Quotulatiousness

August 6, 2020

Congress legislating on high tech is like your Grampa telling you how to play your favourite online game

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Business, Government, Politics, Technology — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

Brad Polumbo on the notion that the politicians in Washington (or Ottawa, or London, or Canberra, …) are in any way capable of sensibly regulating the high tech sector:

While many principled small-government conservatives, such as Sen. Rand Paul, still back a free-market approach to tech policy issues, Hawley is not an outlier by any means.

Indeed, President Trump has also backed the regulation of social media companies to combat perceived anti-conservative bias. And the most popular conservative media personality in the country, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, regularly rails against Big Tech — even agreeing with progressive proposals to use the heavy hand of government antitrust regulation to break up companies such as Facebook and Google.

So, if major figures from both parties can agree on regulating Big Tech, it must be a good idea, right? Not so fast.

From left to right, the intentions behind these regulatory proposals are often good. After all, most reasonable people would likely share Democrats’ desire to see Big Tech better handle misinformation, “fake news,” and foreign election interference, while conservative Republicans’ calls for political neutrality online are no doubt appealing in the abstract.

Unfortunately, in their haphazard rush to score political points through government action, would-be regulators from both parties are forgetting the inevitable “knowledge problem” that plagues any central planners who try to dictate the minutiae of complicated industries from the halls of Washington, DC.

Economic philosopher Friedrich A. Hayek diagnosed this fatal flaw of government control in his seminal work “The Use of Knowledge in Society.”

    “If we can agree that the economic problem of society is mainly one of rapid adaptation to changes in the particular circumstances of time and place,” Hayek wrote. “It would seem to follow that the ultimate decisions must be left to the people who are familiar with these circumstances, who know directly of the relevant changes and of the resources immediately available to meet them.”

    “We cannot expect that this problem will be solved by first communicating all this knowledge to a central board which, after integrating all knowledge, issues its orders,” he continued. “We must solve it by some form of decentralization. But this answers only part of our problem. We need decentralization because only thus can we insure that the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place will be promptly used.“

July 25, 2020

QotD: The real life implications of “positive” rights

Filed under: Economics, Government, Health, Quotations — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

… these same people want the government to provide them with free health care, and if they got their full way, other “positive liberties” (to quote Obama) including free college, free housing, free food, guaranteed income, guaranteed jobs.

[…] the moment all your necessities are furnished by someone else, someone else gets to make all the decisions for you. I mean, if your health is paid for by the taxes of your fellow citizens, and the government aka the nation looks after your every need: should they pay for your health if you insist on smoking or drinking? Or should those resources be husbanded for people who take better care of themselves? Okay, Sarah, but isn’t there a point to individual responsibility? Why shouldn’t you be required to take minimal care of yourself, so you get the benefits of the government’s care, which as you say someone else pays for.

Ah, but there’s the rub. See, ultimately, there’s always something some of us say or do that can be used to justify denying care or giving only palliative care. For instance, I’m overweight, which seems to be one of the remaining sins in the current lexicon. Sure, I gained tons of weight over 20 years of untreated hypothyroidism, even though I was starving myself for a long portion of those. But hey, I allowed myself to be overweight. So my prognosis is poor. Why spend money on me, when someone else could have better results?

Hell, even when it comes to my autoimmune. I’m a poor prospect, so why give me top of the line care?

If the government controlled other things, it would be exactly the same. Food? Sure, I break out in eczema all over when I eat a diet rich in carbs. But hey, flour and rice are cheap, and why should I get a specialized diet, since I’m only a writer who isn’t even a leftist or a supporter of the state, and besides my prospects of survival are poor?

College? Sure you want to be an economist, but your teachers say you’re cheeky and talk back, and the state doesn’t need that. What we need right now are pipe fitters. Here, you can take this six week course.

When the state is paying the bill, the state gets to decide what is better for you. The European constitution gives you the right to “death with dignity” because death with dignity is much cheaper than expensive treatments with a low chance of survival. After all this money is for everyone, you know?

And like the NHS, in Britain, they won’t even let you seek treatment outside their tender mercies. Why should they? They pay for you. That means in the end they decide what to spend on you. They own you. And if you went outside their system and your kid got cured? It would look pretty bad for them, wouldn’t it? Why should they allow you to do that? And besides, peasant, you have a bad attitude.

Sarah Hoyt, “Slouching Into Shackles”, According to Hoyt, 2018-04-27.

June 23, 2020

QotD: Scientific discoveries despite “research” and “planning”

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Health, Quotations, Science — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

We live in a culture of “research” and “planning.” I’m not against honest research (which is rare), but mortally opposed to “planning.” The best it can ever achieve is failure, when some achievement comes despite its ham-fisted efforts. Countless billions, yanked from the taxpayers’ pockets, and collected through highly professional, tear-jerking campaigns, are spent “trying to find a cure” for this or that. When and if it comes, it is invariably the product of some nerd somewhere, with a messy lab. Should it be noticed at all, more billions will be spent appropriating the credit, or more likely, suppressing it for giving “false hope.” The regulators will be called in, as the police are to a crime scene.

For from the “planning” point of view, the little nerd has endangered billions of dollars in funding, and thus the livelihoods of innumerable bureaucratic drudges. That is, after all, why they retain the China Wall of lawyers: to prevent unplanned events from happening. But glory glory, sometimes they happen anyway.

David Warren, “That’s funny”, Essays in Idleness, 2018-03-08.

June 20, 2020

Opposition to home schooling is merely a side-issue for those who want government to control everything

Filed under: Education, Government, Liberty, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Kerry McDonald recently took part in a debate with a Harvard academic who has called upon governments to ban homeschooling. She’s written up some of the things she took away from the discussion and from the many questions submitted before the event:

While this event was framed as a discussion about homeschooling, including whether and how to regulate the practice, it is clear that homeschooling is just a strawman. The real issue focuses on the role of government in people’s lives, and in particular in the lives of families and children. In her 80-page Arizona Law Review article that sparked this controversy, Professor Bartholet makes it clear that she is seeking a reinterpretation of the US Constitution, which she calls “outdated and inadequate,” to move from its existing focus on negative rights, or individuals being free from state intervention, to positive rights where the state takes a much more active role in citizens’ lives.

During Monday’s discussion, Professor Bartholet explained that “some parents can’t be trusted to not abuse and neglect their children,” and that is why “kids are going to be way better off if both parent and state are involved.” She said her argument focuses on “the state having the right to assert the rights of the child to both education and protection.” Finally, Professor Bartholet said that it’s important to “have the state have some say in protecting children and in trying to raise them so that the children have a decent chance at a future and also are likely to participate in some positive, meaningful ways in the larger society.”

It’s true that the state has a role in protecting children from harm, but does it really have a role in “trying to raise them”? And if the state does have a role in raising children to be competent adults, then the fact that two-thirds of US schoolchildren are not reading proficiently, and more than three-quarters are not proficient in civics, should cause us to be skeptical about the state’s ability to ensure competence.

I made the point on Monday that we already have an established government system to protect children from abuse and neglect. The mission of Child Protective Services (CPS) is to investigate suspected child abuse and punish perpetrators. CPS is plagued with problems and must be dramatically reformed, but the key is to improve the current government system meant to protect children rather than singling out homeschoolers for additional regulation and government oversight. This is particularly true when there is no compelling evidence that homeschooling parents are more likely to abuse their children than non-homeschooling parents, and some research to suggest that homeschooling parents are actually less likely to abuse their children.

Additionally, and perhaps most disturbingly, this argument for more state involvement in the lives of homeschoolers ignores the fact that children are routinely abused in government schools by government educators, as well as by school peers. If the government can’t even protect children enrolled in its own heavily regulated and surveilled schools, then how can it possibly argue for the right to regulate and monitor those families who opt out?

June 5, 2020

Toronto radio station to be required to denounce itself in Canadian Content “Struggle session”

Filed under: Cancon, Media — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

Wikipedia defines a “Struggle session” as “a form of public humiliation and torture that was used by the Communist Party of China (CPC) at various times in the Mao era, particularly years immediately before and after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China and during the Cultural Revolution. The aim of a struggle session was to shape public opinion and humiliate, persecute, or execute political rivals and those deemed class enemies.” It seems that Canada is becoming just a bit more like China (whose “basic dictatorship” has been publicly admired by our Prime Minstrel), as Toronto’s CFRB has been found in violation of the whims of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council:

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has ruled that a news broadcast that jokingly criticized Canadian content violates the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics and the Radio Television Digital News Association of Canada’s (RTDNA) Code of Journalistic Ethics. The complaint arose from a December 2019 broadcast on Toronto radio station CFRB. David McKee used his lead-in to a report on a possible Netflix tax to state “the libraries of streaming services like Netflix, Disney+ could soon have more of a Canadian flavour that nobody watches or wants if the federal government gets its way.”

That comment was too much for one listener, who filed a complaint with the CBSC, arguing that “Canadian Content is important, and Mr McKee seems to forget that he is part of a Canadian Content Broadcaster. His opinions should be kept off of the regular news sections and limited to a specific commentary section if he is so transfixed on being a commentator.”

The CBSC agreed, taking aim at the words “nobody watches or wants”, which it concluded constituted inserting personal opinion into the broadcast […]

As a penalty, CFRB must now broadcast that it breached the ethics standards on several broadcasts. While few will likely take notice, Canadians should take notice of the regulatory policing of the line between news and commentary on a radio broadcast. Indeed, one wonders if there would be a similar outcome if the broadcaster had expressed support for Canadian content.

Moreover, the Broadcast and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel, which Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault plans to implement, recommended extending Canada’s broadcast regulatory framework to the Internet, including sites and services that aggregate the news.

May 14, 2020

QotD: Anti-dumping laws

Filed under: Business, Economics, Government, Quotations — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

The antidumping law is defended as a remedy for market distortions caused by foreign government policies. Yet in actual practice, the methods of determining dumping under the law fail, repeatedly and at multiple levels, to distinguish between normal commercial pricing practices and those that reflect market-distorting government policies.

As a result, antidumping law as it currently exists routinely punishes normal competitive business practices — practices commonly engaged in by American companies at home and abroad. It is therefore not the case that the law guarantees a level playing field for American companies and their foreign competitors. On the contrary, it actively discriminates against foreign goods by subjecting them to requirements not applicable to American products.

Brink Lindsey and Dan Ikenson, Antidumping Exposed: The Devilish Details of Unfair Trade Laws, 2003.

May 13, 2020

“Why are you so upset at the gun ban? You don’t even have handguns or assault rifles”

Filed under: Cancon, Law, Liberty, Weapons — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

In BC Outdoors Magazine, Steve Hamilton explains why he’s so upset about the Trudeau government’s rush to punish law-abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals:

There are a few reasons – some that should upset non-gun owners, and some that should upset Canadians as a whole. Let us take a walk, shall we?

First, it is directed at the wrong people. Gun owners know that this will not address the real issues. There is a lack of severe punishment for criminals, and an unfortunate mental health crisis. We need to fix those first and foremost – direct the money there. No more revolving door. Lock repeat criminals up and throw away the key and dramatically increase programs and support mechanisms to help those affected with mental illness.

Multiple premiers and police chiefs have said the same thing. This ban will do nothing to lower gun crime. Gun owners know the statistics and that criminals will continue to run rampant. Criminals will not turn in their guns, we know that. This new law means nothing to them.

This ban will not take illegal guns off the street, just legal ones out of the hands of lawful owners. The sound bite of, “No one needs an AR-15 to take down a deer,” is truthful. However, the part they left out is that it has been illegal to do so in Canada since 1977 when the AR became restricted class, which means it is only allowed on approved ranges. Strictly to and from, and for nothing except target shooting. It was designed as a deer rifle in the 1960s and has never been used in a military application in its current configuration, as it was found unsuitable.

[…]

“Assault rifle.” That very term makes me cringe. Select-fire and military capable is the definition of assault rifle. To have a rifle approved for sale and imported, it needs to be verified by the RCMP, who confirms that converting it to select fire or automatic is impossible. So, by definition, every single one in Canada is not capable by any means of being turned into the class of firearm they have banned.

Let us toss the firearm argument aside for a second. Every Canadian citizen should be outraged at how this was done. It was pushed through on the heels of a tragedy. The very foundation of our government is supposed to be about democratic debate and input. There was none. Your opposition had zero say against this, and no matter if you are for or against the ban, when your side cannot be heard, that goes against what we should stand for as Canadians. They also used an Order in Council to change the class of a firearm, something that is normally used to change ministerial appointments or expenses. This should not have been done without debate in the House.

Now on to how it is written. That is what is scary about this “assault rifle” situation. There is so much ambiguous wording in this order. Clearly it was rushed through and poorly considered. It is very unclear to the point multiple firearms expert lawyers have said that some shotguns are banned. Minister Blair issued a statement saying that was not the intent; however, the law is written already. A defense in court of, “The minister said on social media that this wasn’t the intent,” will obviously not stand up. Good luck if you try that. Please let us know how that goes.

May 10, 2020

Justin Trudeau’s allergy to scary black fully semi-automatic “military style” rifles gets even less coherent

Filed under: Cancon, Government, Law, Liberty, Weapons — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

Chris Selley on the federal government’s purely virtue signalling gun ban:

In a recent column, I questioned whether the Liberals’ new “ban” on certain kinds of semiautomatic rifles — “ban” in quotation marks, inasmuch as current owners can keep them — constituted the sort of good public-health policy we’re demanding nowadays in the face of COVID-19. I concluded it did not. Even if you support the idea of banning such weapons, you can’t really support this endeavour except in the way a starving man might welcome his least favourite meal. Indeed, gun control advocates are nearly as annoyed by it as gun rights advocates, and rightly so.

The Liberal “ban” targets certain semiautomatic rifles falling under the undefined term “military-style,” while leaving other semi-automatics alone. It focuses on rifles, which collectively are the least lethal form of previously legal weapons, while leaving handguns — which are used in 65 per cent of firearm homicides — alone. “You don’t need an AR-15 to bring down a deer,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says, yet the “ban” exempts current owners of these weapons who use them to hunt for the purposes of sustenance.” Upon its unveiling, it was very nearly perfectly incoherent. And it’s nearer still now.

In recent days the Liberals have touted the “ban” as a way of protecting women and girls in particular. “These guns make it easier to commit mass murder,” Trudeau added. “And the culture around their fetishization makes our country inherently more dangerous for the people most vulnerable. And that is women and girls.” Trudeau cited reports about increasing domestic violence during the pandemic, and grim statistics about the number of Canadians killed by their spouses.

There is very little evidence to support this case for the “ban.” And when you go looking for it, you wind up only with more questions.

To be fair, there is very little evidence to support any position on gun control. Nobody comprehensively keeps track of how many Canadians are killed using currently restricted weapons, or by the weapons the Liberals are “banning,” or even by rifles as opposed to shotguns — so we certainly don’t know how many men and women are killed by these various kinds of firearms.

May 8, 2020

Weapons as Political Protest: P.A. Luty’s Submachine Gun

Filed under: Britain, History, Law, Liberty, Weapons — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Forgotten Weapons
Published 2 Aug 2017

Armament Research Services (ARES) is a specialist technical intelligence consultancy, offering expertise and analysis to a range of government and non-government entities in the arms and munitions field. For detailed photos of the guns in this video, don’t miss the ARES companion blog post:

http://armamentresearch.com/pa-luty-9…

Phillip A. Luty was a Briton who took a hard philosophical line against gun control legislation in the UK in the 1990s. In response to more restrictive gun control laws, he set out to prove that all such laws were ultimately futile by showing that one could manufacture a functional firearm from hardware store goods, without using any purpose-made firearms parts.

Luty succeeded in this task, designing a 9mm submachine gun made completely from scratch with a minimum of tools. In 1998, he published the plans for his gun as the book Expedient Homemade Firearms. Luty was not particularly discreet about his activities (actually, he was quite outspoken…) and was eventually caught by the police while out to test fire one of his guns, and arrested. He was convicted, and spent several years in prison. He continued to pursue a gun rights agenda after being released, and was facing legal trouble again when he passed away from cancer in 2011.

Several of Luty’s submachine guns are still held in the collection of the Royal Armouries’ National Firearms Centre, including the one that led to his original conviction. Many thanks to the NFC for allowing me to bring that weapon to you!

http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons

Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg…

If you enjoy Forgotten Weapons, check out its sister channel, InRangeTV! http://www.youtube.com/InRangeTVShow

April 28, 2020

QotD: Rent control in Stockholm

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economics, Europe, Quotations — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

Take Sweden, which introduced effective rents controls nationwide in 1947. They were supposed to be a temporary measure, yet they remain in place to this day, despite criticism from academics, think tanks and the OECD. While the intention to create a more socially dynamic society was laudable, the reality has been much bleaker.

Instead of a fairer rental market, where tenants can easily afford rent and live in high-quality housing, Sweden suffers from increased social segregation; eruptions of violence as a result of disagreements in its massive black market of sublet housing; and companies that face immense difficulties in recruiting talent, as potential workers are unable to find suitable accommodation.

Proponents of rent control often emphasise the fairness the measure: rent controls are meant to create a more egalitarian society, where individuals irrespective of their income live in the same neighbourhood and can afford similar quality housing. This could not be further from the truth.

The Swedish experiment shows that it is high-income, well-educated individuals who benefit from rent controls the most, whereas less-educated, or not as well-connected individuals such as younger renters or immigrants, are highly disadvantaged by the system.

In theory, housing stock that becomes available for rent is allocated through the Stockholm Housing Agency, which ensures the rental prices are kept on “an average level”. The average waiting time in Stockholm for such housing allocation is over 11 years. As tenants realise the true value of their contract — e.g. the money they can receive for their apartment on the secondary rental market — they are unwilling to return the property to the agency, even when they move out. Instead, they rent it out to someone in their extended circle of friends or exchange the flat for one in a different area — only in practice, not on paper of course. No wonder that only 0.5% of the housing is returned to the agency, resulting in a massive queue of 670,000 people on Stockholm’s housing waitlist — out of a total population of 970,000.

This system benefits the most well-connected individuals, but highly disadvantages people who lack broad social connections. These groups are often forced into the informal rental market, where the prices are on average double that of the official rent controlled numbers. One in five young Swedish renters face have admitted renting on the black market. Due to the lack of legal arbitration, disagreements between parties can lead to violence and in some cases even murder.

Another problem has been the inflexibility of rental contracts, which have made it difficult for people to move between cities, leading to a fifth of Swedish companies facing severe recruitment problems due to the lack of suitable housing.

Adam Bartha, “Rent controls have failed in cities throughout Europe”, Institute of Economic Affairs, 2020-01-23.

April 14, 2020

QotD: The Edict of Diocletian, 301 AD

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Business, Economics, Europe, Government, History, Quotations — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

The most famous episode of price controls in Roman history was during the reign of Emperor Diocletian (A.D. 244-312). He assumed the throne in Rome in A.D. 284. Almost immediately, Diocletian began to undertake huge and financially expensive government spending projects.

There was a massive increase in the armed forces and military spending; a huge building project was started in the form of a planned new capital for the Roman Empire in Asia Minor (present-day Turkey) at the city of Nicomedia; he greatly expanded the Roman bureaucracy; and he instituted forced labor for completion of his public works projects.

[…]

Diocletian also instituted a tax-in-kind; that is, the Roman government would not accept its own worthless, debased money as payment for taxes owed. Since the Roman taxpayers had to meet their tax bills in actual goods, this immobilized the entire population. Many were now bound to the land or a given occupation, so as to assure that they had produced the products that the government demanded as due it at tax collection time. An increasingly rigid economic structure, therefore, was imposed on the whole Roman economy.

But the worst was still to come. In A.D. 301, the famous Edict of Diocletian was passed. The Emperor fixed the prices of grain, beef, eggs, clothing, and other articles sold on the market. He also fixed the wages of those employed in the production of these goods. The penalty imposed for violation of these price and wage controls, that is, for any one caught selling any of these goods at higher than prescribed prices and wages, was death.

Realizing that once these controls were announced, many farmers and manufacturers would lose all incentive to bring their commodities to market at prices set far below what the traders would consider fair market values, Diocletian also prescribed in the Edict that all those who were found to be “hoarding” goods off the market would be severely punished; their goods would be confiscated and they would be put to death.

In the Greek parts of the Roman Empire, archeologists have found the price tables listing the government-mandated prices. They list over 1,000 individual prices and wages set by the law and what the permitted price and wage was to be for each of the commodities, goods, and labor services.

A Roman of this period named Lactanius wrote during this time that Diocletian “… then set himself to regulate the prices of all vendible things. There was much blood shed upon very slight and trifling accounts; and the people brought no more provisions to market, since they could not get a reasonable price for them and this increased the dearth [the scarcity] so much, that at last after many had died by it, the law was set aside.”

Richard M. Ebeling, “How Roman Central Planners Destroyed Their Economy”, Foundation for Economic Education, 2016-10-05.

April 9, 2020

You know you’re entering a police state when the police can just make up new “laws” to enforce

Filed under: Cancon, Health, Law, Liberty — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

I was surprised to see the name of someone I used to work with pop up in a story about over-enthusiastic enforcement of imaginary “laws” in the Ottawa area:

On Tuesday, the City of Ottawa’s bylaw enforcement team tweeted out an important clarification to a recent news report: An Orléans man had not been and would not be issued a $700 ticket for “playing soccer with his son in an empty field.” Rather, the city maintains, he had only been issued a “verbal warning” for playing soccer with his son in an empty field.

One can understand the Orléans man’s confusion. As David Martinek told it to the Ottawa Citizen, he was kicking around a ball with his four-year-old son William, who has autism and “more energy than needed to power the City of Ottawa,” when a bylaw officer arrived, took note of his licence plate and mentioned the $700 figure. He quite logically expected a summons in the mail.

The good news, such as it is, is that Martinek is no poorer to the tune of $700 (though he could have crowdfunded that in about 90 seconds). The remarkable thing about the city’s clarification, however, is that it actually paints a more offensive picture. A ticket is something you can fight — and such a ticket would deserve to be fought unto its demise, because Martinek doesn’t seem to have been doing anything illegal. As such, the “verbal warning” serves only as intimidation against a harmless, indeed beneficial activity.

The City of Ottawa’s website lays out the “rules and restrictions” in force due to COVID-19. It notes that bylaw officers have been empowered to enforce Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. Regulation 104/20, made under said act, orders the closure of “outdoor recreational amenities that are intended for use by more than one family.”

It defines “outdoor recreational amenities” as off-leash dog parks, community and allotment gardens, “all portions of park and recreational areas containing outdoor fitness equipment,” “all outdoor playgrounds, play structures and equipment,” “all outdoor picnic sites, benches and shelters in park and recreational areas,” and “all outdoor sports facilities and multi-use fields, including baseball diamonds; soccer fields; frisbee golf locations; tennis, platform tennis, table tennis and pickleball courts; basketball courts; BMX parks; and skate parks.”

Considerable thought went into those very thorough prohibitions, you will agree. Yet they conspicuously do not prohibit two members of the same household kicking a ball around. Martinek says he questioned the bylaw officer as to whether they were on city parkland, but there’s nothing in the act prohibiting intra-household kick-arounds in parks or anywhere else. “Nothing in this order precludes individuals from walking through or using portions of park and recreational areas that are not otherwise closed and that do not contain an outdoor recreational amenity described,” the regulation reads.

April 1, 2020

Woodrow Wilson (pt.2) | Historians Who Changed History

Filed under: Americas, Government, History, Politics, USA, WW1 — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

The Cynical Historian
Published 8 Feb 2018

This is the second part of a 2 part episode. The first covered Woodrow Wilson from his early years to the 1912 election. This episode is covering his presidency. I highly recommend you go see the previous one, because I’m going to refer to stuff in it a lot here.

They only allow 5 cards, so here are all the previous episodes referenced:
Wilson Part 1: https://youtu.be/Hm0Gzz53YJo
Birth of a Nation: https://youtu.be/zzsvOBjRXew
Philippine Insurrection: https://youtu.be/mmYk0xxjDDA
WWI causes: https://youtu.be/NTrk7XktTrc
WWI effects: https://youtu.be/G3vKUgoTghg
Border Wars: https://youtu.be/qs4Lp39Y8W8
Russian Intervention: https://youtu.be/1mC1bmzbgxY
1919 Red Scare: https://youtu.be/S4Pi2nYcYNw
————————————————————
[Full references in the YouTube description]

Support the channel through Patreon:
https://www.patreon.com/CynicalHistorian
or pick up some merchandise at SpreadShirt:
https://shop.spreadshirt.com/cynicalh…

LET’S CONNECT:
https://twitter.com/Cynical_History
————————————————————
Wiki:
The presidency of Woodrow Wilson began on March 4, 1913 at noon when Woodrow Wilson was inaugurated as President of the United States, and ended on March 4, 1921. Wilson, a Democrat, took office as the 28th United States president after winning the 1912 presidential election, gaining a large majority in the Electoral College and a 42 percent plurality of the popular vote in a four–candidate field. Four years later, in 1916, Wilson defeated Republican Charles Evans Hughes by nearly 600,000 votes in the popular vote and secured a narrow majority in the Electoral College by winning several swing states with razor-thin margins. He was the first Southerner elected as president since Zachary Taylor in 1848, and the first Democratic president to win re-election since Andrew Jackson in 1832.
————————————————————
Hashtags: #History #WoodrowWilson #PresidentWilson #KKK #BirthOfANation #Segregation #JimCrow #Wilsonianism #Interventionism #EspionageAct #SeditionAct

March 30, 2020

“Hoarders” and “gougers” … when the market delivers unwelcome news

Filed under: Business, Economics — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Tom Mullen on the efficient functioning of prices in a free market economy:

Market prices are the foundation of civilization. They are the signal that tells producers how much of any one thing to produce. They tell consumers how much to consume or whether to consume a product at all. The reason retailers don’t normally throw away 80 percent of their stock is because market prices tell them how much to have on hand at any one time to meet current demand.

When they miscalculate and buy a little too much, they still don’t typically waste their stock. They put it on sale and meet the demand at a lower price.

To the extent the market is allowed to set prices, producers generally produce what consumers want to buy in the quantities they want to buy. When all supply is consumed and large amounts of consumers are not left with unmet demand, it is referred to as the market “clearing.”

The government is always and everywhere at war with market prices. Regulations creating barriers to entry limit supply, artificially inflating prices. Price controls, including “anti-price gouging” laws override market prices, creating shortages. Subsidies to producers (farm subsidies, for example), allow producers to limit supply, artificially inflating the price.

But when the market works properly, it often delivers news to consumers and to governments that is unpopular, and governments frequently attempt to “hold back the sea” by introducing market distortions:

All these price adjustments by the market are essential for our well-being. They are the cure for the economic disease caused by the government response to the virus and the previous 12 years of monetary inflation and artificially low interest rates.

What is the government doing in response? It is escalating its usual, conventional war on market prices to a nuclear war. It is punishing suppliers of essential goods for raising prices. It is ramping up monetary inflation to historic levels to keep stock prices artificially high and unprofitable businesses alive to go on producing products for which there is no demand. At a time when market prices are more essential to our survival than ever, the government is doing more to override them than ever.

This is not an academic theory that only works on a graph in a classroom. This plays out before our very eyes in the form of essential goods not available to us at any price.

Why is there no toilet paper available? Ask most people and they will say it is because of “hoarders.” These are people who bought far more than they needed in anticipation of future shortages. The people who arrived at the store after the toilet paper is sold out vilify them. Others might just call them prudent.

The same people who vilify hoarders also vilify “price gougers.” They don’t seem to grasp the obvious cause/effect relationship here. If it weren’t for artificial limits on price, i.e., “anti-price gouging” laws, the price of toilet paper would rise dramatically with the surge in demand and the so-called hoarders would not be able to buy nearly as much. That would leave far more for everyone else. The toilet paper market would find the optimal price level where the greatest number of people could get what they need.

The Ontario government, of course, is doing everything they can to obstruct the market from operating freely.

March 12, 2020

QotD: Cryptocurrency versus cash in a modern economy

Filed under: Economics, Law, Liberty, Quotations, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

The new TV series Ozark has the best explanation of this I’ve seen in popular culture. To paraphrase: Say you have $1 million in cash. What can you actually do with it?

If you try to deposit it in the bank, they will file a report, and you will shortly be explaining to the government where that money came from. Unless you have a good explanation, you will then be desperately trying to hire a lawyer in order to avoid a trip to the pokey.

Nor can you simply buy a house or a car with that cash, which will raise many, many eyebrows at the bank, and then at the government that bank reports to. You basically can’t make any large purchase in cash without raising a lot of questions. This is why drug dealers spend so much effort figuring out how to launder their ill-gotten gains. Unless you can find some way to put the money in a bank without the government getting suspicious, then all you have, in the words of Jason Bateman’s character, is (approximately) “groceries and gas for the rest of your life.”

And that’s dollars, which are indisputably legal tender. Your cryptocurrency will be even harder to spend. Who wants to trade you legal cash for scrip that’s only good for buying on the black market? How do you find that person? What discount will they demand for giving up their cash?

Bitcoin is currently good for transferring money out of failing states like Venezuela, because in those places, the local currency is so worthless that you’re better off trading it for bitcoin, or for that matter, cans of mackerel. But that presumes there are countries elsewhere with stable governments and strong economies where bitcoins can be turned into real goods. If bitcoins become a good way to evade those governments, those governments will ban them, and desperate people will go back to smuggling diamonds and dollars.

Megan McArdle, “Bitcoin Is an Implausible Currency”, Bloomberg View, 2017-12-27.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress