Before we get the mess that is SB138 and Jeb Bradley and all the other NitWits in Senate who are “supporting it” let’s look at this from the NH Constitution:
Related: Gov. Sununu Thinks 97% of New Hampshire Residents are Racists?
[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.
A couple of quotes:
Even the failure and disintegration of socialism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union has not led to a clear response to the next question: if government ownership of the means of production is so bad, why is government regulation of the private means of production so good?
-Richard Epstein (Simple Rules for a Complex World via Cafe Hayek)
…Yet the very fact that, with every natural disaster, prices of such goods nevertheless rise to levels higher than they were pre-disaster proves that the amounts of goods supplied charitably are insufficient to meet all of the victims’ needs at pre-disaster prices. The resulting rise in prices, therefore, continues to serve the useful function of enticing those people with ordinary-sized hearts to work harder to bring much-needed supplies to the victims and to persuade the victims themselves not to use available supplies frivolously.
One more quote on this issue after the text of SB138.
The answer to the question in Sowell’s quote is that they aren’t. Boudreaux points out the obvious: Only fools believe they have sufficient knowledge and expertise to better decide what millions need and want than the millions themselves do. Unfortunately for NH, that would be NH State Senator Jeb Bradley (R?) who has, in no small part, given NH electricity rates amongst the highest in the country. He KNOWS better than those that actually work in the field (according to his actions in manipulating the marketplace). As to the rest of the Nitwittery question I posed, I’m not surprised that the NH State Senate and Reps Democrats are all in on more Government control of the NH economy. It is what they are and what they do. They don’t trust individuals to make their own decisions. I expected this
The Democrats sponsoring this bill: Sen. Tom Sherman (D), Dist 24; Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D), Dist 20; Sen. Rebecca Perkins Kwoka (D), Dist 21; Sen. Cindy Rosenwald (D), Dist 13; Sen. Watters (D), Dist 4; Rep. Jerry Knirk (D), Carr. 3; Rep. Kaci Grote (D), Rock. 24;
But why are Republicans in on this dealio? They would be Sen. Carson (R), Dist 14; Sen. Bob Giuda (R), Dist 2; Sen. Erin Hennessey, Dist 1; Sen. Bill Gannon (R), Dist 23; and Rep. Mark. Pearson (R), Rock. 34. After all, the NH GOP Platform has this:
We believe in free people, free markets and free enterprise.
Let’s see if the Republicans will legislate and vote according to the Party’s precepts that they purport to belong to. One certainly won’t (guess which one! First two don’t count!).
What’s worse is the actual language used. Just from that aspect alone, this is a bad bill. Bills should be narrowly defined and zeroing in on a single issue or problem. The wording should be precise, well-known definitions of common words should be in force and the parts of the bill affecting change should be totally clear and be unable to be misinterpreted from one end of the political spectrum from the other.
This bill isn’t that.
Look at it (below)! The whole bill is rather gauzy and vaporous, vague where it should be sharp, undefined instead of being clear, full of “hand waving” taking the place of solid objective measures. Nothing is “tight” – almost every part of it can be interpreted any way one wants. NO bill should have this amount of “wobble” in it such that one person’s sense is that things are alright but a complete disaster to another. I’ll be doing a quick fisking in a moment or two.
I did call NH State Senator Bob Guida on this but had to leave a voice mail. To his credit, knowing what was coming at him, returned my call fairly quickly. The upshot is that he will be removing his name as a sponsor and as he was talking with me, scanned the bill and remarked “what the heck was I thinking?” He will be voting it down.
The Right to Private Property, properly recognized and in play in this bill – the WRONG way.
This bill assumes that someone has a claim on your property and that you are not allowed to sell it at a price that this other person is not willing to pay. Then complains.
Assume you’re a store owner and that you’ve already paid for your inventory. Simply put – the problem is that you don’t know what the cost of that replacement inventory will be as disasters can now last a year or more (why else is NH Governor Chris Sununu still issuing Disaster Emergency Orders???). If you aren’t allowed to charge enough for replacements, cover all your costs, plus a Return On Investment, you can’t sell those products for long.
Take another example – is the rising price of gas (up almost 40% since the manmade disaster called President Biden) – is that high enough to trigger this bill? And I’m betting the cost won’t start to slow down until it hits $5/gallon (and Biden will smile as the eco-socialists give him a lollipop to suck on).
Once again, Government wants to control your business – what the HELL is wrong with these self-appointed nincompoops believing they will make things better? Really, when you look at it, isn’t this a Government Taking?
This ought to be ITL (Inexpedient To Legislate).
I’ve gone long again – a quick fisking…emphasis mine.
********
2021 SESSION
21-1077
11/10SENATE BILL 138
AN ACT relative to consumer protections against profiteering in necessities.
SPONSORS: Sen. Sherman, Dist 24; Sen. D’Allesandro, Dist 20; Sen. Gannon, Dist 23; Sen. Carson, Dist 14; Sen. Perkins Kwoka, Dist 21; Sen. Rosenwald, Dist 13; Sen. Watters, Dist 4; Sen. Bradley, Dist 3; Sen. Giuda, Dist 2; Sen. Hennessey, Dist 1; Rep. Knirk, Carr. 3; Rep. Grote, Rock. 24; Rep. M. Pearson, Rock. 34
COMMITTEE: Commerce
—————————————————————–
ANALYSIS
This bill prohibits profiteering in necessities during a declared abnormal market disruption.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
21-1077
11/10STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty One
AN ACT relative to consumer protections against profiteering in necessities.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Section; Consumer Protection; Profiteering in Necessities. Amend RSA 358-A by inserting after section 2 the following new section:
358-A:2-a Profiteering in Necessities.
I. For purposes of this section, the following terms shall have the following meaning:
(a) “Abnormal market disruption” means a significant disruption to the production, distribution, supply, sale, or availability of a commodity or commodities that:
(1) Is caused by an event such as a natural or man-made emergency or disaster, whether local or remote; and
(2) Causes ordinary competitive market forces to cease to function normally.
In today’s world, what ISN’T a commodity? Sure, luxury items for the very rich don’t qualify as such but just about everything for the working class is. Thus, EVERYTHING is covered.
And what the heck is “ordinary” going to mean? Is it MY view? Bradley’s view? Already people like Bruce Currie don’t believe in markets in the first place and almost every day the markets fail and must be taken over. So which is it? What are those measurements? And given the 100s of millions of products and services, with some getting deleted and new ones entering every day, HOW is the government going to determine when the ordinary becomes unworkable?
Can you see how much overhead and analysis would this take? Unless, of course, you’re Gov Sununu and just created that WuFlu economic failure, via essential/non-essential, himself!
(b) “Cost” means the expense associated with the acquisition, production, distribution, or sale of necessities and may include, among other things, replacement costs, taxes, and transportation costs.
(c) “Necessities” means food for human or animal consumption, potable water, pharmaceutical products including prescription medications, wearing apparel, shoes, building materials, gas and electricity for light, heat, and power, ice, fuel of all kinds, and fertilizer and fertilizer ingredients, together with tools, utensils, implements, machinery, and equipment required for the actual production or manufacture of the same. “Necessities” shall include any other vital or necessary good or service except those:
And we really ARE back to Essential vs Non-essential. Not an economic decision but a half-assed Political decision. Or a set of decisions, most of which will mean failures for many. Because of Politician stupidity.
(1) Subject to continuous maximum price regulation under the provisions of any state or federal law;
(2) As to which the state’s authority is preempted; or
(3) Furnished or provided by:A. Insurers; or
B. Nonprofit hospitals, medical service organizations, or health maintenance organizations authorized to transact business within the state.(d) “Unconscionable price” means a price that is actionable under this section. There is a rebuttable presumption that a price is unconscionable when it exceeds by more than 15 percent the sum of:
(1) The price at which similar goods or services were offered for sale or sold by that person immediately prior to the beginning date of the abnormal market disruption. If that person did not offer such goods or services immediately prior to the abnormal market disruption, then the prices is the price at which similar goods or services were offered for sale or sold by another person similarly situated prior to the abnormal market disruption; and
(2) The increased cost to the person of providing the goods or services following the abnormal market disruption, calculated according to the method used by that person prior to the abnormal market disruption.
And we’re back to replacement. What if that replacement price is now 30% above “pre-disruption”. The above takes NO note of that and the poor shopkeep will be in big doo-doo. Going by a strict interpretation, that store owner won’t be able to sell that set of products.
And this is the worse part. For months, we have warned people about the Emergency Orders being issued left and right from the Branch of Government that is only supposed to carry out laws and not make them). We’ve complained that the Legislature has been failing to do its job in CREATING those laws.
And now they’re outsourcing even more to the Executive Branch – you ARE morons, aren’t you???
II.
(a) Whenever it appears upon due inquiry and consultation with the attorney general that an abnormal market disruption exists or that there is a substantial likelihood that an abnormal market disruption is imminent, the governor may, in the governor’s sole discretion and after considering whether the declaration of an abnormal market disruption itself will disrupt supplies for affected necessities, declare an abnormal market disruption.
(b) A declaration made pursuant to this paragraph section shall specify:
(1) The beginning date of the abnormal market disruption;
(2) The particular necessity, necessities, or categories of necessities that are affected by the abnormal market disruption and made subject to the provisions of paragraphs III and IV; and
(3) The levels of trade or commerce that are affected by the abnormal market disruption and made subject to the provisions of paragraphs III and IV.(c) A declaration of abnormal market disruption made pursuant to this section expires when the governor declares it expired or 60 days from the date of its issuance, which ever is sooner. The declaration of abnormal market disruption may be modified by the governor at any time.
And if it is Sununu (or a Sununu Power-clone-like individual), he’d just keep re-issuing renewals. Look at what he’s been doing already this last year?
(d) The governor shall publish decisions made pursuant to this section in a manner reasonably calculated to give affected persons adequate notice.
(e) Any person may petition the governor regarding the governor’s decisions under this section.III. After the governor has declared an abnormal market disruption and before the declaration of the abnormal market disruption expires, a person may not sell or offer for sale necessities at an unconscionable price.
Buh-Bye, shopkeep – you just got put out of business.
IV. Any violation of this section shall constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice within the meaning of RSA 358-A:2. Any right, remedy, or power set forth in RSA 358-A may be used to enforce the provisions of this section.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2022.
*******************************************
…The crude version of exchange — which is, unhappily, the common version — is inclined to suspect that there is an objectively correct price for a good, and that profit comes from duping somebody into paying more than the correct price for it. That error is fundamental to Marxism and other anti-capitalist philosophies, and it is implicit in such social phenomena as the anti-advertising movement, “Buy Nothing Day,” and similar political tendencies. But that bias does relatively little harm in the heads of greying Marxists, peddlers of “profit is a crime” banalities, and Occupy riff-raff. Where it is truly destructive is in the disorganized thoughts of the large majority of ordinary people with no particularly strong political commitments or economic orientation. Consider these phrases: “An honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay,” “just wages,” “fair price,” “obscene profits,” “price gouging,” “excessive executive compensation.”
For any of those phrases to have any intellectual content, then there must be a price that is in some non-subjective sense the correct one. But if economic values are subjective — and they are — then “an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay” can only mean one thing, that being the payment of an agreed-upon wage for an agreed-upon performance of labor, with “honest” referring only to the fulfillment of the agreement and saying nothing substantive about the terms of the agreement itself…
But no, he’s no longer one of my favorites, given his recent writing history but he is correct in this.
Here’s the bottom line deal – no one is entitled to anything. Period. Full stop. But in this large welfare State we find ourselves, everyone DOES believe that they are entitled to just about everything – and many do so with the expectation of it being FREE!
These “full of themselves” think they can outwit the Law of Unintended Consequences? Maybe THEY can…
…but the rest of us won’t.
