rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


Walter E Williams appreciation thread
#1

Walter E Williams appreciation thread

I don't imagine this thread will grow and grow, given this guy is an 80-something year old economist, but I'm sitting here at work after casting my ballet with a post-coitus-like patriotism, recalling how much this old man formed my early adult perspective of economics and politics.

[Image: wew.jpeg]

Back at the turn of the millennium before smartphones, I used to go to the computer labs and print out columns of his and read them during my boring college classes.

Looks like he wrote an article recently about Price Gouging, one of my favorite topics to discuss with people who have strong opinions but who have no understanding of economics.

Quote:Quote:

Price Gouging During a Natural Disaster
Thirteen states — Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia — have enacted laws to combat what is seen as price gouging in the wake of natural disasters. Price gouging is legally defined as charging 10 to 25 percent more for something than you charged for it during the month before an emergency. Sellers convicted of price gouging face prison terms and fines.

Price gouging in the wake of natural disasters is often seen as evil exploitation by sellers to rip off desperate customers. Let’s hold off on that conclusion until after you give thought to some very important questions. First let’s see what we can agree upon.

When a natural disaster occurs or is anticipated, supply conditions change. There is going to be less of what people want and need. Under such conditions, what actions are consistent with the public good? My answer is that people should voluntarily use less of everything and waste nothing. That would include economizing on water, gasoline, food and anything else necessary for survival. How about an example?

Take the case of a hurricane like Florence. Let’s assume that evacuation 200 miles or so inland would guarantee safety for North Carolinians. Say the Jones family’s car has three-quarters of a tank of gas, more than enough to drive to safety. The Smith family’s car has less than a quarter-tank of gas, which is not enough to drive away from danger. We can multiply this scenario by tens of thousands of families in the Joneses’ condition and thousands of families in the Smiths’ predicament.

Here’s my question: Who should forgo purchasing gas in the storm-threatened area? My answer would be all those people who have enough gas to drive to safety — people such as the Joneses. By not purchasing gas, they’d make more gas available for those who really need the gas in order to drive to safety, such as the Smiths. We might also ask how considerate and caring it would be to their fellow North Carolinians who desperately need gas for people who have enough to evacuate to purchase gas just to top off their tanks.

If people such as the Joneses won’t consider the needs of their fellow man voluntarily, the North Carolina attorney general could station government officials at each gasoline station to determine who should be permitted to purchase gas. You say, “Williams, it would be sheer lunacy for scarce state resources to be used that way, especially in the face of a natural disaster!” I think you’re right.

Another method would be for the governor, mayors and church and community leaders to admonish North Carolinians to purchase gasoline only if they really need it. That way, plenty of gas would be available for those with nearly empty tanks. You might say, “Come on, Williams. Aren’t you being a bit naive thinking that would work?” You’re probably right again.

What I think would make gas available to those who really need it are rising prices. Suppose the pre-hurricane price of gas was $2.60 a gallon. As the hurricane approaches, dealers could let the price rise to $4 a gallon. That would give families who have enough gas to evacuate incentive to voluntarily forgo purchasing gasoline. Their voluntary decision would make more gas available for people who desperately need it. By the way, gas available at $4 a gallon seems more preferable than gas stations shut down because they have sold out of gas at $2.60 a gallon.

You might reluctantly agree that allowing prices to rise during a natural disaster helps allocate resources, but that’s not the intention of sellers who raise prices. They are in it for windfall profit. I say: So what? It’s what their actions accomplish that’s important — namely, getting people to conserve during a natural disaster. Also, higher prices create incentives for suppliers of all kinds of goods — such as plywood, bottled water, generators and repair services — to pitch in to help to restore people’s lives.

He's not the most eloquent speaker or writer, but I like him for a few reasons...(1) he's an economist, so he's very logical and pragmatic, (2) they're fairly short and succinct, and (3) he's an old black man who grew up in the projects, so if you're talking to a Liberal, he has credibility for some reason.

Oh, and he's been writing an article per week since 2000. A young guy who just wants to learn a few foundational things about economics could do a lot worse than read his weekly gems.

“Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.”
Reply
#2

Walter E Williams appreciation thread

I've never heard of him, but he sounds interesting.

I've read the example you gave about price gouging and how inflating the price of gas may actually be in the public interest.

I don't buy it though. Following natural disasters and the like, all these products (including gas) become scarce and sell out eventually no matter how much they cost. So you aren't actually protecting their scarcity. The wealthy can afford it and don't mind a temporary price hike. The poor have no choice at all and have to do without.

Also, this patently isn't the reason they hike the prices (to encourage frugality). They just do it to exploit the situation and make loads of money (as Williams himself concedes).

I'm not saying this guy isn't worth listening to, it's just that I haven't heard of him and that particular example hasn't convinced me of his merits.

‘After you’ve got two eye-witness accounts, following an automobile accident, you begin
To worry about history’ – Tim Allen
Reply
#3

Walter E Williams appreciation thread

Just duck-duck-go'd him and I'm beginning to warm to him.

[Image: quote-but-let-me-offer-you-my-definition...2-0241.jpg]

Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do - redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God.
Walter E. Williams

When the history of the 20th century is finally written, one of its key features will be the wanton slaughter of more than 170 million people, not in war, but by their own government. The governments that led in this slaughter are the former USSR (65 million) and the Peoples Republic of China (35-40 million). The point to remember is that these governments were the idols of America's leftists. Part of the reason for these and other tyrannical successes was because the people were first disarmed.
Walter E. Williams



Yeah, I'm definitely beginning to warm to him ...

‘After you’ve got two eye-witness accounts, following an automobile accident, you begin
To worry about history’ – Tim Allen
Reply
#4

Walter E Williams appreciation thread

The way I would put it is, there's no "gouging is bad, no gouging is good". It's not that simple.

Gouging is a really good example of the complexity of free markets vs non-free markets. You can see how many factors are involved in a simple economy, even when talking about one product.

You could probably argue finer points of many of my statements below, but here are a bunch of factors:

Gouging distributes based on how much people can and are willing to pay. No gouging distributes based on lines (first come first serve, who has more time, who wants it more), or relationships, or knowing the right people, or theft).

Gouging encourages people to save up what they can. If you can store money, water, food, expertise, or gas, you can trade these resources for other products, and if there are free floating values for goods, you can trade high demand water for high demand gas. No gouging encourages people to save any and all resources you would want in case of emergency (you need gasoline, but your stored up water is only worth $2/gal despite it being in extremely high demand, so you don't work with others to accomplish betterment). Or save none and make sure you're at the front of the FEMA lines.

Gouging encourages people from outside of the market to enter the market to make money and bring goods to the needy area, which not only provides the goods to the need/want, but brings prices down. No gouging depends on people behaving out of the kindness of their hearts to go help.

Gouging doesn't require creating criminals out of expected behavior. No gouging laws takes productive members of society who are prepared and makes criminals out of them.

I'm not sure how these laws work. They say "charging x% higher"...does that mean preventing the barter system to charge higher rates? I suppose that would be an argument for anti-gouge laws. It promotes bartering vs simply using saved up dollars for resource allocation. I think this is the best argument (thought I've never heard someone make it).

During an emergency, there's no "good" scenario. I get we all want the feel good stories of people helping out the needy. I think that's actually the motivating force for people wanting no gouging laws. Reinforce the Good vs Bad. Bad people gouge. Good people help. I totally understand that. Remove that mindset, and gouging is far more efficient at allocating resources.

Make no mistake, this scenario is a micro-chasm of how free market economies function (ie politics).

The topic of gouging gets old to me, and my point is not to argue, just to pointing out the complexity.

“Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.”
Reply
#5

Walter E Williams appreciation thread

Black intellectuals who have a mind of their own and don't allow themselves to be controlled by the Democratic Party plantation mentality have my highest respect. Especially if they are older. First they had to hurdle barriers already in place and then they had to face the hatred of many of their own because they decided to blaze their own personal and intellectual trail. I have greatly enjoyed reading not only Walter Williams but Thomas Sowell too. I wonder if I could have been as steadfast as these unique scholars if I had walked in their shoes.
Reply
#6

Walter E Williams appreciation thread

Walter Williams has been great for a long time. Not sure if he still does this anymore but he used to sub in for Rush Limbargh during the holidays too back in the day.
Reply
#7

Walter E Williams appreciation thread

This guy and Thomas Sowell are two of my heroes. I first heard him years ago by accident when he was filling in for Rush Limbaugh.

"Feminism is a trade union for ugly women"- Peregrine
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)