On Thanksgiving, thank an economist

By now most of you reading this have heard the story of what actually happened in Plymouth Rock between the time the Pilgrims landed in 1620 and the first Thanksgiving feast in 1623, so I shan't dwell on it very long.

For the rest, here's a cursory explanation of the story; you are encouraged to look it up and fill in the details yourselves:

The original Mayflower Compact held that it was to be a Collectivist society, with no private property and all work to be done in common. Within three months, half of them were dead. And for the next two years, starvation and resentment ruled the colony.

William Bradford recorded the reason in his diary:

For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imploymet that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For ye yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence. ... And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, &c., they deemd it a kind of slav­erie, neither could many husbands well brokke it.

The same thing happened in the Ukraine three hundred years later when the Soviet Union tried Collectivism again.  Fifty million people died of starvation in one of the richest wheat-growing regions in the world.

After two years of starvation at Plymouth (the daily ration of corn was reportedly three kernels per person) the Colony elders relented from their Utopian "Platonic ideal" and divided up the land among the families, with each empowered to keep all of what they harvested, to consume or to trade as they wished.

And that year's harvest was abundant beyond all expectations.

150 years later, men began studying economics and we now understand what happened there and why it happened. What happened was: Private property. Individual rights. Free Trade.

At its core, Thanksgiving is a celebration of the triumph of individual rights over Collectivism. And that is why I shan't be spending it with my family, or with any others who still believe the fables of Collectivism. I shall spend it with someone who, like me, understands economics -- and appreciates the power thereof.

I suggest that all who read this do the same.

Fuel-ish

Yesterday I received the following email from a nice lady I know:

There is an email going around about not buying gas on May 15. That is all well and good, but the gas companies know that we will buy gas the day before and the day after and use their fuel like we do everyday.

To really hit them in their pockets, like they are hitting us in our pockets, we need to not use their fuel period! That means, do not drive your rig to the beach, to the movie, out to dinner, in to town for that thing you think you just have to have right now. Stay home and do not drive. If you have to go to work, try mass transit, ride your bike, walk, car pool. Of course if there is an emergency you will have to drive. But, if we really want to send them a message that we do not like the cost of fuel right now and the fact that the oil companies are having record profits, not gross but profits, then let's hit them where it hurts. Do not use their fuel. Do not drive May 19 & 20.

Is this worth forwarding on to everyone in your address book? I hope so.

We seem to go through this every year at this time. Indeed, I blogged on the subject precisely one year ago today (see "Anger! Obscenities!" in the sidebar) when the media was whipping up their usual feeding frenzy over rising gasoline prices, which happens every year at about this time. Of course, last fall when prices dropped -- as they always do at that time of year -- it was all George Bush's doing; he was manipulating prices so the Republicans would get re-elected in November.

Last year I had a co-worker who would complain ad infinitum over fuel prices, the oil companies, and their "record" profits (which, as I recall, were a lower ROI than the average shoe store). This man owned one of those huge motor homes that cost half a million dollars that gets, what, about five gallons to the mile or something? And he couldn't understand that it was all of these people driving those huge things around the country every summer that's tweaking the demand side of the Law of Supply and Demand. Hell, no, he wasn't causing any scarcity by sucking the resource pool dry! It was all those damn Big Evil Oil Companies, by God!

Sometimes the human capacity for stupidity is just breathtaking.

At least our Nice Lady had the right idea: when prices rise, consume less. Now, THAT is a rational response as far as it goes -- and, of course, it's what rational people do anyway. Her mistake was in thinking that this would send the oil companies a "message" and "hit them in their pockets".

So, I composed a reply to her and 200 of her closest friends (yes, she put everyone's email address in the "To:" field, where the whole world could read them!):

> Is this worth forwarding on to everyone in your address book?

No, it isn't worth forwarding to anyone.

And here's why: Gasoline prices aren't set by the oil companies.

It is common for people who don't understand economics to look for a scapegoat when prices for a scarce commodity start rising. And they also invariably try pointing the finger of blame at "record profits", as if profits are some kind of evil thing.

Briefly, the price of a commodity is set by the Law Of Supply And Demand. In a market in which there is competition and no collusion, the price of that commodity is always the lowest, and fairest, price possible. It may or may not be a price you like, but it is the lowest price that is possible at that point in time.

If you want to affect gasoline prices, you'll need to look to the factors that are limiting the supply and/or increasing the demand for it. But the bottom line is that prices ALWAYS rise at this time of the year as the summer vacation season approaches and members of the supply chain begin buying more stocks to meet the increased demand.

At this point in time, probably the biggest obstacle to low gasoline prices is the United States' critical lack of refinery capacity. When supply cannot keep pace with increased demand, prices rise... a lot more than they otherwise would.

Your proposal will make the same difference that two days of dieting will make: none, and for the same reason.

A little bit later, a reply to this hit my inbox. It was from a man with the same first name as my former co-worker, and just as ignorant:

Gas companies do not DIRECTLY set the prices, but they do control the refineries. When I hear the statement "There is an unexpected shortage of refined gasoline in the supply chain and noone [sic] knows why" I just want to barf. How can someone running a multi-billion dollar operation not know why the supply is suddenly short. [sic] They manage the supply to keep it artificially short in order to jack up prices. If you don't believe this, ask why this situation exists - When crude goes up, gasoline at the pump almost immediately goes up due to the new raw material cost. But, when the price of crude drops, the pump price takes a long time to drop, due to 'the length of time it takes to get the new lower-cost crude through the system'" [sic]. If it takes a long time for the lower priced stuff, it should take the same time to process the higher priced stuff.

Why are refineries in the southwest still producing winter heating oil? Why did California send a large percentage of their gasoline to Arizona and New Mexico to cover their pipeline break, and penalize all of the west coast, rather than just let those two states have higher costs? Could it be that they make more money by having a big state like California short of gas rather than a small state like Arizona?

Sorry, gasoline prices are one of the few consumer items that are NOT driven by supply and demand. If it were, supply (refinery capacity) would increase to keep pace with demand. They are short on gasoline EVERY summer and are short on heating oil EVERY winter. That is not just coincidence, it is planned.

Hoo boy, here we go again. "They manage the supply to keep it artificially short in order to jack up prices." "Gasoline prices are not driven by supply and demand." Don't you just love it when some nutcase contradicts himself? At least he's right about the shortages not being a coincidence. They definitely are planned, which we'll get to below.

Still, I didn't want to start a flame war. Let's face it: None of us were taught economics in High School. You cannot expect people to automatically know this stuff. Hell, I didn't understand it until just a few years ago. The guy's just ignorant; he's not being an ass about it, he just reads the papers and believes whatever they tell him.

So I composed this nice non-flammable reply to him:

[Y]ou're free to believe whatever you want. However, problems only get solved when we deal with things the way they actually are, rather than according to what we want to believe.

I can prove to you that the idea you expressed -- that petroleum companies are artificially limiting refinery output to keep prices high -- is not only wrong, but ridiculous.

Each refinery owner will do what is in his own rational self-interest. If he cuts back production, he will make less money. Prices will rise by a tiny amount, but it's his competitors -- not he -- who will reap the benefit.

On the other hand, if he increases production he will make more money. Prices will drop a little bit, but not enough to offset the increased profit from increased production. However, his competitors will earn a little bit less because of the decreased prices.

When refinery capacity is scarce (as it is in the US), competition ensures that refineries will always be running at maximum capacity.

And they are. Check the petroleum industry reports. There are no artificial cutbacks in production anywhere in this country.

It didn't help. All I got back from him was more of the same, which isn't worth squandering the electrons to quote. Except for this one little gem:

Ask yourself one question. If, as you believe, increasing production increases profits, why aren't the oil companies builing new refineries?

Un-fucking-believable. The depth of human stupidity truly knows no bounds. The only reply I could muster, with mouth agape, was "Do you honestly mean that you don't know why the oil companies aren't building new refineries?" I am still incredulous over that one.

Back to the Nice Lady. Her next email to me was a heartbreaker:

Some very good points, thank you. One thing you do say is "supply and demand". Just about everyone I know, and I am sure you hear it too, complains about the cost of fuel but are not willing to do anything about it. The demand for the fuel can only be cut if we are willing to curb our driving. Is anyone really committed enough to do that? We can complain all we want, but unless we are willing to be a part of the solution, nothing will change and the price of fuel will keep increasing.

Yes, it does always go up this time of year because we all go on vacations. So, we are going to continue taking our vacations, pay $4 at the pumps and keep complaining? I am not willing to do that. Not only not willing, but not able. I am a 53 year old widow, raising her granddaughter. I work, but do not even come close to making enough to keep up with the rising cost of fuel.

We will not be able to go anywhere or do anything besides go back and forth to work and school. My $125 a month fuel budget has now jumped to $225 a month. That money has to come from somewhere, so part of it comes out of our meager $125 a month food budget and the rest comes out of our entertainment budget, leaving us with no entertainment budget now.

Sit back and accept this? No, I can't. Something has to be done. Any other ideas or suggestions?

I resisted the temptation to suggest shooting a certain man whose $500,000 motor home was, all by itself, going to erase all of her efforts to conserve.

The reality is, of course, that people will do all of the things she suggested in her original letter. It's how the market adjusts. Some will buy smaller cars, some will move closer to work, some will find alternative transportation, some will try to get a better-paying job. She will do some of these herself.

And Mister Half-Million-Dollar Motor Home will make adjustments too as he makes the hard decisions on how best to use the money he has available. Thus will motor fuel continue to be allocated in the fairest way possible.

And Left-wing politicians (and their lapdogs in the Press) will continue blaming the Big Evil Oil Companies for the high prices that they, the politicians themselves, created. Some things never change.

In the end, I never had the cojones to tell the Nice Lady the one thing that she can do: quit voting for politicians who pander to the environmental movement, and vote only for those who understand the nature of wealth, where wealth comes from, how it's created, and civilization's vital need for energy. I just didn't want to wade into the Alligator Pit of Politics with her.

Perhaps I should have told her that her predicament is the logical, natural outcome of politicians who refuse to allow drilling in the ANWR and in several other places right here in the United States where we have oil -- lots of oil -- and enough of it to make a real difference in domestic fuel prices.

The environmental movement has been working tirelessly for nearly a half-century to deny America that which is most vital to her freedom -- energy -- and their efforts are beginning to bear fruit. Among that fruit is a fifty-three-year-old widow who is being forced to choose between food and transportation.

Pretty rotten fruit, if you ask me.

Ken
What Would John [Galt] Do?

Anger! Obscenities!

USA Today headline: "Across USA, wave of anger building over gas prices" (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-02-gas-prices-cover_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA)

Well, I'm starting to get angry too. Not about the prices so much, even though I should be. They're a disgrace. But anyone with half an education could have/should have seen this coming, and getting angry isn't going to change any of the facts. It's not rocket science; it's plain and simple economics. Unfortunately, no one learns economics in school any more -- and for that matter, no one learns critical thinking skills either.

So now we three-dollar-per-gallon gasoline, and people are screaming their heads off about it. The U.S. economy grew at an unbelievable annual rate of 4.8% in the last quarter, factory orders are up far more than anyone expected, and the service sector is booming. While the employment figures are not in yet as of this writing, they are expected to show that about 200,000 new jobs were created in the same period.

And people are screaming their heads off over gasoline that costs, after factoring for inflation, no more than it did in the 1980's. Now politicians are pandering to angry voters, promising what they can't deliver while doing everything they can to make matters worse; journalists and pundits are pointing fingers of blame all over the place (except, predictably, at the actual source of the "problem"); and a whole bunch of ignorant consumers are blaming the oil companies for <gasp> actually [caution: obscene word coming] making a profit!!

And now, to top it off, we now have ten attorneys general -- who apparently don't understand either economics OR the Constitution -- suing the Bush administration for not doing enough to screw things up even worse. In at least one of those states (New York), the AG is currently running for Governor. Hmmm, there can't actually be any pandering to angry voters going on now, can there? Oh, no... I'm sure that Mr. Spitzer is <cough> honestly doing his best to <cough cough> help the poor people of New York. Why, I'm sure he's just as honest as any other Democra... <horrible gagging noise>.

You cannot repeal the laws of science. Pass all of the stupid laws you want, and the Earth will keep spinning on its axis, water will continue to boil at 100° C (at sea level, of course), and, in obstinate defiance of diversity, triangles will continue to contain only straight lines.

Gasoline, and the raw materials from which it comes, is a commodity that is bought and sold in a competitive market. There are many suppliers: no monopoly controls the prices and there is no evidence of any shadowy collusion among the oil companies to control the prices either. Its price is determined by the market. Period.

Now, when you have a commodity that is in short supply, its price goes up. When you have a commodity for which demand increases, its price goes up. If you want prices to go down, you must either reduce demand or increase supply. This is pretty basic stuff.

So, the demand for fuels is up because the economy is doing better. That's not bad news, it's good news. And the supply... well, the same people who have been screaming the loudest about the high prices -- and even blaming the current President for them -- have done everything they can over the last 30 years to LIMIT the supply.

We have oil in Alaska. Lots of it. But the same people who are bashing the President -- for a problem THEY have spent the last 30 years creating -- continuously block every environmentally-sound effort to extract it. We also have oil off the coast of California -- but it's the same story. Environmentalists blocked efforts to drill for it decades ago, and now it's somehow George Bush's fault that we have high gasoline prices.

There hasn't been a new refinery built in this country for more than thirty years. But I don't suppose that has anything to do with the Law of Supply and Demand.

You would think that anyone with an education would be able to figure this stuff out. Instead we have people blaming the oil companies, blaming the President, blaming anyone but themselves -- for a problem that anyone with half a brain could see was going to happen someday.

And the stupidity goes on and on. Any time the oil companies [caution: obscene word coming] make more money than what someone thinks is "appropriate", we have politicians promising to take it away from them. Now, anyone who thinks he has a right to decide for someone else how much money s/he should be allowed to make -- really IS obscene.

But we still have politicians who think that they can persuade the oil companies to find and produce more oil by taking away their money when they make "too much" of it. Jimmy Carter tried that in the late 1970's with his "windfall profits tax" that caused domestic oil production to plummet. And the politicians think that this time around, they'll get different results? Isn't making the same mistake over and over, and expecting different results, the definition of "stupid"?

They're at it again

This morning, I got the (dis)pleasure of waking up to what NPR calls "news." It's always good to listen to what both ends of the political spectrum are saying; there are things going on that one side won't tell you about, but the other side will.

So that's why I occasionally endure Rush Limbaugh as well as NPR. Most of the news I get is slanted to the Left, because most news outlets swing that way. So I generally don't have to seek out the Left's viewpoint, because we're all deluged with it. Unfortunately, the stuff coming from the Left is getting less and less credible: they just cannot constrain themselves to stick with facts any more. For instance look at the extreme bias in the so-called "global warming" issue: most people aren't even aware that there is a very vigorous ongoing debate in the scientific community over whether it's human-caused. Most people think that the science is "settled," whatever that means, or that there's a "scientific consensus," whatever that is.

A great many of the Right's outlets make me sick (not Limbaugh, at least he's entertaining but I just don't consider him worth my time) but I have to force myself to go to their outlets sometimes to get the parts of the stories that the Left-biased mainstream media won't tell us. Most of the time, the Right doesn't flat-out lie and make stuff up, as the Lefties do, but they're so steeped in their shame-based religious nonsense that they still wouldn't recognize good critical thinking if it walked up and spread its legs right in front of them.

Thank His Noodliness (that's equivalent to "thank god" to you heathens who still haven't received the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) for Reason Magazine. They're about the only daily voice of sanity in a world that is "perishing in an orgy of self-sacrifice" [Ayn Rand].

So, what was the item in the News of the People's Republic (NPR) that so upset me? More Wal-Mart bashing. They just can't leave Wal-Mart alone -- or any other business, for that matter, that doesn't pay them their "protection" money. By all that's right and holy, the entire Democratic Party should be indicted under the RICO act* because they've become nothing more than an organized crime ring of thugs that go around the country shaking down successful businesses for "donations" with the threat of destroying them if they don't pay up. Remember the "sweatshop" propaganda campaign against Nike? That happened because some Democrat tried to shake them down, and they refused to pay. Well, now they're doing it to Wal-Mart.

Ever wonder why they don't go after Costco? Ever wonder why Costco never gets any oppostion to putting up THEIR "big-box" stores? Why Costco never gets accused of driving local mom-and-pop operations out of business with prices against which a smaller store cannot compete?

Here's why: the executives at Costco donate heavily to the Democratic Party and to so-called "liberal" causes. And, if memory serves me correctly, Costco is a union shop. The Walton family donates to Republicans and their causes -- and, of course, the unions have been unable to convince Wal-Mart's employees that they're miserable and unhappy and that they should organize. And that's it, pure and simple.

The arguments against Wal-Mart are to the field of economics what Intelligent Design is to the field of biology: junk science. If you need a primer in economics to understand this, surf on over to reason.com and do a search for articles about Wal-Mart.

Remember that this is not about the poor Wal-Mart employees (because they're perfectly happy). It is not about all of the poor mom-and-pops that are being driven out of business (because there aren't any). It is about politics. And politics is about power, and the money that buys power. And that's ALL that it's ever about.

And by the way, I shop at both Wal-Mart and Costco. What their executives do with their own money is their business.

Ken
WWJD -- What Would John [Galt] Do?

* Unfortunately, if they were all indicted and sent to prison, that would leave Republicans in charge. And without any restraints on THEM.... <shudder>