Emergency Situations Call For Proven Failed Policies

The pandemic of the novel coronavirus (SARS-COV-2) is upon us. But rest assured; our fearless leaders are here to help by making sure we keep reality at bay. I'm talking about an old favorite of head-in-the-sand, wish-it-all-away virtue signalers--price gouging laws (aka, price controls).

Because it worked so well exactly never but makes those who don't like an certainly very bad and difficult (but nevertheless necessary) change feel like something is being done, we shall inflict self harm.

Let's turn this into a partial list of things to remember about price gouging laws:

• Price controls that limit market clearing prices don't change the reality that suddenly and acutely certain goods and services are more scarce--demand has risen while supply is temporarily mostly or entirely fixed.
• They don't allow us to efficiently allocate goods. I hear you cry, "But what pray tell is so great about efficiency in a crisis?!?" Okay, okay, I sneaked in some technical jargon. When economists speak of efficiency, they are sorta saying how can we do the best for the most. We have to get what we have (water, ice, lumber, medical supplies, etc. depending on the disaster) to those who need it most. Most is key. While we always want to satisfy this to the best of our abilities, in a crisis it becomes crucial. What substitutes do we have for allowing prices to gauge who wants/needs it most? We could use:
• First come, first served
• Personal, arbitrary preferences
• Non-price competition (to the beautiful, the rich and powerful, the special interest, etc. go the spoils)
• Government or other authorities trying (honestly trying) to determine who should get what (more on this fantasy world below)
• All other methods listed above have SUBSTANTIAL costs associated with them. And there is very little reason to believe they would outperform the price dimension. They are all subject to manipulation (both malicious and innocent; intentional and accidental). They waste resources including time when resources are especially scarce. They encourage hoarding and black markets (more below). The best they possibly can do is match the outcome price would achieve while avoiding some of the dreaded downsides of allowing prices to rise. But just how bad and realistic are those downsides?
• The downsides to letting prices rise to the new equilibrium levels are hypothetical straw men. If you are worried or distressed by the idea that someone, somewhere will profit off of a bad situation you need to realize that is a reflection of your own envy and a mischaracterization of who actually is in a position to provide goods and services. If you are worried that only "the rich" will be able to get the precious thing(s), then you are ignoring the fact that "the rich" always will have access, ignoring the charitable impulses of most everyone including those with more wealth, and ignoring that your wrongheaded description of "the rich" still leaves "the not rich" without access--store shelves get emptied when prices don't rise properly (see the Art Carden link at the bottom).
• Black markets will spawn and propagate where markets in the light of day are prohibited. If you think you are ending the high prices "problem" by stopping prices in stores, etc. from rising, you are woefully naive. Those same "greedy" people who would otherwise raise their price up to the market-clearing, too-high-for-your-comfort level will simply take the items off the shelves and sell them in the alley at a more reasonable (given the new economic reality) level. And who do you think is buying in the alley? I can assure you, it is not the Boy Scouts.
• Demand is not the only curve that can change. Supply very crucially can and will if we entice it. As also indicated in the next bullet point, one must answer the always important question: "And then what?". Allowing prices to rise sends signals literally worldwide that scream: "HEY, STOP WHAT YOUR DOING! THOSE [goods and services specific to the given situation] ARE DESPERATELY NEEDED ELSEWHERE. Help us reallocate them there. And help us make more of them!" The Mike Munger links at the bottom have a lot on this very important point. In a dire situation I don't just want some (water, medicine, etc.). I want all we can get including that for which it has not yet been economical to access/build/develop. I want the best pharmaceutical firms and minds working on a vaccine today--not just the most altruistic. I want the best doctors out of their personal quarantines and on the front lines--not just the most altruistic or frankly those with lower opportunity costs. If you have a severe, acute, and emergency back injury, you don't want to be paying only enough to entice a chiropractor to help you.
• Think past the first level--there are strong incentives (social and economic) for businesses to not allow prices to fully rise or to themselves supply the charity we would want to make sure those without means can get the goods and services they truly need.
• It is a very bad way of forcing charity as it imposes the cost of charity on those supplying goods and services as well as those who otherwise would have access to those goods and services. Think of the guy who really needs ice for baby formula or a nearby hotel room to keep his job but who showed up later than the guy who didn't need those things so badly but wasn't deterred from taking them because the price wasn't giving him the crucial information that somebody else needs it more who isn't yet here to say so.
• It is immoral as it denies the property right that the owner of the resource has and it disallows her from most easily finding the person who needs it most and it punishes her for having been there in the first place to supply it. In a disaster we want the church to have been built and maintained for Easter Sunday. That is expensive. One way to get that insurance policy against pain in a disaster is to allow those who bear it 99% of the time to reap the reward for having bore it. 
• Lastly, you want to substitute a market process with a government process in a time of desperate need. Do you really, really, really think those in government are in a better position (access to knowledge, incentives and feedback effects, corruption temptations, organizational structure, etc.) than the market to do the job? I would not trust a group of (non-government) people to have the judgement, knowledge, and ethics to dictatorially make the best decisions. Why would that change for those same people if I simply put them into a government system?

Links to more thorough sources:

Art Carden
Mike Munger

Munger on Econtalk

Perspective

To the Moon, Alice!

Imagine if in the summer of 2018 you embarked on the vacation of a lifetime--a 2-year journey to the Moon with SpaceX. This was their "Get Away From It All" package which includes no contact with Earth during the voyage.

While gone, you left me in charge of your affairs including your investments.

You have a wonderful trip and then return late in the summer of 2020.* Settling back into terrestrial life, you ask me for a rundown of what you missed. My reply: "Well, a few things happened here and there. Perhaps most interesting, we had a pandemic."

"A what?!?" you exclaim.

"I know, a once in a generation viral pandemic. It was bad, but not nearly as bad as some of those in history. Still many people died. There was a lot of chaos and confusion at times. Lots of events were cancelled; so life was pretty disrupted for a while. The overall hit to well being for the typical person as meaningfully, negatively impacted." I explain.

"Oh, that is horrible." You dare to ask, "How are my investments?"

"They are worth basically just as much today as they were when you left plus a little for inflation." I say calmly.

"That's wonderful. Surprising even. But how did you manage that?"

"Well, it wasn't much that I did. There were a few moves here and there that probably added a little value--just sped up the time to recovery. For a while the investments had lost quite a bit. You would have been pretty worried had you been around to witness it. And the values were up quite a bit from when you left right up until the pandemic really set in. All in all it was wild times."

Reassured, you say, "Well, I'm glad that is all behind us. I left after a great 9 years of investing, and I got to ignore a crazy few."

. . . The end is not near, folks. There is a LONG journey ahead. If you don't realize those are positive thoughts, you need to re-read the passage above. The pain that has and will hit human life is beyond sadness. Don’t compound your worries with shortsightedness—in investing or any aspect of life. Cherish those around you and make good choices for the long term.




*Make it a three year trip returning 2021 or a four-year trip until 2022 if that makes this more realistic in your view.

To Every Season, Turn, Turn, Turn...

Partial list of ages that have ended or are ending soon: 

• Increasingly large, mass-attendance sports venues 
• Government pension generosity
• Inexpensive (dare I say casual, inclusive, and fun) youth sports
• Down time for kids (free time to explore, hang out, and otherwise be bored and then self-solve that boredom)
• Tolerance for average in so many ways
• Risk of missing broadcast pop culture events 
• Cultural relevancy for references like this post’s title
• The great American road trip (perhaps autonomous vehicles will bring this back)

Choose Your Own Adventure - Voter Edition

Choose one of the following ideological menu items by candidate:

Welcome to big-government democracy. Democracy is better than the rest, but the strong-state version has big shortcomings that are widely underappreciated. This is not an argument against voting. Let's assume that your vote counts; in fact, let's assume it is the only vote that does. If we assume a strong, powerful government that will be called upon to play a role in most affairs, we are doomed to a world filled with disappointment. This is true even for you, the sole voter. Surely this, a small sampling of each candidate's views, has conflicts with your own preferences. If not, let me present you with a longer list to certainly reveal disagreement.

Beyond you there is the rest of us. If we can find someone for each of the four candidates whose interests align at least in the strongly opposes and strongly supports positions, we will therefore have the ingredients for at least three disappointed people. But the problem is deeper than that. Each issue above is but a category unto itself filled with a myriad of nuanced issues. I would imagine the three candidates who strongly support government involvement in education have important differences in how they would effectuate that desire.

It should be clear from this alone that the will of the people is a silly myth. Voting doesn't count in two fundamental ways: (1) in any typical election you can be reasonably certain your vote will not determine the outcome, and (2) even if your vote did determine the outcome, you could be reasonably certain that outcome would be disappointing.

If all you do is vote, the best you can hope for is a political climate that is conducive to the changes you want and resistant to the changes you oppose. In that sense it is like standing in an open field as a storm approaches hoping that lightning does not strike you.

Rather than just vote, I recommend thoughtful advocacy, approachable engagement (pick your battles but be prepared and respectful enough to kindly offer your disagreements), a willingness and ability to change your mind, but also a fundamental resistance to the power and growth of the state. The more we ask the government to do, the more we demand to be disappointed. 

Highly Linkable

It has been too long since I shared things worth reading...

Scott Sumner explains just how rigged it all is in America, and how despite this the American free market still keeps making it better.

The difference between science and Science! begins with some simple yet important facts--take chemistry for example.

How long until smart phone phobia is behind us? Someday it will be fodder for the Pessimists Archive.

Better post this take down of Elizabeth Warren by Tyler Cowen before her candidacy (thankfully) fully flames out.

Dialing It Down a Bit

Partial list of things we need less of: 

• generational labeling and other generalizations masquerading as arguments
• homework--kids get enough busywork at school; time at home should be devoted to learning
• tribalism
• protectionism--in occupations at home and in trade abroad
• nostalgia for the way things are or were [especially the way things are imagined to have been]
• access to other people's money
• superhero movies
• outrage at past sins
• factory farming

Psst... I Have a Secret

Every day I burn a dollar bill. You see I’m really worried about inflation and I want to do my part. If everyone would act like me, we could stop inflation for good.

I admit this is a bit of snarky argument by analogy for the purpose of exposing what I see as the absolute ridiculousness of trying to address macro problems with extremely micro actions. I say "actions" so as to avoid dignifying them with the term "solutions".

Put into this category activities like:

• The bulk of ESG investing. (I don't invest in company XYZ, who does the bad things, or company ABC, who doesn't notice that what they are doing can't last forever, because I want to deny them capital.)
• The vast majority of consumer-level environmental activism. (Please use my reusable cloth bag when you sack my groceries full of paper drinking straws, boxed water, and non-GMO foods. And please pack it tight so it fits in my backpack--I biked here, obviously.)
• Voting as a means of changing the course of public policy. (This is the most important election of our lifetimes--once our candidate wins, disaster will be avoided.)
• Shaming others for not being part of the cause. (You should have rescued a dog from a shelter rather than buying one from a breeder.)
• Ad hoc donating to random strangers. (Gives $5 to the man with a sign asking for money on the street corner.)

These activities may be virtuous. They may bring you personal joy or satisfaction. But if you think you will change the world through these activities, you are gravely mistaken. Each of these as a solution to their supposed underlying problem suffers from a kind of reverse Kantianism fallacy whereby an individual action is presumed to be sufficient to bring about a desired outcome because if everyone took this action, the outcome would be achieved.