Regulations are good: for our competition

So-called free-marketers are constantly complaining about regulations.  Donald Trump claimed he would get rid of two regulations for every new regulation,.  Gosh, do you think he would drop the regulation of concealed-carry in the White House?  But that is a whole ‘nother subject.

What triggered this little outburst of mine was an article in the Reader Weekly from Wisconsin Public Radio ("Trade Dispute May Have Mixed Results for Wisconsin”).  It contained a story “Wisconsin Lawmakers Consider Sales of Home-Baked Goods Once Again”.  You can find the original story at https://www.wpr.org/wisconsin-lawmakers-consider-sales-home-baked-goods-once-again.

“In previous sessions, food industry advocates have brought up concerns about food safety…”

It would be interesting to know who these “food industry advocates” are and if they have ever complained about government regulations for the safety of their own products.

To be fair, many recall articles do state how a company is working with the government to improve.  After all, good companies are always concerned about their reputation for quality.

Hunter, know your ground!

’Tis the season for blam, blam, and blam from an unknown distance.  Is it on my cabin property or is it on Forest Service land?  It may be a nuisance on Forest Service land, but I have no right to stop people from hunting there.

Unfortunately, there are a few hunters who think they have the right to shoot from wherever they please.  Some years ago, a hunter shot right down our driveway with a red pickup clearly visible.

A couple of years ago, a pair of hunters shot from the road into our property, entering ten feet from a “No Trespassing” sign, about 100 feet from an occupied building on the opposite side of the road, and less than 500 feet from our cabin.

Last year a pair of hunters shot into our property within 500 feet of our cabin and less than 100 feet from a cabin on the other side of the road.

I guess they have other priorities than knowing the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) hunting regulations:

On another person’s private land or a public right-of-way, a person may not discharge a firearm within 500 feet of a building occupied by humans or livestock without permission.

It seems some bird hunters are more prone to ignore “property rights” than deer hunters.  Many bird hunters cruise the roads looking for likely spots along the road and pay no attention to land use. 

Many deer hunters occupy a stand and know exactly where they are.  In fact, some of my deer hunter friends do not think much of bird hunters.  Even if they hunt birds themselves, they have disdain for bird hunters who don’t respect property rights.

We’ve always assumed that we had to post our land with “No Trespassing” or “No Hunting” signs.  We’ve found it annoying and time consuming.  Why should we have to post our land?  Shouldn’t the hunters know where they are hunting?

Many counties have plat maps available.  St. Louis County had KMZ files that one could overlay on Google Earth.  The KMZ files contain the property information for every parcel in the county.  Now St. Louis county has gone one step further and has all this information online with Google Earth maps.  See http://gis.stlouiscountymn.gov/planningflexviewers/county_explorer/.  With this you can “fly” to any area of the county and know which land is private, county, state, or federal.  If you have a computer, there is no excuse for not knowing where you are hunting.

Carlton and Lake Counties have information by parcel, but you need a street address to find this information.  See http://www.parcelinfo.com/.

You can also get public hunting maps from major sports retailers.

The DNR regulations are a bit ambiguous.  The 2014 regulations state:

“Always ask permission before entering private land. Any entry onto the private property of another without permission is considered trespass.  Land owners may be able to pursue court action against trespassers whether the property is posted or not.”

Two notable exceptions are that a hunter may enter land that is not posted to retrieve a wounded animal or to retrieve a hunting dog.  In the latter case the hunter may not carry a firearm.  In both cases the hunter must be on foot.

But then after the second suggestion that hunters always ask permission to enter non-posted lands, the regulations state the requirements for posting!  Signs must be posted every year, must have letters of a certain height, have landowner name or signature, and be posted at certain intervals.  The intervals are at the corner of every parcel and in wooded areas every 500 feet or less.  But if some hunters ignore signs, why even bother?

Those who ignore property lines or “No Trespassing” signs should be lucky they don’t live in a “Stand your ground” state.  Consider that a cranky old man is sitting with a shotgun hidden among the trees, just waiting for you to step from the road.  Blam!  You’re dead!  Does the cranky old man even have to to be in a “Stand your ground” state?  A sympathetic jury may consider his actions self-defense.

To end on a positive note;

I don’t eat meat anymore, and when I did, I considered hunting an expensive way to get meat.  Others disagree and enjoy hunting, fishing, and the food it gives them.  If you are one of these people, if you know where you are, and if you have permission to hunt there, may you have a good hunting season.  May you get your limit in the time you want to spend.  May you enjoy each meal from your hunting.

Mel can’t complain too much about noise:  He does operate noisy equipment.  But so do his neighbors and all know where the sound is coming from.

Cost of government vs value of government

Too many people complain about the cost of government and the level of taxation, but they never look at any actions of government being investments.

Where would they get enough educated workers without government-provided schools?  Would enough parents or individuals have the time or money needed for the level of education required by many businesses?

How would they get the roads to move goods from manufacturer to warehouse to user?  Would they want to pay tolls for each segment of road, including local roads.

What would our health be without food inspection?  Maybe the food producer thinks regulations are burdensome, but what about the burden on employers who have many employees absent with food-borne illnesses.

Maybe factories think safety regulations are burdensome, but what would their costs be in reduced workforces and lawsuits?

The basic question is shall we have a society of maximum gain for a few or a society that provides for the “general Welfare” as stated in the Constitution.

Or, too many people know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

For a much better consideration of this, see “Our mismeasured economy”, Lew Daly, New York Times, 2014-07-06.

Corporations, Water, and Al Qaeda

A relative reposted the following on her Facebook page:

"If Al Qaeda had poisoned the water of 300k people, we'd have already invaded the wrong country.  Since it's a corporation, carry on.  #TYTLive DubMasterC@DubMasterC"

She got it from Daily Kos's facebook page.  The original source is https://twitter.com/DubMasterC/status/422869150604607490.

Who will you thank at Thanksgiving?

Most people will give thanks for their Thanksgiving dinner to God and to the preparers.  Consider all the others who helped make your dinner possible.

First, consider the people who built the roads for you to get to the store and all those who paid taxes for those roads, both now and long ago.

Consider the people at the grocery store who stocked the shelves, coolers, and freezers with all the food you bought and who checked you out and bagged your groceries.

Consider the people who drove the trucks on the above-mentioned roads to deliver the food to the grocery store.

Consider the people in the warehouses who unloaded the goods from one set of trucks coming from processors, stacked them, and then loaded them on another set of trucks for delivery to local stores.

Consider the people who drove the trucks on the above-mentioned roads to deliver the goods to a warehouse.  Sometimes they are driving long hours under a deadline.

Consider the people who processed the food at a cannery, a packager, or a slaughterhouse.  Many of them work under conditions and wages you wouldn’t tolerate.

Consider the people who drove the trucks on the above-mentioned roads to deliver the produce or animals to a cannery, a packager, or a slaughterhouse.

Consider the state and federal inspectors who try to enforce those “burdensome” regulations so that you have safe food, uncontaminated by unwanted organisms and chemicals.

Consider the environmentalists who want to reduce the contaminants in our air and water that could make your food less healthy.

Consider the people who picked the fruit and vegetables that are on your Thanksgiving table.  Some of them worked in air-conditioned harvester cabs; others of them picked by hand so long that they wondered if they could stand straight at the end of the day.  Some of them owned the land they worked and kept any profits.  Some worked seasonally at wages you wouldn’t tolerate.

Consider the people who ran the farms.  Some of them were corporate managers and some of them were resident farmer-owners.  These latter took many risks to produce your food besides the general risk of physical injury.  Was the weather going to be just right to give a great crop?  Were the market prices going to be favorable enough to pay their bank loans and still have money left over to live on until the next crops came in?

Consider the local bankers who made many of the loans to farmers.  Did they evaluate the risk properly so that the bank would have enough profit to continue the next year?  Now savings account interest is a joke, but when it was a decent return would the banker have enough profit to pass on to his or her savings customers?

Consider all those who contribute indirectly to your having an enjoyable meal.

If the weather is bad, consider all the snowplow operators who work long, weird hours so that you or your guests could get safely to wherever your Thanksgiving meal will be.

Consider the police who are out patrolling while you travel or are eating.

Consider the firefighters who may have to jump up from their meal at moment’s notice because somebody knocked over a candle or burned themselves with hot food.

Consider the complexity behind some of our simple pleasures.  Without the efforts of hundreds and thousands of people we may never meet, we would have to go out ourselves to grow and harvest what we enjoy in good company in a warm house.

Also posted on the Reader Weekly website at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2013/11/21/2479_party_of_one-6.

Nanny state or bully state

Have you noticed that many who complain about the U.S. becoming a nanny state seem to want the U.S. to be a bully state?

They complain about seat belt and helmet laws, want to do away with food safety regulations, and feel their rights have been trampled when they are stopped for a traffic violation.

On the other hand, some of these same people want every one to support any war the U.S. engages in, including having others do the actual fighting; they support the death penalty without any consideration of the fairness of the trial; and they want long prison terms for those who do things they don't like.

The Invisible Adam Smith

Many who claim to be "free market proponents" cite the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations".  However, Adam Smith only uses the term once, only in reference to individuals, and in the context of trade among nations. The chapter is "Of Restraints upon the Importation from Foreign Countries of Such Goods as Can Be Produced at Home".  Among the questions Smith raises is :

If a restriction benefits an industry, does it also benefit society?

As to the "invisible hand", Smith does not apply it as a metaphor for an absolutely free market, but as an indication that the acts of an individual can lead to consequences not intended by the individual.  A more complete citation than "invisible hand" is:

"[The individual] generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention." - pages 242-243

In other words, seeking his own security he may benefit society and seeking his own gain he may harm society, or otherwise, depending on the circumstances.  In no way does this describe a "perfect market".

All page references are to the PDF version of "Wealth of Nations" transcribed by the Gutenberg Project.  You can select your preferred format from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300.

For the most part, I don't think Adam Smith provides a prescription of how an economy works.  Instead he provides a description of what he observed worked or didn't work.

Smith only uses "free market" once, in a discussion of the bad effects of restricting exports - pages 353-354.  Woolen manufacturers wanted to restrict exports of wool so that their supply of wool would be increased.  The problem was that English wool was inferior for clothing compared to wool from other countries.  The prohibition of exports caused the price of wool to drop drastically, making it unprofitable to produce.  The "invisible hand" now works to raise the price of mutton because the farmer has to pay his costs.  That means to give the woolen manufacturers cheap wool is to give the consumers expensive meat.  So, restricting exports did not give society much benefit.

A word that Smith uses frequently is "labour", would you believe over one thousand times?  And how many times do you hear proponents of the "invisible hand" talk about labor, other than "greedy labor unions"?  Smith looked favorably on labour, both as the basis of all economic activity and how labor can be marginalized by those with power.

The opening paragraph of "The Wealth of Nations" is:

"The annual labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniencies [sic] of life which it annually consumes, and which consist always either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations." - page 3

In other words, without labor, nothing happens.

"The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the labouring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition, that they are going fast backwards."

As the National Football League found out, not paying referees what they asked lowered the owners wealth.

As for those who complain about "greedy unions" and promote "right-to-work laws", consider:

"The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily: and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit, their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work, but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes, the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks, which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year, without employment." - page 142

Few seem to understand the need to balance interests.  When profits and wages are out of balance we are in deep trouble.  Given the rising cash hoard of many large corporations and the still uncertain job market, we should consider:

"It is the stock [materials, equipment, and workplaces] that is employed for the sake of profit, which puts into motion the greater part of the useful labour of every society. The plans and projects of the employers of stock regulate and direct all the most important operation of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all those plans and projects.  But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin." - page 142

In other words, without corporations much work doesn't get started and without labor it doesn't get finished.

Finally, Smith didn't think business people ["those who live by profit"] should be trusted in public affairs:

"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." - pages 142-143

Adam Smith was an academic who read widely, considered what he read, and wrote an opinion for the powers-that-be.  Those who consider "invisible hand" and "free market" as the only things important about economics, should consider reading more of modern economists, who have the benefit of having read all of "Wealth of Nations" and over two centuries more of data to consider.  They are no more in an ivory tower than Adam Smith was.

For a poster of "The proposal of any new law…" see "Poster: A warning from the 'Invisible Hand'".

Updated 2013-07-21 to include Adam Smith's words for "business people.
Updated 2013-08-20 to include link to the poster.

Advice for bankers from the "guru" of free marketeers

"[Bankers] would be obliged, in consequence, to keep at all times in their coffers a greater quantity of cash than at present; and though this might, no doubt, be a considerable inconveniency to them, it would, at the same time, be a considerable security to their creditors."

- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter V, Of the real and nominal price of commodities, or their price in labour, and their price in money

At this particular point, Smith is discussing how the relative value of different coinage changes (copper, silver, gold) and that there can be runs on a bank as people try to take advantage of the difference. Or the banks can short change their depositors by giving them lower-valued coins.

Oh, yes, Smith also uses that dreaded word "regulation" favorably.

Having your cake and eating it too!

"For example, 53% of Americans believe the debt and deficits should be cut significantly... but the same percentage agrees that taxes should not be raised on anyone.

Similarly, 53% of Americans think that the influence of banks and corporations should be reined in... but that regulations on businesses should be pared back."
- "New Poll: Americans Now Think Economy Favors Super-Rich", Henry Blodget, Daily Ticker, 2011-11-08