend on it. The Fed’s technocrats decide the cost of money. The CFPB dictates how data may flow. The FDIC guarantees risks that private firms should bear. And Congress keeps spending as if none of it matters, driving the national debt above $37 trillion and pushing annual interest payments past $1.1 trillion — a sum larger than the defense budget. These are not isolated mistakes. They are symptoms of a government that has grown far beyond its competence. The path forward begins with humility and a return to first principles. The Fed should stop acting as an unelected economic czar and start shrinking its balance sheet toward historical norms, or possibly back to six percent of GDP, where it was before the Great Financial Crisis. Congress should reassert its oversight role and restore a rules-based monetary framework that ties money growth to economic fundamentals, not political convenience. The CFPB should be dismantled or at least stripped of its unilateral authority, with legitimate fraud enforcement consolidated under accountable agencies. Most importantly, Washington must end its obsession with managing markets and start trusting them again. America’s prosperity was built on sound money, competition, and personal responsibility — not on bureaucratic control. If we want a financial system that works for everyone, we must end the centralization of both money and data. Section 1033 isn’t just another bad rule; it’s a warning sign of how far we’ve drifted from a truly free economy. The stakes are simple: either Americans control their financial future, or Washington does. It’s time to choose the former.  Originally published on Substack.
America is in an insurance affordability crisis. Home and auto premiums are soaring—some up 40% or more in just two years. And instead of addressing the root causes, politicians are reaching for their favorite broken tool: price controls. According to a Wall Street Journal report, lawmakers in states like Illinois, Louisiana, and New York are rushing to cap insurance rates as families revolt against 30%–50% increases. The story is the same across red and blue states alike. Regulators want to “protect consumers” from big insurers—but their interventions are the reason affordability collapsed in the first place. The Real Causes Behind Rising Insurance Costs Let’s start with the basics. Insurance premiums reflect risk and cost. When the cost of rebuilding a home or repairing a car goes up, so do premiums. And those costs are rising not because of greed—but because of government-induced inflation, tariffs, and regulation.
It’s a vicious cycle: government interference raises costs, consumers feel the squeeze, and politicians respond with even more control. Price Controls Are the Wrong “Solution” Price caps don’t solve affordability. They destroy it. When California capped insurance premiums for decades, insurers left the state. Now its regulators are scrambling to approve double-digit rate hikes just to lure them back. Louisiana tried deregulating to attract more insurers—then flipped again, imposing “excessive rate” controls this year. The result? Confusion, fewer carriers, and a less stable market. As S&P Global analyst Tim Zawacki told the Journal, “Price controls don’t lead to affordability. Ultimately, they just chase insurers out of the market.” He’s right. You can’t legislate away risk. The only way to bring prices down is through competition, efficiency, and innovation—none of which survive when government fixes prices. Deregulation: The Real Path to Affordability If politicians truly cared about helping families, they’d focus on freeing the insurance market, not strangling it.
Trying to solve a government-caused problem with more government always fails. Affordability won’t come from mandates—it will come from markets free to adjust, compete, and innovate. The Bigger Picture: The Housing Affordability Squeeze This isn’t just about insurance. It’s about the broader housing affordability crisis. Rising premiums, property taxes, tariffs, and interest rates all share a common thread—too much government. From local building codes to federal trade policy, intervention has made housing less affordable for millions. Families don’t want subsidies or price caps—they want predictability and opportunity. They want to build, buy, and insure a home without government distortions turning every step into a financial burden. Closing Thoughts When politicians talk about “protecting consumers,” it usually means protecting themselves from political backlash. The truth is that markets—not bureaucrats—are best at setting prices and balancing risk. If we want affordable insurance and housing, we must get government out of the way, not invite it in further. Freedom—not force—creates prosperity. That’s as true for homeowners and drivers as it is for every sector of the economy. Let people prosper.  Originally published on Substack.
Jamie Dimon is correct that America’s national security depends on a strong and resilient economy. Where he’s especially on target is in emphasizing that the private sector must lead—through innovation, competition, and investment—not by depending on Washington to pick winners and losers. But today, too many policymakers on both the left and right are doing the opposite. Instead of removing barriers so markets can thrive, they’re using industrial policy, subsidies, and tariffs to control outcomes. Those are the very obstacles Dimon warned about, and they’re undermining America’s capacity to grow stronger through free enterprise. In his Wall Street Journal op-ed, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon announced a $1.5 trillion “Security and Resiliency Initiative” to mobilize capital toward critical industries like semiconductors, energy, and defense. His call to speed up permitting, expand vocational training, and remove bureaucratic delays reflects the pro-growth, pro-market reforms America urgently needs. If private investors see profitable opportunities in rebuilding supply chains and modernizing infrastructure, they should absolutely pursue them. That’s how a market economy adapts—through entrepreneurs risking their own capital, guided by profit and disciplined by loss. Dimon’s approach recognizes that government’s role is to clear obstacles, not command outcomes. Unfortunately, both national conservatives and progressive planners have drifted toward using government as an investment bank. The Biden administration’s CHIPS and Science Act poured tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into select semiconductor firms, promising to rebuild manufacturing but instead fueling lobbying races and regulatory delays. On the right, President Trump’s tariffs and farm bailouts prove that protectionism and subsidies are hidden taxes on American families. Tariffs raise many consumer prices and bailouts reward dependency, not resilience. These are two sides of the same coin: government trying to direct markets instead of trusting them. At the local level, this mindset shows up in so-called “economic development” projects that are really corporate welfare. In my latest Kansas Policy Institute article, I noted how Kansas City’s push in Kansas and Missouri for taxpayer-funded stadiums for the Chiefs and Royals repeats the same mistake. Politicians promise new jobs and growth, but decades of research show publicly financed stadiums rarely deliver. They simply transfer wealth from working families to billionaire owners. Meanwhile, Denver provides a better example in Colorado. The city’s redevelopment around Coors Field and Empower Field rely on private financing and organic growth, not taxpayer handouts. Investors are taking the risk, consumers reward value, and communities prosper. That’s real economic development—driven by the market, not by mandates. As Bob Hellman, CEO of American Infrastructure Partners, wrote recently at WSJ in “Private Investors Can Build Bridges”, “private capital can—and should—play a leading role in rebuilding America’s infrastructure.” He’s right. Private investment brings accountability and efficiency because investors must earn returns by delivering results. Government projects, by contrast, are funded regardless of performance and prone to cost overruns and political influence. A real roadmap for economic resilience looks like this:
If policymakers want a stronger America, they should follow the examples Dimon and Hellman highlight: empower private enterprise, reduce red tape, and trust the market process. That’s how we build resilience and prosperity from the ground up. Final Thoughts America doesn’t need more government direction—it needs more freedom to produce. Prosperity arises from voluntary exchange and accountability through profit and loss, not political favor. Government’s proper role is to protect property rights, enforce contracts, and remove barriers that hinder growth. Everything else belongs to entrepreneurs, innovators, and workers who create value every day. That’s how we keep America secure, prosperous, and free. |
Vance Ginn, Ph.D.
|
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly