Pelosi ‘Stimulus’ Bill Imposes Nationwide ‘Ballot Harvesting’ Without ‘Any Limit’

 

 Article by Joel B. Pollack in "Breitbart":

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s new stimulus bill would mandate nationwide “ballot harvesting,” allowing party operatives to return other people’s ballots to polling places without “any limit” on the number of ballots.

“Ballot harvesting” was legalized in California in 2016, and first used in the 2018 midterm elections. It allows anyone to drop off someone else’s mail-in ballot at a polling station. There is no process for vetting or verifying those delivering the ballots — no background checks or identification requirements. Democrats dropped hundreds of thousands of ballots off at polling stations in 2018, helping Democrats as they flipped seven Republican seats.

The practice is illegal in most other states, largely because it is susceptible to fraud and intimidation. Republicans were caught flat-footed in 2018; they have experimented with the tactic in recent special elections, only to find the their voters adamantly refuse to give their ballots to strangers. Democrats are more open to the practice — often became the “harvester” also registers the voter, according to Republican National Committeeman Shawn Steel.

California’s “ballot harvesting” law has yet to be challenged in court. It is one reason that California remains a one-party state, with little prospect for change in the foreseeable future.

Pelosi wants to take that system nationwide.

Her bill, released Monday afternoon, provides that every state:

A) shall permit a voter to designate any person to return a voted and sealed absentee ballot to the post office, a ballot drop-off location, tribally designated building, or election office so long as the person designated to return the ballot does not receive any form of compensation based on the number of ballots that the person has returned and no individual, group, or organization provides compensation on this basis; and (B) may not put any limit on how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can return to the post office, a ballot drop off location, tribally designated building, or election office.

In other words, paid party operatives can literally truck thousands and thousands of ballots to the polls, provided they earn a salary or fee, and are not paid by the ballot.

It is a practice that is known in Third World countries as “ballot stuffing,” and is outlawed in every democracy, no matter how poor — even in countries where the physical and administrative obstacles to voting are far greater than in the world’s most developed economy.

And it is Pelosi’s condition for saving the U.S. economy from coronavirus.

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/03/23/pelosi-stimulus-bill-imposes-nationwide-ballot-harvesting-without-any-limit/

Pelosi and Schumer Block $1.6 Trillion Emergency Economic Bill – DOW Futures Collapse

Democrat Party treachery; a three part story of how they fucked America last night...

ACT 1

Over the past three days a bipartisan group of senators, not leadership, constructed a $1.6 Trillion emergency aid package to rescue the U.S. economy and American workers.  The package had the support of Mitch McConnell. It is called The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or “CARE Act“. [READ BILL S.548 HERE]

However, at the last minute House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, having returned from her House recess vacation sipping cocktails poolside, instructed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to crush the senate effort.

Power hungry Pelosi sees an opportunity to use the looming economic crisis as leverage for selecting winners & losers amid the K-Street lobbying community.  Donors for Democrats will be rewarded; supporters of Republicans, not-so-much.  This is DC at it’s worst and Pelosi isn’t going to lose another opportunity.  It’s the same process she used in ’08/’09.

“Twice in one lifetime… How blessed am I?”

Senator Schumer did as he was instructed.  The relief bill did not pass cloture (60 votes needed), and the three-day effort collapsed.  Immediately the DOW futures dropped 5%.

WASHINGTON DC – “I want everybody to fully understand if we aren’t able to act tomorrow, it will be because of our colleagues on the other side continuing to dicker when the country expects us to come together and address the problem,” McConnell said on the floor. He added that over the last 48 hours there were bipartisan discussions among “regular members of the Senate, not in the Leadership office, not in the speaker’s office for goodness sakes.”

“She’s the Speaker of the House, not the Speaker of the Senate,” McConnell added. “We were doing just fine until that intervention.”  (more)

There are two main points Pelosi is targeting.  First, because COVID-19 creates a MASSIVE SPENDING opportunity, Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to include the elimination of college debt, literally wipe out student loans – which ironically and intentionally were created under Obamacare, in the coronavirus bill.

This move has nothing to do with the economic impacts of coronavirus, but it allows: (a) a political win to get the Bernie AOC crowd behind the Democrat candidate; and (b) will allow more government funding to ideological college interests by wiping out the debt problem.

Secondly, Speaker Pelosi wants unilateral control over which companies will receive any financial assistance or loans to survive the crisis.

As was the case with the 2008 Bank Bailouts, 2009 ARRA (stimulus plan) and Auto-Bailout, Pelosi wants control to select companies for assistance that are owned and operated by Democrat donors; and to scuttle any businesses or corporations who are led by republican donors.   This was a big part of Obama’s stimulus program and GM bailout scheme.  You might remember the dealerships helped were based on party registration.

WASHINGTON DC – Two ugly truths about any epic economic crisis are that not all businesses will survive, and government interventions help determine which businesses will survive.

As coronavirus crushes the economy, Washington policymakers are scrambling to figure out who to bail out, a responsibility that one veteran of the 2008 financial rescue morbidly but accurately compared to the frantic triage work that doctors are currently doing in overcrowded Italian hospitals.

[…] As Congress rushes to assemble an enormous stimulus package to try to slow the freefall or at least pad the landing, it’s becoming clear that a lot of federal dollars will be sent straight to American taxpayers, but also that a lot of federal dollars will go straight to the companies that employ them. Washington’s last epic bailout, the $700 billion Wall Street rescue of 2008, was wildly unpopular but ultimately quite successful—and while a financial panic is a different kind of crisis than a viral pandemic, it has some lessons for today about when companies should get help and how that help should be delivered. (read more)

The difference between Nancy’s prior exploits (in 2008 /2009) and today is that previously she had President Obama to support all of her political schemes.  Now she could be up against President Trump who might use his considerable platform to call attention to the partisan spending….  Key words “could” and “might”.

However, don’t hold your breath; I doubt President Trump will take on Pelosi.  He’ll more than likely sign anything she gives him because she controls the media, and the media is fueling the direction of the panic narrative and blame-casting.  Together with corporate lobbyists, the reality is, corporate media controls congress.

Yup.  We’re going back to the future and it’s politics.

Democrats don’t give a damn about what happens with the economy because Donald Trump is George Bush and will be forced to own the economic collapse he self-created.   So there’s no pressure based on the severity of the collapse… Also given the political damage being inflicted on the White House, there’s no urgency for Nancy…   There is only upside for Pelosi in choosing the winners while she knows the media will never call her out on it.

If all this seems painfully familiar to you…. yes, we’ve been here and done all this a little more than a decade ago.  Here we go again….  Again, here’s the BILL

ACT 2 – McConnell Gives Pelosi Another Chance to Stop U.S. Market Collapse – Will ReFloor Emergency Funding Bill at 9:45am Monday…

Man-o-man, this is some high-stakes poker playing, and it’s the United States economy on the table.   Mitch McConnell is going to put S.3548 The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act, back on the senate floor at 9:45am ET tomorrow, 15 minutes after the stock market starts collapsing.

[Read Bill Here]

[Link To Tweet]

Sweet Baby Jesus… I can’t remember ever seeing anything like this.  A $20 trillion U.S. economy, and tens-of-millions of American jobs and businesses on the line….  And McConnell is calling Pelosi’s bluff.    P.U.B.L.I.C.L.Y!

Talk about seriously high stakes politics.   Yikes.  McConnell is going to make every democrat senator vote again to close debate and advance the bill; putting them on record for negotiating a deal and then walking away from the deal they assembled.

I would imagine Senator McConnell has talked to President Trump about this….

CLOSING ACT: Act of Destruction:

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) blocked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) attempt to set up a Monday morning vote on the stimulus package, effectively delaying the vote until the afternoon.

McConnell had vowed earlier Sunday that he would force a second procedural vote related to the stimulus package at 9:45 a.m., 15 minutes after the markets open.

But when McConnell tried to lock in that time, Schumer objected, denying the GOP leader the consent he needed to enact his plan.

Instead, the Senate will vote for a second time after they come into session at noon on Monday, potentially having destroyed the American economy in the interim. 

Coronavirus Humor

The Coronavirus Killed the Progressive Left

The pandemic will continue to reshape politics 

and public opinion for the foreseeable future.

Tyler Cowen opinion at Bloomberg

Covid-19 and the Democratic presidential primaries, the two biggest stories of the year so far, reflect a common theme: the death of the progressive left. Looking back, historians may well see late 2019 and very early 2020 as a kind of high-water mark for American progressivism.

It wasn’t so long ago that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were commanding most of the attention in the presidential campaign, especially among intellectuals. Right before Super Tuesday, Sanders was a clear favorite in the prediction markets. Yet the actual voting showed the strength of Joe Biden, a (relative) centrist; Warren attracted very little support, and Sanders failed to reach the same vote totals he achieved four years ago.

And a big comeback for the left four years from now seems unlikely. Democratic Party success is likely to come from other directions. Covid-19 could well be a front-page story for the next year or two, possibly more. Over the span of less than a week, virtually every major institution in American life has been subject to radical changes to their daily operations, and it is not clear when things will return to normal. Covid-19 may well make a bigger impression on the national consciousness than 9/11 or the financial crisis of 2008.

How will Covid-19 reshape public opinion? I am not suggesting that what follows is rational, much less correct, but here are some guesses:

-- The notion of very open international borders will seem strange and indeed intolerable, as most of the world’s wealthy nations have been looking for ways to keep foreigners out. The new restrictions on movement will not be repealed so quickly or so thoroughly, and for a while the U.S. may restrict movement across domestic states and cities. President Donald Trump will appear to have been ahead of his time, and immigration will no longer be a viable mobilizing issue for the left.

-- The egalitarianism of the progressive left also will seem like a faint memory. Elites are most likely to support wealth redistribution when they feel comfortable themselves, and indeed well-off coastal elites in California and the Northeast are a backbone of the progressive movement. But when these people feel threatened in their lives or occupations, or when the futures of their children suddenly seem less secure, redistribution will not be such a compelling ideal.

I am not saying you have to welcome this change, only that it is likely.

-- A massive dose of fiscal policy has been another progressive priority. Now that even Republicans are embracing stimulus, as a political issue it will cease to be effective for the left.

-- The case for mass transit also will seem weaker, because subways and buses will be associated with the fear of Covid-19 transmission. In a similar fashion, the forces of NIMBY will become stronger, relative to those of YIMBY, because people secure in their isolated suburban homes will feel less stressed than those in densely packed urban apartment buildings.

-- There is likely to be much more government intervention in some parts of the health-care sector, but it will focus on scarce hospital beds and ventilators, and enforce nasty triage, rather than being a benevolent move toward universal coverage. If anything, it will drive home the message that supply constraints are binding and America can’t have everything — hardly the traditional progressive message.

-- The climate change movement is likely to be another victim. How much have you heard about Greta Thunberg lately? Concern over the climate will seem like another luxury from safer and more normal times. In addition, the course of anti-Covid-19 efforts may not prove propitious for the climate change movement. If the fight against Covid-19 suddenly improves (perhaps a vaccine working very quickly?), Americans may come to expect the same in the fight against climate change.

Alternatively, if Covid-19 risk persists, it will distract and seem like the bigger problem. And the various national responses to date also do not suggest that international cooperation is going to be very successful on a wide variety of issues, climate change included.

Personally, when I see so many people mixing in large crowds for fun, only a week or two before the Covid-19 disaster is likely to strike and overwhelm hospitals, I despair. Will such people ever take climate change seriously?

Again, this is all conjecture. But as Covid-19 continues to spread, it is likely that the list of things it will change — in politics and the world of ideas, much less daily life — is only going to grow.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.

It Takes a World

by Mahlet Mefsin at Foreign Affairs (Council on Foreign Relations)

It Takes a World to End a Pandemic

Scientific Cooperation Knows No Boundaries—Fortunately

March 21, 2020

For perhaps the first time in modern history, the entire, interconnected world is focused on solving a single problem. The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, and the disease it causes, COVID-19, have transfixed the global community, as leaders and citizens seek to respond to a threat whose dimensions are neither entirely certain nor entirely known.

Members of the scientific community around the world are stepping up to find answers to the many questions the pandemic raises. Experts are working together, both inside and outside of laboratories, to provide the best information directly to the public (for example, through the Federation of American Scientists’ crowd-sourced website),  to coordinate global research priorities, and much more. Arguably, no expert community has a more important role to play in finding the solutions the world needs and communicating trustworthy information to the public. 

Shared Threat, Shared Research

With remarkable speed over these last three months, scientists have uncovered fundamental insights about the novel coronavirus and the interventions that might best address the disease it causes. In December, a group of Chinese researchers published the genetic sequence of the new virus online through the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data. That data allowed the international scientific community to start developing diagnostic tests and explore treatment options. The site now holds the genetic sequence of the virus as found in hundreds of patients across six continents. By mid-January, researchers in Germany, along with collaborators in other European countries and in Hong Kong, published details of a diagnostic test to detect the novel coronavirus. The World Health Organization dispatched kits based on these findings to laboratories worldwide and hosts the protocols from kits from seven countries on its website. BioRxiv and medRxiv, open online repositories of not-yet-published studies in biology and health sciences, currently host more than 420 papers on the new coronavirus. The WHO has reported more than 390 clinical trials on its international registry platform, and the National Institutes of Health’s first vaccine clinical trial commenced on Monday.

As impressive as this progress is, the world needs more, and quickly. Much remains that scientists don’t fully understand about the novel coronavirus, including its transmission dynamics, its potential to reemerge in waves like the 1918 Spanish flu, whether it is mutating, where it came from, and how environmental factors, such as temperature, may affect its spread. About the disease, too, questions remain, including why the response of patient populations to infection may differ and whether those who have been infected develop short- or long-term immunity. Researchers are racing to develop treatment options and tests that are accurate, sensitive, rapid, and locally deployable. Epidemiologists and social scientists seek to understand which mitigation measures will be the most effective in controlling the spread of the virus; how valuable extreme measures, such as quarantines and travel bans, really are; and what consequences such policies may have on other areas of public health.

Infectious diseases, it is commonly said, know no borders, and neither does the knowledge needed to fight them. 

In the search for answers to these and other burning questions, every nation has something to give and something to gain. Infectious diseases, it is commonly said, know no borders, and neither does the knowledge needed to fight them. Scientists around the world routinely share information and collaborate across borders.  The current pandemic has scientists working together on platforms such as Slack, and using new tools, such as machine learning, to rapidly detect the novel coronavirus in tests that use large amounts data from multiple sources. This outbreak has demonstrated in real time how scientific understanding can indeed be a global public good.

In recent years, geopolitical competition, particularly between China and the United States, has given rise to discomfort in some quarters with the collaborative nature of the scientific enterprise. To the extent that scientific advancements lead to new products and technologies, countries seeking to advance their own national or economic interests tend to view science more through a competitive, rather than cooperative, lens. Drugs and vaccines can generate huge revenues. But one country’s fight against a fast-moving contagion is inherently linked to that of its neighbors—whether friends or foes—so everyone needs to win the battle. In a global pandemic, the value of open collaboration is obvious. Its usefulness in confronting other shared threats, such as climate change, should be obvious, as well.

Not a Time For Retreat 

The COVID-19 pandemic comes at a time of rising nationalism around the world. But insularity and xenophobia cannot possibly produce an effective response to this global crisis. The magnitude of this moment calls instead for the sharing of expertise and cooperation among nations and for informed, evidence-based, coordinated responses from national governments.

Fortunately, many institutions across countries and sectors have risen to meet the need. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and Mastercard have dedicated $125 million to the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator, which seeks to identify potential treatments, accelerate their development, and prepare to manufacture millions of doses for worldwide use. The WHO is working to finalize a “master protocol” for clinical trials, which will increase the size of the trials by pooling patient groups around the world and thus potentially identifying differences in responses across patient populations. The G7 leaders met on Monday and discussed commitments to research cooperation, among other shared concerns.

Much more remains to be done in order for global cooperation to be effective. For example, at a recent meeting led by the WHO and the Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness, more than 300 experts highlighted the need to share materials about the virus and clinical samples as an immediate research action. And calls to harmonize regulations across national and regional bodies have never made more sense, as requiring each country or region to separately approve diagnostics and treatments creates bottlenecks whose detrimental consequences are now abundantly clear. The United States furnished a striking example: the country could not use tests developed elsewhere, such as those from the WHO, because they had not been approved for use in U.S. patients.

Tensions between China and the United States threaten to dampen progress on coronavirus research. 

In the past, the United States prioritized its global leadership role, including in public health. For example, in 2003, the White House responded to the global HIV/AIDS epidemic by initiating an emergency plan and dedicating more than $80 billion in funds to the worldwide struggle to contain the disease. The United States led international efforts to counter the outbreak of the Ebola virus in West Africa in 2014 and assisted in developing the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But priorities have changed. The White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has recently convened with its counterparts around the world to discuss COVID-19, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration co-chaired the first global regulatory workshop on COVID-19 vaccine development, but the U.S. government has not been a robust participant in other international forums, nor has it modeled an approach that values global engagement or involves the whole of government.

Tensions between China and the United States further threaten to dampen progress on coronavirus research. In recent years, U.S. concerns about Chinese espionage and technology transfer have quelled U.S.-Chinese scientific cooperation, as demonstrated by the prosecution or firing of top U.S. academics who allegedly covertly participated in programs to develop China’s scientific enterprise. These tensions also limit high-level engagement, as evidenced by the fact that the OSTP did not include Chinese officials in its discussions with foreign counterparts.  In the past, the United States would have used government channels to address its concerns even as it looked for ways to continue working with Chinese scientists on matters of shared priority. The two nations possess the world’s greatest biomedical scientific expertise. But although institutions might still collaborate to combat COVID-19 (for example, the U.S.-based pharmaceuticals company Gilead is working with Beijing’s China-Japan Friendship Hospital to test an antiviral drug on patients in Wuhan), government links are strained, just when engagement could help expand the data and sample sharing needed to address this crisis.

A Global Foundation 

South Korea lived through the 2003 SARS outbreak, and its response to the COVID-19 pandemic reflects better preparation on account of lessons learned. The country effectively “flattened the curve” of infection such that its health-care system could manage the illness.  South Korea’s experience demonstrates the importance of sharing lessons learned—and the fact that the foundation set in good times is most critical in bad times.  

Navy hospital ship Mercy to depart San Diego for Los Angeles for COVID-19 response

The hospital ship USNS Mercy is departing Naval Base San Diego in California for Los Angeles on Monday, as COVID-19 cases in the U.S. increase, according to the Navy.

On Sunday, President Donald Trump announced that the Mercy would head to Los Angeles to provide additional medical capacity in the region. The vessel is equipped with more than 800 Navy medical personnel and support staff, along with more than 70 civil service mariners, and has 1,000 hospital beds.

Although the vessel was expected to depart for Seattle, Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Peter Gaynor said the administration predicts California will need more assistance.

"The Department of Defense has been given direction to dispatch it to Los Angeles immediately," Gaynor said during a Sunday press conference. "DoD has advised that Mercy can get into position within a week or less of today's order. Even though there are more cases right now in Washington, the projected needs for beds in California is five times more that of Washington.”

According to the Gaynor and the Navy, the hospital ship will be used to treat patients who are not suffering from COVID-19. This will free up local health professionals to treat those infected with the virus.

“The ship will serve as a referral hospital for non-COVID-19 patients currently admitted to shore-based hospitals, and will provide a full spectrum of medical care to include critical and urgent care for adults,” the Navy said in a news release Monday.

“This will allow local health professionals to focus on treating COVID-19 patients and for shore-based hospitals to use their Intensive Care Units and ventilators for those patients,” the Navy release said.

The Mercy isn’t the only hospital ship that will respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The hospital ship USNS Comfort, based out of Norfolk, Virginia, will also be deployed to assist with the COVID-19 response. The hospital ship is currently in Norfolk for maintenance, and will likely head to New York in a few weeks.

“That's a weeks issue, so it's going to be a little while,” Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman told reporters March 18. “At that time, it's intended to head to New York, but we'll continue to evaluate the situation and make a determination on where it's best suited.”

https://www.navytimes.com/news/coronavirus/2020/03/23/navy-hospital-ship-mercy-to-depart-san-diego-for-los-angeles-for-covid-19-response/

Back to Work By March 30:

by BOB LUDDY Spectator.org

Back to Work by March 30: 

A Coronavirus Imperative

China and Russia are open for business and working at close to capacity, as America shutters most all business and industry in states such as Pennsylvania, New York, California, New Jersey, and Connecticut. In many cases only select manufacturing companies are allowed to operate, which means most manufacturers will be short of parts and services necessary to produce goods.

Our leaders are creating an economic crisis and a major national security risk with limited data. The cure is far worse than any perceived impact by COVID-19. Our economy is both fragile and interdependent, an economic reality not understood by our leaders as they order mass closings of many states’ business and industry.

Thomas Sowell wrote, “There are no solutions. There are only tradeoffs.” Sowell was informing us that wise and sound judgments are imperative during any crisis.

An opinion piece by John P. A. Ioannidis, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and population health at Stanford University, is headlined, “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.”

This season the flu has killed 22,000 Americans versus 388 dead from COVID-19. This the hard data available. There has been no national discussion about the flu but complete panic on the coronavirus.

The restaurant industry, which is the largest employer in America, is closed in most states. Now we will begin to witness the industries that support restaurants and hotels begin to shutter.

Marriott Corporate in Bethesda, Maryland, has furloughed 66 percent of its employees and cut the pay of the remaining employees by 20 percent. Such actions by major employers will have a devastating impact on the U.S. economy.

The Big Three automakers and their suppliers are closed, which means hundreds of thousands of workers are laid off and at home. This will quickly lead to more layoffs and many small business failures. There is no amount of government money that can make up for an economy closed and workers staying home.

We all know that food and supplies are critical to families. Most individuals assume these products and services will be available. But as we have witnessed, when demand exceeds supply and businesses are shuttered, supply runs out.

Supply of goods and services is quickly becoming a more important national issue than the COVID-19 panic. The virus will not adversely impact most Americans, but they will sustain substantial financial losses and at some point supplies will run out.

Schools can shut down, and sick people should stay home, along with older or at-risk individuals, until the panic subsides, but the healthy must be allowed to work.

Every family, state, city, and business can make the best decisions during this crisis, but we cannot have simplistic top-down mandates.

We are quickly moving toward a supply problem. Just-in-time inventory means we make products as needed. If the producers are closed, we run out of goods quickly.

Wiring $3,000 to most Americans may seem like a solution, but unless we have a supply of the goods families need, the money will not help. The best way for families to have income is for America to be open for business and not risk shortages and civil unrest. It is noteworthy that liquor, ammo, and guns sales are robust.

The federal government has no money and is $23 trillion in debt. Now Congress contemplates a $2 trillion economic bailout, which is pushing the limits of how much Congress can borrow and will eventually create a major financial meltdown. The solution is a robust economy producing goods, services, and financial stability.

All healthy Americans who want to work must be allowed to return to work no later than March 30. This common-sense approach will allow new production and for the healthy to support those in need.

I urge our President Trump to speak to Americans from a Midwest manufacturing plant, away from the Swamp, and appeal to all governors and Americans to overcome their fears and take reasonable precautions, but allow America to open for business by March 30.

Bob Luddy is CEO & Founder CaptiveAire.

Why Are There Toilet Paper Shortages...

Fee.org

Why Are There 

Toilet Paper Shortages around the World?

There are a few explanations for the run on toilet paper, but one basic economic lesson explains the shortage.

Amanda Snell - Saturday, March 21, 2020

Americans have seen scarcity, bailouts, price fluctuations, and epidemics before, but one thing seems to set the coronavirus emergency apart:

The toilet paper.

Shelves where the product once was stored are bare—and not just in the US. The United Kingdom has experienced similar shortages, leading consumers to purchase toilet paper substitutes (at the risk of the sewage system), and an Australian newspaper went so far as to print eight blank pages in a recent issue to be used in case of emergency for, you guessed it, toilet paper.

The desire to hoard during a pandemic may be totally natural, but hoarding for some means scarcity for others.

What is a good solution for this problem? Many stores have instigated their own rationing devices (limits of X amount of toilet paper, hand sanitizers, etc., per customer), with others instituting hours of shopping reserved for the elderly or immunocompromised.

These are creative and compassionate ideas, and they may solve some of the problem of hoarding—but the market has another way.

The problem? It’s incredibly unpopular, and, of course, even illegal in many places.

Understanding the Price Gouging Problem

“price gouging” has a particularly negative connotation. It refers to a phenomenon wherein customers at an especially vulnerable time are charged unusually high prices by “greedy” business owners taking advantage of their need.

But think about the incentives of business owners—do you know a single entrepreneur, business owner, or honest employee who wants to intentionally upset their customers? The incentive of business owners is always to provide great service and reasonable prices. To act otherwise is to eventually run out of business.

These incentives do not suddenly change during a crisis—business owners are still judged by the court of public opinion, and those who treat customers unfairly will not go unnoticed, at least not for long.

So why do prices rise during times of need? The answer is found in the basic economic principles of supply and demand.

When demand increases, it’s a signal that customers want to consume more of a certain product.

Basic Economics: Supply and Demand

The graph below demonstrates these changes. The demand line shifts up from D1 to D2—increasing prices, but only temporarily. Prices are a rationing device and signal of scarcity, so this higher price naturally encourages customers to make do with less while simultaneously indicating to producers to expand production.

Though buyers have to pay more for each product, it reduces the risk of shortages by making it easier for suppliers to meet the increased demand for their goods.

What’s perhaps more relevant to our current situation is that hoarders are indirectly discouraged from hoarding. A higher price makes consumers think twice before buying a cart-full of toilet paper, leaving more product on the shelves and limiting or delaying, perhaps indefinitely, any shortage.

But that’s not all, remember that the higher price is only temporary, since higher prices will spur production.

Sellers see product flying off the shelves and note that they need to ramp up production to meet the growing demand. Potential entrepreneurs also recognize that there may be room for extra business in this particular market, so they start production.

Once supply is able to catch up, the supply line shifts from S1 to S2, and prices normalize once again.

Sure these are merely graphs, and it is difficult to appropriately convey the nuances of human behavior and the complexity of the economy in a single graph.

However, we’ve already seen these forces at work in the past few weeks. Distilleries have taken note of hand sanitizer shortages and are helping to meet the increased demand by producing their own—some even giving their product away for free. Last week Georgia-Pacific, a toilet paper supplier, increased production capacity by 120 percent.

Amplified production by existing companies, and the entrance of new business into markets, will lower prices to pre-crisis levels.

Referring to rising prices as “price gouging” will not change the economic fact: in a free economy, prices are a vital signal to producers and consumers alike. It’s incredible that a single number can do so much.

This is the miracle inherent in free markets—no solitary, all-knowing authority is dictating the direction of prices or production in a single market (let alone an entire economy). It happens naturally, as if led by an invisible hand.

The Toilet Paper Shortage

So why was there a sudden run on toilet paper? Who knows.

Perhaps in anticipation of long periods of quarantine, shoppers are looking for any necessary household goods to stockpile. One consumer psychologist explained that it could simply be retail therapy; stressed consumers rushing for feelings of security during a pandemic. Others simply blame herd mentality—the idea that if everyone else is hoarding toilet paper, you might as well be too.

The ultimate lesson? Let prices rise and markets do their work. As long as economic freedom exists, ingenuity and innovation will never be in short supply—and neither will toilet paper.