Anthony Martin’s Weblog

A blog about some guy. 
Tags


Filed under

World

 
May 1, 2009

Price Gouging Is Good #swineflu

The Colombian government has imposed a price fix for face-masks of 180 pesos (about 8¢ US).  Violators will be fined, shut down, and/or imprisoned.  This is a basic economic mistake governments always make during emergencies (real or hype).  Even in emergency situations, the free market should dictate the price of things, not a centralized bureaucracy.

This is because forcing the price to stay low will only result in a shortage and distribution complications.  Likewise, allowing the price to rise mitigate these problems.  Will certain people be denied access to face-masks?  Yes, either way, they will.  But if denial of face-masks is brought on by government intervention, less people will actually receive them due to red tape than if they were merely unable to afford them.

This is why price gouging is good.  If a face-masks are fixed at 8¢ each even during an emergency, I am more likely to buy more than I need, which would bring about a shortage.  But if each face-mask is going for $10 each, I might be a little more careful and leave some for other people.

The free market solution is to allow the masks to rise to a point where no one can buy them, even in a panic.  Maybe they rise to $1,000 each.  Crazy, right?  Maybe one sucker would buy one mask and that's it.  After that, the seller won't sell any more until the price falls.  Eventually, it will fall to a level where more and more people can afford them.

People critical of the above free market solution would say this slows everything down.  They think it takes too long for the price to fall to the "proper" level.  They would say the government should step in because they know a) the proper price and b) the proper quantity.

Yet, if they remain at 8¢ each, the one person who would have used $1,000 for one mask is suddenly able to afford ten thousand masks.  This is where governments decide to impose limits which slow the whole process because they know the proper quantity, after all.

Trusting the free market is smart because it naturally addresses the problems associated with hording better than red tape ever could.  Private property and multiple wills react better and more quickly than government "experts" and red-tape.

Trusting the government that sucks at everything it does is just dumb.  What makes us believe they know the proper price and quantity for face-masks, especially in a hyped emergency?

Gouging protects against the effects of panic.  This applies to face-masks as well as medicine and generators.  Whenever the government monkeys with prices and quantities, unintended consequences abound.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   Best Of   Economic   Political   World  

Comments [2]

March 12, 2009

Should We Let Iran Have Nuclear Weapons?

I keep seeing articles on my aggregator that ask the question, "Should We Let Iran Have Nuclear Weapons?"

What arrogance.  But I guess if only 61% of people in the US are sure it's not the job of the government to keep people from overeating, I really shouldn't be surprised at these kinds of questions.

Again I am reminded that the only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn anything from history.

The US Government has threatened practically every country that embarks to seek nuclear technology.  But when they achieve nuclear weapons capability, the US stops threatening them and even send money!  Such a deal!  So with that kind of track record, why would Iran stop researching all things nuclear?  What are our so-called "leaders" telling the world by acting like that?

If Israel and/or US forces try to disarm Iran by force, it will be because they didn't learn from Otto von Bismarck who warned that preventative war is "like committing suicide out of fear of death."

Not because Iran is powerful.  By no means.  But we are in the worst economic crisis because of these foreign and domestic preventative strategies.  It doesn't work.  To suggest otherwise is to just ignore history.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   History   World  

Comments [0]

February 10, 2009

The War on Abortionism

In the latest episode of The Sitter Downers, I thought it was interesting that Tom had to come up with a legitimate reason to invade the US before he could postulate his actual question.  I'm not entirely sure what Tom's question was, so I'll come up with my own after using the following scenario to help suspend Adam's disbelief.


I think Tom was going to try to ask about the principle of invading another sovereign country that didn't pose a threat.  And what gives any country a right to impose its beliefs on any other country?

Adam's objection was that Tom didn't account for the fact that the American invasions are noble.  So in order to address that, here's my analogy.

Suppose...

  • ... a superpower invaded America and continued killing Americans who fought back and resisted the occupation to the tune of between 4,000 to 15,000 each day (depending on the day of the week).
  • ... the invading superpower is a relatively small, relatively militant nation who recently became a superpower due to the discovery of a powerful new energy source called AQS (artificial quantum singularity) which now makes this superpower very rich and very dangerous.
  • ... the superpower invaded America because it had a moral objection to the killing of 3,000 to 5,000 people every single day (depending on the day of the week).
  • ... the 3,000 to 5,000 people America kills are unborn babies.
  • ... this superpower isn't part of the UN, but if it were, it would just ignore the UN.
  • ... this invading superpower also made an alliance with Mexico for logistic purposes.
  • ... Mexico sides with the invaders and creates an alliance in exchange for support and protection.

We know that not all Americans personally kill unborn babies.  But that distinction is relatively unimportant to the invaders.  To them, all Americans have the potential of becoming abortionists either by performing abortions or by fighting the occupation.  They make no distinction between the abortionists and those who harbor them.

Since the Americans voted for the "abortionism" regime for 35 years on end (republicans and democrats are both abortionism regimes), all Americans are to blame to some extent.  The occupying nation also takes issue with Christianity, claiming it promotes abortionism.  Although this is a false claim, the citizens of the invading superpower can't be bothered to check the facts.

So with the above analogy in mind, my main question is, do you think it's ok to call all the Americans who fight back abortionists?

Also, does it seem a little strange that the invaders are against abortionism but don't mind killing many times more Americans to stop them from being abortionists?

It is also very convenient that abortionists come to America from other countries to get killed.  That way, the invading superpower is itself safe from abortionism since they are fighting them "over there."

What was the alternative?  Assuming such a superpower came into existence, does it not have a moral obligation to stop the murder of these innocents by any means necessary?  Should the superpower just stand by and allow the Americans to kill these people when it has the power to step in and stop it?  Should the superpower really just rely upon "talks" to try to convince the Americans to stop their abortionist regime?

Or in fact, is there a principle at work for respecting the borders of other nations and avoiding entangling alliances instead of invading nations that do things we don't approve of?

Shouldn't the new superpower respect the borders of the abortionist nations and set an example by not itself engaging in abortion?  Setting an example for other nations establishes a moral high-ground for them to follow.

If you're having trouble seeing the parallels in my analogy, I'll break it down for you:

  • America is analog to Iraq, therefore
    • Abortionism is analog to Terrorism, therefore:
      • Abortion = Terror
      • Abortionist = Terrorist
      • Abortionist/ism Regime = Terrorist/ism Regime
      • War on Abortionism = War on Terrorism
  • The invading superpower is analog to America, therefore
    • AQS is dual analog to America's rich resources and military industrial complex.
  • There are definitely other parallels, I just didn't fully document them all.

No analogy is perfect.  For example, Iraq didn't have any known Al-Qaeda terrorists until we invaded, but my analog America has abortionists, just like in real life.  But I hope someone will answer a few of my questions.  Please stick to the overarching theme and try not to knit-pick my analogy too much.  Some knit-picking is in order, but there's no reason to allow it to short-circuit the original point.

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   Analogy   Best Of   Rule of Law   World  

Comments [0]

September 23, 2008

Bolivia's rivals begin peace talks

There's a lot going on in Bolivia these days. They had (or still have) martial law to deal with and that can't have a positive effect on ministry. But what is very positive is that our people are already entrenched to provide aid to the citizens oppressed by the evil tyrannical government.

 
 

via Mission Network News on 9/21/08

Bolivia (MNN) -- Peace talks quietly began five days ago between Bolivia's president Evo Morales and the opposition governors. It's one of the early efforts to bring to an end the deadly violence that has crippled the nation and created profound mutual mistrust. Morales' proposed reforms are being met with outrage and protest. Nita Zelenak with New Tribes Mission says of their work, "Whenever there's civil unrest in a country, it affects their ministry to a certain extent. They have concerns about safety issues, so they have to divide their attention between the two things. Most of our folks work in rural areas that are quite a ways away from where most of the unrest is, so they've been able to continue with their work." New Tribes continues to evaluate the danger, keeping a careful watch on changing conditions. Zelenak says, "Pray for the civil unrest that is in Bolivia. We're seeing some encouraging steps that maybe it's getting better, but that would continue for the good of the people in Bolivia. [Pray] that the work can continue there."

Loading mentions Retweet
Filed under  //   Faith   Ministry   World  

Comments [0]