Shame of the Nation

The Eleventh Commandment

2005-12-14T16:48:00.000-05:00

As dictated by the state... Thou shall not die.

Football fever

2005-12-05T10:03:00.000-05:00

Are you ready for some foot... congressional hearings? Not content to subsidizing the schools playing in the games, legislating what the players can take to improve their performance, regulating the broadcasts of such games, etc., it seems the state is looking to expand their influence over the college football world. As laughable as the steroid hearings held earlier this year, taxpayer money is now going to be used to figure out how a deeply flawed system has resulted in the top two teams in the country playing for the national championship. While they're at it, why don't it look into the selection process behind choosing the Rose Queen?

Hand over that cribbage board old hag

2005-12-02T16:02:00.000-05:00

You would think that government would have better things to do than hassle old ladies, but hey, the law is the law, right? Well, this should teach them. Remember kids, gambling is only acceptable when the state runs the casino.

And so it begins...

2005-09-27T10:14:00.000-04:00

The Socialist Commonwealth of New Jersey (maybe it's a Worker's Republic?) has filed lawsuits against three oil companies and several gas companies for price gouging. Never fear comrades, even if the lawsuits fail, the state will have had the desired effect of scaring companies away from raising prices during the next shortage. Prices will remain low, and the shortage will be worse that it otherwise would be, but hey, you might be one of the few lucky ones to get gas the next time.

Can the state buy me a dog?

2005-09-22T14:29:00.000-04:00

Well, I should have known this was inevitable. Government evacuation plans are now going to have to include getting pets out of harm's way! That's right, the state is going to confiscate taxpayer money to make sure poor Fifi doesn't drown in the class 4 hurricane bearing down on its smelly behind. Isn't this a wonderful quote from the Humane Society: "We cannot rely on individual acts of compassion." No, of course not, better call in the National Guard instead.

Here's a thought. If you own a pet that you're willing to risk your life for, then shouldn't you be responsible enough to own a cage and some food so you can bring your pet along with you when you need to evacuate? I could tell the same old story about how the expansion of the socialist welfare/warfare state destroys personal responsibility, but it always seems to fall on deaf ears. Or are people not listening because they're too busy looking for another handout from the government?

I Smell A Rat

2005-09-14T09:47:00.000-04:00

Of course it is due to the fact that once again, government isn't doing its job. And I thought the Department of Homeland Security was useless! Based on the numbers in this story, the New Dehli government has spent $896,280 for absolutely nothing in return. What are the chances that the people they stole this money from in the first place could really use that extra cash?

Michael Moore is a big fat idiot

2005-09-08T10:10:00.000-04:00

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh on old Mikey, who is apparently thinking of making the events surrounding Katrina into a movie. Not being a politician has allowed Mr. Moore to be a little more blunt than your typical Democrat (wasn't this guy independent at one point?) when it comes to politicizing Katrina, even though Hillary seems to be giving him a run for his money. You see, the debacle of a response by the feds isn't due to the fact that once again government has proven itself to be ineffective, but is really just another blunder by the Bush administration. So a challenge to all the Democrats out there - tell me how things would have been different with Kerry as president. We'd still have a useless Department of Homeland Security, and FEMA would still be headed by an incompetent crony friend of some politician. Just like in the doomsday scenario the Democrats predicted would happen if Bush got re-elected, the public is being spun. When in fact we all know nothing changes when the presidency changes hands between the Republicrats. And it never will.

Happy Capital Day

2005-09-05T19:49:00.000-04:00

Most governments in the west set aside a special holiday dedicated to labor, that wonderful "class" whose interests would be imposed on us all in some sort of Socialist Utopia. So on this holiday, sit back and think of how great your life would be had labor groups succeeded in fulfilling their vision. Just imagine that queue you would face at the supermarket for the goods the socialists actually got around to producing (of course you couldn't shop until tomorrow, as it would be illegal to work today). Think of how low the quality of life in the west would be as incentives to innovate would be destroyed, buried under piles of labor legislation. Attempting to do anything yourself would be outlawed by the state, as free will and liberty would have to be curtailed in order to keep people in line with the official goals of the "people." As bad our statist situation is, just be thankful as things could be a lot worse.

Another wonderful oil and gas story. I would love to see the questions these pollsters actually asked, but I can't locate the actual poll yet. I wonder if 49% of Canadians would agree with this statement:

Oil and gas resources should be nationalized, creating another bureaucratic mess that is unable to respond to consumer needs in times of crisis, wasting millions (or even billions) of taxpayer dollars through favors handed out to political friends, and, with the removal of the profit motive driving behavior under private control, creating market inefficiencies that would ensure that prices are higher than they would be were these industries to remain under private ownership.

Don't worry, we know the price of that

2005-09-02T14:13:00.000-04:00

Look out! Evil capitalists are profiteering again. Supply and demand concerns are irrelevant if you're the state, you can just set the price for any good you want. Particularly when it's an important good like oil or gas. In times of short supply, such as in the aftermath of a hurricane through an area that sees a lot of petroleum refining, prices rise.

While I expect bad economic reasoning from Jack Layton and the rest of the NDP, even supposed free-marketers like Liberal Dan McTeague are getting into the act. When prices react quickly to market shocks, is this a sign of efficiency or anti-competitve behavior? I'll take the former, I'll leave the statists to defend the latter.

We love shortages...

2005-09-01T12:08:00.000-04:00

Must get into the habit of blogging more. Who knew that a dissertation wouldn't write itself? Anyway, here's the old standard about "price-gouging". In the aftermath of a natural disaster, many goods become much more scarce than usual. As the result of a decrease in supply, the natural price of a good rises. Thus the natural state of the world should be temporary increases in prices, insuring that these scarce goods go to those who value them most.

Well basic laws of economics are no match for looters, armed mobs, or even the President. As a result, we hear harsh warnings from politicians that price-gouging will not be tolerated as the clean up from Katrina proceeds. That's right, it's our good friend the price ceiling. How does this affect the chain of events?

Supply decreases through an occurance of nature, in this case a hurricane, leading to a temporary shortage until the price can fully adjust. Instead of allowing the price to rise naturally to the equilibrium level, laws against price-gouging forbid producers to sell above a certain price. As a result, all the producers who were willing to sell at a price between the price ceiling and the natural equilibrium price are forced out of the market. State intervention leads to a decrease in the quantity supplied of these goods, and the adverse effects of the shortage are made worse as a result. People in the areas affected by Katrina have been hit hard enough, don't let politicians and bad economics make their lives even worse.

McTasty

2005-08-12T02:39:00.000-04:00

What? McDonald's isn't responsible for making people fat, it's those people themselves? This novel insight from Merab Morgan, who lost 37 pounds in 90 days on an all-McDonald's diet. Pretty self-evident, isn't it?

Say no to pork

2005-08-05T09:29:00.000-04:00

How does one change the dietary requirements of Congress? I might suggest voting for libertarian candidates, as the Republicans and the Democrats have united once again to piss away taxpayer money on frivolous projects. The Washington Post has picked out some of the better projects from the recent energy, transportation and water project bills.
Who's the winner in this one? I'm guessing Don Young, who's getting $231 to build a bridge to nowhere (and have it named after himself!) and another $223 million for improving access to an island with 50 inhabitants! It helps when you're the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. In all, Alaska projects will be getting close to a billion dollars in projects. The losers, of course, are once again those taxpayers who see their earnings confiscated by the government and handed out on waste like this.

Know your rights

2005-07-23T20:12:00.000-04:00

I've been listening to Combat Rock by the Clash quite a lot recently. Welcome to the new world order, where we are guilty until proven innocent. For Jean Charles de Menezes, I'm not sure what you were up to, it must have been an honest mistake, and hey, at least Scotland Yard "regret" the incident. And according to good old "Red Ken" Livingstone, socialist mayor of London, this death is the responsibility of the terrorists. It's a fine line between socialism and fascism, isn't it?

Anyway, I thought it might be fitting to post the lyrics to "Know Your Rights"

This is a public service announcement
With guitar
Know your rights all three of them

Number 1
You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a CRIME!
Unless it was done by a
Policeman or aristocrat
Know your rights

And Number 2
You have the right to food money
Providing of course you
Don't mind a little
Investigation, humiliation
And if you cross your fingers
Rehabilitation
Know your rights
These are your rights
Wang
Know these rights

Number 3
You have the right to free
Speech as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it
Know your rights
These are your rights
All three of 'em
It has been suggested
In some quarters that this is not enough!
Well..............................

Get off the streets
Get off the streets
Run
You don't have a home to go to
Smush

Finally then I will read you your rights
You have the right to remain silent
You are warned that anything you say
Can and will be taken down
And used as evidence against you
Listen to this
Run

Hockey, we missed thee

2005-07-22T10:03:00.000-04:00

As long as the NHL Board of Directors votes to ratify the new collective bargaining agreement, and they will since they essentially got everything they wanted from the players, then Ottawa's march to the Cup will officially begin today. Of course the big news is the draft lottery today at 4, which will give some team the right to draft Sidney Crosby, expected to be the next Wayne Gretzky. I'm not sure what I'll do if Ottawa gets the first pick, but this won't happen since we all know it has been fixed to give the NY Rangers the first choice (Patrick Ewing, anyone?).

It will be interesting to see what sort of rule changes are implemented. Some are necessary, like limiting the size of goalie equipment and removing the centre red line. The current NHL goalie resembles the Michelin Man, it's no wonder scoring is down so much lately, and anyone familiar with international hockey will tell you how much better the game is when you can pass from blue line to blue line. No touch icing will also cut down on unnecessary injuries. Some of the other rumoured changes are just silly. Forbidding the goalie to handle the puck behind the goal line doesn't make much sense, assuming the red line goes, then having a goaltender like Brodeur be able to start quick breakouts after a dump in would be amazing. And if they change the size or shape of the nets, then I'm afraid Gary Bettman will be in fear of his life whenever he steps foot in Canada. And who wants to bet the enforcer rule stays in place?

Drunk talk

2005-07-19T21:45:00.000-04:00

Typical situation. Government has its mucky fingers all over an industry and comes to the realization that something is wrong. Government then forms a commission consisting of industry bigwigs to undertake extensive review of the problem at considerable taxpayer expense. Commission comes up with some reasonable ideas as well as some not so satisfactory suggestions. Government decides to "review the recommendations," which means anything reasonable will not be occurring. While politicians normally try to conceal their power, in Ontario the government entity responsible for the alcohol monopoly is actually called the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO). The Ontario government decided this Prohibition-era state-owned company was in need of some change, and set the old cogs in motion.

The resulting report actually acknowledges that having 3 monopolies controlling a retail market is not in the best interest of consumers, which can only be realized through open, competitive markets. Bravo. Unfortunately, here's where paternalism rears its ugly head. Alcohol is no ordinary consumer good, as individuals cannot consume it rationally. Thus the recommendations made by the report are more in line with achieving some sort of "social optimum" and are as follows:

* maintain the same number of retail outlets as under the current system through a licensing system that will maximize government revenue
* have strict requirements on sales and regulated opening hours
* a minimum price policy
* require complete monitoring of alcohol by the government over all stages of production

While only the third of these recommendations directly affects the price of alcohol, the others all work raise the price indirectly. Using license fees means that retailers must pay the government for the right to sell alcohol. The government-granted monopoly system results in too few retail outlets, so keeping the number of outlets the same results in shortages. Adhering to the strict regulations and monitoring guidelines also raise the cost of production and therefore prices.

If you're expecting anything resembling a competitive market as a result of this report, don't hold your breath. While the recommendations would at least move prices in the right direction, the response by the Liberals has been typical of those holding state power. They will not be selling the LCBO, and they will not be allowing corner stores into the market to provide competition. As they seem to believe, the public interest is best served by the status quo. So while I can purchase a "2-4" of Labatt Ice for $16 when I'm getting my groceries in upstate NY, the same case of beer would be costing me $33(US) in Ontario, and it would require me to make a separate trip to the beer or liquor store. Thankfully the NY government hasn’t gone to the same lengths to serve the public interest.

Miss Individual Of Note Contributing To Our Community

2005-07-19T11:08:00.000-04:00

This is just bizarre.

Back across the border

2005-07-15T01:36:00.000-04:00

Yes, the title is referring to the recent ruling that will allow live cattle across the border from Canada and not my return from Europe. See here for the news. The ruling is of course a good one as it will remove yet another inefficiency in the market created by exchange restrictions. The argument being made by R-CALF, a special interest group representing ranchers from Montana, was that cattle coming across the border from Canada were unsafe. Canadian ranchers have the same incentives as American ranchers, and that is to raise healthy cattle to sell in order to maintain their livelihoods.

The benefits of a free exchange across the border arise from an inequality in values. By selling cattle in the U.S., the Canadian rancher gets an amount in U.S. dollars worth more than the value arising from utilizing his cattle in the next best manner. The individual in the U.S. who buys the cattle values it more than the amount of money he or she gives to the Canadian rancher. Thus both parties to the transaction gain in wealth as a result, and the efficiency gains are distributed through out the economy.

Of course some individuals will be hurt by this ruling. Specifically members of R-CALF. Consumers in the U.S. do one of two things once the border is opened. Some people continue to purchase from American ranchers. Others purchase from Canadian ranchers. Some of these people are individuals who did not purchase any cattle before, as they did not value cattle highly enough to buy any at the higher cost resulting from the trade restriction. The remaining individuals are those who no longer purchase cattle from American ranchers. As the price of cattle falls from the artificially high price of p+t to the natural price of p, relatively inefficient ranchers will be driven out of the market.

Whenever prices are altered by special interests or governments, wealth is destroyed as a result. The problem arising from a closed border or any restriction on trade that alters prices away from their natural level is that it directs resources away from their most efficient uses. When individuals make unrestricted trades in the market, they engage in those activities which provide them the greatest value. Courts should ensure that any exchange that maximizes the sum of exports and imports is allowed to happen, and this ruling certainly does that.

The future of health care

2005-06-09T20:20:00.000-04:00

Today the Supreme Court of Canada declared that the Quebec government cannot continue its monopolistic provision of certain health services. Individuals have the right to pay for private care instead of waiting in queues that arise from the inefficient public provision of medical care. Ultimately one's opinion on this matter comes down to what sort of path one thinks we need to follow in order to reach a truly free society. In this case, the federal court has overruled the provincial courts in a jurisdiction that is "provincial" so to speak - in the sense that provinces oversee the provision of health care. Leaving the question of why one level of government has the "right" to monopolize provision of a certain good, any ruling that extends liberty to the individual must be seen as a positive step forward. Instead of trying to follow some objective benchmark, should libertarians not view the overturning of unlibertarian laws as an unequivocally good thing, where subjectively speaking, "I don't know how to define an unlibertarian law, but I know one when I see one"? Quebec courts had previously decided that the collective right to a publicly funded system is more important than individual rights, and it's hard to declare this opinion as libertarian, that's for sure.

So what does this ruling mean going forward? The Liberal government has responded in its typically farcical fashion, with Prime Minister Paul Martin declaring "we're not going to have a two-tier health-care system in this country. Nobody wants that." That's weird, as it seems that's what Mr. Zeiliotis and Dr. Chaoulli want, and it's something that I want (well, actually I want nothing but privately-provided health care, but baby steps). In other words Mr. Martin, that's what you want, to simply grow the scale of government power at the expense of individuals. Indeed, the response to the shortage (created by the inefficiency of the public sector in the first place) is to throw another $41 billion at the problem over the next 10 years, at which point the system will defy the laws of economics and magically heal itself. The Canadian Labour Congress is also in on the act, claiming "for Canadian workers, the Canadian medicare system is an enormous benefit. It is one they had hoped the courts would recognize as a right." A system that runs so inefficiently that it leaves people for dead instead of allowing them to obtain service in a free market. That's not my idea of benefits and rights.

As the ruling allows individuals to voluntarily remove themselves from publicly provided medical care, this is a good thing in that it reduces the number of medical services performed using taxpayer dollars. There will still be a free rider problem as people will want to choose "free" service instead of paying for it themselves, but hopefully the privately provided care is so much better than the public system that it leaves publicly funded services for dead. While some people are concerned of a "brain drain" into private facilities, this is just statist slang designed to scare people into thinking this is a tragedy. As waiting lists indicate, there is currently a shortage of medical care in Canada. Allowing private care alongside public care will increase the quantity of services provided in the market. It is true that some workers will move to the private sector, but overall there will be an increase in medical employment. In other words, the brain drain really means that individuals will be able to freely decide whether to accept employment in the public or private sectors. Is that not what a free society should be about?

Supreme Court ruling

2005-06-09T12:20:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court of Canada will provide a ruling this Thursday regarding the constitutionality of the right to private medical care. The case was brought by 73 year old George Zeliotis of Montreal, who was forced to wait a year for hip replacement surgery. Mr. Zeliotis cannot obtain help from a private physician as Article 15 of the Health Insurance Act and article 11 of the Hospital Insurance Act prohibit private insurers from covering health services which are insured by the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec.

Let's hope the Supreme Court can actually uphold the rights of the individual in this case. There is no reason for someone to be prevented from voluntarily purchasing or selling a good (in this case, medical care) simply because the government has decided they wish to control the supply of the good through state-granted monopolies. Allowing private medical care beside public health care is an important first step on the road to efficiently provided health services. Current bureaucrats and those in the medical profession will of course be opposed, the restriction of services by government mandate simply creates rents for these groups to share. Long waiting lists for provision illustrate the dramatic shortage of care currently being provided, for the sake of the health of the nation, let privitization happen immediately.

Update: At first glance, it looks like a victory for the people, I will have to go over this in more detail later today. The court has declared that the Quebec government cannot prevent individuals from privately purchasing health services covered by medicare. For coverage, see this article at the CBC website.

Those "evil" corporations

2005-06-08T00:20:00.000-04:00

I just came back from the Commons where I read a paper and enjoyed a delicious root beer. I was meaning to get an iced coffee, but the cafe was closed so I went around the corner and picked up an A&W Root Beer for $1.10. For such a low price, I was not only able to enjoy a soda, but in the process I allowed the retailer, the distributor, and those bastards at Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. to cover their costs and earn a bit of profit on their investment. The wonder of capitalism, I bought a good because the subjective value I placed on that product exceeded the price of a bottle of soda (not the natural market price of course due to the various taxes along the way), creating wealth on both sides of the transaction.

So why are these fine capitalists bastards? Well, it comes from a conversation I happened to overhear while drinking my soda. Two gentlemen were talking, and one of them noted that he had been around for a long time, and the only thing he knew with certainty was corporate evil. While people come and go, corporations live on, their power transferred from one generation to the next. Such is the economically uneducated world we live in. Corporations exits for one reason - they provide goods that consumers wish to purchase. Those that are unable to satisfy the needs of the people are done away with through the competitive nature of the market. Coca-Cola has no army with which they can come to my door and force me to consume their products while helping themselves to my wallet. Philip-Morris cannot send me a legal notice insisting I take up smoking again unless I wish to face prosecution. Such is the basis of the market - the consumer is king (or queen), and every attack against business serves only to destroy wealth and impoverish us all. There's only one entity that take my money without my consent, and that of course is the US government. Long live the consumer. Long live the market. Long live liberty. And long live root beer.

Welcome to the new site

2005-06-07T01:03:00.000-04:00

I have decided to leave my old blog behind and start fresh on Blogger, but the name hasn't changed and neither have the ideas. The purpose of this blog will be to share my thoughts on matters of economics and politics, and provide insights into issues that you won't find coming from the major parties, their talking heads, and the media. The rhetoric coming from the Democrats and the Republicans is way overblown considering the minimal difference between the two parties. Both are happy to play along in a two party system that does nothing to substantially differentiate between the two main choices. Both favor a massive federal bureaucracy that distorts free market choices and places decision making in the hands of the state at the expense of the individual. On one hand you have the tax and spend Democrats, on the other you have the don't tax and spend Republicans. The latter bunch are simply content to implicitly tax through the erosion in the value of the U.S. dollar brought about by endless deficits. When you're the ones printing the money this is fairly simple to do, and the best part is the relative transparency of the whole charade. No wonder they're so successful.

So why am I am libertarian? This hasn't always been the case, I have officially been affiliated with two (Canadian) parties in my life, one with a conservative slant and another with a decidely more liberal flavor. A love for personal freedom led me down a socialist path, as these parties have much more to offer in terms of social liberty, yet I became frustrated when trying to find state solutions to the mryiad of problems we face in society. Once I discovered that the cause of all these problems is government itself, the choice of becoming a libertarian was an easy one to make. Reading Human Action certainly helps!