Controlling Prices to Our Detriment | Foundation for Economic Education

Controlling Prices to Our Detriment | Foundation for Economic Education: 'As the hurricane approaches individuals’ demand for certain commodities, such as water, batteries, canned food, etc. increases, meaning they would like to buy more of these goods. This gives sellers an incentive to raise the price, as the goods began to fly off the shelves much faster than usual. While the motivation to raise the price might be purely greed-based, it actually benefits consumers and society as whole. The increased price has two important functions. First, it induces sellers to supply more of the good. At the higher price sellers will increase the quantity of the good, thus providing more of the good for individuals to buy (satisfying the increased demand). Second, it discourages other consumers from buying too much of the good. In other words, the higher price helps ration the good amongst more individuals. Demand curves slope downward, meaning the lower the price the higher the quantity each individual will buy. By raising the price each individual will by less of the good than if the price were to remain at the pre-storm level, leaving more for others. Thus, in an unhampered market, the price rises and more consumers get what they need.

If the government stops sellers from increasing the price then a shortage will ensue. Why? Well first, demand has risen but sellers are still only willing to supply the same amount as the pre-storm level. Thus eliminating the advantage of the increased quantity supplied mentioned above. Second, with the increased demand consumers see the lower price as an incentive to take more for themselves. Their motivation to conserve and take less (leaving more for others) is eliminated. This creates the shortage. Meaning many individuals will find the shelves completely empty when they arrive at the stores. The result is that more individuals will go without the very necessities the government, in enacting the price control, is trying to make sure they can get.'

Can Mitt Romney Escape His Romneycare Albatross? | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary

Can Mitt Romney Escape His Romneycare Albatross? | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'In 1994 [Romney] backed a federal mandate. His concern about the overweening federal government apparently was not so finely developed then.

In any case, the fact that RomneyCare is constitutional does not mean that it is wise. Americans want their president to exercise good judgment and common sense, as well as respect the office's constitutional limits. RomneyCare fails the first two standards.'

NATO Is a Farce | Justin Logan | Cato Institute: Commentary

NATO Is a Farce | Justin Logan | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'NATO's recent travails in Libya illustrate the trouble with permanent alliances. That alliance now constitutes a transfer payment from U.S. taxpayers (and their Chinese creditors) to bloated European welfare states.'

'The post-Cold War NATO rationale is that we agree to spend and fight and the Europeans agree to support us — sometimes.'

'As NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen observed, "The fact is that Europe couldn't have [mounted the Libya campaign] on its own." Consider that for a moment: Europe, with an economy and population greater than those of the United States, could not beat up on a third-rate military just across the Mediterranean Sea on its own.'

Free Trade 101 for Members of Congress | Daniel Griswold | Cato Institute: Commentary

Free Trade 101 for Members of Congress | Daniel Griswold | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'Free trade empowers the individual and limits the state. The government should not be telling us where we can and can't spend our money. We don't need big government rigging markets to favor one producer over another at the expense of competition and the little guy.

Free trade helps American families balance their budgets. Import competition means lower prices, more choice, and better quality — for shoes, clothing, cars, computers and smartphones. Lower prices for consumer goods mean higher real wages for workers.

Protectionism is really a tax on the poor. Our highest remaining trade barriers unfairly tax products made and grown by poor people abroad and consumed disproportionately by poor families at home. We still impose unconscionably high tariffs on imported food, clothing, and shoes — the basics of a poor family's budget. The $26 billion we collect each year from duties on imports represent the federal government's most regressive tax. Free trade is a tax cut for the poor.'

Stay on Vacation | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary

Stay on Vacation | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: 'In fact, we have now had at least five — or is it six? — stimulus plans since this recession started.

The first of these came back in February 2008 under the Bush administration: a $152 billion measure, featuring a $600 tax rebate, several incentives for businesses, and loan guarantees for the housing industry. Then, as the recession picked up steam in September 2008, Congress passed the $61 billion Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act of 2008. This bill pumped money into federal "infrastructure projects" and extended unemployment insurance.

And of course, immediately after taking office, President Obama pushed through the giant $787 billion stimulus. He followed that up with an additional $26 billion bill in August of 2010, aimed at helping states retain teachers and make Medicaid payments. On top of that, in September 2010, Congress created a $30 billion fund to provide small businesses with low-interest loans. Finally, the December compromise that extended the Bush tax cuts included another extension of unemployment benefits and a reduction in the Social Security payroll tax, both heralded at the time as stimulus measures.'

'government at all levels is spending around 40 percent of GDP. If government spending brought about prosperity, we should be experiencing a golden age.'

AlbertMohler.com – Thrown Over the Fence — Infanticide, Canadian Style

AlbertMohler.com – Thrown Over the Fence — Infanticide, Canadian Style: "So a superior court judge in a relatively civilized jurisdiction is happy to extend the principles underlying legalized abortion in order to mitigate the killing of a legal person — that’s to say, someone who has managed to make it to the post-fetus stage. How long do those mitigating factors apply? I mean, “onerous demands”-wise, the first month of a newborn’s life is no picnic for the mother. How about six months in? The terrible twos?"

Is a rebellious teenager a "mitigating factor" too?

"Katrina Effert just might actually spend time behind bars — not for killing her son but for throwing the boy’s body over the fence. For that infraction, she might serve 16 days in jail."

Well Worth the Money | David Boaz | Cato Institute: Commentary

Well Worth the Money | David Boaz | Cato Institute: Commentary: For those who benefited from it, it is indeed well worth the money. But, as with all government programs, the beneficiaries weren't paying for it.

Tax Hikes Will Only Make Us All Poorer | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary

Tax Hikes Will Only Make Us All Poorer | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary: Truth be told, Obama recognizes there aren't enough rich people to pay for everything. That's why he has expanded the number of "millionaires and billionaires" to include those who earn more than $200,000. As runaway government spending continues, soak-the-rich taxes will have to hit more people — the "millionaires and billionaires earning $100,000, then $50,000 and perhaps even less.'

'during the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have hovered around 19 percent, despite changes in tax rates. This was true even when the top federal income tax rate was 92 percent (1952-53).'

Inequality of Wealth and Incomes - Ludwig von Mises - Mises Daily

Inequality of Wealth and Incomes - Ludwig von Mises - Mises Daily: "Inequality of wealth and incomes is an essential feature of the market economy." "He who best serves the consumers profits most and accumulates riches."

Terminate the Small Business Administration | Tad DeHaven | Cato Institute: Commentary

Terminate the Small Business Administration | Tad DeHaven | Cato Institute: Commentary: The SBA does this by guaranteeing loans issued by private lenders for up to 85 percent of losses in the event that loan recipients default. As a result of the guarantee, lenders are more willing to lend money to riskier applicants because the SBA -- and thus taxpayers -- is ultimately responsible for the bulk of any losses.

Never mind that surveys of small-businesses owners consistently show that taxes and regulations are their biggest problems while financing polls in the single digits.