Quote of the Day - Where the Blame Lies

I had taken a bit of a break from reading philosophy to give my mind a bit of a rest.  I re-read for the umpteenth time, "Beguilement" by Lois McMaster Bujold.  This is one of my favorite books, series actually.

It was something of a different experience reading it after having read of lot of Ayn Rand's philosophy as I could see similar themes, especially in the main characters who, over the course of the series, go against what is expected of them and instead work for what gives them the most fulfilling lives and in the process improve the lives of everyone around them.

At any rate, I am back reading "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand and soon came across another great quote.

Remember that private citizens-whether rich or poor, whether businessmen or workers-have no power to start a war.  That power is the exclusive prerogative of a government.  Which type of government is more likely to plunge a country into war: a government of limited powers, bound by constitutional  restrictions-or an unlimited government, open to the pressure of any group with warlike interests or ideologies, a government able to command armies to march at the whim of a single chief executive?
Yet it is not a limited government that today's peace-lovers are advocating.  [emphasis mine]

 

Corporations receive a lot of blame for the supposed ills of the world (while at the same time not receiving any credit for the good that has come from them) especially for their "influence" on government.  It seems that few people stop to ask themselves how much corporations would lobby and try to manipulate government if government was limited and restricted from interfering in the economy?  As Yaron Brook points out in a number of his talks, before the Department of Justice went after Microsoft, the tech giant spent virtually nothing on political lobbying.  Corporations, like individuals, respond to incentives.  When government interference and regulation make it more profitable for a company to spend their money lobbying than developing innovative new products, is it any wonder that is what they do?

 

Quote of the Day - History Repeats Itself

Today's quote comes from a talk by Ayn Rand, I believe from the 1960's, about the so-called Robber Barons of the 19th century, and how they were actually the greatest benefactors of the United States, contrary to what popular history tells us.  About 5 minutes into the recording, which you can find here, she made a statement that jumped out at me enough to go over it repeatedly to write it down.  The groups she is referring to are the Central Pacific and Union Pacific railroads.

In both cases, the main motive of the men involved in building these railroads, though not the exclusive but the main motive, was to acquire the subsidies, not to build a railroad.  More than that, there was as yet no economic need for a transcontinental railroad.  There was not enough freight to justify private investment, but the government, under propaganda similar to today's and such excuses as the prestige of the country, decided to build a railroad and it did so by means of giving subsidies to private groups.

You could very easily substitute "green energy" for "transcontinental railroad" and the quote would be applicable to current government policy.  How often do we hear "We are falling behind in green energy technology!" or similar slogans when the government touts its subsidies for such projects?

I guess the old saying is true: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Rockefeller Saved the Whales

I was watching the John Stossel program on Fox Business News last night, primarily to see the segment with Yaron Brook.  The overall theme of the program was charity, but towards the end of the segment with Yaron Brook, a somewhat offhand remark was made and then repeated by John Stossel about how John D. Rockefeller saved the whales, something you are likely to never be taught in your Environmentalism class.

So, understandably curious I did a quick search and found a number of articles on the web verifying what was mentioned on the program last night.  Essentially, Rockefeller via his Standard Oil Company reduced the cost of kerosene, from 59 cents per gallon in 1865 to about 7 cents a gallon in 1895, while improving its quality.  Keep in mind this is during the period when he had a virtual monopoly (about 90% control) of oil refining in the United States.  So much for monopolies driving up prices and reducing quality.

How did this save the whales?  In the 19th century, one of the biggest (if not the biggest) driver of whaling was the need for whale oil which was the primary fuel used for lighting in western nations.  In 1856 the price of whale oil reached its peak of $1.77 per gallon, making it vastly too expensive for the average person to use, essentially reducing productive hours to daylight.

It was about this time, a few years earlier in fact, a geologist named Dr. Abraham Gesner developed a method of distilling kerosene from petroleum, which was then considered a nuisance.  His kerosene was cheaper than whale oil and burned longer and could be used in existing lamps.  This improved the quality of life immensely for the average person.

As Rockefeller pushed the price of kerosene down even further, the demand for whale oil disappeared.  In the 1840's the United States alone had more than 700 whalers but by the 1870's that number had drop to less than 40, due in large part to the impact of cheap kerosene.  Oddly, it was fashion that helped enable whaling to limp along for a few more decades as the demand for whale bone for corsets and the like allowed whaling to continue to be somewhat profitable.  This finally ended when spring steel replaced whale bone for these uses.  The last US whaler set sail in 1924 and promptly ran aground.

The source of the bulk of the information for this post came from an article in the Freeman titled "How Capitalism Saved the Whales."  It is definitely worth reading as it covers a lot more than I did here.

One quote in particular jumped out at me and I think is something people need to consider when they discuss the role of government intervention in business:

If the government fosters an atmosphere in which innovation and profit making potential are subject to whims of bureaucrats, lawyers and politicians, and not based in the abilities of creative people to find innovative solutions to public needs, innovators will not set their minds to the task, and no state whip can force them to do so.

One other interesting note towards the end of the article was the fact that many lakes in Pennsylvania were restored as oil drilling removed naturally occurring petroleum leaks that were polluting them.  Makes me wonder if we'll see something similar with hydraulic fracturing?

You can find another article about this topic here.
Regards