Australia finds an effective smoking deterrent

Legislation against activities of compulsion are rarely successful. Even if a population is predisposed to abide by the law, they may be physiologically wired to follow the compulsion. Addiction and desires are driven by powerful evolutionary forces. People tend to find a way around statutory and cultural restrictions.

Consider the governments, churches, civic groups, schools and parents that have sought to restrict sex throughout human history—for example, among individuals who are unmarried, gay, underage, dissimilar heritage, or simply in a school, church or prison. Do laws and even physical barriers stop people from having sex?

Swollen bellies amongst high school students suggests that rules can be broken. And pregnancy represents the tip of an iceberg. It results from a fraction of sexual encounters and many are terminated before they are evident, because of the law, the parents, or the shame of discovery.

It’s easier to prevent cats from reproducing. Simply neuter them if you can catch them before they produce litters. But governments generally don’t sterilize their population. That makes it difficult to get reelected, at least in a democracy.

Smoking may not be as universally enjoyable as sex, but for smokers, it is also a powerful compulsion. How can a society ban a desirable activity that the majority agrees is harmful to health and to the welfare of the society at large? Here, then, is a Wild Duck guide to curtailing the use of cigarettes…

1.  Ban It
If a government bans a vice (like smoking), it simply drives it underground. Just ask any American who was alive during Prohibition. Alcohol was everywhere, but profits accrued to the Mob instead of to the producers and government.

2.  Tax It
Does a selective tax discourage consumption or a particular activity? It certainly seems like it should work. These are called vice taxes.

But what seems valid often fails supply-and-demand realities. If a government taxes something that is cheap to produce, people will find a way to evade the tax. Either the consumer will buy it out of the jurisdiction, import it, or the manufacturer will produce unreported products. The vast and free-flowing nature of the Internet makes all of these things difficult to police and even more likely than they were before.

3.  Scare the Hell Out of Consumers
The Australian courts have just approved of a measure against which tobacco companies fought with all the gusto they could muster. Beginning late this year, cigarette packages will be completely covered by a horrid photo that graphically depicts the consequences of smoking. It’s not just a written warning. It gets you right into a rotting jaw, cancer of the eye ball, or a suffocating child. The photo and a dire warning will cover the front and display edge of the package. The rest of the box will be drab olive green regardless of the brand. Other illustrations, cartoons or images are prohibited…not even a brand logo!

Will people find a way around it? With bans and taxes, there is a strong incentive to circumvent rules. But I don’t think that consumers will go out of their way to purchase cigarettes from unknown sources to avoid a disturbing package. People still want their smokes. With the Australian scheme, people can still smoke–the brand they crave, from a trusted source, and without onerous taxation.

But the Australian parliament realizes that smokers cannot circumvent death and disease. That burden is not foisted upon you by government. It’s a just a fact, plain and simple. Their new rules help ensure that the smokers aren’t fooling themselves. Cancer and death will no longer be out-of-site, out-of-mind.

If the goal is to reduce smoking, this last idea is likely to achieve the goal. Most of us want to live. In the United States and Europe, warnings are a bit abstract and hypothetical. Australia’s packaging rules take the danger of smoking and shift them from a theory to stark, in-your-face reality.

Australian legislators are clearly Wild Ducks at heart. They understand compulsion. For some smokers, the desire to avoid a graphically depicted, painful experience may exceed the desire to get a quick nicotine high.

Increase gas tax as market cost of oil rises

When the cost of gasoline or oil rises (especially when it ‘spikes’), a reduction of taxes causes great harm to consumers and taxpayers. In fact, we are best served by a rise in taxes tied directly to changes in the cost of oil.

In May 2011, a group calling itself National Taxpayers Union or NTU launched a $1.25 million campaign to fight energy taxes, like the fuel tax added to the cost of gasoline at the pump in most countries.* One of the group’s less controversial public service announcements (or more accurately, a lobbying effort) consist of magazine ads and videos that encourage Americans to write their legislators and demand a roll back of gas taxes whenever market prices spike.

In supplier controlled markets, consumers can contain costs by magnifying spikes.

I hate consumption taxes, especially the ones that target individual commodities or categories, such as alcohol, cigarettes, luxury purchases, or any system of import tariffs. They are a form of social engineering and they bastardize free markets. But when an energy consumer nation gives consumers breaks during periods of price spikes, the result counters the social intent. In fact, each time that oil prices rise, the best thing our government can do is to force them higher still! This may sound crazy, but when the supply of a commodity is controlled a few foreign cartels, it is no longer a commodity. Artificially lowering the consumer price by subsidizing the price simply stimulates consumption. It does not expand supply, and so the subsidy goes directly into suppliers’ pockets.

Apparently, I am not the only one who thinks that lower gas prices is a bad idea. This month, Motley Fool columnist, Travis Hoium filed an Op-Ed entitled, 3 Reasons the US Should Want Higher Oil Prices. His analysis and opinion is articulate and adequately supported, but none of his reasons point to the fundamental economic reason that for a country that aspires to energy independence, oil should be taxed higher whenever the market cost of externally sourced oil rises. Let me spell it out (Hey! That’s what I do in A Wild Duck!)

What happens if we lower the cost of a commodity to consumers in an effort to counteract a higher supply price? That’s easy — It doesn’t take an Economist to answer! Since the supply is not increased, throwing a subsidy to the buyers “fuels” an even faster rise in prices and hands all that money to the supplier.

Let’s say that C = Amount of fuel needed for critical purposes
. . . . getting to work, heating our home, manufacturing
Let’s say that D = Amount of fuel needed for discretionary purposes
. . . . vacation travel, backyard BBQ, mowing the lawn, etc

Of course, with a limited personal budget, high fuel prices influence a consumer’s decision to classify an activity as ‘critical’ or ‘discretionary’. Additionally, the use of fuel is greatly affected by how efficiently you perform a task (taking a train to work instead of driving, vacationing nearby instead of far away, etc).

Foreign cartels wish to maintain high prices and high revenue, so they limit the foreign supply of oil. For them, it makes more sense to charge a lot of money for less product than to charge less money for a lot of product. If we consider again our classification of consumption into two categories, Critical and Discretionary, the supplier limits leave us with only enough fuel to support this much activity:

100%C + 80%(D)

Now if we counteract their production limits and insulate consumers from the higher cost, the formula doesn’t change. We continue to use just as much fuel.

In a free market, limited supply causes prices to rise and this forces consumers to cut back on discretionary use. Some consumers with less money must cut back on critical needs. That’s because some people can afford the keep buying and of course the cost of fuel rises.

In a free market — at least on our side of the ocean, this normally leads to several things — all of them very good:

•  Increase exploration and domestic production (Motley Fool covers this one)
•  Develop alternative fuels, especially domestic and environmentally friendly
•  Increase conservation:

  • Reduce travel
  • Turn off unnecessary appliances
  • Turn down heat, insulating home or office

•  Change modalities:

  • Carpool or use public transportation
  • Reclassify some “Critical” uses as “Discretionary”
  • Buy local (reduces wholesale transportation)
  • Switch electric providers to avoid foreign sources

If consumers are suddenly subsidized when the cost of fuel rises, something terrible happens. Instead of producing more domestic energy, we are not at all affecting the supply. We are simply handing the foreign seller more cash — directly from the taxpayer to their pockets. And they didn’t even ask for it! They raise the cost by $1 per gallon and we give them $2 extra. Heck, why not? It makes us feel good.

What happens if we increase taxes when suppliers raise prices? First, we benefit by all the good things listed above.

Second, since some foreign suppliers are not truly constrained in their production (that is, they have plenty of oil), they will keep costs low in order to sustain revenue. There are plenty of places this “cost reduction” tax can be inserted: at point-of-sale, at import, or in the distribution chain.

What do we do with the money that is raised by taxes? That’s easy too. Give it back to consumers or use it to fund the development of energy sources that are domestic, inexpensive and environmentally safe.

This is how supply and demand should work. Of course, the government can still subsidize those in need. But do it in a way that doesn’t bastardize market dynamics. As a society, we provide assistance to the consumers who cannot afford energy for critical needs, and not by handing money to the supplier (effectively, a reward for cutting production). In this way, we reduce consumption, increase domestic production and provide direct assistance to those who are less fortunate. The effect of subsidizing some buyers will force some other buyers to reduce discretionary use. For example, if some of the higher cost went to taxes, it could be used to help ease the consumers who can no longer afford the “critical” fraction of their use.
* Americans are taxed for automotive fuel at the pump: A federal tax of 18.4¢ plus a state tax that varies between 12~35¢. The average state tax is about 23¢/gal, so the typical American pays about 41½¢ tax on each gallon, or approximately 10%.