The Cake is a Lie!

The cake is a lie—assuming it’s made with wheat. I’d like to start a discussion on what is (in fact) a moot point: price controls. I have no illusion that politicians will read this post and change their minds about them. What I do hope is that folks who read this post end up electing politicians who are more in alignment with their thoughts on the subject—preferably politicians who know the futility of price controls. Ultimately, this is about government overreach, individual Liberty to make business decisions for oneself and the economic impact of those decisions.
The argument is framed by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The Act is still in force, having recently been cited in cases as far ranging as Gun control, medical marijuana and Obamacare: “In 2012, Wickard was central to arguments in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services on the constitutionality of the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act, with both supporters and opponents of the mandate claiming that Wickard supported their positions.” [en.wikipedia.org...]?

BACKGROUND

sites.gsu.edu...

“ In 1940, Roscoe Filburn planted 23 acres of wheat which was to be used for personal consumption. Personal consumption for Filburn consisted of; feed for his livestock, grain products for his family and seed for future growing seasons. Under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, the 23 acres of fertile soil that Filburn was able to farm wheat on, was reduced to 11 acres.

Issues

There were two main constitutional issues in Wickard v. Filburn that were addressed by the Court. The issues were raised because Filburn grew more wheat than what was allowed by the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 (AAA). The AAA regulates control of the volume and flow of crops in both interstate and foreign trade, with the aims of avoiding surpluses and shortages, as well as preventing any obstruction to commerce. Filburn believed that Congress – even under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution [Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution] – did not have a right to exercise their power to regulate the production and consumption of his homegrown wheat. Also, the Supreme Court wanted to clarify the extent of Congress’s power on intrastate activities.

The first constitutional issue was whether Congress was in their right to regulate wheat that was intended for personal use, and that was not going to be placed in interstate commerce. In other words, this issue raised the question of whether Congress could tell citizens how many crops they could grow, even if the crops were only for personal consumption or utilization, and it did not directly affect interstate commerce.

The second constitutional issue questioned if Congress should have the ability to regulate trivial intrastate activities if the activities are deemed to have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce indirectly. That is to say, could activities that were within the boundaries of a state, and without a direct impact on interstate commerce, still be subject to Federal Congress regulation?

Holdings

The decision of Wickard V. Filburn was unanimous and each [Supreme Court] justice ruled that, under the Commerce Clause, Congress does have the power to regulate the production of wheat intended for personal use and not placed on interstate commerce and that Congress can regulate local intrastate activities that have an substantial effect on interstate commerce by using the Commerce power.”

————————————
In my opinion, the government (through the Act and subsequent court findings) says that THEY know better than you how best to use your land; that THEY have a right to peer into and second-guess your decisions at the most mundane level—even if you’re not harming anyone, that even by withholding the fruits of your labor, you harm the public; that THEY therefor must control what you do with your property or for your family, for ‘the greater good’.

And you thought farming was boring!

We all know (or should know that price controls are counterproductive. Price-Controlled apartments are a great example. When applied to housing, price controls have a three-fold effect:

1). They are inherently ‘unfair’, since only a handful of lucky renters may take advantage of the artificially low rent price while everyone else (even in the same building) pays market price for their apartment. In fact, it is usually the wealthier citizens who benefit from rent control [www.nmhc.org...]. Thus, the lie is given to proponents who claim to favor rent control as ‘fair’;

2) It is axiomatic that Scarcity drives Price. By taking a percentage of housing out of the rental market, you create scarcity, which in turn drives up rental prices elsewhere.. Thus, price controls establish an artificially distorted market, which leads to—

3). A Black Market in price controlled rentals. Anecdotally, ‘rent controlled’ apartments in New York City command exorbitant prices on the Black Market; the ‘contract’ on a one bedroom walk-up that normally goes for say, $3,000 per month, can fetch something close to a six figure lump sum payment from those who plan on living in the apartment for years to come.

In summation, government price controls—whether they be apartments, peaches or wheat—always cause the opposite of the intended effect, doing more harm than good.

Attacks on all fronts indeed. This is in synchronity with the thread I made just minutes ago and was originally part of my response to you in that other thread.

Basically it comes down to full control over:

housing
communication
financials
freedom to move and in general
and recently food.


It's tempting to think about all the stuff ushered into place over the course of the last years is connected with all of it, so one has to be careful to not overgeneralize. Then, we as single humans only think several years upfront, a decade is a lot in that term. Fifteen years ago nobody had smartphones, they did not exist. Groups however, tend to think longterm.

And that's the vector of attack, like driving on a second rail in parallel, with many other things (see my thread if intrigued).

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
Attacks on all fronts indeed. This is in synchronity with the thread I made just minutes ago and was originally part of my response to you in that other thread.

Basically it comes down to full control over:

housing
communication
financials
freedom to move and in general
and recently food.


It's tempting to think about all the stuff ushered into place over the course of the last years is connected with all of it, so one has to be careful to not overgeneralize. Then, we as single humans only think several years upfront, a decade is a lot in that term. Fifteen years ago nobody had smartphones, they did not exist. Groups however, tend to think longterm.

And that's the vector of attack, like driving on a second rail in parallel, with many other things (see my thread if intrigued).

Another rub here is the weather may leave you with nothing so a smart farmer prepares for the future needs. The self sufficiency of a farm must be so intimidating to the elite.

Price controls would be utterly moronic.

In a labor market where businesses are going out of business because they literally cannot afford the cost of staffing, let's institute price controls because businesses are trying to meet the new, artificially imposed cost of labor.

Talk about lose/lose.

a reply to: Justoneman

The self sufficiency of a farm must be so intimidating to the elite.

That's why everything needs to be digital now. Buy something digitally controlled instead of mechanical contraption and you get subsidized a huge % (up to 50%) for certain hardware.

For example my shop runs on pressurized air for a lot of tools. The compressor, I call it heart attack machine, has a mechanic-electric feedback loop. Pressure goes down, mechanic switch closes, motor get's the angry electrons to move, pressure rises, shut off.

You can get up to 40% back of the money spent, if you buy a new one, digitalized. For example a screw compressor with touch panel that will be totally useless once you don't have clean mains freq. and voltage. Try using one of these with a non digitalized generator and you're out of luck.

That's why they want everything digitized, because then there's a better chance something breaks, or is remote controllable, is keeping statistics and whatnot.

That's the reason the "digitization" is pushed so hard. The government could care less if you have a digital or mechanic controlled hardware, as long as it can control it by different means.

Part of that decision was that “personal use” disrupted estimations of intrastate sales and consumption causing local surpluses. But to what end? Hand built log cabins cause unemployment of home builders and reduce the hiring of building inspectors? What if I “hand built” a store/market on my land to sell vegetables with near zero overhead?

God forbid I become “rich” by not buying Obamacare policies and paying premiums for unused insurance policies versus a neighbor who has dialysis three times a week because she blew out her kidneys trying to commit suicide with Tylenol as a teenager. Or hunt up enough meat and grow enough vegetables as to not need a grocery store at all.

originally posted by: Thoughtcrime
...
Holdings

The decision of Wickard V. Filburn was unanimous and each [Supreme Court] justice ruled that, under the Commerce Clause, Congress does have the power to regulate the production of wheat intended for personal use and not placed on interstate commerce and that Congress can regulate local intrastate activities that have an substantial effect on interstate commerce by using the Commerce power.”

Unbelievable. A Supreme Court decision - unanimous no less - that is a gross and blatant contradistinction to what the Constitution actually says.

What we need is a Constitutional Amendment abolishing the Commerce clause entirely, then, maybe, an extremely narrow, well defined power of Congress to simply make sure that interstate commerce is not interfered with in any meaningful way. In other words, to facilitate interstate commerce, not [regulate it.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

I’d be interested in reading your thread. Too lazy/don’t know how to check a members’ latest thread. Can ya help a brother out?

a reply to: Thoughtcrime
Sure, I just did not want to post the link in the first response to your OP to not distract/derail from you original talking points

Here you go
www.abovetopsecret.com...
BTW, don't feel addressed by the rant

originally posted by: ketsuko
Price controls would be utterly moronic.

In a labor market where businesses are going out of business because they literally cannot afford the cost of staffing, let's institute price controls because businesses are trying to meet the new, artificially imposed cost of labor.

Talk about lose/lose.

Oh, shhhhh…. dont even suggest this! I can imagine them doing exactly this soon enough.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Damn good points! A little more background on this case, if I remember them correctly: the farmer (Filburn) was NOT a member of the local Grange. The local Grange (more or less a monopoly on local agricultural products, especially grain) ratted Filburn out to the state. Most Granges are formed along the lines of a co-op, but in practice function like a monopoly.
They tell you how much you’ll pay for seed— naturally, you can only buy from them. No haggling.
They tell you what you’ll get for wheat when you sell it to them, no haggling—and you can’t sell to anyone else or they’ll cut off next years seed.
It is a price fixing scheme. You can argue that the Grange provides a service to the farmer by helping him/her anticipate reasonable outlays and profits and helps him market those products. In reality, the Grange—at least in America—functioned more like the mob: ”nice little farm ya got there, John! Be a shame if anything happened to it…”


Sorry! Got long-winded there!

a reply to: ketsuko

Yup. You’d think after almost 100 years experience with price controls, folks would scream bloody murder about imposing them. But here we are (Obamacare, certain jurisdictions in California, New York, etc). Never, EVER underestimate the power of virtue signaling.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

Very thoughtful! Much obliged. I’ll give it a go.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Absolutely. The Supreme Court has been rotten for a VERY long time!
“Facilitate” these days means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Personally, I think they should do away with the Commerce clause; it’s been used by the Left to shoehorn everything on their Wishlist into law in states that would NEVER implement those laws because their citizens don’t WANT those laws. Problem is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

a reply to: Thoughtcrime

Speaking of water...from your fourth reply in the series. I believe this case is cited for states that ban the collection of rainwater in rain barrels from your roof. Although there is way too much crying by California about that not being enforced in enough states...but that is a whole other topic, California’s over consumption of more resources than it produces.

a reply to: Ahabstar

“Speaking of water...from your fourth reply in the series. I believe this case is cited for states that ban the collection of rainwater in rain barrels from your roof.”

Yeah! Now that you mention it! I’m not aware of this laws impact on interstate water agreements (makes perfect sense of sorts), but the law also covers INTRASTATE matters as well. I found out Colorado has very strict laws on damming even the smallest creek on your property—I was looking at some property in Colorado and wanted to build a trout stream; after I read the caveats in the property description, I ruled out Colorado.

Maryland ALSO has/had strict laws on water collection and usage. They even imposed a ‘Rain Tax’, ffs… I understand they’ve since revoked that tax though.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Thoughtcrime
Speaking of water...from your fourth reply in the series. I believe this case is cited for states that ban the collection of rainwater in rain barrels from your roof.

Yeah, seems like I'm reminded multiple times a day now of the old saying...

The people of a nation get exactly as much tyranny as they are willing to put up with.

Something like that...