Liberalism’s Simple-Mindedness on Defiant Display

Once again the scourge of minimum wage laws is in the news. In California Governor Jerry Brown has just signed legislation that will increase the state’s minimum wage from its current $10 level to $15, to be phased in over a six-year period. In a statement President Obama commended California for its new law and added, “It’s time for Congress to step up and do what is right for every hard-working American and for our economy.” New York governor Andrew Cuomo also signed legislation increasing that state’s minimum wage to $15 over a three-year period. The city of Seattle already has in place increases that will bring its minimum wage to $18 by the year 2025.

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders advocates increasing the federal minimum wage to $15, more than doubling the current $7.25. Hillary Clinton, always a voice of moderation, advocates a federal minimum wage of $12.

Minimum wage laws are so wrong for so many reasons it’s hard to know where to start. Most polls indicate that a majority of Americans support such laws. That fact reflects an extremely low “EQ” level of the citizenry. By EQ I mean economics quotient.

Presumably, most people who support minimum wage laws do so because they believe they will reduce poverty and decrease income inequality. The opposite is the case, however. Simple economic logic proves the point, as well as mountains of evidence.

A question that has been asked numerous times of minimum wage advocates is this — if a $15 minimum wage will help low-income earners, why not $20 or $50 an hour? I have yet to hear a coherent response to that question. The answer is obvious, of course. Many workers are not worth $20 or $50 an hour. Many fewer workers would be hired at those wages. Unemployment would skyrocket.

Apparently there is an implicit belief that although many workers are not worth, say, $30 an hour, all workers are worth whatever the minimum wage is. That makes no sense. A frequent assertion is that all workers are entitled to a “living wage.” According to Bernie Sanders, “If you have a full-time job you should not live in poverty.” That may be true, but the policies he advocates will increase, not decrease, poverty.

On what basis do Sanders, Brown, and others believe that all workers generate $15 an hour of value for their employers? Do they expect employers to hire them if they don’t?

David Neumark, an economist at University of California Irvine, has studied the employment impacts of minimum wage laws extensively. He estimates that the new California law will result in a five to ten percent decrease in low-skilled employment. In other words, increasing the minimum wage will result in some incomes not increasing but rather decreasing all the way to zero. The unemployment caused by minimum wage laws is an all too common example of “unintended consequences.”

At the beginning of 2016 California’s minimum wage went from $9 to $10. Although that was not the only factor, a local golf course cut its greens crew from 11 to 6. The course will not be as well maintained and five jobs have been eliminated.

An analysis by a California legislative agency estimates the new law will cost California taxpayers $3.6 billion a year in higher pay for government employees. Where is that money going to come from? The proponents probably assume it will all come from the top one percent.

A perfect example of the muddled thinking of minimum wage proponents is illustrated by the following statement from the president of a local chapter of the American Federation of State, County, and Federal Employees union: “Experts say a responsible minimum wage policy is good for workers and good for business. When people have more money in their pockets, they put that money back into the economy with spending on essential goods and services.” Ah, yes, those all-knowing “experts.” Apparently, minimum wage laws are like manna from heaven. Those economists who tell us “there’s no such thing as a free lunch” must not know what they’re talking about.

Wages are a form of prices. The fundamental nature of the price system is that prices are relative. When the price of some item goes up it becomes more expensive relative to other alternatives. Mandated higher wages make labor-saving equipment and technology relatively less expensive. That results in substitution of capital for labor which in turn reduces the demand for labor and thereby increases unemployment.

In economics a central tenet is what’s called an “equilibrium price.” That is the price, or wage, that equalizes quantity supplied and quantity demanded. That is the price where there is no shortage or surplus, the price where the supply and demand curves intersect.

An undeniable reality is that, although laws can be passed to dictate a legal price, there is virtually no way laws can determine an equilibrium price. Legislating a price above or below the equilibrium price will result in either a shortage (excess demand) or a surplus (excess supply). Shortages or surpluses can do serious damage to an economy.

An overlooked aspect of minimum wage laws is that they essentially commandeer private businesses to execute social policy. Under threat of fines or arrest, private businesses are drafted by lawmakers into the war on poverty. When someone starts a business, is he aware that he is also volunteering to do community service?

To businesses politicians say, “You will pay your employees what we tell you to pay. Too bad if that offends you or that you think it does more harm than good. Too bad if it causes you to go out of business.” Because minimum-wage laws are popular with voters, destroying jobs for workers preserves jobs for politicians.

If Congress passed a law mandating that all businesses give all their employees a ten percent raise, it would probably cause an uproar. However, there’s no fundamental difference between that and a minimum wage law. Both constitute obnoxious and counterproductive intrusions into economic and personal freedom.

A favorite term used by the left is “social justice.” Is it “socially just” that a law-abiding private-business owner is told how to spend his legitimately-earned revenue and that he is told exactly how he is going to compensate his employees? When was it decided that private businesses are responsible for alleviating poverty? How does the enthusiastic use of coercion fit into the concept of social justice?

Spending other people’s money is probably the favorite pastime of politicians. They have no “skin in the game” when it comes to issues such as minimum wage laws (or spending tax revenue). It’s not their money they’re spending. It’s just some poor shmuck businessman’s. Why should politicians care what damage is done? It’s easy to be generous with someone else’s money.

The fundamental damage of legislated prices is the blockage of voluntary exchange. Minimum wage laws block some of the voluntary exchange between employers and employees. The employer would be willing to hire someone for $6 an hour, the job seeker would be willing to work for $6 an hour, but such a transaction is illegal. Unquestionably, it’s a lose-lose situation.

As is usually the case, labor unions were the main driving force behind the new California law. Since most union members already earn more than the minimum wage, it raises the question, what is their motivation? One thing’s for sure, it’s not altruism. Labor unions do not like competition from workers who are willing to work for less. It would be equivalent to BMW getting a law passed prohibiting auto prices below $50,000.

Minimum-wage laws illustrate the simple-mindedness of liberalism. Such laws are based on an abiding faith the ability of laws to solve societal problems. When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you’re a liberal politician, every problem cries out for another law. There’s been a population explosion of new laws and regulations over the past several decades. There’s little evidence we’re better off as a result. The opposite is closer to the truth. Minimum wage laws could be Exhibit A.

____________________

◼ Liberalism’s Simple-Mindedness on Defiant Display April 8, 2016

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

Something Else to Give Thanks For

Maybe you don’t need more things to be thankful for, but in case you do here’s a suggestion — private businesses, their owners, and their employees. The ways private businesses improve our lives are so numerous and so frequent it’s all too easy to take them for granted.

For example, if your experience is anything like mine, you are treated almost like an old friend at most of the businesses you patronize. Take Target, as an example, since it’s likely you have one in your area. As you enter one of their stores employees there are likely to ask, “How’s your day going?” They make you feel welcome. When you check out they tell you to “Have a nice day.” Of course, that kind of behavior is not unique to Target. It is the rule, not the exception when you interact with any private business.

That kind of experience makes our days more pleasant. If we aren’t having a good day, it can help raise our spirits. These are behaviors that are widespread and significant. What makes them happen?

Part of the reason, of course, is simply the goodness of most of our fellow human beings. However, an important factor in explaining why it happens so frequently is the free market. The most fundamental element of a market economy is voluntary exchange.

Both words of the phrase “voluntary exchange” have profound implications. Since it’s voluntary both parties have power, that is, the ability to walk away from the transaction. Because it’s an exchange both parties gain something and both parties give up something. The buyer gives up money and gains a product or service, the seller receives money and gives up a product or service. Both participants end up better off or they would stop exchanging. Each participant exchanges something of less value to him than what he receives. Probably the most often cited quotation of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations is the following:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but to their advantages.

A central focus of economic analysis is the question of incentives. The dynamics of voluntary exchange demonstrate the power of incentives. Furthermore, the incentives inherent in voluntary exchange are generally beneficial to individuals and society. The incentives inherent in a market economy bring out the best in people, not always, but predominantly and billions of times each day.

The owners and employees of private businesses clearly have incentives to treat their customers well. Those customers almost always have alternatives available to them. The U.S. economy has never been more competitive. There are exceptions, of course, such as the current state of the health care sector.

You are treated like someone important by private businesses and their employees because you are important to them. Business owners and managers train their employees to be friendly and pleasant. Their well-being is inextricably connected to our well-being. Every customer-vendor relationship is a symbiotic relationship.

A kind of business for which I am particularly thankful for is restaurants. It amazes me that so many people are willing to start and operate restaurants. It is a tough, highly competitive kind of business. A conclusion I came to when I once worked in a restaurant is there seemed to be a new problem every ten minutes. Today it amazes me that restaurants can serve so many patrons so many meals of consistently high quality so promptly. Restaurants are only one of thousands of kinds of private businesses that make our lives more comfortable, enjoyable, and entertaining.

Private businesses are readily available sources of practical knowledge. One of the mottoes of Home Depot is, “You can do it! We can help.” They obviously have a strong incentive to increase the population of do-it-yourselfers, as do all hardware and building-supply stores.

The value and importance of on-the-job training provided by private businesses is so huge it would be almost impossible to measure. That training is all the more important in light of the failings of public schools.

So, this Thanksgiving give some thought to the blessings you experience often in your life such as those provided by private businesses. And give thanks for the free-market economy, the only place where private businesses can exist.

____________________

◼ Something Else to Give Thanks For November 25, 2015

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

The Attempted Character Assassination of Ben Carson

Sometimes atmospheric conditions are such that the weather forecast can say, “100% chance of rain.” The current political atmosphere is such that even before it happened there was a 100% chance the media would attempt to assassinate Dr. Ben Carson’s character, honesty, and integrity. The liberal media will do everything it can, including lies, fabrications, distortions, and flagrant exaggerations to anyone they consider threats to their power and control.

Ben Carson is clearly such a person. Unfortunately for liberals he may be the hardest target they’ve ever faced. He is unquestionably brilliant, and is obviously a person of impeccable character. His life story is amazing and inspiring. America could certainly use a little inspiration about now.

The recent attempts to destroy Carson’s candidacy have been bizarre. In his book, Gifted Hands, he relates episodes in his young life of violence and an out-of-control temper. CNN went to great efforts to interview his childhood friends and neighbors to insinuate the stories were false. In other words, a person who admitted that he was once a juvenile delinquent with a violent temper is somehow accused of making it all up. CNN is essentially saying, “You say you were once bad, but that’s not true. In fact, you’ve always been good.” What a weird thing to accuse someone of lying about.

The fact that Dr. Carson has fewer vulnerabilities than most candidates isn’t necessarily a problem for those who fear him and would like to destroy him. Liberals have the unique ability to make something out of nothing. They never hesitate to make assertions, no matter how baseless and nonsensical, broadcast them, and have them accepted by large segments of their viewers and listeners. For example, the liberal media and the Democrat party have sold the fantastical assertion that Republicans are waging a war against women. Many of their supporters actually believe it’s true.

Having a complete lack of integrity, as does Politico, can be a competitive advantage. However, it can also play against you. CNN’s and Politico’s ham-handed attempts to take out Ben Carson may be too transparent to be effective. CNBC’s widely criticized performance in the recent Republican debate apparently blew up in their faces. The population of people who now recognize the blatant bias of the media has grown. Dr. Carson could very well end up more popular than he was before the fraudulent stories reported about him in the Politico and CNN.

Supporters of Hillary Clinton have every reason to fear Ben Carson. He could well be her worst nightmare. Although it was before the latest brouhaha, a Fox News poll last week found that 60 percent of voters say Carson is honest, 25 percent said not honest. His net honesty score is a positive 35 — “No other candidate comes even close to that,” according to Fox. “Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton’s ratings are record setting — in a bad way. Her net honesty score is negative 26.” In terms of honesty Clinton and Carson are polar opposites.

Carson is extremely easy to like. Hillary is almost impossible to like. Even her supporters admit as much. In head-to-head matchups against Hillary, Carson does better than any other Republican, beating her by as much as ten points. If she were running against Dr. Carson, Hillary would have to hope that honesty and integrity simply don’t matter to voters. That’s possible but not likely.

If Carson happens to secure the Republican nomination it’s conceivable he’d get as much as twenty percent of the black vote. If that happens Hillary Clinton would be a dead-candidate-walking. (Mitt Romney got less than five percent of the black vote.)

The one valid criticism of Dr. Carson is that he has no elective-office experience. However, in the context of today’s political atmosphere that may be more of an asset than a liability. Furthermore, even if lack of experience is a negative, voters will weigh it against other important attributes. Every bit as or even more important are a candidate’s judgment, values, and intelligence. From that perspective it appears voters like what they see in Ben Carson, especially the fact that they see him as sharing their values.

He has, for example, made opposition to political correctness one of his main campaign themes. Many of us see political correctness as a cancer on our culture and society. Having someone in the White House who is willing to use “the bloody pulpit” to make that case would be like a breath of fresh air.

Here’s another prediction with a 100% probability — the character assassination attempts on Ben Carson have only just begun. The left, the media, the Democrats know what an existential threat he is to them. It’s been ugly, and it’s going to get uglier. Remember the Boy Scout motto —“Be Prepared.”

____________________

◼ The Attempted Character Assassination of Ben Carson November 13, 2015

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

Liberalism and Happiness Don’t Mix

Although liberals probably don’t realize it, liberalism and happiness don’t mix. A “happy liberal” is almost an oxymoron.

Why so? The reasons are many. For one, liberals, especially white American liberals, are highly critical and dissatisfied with their country, culture, race, and gender. If you don’t like the society, race, culture, and gender that you’re part of, your ability to feel good about yourself becomes much more challenging.

Liberals are humans, but they think humans are destroying the planet. They’re Americans, but they think that America is primarily responsible for most of the problems in the world. White liberals wallow in guilt about “white privilege,” which diminishes any sense of personal accomplishment they might have. Liberals firmly believe in the importance of the “collective,” yet they don’t like the collectives they’re parts of.

In regard to love of country, conservatives far exceed liberals. If you’re “proud to be an American” you’re probably a conservative. If you’re ashamed to be an American, you’re probably a liberal.

A fundamental and defining difference between liberals and conservatives is in regard to the locus of responsibility. Liberals place the blame for problems on society, conservatives emphasize individual responsibility.

If you subscribe to the belief that society is primarily in control of what happens to you in life, you’ve essentially “given away your power.” Hence, liberalism is disempowering. If that’s your outlook, you’re stuck. Feelings of impotence are definitely not conducive to happiness. If society is at fault for your circumstances you’re screwed. In other words, if you have to wait for society to cure itself before you can be successful, you’re in for a long, unhappy, and frustrating wait.

Liberals talk endlessly about racism in society. There’s no question that racism is a serious societal problem. Nevertheless, if you believe that you’ll never be successful or happy until racism no longer exists, you’ll be dead and gone long before that happens.

Liberal policies virtually never achieve their stated objectives. In fact, they make things worse. For example, minimum wage laws increase, rather than decrease, poverty and inequality. Liberals can never be happy because their solutions never work.

Most liberal policy objectives are unattainable. One of their dreams is complete equality. That, of course, is never going to happen. Having unachievable objectives leads to never ending frustration, not happiness.

If you’re a liberal you’re not supposed to be happy. You will not feel that you deserve to be happy. If there’s misery anywhere in the world you don’t have the right to be happy.

Liberals are profoundly pessimistic. They think we are going to run out of resources. They believe that climate change will doom us. These are remote possibilities, not certainties. They are worst case scenarios. Liberals disregard and grossly underestimate human creativity and adaptability. Rather than using our vast endowment of fossil fuels for human benefit, liberals want to leave them in the ground.

Liberals’ emotion of choice is guilt. They feel it in their bones and they employ it expertly to achieve their policy objectives and demoralize their opponents. They feel responsible for the sins of their forebears. For example, Democrats are currently distancing themselves from their previous heroes, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. They feel guilty about the past, present, and future. It’s hard to be happy when you’re wallowing in guilt.

There are, of course, liberals who are happy. Nevertheless, they are happy in spite of their political ideology. For most people, including liberals, politics is not everything. If your non-political life is going well and you were born with a happy disposition, you can be mostly happy most of the time.

Even achieving policy objectives don’t make liberals happy for long, the legalizing of same-sex marriage, for example. Almost immediately they start worrying about another societal injustice that needs to be remedied, such as the supposed discrimination against transsexuals.

Political correctness is a liberal creation and is yet another barrier to happiness. Comedians such as Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock, among others, have lamented that political correctness is killing humor, particularly on college campuses. Constricting and diminishing the role of humor in our lives is about as mean a thing as anyone could do. Again, the result is a reduction in happiness.

One of the interesting ironies of the liberalism-happiness disconnect is that a primary purpose of being a liberal is to feel good about yourself. Liberalism is a self-indulgent, feel-good endeavor and a way to feel superior to others. It gives its adherents a warm feeling when they show concern for minorities, the homeless, or the oppressed. Insofar as happiness is their objective, they’ve taken the wrong road.

If liberals ever wise up about how liberalism is making them miserable, there will be a significant reduction in their ranks. Maybe conservatives should fund-public service announcements with themes such as, “You only get one life to live. Don’t blow it by being a miserable liberal.”

____________________

◼ Liberalism and Happiness Don’t Mix August 25, 2015

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

Liberals, Conservatives, and Abortion

There is no issue that divides liberals and conservatives more deeply than does abortion. It is, after all, a matter of life and death.

It would be hard to say what issue is closest to the hearts of liberals — inequality, diversity, labor unions, or maximizing the size and reach of government. What seems to get them most exercised, however, is the issue of abortion. That attitude leaves conservatives in a state of bewildered disbelief. How can liberals, Democrats, the left, be such enthusiastic supporters of something that is, at best, a necessary evil? Why are they so protective of unlimited abortion and paranoid about placing any restrictions whatsoever on it? How do they manage to feel so positive about something that is so profoundly negative?

Although liberals give every indication that they believe abortion is a virtuous and morally neutral act, they also reveal that they are not comfortable with that position. You will rarely, if ever, hear liberals say that they are “pro-abortion.” They will almost always use various cowardly and misleading obfuscations such as “pro-choice” or “a woman’s reproductive rights.” Is this done just for appearance sake or are they themselves uncomfortable with what they advocate? If they have any conscience at all they have to, at the very least, be very conflicted. If you’ve ever tried to have a quiet discussion about abortion with a liberal you know that it turns ugly quickly.

The abortion enthusiasts have hijacked the word “choice.” That word is far too general and anodyne to substitute for the reality of abortion. They’re not “pro-choice,” they’re pro-abortion. Why can’t they just admit that? In the now famous Planned Parenthood video the abortionist/organ harvester refers to babies’ heads as “calvariums.” Language corruption is a deeply ingrained habit with the abortion community.

The very name “Planned Parenthood’ is itself a grotesque fraud. Planned Parenthood is an organization dedicated to the prevention of parenthood, either for the birth mother or for a couple eager for the chance to adopt.

Right-to-life advocates do not believe that the location of an unborn child is equivalent to ownership. An abortion is not morally equivalent to an appendectomy. There is no dispute about who owns your appendix. You have no control or responsibility for the existence of your appendix. An appendectomy or the removal of malignant tumor prolongs a life; an abortion ends a life.

A pregnancy is the result of a decision to have sex. Because you did you now have another human being developing inside your body. The fact that you irresponsibly had sex with someone you would not consider marrying does not give you the guilt-free option of ending the life you started. Roe v. Wade made abortion legal. It did not make abortion morally right.

Ronald Reagan said, “We cannot diminish the value of one category of life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life.” Truer words were never spoken.

It is not just unborn children who pay the price for abortion, we all do. “Send not for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee” (John Donne). The number of abortions performed, as well as the ho-hum way that is viewed, does more than anything else to numb our sensitivities about the sanctity of life. The manifestations of that are all too apparent across our society and culture. There is probably nothing else that has led to the coarsening of our culture as much as the occurrence of millions of abortions.

A favorite debating point that liberals believe is a “gotcha moment” is when they point out that conservatives are against abortion but favor the death penalty. They believe it shows that conservatives are inconsistent and hypocritical. Their smugness, however, is unearned. It demonstrates their refusal to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. A fetus is as innocent as it is possible to be, and an unborn child is not in any way equivalent to a convicted murderer.

For too long Planned Parenthood has been getting away with the lie that it is something other than what it is — primarily an abortion provider and promoter. Furthermore, it discourages adoption. You may as well ask Dr. Kevorkian for pregnancy counseling as to ask Planned Parenthood. Pro-life tax-payers are sickened by the reality of their tax dollars being used to support such a despicable organization.

We hear the chant, “black lives matter.” That’s true, of course, but it is usually in reference to blacks being killed by police officers. It would be good to keep in mind, however, that the number of black lives ended by abortion is thousands of times greater than the number of black lives ended by police officers.

People who are sickened by the fact that over a million abortions are performed each year in the U.S. can fight back in a number of ways. One way is to no longer let the abortion advocates get away with their rampant language cowardice and distortions. Vote for politicians who promise to stop public funding of Planned Parenthood.

It needs to be made absolutely clear that adoption is infinitely superior to abortion. Whether or not abortion should be illegal, society should at the very least make it clear that abortion is not just another form of birth control.

On some issues there is often little real difference between Republican and Democrat politicians’ attitudes and reactions. Not this time. Republicans are not mincing words about what the Planned Parenthood videos reveal. On this issue Republicans are showing some backbone. Democrats, on the other hand, “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” The abortion debate that is now front and center provides an unambiguous contrast between the two parties. Moral clarity can be a powerful force.

____________________

◼ Liberals, Conservatives, and Abortion July 24, 2015

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

The Worrywart Generation: The Age of Debilitating Anxieties

Apparently a large fraction of America’s creative talent is being used for the creation of imaginary anxieties. These faux phobias are doing great damage to our abilities to live our lives to the fullest.

A partial list of bogus anxieties would include sustainability, GMOs, glutens, pesticides, running out of resources, CO2, fossil fuels, insufficient diversity, climate change, endangered species, landfills, loss of wet lands, carbon footprints, fracking, plastic bags, renewability, sugary soft drinks, and “white privilege.”

President Franklin Roosevelt’s most frequently referenced quote is “Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself–nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” That is an absolutely profound piece of advice. It was timely when he said it, it is timely now. Roosevelt’s quote raises an important question, why should fear be feared? Why did he say that fear “paralyzes?”

A very wise psychologist friend of mine told me the following, “Fear is the ultimate issue, the controlling factor. If you overcome your fear you’re liberated. People who don’t overcome their fears have lives that get smaller and smaller. The goal is to avoid being controlled by fear.” That, he says, is the most important lesson he’s learned after counseling hundreds of clients over his forty plus years of practice. Our societal exaggeration of dubious fears is causing too many lives to get “smaller and smaller.”

There are good reasons why society admires courage and despises cowardice.

Fear is one of the primary subjects taught in primary and secondary schools both public and private. Teaching fear to young people is a kind of collective child abuse. We are raising a generation of paranoid neurotics. Our children are being taught, erroneously, that individuals and the environment are delicate and fragile.

A huge irony of the explosion of anxieties is that it’s occurring at a time when living has never been safer or risks been fewer. Average life expectancies are almost two-thirds longer than they were just 100 years ago. Humans have never been safer yet there is more fear and anxiety than ever before. It’s as though when legitimate risks diminish, humans have to invent new ones to replace them.

The popular energy bar company Kind has as its motto: “Do the Kind Thing—for your body, your taste buds, & the world.” The company claims that its products are “economically sustainable and socially impactful.” The following list appears on its energy bar wrappers:

• All natural/non GMO • Gluten-free • Low Glycemic • 6g protein • Good source of fiber • Very low sodium • Dairy-free • Cholesterol-free • No sugar alcohols • Ingredients you can see and pronounce • 0g trans fat

What a long list of things to worry about just for eating a candy bar! Maybe they should just say, “Eat this candy bar and you will never die and you will save the world.” By implication, traditional candy bars are nothing more than slow poison.

There’s a lot more we don’t know about diet and nutrition than we do know. For example, nutritionists have recently admitted they have been wrong about the degree of harm resulting from consuming salt, cholesterol, coffee, and fats. If you were avoiding those things, think of the fun you missed!

Those who are the most paranoid seem to know the least about the objects of their anxieties. For example, fear of genetically modified foods, glutens, and hydraulic fracturing are based almost solely on complete ignorance of these issues and gross exaggerations of the actual dangers.

Fear is the primary impetus behind the population explosion of regulations over the past several decades. It is now estimated that regulations cost the U.S. economy $1.9 trillion a year, an amount equal to about ten percent of our GDP. It is a rare regulation that does more good than harm.

A particularly insidious and widespread form of fear mongering is political correctness or PC. PC is essentially fear of words. PC stifles communication and corrupts human interaction.

The latest variation of political correctness are the so-called “trigger warnings” that are the rage on college campuses. These have been appropriately labeled by Theodore Dalrymple as “pre-traumatic stress disorder.”

Too many people are squandering their one and only chance at life worrying about imaginary anxieties that, even if true, they can do nothing about.

In regard to the environment, humans are far less important than the worriers think they are. That’s particularly true of individual humans. In the big scheme of things it’s not going to make an iota’s difference whether or not you recycle, drive a Prius, or use reusable shopping bags. If you think it does you’re kidding yourself and wasting your money, time, and brain capacity. The environment “will little note or long remember” your miniscule efforts. Relax, already!

The squandering of our one chance to live life is not, of course, a recently invented habit. Omar Khayyam was a twelfth-century poet. His immortal poem the Rubaiyat offers the following ageless wisdom:

Before the phantom of False morning died Methought a Voice within the Tavern cried, “When all the Temple is prepared within, Why nods the drowsy Worshipper outside?”…

Come, fill the cup, and in the fire of Spring Your Winter-garment of Repentance fling: The Bird of Time has but a little way To flutter—and the Bird is on the Wing.…

Oh, threats of Hell and Hopes of Paradise! One thing at least is certain — This Life flies; One thing is certain and the rest is Lies; The flower that once has blown forever dies.

The title of Hank Williams last recorded song put it more colloquially: “You’ll Never Get Out of This World Alive.”

You only get one chance at life. Don’t squander it fretting about things beyond your control or understanding. Love and be kind to those near you. Do your job well. Those are the ways you can actually “make a difference.”

____________________

◼ The Worrywart Generation: The Age of Debilitating Anxieties June 11, 2015

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.

California Gasoline Prices: The Damage Done

Currently the average price of regular gasoline in California is $3.81 per gallon. That is $1.11 above the national average ($2.70). What are the reasons for this 40 percent higher price? There’s a witch’s brew of factors, but in a nutshell it boils down to the fact that California’s Democrat politicians have taken on the responsibility of saving the planet. That, of course, is a quixotic endeavor. Californians are wasting billions of dollars and getting nothing in return.

Individually California consumers spend about sixteen dollars more than necessary each time they fill their gas tanks or about $600 a year on average. Collectively California consumers purchase 14 billion gallons of gasoline each year. In other words, we’re spending $15 billion a year more than what we would if gasoline prices equaled the national average. The benefit-cost ratio of those expenditures is as close to zero as you can get.

Fuel costs are a major budget item for many California businesses. High gasoline and diesel prices have impacts beyond what can be seen at the pump.

One big contributor to the price difference is the “special formulation” for gasoline in California. Think of it as special gasoline for a special state. The formulation is the brainchild of the California Air Resources Board, possibly the most powerful and destructive bureaucracy ever created by a single state.

The special formulation supposedly creates less air pollution than gasoline sold in the other 49 states. Unfortunately, there are only a small number of refineries capable of producing the special formulation. That fact leads to other costly problems. The small number of refineries restricts supply and reduces competitive pressure resulting in higher prices. Whenever a refinery is out of commission prices spike. That happens on a fairly regular basis.

Another culprit in California’s elevated gasoline price is the “California Carbon Tax Law of 2014.” The tax took effect at the beginning of 2015. It mandates that petroleum suppliers buy “pollution permits” for the greenhouse gases generated by the fuel they deliver. At this point, how this complicated law is actually going to play out and how the revenue is to be used is anyone’s guess. At the present time a permit for producing a ton of CO2 is roughly $12.

The law “finds and declares” that “Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and environment of California. The adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, drought, fires, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health problems.” We’re doomed!

The authors of the law could not resist the opportunity for patting themselves on the back: “California has long been a national and international leader on energy conservation efforts through energy efficiency requirements, renewable energy standards, natural resource conservation, and greenhouse gas emission standards for passenger vehicles.” Californians are so lucky to have such wonderful politicians watching out for their well-being.

Will not higher gasoline prices disproportionately impact low income earners? Not to worry. They thought about that already: “It is the intent of the Legislature that revenues collected under this part be rebated to taxpayers, particularly low- and medium-income taxpayers, of other taxes imposed under this code. In that regard, implementation of the carbon tax is intended to be revenue neutral.” Isn’t that clever? Devilish details yet to be determined.

Politicians and environmentalists do not consider high fuel prices to even be a problem. In fact, they applaud them. The state’s Carbon Tax Law is deliberately designed to increase the price of gasoline and diesel fuel for California consumers. The law states, “The prices of fossil fuels in California’s energy markets do not reflect the true cost to society of the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels and the release of carbon dioxide into the environment.” Once again politicians have declared that the price system isn’t working properly and it’s their job to put that right.

Although not unique to California, fuel prices are also made unnecessarily high because of the federal “Renewable Fuels Standard.” That’s the widely criticized law that mandates blending ethanol with gasoline. California’s enthusiasm for that law is above and beyond that of most other states.

The RFS adds insult to injury because ethanol has only about two-thirds as much energy per gallon as compared to gasoline. Consequently, E10 (ten percent ethanol) results in “3 to 4 percent fewer miles per gallon” than with pure gasoline according to Fueleconomy.gov.

Retailers in most states give consumers a choice between straight gasoline and E10. In California you are prohibited from using straight gasoline on streets and highways. Since ethanol does damage to small engines (lawnmowers and chain saws, for example) Californians have been graciously allowed to purchase straight gasoline. Relatively few dealers exist, however, and the price is significantly higher (currently $5.46 per gallon at one local dealer) than for E10. Dealers are heavily fined if they get caught putting pure gasoline into automobiles.

The Renewable Fuels Standard not only increases the price of fuel, it also does additional damage by raising food prices. Because of the ethanol mandates, 40 percent of the nation’s corn production goes to fuel not food. Everyone in the country, not just Californians, is paying more for food because of the RFS.

Still another contributor to the unusually high gasoline prices in the state is the above average gasoline tax. Nationally the average gasoline tax is $.49. The California tax is $.69 per gallon for gasoline and $.79 per gallon for diesel. Are streets and highways better in California than other states? Not noticeably.

Complaints about California’s high gasoline prices are surprisingly rare. Why more Californians don’t complain about how they’re getting soaked by the state’s politicians is a mystery. Maybe this summer as many of them drive through other states on their vacations, more of them will become aware of the totally unnecessary damage being done to their budgets. Maybe they will start screaming and hollering. They certainly have reason to.

____________________

◼ California Gasoline Prices: The Damage Done May 21, 2015

Ron Ross Ph.D. is a former economics professor and author of The Unbeatable Market. Ron resides in Arcata, California and is a founder of Premier Financial Group, a wealth management firm located in Eureka, California. He is a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma and can be reached at rossecon@gmail.com.