John Stossel - Train Wreck Ahead
Most Americans — even those who are legislators — know very little about the details of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, so-called Obamacare. Next year, when it goes into effect, we will learn the hard way.
Ophthalmologists walk out of Obamacare talk at national medical meeting
http://twitchy.com/2013/04/21/ophthalmologists-walk-out-of-obamacare-talk-at-national-medical-meeting/#.UXRPVNXJ39U.twitterThe future of medicine. Glad to know doctors are taking a stand. Don’t let bureaucrats decide what’s best for healthcare. Kthx.
Concierge medicine is looking more and more promising. Where government leaves off, the market will handle it. It always has.
Milton Friedman - Government and the Consumer (by LibertyPen)
How Protectionism Hurts Hawaii: Why It’s Time to Repeal the Jones Act (by ReasonTV)
A monopoly occurs when one person or company controls an industry or is the only provider of a product or service. What is interesting to note is that everyone’s general disgust over monopolies seems to disappear when the greatest, most powerful, longest-lasting, and most abusive, violent, and murderous one is mentioned: the State itself. Governments have held monopolies over varied market systems throughout history but generally always hold a monopoly over the justice system and law enforcement. As the state grows, so does its monopoly- over healthcare, education, entrepreneurship, agriculture, technology, etc. Regardless of the number of participants in these markets- the big companies are always in bed with the government and their success is often ensured through subsidization and crippling regulations imposed on competitors.
My point in mentioning this is that the greatest perpetrator of monopolies on any aspect of our lives has always been the State. The state also enables the other great monopolies such as religions, banks, and corporations- even though these parties do not hold us at gunpoint, the State does and is on their side. If a corporation chose to force us at gunpoint to be customers, their nature would become State-like.
So, moving forward, we ask ourselves how can we ensure no one can control any aspect of our lives or the market? Certainly not through the government, the largest monopoly of them all.
In a free market there are no barriers to entering the market: success and a lasting business relies on market response. Do people want your product or service? Are they willing to pay for it as the price you are asking? Can you offer a low enough price and still profit enough that you see it worthwhile to continue? For a business to survive in a free market both participants- the consumer and the producer- must see some value in playing their part. They weigh the odds and decide that yes, they want to buy or sell the product/service. Thus, transactions occur and both people feel they have benefited from it.However, we must remember that both people are interacting voluntarily. They each choose to participate. This can change. Not everyone who sees a successful business wishes to simply be their customer- some might wish to take their place! Without the means of government to either aid or prevent them from competing, an aspiring individual can open a business in competition. Their success will also be determined by the decision-making of the consumer. Which business offers better quality? Cheaper prices? Better customer service? Is closer to home? Is environmentally-friendly? Supports other local businesses? Any variant of factors can determine which business a consumer will choose to buy from; and it is up to the businesses to understand and meet those demands in order to stay in business.
If one grocery finds a farmer who will sell them the best and cheapest apples on the market- they will likely experience a period of being the top choice for consumers to buy apples from. Their profits will increase and their business will grow. But it is only a matter of time before other competing groceries find ways to match them on quality and price. Without intellectual property- this will inevitably occur in any market. Leaders in the market may naturally arise because they hold most of the customer base, but because of free and open competition, they will always be faced with competing prices and quality, forcing them to meet the consumer’s demands if they wish to remain the “biggest” out there. There is no way a business can legally “control” the market- they can only meet its needs most successfully. Who is meeting those needs the best is likely something to continually change over time.
So, in summary- monopolies as we know of them could not occur in a free market legally. No coercion can be applied directly or indirectly through lobbying by businesses and they can therefore not oust their competitors by any other means outside of voluntary market competition. Anything that could appear to be a monopoly would only be sustained by extremely competitive pricing and quality. And would only survive so long as the consumers continued to choose them over another option. Sometimes even the best quality and prices aren’t going to win over a community- I buy products at a local whole foods store over Publix or Wal-mart because I want to support localization, small business, organic products, and better my own health.
Privatize the criminal justice system?
Frack to the Future by John Stossel
FrackNation director Phelim McAleer tried to confront Gasland director Josh Fox about this, but Fox wouldn’t answer his questions. Instead, he demanded to know whom McAleer works for. He also turned down my invitations to publicly debate fracking. Many activists don’t like to answer questions that don’t fit their narrative.
Even some homeowners who filed a lawsuit claiming that their water was poisoned by fracking weren’t happy to learn that their water is safe. I’d think they would be delighted, but FrackNation shows a couple reacting with outrage when environmental officials test their water and find it clean.
The real story on fracking, say scientists, is that the risks are small and the rewards immense. Fracking lowered the price of natural gas so much that Americans heat our homes for less, and manufacturing that once left America has returned. For those concerned about global warming, burning gas instead of oil or coal reduces CO2 emissions.
Skeptical Environmentalist author Bjorn Lomborg points out that “green” Europe promised to reduce emissions, but “only managed to cut half of what you guys accidentally happened to do when you stumbled on fracking.”
Still, the process sounds dangerous. It requires chemicals and explosions. So fracking is now scapegoated for the usual litany of things that peasants feared when threatened with curses centuries ago: livestock dying, bad crop yields, children born with deformities.
None of it is backed by scientific evidence. Even environmentalists who usually are too cautious (by my standards) see little danger. President Obama’s first EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, told Congress that the EPA cannot show “that the fracking process has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.”
One of the more outlandish fears is that fracking will cause earthquakes. Silly people at MSNBC say fracking creates “a skyrocketing number of earthquakes.” Yes, cracking rocks does cause vibrations. But then, so does construction with dynamite or jackhammers — not to mention trucks on the highway.
Time and again, as humans make a good-faith effort to find new, cleaner ways to produce the energy a growing population needs, environmentalists find a reason — often very small or non-existent — that makes the new method unacceptable.
They say coal is dirty and normal oil production might overheat the planet. Hydroelectric dams kill fish. Nuclear plants could suffer meltdowns. Windmills kill birds.
Some won’t be happy unless we go back to what we did before industrialization: burn lots of trees and die young.
Nothing is completely risk-free. Companies make mistakes. Chemical spills happen.
But those risks are manageable. They are also far preferable to the risk of paying more for energy — thereby killing opportunities for the poor.
So far, most regulators outside New York, Maryland and Vermont have ignored the silly people. So thanks to fracking, Americans pay less for heat (and everything else), the economy is helped, new jobs get created, we create less greenhouse gas, and for the first time since the 19th century, America may become a net exporter of energy.
Good things happen if the silly people can’t convince all politicians to ban progress.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe fights for your right to party ~
All links, sources, and more at: http://vforvoluntary.com/capitalism
Buy books on Austrian economics: http://vforvoluntary.com/store/economics
Happy Randsday!
Judas Christie Proposes $1 Minimum-Wage Increase
Another “small government” Republican who doesn’t understand economics. Because if he actually did understand economics he would be purposely harming those he proposes to help.
Just another reason why the Republicans don’t care about the free market.
One of the most evil attacks on free markets comes in the form of minimum wage laws. It makes it most difficult for the least skilled to find jobs.
None other than Cato Institute friend, Chris Christie is calling for a hike in the minimum wage in the state that he lords over, New Jersey.
Christie has proposed increasing the state’s minimum wage by $1 over a phase- in period of three years, reports Bloomberg. This is the Christie version of “compromise.” Democrats sought to raise the wage to $8.50 an hour in March from $7.25 and tie future increases to changes in the CPI.
In other words, Christie is saying let’s make it impossible for the unskilled to find jobs, but not so many and not so fast. But one wonders if the Cato friend gets the harm he is doing. Showing no clue as to how the minimum wage would hurt the unskilled, Christie said in a statement that the Democrats’ measure was “lopsided” because it would harm small businesses while helping wage earners. It’s as if he thinks the wage of all minimum wage workers can be raised to a new level, even though their marginal revenue product may be less than the wage.
Day by day, this Cato cover looks more and more absurd.
Shopping Around for a Better Life by John Stossel
Thanks, California! Thanks for your monstrous spending and absurd regulatory overreach! America needs you. We need Connecticut and Illinois, too! We need you the way we needed the Soviet Union, as models of failure, to warn us what happens if we believe those who say, “Government can.”
Moving to California was once the dream for many Americans. Its population grew at almost triple the national average — until 1990. Then big government, in the form of endless regulation and taxes, killed much of the dream. In the last decade, 2 million people left California.
Many of them moved to Alaska, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington or Wyoming. More on what makes those states special in a moment.
When the USSR died, overthrown by its own citizens’ hatred of central planning, I assumed the world would acknowledge that big government is a nightmare. But people don’t. Our brains are programmed to believe that “next time, central planning will help.” So, many people forget the lesson of the USSR.
Fortunately, they can still watch what’s happening right now in California, Illinois and Connecticut. OK, those states are not totalitarian dictatorships, but they tax and micromanage so much that they will soon approach bankruptcy, cut services and stagnate.
And Americans have an advantage Soviet citizens never had: 50 states. If we live in a big-government state, we can move. I did.
I grew up in Illinois. It was nice enough (except in winter). But gradually its politicians gave away its future.
I moved to New York City, no political paradise, but where the big TV news jobs are. And maybe New York’s promises to unions won’t bankrupt us too soon.
I could always move again. I would still be smothered by federal rules, but at least I can move to a place with fewer onerous state rules.
A group called the Free State Project invites us to move to New Hampshire to help create “liberty in our lifetime.” It’s too early to see how that will work out, but that state now has a booming population of libertarians and anarchists. One even got elected to the state legislature after running against his own roommate, also a libertarian, whom he accused of not being anti-government enough.
Americans who want to escape state income taxes and live near better job prospects can move to one of those nine states that I mentioned above.
It’s no surprise they produce more jobs. Without an income tax, those states were forced to limit the growth of their governments, so they did. Every state has schools, social service programs, prisons, etc., but those states find a way to fund those things for less. Then they reap benefits.
