It is widely recognized that bonuses are not a guaranteed supplement to a salary. They are typically given out of a company's profits, and when those profits are not there, bonuses are often withheld until the company is in a better position to award them. This is a function of a long-term plan that most companies operate under in a free market. However, when you institute a plethora of regulations, loopholes, and "free" taxpayer money, you have just warped this basic incentive towards long-term success. If I know that in spite of poor performance, I will receive large sums of money, am I likely to work harder and conserve that money towards promoting a stronger business model? Or am I more likely to spend that money now because I know that more will soon be on the way once the first round of funding runs out?
Instinctively, we react negatively when we hear about how our money is being given to AIG and doled out in large sums to executives. We are paying to run a company whose business model we disagree with! That is not fair! Of course, we blame the evil executives and call them greedy. But we forget that Congress and government intervention are fueling this greed. People are far more greedy when they are not spending their own money. We naturally agree with the free market, which gives us the incentive to forego short-term gain (and long-term losses) in favor of slow but steady long-term gains. The free market is just and fair, rewarding good decisions and punishing bad ones. The free market forces companies to make better decisions and spend wisely because otherwise they risk losing their incomes if they fail. Are the executives at AIG greedy? Sure! But we should not forget that it is the free market that reins in their greed and forces them to work for their bonuses, at least in the long-term. When we introduce government into the equation, we change the natural course of the market and give companies like AIG a free pass to do business with a short-term mentality rather than a long-term strategy. This is exactly what we are seeing now. AIG has not turned around in the last few months even with billions of dollars being handed over! What becomes the solution? If you ask Congress, they say that AIG just needs more money, or more conditions on how the next round of money should be spent.
What we seem to forget is that keeping the AIG name alive, does not mean that we are keeping AIG from failing. AIG has already failed. Any money that has been lost is already gone. We can either continue putting money into the bonfire in hopes of getting it back, or we can finally stop fueling the fire and let it slowly burn out.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
No Health Care for You!
We should have known that a bill that gets pushed through late on Friday nights and referred to with the word "emergency" is probably the kind that would need even more scrutiny than most. Fortunately, Betsy McCaughey with Bloomberg has brought to light some provisions that may be harmful to your health, noting that these are the handiwork of Tom Daschle, who, prior to being exposed for owing $140,000 in back taxes, was Obama's choice for Health and Human Services Secretary. Amidst the spending in the stimulus bill are provisions for health rules that will affect everyone in the United States. In it, McCaughey writes, the Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology is given the power to "monitor [your] treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective."
McCaughey found that the provisions in the bill are nearly identical to those in Daschle's book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis. Daschle's book promotes setting up an appointed government agency to overrule the decisions you and your doctor make and "calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept 'hopeless diagnoses' and 'forgo experimental treatments...'"
Wait a minute ... "slow the development and use of new medications?" Isn't that what the FDA already does with it's testing processes that take 8-10+ years and billions of dollars for new drugs to enter the market? And, while we're talking about a "stimulus" bill, isn't this exactly the opposite of what a stimulus is supposed to do?
And what are these "hopeless diagnoses" that Daschle speaks of? What about breast cancer that has spread and requires expensive treatments? What about AIDS for which there is no cure -- are "experimental treatments" that could save people's lives, or at minimum make their last days more bearable, now a thing of the past? What about cerebral palsy? Lou Gehrig's disease? Alzheimer's? What about rare diseases that doctors know little about?
Do we really want a bureaucrat sitting behind a desk examining our medical history and deciding how our physician is allowed to treat us? Is there any stranger to whom we would give control over our bodies and health? We would be reluctant to give that sort of carte blanche to anyone outside of our immediate families -- if that! Ironically, I doubt if the decisions by this appointed government agency will be made with as much expediency as the stimulus plan that establishes it. How long do you think your medical record is going to sit on someone's desk while you wait for a decision on whether you can get medical care or not?
During his term as Senator of Illinois, President Obama stated that he rejected the Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 that would require a second physician to be present during abortion procedures to administer care if an infant were born alive, because, it was "designed simply to burden the original decision ..." If "burdening the decision" is a terrible thing, Mr. Obama, how can you reconcile this position with the creation of an entire government organization, costing more in your stimulus plan than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force combined, that is designed for the sole purpose of burdening the decisions between doctor and patient?
McCaughey found that the provisions in the bill are nearly identical to those in Daschle's book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis. Daschle's book promotes setting up an appointed government agency to overrule the decisions you and your doctor make and "calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept 'hopeless diagnoses' and 'forgo experimental treatments...'"
Wait a minute ... "slow the development and use of new medications?" Isn't that what the FDA already does with it's testing processes that take 8-10+ years and billions of dollars for new drugs to enter the market? And, while we're talking about a "stimulus" bill, isn't this exactly the opposite of what a stimulus is supposed to do?
And what are these "hopeless diagnoses" that Daschle speaks of? What about breast cancer that has spread and requires expensive treatments? What about AIDS for which there is no cure -- are "experimental treatments" that could save people's lives, or at minimum make their last days more bearable, now a thing of the past? What about cerebral palsy? Lou Gehrig's disease? Alzheimer's? What about rare diseases that doctors know little about?
Do we really want a bureaucrat sitting behind a desk examining our medical history and deciding how our physician is allowed to treat us? Is there any stranger to whom we would give control over our bodies and health? We would be reluctant to give that sort of carte blanche to anyone outside of our immediate families -- if that! Ironically, I doubt if the decisions by this appointed government agency will be made with as much expediency as the stimulus plan that establishes it. How long do you think your medical record is going to sit on someone's desk while you wait for a decision on whether you can get medical care or not?
During his term as Senator of Illinois, President Obama stated that he rejected the Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 that would require a second physician to be present during abortion procedures to administer care if an infant were born alive, because, it was "designed simply to burden the original decision ..." If "burdening the decision" is a terrible thing, Mr. Obama, how can you reconcile this position with the creation of an entire government organization, costing more in your stimulus plan than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force combined, that is designed for the sole purpose of burdening the decisions between doctor and patient?
Monday, February 09, 2009
What Crisis?
Hearing words like "crisis" and "catastrophic" used to describe today's current pre-"stimulus" economic climate has me wondering: how bad is it really? Is the average American going through foreclosure? No. Are the millions of renters worried about house prices dropping? No. Am I personally suffering right now? No. Am I unable to get health care? No. As a matter of fact, I would bet that most of us are faring pretty well, even if our stocks aren't looking as good as they were a few months ago.
But, you say, what about the people who are losing their homes (by which, I assume you mean the few who actually are losing their primary residences, not the ones who are deliberately walking away from their second, third, fourth, fifth investment homes)? Foreclosure is not a new phenomenon. In normal markets, there are foreclosures. In fact, most of the delinquent loans reinstate under more favorable terms, usually by extending the loan term to reduce the monthly payment, or forgiving a portion of the principal. Banks have an incentive to restructure their clients' loans because banks do not want to lose their revenue and right now they certainly do not want to be in the real estate business. This was not the case during the housing bubble. From 2004 - 2006 in particular, banks were all too happy to enter the real estate business because they could turn around and sell the house for a profit.
But, what about people who have lost their jobs? At 7.2%, unemployment today is still low by historic standards. Unemployment right now also does not represent an across-the-board decline in jobs. Rather, it represents a transition from one sector to another. People who used to be in the mortgage and banking industries are moving to other sectors. This process takes time and there is some, temporary unemployment. People are not unemployed because there is no work for them to do; they are unemployed because in their previous role, they were not able to bring as much value as they cost.
What about people who have lost money in the stock market? This is a complicated issue, as stock prices reflect expectations of higher taxes to pay for national health care programs, bailouts, stimulus packages, higher corporate tax rates in general, increased capital gains taxes on stockholders, etc. All of these cause stock prices to go down. Is the solution then to raise government spending, thereby raising future taxes and inflation, which will cause stock prices to further plummet? When faced with higher capital gains taxes, people opt to either sell their stock now before the tax hikes go into effect, or they abstain from entering the market. Either way, demand drops and as we know from Economics 101, this means prices fall too.
More spending on socialized health care, government bailouts of companies that made bad decisions, and $800,000,000,000 quick-spend plans is not "the price we have to pay" to "get us out of a catastrophe." The expectation of increased spending and higher taxes under the new administration is what led to many of the declines in the stock market, caused companies to have difficulty increasing capital to retain employees, and is causing more economic woes than are warranted. Instead of proving these expectations to be correct, let's turn the course around by allowing consumers and businesses to tell the government to take a back seat and see how capable we are of deciding where our money goes without their so-called help.
But, you say, what about the people who are losing their homes (by which, I assume you mean the few who actually are losing their primary residences, not the ones who are deliberately walking away from their second, third, fourth, fifth investment homes)? Foreclosure is not a new phenomenon. In normal markets, there are foreclosures. In fact, most of the delinquent loans reinstate under more favorable terms, usually by extending the loan term to reduce the monthly payment, or forgiving a portion of the principal. Banks have an incentive to restructure their clients' loans because banks do not want to lose their revenue and right now they certainly do not want to be in the real estate business. This was not the case during the housing bubble. From 2004 - 2006 in particular, banks were all too happy to enter the real estate business because they could turn around and sell the house for a profit.
But, what about people who have lost their jobs? At 7.2%, unemployment today is still low by historic standards. Unemployment right now also does not represent an across-the-board decline in jobs. Rather, it represents a transition from one sector to another. People who used to be in the mortgage and banking industries are moving to other sectors. This process takes time and there is some, temporary unemployment. People are not unemployed because there is no work for them to do; they are unemployed because in their previous role, they were not able to bring as much value as they cost.
What about people who have lost money in the stock market? This is a complicated issue, as stock prices reflect expectations of higher taxes to pay for national health care programs, bailouts, stimulus packages, higher corporate tax rates in general, increased capital gains taxes on stockholders, etc. All of these cause stock prices to go down. Is the solution then to raise government spending, thereby raising future taxes and inflation, which will cause stock prices to further plummet? When faced with higher capital gains taxes, people opt to either sell their stock now before the tax hikes go into effect, or they abstain from entering the market. Either way, demand drops and as we know from Economics 101, this means prices fall too.
More spending on socialized health care, government bailouts of companies that made bad decisions, and $800,000,000,000 quick-spend plans is not "the price we have to pay" to "get us out of a catastrophe." The expectation of increased spending and higher taxes under the new administration is what led to many of the declines in the stock market, caused companies to have difficulty increasing capital to retain employees, and is causing more economic woes than are warranted. Instead of proving these expectations to be correct, let's turn the course around by allowing consumers and businesses to tell the government to take a back seat and see how capable we are of deciding where our money goes without their so-called help.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Inflation and Growth Are Not Synonymous
People often cite the monetary contraction that occurred around the beginning of the Great Depression as a reason to adopt Keynesian ideas that state spending and creating inflation by increasing the money supply are appropriate ways of increasing aggregate demand and spurring growth. In the five-year period from 1929 to 1933, the money supply dropped by one third. The effect is that each remaining dollar is more valuable in proportion to the amount that the money supply has declined. This causes the dollar to rise in value relative to other currencies, and is preferable when the country is an importer of foreign goods because, for fewer dollars, it is able to obtain more goods and services from overseas.
One would expect that imports in this time period would have risen dramatically; however, this was not the case. Instead, due to the high tariffs that were imposed at the same time -- most notably, the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 which raised import taxes to unprecedented levels -- imports declined by 66% from 1929 to 1933, despite the contraction of the money supply which would have otherwise had the opposite effect on imports. In retaliation for the strict protectionist policies of the 1930s, other foreign trade partners imposed restrictions and raised tariffs on U.S. products, further crippling industries in the U.S.
The fact that a monetary contraction coupled with the most protectionist policies of the time were contributors to a depression should not lend credence to the idea that printing more money to spend is an effective method for increasing productivity. Assuming the same protectionist tariffs were in existence today and that the U.S. were an importer of many foreign goods, inflationary policies would magnify the decline in imports by decreasing the value of the dollar on the world markets and would spark more retaliatory policies from our trading partners and further economic declines.
One would expect that imports in this time period would have risen dramatically; however, this was not the case. Instead, due to the high tariffs that were imposed at the same time -- most notably, the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 which raised import taxes to unprecedented levels -- imports declined by 66% from 1929 to 1933, despite the contraction of the money supply which would have otherwise had the opposite effect on imports. In retaliation for the strict protectionist policies of the 1930s, other foreign trade partners imposed restrictions and raised tariffs on U.S. products, further crippling industries in the U.S.
The fact that a monetary contraction coupled with the most protectionist policies of the time were contributors to a depression should not lend credence to the idea that printing more money to spend is an effective method for increasing productivity. Assuming the same protectionist tariffs were in existence today and that the U.S. were an importer of many foreign goods, inflationary policies would magnify the decline in imports by decreasing the value of the dollar on the world markets and would spark more retaliatory policies from our trading partners and further economic declines.
Finance 101
Politicians are constantly prescribing new programs to cure all of our financial woes and make everyone richer, healthier, thinner, smarter, happier and nicer. Now, if politicians were producing things of value with their own labor and money, they would be helping the economy. Instead, they take your money and your employer's, friends', neighbors' and family's and future generations'. When that isn't enough to pay for their expensive tastes in government programs, they just print more and make all of your dollars worth less. As overly simplistic as this explanation sounds, these are their only two options.
Somehow, politicians seem to believe that Americans will buy into (no pun intended) the idea that increased government spending is the cure. Undoubtedly, these Americans are the same ones who believe that they can pay off their debt by getting a new credit card. We can see on an individual level that people maximize their long-term wealth by spending on necessary things and investing what they can so that they are able to consume more in the future. When we face tough times, we spend less and we spend intelligently. The federal government would do well to follow the same sound financial strategy.
Somehow, politicians seem to believe that Americans will buy into (no pun intended) the idea that increased government spending is the cure. Undoubtedly, these Americans are the same ones who believe that they can pay off their debt by getting a new credit card. We can see on an individual level that people maximize their long-term wealth by spending on necessary things and investing what they can so that they are able to consume more in the future. When we face tough times, we spend less and we spend intelligently. The federal government would do well to follow the same sound financial strategy.
Friday, January 30, 2009
The Administration Has Begun...
Many Americans were very excited about the election of Barack Obama, believing he would bring change. And change is here.
Remember the "expensive" war in Iraq? Expensive it was, but nowhere near as expensive as the new "stimulus." Projections for how much the war in Iraq would cost in 2009 if it were to continue at its current rate were $136 billion. But President Obama's administration has made this number negligible, coming in with an Emergency Stimulus plan at nearly a trillion dollars. $1 trillion sounds like a big number, but just how big is it? $1 trillion is approximately the amount of individual income taxes that the government collects in a year ($1.0237 trillion in 2006, to be exact). That's right, for the amount of this "stimulus," Americans could have an income tax free year. Think about how much more everyone could do to stimulate the economy if they were allowed to keep their earnings instead of seeing it redistributed to those who are less productive than themselves.
This leads to the real reason why "stimulus" plans are not only misguided, but counterproductive. Anyone who has had a job knows that if you are known to be unproductive, if you don't show up to work, and if you don't carry your weight, your company does not offer you more money -- it (eventually) will fire you. The company offers its money to those people who were productive and helped the company succeed, so that it can continue to succeed in the future. This is the opposite of what these so-called stimulus plans do. They promote redistribution programs, which take money from those who were productive and give it to those who are not. But look at what great items are on the ticket... $600 million for the federal government to buy new cars, $650 million for DTV conversion coupons, and even $200 million towards planting grass on the National Mall.
Yet, the sentiment seems to be that economists nationwide are in full support of the need for the government to "jumpstart the economy" as though it is a car whose battery has died and there's some external force capable of making it run. President Obama seems to believe, "There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy." The CATO Institute issued an article disputing this, signed by hundreds of economists. Among them were Nobel Laureates and respected college professors, but this is still by no means an inclusive list. These economists say, "With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true." Government does not make the economy run. Economics is the interaction of billions of individuals who, in pursuing their own living, make the lives of others better. It is not taxes or government spending that spur new invention, new medicines, and new technologies. It is the promise of profit that drives people to devote themselves to countless hours of research and education. It is profit that causes even the most selfish people to concern themselves with the needs of others, and to meet those needs. Government ignores this true driver of growth and prosperity, and arrogantly presumes that our money is its money to throw away.
Remember the "expensive" war in Iraq? Expensive it was, but nowhere near as expensive as the new "stimulus." Projections for how much the war in Iraq would cost in 2009 if it were to continue at its current rate were $136 billion. But President Obama's administration has made this number negligible, coming in with an Emergency Stimulus plan at nearly a trillion dollars. $1 trillion sounds like a big number, but just how big is it? $1 trillion is approximately the amount of individual income taxes that the government collects in a year ($1.0237 trillion in 2006, to be exact). That's right, for the amount of this "stimulus," Americans could have an income tax free year. Think about how much more everyone could do to stimulate the economy if they were allowed to keep their earnings instead of seeing it redistributed to those who are less productive than themselves.
This leads to the real reason why "stimulus" plans are not only misguided, but counterproductive. Anyone who has had a job knows that if you are known to be unproductive, if you don't show up to work, and if you don't carry your weight, your company does not offer you more money -- it (eventually) will fire you. The company offers its money to those people who were productive and helped the company succeed, so that it can continue to succeed in the future. This is the opposite of what these so-called stimulus plans do. They promote redistribution programs, which take money from those who were productive and give it to those who are not. But look at what great items are on the ticket... $600 million for the federal government to buy new cars, $650 million for DTV conversion coupons, and even $200 million towards planting grass on the National Mall.
Yet, the sentiment seems to be that economists nationwide are in full support of the need for the government to "jumpstart the economy" as though it is a car whose battery has died and there's some external force capable of making it run. President Obama seems to believe, "There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy." The CATO Institute issued an article disputing this, signed by hundreds of economists. Among them were Nobel Laureates and respected college professors, but this is still by no means an inclusive list. These economists say, "With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true." Government does not make the economy run. Economics is the interaction of billions of individuals who, in pursuing their own living, make the lives of others better. It is not taxes or government spending that spur new invention, new medicines, and new technologies. It is the promise of profit that drives people to devote themselves to countless hours of research and education. It is profit that causes even the most selfish people to concern themselves with the needs of others, and to meet those needs. Government ignores this true driver of growth and prosperity, and arrogantly presumes that our money is its money to throw away.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
The Return of Capital Freedom
Since April 2006, nearly two years ago when I last posted, many changes have occurred ... and many things have stayed the same ...
A brief (and by no means all-inclusive) list:
In the market ...
A brief (and by no means all-inclusive) list:
In the market ...
- The 10-year Treasury rate was 4.84% -- today it is 3.56%
- Subprime loans lost their popularity as investments -- for reasons other than default risk
- The conforming loan limit increased from $417,000 to $729,750
- $1.23 bought 1 Euro -- today $1.56 buys 1 Euro
- 12¢ bought 1 Chinese Yuan -- today 14¢ buys 1 Chinese Yuan
- 1 gal of regular gasoline cost $2.56 -- today 1 gal costs $3.20
Throughout the world ...
- Former Pakistan Prime Minister Bhutto was assassinated after her return to Pakistan
- 20 million toys from China were recalled due to safety concerns
- A list of "new sins" was released by the Catholic Church, including pollution and making "too much" money
In politics ...
- Bids for the upcoming presidential election have been the highlight of the news
- There is no "conservative" or "classical liberal" Presidential candidate
In taxes ...
- The "rich" still pay most of the taxes, while a single woman earning $46k with two children pays no federal income taxes and receives around $3k Earned Income Credit
- Still, no one claims the poor aren't paying their "fair share"
- Taxes on gasoline average $0.47/gallon ... not to mention all of the indirect taxes associated with its production ...
In the blogging community ...
Capital Freedom has returned ...
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
There's No Such Thing As a Free Pretzel
When someone coined the phrase, "There's no such thing as a free lunch," they could just as easily have said there's no such thing as a free bag of pretzels, soda, or pillow. These are just a few things that airlines have begun to charge separately from the ticket price.
You might react strongly, as some passengers did, and claim that those greedy airline companies are just trying to pry more money from your wallet. "Sharon Ansara, a government supervisor from El Paso, Texas, flew an American Airlines flight from Dallas to Washington Monday morning. 'We didn't even get peanuts," she said after the 2-1/2 hour flight. "They offered us a snack pack for $4. It stinks.'"
Some airlines still offer their passengers a "free" lunch. "Continental Airlines is one of the few that still offers hot meals on domestic flights. Sandy Gorie, 45, a real estate project manager, lives in Cleveland and takes Continental to Washington on Monday mornings and returns on Friday nights. 'I've been doing this since November and my Continental experience has been great,' she said."
My flight is not made significantly more enjoyable by eating "free" bags of pretzels or drinking "free" soda or juice from little plastic cups. I don't mind bringing my own snacks or drinks in my carry-on bag. I am sure others value the convenience of being served in-flight meals to some extent, as do I. But how much do they value it? Airlines seem to have found that people are more concerned about the price of the ticket than whether their bag of pretzels will cost them $1. "American spokesman Tim Wagner said that passengers have made it clear that their first priority in buying an airline ticket is price. The company offers a la carte services -- such as snack packs -- for those willing to pay for them." Airlines will be able to earn more money from those with a high willingness to pay, and less from passengers like myself, who are not willing to pay for snacks on flights.
This reasoning reminds me of Landsburg's explanation of why popcorn at movie theatres is so expensive. Here's a brief summary: "Most people think that it's so expensive because the movie theater has a monopoly over concessions. Since you can't buy popcorn anywhere else, the theater owner has you over a barrel. But this view assumes that moviegoers decide to see movies without considering how much it's going to cost to buy popcorn or a soda. Are moviegoers so shortsighted as to carefully consider the price of admittance to a theater but not the price of concessions? No, say economists who have studied this issue. Moviegoers are well aware that popcorn is overpriced. But the price remains high because theater owners have learned that exorbitant prices enable them to reap big profits from moviegoers who care little about cost, while still collecting ticket fees from those who are concerned about the cost."
After reading about American Airlines and Continental, I did some research and looked up flights departing from Dallas, TX and arriving in Washington-Dulles International Airport, similar to the flight where Sharon Ansara, the government supervisor from El Paso, complained snack packs cost $4. American Airlines costs approximately $379 for a non-stop flight (about 2.5 hours total flight time) and no "free" snack. Continental Airlines, which would have offered her a hot meal, costs approximately $374 for a flight with 1 stop (about 5 hours total time). While Sharon might have received her "free" food, she would have had to pay with two hours of her time with only a $5 discount. Although I'm not sure what a government supervisor does or how much a government supervisor earns, two and a half hours of Sharon Ansara's time is probably worth more to her than $5 and a hot meal.
You might react strongly, as some passengers did, and claim that those greedy airline companies are just trying to pry more money from your wallet. "Sharon Ansara, a government supervisor from El Paso, Texas, flew an American Airlines flight from Dallas to Washington Monday morning. 'We didn't even get peanuts," she said after the 2-1/2 hour flight. "They offered us a snack pack for $4. It stinks.'"
Some airlines still offer their passengers a "free" lunch. "Continental Airlines is one of the few that still offers hot meals on domestic flights. Sandy Gorie, 45, a real estate project manager, lives in Cleveland and takes Continental to Washington on Monday mornings and returns on Friday nights. 'I've been doing this since November and my Continental experience has been great,' she said."
My flight is not made significantly more enjoyable by eating "free" bags of pretzels or drinking "free" soda or juice from little plastic cups. I don't mind bringing my own snacks or drinks in my carry-on bag. I am sure others value the convenience of being served in-flight meals to some extent, as do I. But how much do they value it? Airlines seem to have found that people are more concerned about the price of the ticket than whether their bag of pretzels will cost them $1. "American spokesman Tim Wagner said that passengers have made it clear that their first priority in buying an airline ticket is price. The company offers a la carte services -- such as snack packs -- for those willing to pay for them." Airlines will be able to earn more money from those with a high willingness to pay, and less from passengers like myself, who are not willing to pay for snacks on flights.
This reasoning reminds me of Landsburg's explanation of why popcorn at movie theatres is so expensive. Here's a brief summary: "Most people think that it's so expensive because the movie theater has a monopoly over concessions. Since you can't buy popcorn anywhere else, the theater owner has you over a barrel. But this view assumes that moviegoers decide to see movies without considering how much it's going to cost to buy popcorn or a soda. Are moviegoers so shortsighted as to carefully consider the price of admittance to a theater but not the price of concessions? No, say economists who have studied this issue. Moviegoers are well aware that popcorn is overpriced. But the price remains high because theater owners have learned that exorbitant prices enable them to reap big profits from moviegoers who care little about cost, while still collecting ticket fees from those who are concerned about the cost."
After reading about American Airlines and Continental, I did some research and looked up flights departing from Dallas, TX and arriving in Washington-Dulles International Airport, similar to the flight where Sharon Ansara, the government supervisor from El Paso, complained snack packs cost $4. American Airlines costs approximately $379 for a non-stop flight (about 2.5 hours total flight time) and no "free" snack. Continental Airlines, which would have offered her a hot meal, costs approximately $374 for a flight with 1 stop (about 5 hours total time). While Sharon might have received her "free" food, she would have had to pay with two hours of her time with only a $5 discount. Although I'm not sure what a government supervisor does or how much a government supervisor earns, two and a half hours of Sharon Ansara's time is probably worth more to her than $5 and a hot meal.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Dining with Lobbyists
Politicians have the unique ability to steal money from some people and give it to others. Regular people like myself don't. I've never been asked to disclose my dealings with lobbyists. It should be no surprise to anyone that a lobbyist has never invited me to dinner. Lobbyists have never given me thousands of dollars or expensive gifts. In fact, it shouldn't even surprise you that lobbyists have never given me as much as a dollar.
Politicians are approached by lobbyists constantly. Politicians can get lobbyists what they want.
Yet in recent news, politicians are trying to pass laws that limit their relationship with lobbying groups: "The Senate lobbying bill bans accepting meals from lobbyists, require lobbyists to make quarterly reports of their contacts with lawmakers, and force lawmakers to wait two years before accepting jobs lobbying Congress, up from the current one-year moratorium."
Regarding the new bill, "Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said this increased openness would 'make a big difference' in enhancing public confidence. 'We cannot tackle the big issues facing our country if the public does not trust us to act in the public interest,' said Collins, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee."
The public just might be able to trust politicians to act in the 'public interest' if politicians renounced their ability to make some people better off at the expense of others, not by passing finance reform measures, disclosing lobbyist ties, or creating new ethics committees. Congress is certainly willing to create a few regulations here and there and give up a few of the perks of the job in order to retain this, their most important ability.
Politicians are approached by lobbyists constantly. Politicians can get lobbyists what they want.
Yet in recent news, politicians are trying to pass laws that limit their relationship with lobbying groups: "The Senate lobbying bill bans accepting meals from lobbyists, require lobbyists to make quarterly reports of their contacts with lawmakers, and force lawmakers to wait two years before accepting jobs lobbying Congress, up from the current one-year moratorium."
Regarding the new bill, "Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said this increased openness would 'make a big difference' in enhancing public confidence. 'We cannot tackle the big issues facing our country if the public does not trust us to act in the public interest,' said Collins, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee."
The public just might be able to trust politicians to act in the 'public interest' if politicians renounced their ability to make some people better off at the expense of others, not by passing finance reform measures, disclosing lobbyist ties, or creating new ethics committees. Congress is certainly willing to create a few regulations here and there and give up a few of the perks of the job in order to retain this, their most important ability.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Indoctrination Education
High school teachers in New Jersey and Colorado have used public classrooms as a forum for expressing their political views. Those who agree with their viewpoints applaud their teaching and those who disagree state that a classroom is not the proper forum to express political opinions.
The New Jersey high school teacher, Joseph Kyle, decided to hold a war crimes trial in which President Bush was the defendant. John Gibson, a Fox News commentator, noted that such a trial assumes that war crimes have been committed and that President Bush is a likely suspect. Meanwhile, Kyle had the support of local school officials and the school principal, who believed that there was nothing improper about the mock trial.
Many of Kyle's supporters think his idea for a mock trial of Bush for war crimes is ingenius, although I might note that it is certainly not original. Aljazeera had already reported about a mock trial of President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair for war crimes back in January of this year, stating that "International activists and lawyers involved in the defence of Saddam Hussein say they will hold a mock trial of George Bush, the US president, and the British and Israeli prime ministers for alleged war crimes committed in Iraq and the Palestinian territories."
The debate has focused on whether the teacher's actions are appropriate in the public classroom setting. This is certainly the wrong focus. Can we ever expect unanimity on what topics should be approached, how subjects should be taught, or how rules should be enforced? Any reasonable person would have to admit that short of teaching absolutely nothing at all, such unanimity is unattainable. Regardless of which side is taught, parents and students will scream 'indoctrination!' This is why parents should be free to choose the type of education that is suitable for their children. This is why the costs of education should be borne solely by those who choose it, so that they can rank their preferences in order of importance and pay for the quality and kind of education they deem appropriate. Trying to create a one-size-fits-all public education system inevitably becomes a struggle to provide an education that no one absolutely hates, rather than an education that people truly love. In the end, we've created a public school system that fits no one.
The New Jersey high school teacher, Joseph Kyle, decided to hold a war crimes trial in which President Bush was the defendant. John Gibson, a Fox News commentator, noted that such a trial assumes that war crimes have been committed and that President Bush is a likely suspect. Meanwhile, Kyle had the support of local school officials and the school principal, who believed that there was nothing improper about the mock trial.
Many of Kyle's supporters think his idea for a mock trial of Bush for war crimes is ingenius, although I might note that it is certainly not original. Aljazeera had already reported about a mock trial of President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair for war crimes back in January of this year, stating that "International activists and lawyers involved in the defence of Saddam Hussein say they will hold a mock trial of George Bush, the US president, and the British and Israeli prime ministers for alleged war crimes committed in Iraq and the Palestinian territories."
The debate has focused on whether the teacher's actions are appropriate in the public classroom setting. This is certainly the wrong focus. Can we ever expect unanimity on what topics should be approached, how subjects should be taught, or how rules should be enforced? Any reasonable person would have to admit that short of teaching absolutely nothing at all, such unanimity is unattainable. Regardless of which side is taught, parents and students will scream 'indoctrination!' This is why parents should be free to choose the type of education that is suitable for their children. This is why the costs of education should be borne solely by those who choose it, so that they can rank their preferences in order of importance and pay for the quality and kind of education they deem appropriate. Trying to create a one-size-fits-all public education system inevitably becomes a struggle to provide an education that no one absolutely hates, rather than an education that people truly love. In the end, we've created a public school system that fits no one.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Reinventing Katrina
Just what did they know and when did they know it? That seems to be the never ending question posed by the media in regard to Hurricane Katrina. Until now. The Associated Press obtained a video containing a briefing of the president on the day before Hurricane Katrina struck. In it, the president assured all that "We are fully prepared."
But the federal government does not prevent hurricanes. Nor can it assure us that everyone is "fully prepared." All government can do is take money from those who chose not to live in hurricane-prone areas and give it to those who did.
But in the news media's quest for a good story, they've ignored such realities.
Preferring to believe that government is God, the media has characterized its response as that of an emperor fiddling while New Orleans drowned. They write about Bush "at his vacation ranch in Texas" and a "relaxed Chertoff, sporting a polo shirt." This month's issue of Popular Mechanics has a great article entitled "Debunking Katrina Myths," in which the authors shed light on many of the exaggerations put forth by news sources. One myth is that government response was the slowest in history. However, this is not the case. "In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall."
Another pervading myth is that Katrina was one of the strongest hurricanes in history. This is also simply untrue, as Popular Mechanics points out, "it was in fact a large, but otherwise typical, hurricane. On the 1-to-5 Saffir-Simpson scale, Katrina was a midlevel Category 3 hurricane at landfall. Its barometric pressure was 902 millibars (mb), the sixth lowest ever recorded, but higher than Wilma (882mb) and Rita (897mb), the storms that followed it. Katrina's peak sustained wind speed at landfall 55 miles south of New Orleans was 125 mph; winds in the city barely reached hurricane strength. By contrast, when Hurricane Andrew struck the Florida coast in 1992, its sustained winds were measured at 142 mph. And meteorologists estimate that 1969's Category 5 Hurricane Camille, which followed a path close to Katrina's, packed winds as high as 200 mph."
While the Popular Mechanics article lists a few suggestions for lessons to learn from Katrina, many of which still utilize tax dollars but with an emphasis on local rather than federal response, it missed the most important lesson: Government is not God. It is this lesson that allows us to shed the belief that government knows best and can make our decisions and provide for our every need. It is this lesson that allows us to refute policymakers who claim, as Mayor Nagin did, that rebuilding New Orleans is "too important to be left to the market." It is this lesson that allows us to prosper.
But the federal government does not prevent hurricanes. Nor can it assure us that everyone is "fully prepared." All government can do is take money from those who chose not to live in hurricane-prone areas and give it to those who did.
But in the news media's quest for a good story, they've ignored such realities.
Preferring to believe that government is God, the media has characterized its response as that of an emperor fiddling while New Orleans drowned. They write about Bush "at his vacation ranch in Texas" and a "relaxed Chertoff, sporting a polo shirt." This month's issue of Popular Mechanics has a great article entitled "Debunking Katrina Myths," in which the authors shed light on many of the exaggerations put forth by news sources. One myth is that government response was the slowest in history. However, this is not the case. "In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall."
Another pervading myth is that Katrina was one of the strongest hurricanes in history. This is also simply untrue, as Popular Mechanics points out, "it was in fact a large, but otherwise typical, hurricane. On the 1-to-5 Saffir-Simpson scale, Katrina was a midlevel Category 3 hurricane at landfall. Its barometric pressure was 902 millibars (mb), the sixth lowest ever recorded, but higher than Wilma (882mb) and Rita (897mb), the storms that followed it. Katrina's peak sustained wind speed at landfall 55 miles south of New Orleans was 125 mph; winds in the city barely reached hurricane strength. By contrast, when Hurricane Andrew struck the Florida coast in 1992, its sustained winds were measured at 142 mph. And meteorologists estimate that 1969's Category 5 Hurricane Camille, which followed a path close to Katrina's, packed winds as high as 200 mph."
While the Popular Mechanics article lists a few suggestions for lessons to learn from Katrina, many of which still utilize tax dollars but with an emphasis on local rather than federal response, it missed the most important lesson: Government is not God. It is this lesson that allows us to shed the belief that government knows best and can make our decisions and provide for our every need. It is this lesson that allows us to refute policymakers who claim, as Mayor Nagin did, that rebuilding New Orleans is "too important to be left to the market." It is this lesson that allows us to prosper.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Newsworthy Accidents
People in the media continue to assert their "right to know," that is, someone else's obligation to inform them, every time a story that they deem newsworthy comes out. As entertaining as the jokes about Vice President Cheney's hunting accident may have been, the story simply wasn't worth harping on for days. Cheney's mishap has no broader implications.
However, other accidents do have broader implications. We don't always hear about them, and they rarely make front page news.
How many of you knew, for example, that only weeks ago a Fairfax County, VA police officer "accidentally shot and killed an optometrist outside the unarmed man's townhouse ... as an undercover detective was about to arrest him on suspicion of gambling on sports."
Of course the media did not assert it's "right to know" when the officer's name was not divulged. According to the Washington Post, "The officer, a 17-year veteran assigned to the police tactical unit, was not identified. He was placed on leave with pay while police conduct both an internal administrative investigation and a criminal investigation."
Yet this officer's mistake cost 37-year old Salvatore Culosi his life.
Perhaps the media is more forgiving of police officers, whose job is to know how to handle weapons responsibly to protect people. While I can choose the people with whom I go hunting, I have no say in whether a police officer in my county is careful when arresting unarmed individuals. While most Americans will probably never encounter Vice President Cheney, let alone go hunting with him, many of them will encounter police officers. If news sources wanted an accident to be truly outraged about, this is it. If news sources really wanted to assert their "right to know," here's where they could do it. Instead, they are happy to drop the story without publishing the outcome of the investigation and without knowing even the officer's name.
However, other accidents do have broader implications. We don't always hear about them, and they rarely make front page news.
How many of you knew, for example, that only weeks ago a Fairfax County, VA police officer "accidentally shot and killed an optometrist outside the unarmed man's townhouse ... as an undercover detective was about to arrest him on suspicion of gambling on sports."
Of course the media did not assert it's "right to know" when the officer's name was not divulged. According to the Washington Post, "The officer, a 17-year veteran assigned to the police tactical unit, was not identified. He was placed on leave with pay while police conduct both an internal administrative investigation and a criminal investigation."
Yet this officer's mistake cost 37-year old Salvatore Culosi his life.
Perhaps the media is more forgiving of police officers, whose job is to know how to handle weapons responsibly to protect people. While I can choose the people with whom I go hunting, I have no say in whether a police officer in my county is careful when arresting unarmed individuals. While most Americans will probably never encounter Vice President Cheney, let alone go hunting with him, many of them will encounter police officers. If news sources wanted an accident to be truly outraged about, this is it. If news sources really wanted to assert their "right to know," here's where they could do it. Instead, they are happy to drop the story without publishing the outcome of the investigation and without knowing even the officer's name.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Monday, February 13, 2006
Freedom of Speech & Religion
In the United States, we have devoted the first amendment to the Constitution to protect freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. We’ve limited the role of government in deciding and enforcing all moral questions. Instead, we have designated government’s role as an alliance of people and states dedicated to protecting life, liberty and property.
However, universally it seems that people continue to run to government screaming of various perceived injustices. We allow government to take on the role of the elementary school teacher, to whom we run when the other kids make fun of us or don’t share their toys or refuse to let us join them in a game of football at recess. It is not enough that we have the right to our own lives, property and freedom. We want property belonging to others. We redefine terms like “public use.” We want our speech to be unrestricted, but insist that others do not have the right to insult us. We make up terms like “hate speech” so we can ask government to regulate what others say.
After Danish cartoonists published cartoons that negatively depicted Mohammed, a prophet according to Islam, there were more cries against freedom of speech. Arguments ranged from declaring that the press is an institution to serve the public interest to declaring that the cartoons fall under the category of “hate speech” and cannot be protected. They’ve all tried claiming that the issue is not freedom of speech, per se, but an issue of fairness or some other newly invented right.
Here are some of the arguments I’ve seen:
"The Danish cartoon controversy is not about freedom of religion versus freedom of expression, as the media is framing the debate. This is about the role of the media and journalists in our society … everyone should be respected and sensitively represented by the institutions that are intended to serve the public interest." [emphasis added]
"There is a fine line between criticism and abuse. One has the right to criticise aspects of Islam, but one should not have the right to make fun of Muslims or their faith."
(Both taken from Bangladesh news sources).
“Jyllands-Posten refused to publish caricatures of Jesus in 2003 because they would “offend” its readers. Why then is its invitation to caricature Muhammad protected by free speech provisions?” asked authors Na'eem Jeenah, Charles Amjad-Ali and Salim Vally in their article entitled, "This is Not About Freedom of Speech."
Why? As the owner of the paper and printing equipment, the newspaper can decide what it wishes to publish and what it does not. Had the newspaper chosen to publish caricatures of Jesus in 2003, those would have been protected under free speech. The decision not to offend in one instance can be motivated out of one’s moral convictions or one’s desire to keep profits high.
But the main reason why is to avoid occurrences such as this one, which are common in countries that allow the government to influence what is published or said.
"Two weekly newspaper editors charged with "harming religious feelings" by reprinting offensive caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed were released on bail Sunday after a request was made by Jordan's press watchdog." according to an Israeli newspaper.
Let’s not take the wrong lesson from the Danish cartoon controversy. We have freedom of speech not because we agree with everything that is said, but because we would like to speak when others do not necessarily agree with us. We have freedom of religion not because we believe all religions are equally valid, but because we wish to worship or refrain from worship as we choose. Freedom of speech should not come with the disclaimer that “anything you say can be held against you in a court of law.”
However, universally it seems that people continue to run to government screaming of various perceived injustices. We allow government to take on the role of the elementary school teacher, to whom we run when the other kids make fun of us or don’t share their toys or refuse to let us join them in a game of football at recess. It is not enough that we have the right to our own lives, property and freedom. We want property belonging to others. We redefine terms like “public use.” We want our speech to be unrestricted, but insist that others do not have the right to insult us. We make up terms like “hate speech” so we can ask government to regulate what others say.
After Danish cartoonists published cartoons that negatively depicted Mohammed, a prophet according to Islam, there were more cries against freedom of speech. Arguments ranged from declaring that the press is an institution to serve the public interest to declaring that the cartoons fall under the category of “hate speech” and cannot be protected. They’ve all tried claiming that the issue is not freedom of speech, per se, but an issue of fairness or some other newly invented right.
Here are some of the arguments I’ve seen:
"The Danish cartoon controversy is not about freedom of religion versus freedom of expression, as the media is framing the debate. This is about the role of the media and journalists in our society … everyone should be respected and sensitively represented by the institutions that are intended to serve the public interest." [emphasis added]
"There is a fine line between criticism and abuse. One has the right to criticise aspects of Islam, but one should not have the right to make fun of Muslims or their faith."
(Both taken from Bangladesh news sources).
“Jyllands-Posten refused to publish caricatures of Jesus in 2003 because they would “offend” its readers. Why then is its invitation to caricature Muhammad protected by free speech provisions?” asked authors Na'eem Jeenah, Charles Amjad-Ali and Salim Vally in their article entitled, "This is Not About Freedom of Speech."
Why? As the owner of the paper and printing equipment, the newspaper can decide what it wishes to publish and what it does not. Had the newspaper chosen to publish caricatures of Jesus in 2003, those would have been protected under free speech. The decision not to offend in one instance can be motivated out of one’s moral convictions or one’s desire to keep profits high.
But the main reason why is to avoid occurrences such as this one, which are common in countries that allow the government to influence what is published or said.
"Two weekly newspaper editors charged with "harming religious feelings" by reprinting offensive caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed were released on bail Sunday after a request was made by Jordan's press watchdog." according to an Israeli newspaper.
Let’s not take the wrong lesson from the Danish cartoon controversy. We have freedom of speech not because we agree with everything that is said, but because we would like to speak when others do not necessarily agree with us. We have freedom of religion not because we believe all religions are equally valid, but because we wish to worship or refrain from worship as we choose. Freedom of speech should not come with the disclaimer that “anything you say can be held against you in a court of law.”
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Cost to Whom?
This week, President Bush sent Congress a $2.77 trillion budget plan. CNN reported on Monday that the plan "would also make his first-term tax cuts permanent, at a cost of $1.4 trillion over 10 years, and still achieve his goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009." (Emphasis added)
The "cost" is that some taxpayers get to keep a little bit more of their money over the next decade. It does not mean that Americans have lost $1.4 trillion by 2016. Instead, that money will have been spent on goods and services that people value. It will be invested in companies, used to generate wealth and develop new technologies. Just because the money is not in the hands of bureaucrats does not mean it has disappeared.
The real cost to taxpayers is the $2.77 trillion dollars that the government spends. Regardless of whether we see any of the benefits from government programs, we are forced to bear the cost of politicians' spending whims. There's no way to 'opt out' of these programs, even if we can fully demonstrate that we are not the recipients of the benefits the programs offer. I can't say "Mr. President, I am not going to pay for your 'No Child Left Behind' initiative. I obtain no benefit from the program. I have no children, and if someday I do, I will use my own money to educate them."
According to the article, "Democrats attacked what they said were Bush's skewed priorities. They said he was trying to impose austere budgets that will harm programs for the poor while protecting tax cuts Democrats said were going primarily to the wealthy." Certainly there are some people who are better off as a result of government programs which take money from others and distribute it (in various forms) to those who did not earn it themselves. Does this mean that Democrats have a valid claim that cutting programs that helped the poor is a costs poor people? It is no more valid than if I claim that if my parents last year gave me a $100 gift certificate and this year gave me a $75 gift certificate, it has cost me $25.
Before we start labeling costs, we'd better ask ourselves one simple question: cost to whom?
The "cost" is that some taxpayers get to keep a little bit more of their money over the next decade. It does not mean that Americans have lost $1.4 trillion by 2016. Instead, that money will have been spent on goods and services that people value. It will be invested in companies, used to generate wealth and develop new technologies. Just because the money is not in the hands of bureaucrats does not mean it has disappeared.
The real cost to taxpayers is the $2.77 trillion dollars that the government spends. Regardless of whether we see any of the benefits from government programs, we are forced to bear the cost of politicians' spending whims. There's no way to 'opt out' of these programs, even if we can fully demonstrate that we are not the recipients of the benefits the programs offer. I can't say "Mr. President, I am not going to pay for your 'No Child Left Behind' initiative. I obtain no benefit from the program. I have no children, and if someday I do, I will use my own money to educate them."
According to the article, "Democrats attacked what they said were Bush's skewed priorities. They said he was trying to impose austere budgets that will harm programs for the poor while protecting tax cuts Democrats said were going primarily to the wealthy." Certainly there are some people who are better off as a result of government programs which take money from others and distribute it (in various forms) to those who did not earn it themselves. Does this mean that Democrats have a valid claim that cutting programs that helped the poor is a costs poor people? It is no more valid than if I claim that if my parents last year gave me a $100 gift certificate and this year gave me a $75 gift certificate, it has cost me $25.
Before we start labeling costs, we'd better ask ourselves one simple question: cost to whom?
Thursday, February 02, 2006
What Remedy Will the Court Prescribe?
A Washington Post headline today read, "Women Sue Wal-Mart Over Morning-After Pill."
At first, one might think that women who had taken the drug had experienced complications, that the drug was ineffective, or that it conflicted with another drug they were taking at the same time. But Wal-Mart doesn't even carry the 'morning-after' pill. That's exactly why the women are suing.
According to the Post, "Backed by abortion rights groups, three Massachusetts women sued Wal-Mart on Wednesday, accusing the retail giant of violating a state regulation by failing to stock emergency contraception pills in its pharmacies. The lawsuit, filed in state court, seeks to force the company to carry the morning-after pill in its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam Club stores in Massachusetts." The article notes that state policy requires pharmacies to stock all "commonly prescribed medicines," and that one of Wal-Mart's competitors, CVS Pharmacy, stocks the morning-after pill in all of its stores.
To be honest, I'd never thought of it before, but now I'm considering a few similar lawsuits. I went to Nordstrom before forecasts of sleet and snow came out. Knowing that my worn tires would be slippery in snow or ice, I set out to buy some emergency tires. Believe it or not, Nordstrom actually refuses to carry tires. At other department stores located at ends of malls - Sears, for example - tires are commonly held items. Perhaps the courts can also consider forcing Nordstrom to start carrying tires.
Even more recently, I stopped by a hair salon. As I perused the products in the displays, I noticed that the salon did not carry my brand of shampoo and conditioner. How unfortunate! Normally, I'd think to go to another store to find it, not to the nearest courthouse.
The promise of profit, of enjoying one's choice of career, of providing specialized and valuable services all inspire people to take on the risk of starting a business. These entrepreneurs enable people like you and me to have what we want when we want it. They're not miracle workers or public servants. They have every right to choose which services to provide, which products to sell, when to open, when to close, and the placement and number of locations to have.
I sell my services to my employer. If for some reason, I refuse to provide a service that my company demands, the company has every right to stop purchasing my services (i.e. they can fire me). However, we would not expect to grant my company the right to obtain a court order to force me to provide a service that I refuse to provide. Like the Wal-Mart shopper who can't find the products she's looking for, my company would simply take its pocketbook elsewhere.
At first, one might think that women who had taken the drug had experienced complications, that the drug was ineffective, or that it conflicted with another drug they were taking at the same time. But Wal-Mart doesn't even carry the 'morning-after' pill. That's exactly why the women are suing.
According to the Post, "Backed by abortion rights groups, three Massachusetts women sued Wal-Mart on Wednesday, accusing the retail giant of violating a state regulation by failing to stock emergency contraception pills in its pharmacies. The lawsuit, filed in state court, seeks to force the company to carry the morning-after pill in its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam Club stores in Massachusetts." The article notes that state policy requires pharmacies to stock all "commonly prescribed medicines," and that one of Wal-Mart's competitors, CVS Pharmacy, stocks the morning-after pill in all of its stores.
To be honest, I'd never thought of it before, but now I'm considering a few similar lawsuits. I went to Nordstrom before forecasts of sleet and snow came out. Knowing that my worn tires would be slippery in snow or ice, I set out to buy some emergency tires. Believe it or not, Nordstrom actually refuses to carry tires. At other department stores located at ends of malls - Sears, for example - tires are commonly held items. Perhaps the courts can also consider forcing Nordstrom to start carrying tires.
Even more recently, I stopped by a hair salon. As I perused the products in the displays, I noticed that the salon did not carry my brand of shampoo and conditioner. How unfortunate! Normally, I'd think to go to another store to find it, not to the nearest courthouse.
The promise of profit, of enjoying one's choice of career, of providing specialized and valuable services all inspire people to take on the risk of starting a business. These entrepreneurs enable people like you and me to have what we want when we want it. They're not miracle workers or public servants. They have every right to choose which services to provide, which products to sell, when to open, when to close, and the placement and number of locations to have.
I sell my services to my employer. If for some reason, I refuse to provide a service that my company demands, the company has every right to stop purchasing my services (i.e. they can fire me). However, we would not expect to grant my company the right to obtain a court order to force me to provide a service that I refuse to provide. Like the Wal-Mart shopper who can't find the products she's looking for, my company would simply take its pocketbook elsewhere.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
The Business of Solving Crime
Chicago's Mayor Daley has endorsed legislation to mandate that licensed Chicago businesses open more than 12 hours per day install both indoor and outdoor surveillance cameras. This, Mayor Daley believes, will lead to a reduction in crime and will help police solve crimes that occur. He said, ""Block clubs, community organizations want cameras. ... They can't walk down the street. ... Their kids have to go around a corner away from the gang-bangers. You can't walk to church. You can't get on the CTA. ... Cameras really prevent much crime. Cameras also solve a lot of crime. The terrorist attacks in London were solved by cameras. The whole incident was solved by cameras," according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
Mayor Daley is correct in saying that installation of surveillance systems serves as both a deterrent to crime and a tool in solving crimes. However, Mayor Daley is still wrong to propose legislation mandating that businesses open over 12 hours per day install cameras.
Just how many cameras are we talking about? According to Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce President Jerry Roper, 12,000 businesses are open in Chicago for more than 12 hours per day, many of them restaurants and hotels. "Some places will take a look at the cost and say, 'We'll only be open for one shift or a shift and a half. They'll take a look at their last two hours and say, 'I'm not making that much anyway. I'll just close earlier.' Employees will lose that money," Roper said.
According to the article in the Chicago Sun-Times, "[l]ast week, business leaders lined up in opposition to the mandate on grounds it could add anywhere from $5,000 to $20,000 to their costs -- even before monitoring expenses." Apparently, businesses are not buying into the idea that installing cameras will be a smart move. Perhaps they do not perceive as high a crime risk as elected officials do. Had the business owners thought that the risk of being robbed was sufficiently high, and the cost of being robbed was also high, they would have already taken precautions such as installing cameras. Instead, businesses often take less costly precautions. They may keep less cash on hand, store valuables in safes, have alarm systems for after hours, etc. For cost effective solutions to crime, I'd trust the business owners themselves over Chicago's Mayor Daley.
Mayor Daley is correct in saying that installation of surveillance systems serves as both a deterrent to crime and a tool in solving crimes. However, Mayor Daley is still wrong to propose legislation mandating that businesses open over 12 hours per day install cameras.
Just how many cameras are we talking about? According to Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce President Jerry Roper, 12,000 businesses are open in Chicago for more than 12 hours per day, many of them restaurants and hotels. "Some places will take a look at the cost and say, 'We'll only be open for one shift or a shift and a half. They'll take a look at their last two hours and say, 'I'm not making that much anyway. I'll just close earlier.' Employees will lose that money," Roper said.
According to the article in the Chicago Sun-Times, "[l]ast week, business leaders lined up in opposition to the mandate on grounds it could add anywhere from $5,000 to $20,000 to their costs -- even before monitoring expenses." Apparently, businesses are not buying into the idea that installing cameras will be a smart move. Perhaps they do not perceive as high a crime risk as elected officials do. Had the business owners thought that the risk of being robbed was sufficiently high, and the cost of being robbed was also high, they would have already taken precautions such as installing cameras. Instead, businesses often take less costly precautions. They may keep less cash on hand, store valuables in safes, have alarm systems for after hours, etc. For cost effective solutions to crime, I'd trust the business owners themselves over Chicago's Mayor Daley.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
All's Fair in Law & Politics
If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em! At least that seems to be Saddam Hussein's strategy now.
The former Iraq dictator is bringing a lawsuit against President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair for, of all things, using weapons of mass destruction in the commission of war crimes. Hussein's lawyers say that they plan to sue in the International Criminal Court in the Hague. According to the Washington Times, Bush and Blair have been accused of "destroying Iraq" and "committing war crimes by using weapons of mass destruction and internationally-banned weapons including enriched uranium and phosphoric and cluster bombs against unarmed Iraqi civilians, notably in Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi, al-Kaem and Anbar ... The suit also accuses the U.S. president and British prime minister of torturing Iraqi prisoners, destroying Iraq's cultural heritage with the aim of eliminating an ancient civilization, and inciting internal strife. "
Last, but not least, we find that Hussein is not only a concerned Iraqi, but an environmentalist, also accusing Bush and Blair "of polluting Iraq's air, waters and environment." Perhaps there is some truth to the hypothesis Walter Williams put forth in his August 31, 2005 article, "What's a way for OPEC to gain more power? I have a hypothesis, for which I have no evidence, but it ought to be tested. If I were an OPEC big cheese, I'd easily conclude that I could restrict output and charge higher oil prices if somehow U.S. oil drilling were restricted. I'd see U.S. environmental groups as allies, and I would make "charitable" contributions to assist their efforts to reduce U.S. output."
According to a Yahoo news source, "Saddam also wants all Iraqis who have had relatives killed or had property damaged [to] receive at least $500,000 each." With his newly discovered strategy, perhaps Hussein still has a career in politics. Five hundred thousand dollars, especially in Iraq, is a much better deal than "middle-class tax cuts."
The former Iraq dictator is bringing a lawsuit against President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair for, of all things, using weapons of mass destruction in the commission of war crimes. Hussein's lawyers say that they plan to sue in the International Criminal Court in the Hague. According to the Washington Times, Bush and Blair have been accused of "destroying Iraq" and "committing war crimes by using weapons of mass destruction and internationally-banned weapons including enriched uranium and phosphoric and cluster bombs against unarmed Iraqi civilians, notably in Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi, al-Kaem and Anbar ... The suit also accuses the U.S. president and British prime minister of torturing Iraqi prisoners, destroying Iraq's cultural heritage with the aim of eliminating an ancient civilization, and inciting internal strife. "
Last, but not least, we find that Hussein is not only a concerned Iraqi, but an environmentalist, also accusing Bush and Blair "of polluting Iraq's air, waters and environment." Perhaps there is some truth to the hypothesis Walter Williams put forth in his August 31, 2005 article, "What's a way for OPEC to gain more power? I have a hypothesis, for which I have no evidence, but it ought to be tested. If I were an OPEC big cheese, I'd easily conclude that I could restrict output and charge higher oil prices if somehow U.S. oil drilling were restricted. I'd see U.S. environmental groups as allies, and I would make "charitable" contributions to assist their efforts to reduce U.S. output."
According to a Yahoo news source, "Saddam also wants all Iraqis who have had relatives killed or had property damaged [to] receive at least $500,000 each." With his newly discovered strategy, perhaps Hussein still has a career in politics. Five hundred thousand dollars, especially in Iraq, is a much better deal than "middle-class tax cuts."
Monday, January 23, 2006
Separating Church & State
In Italy, a complaint against the Roman Catholic Church has been filed by an atheist who claims that it has fraudulently deceived people by claiming that Jesus existed. According to CNN,
Here's a question: if a complaint such as this one were filed in the United States, would any court ruling inherently violate the principle of separation of church and state? Would the state's ruling serve to respect one religion over another or prohibit the free exercise thereof?
If the complaint took place in the United States, one would certainly ask how a lifelong atheist would have standing; as a lifelong atheist, who has himself claimed to be "born against Christ and God," it is not likely that he has personally been a victim of fraud by the Roman Catholic Church.
In the United States, the question of whether the Christ exists is not one for government to answer.
Lawyers for a small-town parish priest have been ordered to appear in court next week after the Roman Catholic cleric was accused of unlawfully asserting what many people take for granted: that Jesus Christ existed. The Rev. Enrico Righi was named in a 2002 complaint filed by Luigi Cascioli after Righi wrote in a parish bulletin that Jesus did indeed exist, and that he was born of a couple named Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth. Cascioli, a lifelong atheist, claims that Righi violated two Italian laws by making the assertion: so-called "abuse of popular belief" in which someone fraudulently deceives people; and "impersonation" in which someone gains by attributing a false name to someone. Cascioli says that for 2,000 years the Roman Catholic Church has been deceiving people by furthering the fable that Christ existed, and says the church has been gaining financially by "impersonating" as Christ someone by the name of John of Gamala, the son of Judas from Gamala.
Here's a question: if a complaint such as this one were filed in the United States, would any court ruling inherently violate the principle of separation of church and state? Would the state's ruling serve to respect one religion over another or prohibit the free exercise thereof?
If the complaint took place in the United States, one would certainly ask how a lifelong atheist would have standing; as a lifelong atheist, who has himself claimed to be "born against Christ and God," it is not likely that he has personally been a victim of fraud by the Roman Catholic Church.
In the United States, the question of whether the Christ exists is not one for government to answer.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Elementary School Lobbyists
On the agenda tomorrow for the District of Columbia Council is a public hearing to "assist the Council in selecting a fruit to be designated by an act of the Council as the official fruit of the District of Columbia."
Luckily, sixth grade students at Bowen Elementary do not have math, literature or science to study. Instead, they are researching fruits that might be appropriate as the official fruit of Washington, D.C. The story was introduced in November of 2005, when Council Chairman Linda Cropp introduced a resolution asking the elementary school students to find a suitable fruit based on its "abundance in the jurisdiction, its popularity in the jurisdiction, or for its symbolic meaning."
We might conclude that the Council has nothing better to do with its time. Au contraire - in November of last year, Council Members undertook many other tasks with taxpayers' money, including establishing the "Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Affairs within the Executive Office of the Mayor," and establishing "standards for responsible business practices by large retailers by ensuring that they pay living wages, provide benefits, and respect free speech" through the Large Retailer Accountability Act of 2005, along with the usual tasks of making sure that you cannot park in the front lawn on private property and must use a hands-free device while driving and talking on your cell phone.
Of course, the Council Members only want to teach youngsters about the political process, as it states in the resolution: "That having school children propose an official fruit to the Council through proposed legislation will teach the children about the political process and the importance of public participation in civic life and show all our residents that all people, young and old, can get involved in politics and in their own government." After all, children should understand at a young age that all one has to do to impose his will on others is appeal to politicians to enact a law.
Luckily, sixth grade students at Bowen Elementary do not have math, literature or science to study. Instead, they are researching fruits that might be appropriate as the official fruit of Washington, D.C. The story was introduced in November of 2005, when Council Chairman Linda Cropp introduced a resolution asking the elementary school students to find a suitable fruit based on its "abundance in the jurisdiction, its popularity in the jurisdiction, or for its symbolic meaning."
We might conclude that the Council has nothing better to do with its time. Au contraire - in November of last year, Council Members undertook many other tasks with taxpayers' money, including establishing the "Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Affairs within the Executive Office of the Mayor," and establishing "standards for responsible business practices by large retailers by ensuring that they pay living wages, provide benefits, and respect free speech" through the Large Retailer Accountability Act of 2005, along with the usual tasks of making sure that you cannot park in the front lawn on private property and must use a hands-free device while driving and talking on your cell phone.
Of course, the Council Members only want to teach youngsters about the political process, as it states in the resolution: "That having school children propose an official fruit to the Council through proposed legislation will teach the children about the political process and the importance of public participation in civic life and show all our residents that all people, young and old, can get involved in politics and in their own government." After all, children should understand at a young age that all one has to do to impose his will on others is appeal to politicians to enact a law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)