Since the mortgage crisis began, the left has used the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act as a battering ram to break down the pro-free market argument. The left, the media and even some conservative politicians claim it was not having enough regulation that caused the mortgage crisis and ultimately the economic melt down that we are currently experiencing.

This really is a silly argument on its face. How does removing an act, which separates commercial and investment banking, cause risky behavior? Causation is what the statists are claiming. This would be like saying removing a guard rail is what caused me to drive off the road and into a tree. I’m sure we can all agree, it wasn’t the guard rail. It was my reckless driving. Similarly, it wasn’t the removal of the Glass-Steagall act that caused the current mess, it was the risky behavior. But, why was there risky behavior? Why would I drive off the road and hit a tree? Something must influence these actions.

In the case of driving off the road and hitting the tree, maybe I was drinking, or maybe the speed limit sign said 100mph. Both of these influences would be considered the the causes, would they not? Also, by the standard of the left, removal of the guard rail would cause every driver to drive recklessly and hit the tree. If all drivers fly off the road and hit the tree, surely there must be something that causes them to do so. It would have to be a 100mph sign heading into a blind bend, or maybe a mandatory rest stop where all must fill up on liqueur before heading back down the road. Either way, both would cause the reckless behavior.

Similarly, in the mortgage crisis, something influenced the behavior of the entire market. Bankers didn’t wake up one day and say, “Hey, let’s be really risky.” Bankers were enticed into being risky by the government. The government encouraged the risky behavior with artificially low interest rates by the Fed and legislation (ie. regulation) by congress that was trying to promote so called affordable housing. “Everyone should own a home” was the mantra of the past decade.

First, the government and community organizing groups through their power of controlling and influencing how banks operate forced the banks to lend to borrowers that would otherwise be deemed risky. This was not just the left. The Bush administration jumped on board with similar pushes. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s purpose was to push affordable housing, and they are the ones who basically establish the market in which bankers operate. Who do you think created the mortgage backed security instrument of which this monster was created?

Second, another part of the Glass-Steagall act that everyone forgets, but which everyone loves is the establishment of the FDIC. While it may seem like an excellent idea, how does saying, “Don’t worry. If you fail, the government will bail out your depositors.” effect behavior. Would that not increase risky behavior, knowing that you cannot harm the customers? Doesn’t that make customers less critical of who they deal with for their banking knowing that they have nothing to lose?

Third, the Federal Reserve artificially lowered interest rates to a historic low, reaching a negative real interest rate. In order to lower the interest rate, the Fed increase the money supply and encourages the banks to push out that money via loans. The whole point of this is to cause an expansion in the economy. Well, we got an expansion alright. As, Thomas Sowell says, “You can open the flood gates, but you can’t control where the water goes.” In this case, the water went into real estate. One could argue that the government did control the water somewhat with their push for affordable housing and their everyone should own a home legislation.

Another problem for the statists argument is if the guard rail of the Glass-Steagall act was still there, would we have still had a meltdown? While I cannot prove something that didn’t occur, one only need to look at the last meltdown with the dot com bubble. That was also Fed induced with money flooding the market. With the Glass-Steagall act in place, the money was forced into another sector, and we still had a meltdown. One can say it was not as big of a meltdown as our current one. The problem there though is the argument is just a matter of proportion. We didn’t have the historic low interest rates in the last meltdown and we didn’t have government passing legislation saying, “Everyone should own dot com stocks”.

Now we could get into the consequences of our entire banking structure and the problems with fractional reserve banking, but that would require too long of a post, and it would probably take me into deeper waters than I’m prepared to swim. The point of this post is to demonstrate that the anti-free market crowd doesn’t seem to understand causation. You can’t hold the free market accountable for something it did not create. Removal of the Glass-Steagall act was not the cause, just like removal of a guard rail doesn’t cause the driver to hit the tree. It both cases, it is outside influences, and in our current meltdown causation lies with the government.

Apparently, one of the tweeps I was debating on Twitter was so hot and bothered by my blog, he thought he would set me straight. The problem for him is when debating, feelings don’t count and distortions are against the rules. Here is the criticism with my response and corrections interspersed.

The other day I had an interesting back and forth on Twitter about healthcare. The debate was whether to let the free market have its way or whether the Federal government should have a stronger hand in a “Medicare Part E” plan for everyone. At the end of the discussion I was pointed to an article on Jason’s The Proud Profiteer website entitled Health Care Reform – The red herring of the pre-existing condition. I read every word of the article and have some thoughts about the free market as it exists today and where I think the author is wrong about where we should go.

Wow, the author couldn’t even get out of the first paragraph without showing the weakness of his argument. Saying “some thoughts about the free market as it exists today” shows the the author doesn’t understand the free market. I was not arguing for the status quo. I was arguing the problem with the current health care isn’t a lack of government meddling but too much government. The government currently accounts for 50% of all health care spending. If government was the solutions, we would have already seen improvements. The fact that health care costs have risen above inflation since the government inserted itself into the market shows the government actually makes the problem worse. It also proves that the problem isn’t the free market. The problem is you don’t have a free market. As soon as you introduce government coercion, you no longer have a free market. It is no different than if the government took away you freedom of speech. You technically are still free, but you are less free than you were.

I’m all for freedom and principles in this country. The author is correct in pointing out that the country was founded on the freedom and the need to get away from tyranny, taxes and religious persecution. Now the drumbeat throughout certain people in this country is that free markets and freedom will be the pill that will cure the country’s ills. Just get government out of the way of everything but defense and we will be a better place for it. Make it “small enough to drown in a bathtub,” to coin a phrase used by one of our most memorable politicians.

One of the ways we applied these principles was to allow mortgage companies, insurance giants and auto makers to, as the author says it, be free to succeed or fail. They’re good at what they do, so why not turn them loose to thrive and then we can all benefit at their success. So how do you explain the story of Goldman Sachs, AIG and the Freddie/Fannie debacles? Weren’t these companies free to pursue their own fortunes? And what would’ve happened if they were allowed to just fail? I guess those that would’ve allowed the complete meltdown wouldn’t mind what is happening in their free market 401(k).

Surely, this part had to be a joke. The author, if he has any understanding of the free market, would not have used the examples above to discredit the free market. The entire mortgage crisis was created and encouraged by the very government that the author claims is the solution. The artificially low interest rates by the Fed spurred on by affordable housing legislation and pressures caused the bubble, and it was only a matter of time before it burst. While the author may think he had me nailed here, people that know me, know that I predicted this bubble was going to go down very soon at the height of the housing bubble. The thing is if you understand economics, you can recognize business growth from bullshit.  This disaster was the culprit for the so called failed examples above. Freddie and Fannie are government sponsored agencies for pete’s sake. They are told what to do by the government and they are the ones who invented the securitization of mortgages that the evil banks were selling.

“But we should still get out of the health insurance company’ way,” you say. “Once they have complete freedom they’ll offer a virtual cornucopia of health insurance options that every thirst will be slaked. You’ll see that there will be lots of companies and options.” If you Google health insurance company monopoly, you will quickly discover that for several years large companies have had a lock on providing health care for people. If we get out of the way, what do the Blues, Aetna and the rest do? Do they allow rigorous competition and thousands of new companies to spring up? I think they either buy up those companies to stifle competition or squash them. I was told in the Twitter conversation that we should force these companies to compete with each other. So which is it – get out of their way with no regulation or force them to compete?

Hmm, not sure who said you have to force competition. It sure wasn’t me. My whole point in my post was that force is the evil. The role of the government is to prevent force from being used by one person against another. If you are tying in another conversation you had, don’t credit it to me. As far as your argument, again you are talking about a market that is not free. Companies cannot acquire a monopoly and stifle competition unless they have government backing, or they are the absolute best at what they do. If they are a monopoly because they are the best at what they do, then we all benefit.

The fact that health care and insurance are so heavily regulated now is what prevents many competitors. What you don’t seem to realize is regulation equals costs. When you have extensive regulation the costs get so high that they are a barrier to entry and only the big boys can afford to play the game. Don’t blame the free market for lack of competition. Your argument is easily disproved by looking at less regulated industries, such as the IT industry. The less regulation you have the more innovation, the more competition, and the quicker you see costs driven down.

If government is our own worst enemy as the author’s comments point out, why not just get rid of everything? Courts – who needs them? You’ve gotta beef with someone, handle it yourself and if you don’t get anywhere, kick the person’s ass or kill them. If one of those purely good companies make a product that turns out to seriously injure or kill people and you’re one of the poor schmucks that gets hurt or killed, tough luck bud. Like I just said, take a truck of Anthro and fuel and have at it.

Police and fire – we don’t need them, right? I’m sure there’s a security company that would be glad to give you your own security detail cause it’ll “fill a need.” Don’t have enough money to hire a security agency? Deal with it. There’s lots of crime victims out there. Go find the turkey yourself and dispense justice.  The 911 system is a socialist, government run system – get rid of that too. You’re having a heart attack, stroke? Get someone to put you in their car and drive you to the doctor. We don’t need no stinkin’ government run ambulances and medical staff. Hire some doctors and paramedics to stand by if you think you’ll need them.

Like you all say, for every need there’s someone to fit the bill at competitive rates, and since we’ll all be SO much more profitable when everyone gets out of free market’s way, we’ll be able to afford all these new things, right?

“But these are all ESSENTIAL government services,” you say. “You can’t take that away!” You know what, here’s where I want you to draw the line. Black & white. Think of all the things that you might need in life. Tell me why you would keep or privatize them. Then tell me why health care is not as important as 911, police, fire & paramedics. Why would you want to keep 911 as a government service but leave health care – the ability to live or die – as a FOR PROFIT endeavor.

Here is where you take my arguments and just completely distort everything. My argument is governments role is to prevent coercion. Now where does that say get rid of the courts? Where do you think government would enforce laws against coercion? Where do you think contract breaches would be adjudicated? Again, you take my argument and add a bunch of your own ridiculous arguments to it. Where did I say handle it yourself, kill people, etc? I’m pretty sure that would be included in the coercion I said the government should prevent, which is the whole point of founding a government. Your argument is very childish.

This police argument is not new. You haven’t had a brilliant brain fart. This is the typical response from socialists. The problem is police are a part of the government role to prevent coercion. What the hell do you think police do? As far as fire, in most communities the fire department is funded by charity. They hold fund raisers, and the fireman are volunteers. Apparently, you think that is socialism? In cities, this could be privatized, and it would probably be cheaper than paying your taxes. It would be no different than paying for security monitoring on your house. I’m not sure if you’ve read a newspaper lately, but there are many “government” services, such as trash collection being privatized. Do you think it’s being privatized because it’s worse?

Lastly, even if you leave these as government roles, which I personally don’t have a problem with, they are not federal programs. Apparently, you don’t seem to recognize the difference between local services provided and agreed upon by local citizens, paid for by their local taxes with Federal entitlement programs.

If you can’t afford heath insurance, Jason says that you’ll have to turn to charity. Leukemia and unemployed – charity. Stroke leaving you the inability to walk, speak or do your job – charity. Born with cerebral palsy or autism and your parents or unemployed/underemployed – charity. Jason, do me a favor, a little experiment. Take you & your son down to a doctor’s office you’ve never been to before. Tell the receptionist that you’re out of work and need your child seen for whatever – you name the illness. After they get done telling you to pay cash or you don’t get seen, take the amount of money the doctors wants you to shell out and start calling some churches. Give them the same story and tell them that you’ll probably need that same amount of money each month since your child might need special ongoing treatment. When you find the charity that’ll dole out that money month after month, let me know. The difference in your opening paragraphs – each of these families you mention probably has at least ONE working member in the household providing pay for health insurance. If I’m wrong, tell me how they’re handling things on charity.

To start, I said in my blogs that you should pay out of pocket for day to day care, and you should buy a low cost catastrophic insurance plan for things, such as the ones mentioned above. The purpose for insurance is to be there for catastrophe. Again, you distort my argument.

Second, I can guarantee you I have way more experience dealing with health care than you do. My son does have cerebral palsy, and while you and Obama discredit doctors as profit seeking devils, I’ve seen first hand the charity of doctors. Doctors don’t go through 8 years of schooling followed by years of residency because of the money. It’s a calling, and they do it to help people. Most of them already do charity. Also, charities already help people every day. You many want to check them out. Most liberals claim to love charity, but it’s usually only the charity from someone else’s pocket via goverment coercion. Who do you think fled down to New Orleans after Katrina? It was the charities on the front lines getting the hard work done, while the government, as usual, stumbled and caused more harm than good.

In addition, my argument talked about charitable donations exploding because of more money remaining in the pockets of citizens. Do you think a rich guy who’s kid died from leukemia, wouldn’t setup a foundation to research and help other parents with children who have leukemia? Where do you think charitable foundations come from? Have you ever heard of Shriners? I’m pretty sure they offer health care and are a charity. How about this report, that charitable donations reached a record in 2007 under the Bush tax cuts. Oh, and that doesn’t even take into account time and labor. You may want to give your fellow man a little more credit.

When I’m buying a car or a toaster, I want free market competition. I want the government to stay out of the way UNLESS what those kind folks are selling is hurting people. When I’m having a heart attack or stroke, I want an ambulance and crew to show up as quickly as possible and save me life! I don’t want to have to think if I paid my premiums that month or that some FOR PROFIT company “with my best interest in mind” will deny me life saving treatment.

How does a publicly traded company, beholden to its stockholders and profits, have my best interest in mind? If I’m a stockholder that’s easy. If you’re a CEO with complete free market freedoms, how do you take care of people with serious medical problems and still make your bottom line? How would Ford survive as a company if most of the vehicle they sold were Pintos or some other high maintenance vehicle? What incentives and marketing schemes would they contrive to make it profitable?

via RIAsults may vary: Health Care Reform – The AIG, Freddie & GM pill. Take two of these and don’t call me in the morning.

You final argument just demonizes businesses. It’s silly to act like business people are evil, and that some how government people are angels. You may want to challenge your assumptions. Government employees and especially politicians have their self interest in mind as well, and it is more often than not detrimental to the public good. Private capital is rewarded by efficiency, which means it addresses the most needs at the least cost. That is why you can buy your toaster so cheap. This does not take place in government. In government, politics and inefficiency are rewarded, resulting in less needs being met.

While I appreciate the time you took to respond and I enjoy the debate, I really wish you would keep your arguments away from your feelings and would not distort my arguments. We are talking about a gigantic issue, and we cannot make this decision on feelings. We have to make it on reason. Just because you get a warm feeling in your belly when you talking about everyone having health care doesn’t make it so. You may want to read my other blogs on health care, where I talk about what the real problems with health care are and why government intervention will only make things worse. Then again, I’m sure that doesn’t feel good.

While I haven’t read this book yet, it will be on my list as soon as I finish Robert’s book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide To Capitalism”, which helps provide a lot of the fire power behind this blog. Although, Robert is a highly regarded economist, he brings the dismal science down to a level that even an average Joe like myself can understand. In this interview, Robert discusses his book on the Great Depression. It highlights the fallacies you’ve been sold by the liberal establishment. Want to know why Obama’s policies are not working? All you have to do is see why FDR’s did not work.  You can also check out Robert’s blog, Free Advice out at http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/

“The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the Great Depression and the New Deal”

June 6, 2009

Select an Audio Format

RealPlayer WinAmp Windows Media Mp3

Everything they say about the Great Depression and the New Deal is wrong.

No economic myth these days is more pernicious than the myth that the free market caused the Great Depression and the New Deal got us out of it. That, as economist Robert P. Murphy points out is flat-out false. In The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal he provides irrefutable evidence that not only did government interference with the market cause the Great Depression (and our current economic collapse), but Herbert Hoover’s and Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s big government policies afterwards made it much longer and much worse (just as President Barack Obama’s extraordinary expansion of government promises to do today). Perhaps even more compelling, Murphy exposes the untold story behind the New Deal—how it operated by force, and why what’s really at stake is not only our economy but our liberty. The real “lessons of the Great Depression” are not what you’ve been taught.

via Financial Sense Newshour Expert ~ Robert P. Murphy 06.06.2009.

Today, the columnist Thomas Frank of the Wall Street Journal wrote a column in which he basically says modern day conservatives are bizarrely paranoid. From reading his article, he’s talking about those conservatives who believe in capitalism, are against government propaganda, and are against government social engineering. Here’s a snippet of his piece.

Back in Hofstadter’s day this sort of thinking at least had something supremely rational going for it: The existence of the Soviet Union and its desire to bring the West to its knees.

But take that away and the theories become something far more remarkable. Consider, by contrast, the widespread belief that President Barack Obama’s birth certificate was forged. What could have been his parents’ motives for committing such a bizarre deed, or his home state’s motive for colluding in it, or the courts’ motives for overlooking it?

Or consider the widespread conservative conviction that we are being marched secretly into communism or fascism. Why would someone bother? It seems equally likely, given today’s circumstances, that conspirators would trick us into becoming a colony of Belgium or the imperial seat of the Bonaparte family.

The paranoid pattern persists regardless. It is impervious to world events; a blurting of the American subconscious that has not changed since Hofstadter analyzed it 45 years ago. Consider the recent wave of fear that the hypnotic Mr. Obama was planning to indoctrinate schoolchildren. In “The Paranoid Style,” Hofstadter wrote, “Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; . . . he has a new secret for influencing the mind; . . . he is gaining a stranglehold on the educational system.”

via Thomas Frank: From John Birchers to Birthers – WSJ.com.

Let me start off by saying, I agree to some extent on the birth certificate issue. I don’t know whether the issue is valid or not, so I don’t claim that it is. It’s a distraction, and it let’s people like Mr. Frank lump all conservatives together and say they are nuts.

With that said, I do have a problem with the remaining arguments in Mr. Frank’s article. To say that conservatives are claiming we are marching secretly to communism or fascism, and that somehow that is nuts, should highlight how the intellectuals among us are so blinded by their supposed brilliance. Apparently, the government take over of our largest financial, automotive, and soon to be newspaper institutions is of no concern to Mr. Frank. That is just silly talk. So what if the government controls them, and they say what is going to happen in the market place. How is that communism or fascism?

In addition, I think Mr. Frank doesn’t realize that this isn’t a new march. Surely the government permanently impoverishing a large population with welfare and using Medicare and Social Security to induce fear when needed on another large segment of our population could be considered something other than just crazy, paranoia.

I guess, Alexander Hamilton was paranoid when he wrote in the Federalist Papers, “.. that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of goverment. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants” What kind of crazy is Alexander Hamilton warning us about those tenderhearted politicians?

We all know Jefferson was a loony, paranoid, nut case when he said, “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.” What a weirdo.

Don’t worry about the government trying to take over the 1/6th of our economy via health care. They would never use your health care to make you behave in a certain way. They would never hold it up at election time to scare people into voting for them. Why would you think that?

Surely, this “paranoia” that Mr. Frank so arrogantly puts down is nothing new. What most people would call skepticism has been with us since our founding. It is what led our country to revolution and then to form our union under a constitution.

As far as the school children, the media may have blew it out of proportion, but that was before the post speech exercise assignment was revised to not make it sound like the student had to do something that the President asked. I think it also went hand and hand with the video from Hollywood asking students to pledge allegiance to the President.  Surely, that’s just a little disturbing is it not? Surely, if this video and this homework assignment was from Bush, Democrats and the left would have rightfully went nuts. Oh wait, but that’s not paranoia. When Bush was in, he only purposefully let a couple thousand  New Orleanians die. Maybe I should go back and read Mr. Frank’s article on those crazy lefties.

Lastly, in part of the article that I don’t have sited here, you can read it at the Journal, Mr. Franks poo-poohs Glenn Beck as the master conspirator. Glenn Beck must be a lunatic questioning the Federal Reserve, oh along with all Austrian economists. Surely, the Federal Reserve had nothing to do with the tech bubble, followed by the housing bubble and who knows what bubble they are creating now.

Mr. Frank’s complete lack of historic and conceptional perspective is an embarrassment for my paper of choice. While, he’s entitled to his opinion, maybe he can keep his head in ground. We’ll pull him back out once we take our country back.

Thursday, unelected bureaucrats will be making a major decision on behalf of the American people that can have far reaching implications to our freedoms. Here is an article from My Way News with my commentary.

Oct 18, 12:57 PM (ET)

By JOELLE TESSLER

WASHINGTON (AP) – With Democrats in charge in Washington, supporters of so-called “net neutrality” rules seem poised to finally push through requirements that high-speed Internet providers give equal treatment to all data flowing over their networks.

These rules – at the heart of a five-year policy debate – are intended to guarantee that Internet users can go to any Web site and access any online service they want. Phone and cable companies, for instance, wouldn’t be able to block subscribers from using cheaper Internet calling services or accessing online video sites that compete with their core businesses.

The Federal Communications Commission is set to vote Thursday on a proposal by the agency’s chairman, Julius Genachowski, to begin crafting regulations to prohibit broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against Internet traffic.

Broadband providers such as AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp. argue that after pouring billions of dollars into their networks, they should be able to operate those networks as they see fit. That includes offering premium services over their lines to differentiate themselves from competitors and earn a healthy return on their investments.

Genachowski’s proposal has also encountered misgivings among Republicans on the FCC and in Congress, who fear network neutrality rules could discourage broadband providers from continuing to expand and upgrade their systems.

“The risk of regulation really inhibits investment,” said Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell. Noting the agency’s estimated price tag of up to $350 billion to bring broadband connections to all Americans, he added: “How do we pay for all that?”

via My Way News – Hurdles remain as FCC ponders Internet data rules.

To start, what gives the government the right to tell private companies, who invest their own money in building these broadband networks, that they have to provide unfettered access to all internet users whether customers or not. This is rediculous enough, but let’s show how the free market would do this without the loss of liberty?

First, in most places there are multiple internet providers. For example, where I live in Pittsburgh, I can get internet from Comcast via cable, Verizon via DSL, Verizon via FiOS, and other providers of DSL and satellite services. If for example Comcast decides to limit monthly download to say 250GB, which they did, then customers will decide whether it is worth it for them to abide by their rules or switch to Verizon.

We make these decisions all the time. For instance, last year I switched from Comcast to Verizon for my internet. Why did I do this? Because Comcast thought they could hold me hostage to purchase all their services or rape me on the remaining ones. Surely enough the free market delivered. I dumped Comcast, went to Verizon for my internet, Dish Network for my TV, and Phone Power for my phone. I cut my costs and got more service. What government doesn’t seem to understand, probably because they only know force, is that the free market cannot coerce you into doing anything.

“Well, the internet is interconnected, and if Comcast decides to restrict access to a service that if offered by a competitor,  they can hurt the competitor even if the end user isn’t a Comcast customer. For example, if Verizon’s customer’s traffic has to travel over Comcast’s network to get to its destination, then that customer can be harmed even though they aren’t a Comcast customer.”

Hmmm, let’s think this through. If the internet is interconnect, which it is, would it make sense financially for Comcast to start a war with another carrier? Also, the internet is interconnected, but it is not one link. Most carriers have a plethora of routes to use to get to the destination they are seeking. They also have protocols that decide which route to take based on things such as available bandwidth. With this technology, they would bypass Comcast. (Warning: I’m using Comcast as an example. They aren’t the target of this legislation that supposedly is going to help consumers.)

Also, in a free market, companies are incentivized to innovate and offer new services because of profits. If profits are cut because of government force, then it is without a doubt going to cut into innovation, which ultimately hurts everyone.

Providers don’t only provide one solution. If they are providing phone services to businesses and end users, they must be able to meet that service obligation. If they are required to ignore those needs in order to provide “net neutral” access to their broadband, then those services become worthless. Those services cannot sustain, because they would be unreliable. This would decrease their profits (which we already explained hurts innovation), and hurt the consumers of those phone services. Now you have less competition in the phone service arena.

Government always seems to want to address problems that do not exist. Where has this been a long term problem? Where has the consumer, who has no right to these services, been harmed by the monstrous internet providers? I think one could argue that the most unregulated part of our lives these days, the internet, is without a doubt the most innovative and quickly advancing parts of our lives. This isn’t happenstance. This is because the government isn’t dampening the motive of companies to make a profit, not yet that is. It would appear that the government can’t stand to see a sector of our economy flourishing without it.

If you want the internet to continue it’s phenomenal advancement and betterment of our lives, I’d suggest you let your representatives know that “net neutrality” is disaster. Let them know your vote could be swayed by their stance on this legislation, and that internet service providers have delivered as promised in regard to our communications needs. We can decide what providers to use and punish ourselves. We do not need them taking our liberty in order to do it, which we already know they can’t.

Our government has been pushing alternative energy like they stand to make profits personally from the success of the green businesses. Hmm, could it be? How much has Gore made? Last I heard he’s made over $100 million. But profits are fine when they come from liberal causes, right?

Anyways, the reason I am writing this post is we’ve been told for generations now that we are going to run out of oil. Oil is a fossil fuel, and there is only so much of it. We are told we must not drill basically anywhere. This issue came to mind when I was out driving around looking at houses with my family. Although we have no intentions on buying any of the houses, this is just something we enjoy. While driving around, the following example became apparent. It applies to all limited commodities, and it highlights the fallacy that government must act so we don’t use all the world’s oil.

Have you ever noticed how older houses seem to have the best yards? At least where I live in Pittsburgh, the older houses seem to have the nice, flat yards. All the new houses are built with a cliff for a back yard. This is a constant complaint, but it is very simple to explain. It will highlight the fashion by which the market conserves resources. In a free market, home builders look to build houses for the lowest possible price. The lower the price the more purchasers. The more purchasers, the easier it will be to sell and make a profit. Developing a home on a flat lot is much cheaper than developing on a hill. Developing on a hill requires tons of expensive excavation. This is why the flat land is developed first.  Over time, more and more of the flat areas are developed. As the flat areas are used up, they become more expensive.  Supply shrinks while demand doesn’t. As they become more expensive, developing the hilly area starts to become more reasonable. Eventually, the flat land, because of low supply, costs more to develop than the hill.

The developers begin developing the hills because they can offer them cheaper than the remaining flat lots that as we already said have risen in price. Developers will continue this process moving to more and more difficult and expensive developments as the price of the low hanging fruit increases because of decreasing supply. Ultimately, the remaining supply becomes so expensive that more expensive substitutes are used, in this case hilly land. This will leave flat land that is untouched. As the supply of easier to develop hill begin to dwindle, developers will move on to harder and harder to develop areas. The cost of developing the harder areas would more than likely lead to some recycling of the old flat lots that have houses on them already.

This is no different with oil. The technologies that are now too expensive to develop, mass produce, and distribute will get more and more economical as supply of oil shrinks and prices increase to reflect the shrinking supply. Similar to land development, as energy supplies get more expensive we will always move on to the previous uneconomical sources that have now become economical.  Because of the skyrocketing price, it would not make economical sense to use the remaining supply.

How do you run out of oil? You could run out of oil if the government decides to nationalize the oil supply for say “the public good”. Government also could impose price controls, which would prevent the price signals from having their effect on demand. These are the circumstances that spell disaster for conservation. As with most things, the government isn’t the solution, and as we know in many cases can be the biggest problem. The free market requires no compulsion, no taking of liberties, and would preserve our resources without force. No bureaucratic idiocy is needed for the free market to prevent us from using all the world’s oil. Well, unless someone in government is in the business of making unearned profits, maybe by forcing the world to buy carbon credits from a former Vice President who shall remain nameless.

Over the past week, I’ve been writing about how the free market is the best solution to health care reform. I also argued that the best way to fix health care is to get rid of third party payer, typically employers, from the health insurance purchase. The second fix was to get rid of third party payer for day to day medical expenses. For some reason, despite the fact that the market delivers food to you to survive, Americans think the market without the government involvement would not provide the insurance and medical solutions needed.

Now I’ve already argued that they would. Examples like walk-in health clinics, $4 prescriptions, and HSAs abound. The biggest fear for most people though is the pre-existing conditions and finding health insurance. I’ve exclaimed and still do that the market will address this need, because that is what the market does. It addresses needs.

The change that would help propel the creation of new insurance products is the consumer of the insurance actually purchasing the insurance. When we purchase goods and services for ourselves, we seek out the goods and services that address our needs effectively at the best possible price. This shopping will create a educated consumers and will generate competition among the providers of insurance and medical services.

Today while doing my bills, my mortgage company sent me this offer: “You can now get $100,000 of accident hospitalization insurance coverage for one full year for free.” Wow, free. Let’s take a look at the fine print. First, let’s make it clear this coverage is for accidental hospitalization. It is not for going to get your flu shot, which as we said before should be paid our of pocket. If our real concern is making sure we do not go bankrupt in the event of an unplanned disaster, surely a plan that covers accidents would be on the top of our list. So, this plan covers hospital stays and emergeny treatments. It even has an option to add your family and include doctors visits. Doctors visits are limited to one per month with a lifetime limit of 60 visits. Wow, I can probably count on one hand how many times I’ve been to the doctors in the past 20 years.

This plan is not total coverage, but it does address a need, accidental coverage. There are exclusions to this plan. The accident cannot be the result of drinking, drugs, committing a felony, flying a plane, war, accidents outside the US, etc. By limiting their exposure, they are able to offer a reasonable amount of coverage for a very low price. How much is this plan? After the free period, it goes up to $9.95/month. To add doctors visits, its $13.95/month, and for a family it’s $19.95/month.

So what does it say about pre-existing conditions? “All eligible customers who complete and return the Activation Form will be accepted. There are no medical questions or physical examinations required for enrollment.” Sounds pretty good for pre-existing conditions to me.

Now, I am not saying this plan here is the answer. It does not cover all scenarios. It’s for accidents. It does not cover cancer, heart attacks, or diseases. I think we could all agree, how could it at $9.95/month? What this highlights though is companies including your home mortgage company will offer solutions. When you are shopping for your own insurance, you will make good decisions to address your own personal needs. You will not be pigeon holed into a plan that doesn’t apply to you because a co-worker has different needs. You also will not go without options. The market is where options are created, and the government is where options are few and usually all bad.

Earlier this week, I posted a two part series on how to fix the health care crisis. The solution was to get rid of third party payer in respect to the purchase of health care and insurance. Immediately, I got and was glad to have received the red herring question of the pre-existing condition.

Let me start off by saying, that I have a child with special needs. My 9 year old son has cerebral palsy and has gone through years of physical therapy and occupational therapy to be able to walk on his own. He still wears braces on his legs. In additions, my niece has a severe case of autism, so bad that she is fed through a feeding tube. I say this because I know personally what parents have to deal with when it comes to pre-existing conditions.

With that said, free markets and freedom in general are principles on which this country was founded. Principles are meant to be applied in all circumstances, because they prevent us for choosing the wrong path. Our founders knew this. It is by veering off these principles that we are in the mess we are in now. Just because there is a hard issue to be addressed, doesn’t mean we throw away our principles. We don’t teach our children principles to guide them through life, just to have them toss them aside at the first circumstance that challenges their principles. Principles are meant for the hard issues. The are not meant for the easy issues.

“OK buddy. Enough preaching already.”

Agreed! We must start off this topic discussing the morality of government health insurance. Then we will move on to the economics of the issue.

In Thomas Paine’s great work “Common Sense”, he lays out how and why governments come into existence. He describes a civilization with two people, and how with two people you do not need government. Those two people can discuss their problems and come to a solution directly. As more and more people come into this society, they can no longer work out their disagreements directly. There are just too many of them, and they have other duties that require their attention and time. This is when government comes into existence. They decide to appoint select members of the society that they believe will represent their best interests. Those representatives will then setup laws and rules that protect all members of the society. What are they protecting each member of society from? They are protecting them from each other. They are making sure that one member doesn’t use coercion on another member. This coercion can be in the form of theft, fraud or even murder. This is how government is supposed to function in a free society. I think we would all agree that the government that functions in this manner is a just and moral government.

If we all agree to that, then we must acknowledge that coercing someone against their will directly or through the government is an immoral act. This is why the free market is always moral, and all other systems are immoral. The free market allows people, in pursuit of their own interest, to peacefully without coercion come to an agreement on trading a product or service between themselves. Both parties in the transaction walk away from the transaction better than before.

As soon as the government becomes involved, with the exception of preventing coercion (contract law, prosecuting fraud and extortion, etc), they then become the coercive power. Just because they may be acting on something that the majority agrees with doesn’t mean that coercion is now moral. I’m sure the best case of this was slavery. The majority approval for the government coercion did not make slavery moral. Immoral acts are always immoral.

What I am leading up to here is having the government force any individual to pay for another individual’s health insurance is immoral. Also, forcing an individual to buy his own insurance is immoral. In a free society, people are free to pursue their self interest. They are free to be miserly, charitable or neither. They are free to be successful, and they are free to fail. This is a just and moral society. As discussed earlier, this is a principled society. As soon as you veer away from this principle, no matter what your intentions, you then cannot say that another act of coercion, say Wall Street millionaires taking our tax dollars, is immoral.

I know this may sound like great theory, but the truth is life would be much better if we stuck to the principles of our founding fathers. I think we all know and agree to that, but then for some reason we immediately find that this special circumstance is different. It isn’t different. Our founding fathers had many reasons and opportunities to take the path we are now taking. They decided to take the principled stand. They decided to take it for us. George Washington could have easily been a king. He could have setup a monarchy that would have passed from generation to generation. Read history, and you will find how easily he could have done this. People were begging him to be king. Instead, he stood on the principles they professed during the revolution, and he stepped down after two terms.

Now, enough of my moral argument. Morals are great, and we’d all be better off if we lived by them, but how will the free market address the question that prompted this blog?

The free market operates in this manner. Individuals need many things for survival and pleasure. Because they cannot meet all their needs by their own action and invention, they offer what they are best and most efficient at creating and delivering for something they need that someone else is best and most efficient at creating and delivering. This is what is known as the division of labor. For society to benefit the most from everyone’s production, this must be voluntary and with out compulsion. When voluntary, people will seek to offer what they can create better and in more supply than everyone else. They do this based on their self interest. The more value they can create the more they will be able to get from others through trade. When government bureaucrats decide who should do what, you end up with people producing things that they are less efficient at producing. This results in a lower quality of life for us all.

This is apparent even in the most obscure products and services that are offered today. Do you think in government controlled economies, people with a fetish for purple, prince garbed, frog figurines could ever find the product they seek? In the free market, even products and services that seem so obscure that they wouldn’t be worth producing are produced. They are produced because there is a need, there is someone who can produce it, and there is a price at which both agree the product is worth producing and purchasing.

In the market of pre-existing medical conditions, this type of innovation would undoubtedly take place as well. There would be entrepreneurs that see a need that needs met. Typically, these entrepreneurs have experience themselves with being on the needing side of the tracks. They found that they couldn’t meet their own need through the market, so they say “Hey, I see an opportunty here. Why don’t I offer this to society. There has got to be many more people out there with the same need.” As we know, this happens every day, and this is why we as Americans progress so quickly. This is why the internet in a very short time went from bulletin boards to what we have today, where you can make video conference calls across the globe for FREE!

That is not to say you would not have some progress under a government controlled economy. The problem is you would only have progress in the areas that some bureaucrat, special interest or the majority believe should be pursued. If your child suffers from a less common ailment, you are out of luck.

With the free market, you will see innovation so much faster, and you will see prices of those innovations quickly drop. How much did a little 20″ LCD screen cost just 10 years ago? Politicians love to blast the rich, but guess who will fund that new medical treatment your child or you need? When it is first developed in the free market, it will be expensive. That is because of all the research and development costs that went into innovating the product or service. The rich will be the only ones who can afford it. There are only so many rich people, and eventually the manufacturer will have to figure out how to make it cheaper to gain access to a larger market. In this process, all the other companies that participate in the creation of the product will also be pursuing reductions in production costs. This will create a butterfly effect, which will result in rapidly declining prices. I know people think it isn’t fair for the rich to be the only ones who can afford it at first, but under the government controlled market or a market with out the rich, the innovation wouldn’t have taken place.

As I said previously, when you remove the third party payer from the insurance purchase, you will quickly see incentives to live healthier. According to the CDC, chronic illnesses that are caused by life style choices account for 75% of all health care expenditures. It would be a far stretch of the imagination to believe that this number would not be drastically effected if those life style choices were punished via higher premiums. A large decrease in chronic diseases would undoubtedly reduce insurance rates, and it would reduce the cost of health care in general.

Also removing the third party payer from the day to day health care purchases would drastically increase competition and lower prices for normal health issues. This would help those who have pre-existing conditions by allowing them to get the regular medical care at a fair price. Personally, this was my major issue when searching for insurance. My son’s pre-existing condition prevented him from getting even catastrophic care. The reason being is they assumed there would be a large amount of day to day care. I wasn’t concerned with day to day care. My concern was catastrophe. I needed coverage for the care that you can’t plan for. With the decrease in the cost of day to day care that would result from paying out of pocket and increased competition, you would see insurers more inclined to cover those who have pre-existing conditions. One can easily imagine an insurance company running a new marketing campaign stating that is is the “Only insurance company to offer coverage for children with autism”. That is a market that needs served, and they would be the first to tap into that market. Quickly competitors would step up to the plate, and prices would be driven down. Doctors who specialize in a particular affliction would compete for the dollars of potential clients by offering the newest and best treatments. These are the circumstances in which the market shines best.

The last wonder of the free market that would help those who really struggle financially is charity. Historically, charity has always been the way the poor was able to receive the services that they need but could not afford. Americans are the most generous people on the planet, and it would be almost a guarantee that with the government out of the market you would see increased prosperity. With that increased prosperity, you would see more charitable donations. Insurance companies and doctors would donate time and dollars to take care of the less fortunate. One must ask what would happen with charity under a government run health care plan. If the government turns you down, it would almost certainly be illegal or at minimum be detrimental to the doctors relationship with the government if he performed a procedure out of charity.

As I write this, I get super excited as a parent of a special needs child thinking of the innovation that would be unleashed in a completely free market. Unfortunately, we have already let the barbarians in the gates, and they are not going to leave of their own accord. The likely hood that we will drive them out and take back our economy and country is slim. It involves the unknown. It’s easier to accept the mediocrity of the known than it is to trust in what we know is truth but seems so far from where we currently are. I beg you not to fear. Can you imagine what fear our founding fathers, who never knew what life was like without the protection of the Royal Crown, must have felt? The amount of courage that it must have taken just amazes me, even as I write this. I’m sure we can all agree, thank God that they did. Let’s remember life isn’t only about the here and now. It isn’t just about take care of me, and the future be damned. Now is our turn to take the principled stand. It’s our turn to make the tough decisions for posterity. If we do the right thing, one day, our children and grandchildren will say, “Thank God that they did.”

After reading the following editorial in the Wall Street Journal this morning, I had to send in a letter to the editor. While I doubt it will get published, it will here. That’s another lovely thing about the free market! Here’s the editorial followed by my response.

By VERNON L. SMITH

There is widespread agreement with the principle that our health-care system needs to be reformed. But our representatives and our neighbors have much trouble in reaching agreement on the particulars. There have been many legislative bills offered and hundreds of amendments with no clear path to a resolution.

Health-care systems everywhere encounter cost overruns and rationing devices, like queues, in their diverse attempts to deliver products for which demand has long grown faster than other economic sectors. Why is it so difficult to find the private and public means, the combination of markets and government assistance, that enables a preferred outcome to emerge?

This question has a simple answer that plagues health care everywhere.

The health-care provider, A, is in the position of recommending to the patient, B, what B should buy from A. A third party—the insurance company or the government—is paying A for it.

This structure defines an incentive nightmare. You do not have to be an economist to realize that, when phrased in this way, nobody knows how to solve this problem. Hence the many experiments, all of which have been deemed less than satisfactory.

I don’t know whether this problem has a solution. If it does, I think it requires us to find mechanisms whereby third-party payment is made to the patient, B, who in turn pays A, supplemented with any co-payment from B for services. Hence, from the moment B seeks services from A both know who is going to be paying A for what is delivered. A and B each has need for what the other brings to the table, and this structure carries the potential for nurturing the relationship between A and B. B is empowered to become better informed about the services recommended by various A’s that he might choose among, and the A’s might find it particularly important to build good reputations with B’s.

Mr. Smith, the 2002 Nobel Laureate in economics, is a professor at Chapman University.

via Vernon L. Smith: The ABC Dilemma of Health Reform – WSJ.com.

Subject:  In response to “The ABC Dilemma of Health Reform”

Leave it to the intellectual to turn the simple into the complex. Mr. Smith, a Nobel Laureate, says “I don’t know whether this problem has a solution.” Is he serious? Any economist knows the disaster that ensues when price signals are not available to the purchaser.

The entire system can be fixed by addressing third party payer in respects to the purchase of medical services and the purchases of the insurance. Instead of further incentivizing the distortion of the market via the tax code’s promotion of employer purchasing of insurance, we should incentivize the individual. When the individual purchases his own insurance, he’ll make better puchasing decisions, such as buying a catastrophic plan instead of a plan that covers everything down to teeth cleaning. The individual will also make better purchasing decisions when the doctor tries billing him $10 for a band-aid.

When the accumulative effect of millions of these first party payer transaction kick in, you will see prices come back in line with the rest of the market. You will see entrepreneurs battling it out for the consumers dollar.

Sincerely,

Jason Vanzin

I know I’m starting to post a lot of videos, but as I find great videos that advocate the free market I want to share them with my readers. The free market is so powerful. To demonstrate that power, Milton Friedman will use something so simple as the pencil.