Cato Institute received a call this morning inviting me to appear on Fox TV’s O’Reilly Factor. For a moment, that seemed odd. In my experience, the only way you get invited on that show is if you agree beforehand to (1) keep repeating “you’re absolutely right” to O’Reilly or to (2) take some absurdly extreme position that will be easy for him to shoot down. This unique exception to those two rules was because my new column, “The Foolish Factor,” got someone’s attention.
I couldn’t possibly appear on TV tonight. There is a not-to-be-missed black tie event tonight celebrating National Review’s 50th Anniversary. Bill Buckley and the late James Burnham discovered me back in 1971, recruiting me to be NR’s economics editor for several years.
To avoid being exposed to a familiar O’Reilly stunt – namely, “we invited him to appear” (but he was too chicken) – I agreed to do a radio interview instead. But the President said something and that got me bumped. For the record, I’m not intimidated by O’Reilly’s inclination to call his critics pinheads, even though he is a foot taller than I am.
What is being tested here is the thickness of his skin. In his September 9 show, “Feeling Sorry for O’Reilly,” he said, “After I criticized the price gouging by the oil companies, ‘Bill O'Reilly is an Economic Fool,’ headlined one blog. Well, take out the word "economic" and you'd be more accurate.” That showed his sense of humor, which is fine, but the truth is that leaving in the word “economic” would be more accurate. O’Reilly is wise and clever about many issues, but not economics. He has degrees in history, journalism and public administration, but must have slept through basic economics.
He concluded that show saying, “Feeling sorry for me yet? Look, all this dishonest nonsense is ideologically driven. And it appears all day every day in this country, there are no standards anymore in the media. But the good news is that folks are seeing through the propaganda and coming into venues that tell the truth and deliver opinion backed up by fact.” My "ideologically driven" (?) column claims Bill O’Reilly has not been telling the truth about price gouging by the oil companies and he has not been backing up his arrogantly ignorant opinions with any facts.
Don’t feel too sorry for O’Reilly. He has his own column with the same syndicate that carries mine, and his own newsletter, so he is welcome to try answering me in print if he likes. Or, he could simply confess that he has no idea how gasoline prices are set or by whom. The rest of us print corrections when we make mistakes. There's no dishonor in that.
25 comments:
Great article ... now if we can just get people to take the time to understand the problem.
In the crowd (far left) that I work with, profit is a four letter word. They are intelligent people but they all seem to have left their brains at the door during Economics 101.
Way to go, Alan. I became unable to watch O'Reilly after just a few tries. Way too pleased with himself and way too impressed with his modest intellect.
Now, if we could clone Alan about 1000 times (using a prolife method, natch), arm them all with large wooden mallets with copies of this article attached to the striking head, and send them out into the world to smite the foreheads of the armies of economic nincompoops.....we still wouldn't make any headway. The Maryland press and airwaves, not to mention the offices of Annapolis bureaucrats, are full of this price-gouging nonsense....yet back in May, our AG was going after people for predatory pricing of gasoline. And we've got an otherwise sane (well, except for his infatuation with Peter Angelos) Republican governor -- it's sure to be worse in other places.
I have a question for all the media mouths who think upping the price of gas sitting in the storage tank under the service station is just "ripping off the customer." Radio and TV stations set prices for advertising based on their Arbitron ratings, and raise their rates if the Arbitrons go up. It costs not a penny more to produce the spots. Aren't they "ripping off" the sponsors? Maybe Annapolis knows how much 30 seconds of radio time should cost, since they seem to know how much a gallon of gas should cost.
I got really griped at CNBC when they moved Kudlow and Kramer out of the time slot opposite O'Reilly. Now there's nothing good to watch at 8 (when I'm usually cooking dinner). Hey, I know -- let's bombard CNBC with demands for an Alan Reynolds show!!
Mr. O'Reilly,
If you bought 5 gallons of water for $1 each, and then a hurricane hit and detroyed all fresh water supplies, how much would you sell the first gallon for? The second? What is the value to you, in dollars, of the last gallon?
I was waiting for this place to jump on the price gouging thing. I was starting to feel disappointed.
John Stossel's defense of price gouging was perhaps the most inhumane thing I've read since Thomas Sowell's "It's a living wage so long as they're alive" piece.
Tlaloc, as far as I'm concerned, a dehydrated mother is morally justified in beating the theoretical water-hoarding CLA into unconsciousness in order to give his water to her children.
Of course, I'd rather see her beat John Stossel unconscious and then shave his ridiculous mustache.
So, would you prefer no water at $1 per gallon or some water at $20 per gallon?
Your water would be long gone before the pregnant woman and/or elderly showed up, them not being able to rush to the front of the line.
You would also cause a stampede, killing innocent, and thirsy, children.
I, too, am disgusted.
Again, CLA, you're assuming a perfect world in which the poor had a reserve of cash in-hand.
Guess what? Doesn't exist. For example, most of the poor in New Orleans do not have bank accounts (and it would avail them to little good if they did, with ATMs and debit systems down). Their reserves of cash, if they had any, were often destroyed along with their dwelling. Whoops! How are they going to pay for the $20 dollar water in the first place? Guess what? They're not going to be able to!
So, in your fictional world, it's all well and good. In the real world, it's rather dumb.
" Again, CLA, you're assuming a perfect world in which the poor had a reserve of cash in-hand."
I asked an ECONOMIC question. The knee-jerk reaction of some here was to:
1) be disgusted with me;
2) be disgusted with John Stossel;
3) be disgusted with Thomas Sowell;
4) RATION.
I'll take 1-3 as compliments; #4 speaks for itself.
"Certainly if everyone operates by your mercenary standards."
Curiously enough, research shows that people in adverse situations behave in a communitarian, mutual-aid fashion that belies the popular "rampaging mob" or "everyone for themselves!" imagery.
"And as an open question to all reform clubbers: As supposed christians do you support or oppose the idea of charging as much as possible for a life essential to destitute people? Before you answer just pause a moment and think about Christ's views. Okay go ahead and answer now."
I'll take a stab at this, even though there are others here who are much more qualified (it hasn't stopped me before!)
I think that Christ's teachings are very clear, "love your neighbor as yourself" and "love the lord your God with all your heart, soul and strength"
This applies to ME.
Now, are you suggesting that the government mandate this to all? I mean compulsory resource sharing (rationing)? Who decides what resources are rationed?
See, God gave us free will, and we must make decisions ourselves. If we deny our fellow man that decision we are pulling the rug out from under him.
We MUST make the decision to follow Christ freely.
Now, are you suggesting that there is a philosophical inconsistency between being a Christian and a capitalist?
Paraphrasing Tlaloc: What Would Jesus Charge?
Christians are commanded, as one of the Corporal Works of Mercy, to give drink to the thirsty. They are not commanded to force the person who had the foresight to stockpile water in advance of a natural disaster to give that water away.
If you attempt to solve the problem of the thirsty masses by telling the water seller that he must sell his now far more precious water supplies at the pre-disaster price, you are shortcircuiting the mechanisms by which the market quickly gets more water to the area in need. The time and space frame where supply is completely inelastic, where no change in price is big enough to bring forth an increase in quantity, is very small. If the seller gets $20 for his $1 water, he turns right around and ships in 20 more. He sells it for $1, he ships in one more. Which scenario leads to thirstier people?
You also sabotage the market's signals to stockpile ahead of the disaster. For days ahead of a landfall, people are being warned to buy bottled water. But hurricanes are unpredictable -- there's always a chance it won't hit, and then my effort was a waste. If I know that the water will, by law, be the same price after landfall, I just might wait to see if I really need it, and therefore put myself in competition with all the people who couldn't afford to stockpile water ahead of time.
48 hours after Katrina hit, the left couldn't yell loud enough about how incompetent the government was at getting food and water to New Orleans. But now you want to scotch the market's mechanism for directing food and water where it's most needed? What is your solution, to pray for manna? Isn't that a rather strange policy position for an atheist?
As for what I personally would do in this situation (and this insight is courtesy of my five waterless days thanks to Hurricane Isabel): I'd install the new pump handle that I had the foresight to pick up at the Farm & Fleet this time around, pump water for everyone, and put out a tip jar for donations to defray the cost of the handle. In so doing, I'd lower the market price of water. Until Maryland's AG came around to cite me for predatory pricing, that is.
I think Tlaloc was referring to Jesus's admonition to forego your worldly possessions and give them to the poor.
"Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." (Matthew 19:21)"
"Now, are you suggesting that there is a philosophical inconsistency between being a Christian and a capitalist?"
Not to put words in Tlaloc's mouth, but I'd say it makes a whole lot more sense to be a Christian and a socialist.
Then there's the exceedingly famous Matthew 19:24:
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.""
"If the seller gets $20 for his $1 water, he turns right around and ships in 20 more. He sells it for $1, he ships in one more. Which scenario leads to thirstier people?"
The one where the market-based shipping of water is impossible because of the natural disaster that caused the problem in the first place?
"Not to put words in Tlaloc's mouth, but I'd say it makes a whole lot more sense to be a Christian and a socialist."
Here is a short treatise on why I believe you are wrong.
The whole problem is pretty simple. Why did we nearly extinguish the buffalo, while the cow is in massive abundance? Because one was owned, cultivated, and sold for a market price. The other was a common resource. Markets make sure we have the things we need.
An interesting treatise, CLA, thanks for the link.
However, both you and the author of the article make the mistake of confusing socialism with communism. This is rather common among Americans.
The treatise is riddled with logical flaws and inconsistencies that it simply glides over or ignores. Most glaringly is the requirement of the acceptance of the Christian concept of the duality of man (both in God's image and inherently sinful). Much in the manner of Aquinas and Lewis and others, the author assumes on faith the inherent rightness of his preconceived notions and relies upon them to make his argument. Really, the whole of his argument is based on the Old Testament.
JE ... you may be right about the link I gave, but there is justification in the New Testament as well; the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14 and the following) being one.
I'd supply a link, but you can google it yourself and find plenty to read.
I wish I had more time here today ...
"The whole problem is pretty simple. Why did we nearly extinguish the buffalo, while the cow is in massive abundance? Because one was owned, cultivated, and sold for a market price. The other was a common resource. Markets make sure we have the things we need."
Which came first, the domestication of the cow, or the market for the cow? I'd have to say it was the domestication of the cow. Did we domesticate the cow because people would buy it? No, we domesticated it because it was useful.
And lo, there's the answer to your question: Why domesticate or worry about breeding the buffalo when you've got whole herds of cows running around? You ALREADY HAVE a beast capable of fulfilling all the same requirements. If economics entered into the buffalo-slaughtering equation at all, it was at the thought of the immense profit the sale of buffalo bits could garner in the short-term. Who needs long-term buffalo when you've got the Texas Longhorn?
Is it just me, or is Matthew 25:14-15 about a man giving away his worldly goods to his servants before departing on a journey? I'll go out on a limb and guess that the "to each according to his ability" is the part you're referring to.
Seems to me that it's a parable against the poor.
"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." (Matthew 25:29)
Isn't this later contradicted by Matthew 25:31-46?
He's saying that when you take from the poor you do unto the Lord what you do unto the poor! As I read it, it rather refutes your contention.
Please elucidate further.
Is it just me, or is Matthew 25:14-15 about a man giving away his worldly goods to his servants before departing on a journey? I'll go out on a limb and guess that the "to each according to his ability" is the part you're referring to.
Seems to me that it's a parable against the poor.
No, wait, I'm wrong. Or at least, only partially on to something. That parable's one complicated bit of work.
I don't think there is any question whatsoever on this thread as to whether a Christian ought to give water to the thirsty; of course we ought to.
Tlaloc has also done a nice job of reframing a discussion into a moral one. My question that started this was without a doubt ECONOMIC; read it again and you'll see that I specifically state "in dollars"?
But thats OK, because the moral question is answered again by injecting universal moral law.
To quote mister Elliot:
"Curiously enough, research shows that people in adverse situations behave in a communitarian, mutual-aid fashion that belies the popular "rampaging mob" or "everyone for themselves!" imagery."
In regards to Matthew 25:14-30 (the parable of the talents), it does have many meanings.
Yes, the owner gave unto each according to his abilities, but he expected a return on his investment, nonetheless.
(Isn't the the Marxist creed "to each according to his need?" ... maybe this is why you retracted)
The meaning on the surface is, however, quite simple:
even if you are given little, it is expected that you will do with it wisely.
But thats OK, because the moral question is answered again by injecting universal moral law.
To quote mister Elliot:
"Curiously enough, research shows that people in adverse situations behave in a communitarian, mutual-aid fashion that belies the popular "rampaging mob" or "everyone for themselves!" imagery."
That's quite a far-fetched leap in logic. I don't really think you can make an argument for universal moral law out of self-interest survival-based behavior. But whatever. We've debated this a gazillion times.
In answer to your question about the retraction, I was going there because "to each according to his ability" is the inverse of the Marxist "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." But, I decided that the parable was way too complex for me to just wade in there like that.
Interestingly enough, I take the parable to be a lesson about always being prepared for the return of the Lord and the life you lead in the interim, not an economic lesson. The "good" slaves believed their lord would return and were constructive with his "gift" (i.e. the time between his departure and return). The "bad" slave had faith but no deeds (just buried the talent). It's a parable about good deeds and their symbiosis with faith. One can be faithful (of the "flock") and be prepared for the Lord's return, but not have done good deeds (a "goat") and therefore is doomed to suffer eternal darkness, gnashing of teeth, yadda yadda yadda ouch hot! and so on. It's a lesson about how your actions count more than mere faith, and that they who do good acts while keeping the faith will be rewarded with what would have gone to the other faithful had they also done good works.
It's one complex and layered parable. I may not believe in his divinity, but that Jesus was a clever guy. No denying that.
Post a Comment