Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (4865)	3/22/2003 1:50:01 AM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8683

We've already had this conversation once. How many times do you want to go over it? motherjones.com Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember the Vietnam years as they were unfolding. If you are old enough to remember, then you're just playing stupid for the pure sake of playing stupid. I'll assume you're just ignorant and don't have a clue about how things were in the late 60s, before the draft had been abolished, and when Vietnam was in full swing. In those days any male who turned 18 stood a good chance of getting shipped off to Southeast Asia to be used for target practice by unfriendly strangers. The Vietcong had found it was much more expensive for America to take care of wounded soldiers than it was to take care of dead soldiers. The result was those who weren't killed outright often came home with pieces missing. Poor young males who were against the idea of having body parts blown off went to Canada to avoid the draft. Rich young males had their daddies use their pull to find a cushy spot in the National Guard to avoid the draft. While real soldiers fought and died for their country, George was going out on dates with Nixon's somewhat homely daughter, and getting drunk. To add insult to injury, our country had to waste valuable resources to let a coward take pilot training, at a time when pilots were needed for the war effort, only to have the little wimp skip off to DC to party. Maybe you're just too bleeding stupid to follow what I'm talking about, but little George hasn't had an honorable day in his life. Go lay with your pups, you make me tired.

To: jlallen who wrote (4865)	3/22/2003 11:03:33 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8683

March 22, 2003 Market wonders Walter Williams We've all seen gasoline prices rising; is that good news or bad news? Congress could enact price controls and "odd and even" days for gasoline purchases like they did in the 1970s. Sure we would be paying lower prices, but the selling price of a good is just one element of its cost. The full cost of a good includes all additional resources expended for its acquisition. These additional resources might include time and travel that are by no means free. Say Congress legislates gasoline price controls that sets a maximum price of $1 a gallon. As sure as night follows day, there would be long lines and gasoline shortages, just as there were in the 1970s. For the average consumer, a $1.60 a gallon selling price and no waiting lines is a darn sight cheaper than a controlled $1 a gallon price plus searching for a gasoline station that has gas and then waiting in line. If your average purchase is 10 gallons, and if an hour or so of your time is worth more that $6, the $1.60 a gallon free-market price is cheaper. Prices aren't just made up. Prices are important market signals reflecting the relative scarcity conditions of any good. Rising prices imply an increase in the scarcity, or expected scarcity, of a good. In other words, if a good becomes scarcer or is expected to become scarcer, its price will rise. The opposite is true when a good becomes abundant or is expected to become abundant. When a good becomes scarce, there are several socially optimal responses: Consumers should economize on its usage and search for cheaper substitutes. Producers should increase production of the good and search for substitutes. Rising prices provide both consumers and producers with incentives to behave in socially optimal ways. Plus, they do so voluntarily. Another player in this economizing process are futures markets such as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). One function of a futures market is to allocate goods over time. Let's look at a simplified example of this process. People can buy or sell orders today for future deliveries of oil — for instance, December 2003. Say today's oil price is $35 a barrel and people expect the December price to be $50. Speculators can buy oil today for $35, hold it and sell it in December for $50 a barrel, making a $15 profit. One effect of taking oil off today's market, and holding it for a later date, is to reduce today's supply and raise today's prices. You say, "Williams, that's what's wrong with capitalism; greedy speculators rigging the market." Imagine there were no futures market and speculators. In our scenario, it would surely mean there would be more oil today at lower prices, but what about the future availability of oil? It would be scarcer and at higher prices without futures market and speculators. Without futures markets allocating goods over time, there would easily be feast or famine. By the way, most of us are mini-speculators. If gasoline is $1.60 a gallon this week, and we expect it to be $2 next week, I am guessing the average person will fill his tank to the brim this week — which, by the way, would cause this week's price to rise. Of course, the price might turn out to be $1 a gallon next week; we'd lose, just like our speculator would if the December oil price turned out to be $20 a barrel instead of $50. Markets are not perfect. After all, markets consist of millions upon millions of imperfect independent decision-makers like you and me. Abundant evidence, not faith, demonstrates markets are far more reliable and predictable than a bunch of arrogant politicians and bureaucrats. Walter Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist. URL:http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030322-71933959.htm