« The Study America Act | Main | Nudging Us -- With Advice, or with Guns?» Don Boudreaux
May 24, 2007
Will the So-Called "Reality-Based" Community Condemn this Affront to Reality?
Don Boudreaux
The poseurs, preeners, pontificators, and interest-group pimps in the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday passed a bill to outlaw so-called "price-gouging" by oil companies. And the vote in favor of this foolish piece of legislation was 284-141 -- meaning that lots of Republicans joined Democrats in this opportunity to prove, yet again, that both parties boast members who are either economically illiterate or morally stunted (or both).
A couple of years ago I published this short essay "On Price Gouging" (using the example of bottled water rather than gasoline -- but the same economic principles apply in both cases); here's an excerpt:
Of course, merchants can voluntarily keep their prices below market levels. But to do so would be not only harmful but also unfair! If a grocer refuses to raise the price he charges for bottled water up to the market level, he will find his store besieged by consumers. Only consumers near the front of the line will be lucky enough to get the water; those closer to the rear will go home empty-handed. Is queuing a fair means of deciding who gets the water?
Also, by not raising the price, the grocer will mute the price signal sent to the global market that bottled water is especially needed in this locale. Muting this signal will reduce how much or the speed with which additional, much-needed supplies of bottled water are shipped from where they are valued less to the disaster area where they are desired more.
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Energy, Prices, Regulation | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200d8357d0b5269e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Will the So-Called "Reality-Based" Community Condemn this Affront to Reality?:
Comments
My faith in the American Legislature died a long time ago. This foolishness will ultimately be the end of us. Perhaps some sort of Randian end to society as we know it where it just implodes?
Alas no other freer country exists...
On a side note, I think that we need a new third party in the US, The Apathy Party ... campaign line: "Well it won't get any worse."
Posted by: Jon | May 24, 2007 9:43:19 AM
Actually, in some states the same principles don't apply. In states, such as Maryland, merchants do not have the option to lower prices below the market level as that too is prohibited by law.
Posted by: Matt | May 24, 2007 10:17:21 AM
I want to see legislators fined and imprisoned for “unconscionably excessive” lawmaking
Posted by: Mike | May 24, 2007 10:24:00 AM
What do you have to say about the practice of giving essentials to victims of disaster?
I'm thinking of Walmart's attempt to deliver water to New Orleans.
Doesn't that mute the market signal?
Posted by: Sam Grove | May 24, 2007 10:34:05 AM
@Mike:
Bwahahahahaha! Great. I love it.
@Sam:
Care to elaborate? I'm not sure that I really understand what you're asking. Does donation mute market signals? No.
Posted by: Jon | May 24, 2007 10:45:39 AM
Let's hear from the second stupidest woman in the senate:
WASHINGTON -- With gasoline prices at record highs, the U.S. House passed a bill Wednesday that would make gas-price gouging a federal crime.Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell has pushed such legislation for two years in the Senate, and the Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would bring up her bill in June.
...."We have four refineries in Washington state, so why are our prices so high?" asked Cantwell, a Democrat.
The House vote provoked an immediate veto threat from the White House, which called the bill a form of price controls that could lead to fuel shortages and "bring back long gas lines reminiscent of the 1970s."
Cantwell said the vote -- and her companion bill -- sets up a political battle pitting the American people against the oil industry's "lobbyists and friends in the White House."
Even if approved, the impact of the legislation is uncertain. The biggest question is how price gouging would be defined. Cantwell acknowledged that problem but said the first step was to get criminal penalties on the books.
Punishment first, crime later.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | May 24, 2007 10:51:38 AM
Along with Matt's point, Minnesota will also prosecute retailers for charging too little. (It seems like an excellent amendment to the bill would be to take away the states' ability to artificially inflate prices in this manner.)
Posted by: bjartur | May 24, 2007 11:57:08 AM
Care to elaborate? I'm not sure that I really understand what you're asking. Does donation mute market signals? No.
While stipulating that I favor an "unregulated by politics" market, if we suppose that a marchant charging less than market prices in emergency situations is muting price signaling, then it seems to follow that donating goods in such circumstances also will mute signals by affecting demand. Of course, it depends on the level of giving.
Posted by: Sam Grove | May 24, 2007 12:21:36 PM
I am surprised that more don't use the price of a share of stock. If you own MS and it goes up a ten bucks a share, are you supposed to sell it at the old price the next day so that you don't "gouge" people?
Posted by: Bill Millan | May 24, 2007 12:24:23 PM
Let me get this straight. The mafia (my new, much more accurate name for congress) wants the oil companies to invest more in exploration and production and run refineries at 100% capacity 24/7, 365. However, the amount they will be able to profit is limited while their risk is unlimited.
For those familiar with the oil industry, the riske are enormous. The success rate for exploration wells is less than 50% and varies widely by location and there's plenty legislation preventing drilling in lots of areas in North America. At the same time, the oil companies are tasked with making us less dependent on foreign oil. So, oil companies are saddled with limited upside, unlimited downside and legal restrictions on where they can drill while at the same time the mafia derides them for reducing investment in recent years.
The casino is open. Place your bets. I bet that investment will fall further, our dependence on foreign oil will increase, there will be sporadic gas shortages across the country, moms and pops will be more hesitant to buy gas stations, suddenly you will be able to get "free" gas with the purhcase of a terrible expensive service at your local gas station.
Posted by: Methinks | May 24, 2007 12:28:49 PM
I'm thinking of Walmart's attempt to deliver water to New Orleans.
Doesn't that mute the market signal?
Nope.
If a billion gallons of water is needed and Walmart shows up with 100 million gallons the market now signals a need for 900 million gallons.
That is not muted. The market is still accurately signaling how much water is needed.
Posted by: Marcus | May 24, 2007 12:54:35 PM
As a frustrated Washington State voter, it is not heartening to know that with Senators Cantwell and Murray we are 2 and 1 down at the bottom, respectively.
Posted by: Bob in SeaTac | May 24, 2007 12:58:16 PM
@Sam Grove:
Ah I understand the question. Well given a commodity like water, not really. I could see your point except that the reduced prices for aid-goods has already been paid for my wal-mart to it's suppliers (whoever they may be. So in a sense, the price distortion is really non existant aside from the fact that because Wal-mart is shipping tons of water down their, you might see a rise in the shelf price of bottled water at your WM. But if we account for the fact that the values of producers as well as consumers is radically subjective then we get a model where WM values the goodwill they get from cutting the prices at a disaster location more than they would the profit of selling it at normal.
I think that it comes down to subjective value vs. cost honestly, but I'm sure someone will disagree with me.
Posted by: Jon | May 24, 2007 1:09:27 PM
Well, it's nice to know I'm not alone in thinking Congress is a bunch of loud mouthed criminals.
Posted by: Trevor | May 24, 2007 1:19:01 PM
@Trevor:
*chuckle* DUH!
But then what do you expect form people that have a comparative advantage in promising things, not delivering, and then shoveling the blame off on other people?
Posted by: Jon | May 24, 2007 1:36:12 PM
Gasoline taxes far exceed gasoline profits. Congress therefore already has the power to reduce gasoline prices substantially, but they would rather blame someone else. Worse still if you count the impact of costly regulations.
Also, what is the alternative to profitable oil companies? Does anyone remember the 90's when they were slashing jobs? Would it be better if the petro industry was not profitable like autos or airlines?
A gaggle of pandering idiots.
Posted by: Heretic | May 24, 2007 1:46:55 PM
"we get a model where WM values the goodwill they get from cutting the prices at a disaster location more than they would the profit of selling it at normal."
Jon,
That's right. I don't think increased prices elsewhere results directly from WM's charitable giving, though. Think of it as marketing cost for WM. In addition, I believe part of the cost is offset with favourable tax treatment for charitable giving. If prices increase in your local stores it's much more likely because of the surge in demand in the part of the country where water provision is interrupted.
Posted by: Methinks | May 24, 2007 1:57:29 PM
True, but if we accept that firms desire to maximize money profits, wouldn't we expect some kind of price just in order to recompense the "loss" (and I use that term loosely) that they take by seeling their good at discount.
I understand the whole idea of taxbreaks and marketing by donation, and forgive me for overlooking the demand surge.
I still stand by my statement though that some of the price increase will be caused by the donation, here's why:
Walmart demands consumer $.
Assume that a katrina-like disaster happens.
Number of suppliers of funds to Walmart in a given area drops. Walmart donates goods.
If we hold that Walmart wants to maximize $ profits then it's only logical that part of the price increase is an attempt to recoup "loss".
Am I way off base? Too much Neo-classical Micro?
Posted by: Jon | May 24, 2007 2:20:56 PM
No doubt I agree with the post... But you've got to chalk this up to genetically predisposed economic ignorance. Funny you mention that essay, because when debating the point over dinner with my Dad a couple of years ago, he called me a disgrace to my surname for believing that. I think he's come around, but still, steep hill. Most people don't experience price as a signal but as an impediment to what they want (or need).
Posted by: Brad Hutchings | May 24, 2007 2:55:01 PM
I have a much better idea which would not only reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but clear up highway congestion as well. All Congress has to do is pass a law allowing people to flap their arms and fly. If they think they can override the laws of economics by a majority vote why not shoot the works and override the laws of physics too.
Posted by: Bruce | May 24, 2007 3:00:41 PM
Bruce:
that will only work if the Gov't also subsidized the cardboard box industry so we can all have material to make our wings.
*chuckles*
Posted by: Jon | May 24, 2007 3:13:58 PM
The House vote provoked an immediate veto threat from the White House, which called the bill a form of price controls that could lead to fuel shortages and "bring back long gas lines reminiscent of the 1970s.
That is by far the most sensible thing I have heard out of the White House for a long time. Possibly ever.
Posted by: ben | May 24, 2007 4:30:19 PM
Jon,
We're in the same ballpark but we're not shaking hands yet. Wow, this brings back memories of business school case studies!
"I still stand by my statement though that some of the price increase will be caused by the donation,"
Only if the product is differentiated. If it's a commodity and lots of other stores are selling it, Walmart won't be able to raise the price of the water it sells and sell the same quantity. In this case, I think Walmart is a price taker.
"Assume that a katrina-like disaster happens.
Number of suppliers of funds to Walmart in a given area drops. Walmart donates goods."
Very interesting. This is actually a much more complex situation than I have time to deal with now. Quickly though, donating goods to disaster victims is very good PR and creates goodwill beyond the effected community. Walmart believes that this goodwill will encourage people around the country to shop at its stores, increasing its sales volume and maximizing profits. Since Walmart competes on price, not product, an increase in sales volume increases profit while an increase in price does not.
The cost of the donated goods is probably very small compared to the giant marketing campaigns the company usually has to pay for anyway and it may be able to forego some marketing as a result. Walmart is also unlikely to give away too much product. There is an optimization point between the cost of the product given away and the additional sales it expects to make because of the donation. I'm sure companies like Walmart employ an army of marketers to determine that point!
Posted by: Methinks | May 24, 2007 5:14:44 PM
Cavuto just had a statistic up a couple of hours ago:
Avg. fed, state, and local taxes on a gallon of gas = 45 cents
Estimated industry profits on a gallon of gas = 10-12 cents
Guess Congress gets angry when it has to share things with others--especially those who create the value in the first place.
Posted by: The Albatross | May 24, 2007 5:16:29 PM
Using an elementary analysis of supply and demand curves shows the massive dead-weight loss to society caused by a limit on gas prices, both through the supplier and the consumer. Why doesn't the federal government do us all a favor and drop the federal gas tax by the amount of tax revenue they stand to lose with a limit on prices, both through a decreased supply and price drop. It would have to have some impact on prices, plus they could get to brag about how much they are stimulating the economy with tax-breaks. Oh wait, this will never happen after the last midterm elections...
Posted by: avatara | May 24, 2007 6:05:39 PM
No, it won't. But if you're looking forward to a return to 1970'ss economic policies, You're in for a treat!
Posted by: Methinks | May 24, 2007 6:11:20 PM
Good discussion here between Neil Cavuto and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI).
http://tinyurl.com/2vd9qh
My question is how is gouging defined? Is it the same as collusion?
As far as I'm concerned the prices should go higher and the taxes on the product sshould go higher considering how much we subsidize their product. Oil should be more then $5/gallon if we'd just stop subsidizing their product.
Can anyone tell me why the oil companies would want to build a refinery when profits are so high just the way they are?
Posted by: muirgeo | May 24, 2007 6:34:23 PM
Muirgeo,
"Can anyone tell me why the oil companies would want to build a refinery when profits are so high just the way they are?"
Having worked in the industry I would be happy to, because with prices so high the first one with more capicty makes more money. I suppose they could all try and agree to not build one, but the lure of profits would inevitably cause them to cheat or say soemthing like "that's not a refinery but an expansion of an existing one." We have learned from agme theory and experience that collusive agreements are very, very difficult to maintain. As one of my professors used to say "they are like dragons, often talked about, but never seen."
If you would like an answer to some of the shortcomings of refinery capacity. You might want to check out the Energy Information Administration. They have some statistics on refinery profit margins over the years. these margins have been notoriously thin--we are talking one percent retruns here--like a checking account. I remember when I worked in an oil refinery as a teenager all the other career employees were always worried about losing their highpaying jobs. Take these historically low margins and combine them with the billions refiners have had to pay to comply with the clean air act and its 1990 amendments among other environmental laws and there has been precious little money left over for expansion.
Furthermore, with all this talk of renewable fuels, ethanol, hydrogen etc., refiners are wondering if they should make invetsments even with the hgiher prices. I was having a drink with a man who owns three very large refineries some months ago, and he told me that despite the record profits now he saw "no future" in refining. These babies cost about 10,000-20,000 bucks per barrel of capacity. So a relatively smnall refinery (100,000 bbd) refinery is going to run you between a billion billion two. So you are looking at 30 years to recoup your investment with no guarantee that your industry will even be there. This does not even begin to take into account all the NIMBY bull and regulatory permits you have to deal with.In short, refining has been one of the absolute worst places to invest ones money over the years. A good few years now hardly make up for years of bear markets and refinery closures. A warehouse full of T bills would be a much better longterm invetsment than a refinery and much less hassel.
As for your continued assertion of subsidies, the it is generally recognized by industry analysts that, although oil companies do recieve what would be considered subsidies to foster domestic production (which most people think is a good idea--I do not), they do in fact bear a much heavier regulatory and tax burden than whatever it is they take in subsidies. I am only telling you the consensus from industry watchers.
Oh one thing on the taxes. Since gas is relatively inelastic, higher prices/taxes do very little to reduce consumption, which is good news for the government fisk, as taxes will raise huge amounts of revenue because of the minimal impact on consumption--meanwhile the politicians get to tell everyone how good these taxes are for them and the planet. However, gasoline taxes are highly regressive and tend to hurt poorer people. Anyway, sorry for the length, but I know you are in this to learn some econ, so thought I would oblige.
Apologies but I gotta run out the country, so won't be able to respond to anyone with issues with this comment--in fact late already. Thank God for the Cafe it does wonders for my sanity.
Posted by: The Albatross | May 24, 2007 7:11:27 PM
Unfortunately, mentioning gas lines from the 1970's will not dissuade many leftists. The two biggest demographic groups, who vote Democrat, are either people who are too young to remember the 1970's or they are aged hippies who can't remember the 1970's.
Posted by: Colin Keesee | May 24, 2007 7:15:53 PM
Colin! *chuckle*
Muirgeo,
I'm just going to add a bit to Albatross' post.
Collusion is a prerequisite price gouging. In many past congressional gas price gouging investigations, no collusion was ever found.
I was an oil industry analyst in the mid-90's. I left the industry because it is as depressing an industry as Albatraoss describes. Before companies send oil to a refinery, they must first find it, lift it, and trasnport it. In the case of an upstream company, its only real assets are the reserves. Since oil pumping happens 24/7 and exploration happens only during the day, an Exploration & Production (E&P) company CEO faces a smaller company in the morning than he left the night before. The challenge is always to replace depleting reserves - it's like running up a down escalator. These companies have to face that challenge burdened with the addition expenses of the regulations Albatross describes. Oil is also located in some of the world's most inhospitable places - war-torn Africa and deep sea, to name two. Since an oil well costs millions of dollars to drill, the success rate is pitiful and there's a long lead time between discovery and actual production, the risk of the oil price moving against them is very very high. That's one reason they don't all start massive projects until they gain some confidence that the oil price is likely to remain high enough to make it economic to sink the cash into more exploration and development projects.
This is what happened in the 1990's. The oil price touched $10/bbl after the Asian currency crises - on wells that cost $15/bbl to produce. Oil companies were bleeding money. Wells were shut-in. Smaller E&P firms went bankrupt. Yet, despite this, the firms had to continue to sink huge money into the search for oil because the reserves are depleting. This is the E&P side of the business. Integrated firms do everything from exploration and production to retail sales (although most gas stations are franchises). Albatross talked about the refining business and I covered the E&P side.
So, the high profit years are necessary to offset the losing years. Incidentally, if memory serves, when the media began to proclaim oil company profits "obscene", their profit margins were only 7% - either below or right in line with other US industrial companies. Usually, the profit margin is barely positive.
Posted by: Methinks | May 24, 2007 8:24:26 PM
Agree with Colin. I felt the same about the Administration characterizing this as a price cap. True, but that won't dissauade the fools who support this.
I would be interested in an analysis about the root cause of this embarrassment. Is it the economic ignorance of Congresspersons, or is it their cynical pandering to economically ignorant voters? I can't help but think that if we were taught supply and demand in school alongside algebra and chemistry, "the people" would be able to defend themselves against such attacks from the legislature instead of inviting them.
Posted by: M. Hodak | May 24, 2007 8:25:13 PM
"or they are aged hippies who can't remember the 1970's."
Due to too many drugs no doubt. Good shot Colin, I think you've identified the fundamental problem with the Lefties in our Congress - they can't think straight.
Posted by: BravoZulu | May 24, 2007 11:03:04 PM
this is the Congress of 1000 Cuts. (and i don't mean tax cuts!)
as a remedy i propose the following amendment to the Constitution - that all laws expire every 5 or 10 years.
Posted by: anon | May 24, 2007 11:10:12 PM
I'm more interested in this question
"Is queuing a fair means of deciding who gets the water?"
In market-socialist countries like India, people would say that queuing is a 'fair' means of deciding, since it would give no 'privilege' to the rich. One of my (left)liberal friend justified queues as a 'fair' means by quoting Rawls - "..equality of opportunity and to the greatest benefit of the least well-off members of society", ignoring that fact that "well-off" doesn't necessarily mean economically well-off!
Posted by: Naren | May 25, 2007 12:23:31 AM
Naren,
Russians queued endlessly for a every known good xcept for the ugliest raspberry colored coats ever created, those were in surplus. The only people not queuing were those participating in the black market. Boy, I can't tell you how much endless hours of queuing increased people's productivity and decreased anxiety levels. And people wonder why Russians drink so much!
Sarcasm aside, queuing for goods results from inefficient allocation of resources and that's already a problem. And since when has rationing become "equality of opportunity"? Opportunity for what? To stand in line in the hopes that they won't run out?
Anon,
How about term limits on congressmen and senators.
Posted by: Methinks | May 25, 2007 1:29:08 AM
Among the more recent contributors to high gas prices was the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005. This is essentially what forced the switch from MTBE to ethanol. The reason for MTBE is of course that it was regulated by the federal government, and it turns out that it was harmful to groundwater.
MTBE could be mixed in with the gasoline and sent through the pipelines, but this is not the case with ethanol. Ethanol does not have the pipeline network, and instead is transported by rail. Not only does this cost more, but it causes more pollution as a result. Further, the ethanol has to be mixed in at the wholesale terminals just before it is sent off in the tanker trucks. And ethanol gasoline reduces fuel efficiency as well, as it is not nearly as efficient as gasoline.
Ethanol in the US of course is home-grown corn ethanol. Foreign sugar ethanol is cheaper, but I guess it's too bad that it's foreign. You can imagine what this does to corn prices (http://tinyurl.com/2fsnn7) The implications of this are also for people in poorer countries who depend on corn as a steady part of their diet.(http://tinyurl.com/yqp9wj)
Even if we don't flat-out eliminate the ethanol requirement, what if we just knocked down sugar tariffs? You'd have less demand for corn ethanol and corn syrup (plain old sugar is better for you). For political feasability, you could promote it as a way to improve life (and increase incentive to stay) in Mexico for people who don't like immigration, and you could promote it as a gas price lowering move as well.
Further reading:
(http://tinyurl.com/2uk5nz, scroll down to "GET YOUR GAS NOW" and read the article)
Posted by: David | May 25, 2007 2:39:11 AM
I'm thinking of Walmart's attempt to deliver water to New Orleans.
Doesn't that mute the market signal?
TANSTAAFL.
WM doesn't make the water appear by magic.
They already paid for it.
Posted by: N. O'Brain | May 25, 2007 8:15:28 AM
The thing that irks me most is that while politicians are quick to try to discredit any notion about increased profits leading to increased supply they are, at the same time, quite willing to 'help out' pet industries with subsidies with exactly that stated end.
Posted by: Wojtek | May 25, 2007 8:47:02 AM
@anon
No, we require them to read aloud, in congress with a majority present, all existing laws at the start of each session before they can pass any new ones. Then before they can pass a new law, they have to read it out loud, in session.
Posted by: Russ Nelson | May 25, 2007 9:01:16 AM
I don't think you could even read every federal law if you read them nonstop for two years.
Brilliant.
Posted by: David | May 25, 2007 9:10:58 AM
With all of the concern about global warming and using fossil fuels for transportation and power generation, it seems that the fingers are now pointing toward "big business" again as the evil manipulators of the marketplace who are taking advantage of world energy needs by "gouging" us at the pump and creating brownouts.
Well, before the Nancy Pelosis of the world get on their soap boxes, maybe they ought to recall who has been obstructing oil exploration in the U.S., who has been preventing new refineries from being built, and who has been denying permission for new nuclear power plants.
I've written many times about France being right about their energy policy and how the U.S. has been short-sighted and driven by special interest anti-development groups. Recently, Econobrower ran a post titled "Gasoline prices surge: Thinking about Some Causes." It concluded that:
One bit of policy analysis. The Washington Post article quotes the assertion that the wide spreads are due to policy inaction over the past six years. There is indeed a temptation to ascribe the wide spreads to cartelization, or opportunistic shutdowns of refineries (and I won't rule either of those out -- remember Enron and California in '00-'01...). However, high spreads are also consistent with the view that there is no coordinated reduction of supply and the view that if conservation had been encouraged over the past six years (instead of tax breaks for SUVs), the spread would be smaller. That's because theory predicts that the greater and more inelastic the demand, the greater the resulting price-cost margin.
I went somewhat ballistic over that. First of all, the past six year is the period when cancer has spread to the brain. 3 or 4 decades ago, the cancer began with government acquiescing to anti-oil, anti-nuclear power activists and effectively causing the energy crisis we are facing today. I commented in Econobrowser:
While I agree that government incentives to business in the form of tax breaks for GT 6000 lb. GVW vehicles may have increased some purchases of larger vehicles, I would guess that is relatively unimportant in the imbalance equation.
My "ranting" [previous comment] was purposeful: to point out that whether the meddling was from the government or special interest groups, the effect was the same... reduced domestic oil exploration and refinery capacity. This is exactly the same problem we are facing with regard to generating electricity over the next 2 decades.
Had the "marketplace" been allowed to run its course, the U.S. would have been more likely to find itself in France's position of electric power surplus which could have been used to provide cheap "fuel" for hybrid vehicles. Meanwhile the oil industry would have responded with more wells and refinery capacity to respond to that competitive challenge. We would not be facing activist-induced "price gouging" which is nothing more that the medicine we get for making stupid decisions in the past.
Regardless, with greater oil and electricity capacity, our present options would be much greater. We wouldn't have to ruin the corn market with subsidies to produce ethanol which is only 75% as fuel effective per gallon as gasoline. We would have the electricity capacity to have a massive push toward hydrogen "powered" cars (hydrogen really being a storage medium that requires large amounts of electricity to produce).
You [Menzie Chen] are correct that stupid incentives to buy SUVs when they were not legitimately needed for business contributed to the gasoline shortfall... but that is not the underlying cause of the situation.
Posted by: Bruce Hall | May 25, 2007 10:47:07 AM
Didn't you all know that the government is in charge of scarcity?
Posted by: Sam Grove | May 25, 2007 11:43:21 AM
Russell's comment about having every law read before new laws can pass might prompt more legislators like this one.
Posted by: M. Hodak | May 25, 2007 3:48:15 PM
ya the reading aloud of laws could work too. i'd also be in favor of banning any laws from exceeding the length of the constitution. i think the Framers made a mistake in not realizing the incentive for legislators to pass laws.
Posted by: anon | May 26, 2007 5:03:43 PM
If the U.S. legistlature does not care about the limitations on their authority laid out on the Constitution, why should they be limited by any other form of legistlation?
Posted by: tarran | May 26, 2007 8:30:09 PM
Bruce says: "Had the "marketplace" been allowed to run its course, the U.S. would have been more likely to find itself in France's position of electric power surplus which could have been used to provide cheap "fuel" for..."
That's exactly the problem with government; I'll bet you that overcapacity in electrical production has cost the French taxpayer PLENTY. So much for the "wisdom" of government...
Posted by: True_liberal | May 27, 2007 11:44:57 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
