Ben Harakel

Intro to Economics

Gun Control and Its Effects

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/28/the-economics-of-gun-control/

The Economics of Gun Control

This article started out by describing a team of economists that decided to see just how much the external costs were to own a gun. Due to the lack of definitive numbers on how many gun owners there are and a few other factors coupled with crime statistics a tentative answer was reached. Cook an Ludwig, the two economists, found that the average household imposed a net cost from $100 to $1800 a year. They said that more guns in the area meant an increase in violent crimes but they couldn't tie the amount of guns in the area to any other crimes. Another economist published a paper that came to another conclusion than the rest of the world it seems, John Wasik would rather have gun insurance than tax guns or ban them entirely. He said that risk factors would be developed by actuaries and then a cost for insurance would be created much like how car insurance works. This paper and outcome are probably not going to be adopted in America but I think it is a particularly good idea.

The possible insurance idea does 3 things for our nation: it keeps jobs from being destroyed, it creates more jobs and it allows government resources to be allocated more efficiently. Assuming that if this idea would blossom into a bill that requires all gun owners to have insurance, and take the place of the many state bills limiting gun types and magazine sizes. This bill would allow many gun brands to keep their production facilities where they are which would save jobs from being moved to different states and countries. The bill would also create jobs in insurance companies as more actuaries would be needed to create the policies and risk factors. Finally the police would really only have two jobs, finding black market guns, and arresting those that are found with a gun without firearm insurance. I like this plan because it finally acknowledges that some gun owners can safely own firearms and  rewards that ability. I also like that its entirely based on economic principle. If the costs of buying insurance are too much for me I probably won't buy the gun which in turn means that I probably shouldn't have been able to buy a gun anyway. 

Ben Harakel

Intro to Economics

Gun Control and It's Effects

http://www.redstate.com/leehopper/2013/06/19/top-7-negative-economic-effects-of-colorado-gun-control/

Top 7 Negative Economic Effects of Colorado Gun Control

Colorado is yet another state that had passed very restrictive gun laws and is beginning to see the effects of those actions on the local gun market. The MAIG (Mayors Against Illegal Guns) package is set to begin on July 1st and bans anything higher than 15 round magazines, expands background checks and firearm regulation. This package was largely supported by many state Democrats along with other national Democratic congressmen. This new package is expected to tax the states police force as well as the revenue the state makes off of guns. Police will now not only have to track down the black market gun deals that are going on but will also have to prevent legally bought items from finding their way into the state. Not only will this package hurt the struggling police force but will also hurt the government's revenue based off of gun sales. All the guns either sold illegally or bought in other states will not be taxed by Colorado which ends up in lost revenue for the state. It also means that the regulations the state mandates may not be followed which could mean firearms that aren't functioning properly. The package has also forced Colorado Gun Manufacturer to move out of the state taking with it $85 Million in taxable revenue along with over 600 jobs.

I feel like again we see the economic problems of getting rid of guns and how gun manufacturers react, but this article presents other problems that arose. The police issue was really interesting to me because it totally makes sense. Now the police have another problem to worry about, they have to worry about illegally bought guns and now illegal guns legally bought in other states. I really liked the insight on this article because as a nation the police problems aren't really an issue but to a state government it clearly is. In my opinion all governments, both state and federal, need as much money as possible and taking away the taxes on guns is taking away possible revenue. I liked the fact that the Colorado Gun Manufacturer took a stand against the laws and actually moved their operations unlike the gun manufacturers in Massachusetts. It makes perfect sense why they moved and in my mind the financials should be what drive the business.

Ben Harakel

Intro to Economics

Gun Control and Its Effects

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/6/gun-control-kills-jobs/

Gun Control Kills Jobs

I think it would be very safe to say that if a business has succeeded in the recession that America has endured, it was doing something right. If I invested $100 dollars in Strum and Ruger Company in 2007, I would currently have over $530 dollars in my pocket. If that isn't successful I don't know what is. Ruger had, and has, orders for twice as many guns as it can manufacture but yet in those six years in only added 10 employees. Why? Well with all the tightening down on guns and their purchase Ruger couldn't add jobs without fearing another law which would drop sales and force layoffs (It is nice to hear that a company cares about their employees anymore). Colt Manufacturing has came up with another plan to keep the sales up, moving out of Connecticut and other liberal states. They are moving part of their manufacturing processes down to Florida in the coming years so that they can sell their products from the base as well.

Personally I think it makes a great deal of sense especially for the states themselves to entice gun manufacturers to set up shop. It helps reduce the unemployment in the area and also helps provide more revenue from taxes. It seems that states with more republican governors and congressmen are much more open about wanting gun manufacturing plants than those with more democratic governors and congressman. This does seem to hold up in the few examples that I have read but yet the logic behind the wanting tougher gun laws baffles me. It goes back to the classic saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." and in my mind banning guns doesn't stop the violence and as proven it certainly doesn't help the economy.

Ben Harakel

Intro to Economics

Gun Control and It's Effects

New Gun Laws Could Mean Economic Woes For Booming Gun Industry

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/29/new-gun-laws-could-mean-economic-woes-for-booming-gun-industry/

We all have heard something about the multiple mass shootings that have been unfortunately happening around the U.S. I doubt that anyone reading this has also heard something about the wave of gun laws that has flooded Congress but has, relatively speaking, produced nothing much to show. It is, however, about to put a hurting on one of the industries that has remained afloat during the recession, the gun industry.

The gun industry employs around 220,000 Americans and while the unemployment rate was skyrocketing, it added 37,000 new jobs each with a average salary of about $50,000. Adding onto that the gun industry paid more than $5 billion in federal taxes and contributed $33.6 billion to the United States GDP in just 2012's fiscal year. Now our ever so wise legislators are trying to derail that success by doubling the background checks done and banning high capacity magazines and firearms alike. New York, Colorado and Connecticut have passed the strictest gun laws of the states and in the process are driving away huge economic profits that come from the manufacturing and sale of guns. Colt, Strum & Ruger Company and Mossberg & Sons all call Connecticut home but the state feels that it would be better if the companies only manufactured the guns in the state. This whole idea is absolutely absurd, to me anyway, and makes absolutely no sense financially. The gun manufacturers are basically getting told that they are welcome to stay and employ the states residents but can't make any profit from those same residents. Why would you piss off the one industry that has basically kept your state going? I really like the idea that Texas Gov. Rick Perry had though. He basically said that all 26 gun manufacturers in Connecticut that he would be more than happy to accommodate them in his state and that it would be in their best interests to move their plants. It makes perfect sense if you actually think about it, not only will the gun companies be able to sell their products in state but because of the increased profits may not need to lay off the amount of workers they would have to in Connecticut.

The moves would not only affect the sales but also the health of the economy at the previous location and the market flow. Manufacturing parts have for the most part been supplied in state for the guns but with the move the suppliers may not have anyone to sell to. This would most certainly put the businesses out of operation and end up hurting the local economy. I feel like the current gun laws are pushing the limit as is and that the smart thing to do is leave them alone. I know for a fact that the recent events have not been in any way the fault of the gun manufacturers, but actually caused by ignorant gun owners. Punishing the manufacturers therefore seems an altogether stupid proposal even if the consequences are not intended.

Ben Harakel

Intro to Economics

Obamacare

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-19/marco-rubios-devious-new-plan-to-kill-obamacare

Marco Rubio's Devious New Plan to Kill Obamacare

Obamacare is not a perfect system, if you have read any of my prior blogs on the subject you can easily understand why. The plan behind the bill was based on a very high stakes risk game more or less and that game is now starting to be attacked by republicans. The risk game involves both individuals and firms themselves and basically boils down to this: healthier people need less health care but will be charged the same so the excess money can help cover the costs of the unhealthy people. This principle is called a risk corridor and is exactly what Rubio is trying to erase from the bill. His bill is in response to a study done by the American Academy of Actuaries said that if the higher class citizens do not buy the insurance from the exchanges that are a part of Obamacare, the bill could be in some big trouble. Rubio's bill would create a chain reaction that would take out each critical part of the bill which would most likely lead to its destruction.

While most of you know just how much I despise the ACA this proposal brings me back to the point where I can't believe how petty both party's are. I believe that the democrats were wrong to pass this bill but I also think that republicans are part of the problem because of the for lack of a better word "bitching" they are doing about the bill. In my mind most of our legislators have lost their morals and their sense to differentiate right from wrong. Obamacare is merely a medium to help show the true colors of the politicians. I know the bill doesn't make logical sense and I know that it was passed because it was the president's baby but I don't think this is the best way to set things straight. I am one of the people who believe that it would be truly better for our state and federal government if all congressmen and women were fired and replaced with new people. Some politicians have been serving for the last 35-45 years uninterrupted and I feel have become stubborn and pretty complacent. Plus when you fight the same people with the same opinions for anywhere upwards of 20 years I can see it getting a little pointless. Either way I definitely think it is time for our congress to stop the undermining that is going on from both sides of the aisle.

Ben Harakel

Intro To Economics

Obamacare

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/12/bill-clinton-identifies-3-big-problems-with-the-obamacare-rollout/

Bill Clinton Identifies 3 Big Problems With the Obamacare Rollout

Maybe its just me but I thought that in the partisan world in which we live that people never criticize their own party. I guess that based on what Bill Clinton said the other day, I was wrong. Although Clinton didn't quite bash the bill completely, he did point out a couple of huge problems that are starting to make their way around our society. The former president said basically that Obama should go back and change his law so that people can keep their policies if they like them. What I think is really absurd is that everyone thinks that this is a really great idea. To start off that was what the bill was designed to do and so the fact that it failed could be the product of only two roots. The first being that (listen to this shocker) OBAMA WAS LYING, and he knew all along that you wouldn't be able to keep your benefits or the second which is that the law forced businesses to cancel the previous plans for financial reasons. Either way the White House is to blame for the "disaster" of a bill that we know as Obamacare and as much as I like the bipartisanship shown by Clinton I just don't think the change can be made.

It seems to me that the administration should either do one of two things: 

1. Let the people lose their plans and apologize for the problems

2. Try to fix the problems as they arise

While it seems like the best option is the second one, I feel like the first is the best option. Obama's approval rating is already in the toilet and if he tries to fix all of the problems, more will definitely arise. The risk is that the wonderful health care law that he proposed will turn into a nonfunctional bill but with good intentions. I can't see a way that the government can "force" the companies to reinstate the policies that have already been discontinued. It seems totally unfair in my mind to the businesses that chose to discard the policies and make money that the government would basically tell them to put all of the individual policies back in action. Considering how long it took to get this bill up and running I can hardly imagine how long it would take to make all the changes to it. 

Ben Harakel

Intro to Economics

Obamacare

Rand Paul Proposes Constitutional Amendment Barring Government Officials From Being Above the Law

http://rt.com/usa/rand-paul-amendment-obamacare-565/

This article was a little bit funny to me because I really didn't think that our government would ever get to this point. Our legislators and judiciaries are currently "on Obamacare" while really not being on Obamacare. They were originally included in the law but another bill was passed that allowed them to receive their government allowance to spend on healthcare. With this said all of the congressmen voted for Obamacare and then the judiciaries upheld the law which truly doesn't affect them. Thankfully someone is fighting back against the exemption after the blackmail of the Vitter bill (see my second post). That bill was more or less lost in the whole debacle of the government shutdown but now Rand Paul is taking up the charge against the democrats who are adamant about not being included in the law but yet have no problem enforcing it on the people. 

Paul's approach is different to that of Vitter's in that he is proposing an actual amendment to the constitution. His amendment reads: Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress. I thought that the point of having the representatives and senators was that they Represented Us!!! Not that they became like monarchs, putting themselves above us in all aspects and making rules that only apply to us. I am really starting to think that some of these people have forgotten how our system works and that a clean sweep of every branch is a necessity. All this time I was under the impression that a amendment such as the one Paul is proposing was unnecessary because it was like an unwritten rule. Apparently I was either misinformed or times have changed.

 It troubles me how much opposition the amendment is getting especially when you take it at face value. Congressmen, especially democrats, are arguing in essence that they are better than everyone else and shouldn't be held to the same standards, but are emphatic about preaching equality in all other aspects of society. The bill itself is not worded perfectly, because the Supreme Court could view it as saying that Congress isn't allowed to pass bill on things like welfare because it is not applicable to them. However I feel like the objection itself is not based on the wording as much as it is the implications of the law and its effect on Obamacare.