Glibertarians.com 2017 Archive

Category: Markets

  • A Comparison of Cabotage Maritime Regulations Worldwide – Part 2 (of 3)

    Continuing to elaborate upon my previous themes on Maritime Regulation/Deregulation. (here, here and here).

    Part 1

    Canada (aka America’s Hat)
    As the title so aptly states, “Short Sea Shipping: A Canadian Perspective” by Brooks and Frost (2004) approaches the topic of short sea shipping from a Canadian perspective – but gives due consideration to the association with the United States – particularly in connection with NAFTA. In that, Brooks and Frost provide a valuable summary of existing regulations – as of 2004 – in the US, Canada, and Europe while examining what legislative functions would need to be modified in order to broaden acceptance of short sea shipping as a viable transportation method. Significantly, one highlight of existing policies in North America is that NAFTA as a general agreement, made no dispensations for existing cabotage regimes either with respect to the Jones Act in the US or additional, similar regulations in Canada or Mexico – although the latter two countries did sign an additional bilateral treaty to address the issue. Tellingly, given the geographic and port situations between the two countries, it has had far less tangible effect than a liberalization of policies by the US would have produced across the board (Brooks, 399). The basic domestic cabotage policy requirements for Canadian shippers are also similar to those imposed by the Jones Act with respect to flagging, construction, and crewing requirements – and the potential tax liabilities for failing to meet those requirements. In some cases, however, the regulations appear somewhat more piecemeal – and potentially contradictory – than the all-encompassing Jones Act (and accompanying legislation) in the US. For instance, Canadian safety standards for new vessels are reportedly more onerous and expensive to meet than the internationally accepted IMO standards – while at the same time, a number of existing Canadian flagged ropax vessels would not meet the IMO standards if they were formally accepted as a baseline by the Canadian government (Brooks, 399). While Brooks and Frost appear to be in favor of expanding short sea shipping as an alternative to trucking – particularly in the congested I-5 and I-95 corridors – much the same as Perakis and Denisis – they are cognizant that there is no financial incentive (big surprise) to shippers utilizing current technologies – under the current regulatory regime. In order to develop a competitive alternative, particularly focusing on international traffic between Canada and the US – a market with growth potential on the East and West Coasts – both the US and Canada would need to amend their regulatory structure in order to remove port and cabotage restrictions (Brooks, 401). It bears mentioning additionally, that while the EU historically has a more robust short sea shipping sector – even following loosening of EU regulations – the service still fails to meet the just in time requirements for many shippers who continue to prefer rail or truck services for efficiency – even in light of carbon taxes or greater fuel expenditures (Brooks, 398).

     

    The EU
    Similar in tone and content to Perakis and Denisis (2008), Medda and Trujillo (2010) provide another set of good arguments in favor of short sea shipping – while in turn referencing the current policies in place across the globe – but are forced to acknowledge that a number of the current structural and economic disadvantages are still unable to be overlooked without new incentives.
    While on the surface the advantages still appear to outweigh the weaknesses, particularly when it comes to public perception and environmental considerations, the fact that these issues do not necessarily have any impact on concerns espoused by shippers has severely hampered the implementation of short sea shipping in regions where it does not have a historically strong foothold. Medda and Trujillo are also careful to point out that governments to date have neither provided sufficient incentives for shippers utilizing short sea shipping or disincentives for road and rail transportation. Additionally, they are careful to note that in the EU at least, decreasing some road traffic would result in significantly decreased tax revenues for localities relying on said funds for structural maintenance and general welfare – a decidedly negative and potentially unforeseen consequence of implementing more short sea shipping (Medda, 293).

    Noting the importance of efficient shipping technologies within the more limited scope of short sea shipping, the authors also recommend directing more attention towards Roll-On/Roll-Off (RO-RO) and Float-On/Float-Off (FLO-FLO) cargoes as the sort that shippers would see the most efficiencies from backing – in these early stages – in spite of the larger initial capital expenditures (Medda, 296). Similarly, many smaller ports still require significant infrastructure improvements in order to meet shippers requirements for speedy cargo handling – container or otherwise – to justify the increased focus on short sea shipping as a time-efficient alternative to road or rail transport (Medda, 297).

    Paixao and Marlow (2001) provide a detailed chronological summary of EU (and prior to that, the EEC) shipping policies – addressing the various organizations and policy directives that were promoted as the Union expanded and developed. A significant amount of detail is utilized in reviewing the distinctions between mainland Europe and the outlying, more insular regions – and the need to tailor policy accordingly. In a familiar refrain, the adoption of a cabotage system or short sea shipping policy by the EU was reactive rather than proactive in response to the first expansion which added several non-continental members (Paixao, 188). Furthermore, it wasn’t until after several Northern European nations had already established free shipping agreements between themselves that the EU even began to review an official uniform trade policy on cabotage (Paixao, 192). Similarly, the short sea shipping concepts that function efficiently in some regions don’t work as well compared with trucking or rail transport in other regions.

     

    Australia and New Zealand
    The timing of Everett and Robinson’s (1998) research is set in a period in the mid to late 90s during which the Australian government was examining options on modernizing or updating its policies and does not reflect a true change in status or legislation. Additionally, the focus is more on the nationalized state of the largest domestically flagged lines – the Australian National Line (ANL) – and their inefficiency – more than any specific examination of cabotage. Everett and Robinson provide a general history of the Australian National Line and its relationship with the national government, and as a general rule, the observed inefficiencies fall along lines similar to associated protected industries in other nations (Everett, 270).

    Operating from a protected position domestically, the ANL historically posted losses in spite of traditional trade barriers via cabotage policies and favorable government treatment and subsidies. At the time this article was written, several policies had been passed to increase competitiveness by shrinking mandatory crewing requirements, but there were no definitive adjustments to the established cabotage restrictions on the domestic coasting trade (Everett, 283). To date, there have been no loosening of restrictions in this market, although following the recommendations made through the Harper Competition Policy Review, there is a better likelihood of a shift towards more flexibility in response to the markets in an effort to increase market competition and greater benefits to the domestic community (Thompson).

    Cavana’s (2004) study of New Zealand contrasts significantly with other countries reviewed for this paper. (Refreshing!) New Zealand’s existing cabotage laws were formally removed in 1995 – although international ships transporting cargo between domestic ports must still have delivered imports or picked up exports (Cavana, 182). After almost a decade of unrestricted trade, Cavana was commissioned by the government of New Zealand to determine whether there was any inherent benefit to reintroducing a cabotage program in whole or part. This paper was the end result of analytical discussions reviewing 83 stakeholder submissions to the Shipping Industry Review team assisting in determining how best to increase participation in the New Zealand shipping industry (Cavana, 179).

    As a smaller, more isolated country largely dependent on imports while primarily exporting commodities, New Zealand is in a different position than the US and Canada – although the cabotage policy shifts reflect only a portion of a larger effort to become more of an “open economy” (Cavana, 182). By the time of this paper in 2004, market estimates indicated that international shippers had captured approximately 10-15% of the domestic coastwise shipping market, but even those estimates are difficult to quantify due to the fact that a portion of the resulting increase in traffic also appears to come from international shippers transshipping internationally bound containers between domestic ports for convenience. In this article the practice is referred to as “hubbing” – where one ship will drop off containers at a central port for another ship owned by the same company to pick up – or use feeder services to move to another port for pickup. Container traffic rose approximately 5% per annum between 1995 and the publication of this article in 2004. Accordingly, some of the smaller domestic shippers saw additional traffic as they are received more business participating in the movement of tranship containers between domestic ports (Cavana, 185-186).

    Although the sample sizes are small, initial numbers during the period encompassed by this paper indicate that domestic shipper container shipping costs dropped by as much as 50% and at least one domestic shipper saw a 100% increase in volume. The shipping cost decreases vary greatly depending on the routes, however – due to the fact that most international shipping traffic utilizes a north to south route along the coast. Similarly, in a limited case scenario provided, farmers in one region see a much better return on grain sales due to the cheaper shipping options offered. The low transportation rates offered by coastwise shipping (domestic and international) force railroad and trucking services to maintain low prices to stay competitive (Cavana, 187)
    Consequently, at the time of publication, Cavana recommended against reintroducing cabotage but suggested leaving it open as a future option subject to economic climate shifts. Over a decade after this assessment, cabotage has not yet been reintroduced by the government of New Zealand (NZIER, 45) .

    Some links don’t work based on library links – article information provided in case anyone else wants to look them up later:

    Brooks, Mary R. & James D. Frost. “Short Sea Shipping: A Canadian Perspective.” Maritime Policy and Management. Vol 31: No. 4, (2004): 393-407. Web. 11 Jun. 2016.

    Medda, Francesca and Lourdes Trujillo. “Short-Sea Shipping: An Analysis of Its Determinants.” Maritime Policy and Management. Vol. 37: No. 3, (2010): 285-303. Web. 31 July.

    Paixao, A.C. & P.B. Marlow. “A Review of the European Union Shipping Policy.” Maritime Policy and Management. Vol 28: No. 2, (2001): 187-198. Web. 11 Jun. 2016.

    Everett, Sophia and Ross Robinson. “Making the Australian Flag Fleet Efficient: Dysfunctional Policy Processes and the ‘Play of Power’.” Maritime Policy and Management. Vol 25: No. 3, (1998): 269-286. Web. 12 Jun. 2016.

    Cavana, Robert. “A Qualitative Analysis of Reintroducing Cabotage onto New Zealand’s Coasts.” Maritime Policy and Management. Vol 31: No. 3, (2004): 179-198. Web. 11 Jun. 2016.

  • A Comparison of Cabotage Maritime Regulations Worldwide – Part 1 (of 3)

    Continuing to elaborate upon my previous themes on Maritime Regulation/Deregulation. (here, here and here).

    <The paper these articles were drafted from was original written Spring 2016 – it has not been updated for any modifications or new developments taking place since then.>

    The practice of cabotage – defined by Merriam Webster as “trade or transport in coastal waters or airspace or between two points within a country” has been a key legal aspect of trade for centuries around the world. In the strictly maritime realm, this practice is often referenced using the term “short sea shipping” to refer to coastwise traffic and inland waterways, while “cabotage” is being utilized more frequently in reference to the associated regulatory policies.

    Although there has historically been a potential for international conflict arising from government-imposed restrictions, the last century is notable for both the imposition and review of unwise or shortsighted economic policies that are arguably responsible for net economic losses in a country’s domestic population in spite of documented evidence.

    The United States and the Jones Act (quick recap on themes referenced in previous articles)

    “I used to be a maritime shipper like you…”

    Recognized worldwide simply by name, the Jones Act – formally The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 – has become synonymous some of the most with severe restrictions on trade emanating from a government-mandated cabotage policy. From a strictly legal background, Yost (2013) (excellent paper – HIGHLY recommended for anyone looking for more legal discussion) begins with a detailed review of the Jones Act – and examines the degree that legal decisions have deviated from the original stated intent of the legislation (big surprise?) in the aim of maintaining apparently protectionist stances that have generally been harmful to the overall economy. As a matter of perspective, the author is careful to note that the Jones Act by itself is not a formal tariff (technically-speaking – “the best kind of ‘speaking’”), but functions in a similar fashion as a barrier to entry, limiting competition and protecting the existing participants. (Yost, 62) The higher capital costs lead to higher costs for the customers across the board. While noting that Jones Act compliant shippers are not receiving formal federal subsidies in the way that Amtrak does (specific to the Jones Act alone, not considering additional federal retainer payments), Yost recognizes that the barriers to entry are so steep that the handful of companies providing shipping services to Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are essentially operating as government-sponsored monopolies protected from competition. (Yost, 66) In an interesting comparison, the author demonstrates that the current protectionist aspects and legal restrictions are not dissimilar from that of the PRC or Japan and serve no positive purpose towards stimulating domestic economic growth, and in turn advocates transitioning towards a middle-ground policy between Australia’s licensed shipping cabotage policies and the trucking cabotage policies of the EU (Yost, 76).

    Approaching the issues raised by the Jones Act with respect to their economic consequences, Lewis (2013) (referenced in previous articles – highly recommended again) relates a number of studies on various aspects of the Jones Act and related legislation. Through his own calculations, he determines that the net domestic gain through repeal would be between $578 million and $685 million annually. While there would be a significant loss of domestic mariner jobs initially, many of those would be replaced by a steep intake of port services jobs around the country. A clear distinction is recognized between the inland waterways shipping industry – in which a healthy domestic competition has developed, and the vastly more capital-intensive coastal and overseas routes, including Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico in which a very small number of companies have developed near-monopolies due to the restrictions imposed by the Jones Act and associated legislation (Lewis, 83). Lewis is also quick to note that while the trucking and railroad industries both faced heavy regulations earlier in the 20th century, the loosened restrictions in the last several decades vastly increased market participation while simultaneously driving down costs to shippers and consumers and there is no reason to doubt a similar outcome from addressing the maritime regulatory environment (Lewis, 92).

    <Although here again, we’ve recently seen how “re-regulating” the trucking industry is potentially going to lead to a loss of all those gains.>

    Finally, Lewis, like Yost, points to the EU’s maritime deregulations regarding coastal commerce as an example to be considered in adjusting long-term policies – keeping in mind the government’s push to incentivize and increase short sea shipping as a counterpoint to increased road and rail traffic (Lewis, 101).

    Perakis and Denisis (2008) provide a compelling summary of the benefits of short sea shipping as an alternative to road and rail transportation in the United States. The primary concern of the authors here is to present it as both economically and environmentally efficient – with a focus on the intermodal aspects of such transportation – shifting the containers arriving from overseas from the central coastal ports to more local shipping facilities. There are two types of short sea shipping considered – one involving direct loading of containers (TEU (20 Foot Equivalent Units) or FEU (40 Foot Equivalent Units)) onto barges or similar vessels to be transported for further distribution, and the other involving direct roll-on/roll-off movement of 53ft semi-trailers (Perakis, 593). In both cases, the end state is intended to significantly decrease traffic congestion both in the vicinities of the ports, but also on the feeder interstates associated with the ports. Further assumed benefits include decreased air and noise pollution, decreased expenses associated with infrastructure repair in addition to fuel cost savings in moving tonnage further by shipping than trucking or trains (Perakis, 605).

    On the whole, this analysis appears to be largely predicated from the public policy perspective. The majority of the arguments appear to be focused on decreasing activities that affect public spending outlays negatively or that represent potential public backlash for local or state governments. The actual economic functions as they apply to individual companies potentially more concerned with costs or scheduling are largely relegated to shorter discussions at the end of the paper. Indeed, there is no mention of the Jones Act – much less any other current legislative barriers – aside from its inclusion in a listing of potential obstacles hindering short sea shipping (Perakis, 608). To their credit, the authors do recognize in their conclusion that “SSS needs customized solutions for every emerging transportation market in congested trade corridors. A ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is unlikely to be effective.” (Perakis, 612).

    Some links don’t work based on library links – base article information provided in case anyone else wants to look them up later:

    Perakis, Anastassios N. & Athanasios Denisis. ” A Survey of Short Sea Shipping and Its Prospects in the USA.” Maritime Policy and Management. Vol 35: No. 6, (2008): 591- 614. Web. 23 Jul. 2016.

  • You Can’t Put a Price on Good Pussy

     

    I’m an immigrant to the United States, originally from the tiny Scandinavian kingdom of Denmark. I moved here as an adult, not to better my financial situation, but to marry my American girlfriend and improve my emotional life. It was hard to leave a secure job with good pay; it was a risk of the unknown, but I thought well worth the love of a good woman. After settling in, I managed to find a job in the same field, with an almost identical income. Financially my life should be the same, except it quickly became apparent that I have more disposable income here. A lot more.

    It can be difficult to understand the impact that such an increase in disposable income can have on a person’s life, without a tangible example. Americans shrug it off because they take it for granted. They can’t understand what it’s like living paycheck to paycheck or saving up for something trivial on an otherwise decent income. My Danish friends and family can’t understand the difference either. They think what I’m about to tell you shows how irresponsible or foolish I am with money, because spending money in this way is simply not possible without upsetting your financial life for months or years.

    Literal disposable income

    You get the idea: disposable income is nice, it allows you to be more carefree and buy nice things. But it’s also about more than being able to afford luxuries, and it can mean the difference between life and death for those you love. The main take away from the events you’ll read about here is this: had they played out in my native Denmark, I wouldn’t have been able to afford the medical care that saved my friend’s life. I probably wouldn’t even have been able to find anyone to provide the care because there is no market for something people cannot afford. He would have been killed humanely at my expense instead.

    My friend’s name is “BJ.” Scratch that, BJ is more than a friend, he’s family. He also happens to be a cat. We didn’t really plan on getting another pet, but he was irresistibly cute – a real scrapper. He was a skinny little thing and had a lot of scars and scabs, but he was exceptionally outgoing and had very high spirits. His personality is likely why he evaded being killed at least twice while passing through high kill shelters in the first 6 months of his young life. He miraculously found himself in a no-kill shelter near us, and we found him in a pet store that features locally adoptable cats.

    BJ had a clean bill of health from the shelter, and we decided to give him a chance. Having lost another cat recently, we decided to protect ourselves from heart-ache by offering to foster him, with the option of later adopting him. Yeah right. We decided to keep him within a couple of weeks. He quickly gained a bit of weight, his scabs healed, and his fur filled in. He got along with our 3 other rescue cats and was living a good life in his new home. He worked his way into our hearts, became part of the family, and we became inseparable.

    Cats are prone to upper respiratory infections; they result from a herpes-like virus that is in virtually all cats. Like cold sores in humans, it lays dormant most of the time, but when it flares up the symptoms are a runny nose, sneezing, and maybe a fever. All our cats would suffer from this occasionally, but BJ caught it really bad after having lived in our home for a couple of years. His symptoms were much worse and he didn’t really seem to spring back from it as easily as our other cats. One day last year after a bout of this, he started to drool a lot and bleed out of his mouth. We panicked and took him to a vet immediately

    It turned out he had several bad teeth, and one had to be removed. He was also presenting with enough other strange symptoms that the vet decided to do a few routine tests. BJ tested positive for FIV, the feline equivalent of HIV, and on top of that he was severely anemic. Because of the anemia it was uncertain if he also had the FeLV virus, which causes leukemia in cats. Shelters test for these viruses, but a cat can test negative for months after infection, so there are no guarantees.

    So cute!

    We were devastated. He was quickly getting worse, and we took him to an emergency animal hospital an hour away with an internist on staff. Honestly, it was uncertain if he was going to make it. BJ stayed in the hospital for several days, where he had two blood transfusions, a bone marrow biopsy, and a bunch of other tests and treatment. He was very sick, but through the whole thing he was friendly and alert, and you could tell the staff was rooting for him and giving him extra attention because of his personality. Being cute is a real survival skill for this little guy.

    Thankfully he didn’t have FeLV, instead the anemia was caused by something called a “mycoplasma.” This bug had a field day because his immune system was compromised by the FIV virus. It can be easily cured, but was damaging his bone marrow and keeping him from producing and sustaining viable blood cells. He was getting a cocktail of antibiotics to kill the mycoplasma, and steroids/immune-suppressing drugs to give his bone marrow a chance to heal and produce new blood cells and to slow down the FIV. To complicate matters, the steroid made him diabetic, a risk we accepted, and he needs insulin injections twice daily. For months we were taking it one day at a time. BJ will always be sick, but thanks to our ability to provide this care for him, he can feel happy and healthy. He pays us back every day.

    It wasn’t cheap–it cost us thousands of dollars, and he still needs medications and frequent trips to the vet. But it was our choice. If BJ lived with me in Denmark, that choice – and consequently his life – would have been extremely limited by how others think my income should be spent. BJ would have died to pay for an artist’s paint, a politician’s plane ticket, and the Queen’s morning cup of organic fair-trade coffee.

    Tophat-tip to Animal for the title.

  • An Immigration Story

    The following is in no way the views of Glibs in General, but more a view from Glibville, IMO.

    I met an Armenian customer today, inspecting his flooded furnace, and being a businessman himself, we got to talking. He explained that his very nice neighborhood was once run down, but the Armenians came in and fixed the place up, improved property values and generally made a nice place to live and have their kids grow up; not bad. We compared prices for similar homes, mine $295k. The equivalent house in his neighborhood? $760k. (Disclaimer: I live in the sticks, 46 miles East of Glendale.)

    We did speak briefly of the Armenian Genocide at the hands of the the Turks (who still won’t cop to it, after over 100 years? and Germany?, Fuck the Turks). SoCal has a large Armenian Diaspora. Weather, maybe?

    I told him stories of Chinese people who HAD to win, at any cost, and I just jack up the initial price, knowing I will win my price and they “save” face, which is important to them.

    When I was growing up, I remember the whole “Jews are shysters and con artists”, banker thing. Try ANY culture from the Middle East, they’re all Jews when it comes to haggling. Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians, it doesn’t matter, everything is “Too much, Lower price”. (I don’t adhere to the Jew Concept, it’s a Middle Eastern thing.)

    So many of the immigrants I meet are so proud to be here and be able to haggle in peace, it’s no wonder they want to be here. I often wish they would “fix” their own homeland but I get that it can be hard, if not impossible to do, that’s why they left. Think about that for a moment, you have to leave the place where you were born, your culture, lifestyle, all of it, due to fear of a lack of freedom. I say FUCK YEAH!

    I actually love these interactions, I learn a lot about other cultures, but the one thing I have learned in 30 years of Customer service is everyone is different, don’t assume anything. Cultures are different, but the melting pot still exists, is very powerful, and immigrants are very valuable to our country. And some I assume are good people. We at least need to remind people that neo nazis, antifa and all the others aren’t who we are. Hell, I can’t see ’em in my world, and I cover most of SoCal.

    Most People living in the U.S. are too busy working to pay much attention, IMO, and the antifa/nazi thing is just so much hot air. If I am wrong, well, at least we are all armed. (You are armed, correct?)

    Notice the use of the word immigrant. I refer to legal immigrants. I know too many illegals and they are a strain on our system, like dead voters, democrats, feral Dogs and STEVE SMITH.

    P.S. I’m told that you Canucks are but redheaded stepchildren to us in the U.S. of A.

    At least the Canadians get Caps!
    /Canada!
    Rush!
    Celine Dion!
    Kids in the Hall!
    /Feel better?

     

  • Coffee & Prohibition

    “Please sir, may I have some more?”

    I love coffee. I’m drinking a hot cup while I pen this article. Roasting and grinding coffees from around the world is my hobby. Experimenting with different brewing methods in search of the perfect cup of Joe is my holy grail. I even researched planting my own coffee trees here in Orlando so that I could experience the whole process from soil to cup. A hero of mine, Heriberto Lopez, had the same idea in 1985. Mr. Lopez, who owned a coffee plantation in Venezuela, came to the United States so his son could receive treatment for a rare heart condition. He gambled some of his family fortune on growing coffee in south Florida, so that he could work in the U.S. while his son got the treatment he needed. The experts said it would never work. Heinz Wutsher, a researcher with the U.S. Department of Agriculture laboratory in Orlando said, ”I think the whole thing is a crackpot idea.” Well you know what? They were right. It failed. Coffee grows best in the bean belt, 25 degrees north, 30 degrees south latitude. Florida is technically in the belt, but has a deficiency of mountains on which to plant coffee. Mr. Lopez and I had our caffeine fueled dreams thwarted by geography and economics, but I still enjoy learning about coffee. Reading “Uncommon Grounds” by Mark Pendergrast, I was horrified to learn that coffee had been prohibited in various countries at different times. Why ban a harmless drink? Who could be so cruel? Don’t they know coffee is the elixir of Life? Well my friends, let us dive into when, where and why coffee was banned in history.

    1511, Kha’ir Beg, the governor of Mecca, was cruising past a Mosque and saw some dudes getting their caffeine on so they could do some endurance praying–much like some of you would do with Mountain Dew and an all night Dungeons and Dragons session. Beg got bent out of shape for some reason, so he banned coffee under the power given to him by the Koran prohibiting wine. I know you are thinking, “How in the hell is coffee, a stimulant, anything like wine, a depressant?” I’m sure the Saudis were thinking the same thing. So Kha’ir goes to some local Persian doctors, the Hakimani brothers, and buys some expert testimony. The Hakimani boys claimed that coffee was harmful and had no legitimate medical use–a conflict of interest since coffee was used as a natural, inexpensive cure for depression as opposed to whatever expensive pharmaceuticals they were selling. Finally, the Sultan of Cairo stepped in because people were getting cranky without their morning coffee, and declared governor Beg had exceeded his authority to ban coffee and the people rejoiced. Happily, Kha’ir was caught embezzling money and was executed. I guess he skipped the part in the Koran about stealing.

    Continuing in the 16th century, the next group anxious to wield the banhammer are the Italians. Christian Europe had been brawling with the Muslim Ottomans since 1591 and were a little salty. The Pope’s advisors wanted to ban coffee as the “bitter invention of Satan” because the drink was popular with the Turks. Ironic, considering coffee was banned in Mecca less than one hundred years before. Pope Clement the VIII requested a cup so that he may see what all this devilry was about and declared, “This Satan’s drink is so delicious that it would be a pity to let the infidels have exclusive use of it.” The Pope also believed that coffee was less harmful than alcohol and thus blessed the bean. Thanks to the Coffee Pope, modern Italians are free to sip espressos while riding vespas saying, “Ciao.”

    The 17th century saw a new Muslim anti-coffee zealot, this time in Constantinople. In 1623, Murad IV claimed the throne of the Ottoman empire, famous for making little couches you put your feet on. So Murad quattro was a new king and usually you become king by screwing people over and crushing dissent. Coffee has been blamed/credited with fueling rabble rousers, as the king was aware. In fact, one of the HQs for planning the American Revolution took place in the “Green Dragon,” a coffee house in Boston. Americans switched to coffee from tea because screw England, and the founding fathers would drink caffeine and write kick-ass constitutions. Back to Constantinople, Murad knew coffee angers-up the blood and fuels revolutions so he banned coffee. Turns out, people really love coffee and kept drinking it despite the first offense: catching a beating. Second timers got sewn into a bag and thrown into the Bosphorus. Even with these severe punishments, Murad still had no trouble going undercover with his big ass sword, surprise beheading people he caught drinking Java. The ban ended when Murad decided to have a one man drinking contest and died of alcohol at the ripe old age of 28. Maybe he should have had coffee instead.

    Coffee-making paraphernalia in Coffee World museum near Cairns.

    Moving into the next century, 1746 Sweden not only banned coffee, but coffee paraphernalia because people were abusing coffee. I don’t know how you abuse coffee other than by leaving a pot of coffee on a burner until it turns to tar. Gustav the third, king of Sweden, ordered a pseudoscience twin study to prove the harmful effects of coffee. One twin drank tea, the other coffee. They didn’t wait around to get the results because the twins lived into their 80’s. So the Swedes sent goons around anyways, kicking in doors and smashing coffee pots and confiscating coffee beans for evidence (totally not for them to consume or resell). Shockingly, people continued to consume coffee in spite of the ban. Eventually the Swedish government decided enforcement was unmanageable and repealed the bans in the 1820’s. Today Sweden has one of the highest per capita coffee consumption rates in the world.

    Another jerk from the 18th century is Frederick “the Great” of Prussia. In 1777, Fred was concerned that coffee consumption was cutting into the beer profits. Beer was a local product so profits stayed in Prussia. Coffee, being an import good, caused money to flow out of the country. So he proclaimed coffee banned and told the proles to go back to drinking beer for breakfast. In true Top Man fashion, nobles were allowed to continue to drink coffee. Fred liked to drink his coffee made with champagne instead of water, in true baller fashion. Rappers take note, that is how you stupidly waste money. Drinking a hot champagny cuppa in front of the people you are telling don’t drink coffee doesn’t inspire people to respect the ban. I thought ordering a bunch of Germans to drink beer for breakfast was an easy sell, but Fred screwed it up somehow. Freddie had to rescind his order and allow the Prussians their coffee.

    An article about coffee prohibition wouldn’t be complete without mentioning America, the largest coffee market in the world. Multiple attempts by moral scolds and busy bodies to shut down coffee have been mounted, but, luckily for us, they have all failed so I won’t bore you with the details. However, one man was moderately successful in cutting into American coffee consumption, C. W. Post. Post was not a mentally stable person, to put it mildly. He believed in all the quack cures of the day and Grandpa Simpson diagnoses. C.W. suffered from nervous breakdowns and became
    student of John Kellogg, another cereal Barron, that taught him the dark arts of healthy eating to cure his imbalanced humours. Kellogg was a Seven Day Adventist and shunned caffeine and advised C.W. to give up coffee. C.W. became a titan of the breakfast food world because he was the first to understand the power of advertising. He spent a tremendous amount of money pushing his health foods on the public using clever ads that weren’t always completely true. Post started an ad campaign warning about the dangers of coffee and how it is basically killing you every time you take a sip. Unbeknownst to the public, C.W. couldn’t start his day without his big mug of bean juice. That didn’t stop him from telling everyone else to drink Postum, the coffee substitute made from wheat bran, wheat, and molasses. Bizarrely the slogan of Postum was “There’s a Reason.” I guess that did something for the chumps of the 20th century because they bought the stuff. Postum sales surged during WWII as coffee was diverted to the front lines, because nothing kills Nazis better than a conscripted 18 year old with coffee jitters and a M1 garand. If you would like to try this
    abomination of a drink, you can still purchase Postum on Amazon.

    21st century America has not banned coffee, thank the Coffee Pope, but we do have prohibition of drugs. The arguments for caffeine prohibition of the past are the same arguments used to prohibit drugs today: “The money flows out of the country;” “ It makes God angry when you use an intoxicant;” “Undesirables use it and listen to music I find offensive;” “ It causes crime and dissent among the masses;” “Drugs have no legitimate medical use.” These arguments are as hollow now as they were 500 years ago and the banners are as big of hypocrites as ever. Three out of our four past presidents are known to have used drugs and yet happily continued the war on drugs. The true reason for drug prohibition is power and that is one hell of a drug. Currently in the 103rd year of drug prohibition, America has been slow to reverse course, but public opinion is changing and that is what ultimately lead to the reversal of coffee prohibition in Mecca, Sweden, and Prussia. So the next time you’re in the breakroom having a cup of coffee with a coworker, share what you have learned about the tyrants that banned the drink they are enjoying. Maybe you’ll help turn the tide of public opinion.

  • Forget it–it’s Chicagotown

     

    You may have read about the City of Chicago’s financial difficulties. More often than not, the news coverage on this issue often looks for a single cause of the problem, such as pension underfunding or the fact that Democrats are uniquely bad at math. This commentary is too simplistic and overlooks the fact that major cities are complex. Yes, Chicago’s pension system is woefully underfunded, but this doesn’t explain the City’s consistent budget deficits (pensions are long-term liabilities and current costs are relatively small in comparison to other expenditures). Yes, Democrats are astonishingly bad at understanding arithmetic, but this wasn’t always true about ‘Chicago Democrats’ (RIP) who, unlike their Midwestern peers (St. Louis, Cleveland, Milwaukee, etc.), cobbled together strong financial performance during the 1970’s and 1980’s while manufacturing jobs and population declined precipitously in the City.

    I have provided a very brief summary of the issues contributing to the City’s poor financial position, along with providing an overview of the financial difficulty faced by Chicago Public Schools (which is a separate government from the City of Chicago).

    Deficits and Debt

    For over ten years, the City has maintained a budgetary imbalance. Though these deficits have declined over the past four years, they are still expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

    The result of these deficits has been a significant decline in reserves, with the City currently holding just 4% of its revenue in reserve. In general, a local government is considered to be fiscally healthy if it holds no less than 10% of its revenue in reserve. For the current fiscal year, the City of Chicago is projecting to completely exhaust all of its reserves.

    The City has also issued debt to close its budget gaps over a period of several years. This has resulted in an $8.3 billion debt load for the City ($3,080 per resident), which represents a 75% increase in debt between 2005 and 2014. The use of debt to correct these budget imbalances has also increased the City’s fixed costs. For fiscal year 2016 nearly a quarter of all revenue will be used for the payment of debt service. Most local governments with healthy finances dedicate no more than 10% of revenue toward the payment of debt. Historically to manage this large debt load, the City has often employed financial gimmicks such as ‘scoop and toss’, whereby new debt is issued with a longer maturity to repay existing debt outstanding. For the 2016 fiscal year the City has avoided employing this tactic.

    Significant Long-Term Pension Liability

    The City manages four pension systems: the Municipal Employees Fund (MEF), the Laborers Fund (LF), the Policemen Fund (PF), and the Firemen Fund (FF). These pension systems’ current funding levels are 41%, 64%, 26%, and 23%, respectively (actuaries consider a pension system ‘healthy’ if funding levels are at or above 80%). The poor funding ratio and large combined liability of $20 billion is due to the City having failed to adequately contribute the full annual cost to its pension systems since the mid-1990s, due in large part to the unrealistic 7.75% rate of return assumptions in these pension systems (returns have averaged just under 6%).

    To rectify this situation, the City enacted modest pension reform to reduce the annual contribution and slightly reduce the long-term liability for only the MEF and LF pension systems. This reform legislation was eventually ruled to be unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court.

    In order to make its annual contribution to its pension systems, the City raised its property taxes and instituted a 29.5% utility tax. The tax on water and sewer services will be incremental with a 7.7% increase occurring in 2017; an 8.4% increase in 2018; an 8.2% increase in 2019, and a 5.2% increase in 2020.

    Chicago Public Schools

    The City’s school system, Chicago Public Schools (CPS), is also financially weak. At the end of fiscal year 2015, CPS had operating reserves representing roughly 7% of total revenue and liquidity representing roughly ten days cash-on-hand. In general a school district is considered to be financially healthy if it holds no less than 10% of its revenues in reserve and liquidity is at least fifty days cash-on-hand.

    Additionally, CPS faces challenging demographic issues similar to those that face the city (below). Enrollment at CPS schools has dropped roughly 5% between 2000 and 2010. Further, the percentage of school-aged children in the City (ages 0-19) has declined 17% between 2000 and 2010 suggesting that enrollment is unlikely to grow in the future. In 2016, CPS reported a decline of 3.5% from the previous year. In spite of these enrollment declines, CPS’ total expenditures increased 10% between 2010 and 2015.

    Many of the rising costs that CPS faces are connected to labor contracts that limit classroom sizes and mandate costly employee healthcare and retirement benefits. These labor contracts exert the most pressure on CPS underfunded pension system. In fiscal year 2016, CPS will have to make a $676 million pension contribution which will consume 10% of its total budget. This cost will continue to rise as CPS is under a state mandate to achieve 90% funding in its pension system (which is currently only 58% funded) by 2058.

    To a large extent, the underfunding of the pension system has been due to CPS failing to make its annual contribution payments in recent years. As recently as 2001, CPS’ pension system was more than 100% funded.

    CPS faces labor unrest due to the school district seeking concessions from its teachers’ labor union. Points of contention primarily center on pay increases, health insurance benefits, and teacher pension contributions. Currently, teachers only contribute 2% of their salary in pension contributions while CPS would like to increase that amount to 9% of a teacher’s salary. The teachers’ union went on strike in 2012 over these concession demands.

    Declining Demographic Trends

    Currently the City’s unemployment rate is higher than both the State average and the national average. Additionally the City has experienced declining population for five of the past six decades. Between 2000 and 2010, the City’s population declined by 6.9%. Estimates since the 2010 Census indicate that the City is experiencing one of the largest population declines of the twenty-five largest cities in the country. A high unemployment rate and declining population will further constrain the City’s financial health as it loses taxpayers.

  • The (Small-l) Libertarian Case For a Non-Libertarian President

    What is libertarianism’s best strategy to gain a legitimate amount of power nationally (and then happily cede it to the people)?  Libertarians of the small-l and big-L varieties have sought to gain power by either co-opting one of the major political parties (See; Ron Paul Revolution that the GOP squashed) or by finding candidates to run as a Libertarian that appeal to establishment voters (see: Aleppo).  But I believe there is a third, and overlooked, option: get a candidate who does some libertarian things that irritate the major parties and the deep state apparatus, and allow those actions to result in political hysterics from ultra-partisans while average Americans see no net loss from the actions and in many cases a serious net gain.  I believe this will continue to set in motion a series of events where the government can be shrunk to a level that’s at least tolerable to minarchists and other run-of-the-mill libertarians.

    How libertarian is President Donald Trump?

    The answer is: not very. I think that’s been established.  The man swam in a pool of cronyism sharks his entire professional life. He, through desire or necessity, has been a rent-seeker. He has used eminent domain to further his projects. He has sought special treatment from political entities both domestic and foreign to further his interests.  The man is no altruist. But does that make him distasteful, or does it make the system in which he operated distasteful?  Personally, I will rarely fault someone for utilizing the same processes his competition would use, so long as it does not originate from a position of government authority.  And Trump never held office before his inauguration.  In other words, he never utilized political office for financial gain by, say, orchestrating government access to foreign actors that overwhelmingly donated to your personal foundation or for trade groups and banks that hired your unqualified husband to give speeches at ridiculously over-inflated fees.  In other words, I don’t hate the player, I hate the game.

    And yes,  Trump is allowing Jeff Sessions to wage the drug war, which is a sticking point to a lot of libertarian minds. But I ask you, is it better to wage a drug war and uphold the concepts of equal protection and the rule of law (while allowing Congress to do their job and vote to legalize drugs the right way)? Or is it better to arbitrarily enforce duly enacted laws based on the geography of a person and/or their willingness to bend a knee to the state and support legalization with a ton of unlibertarian strings attached?

    The sadder these people are, the happier I get.

    Some policy positives already achieved and in the works:

    So now we come to Donald Trump’s libertarianism or lack thereof.  The man, no doubt, will continue some of our military adventurism overseas.  But he has already stopped our policy of running guns to terrorists and terrorist-sympathizers in Libya and Syria after the previous admin established those programs and destabilized an entire region, while thoroughly destroying the likelihood that a rogue regime would abandon its weapons programs and try to re-enter the international community (read: we came, we saw, he died). There has been no resurrection of the programs nthe last two administrations ran to ship guns into Mexico through the drug cartels, for different motives yet still in gross violation of Mexican sovereignty.  And perhaps he will continue to not carry out targeted assassinations of American citizens that have never been charged with a crime, which the prior admin was all too happy to do in gross violation of the Fourth Amendment.  Furthermore, he has already started to roll back our country’s association with liberty-robbing agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Both of those agreements undercut the ability for American companies and consumers to freely negotiate what they were willing to exchange goods and services for. Removing our name from them is a step in the right direction, especially if it’s followed up with free trade agreements that haven’t existed in a century or more. That action is yet to be seen, but at least someone had the audacity to upset the globalist apple cart and stop a little bit of the insanity those agreements put us further along the path to.

    Get us out of this circus, please!

    As for civil liberties, Trump is still an unknown quantity.  His statement about “roughing up” suspects is problematic to say the least. And I can only hope it was hollow bluster. But even so, it sets a very poor example and he should correct it immediately.  Now, having said that, he has not furthered Obama’s policy of killing Americans without due process, but that’s not going to be enough.  His willingness to stop going after businesses that exercise what should be a fundamental right to free association looks good so far. As do his overtures to Second Amendment causes. As does his willingness to tackle Affirmative Action and Title IX insanity.  Holy crap, I just realized he’s been the best president on civil liberties we’ve had in recent memory. People that overlook the substance of these actions due to his boorishness need to reassess what their priorities are, in my opinion.

    Furthermore, our business climate has benefited greatly from having an outsider installed as the head of the regulatory apparatus.  Trump has already vowed, and started to carry out, a dismantling of the bureaucracies that stifle economic growth and freedom for Americans.  From the onerous EPA regulations to CAFE standards being rolled back or passed to the states, there has been a serious uptick in confidence from the business and manufacturing sectors that Trump will get the government out of the way of prosperity.  The hilarious irony there is that Trump was a crony his entire life, as I mentioned earlier.  But perhaps he had no choice but to play the game the only way that could lead to success: do what the government tells you and push others out.  Now, when given the reins, he seems to be more than willing to eliminate programs that he personally benefited from but that create barriers to entry for others.  Yes, he could have opposed the system while benefiting from it. But let’s not pretend he’s some awful hypocrite because he played the hand he was dealt. Business “leaders” like Elon Musk, Mark Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, etc, etc, etc have done the same thing and so did their forefathers like Ford, Carnegie, Mellon, and others on back through the ages as long as there was a government agent with a hand in their pocket.  So I’m willing to forgive that.

    Be happy for this.

    And lastly, he put what appears to be a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court in Neil Gorsuch.  That is a marked improvement on any names mentioned by establishment candidates on either side of the aisle during the last campaign.

    The other intangible positive results of a Trump presidency:

    Another thing libertarians have always sought is a diminished reverence for elected officials and other “public servants” whose goals are often at odds with those of the people.  Trump’s mere presence has caused probably 2/3 of the political spectrum to demand the reverence for the office be scaled back.  They are now calling for more power in the hands of the states or localities and even ::gasp:: the people, on occasion.  These are people that have been statists to the core. They are the Big Government democrats and NeoCon statist Republicans.  And they are finally unified in an effort to diminish the role of the Executive Branch.  This serves to re-establish the separation of powers that has become all-too-muddy with much of the congressional responsibilities being passed to Executive Branch agencies in an attempt to deflect responsibility and ensure easy reelection for entrenched politicians.  The more responsibility that is pushed back into the laps of our directly elected officials and down to the state or local level, the better for us.  It helps us create a more diverse political environment where “laboratories of democracy” are able to compete for ideas and human investment, rather than an all-powerful centralized state controlling everything. And one need look no further than minimum wage laws (since we have them, I’ll address it) to realize a top-down approach where the minimum wage “needed” in New York is imposed on small towns in New Mexico or Wyoming, where the cost of living doesn’t even come close, is a horrific idea.  The Trump era is returning us to an ideal the founders embraced in that respect.

    And he is returning us to another ideal the founders cherished: temporary service from business-people and non-careerist politicians.  The flood of people on Trump’s coattails from all sides of the political spectrum is refreshing. Sure, many are moneyed and or celebrity candidacies. But so what?  Its a step in the right direction any time we start to end political dynasties and careerists that sit in the Senate for 30 years as they grow further and further out of touch from average Americans.  More turnover from political novices has a much better potential upside of shrinking our government than does further entrenching those who have pushed us to near financial ruin and reduced individual liberty.

    Pucker up!

    The net result so far (in my opinion):

    So let us all embrace the non-libertarian president. For one of these reasons or for another I might have missed. But embrace it nonetheless, because it has already borne libertarian fruit, and I suspect it will continue to do so for many of the right and some of the wrong reasons. Its the best we could have hoped for and probably the most libertarian moment in America for a hundred years.

  • My Take on the Obamacare Repeal – For Me, It’s Personal

    In the early 00’s things were different for me. I had gotten out of college a few years earlier, and taken a job as a software developer doing contract work for steel mills and other industry. While it was a good way to make money, my heart was still into art and design, so I set forth finding a way to combine art and technology into a new career. Enter the Internet. I started a web and print design company on the side as I worked my full time job. I had steady income, and my employer was paying my health insurance premiums. I wasn’t on the company plan because I knew someday I’d want to leave that job and work on my business full time, and having my own policy would make that transition seamless. My employer took out the premiums from my paycheck pre-tax and sent in the premiums for me. So far so good.

    Then things went downhill fast. My employer was accused of not depositing 401(k) contributions from employees. He was also involved in a discrimination lawsuit by an employee he fired. And finally, I was notified by my insurance company that the employer hadn’t paid my insurance premiums even though he’d taken the money out of my paycheck. This was the third time he’d done that, so my insurance company dropped my policy. I attempted to re-apply, but because I have a preexisting condition (I was born with spina bifida), I was rejected by my insurance company and all the others to which I applied. One agent told me that there was an unofficial “black list”, and once one insurance agency rejects your application, your information goes into a database where other insurance companies can see the rejection, and they will also reject you.

    I promptly quit my job and called a few lawyers. Because my employer had given me a check to cover the money he took out of my paychecks, I wasn’t technically “out” anything tangible as far as the law was concerned. There was nothing they could do. I was self-employed, and my wife, one of my three kids, and I were uninsured. (Two of my kids were adopted through foster care so they were still on Medicaid). I was no longer living the dream, I was pretty much screwed.

    I continued on with the business, making a decent living but still under the constant threat of losing everything in the event of a medical emergency. I had hoped to grow the business so that I could create an insurance group, but that never happened. After five years, I shut down the business and took a full time job as a software developer, which is where I sit today as I write this. My dream of working for myself had come to an end.

    The Great Red Hope

    In those five uninsured years, I was not without hope. I had joined the NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business Owners) when I started my business. This was during the first years of George W. Bush, when the Republicans controlled everything much like they do today. NFIB was pushing some changes to insurance laws that would have benefited me greatly. With the Republicans in office, they felt they had a chance. They proposed:

    1. Allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines.

    2. Allowing trade groups and clubs, such as NFIB, to create insurance groups that members could be insured through instead of having to get insurance through an employer.

    Either of those options could have solved my insurance problem. I could look for a policy in another state with fewer limits on preexisting conditions, or that allowed policies that only covered catastrophic events. Or, I could have just gotten insurance through NFIB. I contributed cash, wrote letters, and filled out petitions. In the end, the Republicans did… nothing. The next election they lost seats the Democrats, and their monopoly on power was over. I became bitter and angry, vowing never to vote Republican again. A few Ron Paul articles later, I turned to the dark side of the political spectrum. I was officially a libertarian.

    Enter Obamacare

    When Obamacare was being debated, I was livid. You’d think that I’d love it, considering that I have a preexisting condition and the law was supposed to make sure everyone could get insurance. But everything proposed by the Democrats was the complete opposite of what I knew would work for me and others like me. They would make insurance more expensive, more complicated, and more of a bureaucratic nightmare.

    My ideal solution would be the above two items, to which I would have added a third:

    3. Provide another way for people with preexisting conditions, who were working but could not get insurance elsewhere, to get a policy through Medicare or some other program.

    That’s it. Almost everyone would then have access to health insurance, and the extra competition between states would bring down prices. Of course, this wouldn’t require a huge government program, so the Democrats wouldn’t even consider it. When Obamacare became law, I saw that my initial thoughts were right. If I were still self-employed, there is no way I would be able to afford those premiums.

    The Repeal

    So here we are today, waiting for the Republicans to repeal Obamacare and set things straight, which isn’t happening. While I’m disappointed, I’m not surprised. The Republicans have been here before. They’ve had a chance to use their power to make things better for many people. Whether it’s lack of intelligence, spinelessness, or something else, who knows? But every day I see more proof that neither of the major parties has any intention of doing what’s right or helpful. Democrats just want to create bigger government programs that cement their power, and Republicans want to do pretty much nothing, for fear of pissing someone off and not getting elected next cycle.

    As for me, I’m still sitting behind a desk working for someone else, and I think I’ll be here for a while. The cost of insurance, and the amount of time, effort, and money required to follow regulations required to run a business are more than I’d like to deal with.

  • Life and economics on an escort forum

    This may not be a fully appropriate subject on such a family friendly blog, but I think that information gleaned on an escort forum can give some minor insight into markets, human nature, and general understanding of the economy, which might explain why libertarianism makes little headway in the world – not that this is some great mystery.

    I have to start this by the unambiguous disclaimer, which goes without saying, that not me, but a friend of mine, visited an online escort forum over a period of time, for purely economics and psychology research purposes. An in-depth look at such a website, like many other forums, to be honest, can be seen as a microcosmos of a lot of what goes on in general society.

    But wait! Escorting is very illegal in Romania. A reasonable person might ask: why is there a forum for something that does not exist? So, lo and behold, the first bit of insight, based on the very existence of the forums, and the quite significant activity involved, is that maybe, just maybe, prohibition might not always work. It may be that, perish the thought, extensive black markets fill the void. Black markets with the works, full option if you will, organized crime, dangers for both buyers and sellers, shoddy product. I, myself, am shocked. I need my smelling salts right now.

    Of course, as any fool knows, and by fool I mean libertarian, the market, black or otherwise, has always been here and always will be. The market is a generic term for human economic interaction; it is a fundamental expression of human nature. Government may screw with it, but won’t get rid of it. So where are we at this point? Well, we have established at least one thing: there is a market for sex (and even married men use it, to the chagrin of certain Catholics who visit this fair blog). And where there is a sale, there is ehm… information asymmetry let’s call it, which needs to be addressed. Quality control is the name of the game and was usually done, I assume for thousands of years, through let’s say word of mouth.

    Enter the mighty internet, which makes things a lot easier and a lot … harder at the same time. How does one quality control the quality control information? The internet has too much stuff and nonsense. Like in all markets, there is false advertising – this may come as a surprise, but not all the pictures on escort sites are of the actual escorts. A rule of thumb (or finger, if you will) would be: if it looks too good to be true, it probably is, or you can’t afford it. This is where reviews come in, but many of them are as false as the picture. Look at it this by way of analogy, if you can’t trust a yelp review what can you trust?

    Reputation on such a forum is required for both escorts and reviewers. This works up to a point, but not fully, as trusted reviewers may not be so trusted, and often end up asking for free or discount service in exchange for good reviews or by threat of bad reviews. There is also a noticeable presence of personal taste and subjective preference (ass > tits fyi), which need to be accounted for when evaluating reviews. Like in all markets.

    Quality control also has a stronger ethical component than usual, due to the inherent issues in the industry. Despite the ‘all escort customers are filthy exploiters” rhetoric, many are quite aware of sex slavery, trafficking, and pimping, and are quite actively trying to avoid such situations. It is often hard to tell, and obviously there are hits and misses – more so than if the biz was legal and upfront – but people do try. There is also the ever-present possibility of underage escorts, which most avoid like the plague, or better said avoid like 10 years in prison. There are a lot of STDs to watch out for, the risk of getting robbed as part of the deal, and much more, making a trustworthy review system essential.

    Beyond reviews, many escorts – or their respective pimps/madams – come to engage with customers on the forums, which sometimes lead to actually improved services. It seems there are escorts out there who are not trafficked or forced by various bad circumstances to offer this particular service, but choose this activity for a variety of their own reasons and want to do a good job at it. Of course, the real problem is, in fact, capitalism, which causes people to need money and as such do various things for it. In socialism, we all know, everyone would be rich and happy and poor women would not need to sell sex for cash. But alas, we do not live in the wonderful socialist utopia but under the heel of filthy capitalist pigs. But this is not the purpose of discussion.

    To sum up: the situation somewhat works. Could have been a lot better if legal, obviously, but it is what it is. Baptists (Orthodox really but the principle stands) and bootleggers (politicians on the take). Until now, this is nothing anyone didn’t know. For me, a more interesting aspect was to observe how truly economically illiterate people are, how entitled and how assholish they can behave, which explains a lot about the greater world. This is most visible when it comes to price.

    The usual deal is kind of like this: new girl in the business (or, you know, a dude, whatever floats your boat really, I did not research this, as I have heard that going to male escort websites can make you catch the gay and become ultra-gay yourself, a risk I am not willing to take). As many a beginner in a field, there is entry level price, lower than one may want, to get initial customers. If the service is of adequate quality, the number of customers increase and, drum-roll, so does price. Supply and demand, how does it work? No one knows, apparently.

    If one can get higher prices for product, in any field, one usually tries to do so. Escorts also want to carefully manage the number of customers, due to many reasons. And, to be fair, if there is one damn thing one should be able to set whatever price on, it is this, the basic human right to fuck who you want in whatever conditions you want. If the price is too high, demand dries up and signals the need for it to be lowered. Markets, man, they freak me out. Pretty standard stuff, you would think. And you would be dead wrong.

    With any and all price increases, the whinging starts, presumably by people who routinely go to their boss each year and demand a higher salary.  After the complaining, anger rears its ugly head. Of course, not by all forum members, obviously, but by a sufficient number (I have decided I do not have sufficient disclaimers in my posts). There are, I noticed, 3 main types of reactions.

    The most amusing by far it’s not fair reaction. Why does something I want cost more than I want it to cost? Why should I pay more? I don’t want to pay more! It’s not fair! It really is not! And no, I am, sadly, not joking. It’s not fair!

    The second is pure rage directed to the escort. How dare she, that good for nothing, filthy, goddamn whore. Who the hell does she think she is? As her superior, why I should get to fuck her for whatever price I want. This bitch needs to be taught a lesson. And so on and so forth. Waves of messages full of insults from people who seem to have a remarkable amount of time to spend on this subject.

    The third is anger at the other customers. Why it is clear that if all you goddamn morons would not pay, these escorts would not charge that much. Which, I used to think, is a meaningless truism. Every price is something people are willing to pay for. If people were not willing to pay top dollar for prime real-estate, why, it would not be so prime. Which, well, duh. But this is how the world works. People want something, they are willing to pay extra to get it. Who wants it more pays more. And some people will not afford it. Thems be the breaks.

    Amusingly, the very same people, before the price raise, complain about long wait times. This escort is impossible to book! Well, high demand, limited supply, prime real estate, Economics 101. And so, prices move towards and ever changing never reached equilibrium point.

    This in the end tells you a lot about the world. People entitled to get what they want for what price they want it, and unlike on escort forums, in the wide world these people can do something about it. That something being give power to some asshole or other who promises to address their grievance. Because it just isn’t fair.

  • Expats in Korea Get Drunk, Gamble. Evan Wins Cash, Bitches

    It’s funny how everything illegal is universal. Drugs, gambling, prostitution. Making a law to fight it doesn’t snuff it out. It’s just a reality. It’ll be done somehow, someway.

    I live in Daejeon, South Korea. I went north to Seoul to see my friends off for their going-away party. It’s about an hour away on the fast train.

    At the bar we banter and celebrate our friends’ imminent departure. Shockingly fast, the games began.

    강남스타일

    My friend took out five dice and tossed them onto the pool table. We’re gonna play Threes. I didn’t know how to play but learned fast. Skin in the game incentivizes immediate understanding. You roll the dice up to five times. Low score is the winner. Every roll you have to keep at least one die. A three is worth zero and everything else is face value. A score of four is respectable and under is gravy.

    We started out low stakes, a buck a player. The rounds came and went, winner taking seven or eight per. One game went particularly long—twenty bucks to me. I’m up $15.

    We ratcheted up. Buy-in went from a buck to ten. It really is remarkable how the changing stakes heightens your focus.

    We’re not high-rollers. We’re poor-ish English teachers. Every game now is worth close to $100. Green notes stacked on the felt, this is serious money for us. And I hate losing.

    I lost a few rounds and was very near to bowing out. I throw ten bucks in anyway. I played conservatively and won the pot. Eighty bucks to me.

    That was the end of my line, for the most part. I had to float my friend $20 for two bets and enough-is-enough after they raised the stakes to $20 a roll. I later learned that one of the players was a bit of a gambling addict. The Madness had set in as I wisely stepped out. I became an accepted spectator. The last few games netted the winner something like $180 each.

    The bar turned a blind eye to all of this. They were excited for the business. The game was organic and started of its own accord. The people who wanted to play flocked to the table and those that didn’t did not. People who didn’t want to put money down still could watch and bought drinks to entertain themselves whilst vicariously living through our wallets. No one gave a shit. It was glorious.

    It struck me during the game how we all instantly agreed to the rules. People came together to play a stupid game for a shot at making some money. And those that won and lost understood that the rules to play were arbitrary. But they were agreed to. If it’s arbitrary for one and all then it’s not so arbitrary after all. A beautiful system with no leaders, no kings—simply a mutual understanding between blokes, a glint in the eye for some weekend cash.

    We self-regulated. There was no muscle involved, but we all understood that if someone tried some fuckery, there were plenty of eyes and arms to make sure the money didn’t flee unjustly. Having money on the felt makes one very mindful.

    No police; no guards; no threats; no violence; no force. Just fun.

    I ended up $26 even after I gave the twenty to my friend. Damn good in my book, paying for the entertainment and festivity for three hours and still ending up in the green. Another fun foray into the life of “sin” that people wrongfully cast shade upon.

    At least half of the fun is the seediness of it all. Adrenaline and cash naturally make up the rest. That’s what the government can’t ever learn: That which is illegal is inherently desirable. Tell people that they can’t do something and a portion of the population is going to say “Fuck off” simply to thumb their nose.

    I know I do.

    It was a beautifully organic experience. Out of sight from the law, and everyone regulating each other voluntarily. Curious how that seems to work out.

    And I’m still in the green.