By Bron Suchecki, on October 10th, 2011
I missed this piece dated 6 September 140 Year of Silver Volatility where Fekete picks up on Bob Moriarty’s Facts on Silver from 25 April with this cutting comment: “Beware of the fund manager, crying from his rooftop that the paper silver market is a joke, while down there under the roof he is selling paper silver at a 25% mark-up.”
Also worth reading Bob’s article with these five facts on silver:
1. When charts go parabolic, it ends badly.
2. The actual ratio of silver to gold in the earth’s crust is not 16 to 1.
3. There is no shortage of silver. There never has been a shortage of silver. Until the laws of supply and demand are repealed, there never will be a shortage of silver.
4. The most illogical thinking and worst use of “facts” is common among the silver uberbulls and the parrots that follow them.
5. There cannot be a run on Comex. The rules do not allow the chance for a run.
By the way, Bob is certainly in the “Repeat of 1980″ category with comments like “You can’t profit if you don’t sell and all the permabulls are screaming “Buy, buy, buy.” As they will at every top.”
PS I missed the Schoon and Morairty posts because those sites don’t run RSS feeds, which I think are essential. I’ve got around 100 feeds giving approx 250 posts a day to get through, just not possible to include manual site visits in that. 
By Simon Grey, on May 12th, 2011
In theory, all prices are determined by supply and demand. If there is a large supply of product x and little demand for product x, the price will be very low. If, on the other hand, there is a small supply of product x and high demand for it, the price will be rather high. This assertion is not new, but it can lead to a puzzling question.
Specifically, the question that can arise on occasion is: if prices are determined by supply and demand, why do economists talk about prices being impacted by taxes and regulations? Two reasons come to mind.
First, taxes reduce supply of a product. As has been discussed elsewhere, taxes are a way of redistributing resources. If a government directly taxes a product, it is essentially claiming some of the resources used to make the product for itself. If the government makes use of other taxes, it is still laying claim to some resources, and consumers then determine which resources are eventually consumed.
Second, regulations change the type of product. In the unfettered market, there might be times when, say, a car company would offer a two-ton car that gets twenty-five miles per gallon and produces 240 HP. Once the state begins to regulate the market, the car company might be forced to meet, say, a fuel efficiency target, and will thus seek to cut the car’s weight and decrease the car’s horsepower. As such, the product is no longer the same, and thus faces a different supply schedule and demand schedule.
Thus, it should be easy to see that the law of supply and demand is ironclad, and that there is no inherent contradiction between claiming that all prices are set by supply and demand and also claiming that taxes and regulations affect prices. Of course, it would be more accurate to claim that taxes and regulations directly impact supply and demand and indirectly impact prices. Still, the final assertion is correct, and there is no contradiction between the two claims.
By Trace Mayer, on March 24th, 2011
[Disclaimer: The follow article is a fictional account of a persuasive argument and should not be construed as an assertion of facts although written in the first person.]
My nuke pills, commonly known as potassium iodide, have been languishing unloved in my emergency supplies for years since I bought them for about $5.99 each. They expire next month. I would like to have donated them to a charity that would get them to people in Japan who so badly need them.
But potassium iodide is only available by prescription in Japan and I am not interested in engaging in the international smuggling of controlled substances. So I did the next best thing: I just sold them for $99.99 apiece representing a net realized gain of approximately 1,500%. One of my best investments yet. But with the nuke pill market’s backwardation more severe than the silver backwardation why would I sell them?
The price, where a producer and consumer meet in negotiations, is an extremely valuable, even vital, tool.
PRICE GOUGING DEFINITION
Price gouging has a nasty connotation. This is mostly due to the true cause of shortages, governments, attempting to spread disinformation about how markets work. For example, the Florida Division of Consumer Services asserts:
In the wake of natural disaster, essentials — such as food, ice generators, lanterns, lumber, etc. — may be in short supply. Charging exorbitant or excessive prices for these and other necessities following a disaster is not only unethical, it’s illegal.
Under Sections 501.160 and 501.205 Florida Statutes, it is illegal to charge unconscionable prices for goods or services following a declared state of emergency.
Individuals or businesses found guilty of price-gouging could face fines up to $1,000 per violation.
HOW AND WHY VOLUNTARY TRADE WORKS
If I own potassium iodide pills there are two mutually exclusive ways for you to acquire them. One option is for me to voluntarily sell or gift you the pills. The other option is for you to steal or rob the pills from me.
Trade works because everyone has different preferences, talents, abilities, competitive advantages, knowledge and desires. For example, Mozart had different talents than Einstein. The baker and the painter are each able to perform work the other values and when they engage in a voluntary trade then it implies that the baker derives more value from what the painter offers than from his bread. Because the baker is better at baking than the painter and because the painter is better at painting than the baker therefore when a trade is voluntarily concluded then both the painter and baker are better off which raises the standard of living for both. Even nations have comparative advantages.
However, when property is either stolen or robbed then only one party benefits to the detriment of another party. This type of parasitic behavior does not encourage additional productive activities. In fact, it decreases wealth by requiring the aggrieved party to expend additional resources on protection which ultimately gets passed on to legitimate moral consumers in the form of higher prices.
It should be noted that since governments are force and force is violence they are by nature parasitic in this stealing and robbing way. And they have the nerve to call a party to a purely voluntary transaction unethical. Thus, the Florida division should probably be named something a little more accurate like the Florida Division of Victimizer Services.
THE VALUABLE NATURE OF THE PRICE
The price, where a producer and consumer meet in negotiations, is an extremely valuable, even vital, tool. It helps the baker know whether he should produce 5 loaves or 500. Because the baker is also a consumer therefore a price is communicated by the baker to the farmer about whether he should plant one acre or 100 acres of wheat.
And so on through the increasingly complex economy with people being able to build up considerable comparative advantages by learning such disciplines as xenotransplantation, mechanical engineering, robotics, proctology, hematology or biomedical gerontology. It is through the price that individuals, all acting according to their own dictates, decide how to allocate their time, talents and capital to meet the needs and desires of each other.
When the pricing mechanism is immorally interfered with by the use of aggression then individuals are hindered in their ability to know how much demand exists for a particular good or service. Misallocation of wealth happens which results in its destruction and a lowering of living standards for society. When a price control is implemented through the use of force then it leads to shortages which are often used as an excuse to implement rationing. In the modern world with such technological advances there is a sole cause for all the starvation and shortages: governments.
For example, there always seems to be a shortage of blood, particularly the rarer kinds, for transfusions. But there are billions of able-bodied adults who could voluntarily agree to sell their blood. Theoretically there should never be a shortage of blood as it should merely be a function of price. But instead many governments have implemented price controls. In exchange for about an hour of one’s time and getting stuck with a needle, sometimes multiple times, the most you can receive is a cookie. Sometimes a T-shirt and some warm fuzzies are thrown in.
The reasoning is that if people were able to legally sell their own blood, oh the irony to think one is free, then there would be a higher probability of contamination in the blood supply. But that does not make any sense because the medical companies already perform extensive screenings of the blood supply. The real issue is that a pint of blood goes for a couple hundred dollars. The government imposed price control serves at least two functions for those who make a profit selling blood: (1) reduction of raw material costs to zero and (2) decrease in supply.
But these types of violent interferences are not limited to necessities like food, water, potassium iodide or blood but are extended through licenses for hair cuts to medical services, are found in regulations limiting the type of light bulb or toilet you can buy and of particular interest to the bureaucrats is healthy food and why raw food recipes are going underground.
With potassium iodide pills available in Japan by prescription only; thus, even though many may have rationally prepared for this emergency the costumed criminal gangs made it illegal and threatened to violate offenders with fines or jail. As Rand Paul teased out during his Senatorial questioning; these bureaucrats found throughout the world are not pro-choice or pro-consumer but violent aggressors against freedom of choice and a primary cause for lower standards of living.
PRICE GOUGING ECONOMICS
How are producers supposed to know what consumers demand? Without the ability to charge what the market will bear it is impossible to find out. When that knowledge is buried or price discovery prevented then entreprnuers are unable to make calculated risks in hopes of profit. When entreprenuers fail to perform thier vital service of bringing goods and services to market then price gouging is not an issue. As the old saying from communist Russia goes, “Sausage is one ruble per link. But there is no sausage.” Pretty soon the only noble profession left will be that of a smuggler.
As David Brown observed in Price Gouging Saves Lives:
“Price gouging” is nothing more than charging what the market will bear. If that’s immoral, then all market adjustment to changing circumstances is “immoral,” and markets per se are immoral. But that is not the case. And I don’t think a store owner who makes money by satisfying the urgent needs of his customers is immoral either. It is called making a living. And, in the wake of Hurricane Charley, surviving.
Be prepared.
NUCLEAR FALLOUT ON THE WEST COAST
The jet streams show it is possible that the Japanese nuclear meltdowns could deliver nuclear fallout to California, Oregon, Washington and other states. At the end of the day, governments and bureaucrats do not care about your personal safety. They will lie, deceive, cover-up and exacerbate problems if they find it politically expedient. No one cares as much about your health and well-being as you do. Therefore, you must take whatever precautions and actions you deem necessary and prudent.
CONCLUSION
So why did I sell my nuke pills? Sure, the 1500% gain was nice. But the real reason was because I wanted to make sure that particular good went to its highest and best use at this particular moment in time. How else would I know what that use was without a price signal? In my opinion the probability of someone in California or Oregon needing the nuke pills within a month for a life saving purpose is extremely low; less than 1%.
Thus, I derive more value with the FRN$s than the counter-party to the trade. Plus, if needed I will just get on a plane and head down to La Estancia de Cafayate, which has a very favorable geographic location for nuclear fallout concerns, for their two events this month. I sure hope the counter-party to my nuke pill trade derives sufficient value from being prepared and I hope even more they never have to actually use the potassium iodide.
But even if they never do use them I bet having them in the hand relieves a lot of anxiety that comes from being unprepared! And if you are ever in a situation where there is a shortage of something know who to blame: governments.
By Russ Nelson, on March 18th, 2010
I’ve written about deflation twice before: Deflation and Deflation 2. Third time’s the charm?
The common wisdom is that deflation of the currency is bad. When money deflates, it becomes more valuable, even when you do nothing. So the theory is that people won’t spend their money, because it will become ever-more valuable.
That theory cannot be true.
Look at the PC market over the last 30 years. In each one of those years, the PC became more reliable, faster, came with more memory and storage. The original MDA display was one color and text only. The CGA had 16 colors and 640×200 bits. The price — of the computer you really want to have — has stayed constant, at about $5000.
If the story told about deflation was true, then you would always be better off delaying your purchase of a PC by 6 months. You could be confident that the PC you would buy would be a more valuable PC.
Except … that people did that very rarely, if ever. The standard advice was always “don’t wait to buy a computer, because there will always be a better computer on the horizon.”
So, in a situation where people can predict a constant stream of increase in value, people STILL made the trade. Thus, I think it’s safe to predict that in a similar situation, where people could predict a constant increase in the value of their money, they would spend their money as needed.
By G.L.C., on March 11th, 2009
Minimum wage laws are against the law of supply and demand. Wages are based on the supply of and demand for labor. If the supply is low, wages will be higher and if the supply is high, the wages will be lower. If the demand is high, the wages will be high and if the demand is low, the wages will be lower. The market price of an individual labor’s wage is determined by the supply of and demand for particular skills of that labor. Employers pay the lowest price for the specific skills and labor attempts to find the employer paying the highest.
If the consumer does not value a product in the market, the prices of all factors involved in the production of that product including labor will fall and vice-versa. Real wages will also rise if the workers become more productive.
If the government through legislation raises the wages, the demand for labor will fall and some labor will not have any employment. It is more likely that the less experienced and young workers will be the ones at the receiving end. Minimum wage legislation prices the least employable out of the market and makes them unemployable. If an employer feels that a worker is not likely to produce at least the value of the wage paid to him.
Increase in minimum wages pushes up the cost of individual businesses. Most businesses will pass on the increased in the wages to the end consumer.
Minimum wage legislation will inevitably create unemployment. The ones who are most affected are those at the bottom of the economic pyramid. Labor valued by employers at less than the mandated minimum are likely to be unemployed. It increases unemployment amongst the young and unskilled.
The most obvious beneficiary of minimum wages legislation are unions and their members. The median weekly wage for union members is higher than for nonunion workers. How successful an union is depends on its ability to maintain high wages and job security for its members or else it will loose its members. To obtain higher wages, it becomes necessary to exclude some labor from the market. Only a small percentage of the population will be benefited by increase in the minimum wages. This benefit comes at the expense of the least experienced, least productive, and poorest workers.
Supporters of minimum wage legislations claim that without minimum wages employers would drive down the wages to extremely low levels which would make it very difficult for the workers. This is just not true. Many businesses pay higher wages than mandated by law.
Increasing the minimum wages will not result in an increase in the real wages. Although minimum wages have been fixed over the last few years, the average pay in the United States had been increasing steadily. This is not due the efforts of the policy makers in Washington DC. Any attempts to increase the minimum wages would have a negative impact on the economy. It will affect the capacity of the economy to generate prosperity for the less skilled.
Instead of trying to influence minimum wages through legislation, the government could do very well to ensure a booming economy in which lots of businesses are opening and expanding thereby increasing the demand for labor which in turn increases the wages.
By Dan McLaughlin, on January 16th, 2009
Some people would rather rub a raw onion in their eye then try to understand economics. That is unfortunate because the basics of economics are not that hard to understand. The fact is that you and I and everyone else use economics every day of our lives. It is liberating to understand why economic things happen, in the same way that it is liberating to know why a car takes longer to stop on ice or gravel. The essence of politics is the use of economic law to manipulate the behavior of citizens to the will of the politicians. Political motivations become more understandable in that light, though no more moral or justified.
Economics is merely an attempt at understanding the basic laws that work in our lives. It seeks to define and simplify our knowledge of the forces that affect us so we can make appropriate decisions. We similarly use the physical principles of gravity, momentum and force every day of our lives. In both economics and physical sciences, there are relatively few laws, which can be applied in understanding very complex systems. Unfortunately, many modern economists actually add confusion and complexity by repudiating simple economic laws, substituting complex macro-economic theories, mathematical models and personal policy preferences.
With that said, the basic laws of economics are truly straight forward and powerful, and arise from the way that humans act and make decisions. Because the logic of human choice hasn’t changed, the economic laws that governed ancient societies are the same ones that govern our lives today, as well as all future civilizations of any time. We can relate to historical characters from any place on the globe because they acted like we do. Their wisdom and their follies are reflected in our experiences today. All that has changed over time is the technology we use to satisfy our needs and wants.
One of the key concepts in economics is that incentives matter. Humans take specific actions to achieve specific goals. If the incentives change, it will affect the means and the ends chosen by the actors. Related to this is the idea that choices are made at the margin. The law of diminishing marginal utility implies that the higher the quantity of a good a person has, the lower the marginal utility, or value, the next available unit holds for that person. If you are dying of thirst in a desert, you would pay almost any price for the first cup of water. You wouldn’t value the fifth cup nearly as much because your thirst would be quenched. You would value the 1000th cup of water much less because you can’t carry it and it does you little good. It’s marginal utility is very small.
The fact that the current market price for a good is $1 doesn’t mean that everyone is willing to pay a dollar. Some people would have a higher marginal utility and be willing to pay more, while others wouldn’t buy it unless it was cheaper. It only means that, at that price, the number of buyers at the margin, those willing to pay at least $1, are about equal to the number of sellers at the margin, those willing to supply it for $1 or less.
This is typically stated as economic laws of supply and demand. If the price of a specific good is lowered, buyers will be enticed to purchase more. We see this in every day life as retailers so often use discounts and sales to move inventory. If the price is raised, the quantity demanded will be less. On the other side of the coin, suppliers are in business to make profits. It will be difficult to make a profit if prices are too low, and very little will be supplied. As prices increase, it becomes easier to earn money, thus suppliers produce more, and new competitors are drawn to the market. Supply increases with increasing prices.
The incentives for buyers and sellers are at odds, and for every good in a particular market at a point in time, there will be a price where the number of willing buyers about equals the number of willing sellers. Any price above that point will produce an excess of sellers, a glut of goods. Any price below it will produce an excess of buyers, a shortage of goods. That simple relationship is one of the most powerful keys to understanding economic phenomena, whether it is Hurricane Katrina shortages or gluts of labor, more commonly called unemployment. Prices, demand and supply are all mutually dependent and reflect the market environment at a particular time. Imposing an artificial limitation on any of them will have inevitable unintended consequences, often very powerfully.
With this understanding, it is possible to comprehend the bulk of the phenomena occurring in society, and in politics, on a day to day basis. There is a lot more to it, of course. A very important aspect of economic laws and concepts from an overall point of view is that they can help to understand why an economy progresses or regresses over time.
The laws of comparative advantage and division of labor are related and work together in determining the level of productivity and prosperity of an economy. Comparative advantage means that any person, organization or geographic region has specific advantages, whether that is because of natural resources, innate skill, education and any number of other characteristics. If the actors concentrate on those things that they are most productive at and pay other people to do the things they less productive at, everyone will be better off overall. A typical example may be an attorney who may have better secretarial skills than any secretary available. But since attorney’s make a much higher hourly rate than secretaries, the attorney will be better off by doing attorney work than secretarial work. The secretary likewise would probably be better off leaving attorney work to the attorney and concentrating on the areas where relative skills are the highest.
Division of labor is the recognition that everybody has only 24 hours a day. It takes a great deal of time and effort and the right tools to be highly productive in any endeavor. Nobody cannot develop all of the skills and purchase all of the tools needed to be highly productive at all types of activities. People or geographic regions that try to be self sufficient will lead a very poor, difficult life and work very long hours.
A surgeon may be very good with his hands, but will probably hire someone to do his plumbing, carpentry, auto repair and so on. He could probably develop some low level of competence in each of those areas, but in order to do that, he would probably sacrifice very valuable time at which he is most productive. In an advanced society, there is a strong tendency toward specialization because it leads to higher productivity and a higher standard of living.
Because people who specialize are generally more productive, they have more income with which to buy the goods and services of other people. Most people in modern society outsource most of their requirements to other people or businesses. They outsource their food requirements to grocery stores and farmers. They outsource their automobile needs to car manufactures. They outsource their homebuilding needs to experienced carpenters, and so on. By building a high level of competence in one area, you are able to trade with others for the things for which they have built a high level of competence. That is what trade is all about. We outsource our requirements to others who are more highly qualified in those areas, and thus, both sides reap the benefit.
If you define progress in society as that state of affairs where people have to work less hard for less hours in order to provided for themselves and their families, then the higher the level of division of labor and the more people can apply their comparative advantage, the more quickly they will progress to a higher level. The wealth of a society comes from people producing more than they consume. Over time, that wealth can be used for capital investments that enhance the productivity of participants, and thus, further raise their income and standard of living. Societies that restrict trade and inhibit capital accumulation and specialization are those that remain in perennial status of less developed countries.
The laws of economics hold many important lessons on a day to day basis. You can try to disobey them, but it is similar to disobeying the law of gravity. You can step off a tall building and think you won’t fall, but your funeral will be just as sure as if you realized you would fall and die. The most critical lesson that economics can give is that actions have consequences. Good intentions and powerful politicians don’t make a bit of difference. The more we can gauge the true consequences without sentimentality or blinders, the more likely we are to make decisions which avoid the pitfalls and lead us to our goals, as individuals and as a society.
|
|
Most Popular Posts