Andrew Colclough

Web Design & Dev., Liberty, Economics, Football
 

President plans to punish BP with tax hike as Gulf spill worsens - Times Online

Oil companies face an immediate tax rise of 1 cent per barrel to help to pay for the clean-up in the Gulf of Mexico under proposed legislation rushed out by the White House yesterday.
via timesonline.co.uk

...Which will effect everyone who uses oil for anything.

So who's paying for the mess again?

From my sidebar:

 

"In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause - it is seen. The others unfold in succession - they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference - the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, - at the risk of a small present evil."

 

That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen -Frédéric Bastiat, 1850

 

Filed under  //   BP   economics   oil   seen vs unseen   tax  
Posted May 13, 2010
// 0 Comments
 

U.S. considers some "free" wireless broadband service | Reuters

Yes, I had to add the quotes in the headline, since Reuters' writers apparently don't understand how the price system works. See comments below excerpt.

The FCC provided few details about how it would carry out such a plan and who would qualify, but will make a recommendation under the National Broadband Plan set for release next week. The agency will determine details later.

One way of making broadband more affordable is to "consider use of spectrum for a free or a very low cost wireless broadband service," the FCC said in a statement.

Full Article: reuters.com

Contrary to popular belief - There is a way to make something "free" or "very low cost":

Refuse to pay the cost.

 

Or perhaps pass a law that mandates a "very low price".*

So this leaves us with a few options. Which of the following seems the most just?

a) You evaluate the price of a service vs. the quality of a service, and choose whether that price is worth the trade off.

Or...

b) You are compelled by law to have a cost taken from you, and let a third party, who the cost won't effect, determine the value of the trade off, as well as the quality of service you will receive.

Or..

c) You choose to force someone else** by law, who you don't particularly like for some arbitrary reason, to pay the costs of the service.

 

----- 
*Inevitably, the regulated "free" or "very low" price will cause demand to exceed supply -> leading to a shortage. A shortage, which could easily have been avoided had the price system been free to fluctuate and act as an indicator of the relative supply, demand, and cost of providing and maintaining a broadband WiFi network.
Unless, of course, the FCC rationed the supply of broadband access - as they already allude to doing by mentioning "...who would qualify." Those, "who qualify" likely won't be paying the real cost either. This scenario is option "c", managed by the third party from option "b", by the way.

**Whoever this person is, they are not like you. They could be a different race, sex, or occupation, but just for this example, let's pick a random, high sounding level of yearly income. Higher than what you make, at least...

Filed under  //   broadband   economics   free   mathematics   subsidy   tax   wifi  
Posted March 9, 2010
// 1 Comment
 

taxIncreaseOrNot.rb

Just to clarify:

#!/usr/bin/env ruby -wKU
#taxIncreaseOrNot.rb
question = "Is it a tax increase?"
currentTax = 5
bushTaxCut = -2

newTax = currentTax - bushTaxCut
taxChangeAmmount = newTax - currentTax

if newTax > currentTax
  taxChange = "increase"
  puts question
  puts "You will now pay $#{newTax}, which is a tax #{taxChange} of $#{taxChangeAmmount} from $#{currentTax}. What the tax was in the past is not information nessasary to answer the question."
else
  puts "Nancy is right. $#{newTax} is somehow not greater than $#{currentTax}. However, the laws of logic and mathematics are no longer in effect - so we're all totally screwed."
end

Which returns:

Results

Filed under  //   Nacy Pelosi   logic   math   ruby   tax  
Posted October 22, 2009
// 0 Comments