I have always been a believer in free market economics. Whenever a government tries to "fix" things, it often makes things worse, and more often than not, the law of Unintended Consequences is engaged. Prohibition of alcohol early in the last century is often cited, but some of the worst cases of Federal government intervention have taken place since the 1960s. Here are a few examples:
Roosevelt and Nixon Administration Wage and Price Controls
History
has shown that wage and price controls (also called "incomes
policies") are an exercise in futility. In the United States,
wage and price controls were first instituted with marginal results
by the Roosevelt
administration during World War II, as administered by the Office
of Price Administration. Eventually, employers and consumers find
ways to work their way around these laws.
In his book Government
by Emergency,
Dr. Gary North described the wage and
price controls instituted by the Nixon Administration. North showed
that the law was entirely ineffective at "fighting inflation." The
only sure
way to
stop inflation is to stop the government printing presses and do
away with fractional reserve
banking. But still, governments all over the world have resorted
to wage and price controls, usually with no real effect. Just two
weeks ago, the outrageously inept government of Zimbabwe declared
that it would jail anyone that raises wages or prices. Given the
country's
current
inflation
rate
of more than 1,200 percent per annum, I seriously doubt that the
law will be a success. But knowing how Comrade Mugabe and his henchmen
operate, the law
may result in a few "disappearances" or perhaps even a
few executions.
The 1986 Private Machinegun Ownership"Freeze"
In 1934, under the Roosevelt administration, machinegun ownership in
the U.S. became subject to some pretty draconian restrictions: Registration
of the guns by serial number, a background check and fingerprinting
of prospective owners, and a $200 Federal tax each time a gun is
transferred--ostensibly justified by the Commerce Clause. From 1934
to 1985 machineguns could
still be produced and purchased by private citizens that were willing
to jump through the paperwork flame-filled hoops and pay the $200 transfer
tax. But
that changed in 1986. Through some backroom political deal-making,
a ban
on new production
of machineguns
was slipped
into
a larger legislative
package of pro-Second Amendment legislation, and passed by a simple
voice vote. This law effectively "froze" the number of transferable machineguns
in private hands, and it has been frozen ever since. At the time that
the
freeze was enacted,
a newly-produced Thompson submachinegun sold for $950, a M1919 Browning
belt fed was around $1,200, an M16 was around $800, a flimsy Sten gun
was $190, and a registered M16
auto sear (the key conversion part for an AR-15 to make it selective
fire) was just $150. But time has marched on, and the
law of supply and demand proved itself inescapable. More than
20 years have now gone by. There are now millions of gun collectors
now in their 30s and 40s that were just kids when the freeze was enacted,
They are now chasing after the same frozen supply
of registered, transferable machineguns. Ever since 1986, prices have
risen
steadily,
turning machinegun
ownership
into
a hobby that is now seemingly reserved for
the rich. Presently, a Thompson submachinegun made in
the early 1980s is now worth $14,000, a M1919 Browning belt fed is around
$18,000, an M16 is around $17,000, a
Sten gun sells for around $6,000, and a registered M16
auto sear is $15,000 if you can find one!
Unless the freeze is repealed, or unless there is another registration
amnesty to flush out the more than one million unregistered machineguns
in the country, it is likely that machinegun prices will continue to
escalate.
The 1994-to-2004 "Assault Weapons" and High Capacity
Magazine Ban
Thankfully now dead due to a 10-year "sunset" clause, the
assault weapons ban of 1994 wreaked similar economic havoc. This ban
froze the production on dozens of named models of paramilitary semi-auto
rifles as well as magazines with more than 10 round capacity.
The U.S. 1995 Freon Ban
In 1995, the US EPA banned new production of one-pound canisters
of Freon R12 refrigerant. (This is the type used by individual car owners
to re-charge their car's air conditioning system.) Only larger canisters
were available to "trained professionals", during a transition
period as other refrigerants deemed "non Ozone depleting" were
phased in. Soon after the ban was enacted, the price of R12
cans on the secondary market spiked from less than $3 per can to as high
as
$60
per
can! The
freon ban led to widespread
Freon smuggling, which is reportedly still continuing today. (R12
is still manufactured in some countries--most notably Brazil--that did
not
sign
up to the
international treaty banning Ozone Depleting Chemicals (ODCs.)
The Pending Federal "Assault Weapons" and High Capacity
Magazine Ban
As previously mentioned in SurvivalBlog, a scary
new piece of Federal legislation was recently introduced that would
reinstate the 1994 "Assault Weapon" and magazine ban. This
new bill, H.R.
1022,
is far worse than its predecessor. It is much more loosely worded--casting
a
wide
net for
any
guns that even look vaguely paramilitary--and puts the final
decision on whether or not any particular model is deemed an "assault
weapon" up to the politically-appointed Attorney general. Thankfully,
it still leaves a lot of existing ("grandfathered") guns
and full capacity magazines. If it passes,
I predict that its effect will be much like the 1986 machinegun freeze.
Prices went up a lot
during the 1994-to-2004 Federal ban, But this new one is much worse, so
prices will surely skyrocket. My
advice is to stock up, especially on magazines. Buy at least
a dozen for each of your semi-auto guns. Buy hundreds more as an investment,
if you can afford them. Again, based
on the
experience of the 1994-2004 ban and the 1986 Federal machinegun "freeze", I
expect magazine prices to at least triple,
and possibly go much higher.
The Beloved Grandfather Clause
One of the fairly dependable parts of the American legal system is
the beloved "grandfather
clause." This is the "weasel wording" that is typically
written into nearly
every
piece
of ban, freeze, or otherwise restrictive legislation,
allowing existing supplies of any banned
items or substances to continue to be owned, used, and in most cases
transferred. These grandfather clauses are politically expedient,
because they A.) minimize the political backlash against new laws,
B.) minimize legal challenges to the new laws, and C.) save the
taxpayers countless millions of dollars, since they side-step any
challenges that a new law constitutes and illegal "taking." (The
owner of a warehouse full of banned widgets would scream
bloody murder if his existing inventory was banned from sale and
hence became worthless. But with a grandfather clause, the company
owner can sell out his existing
inventory, usually at a tidy profit. In the end, however, the factory owner is
still deprived of part of his livelihood. )
Re-Prioritizing Purchasing Plans?
Federal "bans", "freezes", and price controls" are
contrary to normal market forces, and when they are enacted, they spread
economic chaos. If we lived in a perfect world, they wouldn't be an
issue. But sadly we live in a world where the majority of nation states
run by politicians attempt such follies. As prepared individuals,
the
best that we can do is stand ready to compensate for the impact
of such legislation. If the politicians are planning to ban items
that we see as necessary for our preparedness, then it is in our
best interest to stock up, muy pronto. If ban legislation
seems imminent, then it might mean re-setting our purchasing priorities
in the short
term.
For example, you might not have had plans to buy your "lifetime
supply"
of main battle rifles and full capacity magazines in the next six months.
But events in the near future might necessitate doing just that.
