Gov. 1A-40: Prices: The State And Human Action*

Most people believe price controls protect customers, but that's not entirely true. Rather than safeguarding the economy, price regulation is a direct threat to individual freedom and choice. This essay explores how price regulation impacts personal freedoms and human action. In an effort to protect consumers, the state often imposes price regulations on certain goods. While price controls might seem appealing at first glance, they are, in essence, people controls. By altering pricing they are able to shape the choices of individuals and the future of whole communities. A thorough understanding of the social and economic implications of price regulation allows readers to explore their unintended consequences By examining the their effects on personal freedoms, market efficiency, and economic outcomes, the unfortunate realities of this policy become evident. Despite all appearances, price controls are ultimately people controls. This kind of regulation harms the interests of everyone, and that is why it is so important to understand how and why it does so.

One way to view pricing regulations is through their impact on consumer behavior. When prices are artificially lowered, customers are more likely to purchase goods or services, even if they do not need them or would not have bought them at the market price. These factors ultimately lead to a misallocation of resources and distortions in the housing market. For example, if the state sets a price ceiling on rent, landlords are forced to lower their prices, leading to an increase in demand and a shortage of available housing. Existing tenants will be protected from paying a fair price, but at the cost of harming other families who will then have trouble finding better opportunities for housing. Thus, pricing regulations have countless unintended consequences, changing the incentives for decision making and harming the interests of the very same people they seek to help.

Price regulations can also impact the behavior of businesses and producers. When the state imposes fixed prices, businesses may be less motivated to invest in developing new and innovative designs, or to expand their current product line. This can result in a shortage of appealing options for potential buyers. For instance, if the state sets a price ceiling on rental apartments, property management companies will be less likely to invest in the construction of risky and highly regulated affordable units. Instead they will spend their money more wisely investing elsewhere, thereby limiting the availability of low-income housing. High demand and low competition means owners have few incentives to repair or maintain the building, leading to a decrease in quality options. This harms consumers who are unable to access the goods or services they need. In effect, price regulations can have a chilling effect on business activity and innovation, ultimately narrowing the range of housing options available to consumers.

Another way to view state pricing regulations is through their impact on labor markets. When wages are fixed by the state, employers are less inclined to hire workers, leading to a decrease in employment opportunities. The effect is to 'knock the bottom rungs off the ladder' for low-skilled workers who may have trouble finding jobs. If the state sets a minimum wage that is above the market rate, businesses may have to lay off workers reduce hours, or stop hiring for some position to compensate for the increased costs. The effects may not be immediate, but they will be felt on the margins where it truly matters. Thus, pricing regulations harm the labor market and limit the opportunities available to low-skilled workers.

Price regulations can also have an impact on the quality of goods and services. When prices are fixed by the state, producers have less incentive to care about the quality of their products or services. This leads to a decrease in quality and a reduction in customer satisfaction. For example, if the state sets a price ceiling on airline tickets, people will demand more and seats will be packed. Good experiences come out of fat margins, and at a lower price, customers care less about their experience. High demand and low prices mean airlines have fewer incentives to invest in comfort and amenities on planes. The most profitable airlines will be the ones that can cram the largest number of people in the cheapest planes. Contrary to their aim, pricing regulations harm consumers by reducing the quality of goods and services for everyone.

Finally, State intervention in the market through cost constraints, such as price controls and subsidies, can have detrimental effects on both personal and commercial finances. Imposing price constraints can lead to market distortions, which cause arbitrary shortages and surpluses. The state then responds by subsidizing costs to ensure that providers can continue to operate. However, this spending must be financed by debt, taxes, and inflation, ultimately punishing more productive citizens and industries. Placing an additional burden on businesses increases their operating expenses. If the owners aren't willing to absorb a massive loss costs get passed on to customers in the form of higher prices or reduced services. For customers, this means getting less value, even if they want something better they are not allowed to pay for it. This reduces real purchasing power and harms their financial stability. Furthermore, the ability of everyone to act freely is compromised by state seizure of their finances. While subsidizing price controlled industries may seem like a solution to high prices, it can have severe consequences for both individuals and businesses. Free markets and free choice are the best solution to ensuring fair prices and access to goods and services.

In summary, the effects of state-enforced cost constraints go beyond their intended purpose and have far-reaching effects on the rest of society. By limiting the scope of human action, price controls become people controls. The misallocation of resources, stagnation in innovation, reductions the quality of service, and disincentives for providing controlled goods are just a few unintended consequences of controlling free choice. Each one limits personal and commercial choices, ultimately harming consumers. Good economics consists of perceiving the unseen consequences of regulations, and in considering the alternatives. Free markets insure competition, innovation, and diverse choices for consumers. Price controls may well be implemented with good intentions, but their unintended consequences and insistence on control mean they are harmful to both personal liberty and the interests of those they intend to help. Prices controls may seem to protect customers, but in reality, they threaten individual freedom and choice, harming the interests of all.

Gov. 1A-35: Prices: The Market, or the state?

    Among the numerous clichés of socialism is the notion that the state should control prices. At first glance, the idea of price controls may seem to offer many benefits. However, it is important to grasp the full implications of this policy, even before naive do-gooders make it so. The key force behind human action is profit, whatever we weigh against it is called the price. The market, driven by supply and demand, is the most efficient way to set prices, provide incentives for innovation, and ensuring efficiency. Ironically the 'scientific' planning state is impossibly wasteful in setting prices, it can't react quickly to changes in the economy, and creates artificial shortages and surpluses. It might not work, but price fixing does imply that coercion is useful, or even necessary for increasing the quality of life. Worse yet, the outcomes of price controls are far from desirable, meaning the real question at hand not about price controls, but who should have the power to set prices. Who indeed? The free market or the state? When the facts are examined honestly, it is clear that the market is superior to any 'alternative' method for economic calculation. What follows is the answer to why only the market is fit to set prices.

    To begin, prices are not arbitrary, in simple terms prices are set by the available supply of goods, and the relative demand for those goods. Prices serve as a way to inform the economy about the value of any good relative to other goods, and about alternative uses for those goods, making economic calculation possible. Thus the market allows individuals to make decisions based on their own preferences and the prices they are willing to pay. This creates a market price that is both fair and efficient. By definition, the market is a self-correcting mechanism that ensures prices stay in line with both supply and demand. In contrast, the state struggles with the socialist calculation problem and the economic struggles it imposes on consumers. Since supply and demand are always known, the market can set prices more efficiently for both consumers and producers. Any attempt to alter this arrangement results in a sub-optimal allocation of scarce resources. Alternative distributions might benefit a few parties in the present, but will also compromise the efficiency of the whole in unforeseen ways

    A free market provides the best possible incentives for individuals to innovate and create new products and services. How is this possible? Price systems reward those who are able to offer the best products at the lowest prices. The market also encourages competition, which drives innovation. When companies compete with each other, they are constantly trying to improve their products and services in order to stay ahead of the competition. This leads to continuous improvement and progress in the market where competitors will become more productive and efficient over time. This competition is compromised by state intervention, which arbitrarily advantages some competitors over others. Whatever advantages gained by manipulating prices come at the cost of future innovations.

    The market ensures that resources are used efficiently because individuals make decisions based on the prices they are willing to pay. This means that resources are only used in ways that are considered valuable to the individuals who are using them. This leads to an efficient allocation of resources, as resources are only used in ways that generate the highest value. The market also encourages individuals to conserve resources and to use them efficiently. The dialectics of power are not valid here. In a free market the spending power of any party is backed by their cash flow, which is ultimately determined by consumers. In any case, a higher level of demand signals more resources to be allocated for production, leading to the level of abundance actually desired by everyone.

    Now the antithesis. The state cannot be efficient in price setting (resource allocation) because it lacks the information that is required to set prices efficiently. The state cannot be aware of the needs and desires of everyone. As a result, it is not able to set prices that accurately reflect supply and demand. The state also lacks the incentives to innovate and to use resources efficiently. Despite the best attempts of regulators, bureaucrats are not subject to the same incentives as private actors. More often than not they are wholly irresponsible for their actions, but given authority over huge things they don't understand to act at their own discretion. As explained, the free market avoids these problems by adopting a decentralized system of calculation know as pricing. Private actors are responsible for their actions exactly to the degree that they choose to invest themselves, but with prices they are informed by a picture as broad as their canvas.

    Another problem, Hampered by its bureaucratic structure, the bloated leviathan state is unable to react quickly to changes in the economy. In order to accurately set prices, a centralized system must constantly adjust its calculations of supply and demand. But this is made even more difficult since they have no idea what ought to be calculated in the first place. All this means means that prices will be out of line with supply and demand for long periods of time. Prices are information, and bad information leads to surpluses and shortages which are really good for nobody. Both extremes waste resources and endanger alternative uses of scarce resources. The market on the other hand is able to spontaneously respond to changes in supply and demand, which ensures that prices stay in line with the actual supply and demand.

    Beyond the realm of economics, the best argument for the market is that it increases the personal freedom of the individual in every possible way. First of all, by definition the market self-assures that individuals are free to make their own decisions based on their real preferences, not those of far-flung magistrates. This means that people are free to choose the products and services that they want, and they are free to set the prices that they are willing to pay. That leads to greater economic freedom, more options, more value, and more power to the people than a state could ever provide. The market incentives individuals to act on the opportunities they see to create value for society leading to greater wealth and prosperity for everyone. Entrepreneurship provides a way for people to achieve financial independence, which is a key component of personal liberty. When the state interferes with prices it interferes with the personal liberty of everyone to financially benefit a few. What it fails to realize is that the two are twins, you don't get one without the other. Price fixing is like race fixing, only the race being fixed is someone else's life, and in so doing you harm the futures of everyone in countless ways you couldn't even imagine.

    In the realm of economics there is a central conflict of authority: People vs. Their magistrates. There is a conflict of law: legislation vs supply and demand, either the state is our sovereign or we are a free nation under God. There is a conflict of sanctions: the state vs the market. Which is a better guide to prosperity: Dependence on Bureaucrats, or our own Thrift? Ultimately it comes down to this question: Which side of the dialectic is morally superior? This is a question of covenant. Will we have Spontaneous order, or will be taking orders from the machine god? What choice will you make? Liberty or this tragic cliché?

    In the realm of economics there is a central conflict of authority: People vs. Their magistrates. There is a conflict of law, which is best for the individual: legislation or supply and demand? Finally there is a conflict of sanctions: the state and the market. Which is a better guide to prosperity? Ultimately it all boils down to this: Which side of the dialectic is morally superior? Spontaneous order or ordered chaos? State price controls are not effective and they harm the interests of everyone but a few. The free market, on the other hand, is driven by the real factors of supply and demand. It provides the best incentives for innovation and virtually ensures efficiency. The market allows individuals to make decisions for themselves and act on opportunity. Freedom provides the entrepreneur with unique opportunities for financial independence and personal liberty. In the end, the market is a uniquely moral and practically superior method for setting prices

Western Civ. 1-35: The Times and Fury of Medea

    In ancient Greece, drama was a significant cultural contribution and offered a unique lens into the values and attitudes of the time, as students of history it is important to understand these themes. Greek tragedy and comedy have greatly influenced Western civilization through our literature, sadly only a small number of plays have survived. Euripides was once of these few famous surviving writers. He was known for his criticism of the gods and social norms. His play "Medea" serves as a critique of the mistreatment of foreigners and women in Athens and a powerful commentary on current events. An analysis of this work takes into consideration the writer's writing style, the cultural context in which he lived, and his views on religion, politics, and social norms. Through the examination of works we can obtain a more nuanced understanding of ancient Greek attitudes towards foreigners, women, religion, and learn more about the time period. Armed with this information we will have a better appreciation for the role of drama in shaping our cultural heritage.

    Medea explores the themes of revenge, power, fate, and justice through the character of Medea, a foreign woman who is mistreated and oppressed by her husband, Jason. The play was written in 431 BC just as Athens was engaged in a devastating war with Sparta and its allies. The play's depiction of Medea's rage and terrible revenge against her wrongdoers reflected the anger and frustration of many Greeks in the terrible war they were fighting. As a foreign woman, Medea is an outsider subject to discrimination and mistreatment society, especially in a time when foreigners were considered enemies. This narrative clearly illustrates Euripides liberalism. During the play, Medea decides to take control of her own fate and seek justice for herself. At that time in history rhetoric like this was on the uptake, yet opposed by key conservative figures like Aristophanes in his "Lysistrata". The play wars about the dangers of mistreating, and conveys the importance of treating everyone with dignity and respect. In conclusion, Euripides' "Medea" was a extreme but popular critique of the attitudes towards foreigners, religion, and social norms in ancient Greece.

    Now we know that Greek attitudes towards foreigners and women are central to Euripides' "Medea." The play also portrays Medea as an actor who, despite her circumstances, takes control of her own fate by will by force. This depiction highlights the Greek ideas about foreigners, who were often viewed as a threat to the security of the state. This why Medea is oppressed as an outsider and a foreigner. In parallel with Lysistrata, the play also demonstrates the Greek sentiments towards women with power, suspicion and mistrust. This is expressed through her characterization as a dangerous and violent woman. At the same time Euripides seems to praise her for taking control of her own fate despite the societal sanctions placed on her as a woman and a foreigner. In conclusion, the Greek attitude towards foreigners and women was complex. They were treated with suspicion and mistrust, yet there was an increasing pus to include them in society. These attitudes provide insight into the cultural context of the late fifth century BC and the social and political issues of the time.

Western Lit. 1-35: Just Fairy Tales *

    The relationship between civilization and storytelling is fundamental. The myths of a civilization reveal its customs, ethos, and worldview. Western civilization has been deeply influenced by the myths and stories told by both the Greeks and the Hebrews. Indeed, the entire west has been shaped by the fusion of the Hebrew Bible with the Greco-Roman tradition. The most significant myths of any civilization are the books of origin from which all other works proceed. Both Genesis and Theogony define a cultural image of Creation and the Divine, shaping the way their people viewed the world. To understand the differences between Genesis and Theogony, and to examine their impact on Western civilization, we will explore their differences. Appreciating these works is crucial for comprehending the foundations and composition of our worldview. The essay seeks to understand their influence through a comparative analysis of the two works.

    Theogony is a Greek epic poem attributed to the poet Hesiod, written in the 8th century BC. The poem tells the story of the creation of the world, the genealogy of the gods, and their relationships with each other. The plot is driven by conflict, each device a figurative representation of the patterns in history. The view of the Gods and Titans depicts the forces of civilization arising from, and conflicting with nature. It depicts the cosmic conflicts as fate, will, and hierarchy. The pantheon of gods evolved out of chaos into enlightened, eternal principles. They provided ethical models for mankind, but lacked consistency apart from their attachment to force and hierarchy. Significant ritual and cultural importance was attached to Hesiod throughout history, and Theogony played a shaping role in defining the Greek mythos. An even greater importance was placed on the Torah of the Hebrew people, the book that quite literally defined their civilization.

    Genesis is the first book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament. It tells the story of the creation of the world, the perfection of creation, the role of man with God, and his decent into sin. The Hebrew creation is orderly and precise, the product of a single mind, different from Theogony's chaotic story.The focus of the book is on God's loving relationship with his stewards, and their tragic rejection of him. Unlike Theogony, the Torah provides a comprehensive and coherent ethical framework based on their expectation of a single rational order of things. The Greek view, however, led to its own philosophical revelation. Initially, nature seems chaotic, and phenomena are isolated, almost like distinct personalities. This chaos lends itself to analysis, thought, and hermeneutics for categorizing it, a philosophy. During the 4th and 5th centuries, philosophers like Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes popularized the idea of one rational principle behind the universe. These two ideas, the Law and the Logos, became inseparable in christian thought. In a real sense, the stories of these ancient people facilitated a unique marriage of ideas which still shapes western thought to this day.

    Theogony and Genesis 1 differ significantly in their literary styles, especially in depictions of the divine and creation. In Theogony, the nature of the Greek gods is fused to create new things in nature. Abstract concepts are stretched, bent, and sewn together to produce the fabric of the pantheon. Theogony depicts the divine as prone to rivalry and deceit, otherwise lacking a consistent ethical doctrine. The Greek culture reflected this state of eternal conflict and rivalry, climaxing with the Peloponnesian war. The female deity Gaia, for example, is seen as the personification of the earth, while the male deity Uranus is seen as the personification of the sky. The two shared relations each day and bore children, including the Titans, who later rebelled against their father. The Titans were eventually defeated by the gods, led by Zeus. ironically, despite his power, Zeus feared the same from his many children. The order which held the gods together was the soverignty of Zeus who appointed their roles and places in heaven. Throughout Greco-Roman history this authoritarian structure would dominate on earth as it did in heaven. Power, tradition, hierarchy, these concepts ruled classical civilization, what it lacked was a set of objective moral laws.

    There are many emergent differences in the two descriptions of creation's origin and nature. In Theogony, the universe and its base elements emerge from chaos, and then are shaped through the actions of progressively more refined deities. The forces of divine motive and action are central to the poem's narrative. Genesis, however, depicts a world created through the word of God, who speaks a perfect order into existence over six days. This emphasis on the power of God's word reflects the belief in the divine sovereignty and the importance of obedience to God's commands in history. To the Hebrews, individual decisions were more important than the actions of mysterious powers. Greek ideas and culture contributed to concepts such as the trinity and the idea of divine intermediaries, such as saints and angels, which were not present in the original Hebrew understanding.

    In contrast to the capacious gods of the Pantheon, Genesis 1 portrays God as perfectly just and loving, he creates and defines nature from its inception. Creation is the product of an omnipotent, but perfectly loving God who creates the world in order to extend his egos over it. The book portrays men and women as complements to each other. Designed to form a completed image of God together, they share one flesh and so they also share the guilt of sin. Contrarily, Theogony portrays women as a curse on men, it is the foolishness of Pandora's feminine chaos which unleashes suffering on the world. The Hebrew Bible follows the creation account in Genesis 1 with a series of covenants and laws designed to establish God's sovereignty through a social code obedience and worship. Unlike the partial and imperfect gods of Theogony, Genesis portrays God as a complete and omniscient creator who governs his creation with purpose and care. Even to this day, the Hebrew social code revolves around the ethos of the Torah, and at the center of it all a holistic view of creation emerges from the garden of Eden. A distinct western ethos emerged from this view of creation, but with the inherited aversion to feminine chaos, which is identified with suffering. The depiction of humans as co-rulers with God reflects the belief in their inherent value and dignity, as well as the importance of human agency and free will. This unique blend cultural and religious heritage has shaped Western civilization and continues to influence it to this day.

    The literary styles of Theogony and Genesis reflect the cultural and religious contexts in which they were written. Theogony is written in a metrical form associated with epic poetry in ancient Greece. The poem is full of vivid descriptions and colorful metaphors, but the focus is on elaborate genealogies and heavenly conflicts. Greek civilization is condensed into a song, elaborate, analytical of nature, structured, hierarchical, and defined by conflict. Genesis 1, on the other hand, is written in simple, straightforward prose, with a focus on the narrative structure of the whole book. The author paints a clear picture with the logical progression of events. The language of Genesis 1 is plain and direct, emphasizing a view of the whole context over the analysis of literary devices. A fusion of these literary styles and themes is evident in medieval works, such as the Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri, a mix of classical epic poetry and Christian imagery. These seminal works continue to influence Western literature to this day.

    Another difference between Theogony and Genesis 1 is the way they depict the nature of human beings. The stories share many notable parallels, but the key differences lie in emphasis. In Greek mythology, Prometheus is seen as a two faced figure who created men in the image of the gods. He is associated with the flame of civilization, which he stole from the gods and gave to humanity. With the new light of civilization also came the feminine chaos and suffering of Pandora, a parallel to the fall. The flaw of man is not in his newfound civility, but his ethical rebellion as expressed in the fall. This story is a tale of the potential for great creativity and wisdom and the dangers of defiance and hubris. But Prometheus also embodies foresight and the arts of civilization. The story of his rebellion inspires the Faustian spirit of the west, and paints an accurate image of what great artists, intellectuals, and thinkers face in our world. The conflict between tradition and innovation, ethical individualism, and hierarchy were all cultural themes which would play into the universal traditions of western Christianity.

    In conclusion, Genesis and Theogony are two of the most influential works of Western civilization, providing a window into the beliefs and values of the ancient Hebrews and Greeks. They are the keystone of their respective literary and cultural traditions, and their significance goes beyond what we think of as mere storytelling. These books of origin hold valuable insights into the way the ancients viewed the world, the divine, and humanity, and they continue to shape our understanding of the West and its cultural heritage. Through a comparative analysis of Genesis and Theogony, we can see the different interpretations of creation, the divine, and humanity that these two cultures held. This understanding is crucial in appreciating the impact these works have had on our own beliefs and values, and the way they continue to shape the foundations of our worldview. By examining the differences between these two seminal works, we gain a deeper appreciation of the role storytelling plays in shaping civilization and its traditions.