Posts
Why I Pay with Two-Dollar Bills - Briggs Armstrong - Mises Institute: "I recently decided that I am going to pay for as many things as is practicable using only two-dollar bills."
"Thomas Jefferson is featured on the two, and as all Jeffersonians and Austrians know, Jefferson had a deep hatred of central banks and inflation. (Not to mention that his vice president shot and killed Hamilton.) What's more, two-dollar bills are something of an oddity.
The front of the bill is the oldest design still in production. The reverse features Trumbull's Declaration of Independence. The two-dollar bill serves my purpose well because, as Austrian economists have taught us, price inflation is the result of the Federal Reserve printing money."
It would be interesting if someone started printing "Google: Why Pay with Two-Dollar Bills" on the two dollar bills.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Green Baptists Preach Salvation by Breaking Car Windows - Tyler A. Watts - Mises Institute
Green Baptists Preach Salvation by Breaking Car Windows - Tyler A. Watts - Mises Institute: "Who could possibly claim that buying up drivable used cars at prices far in excess of their market value, for the express purpose of destroying them, will be beneficial for the economy or the planet? You guessed it: a combination of economy-saving politicians and earth-saving green activists are peddling the wonders of a new government program popularly known as 'Cash for Clunkers.' The Consumer Assistance Recycle and Save Act of 2009 has the two ostensible goals of jump-starting the stalled automobile industry and combating global warming (or climate change, or whatever they're calling it these days) by replacing old, gas-guzzling smog machines with new, more fuel-efficient, cleaner cars."
"To highlight just one instance of the outrageous economic distortion this silly program is sure to bring, consider the fact that most of the clunkers that qualify for the program are driven by relatively poor folks, people who are not very likely to be in a position to buy a new car even with the help of government refunds. I would venture to guess that these people rely on clunkers to a much greater extent than upper-middle-class suburbanites who can afford more reliable cars and who might own a clunker here or there as a spare, seldom-driven car. Yet these upper-income folks are far more likely to cash in on the artificial government refund value of clunkers, thus withholding their vehicles from the used car market and raising their prices. In the limit, clunker prices will climb as high as the potential refund value minus registration, insurance, and miscellaneous transaction costs, thus making basic transportation more expensive for the poorest elements of society."
"To highlight just one instance of the outrageous economic distortion this silly program is sure to bring, consider the fact that most of the clunkers that qualify for the program are driven by relatively poor folks, people who are not very likely to be in a position to buy a new car even with the help of government refunds. I would venture to guess that these people rely on clunkers to a much greater extent than upper-middle-class suburbanites who can afford more reliable cars and who might own a clunker here or there as a spare, seldom-driven car. Yet these upper-income folks are far more likely to cash in on the artificial government refund value of clunkers, thus withholding their vehicles from the used car market and raising their prices. In the limit, clunker prices will climb as high as the potential refund value minus registration, insurance, and miscellaneous transaction costs, thus making basic transportation more expensive for the poorest elements of society."
The Most Destructive Disease | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Most Destructive Disease | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Those infected tend to lose judgment, values, principles and sense of honesty as well as common sense. They say silly things like, 'I will vote for (or support) this (1,000-page) bill because it is absolutely necessary to protect the American people and we must do it now' — having never read the bill, having only a vague idea of its provisions, having no idea whether it will do more good or harm and having no idea of what a billion dollars is, let alone a trillion dollars."
'A leading orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Robert P. Nirschl, wrote: "... the House version of health reform is in direct opposition to the Hippocratic Oath. The Obama pledge that patients can still see their own doctor is a blatant mistruth and irrelevant as the doctor will no longer be free to act in the best interest of the patient. The AMA endorsement of the bill as drafted is astounding and does not represent the position of most physicians in clinical private practice."'
'President Obama often exhibits Washingtonosis, as illustrated by his contradictory claims that his health care proposal will: save money (despite the fact that the Democrat-controlled Congressional Budget Office finds the opposite), provide top-quality care for everyone, not impose health care rationing, not require tax increases on the middle class, and not blow another billion-dollar hole in the budget. As Lawrence A. Hunter, former staff director of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee and now chairman of the Social Security Institute, has noted: "The circle cannot be squared; it is a logical impossibility." Mr. Hunter also said: "At its inception in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion per year. At that time, the ... U.S. House of Representatives projected 'conservatively' the program would cost approximately $12 billion a year by 1990. In 1990, the cost of Medicare was actually $107 billion, nine times higher than estimated."'
'A leading orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Robert P. Nirschl, wrote: "... the House version of health reform is in direct opposition to the Hippocratic Oath. The Obama pledge that patients can still see their own doctor is a blatant mistruth and irrelevant as the doctor will no longer be free to act in the best interest of the patient. The AMA endorsement of the bill as drafted is astounding and does not represent the position of most physicians in clinical private practice."'
'President Obama often exhibits Washingtonosis, as illustrated by his contradictory claims that his health care proposal will: save money (despite the fact that the Democrat-controlled Congressional Budget Office finds the opposite), provide top-quality care for everyone, not impose health care rationing, not require tax increases on the middle class, and not blow another billion-dollar hole in the budget. As Lawrence A. Hunter, former staff director of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee and now chairman of the Social Security Institute, has noted: "The circle cannot be squared; it is a logical impossibility." Mr. Hunter also said: "At its inception in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion per year. At that time, the ... U.S. House of Representatives projected 'conservatively' the program would cost approximately $12 billion a year by 1990. In 1990, the cost of Medicare was actually $107 billion, nine times higher than estimated."'
You Can't Print Production and Prosperity - Doug French - Mises Institute
You Can't Print Production and Prosperity - Doug French - Mises Institute: "Now the word is that zero-percent interest rates are just too darn high. That's why we haven't seen a reinflation of bubble America. The Financial Times reports the existence of a Federal Reserve staff memorandum that makes the case for a negative-five-percent federal-funds rate. Meanwhile, Japanese authorities are toying with the idea of outlawing cash in their country. Despite using every fiscal trick in the book and keeping interest rates at zero percent for a decade, that economy has been mired in a postbubble depression. So the current theory 'would suggest that nominal interest rates of [negative four] percent might be closer to what is required to rescue the economy from another deflationary spiral,' reported the Times Online."
'But as economist Frank Shostak explains, it is savings — not demand — that enables the expansion of production of goods and services. "In short, no effective demand can take place without prior production," Shostak writes. "If it were otherwise, then poverty in the world would have been eradicated a long time ago." In other words, you can't print production and prosperity, much as the Fed may try. And Ben Bernanke is trying.
For those not familiar with Krugman's policy suggestions, he wrote back in August 2002 that "[t]o fight this recession, the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
Sir Alan followed Krugman's advice, and look where we are now. More of the same will only create more financial pain.'
'But as economist Frank Shostak explains, it is savings — not demand — that enables the expansion of production of goods and services. "In short, no effective demand can take place without prior production," Shostak writes. "If it were otherwise, then poverty in the world would have been eradicated a long time ago." In other words, you can't print production and prosperity, much as the Fed may try. And Ben Bernanke is trying.
For those not familiar with Krugman's policy suggestions, he wrote back in August 2002 that "[t]o fight this recession, the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."
Sir Alan followed Krugman's advice, and look where we are now. More of the same will only create more financial pain.'
The Hidden Costs of a Minimum Wage - Art Carden - Mises Institute
The Hidden Costs of a Minimum Wage - Art Carden - Mises Institute: "Anyone who has taken an introductory economics course is familiar with the idea that a minimum wage leads to a reduction in the demand for labor and an increase in the supply of labor in the relevant market — usually, the market for low-skill workers. The minimum wage removes the ability of some workers to compete by accepting lower wages and shuts them out of the labor force. As a result, it reduces job opportunities for these workers. A minimum wage breaks the hinges on the door of opportunity."
"For example, one effect of a minimum wage is to reduce the availability of on-the-job training, since more resources are required simply to hire and retain a workforce."
"Suppose that a job can be done by either three unskilled workers or two skilled workers. If the unskilled wage is $5 per hour and the skilled wage is $8 per hour, the firm will use unskilled labor and produce the output at a cost of $15. However, if we impose a minimum wage to $6 per hour, the firm will instead use two skilled workers and produce for $16 as opposed to the $18 cost of using unskilled workers. In the "official data" this shows up as a small job loss — in this case, only one job — but we see an increase in average wages to eight dollars per hour in spite of the fact that the least skilled workers are now unemployed."
"Advocates of higher minimum wages are often motivated by the purest of concerns for the poor. However, the minimum wage has been described as a "maximum folly" by many economists for many years because it hurts precisely the people who most desperately need help. Self-styled friends of the poor are unrelenting in their advocacy of a higher minimum wage, but with friends like these, the poor do not need enemies."
"For example, one effect of a minimum wage is to reduce the availability of on-the-job training, since more resources are required simply to hire and retain a workforce."
"Suppose that a job can be done by either three unskilled workers or two skilled workers. If the unskilled wage is $5 per hour and the skilled wage is $8 per hour, the firm will use unskilled labor and produce the output at a cost of $15. However, if we impose a minimum wage to $6 per hour, the firm will instead use two skilled workers and produce for $16 as opposed to the $18 cost of using unskilled workers. In the "official data" this shows up as a small job loss — in this case, only one job — but we see an increase in average wages to eight dollars per hour in spite of the fact that the least skilled workers are now unemployed."
"Advocates of higher minimum wages are often motivated by the purest of concerns for the poor. However, the minimum wage has been described as a "maximum folly" by many economists for many years because it hurts precisely the people who most desperately need help. Self-styled friends of the poor are unrelenting in their advocacy of a higher minimum wage, but with friends like these, the poor do not need enemies."
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
A and Double Me
A and Double Me: What William (almost 3) calls the A&W restaurant.
When we ask him if he wants to go to "A&W" he interprets it as "A and double you" and then refers to it as "A and Double Me".
When we ask him if he wants to go to "A&W" he interprets it as "A and double you" and then refers to it as "A and Double Me".
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Dodd, Conrad: Mortgage Discounts Are 'Courtesy' - Political News - FOXNews.com
Dodd, Conrad: Mortgage Discounts Are 'Courtesy' - Political News - FOXNews.com: "Two powerful Senate Democrats said Tuesday that they knew they got low mortgage-rate deals in a lender's VIP program but thought the special treatment was a 'courtesy' or the same as 'frequent flier' discounts, The Washington Times reported Wednesday."
Sounds like position arrogance.
Sounds like position arrogance.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Standing Keynesianism on Its Head - George Reisman - Mises Institute
Standing Keynesianism on Its Head - George Reisman - Mises Institute: "First of all, it overlooks the fact that at lower wage rates more workers will be employed. The effect of this is to enable total wage payments and consumer spending in the economic system to remain the same or even increase while the wages of the individual worker decline. For example, 10 workers each employed at 90 percent of the wages earn the same total wages and can spend just as much in buying consumers' goods as could 9 workers each earning the original wage. (It's as simple as the fact that 10 times .9 equals 9 times 1.) And, of course, more than 10 workers employed at 90 percent of the wage per worker would earn more collectively and spend more for consumers' goods collectively than was possible before."
The Spending Threat | Chris Edwards | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Spending Threat | Chris Edwards | Cato Institute: Commentary: "So why do politicians keep driving taxes and spending higher? One reason is that most Republicans in Congress have abandoned spending restraint. Consider House Minority Leader John Boehner. He heckles Obama's spending as 'one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment.' But the president recently challenged him to find specific programs to cut, and the best Boehner and his team could do was a list of cuts worth less than 1 percent of the bloated federal budget. If Obama is a 'socialist,' then the House Republican leadership is 99 percent socialist.
Republican leaders have forgotten that the best defense against big-government Democrats is an aggressive offense. In the mid-'90s, the GOP proposed abolishing whole Cabinet departments and eliminating the deficit with spending cuts. That changed the terms of the debate, helping derail President Bill Clinton efforts to grow the government. With spending in check, the economy soared during his term."
Republican leaders have forgotten that the best defense against big-government Democrats is an aggressive offense. In the mid-'90s, the GOP proposed abolishing whole Cabinet departments and eliminating the deficit with spending cuts. That changed the terms of the debate, helping derail President Bill Clinton efforts to grow the government. With spending in check, the economy soared during his term."
The Big Joke | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Big Joke | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: "he United Nations and human rights do not belong in the same sentence. Last Wednesday the UN Human Rights Council praised Cuba's human rights achievements. The Council was far more concerned about the U.S. embargo against Cuba than the Cuban government's brutality towards its own people.
The UN long has claimed to represent the greatest aspirations of humanity, running back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was approved more than six decades ago. But the UN's Commission on Human Rights routinely embarrassed the 'international community.' Often dominated by human rights abusers, the body routinely whitewashed oppressive governments and spent much of its time attacking Israel. It was one of Turtle Bay's finest comedy clubs -- only the performances were underwritten by U.S. taxpayers."
"The UN issued an official press release summarizing the debate, if it can be called that, on Cuba and two other states (Saudi Arabia and Cameroon):
In short, the problem is not the brutality of the Castros' regime. It is the American trade embargo "
The UN long has claimed to represent the greatest aspirations of humanity, running back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was approved more than six decades ago. But the UN's Commission on Human Rights routinely embarrassed the 'international community.' Often dominated by human rights abusers, the body routinely whitewashed oppressive governments and spent much of its time attacking Israel. It was one of Turtle Bay's finest comedy clubs -- only the performances were underwritten by U.S. taxpayers."
"The UN issued an official press release summarizing the debate, if it can be called that, on Cuba and two other states (Saudi Arabia and Cameroon):
In the discussion on Cuba, speakers said Cuba had withstood many tests, and continued to uphold the principles of objectivity, impartiality and independence in pursuance of the realization of human rights. Cuba was and remained a good example of the respect for human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights. The Universal Periodic Review of Cuba clearly reflected the progress made by Cuba and the Cuban people in the protection and promotion of human rights, and showed the constructive and responsive answer of Cuba to the situation of human rights. Cuba was the victim of an unjust embargo, but despite this obstacle, it was very active in the field of human rights. The trade, financial and economic blockade by the United States should be brought to an end, as it was the primary obstacle to the full development of Cuba.
In short, the problem is not the brutality of the Castros' regime. It is the American trade embargo "
The "Militia Panic" of 2009 | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary
The "Militia Panic" of 2009 | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary: "In the Jose Padilla case, President Bush insisted he could legally seize American citizens on American soil and imprison them without charges for as long as he pleased. Newsweek reported in 2004 that Dick Cheney wanted that power used against any and all domestic terror suspects.
Conservative defenders of so-called 'enhanced interrogation' are rarely able to identify the 'ticking time bomb' scenarios they insist make torture necessary. But last week, Scott Roeder, Dr. Tillman's murderer, told reporters that 'similar events' were being planned even now. Might a little waterboarding loosen his tongue?"
Conservative defenders of so-called 'enhanced interrogation' are rarely able to identify the 'ticking time bomb' scenarios they insist make torture necessary. But last week, Scott Roeder, Dr. Tillman's murderer, told reporters that 'similar events' were being planned even now. Might a little waterboarding loosen his tongue?"
A Tattered Umbrella | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary
A Tattered Umbrella | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: "More than a half century after the Korean War, the Republic of Korea (ROK) remains surprisingly dependent on America. It's as if the United States was cowering before the Mexican military, begging its friends in Europe for help. In fact, the ROK requires no assistance to defend itself from conventional attack.
The so-called Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has a strong numerical military advantage over the South: about 1.1 million personnel under arms, compared to fewer than seven hundred thousand for Seoul. Pyongyang also has impressive numbers of other weapons, including more than four thousand tanks and roughly eighteen thousand artillery pieces."
"However, most of the North's equipment is decades old, a generation or two behind even that of the long-gone Soviet Union. Training is minimal and many of the DPRK's military personnel perform construction and similar tasks. The Korean peninsula's rugged geography favors defense. Putting thousands of antiquated tanks backed by hundreds of thousands of malnourished soldiers on the move south would create a human "turkey shoot" of epic proportions.
Anyway, the ROK's numerical inferiority is a matter of choice, not an immutable artifact of geography. In its early years the South's resources were sharply limited. But today, South Korea is thought to have upwards of forty times the North's GDP. Seoul also possesses a substantial industrial base, sports high-tech expertise and enjoys a sterling international credit rating. The ROK's population is twice that of the North. South Korea could spend more than the equivalent of North Korea's entire economy on defense if the former wished. But it hasn't wished to do so, preferring to rely on Washington instead.
The time for subsidizing wealthy allies has long passed. "
The so-called Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has a strong numerical military advantage over the South: about 1.1 million personnel under arms, compared to fewer than seven hundred thousand for Seoul. Pyongyang also has impressive numbers of other weapons, including more than four thousand tanks and roughly eighteen thousand artillery pieces."
"However, most of the North's equipment is decades old, a generation or two behind even that of the long-gone Soviet Union. Training is minimal and many of the DPRK's military personnel perform construction and similar tasks. The Korean peninsula's rugged geography favors defense. Putting thousands of antiquated tanks backed by hundreds of thousands of malnourished soldiers on the move south would create a human "turkey shoot" of epic proportions.
Anyway, the ROK's numerical inferiority is a matter of choice, not an immutable artifact of geography. In its early years the South's resources were sharply limited. But today, South Korea is thought to have upwards of forty times the North's GDP. Seoul also possesses a substantial industrial base, sports high-tech expertise and enjoys a sterling international credit rating. The ROK's population is twice that of the North. South Korea could spend more than the equivalent of North Korea's entire economy on defense if the former wished. But it hasn't wished to do so, preferring to rely on Washington instead.
The time for subsidizing wealthy allies has long passed. "
Campaign For Liberty — Ron Paul's Strong Opposition to the War Funding Bill
Campaign For Liberty — Ron Paul's Strong Opposition to the War Funding Bill: "I wonder what happened to all of my colleagues who said they were opposed to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder what happened to my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration. It seems, with very few exceptions, they have changed their position on the war now that the White House has changed hands. I find this troubling. As I have said while opposing previous war funding requests, a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse.
This conference report, being a Washington-style compromise, reflects one thing Congress agrees on: spending money we do not have. So this “compromise” bill spends 15 percent more than the president requested, which is $9 billion more than in the original House bill and $14.6 billion more than the original Senate version. Included in this final version — in addition to the $106 billion to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — is a $108 billion loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund, allowing that destructive organization to continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt elites and promote harmful economic policies overseas."
"As Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends billions of dollars overseas as foreign aid. Included in this appropriation is $660 million for Gaza, $555 million for Israel, $310 million for Egypt, $300 million for Jordan, and $420 million for Mexico. Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for “peacekeeping” missions. Almost one billion dollars will be sent overseas to address the global financial crisis outside our borders and nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a “potential pandemic flu.”"
This conference report, being a Washington-style compromise, reflects one thing Congress agrees on: spending money we do not have. So this “compromise” bill spends 15 percent more than the president requested, which is $9 billion more than in the original House bill and $14.6 billion more than the original Senate version. Included in this final version — in addition to the $106 billion to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — is a $108 billion loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund, allowing that destructive organization to continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt elites and promote harmful economic policies overseas."
"As Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends billions of dollars overseas as foreign aid. Included in this appropriation is $660 million for Gaza, $555 million for Israel, $310 million for Egypt, $300 million for Jordan, and $420 million for Mexico. Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for “peacekeeping” missions. Almost one billion dollars will be sent overseas to address the global financial crisis outside our borders and nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a “potential pandemic flu.”"
AP Sources: U.S. Man Was 'Gold Mine' of Terror Intel - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com
AP Sources: U.S. Man Was 'Gold Mine' of Terror Intel - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com: "When the American-born Al Qaeda recruit Bryant Neal Vinas was captured in Pakistan late last year, he wasn't whisked off to a military prison or a secret CIA facility in another country to be interrogated.
Instead, the itinerant terrorist landed in the hands of the FBI and was flown back to New York to face justice.
Months before President Barack Obama took office with a pledge to change U.S. counterterrorism policies, the Bush administration gave Vinas all the rights of American criminal suspects.
And he talked."
'"This was by the numbers. It was a law enforcement operation and it worked," said a senior law enforcement official, one of several authorities who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to publicly discuss the case.
The official said Vinas provided "an intelligence gold mine" to U.S. officials, including possible information about a suspected militant who was killed in a Predator drone strike last November.'
Instead, the itinerant terrorist landed in the hands of the FBI and was flown back to New York to face justice.
Months before President Barack Obama took office with a pledge to change U.S. counterterrorism policies, the Bush administration gave Vinas all the rights of American criminal suspects.
And he talked."
'"This was by the numbers. It was a law enforcement operation and it worked," said a senior law enforcement official, one of several authorities who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to publicly discuss the case.
The official said Vinas provided "an intelligence gold mine" to U.S. officials, including possible information about a suspected militant who was killed in a Predator drone strike last November.'
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Is Obama's 'Prolonged Detention' American? | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary
Is Obama's 'Prolonged Detention' American? | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once warned: 'Throughout the world today there are men, women and children interned indefinitely, awaiting trials which may never come or which may be a mockery of the word, because their governments believe them to be 'dangerous.' Our Constitution ... can shelter us forever against the dangers of such unchecked power' (dissenting, U.S. v. Salerno, 1987)."
Killing in War - David Gordon - Mises Institute
Killing in War - David Gordon - Mises Institute: "If a policeman legitimately shoots at a suspect, the suspect cannot claim the right to shoot back in self-defense."
"Soldiers in an unjust cause have, for the most part, no right at all to engage in violent action against soldiers in a just cause. Not only do they lack moral standing to engage in aggressive warfare; they cannot legitimately even engage in defensive war, in most circumstances."
"Soldiers in an unjust cause have, for the most part, no right at all to engage in violent action against soldiers in a just cause. Not only do they lack moral standing to engage in aggressive warfare; they cannot legitimately even engage in defensive war, in most circumstances."
A Fake Financial Fix | Mark A. Calabria | Cato Institute: Commentary
A Fake Financial Fix | Mark A. Calabria | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Of course, the administration tells us that bailouts won't be needed — because the same regulators who missed the signs of the current crisis will get added powers to prevent the next one.
We're supposed to believe that, if only the Federal Reserve had the same oversight powers over AIG as it now has over Citibank and Bank of America, that the bailout of AIG would have been avoided. Just think: If only AIG had been managed and regulated as well as Citibank — because Citi is in such great shape now."
We're supposed to believe that, if only the Federal Reserve had the same oversight powers over AIG as it now has over Citibank and Bank of America, that the bailout of AIG would have been avoided. Just think: If only AIG had been managed and regulated as well as Citibank — because Citi is in such great shape now."
Bigger Than Madoff | Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven | Cato Institute: Commentary
Bigger Than Madoff | Chris Edwards and Tad DeHaven | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Take Medicare. The Government Accountability Office reports that the program makes about $17 billion in improper payments each year. And that doesn't include problems in the new $60-billion-per-year prescription-drug plan, which is a juicy target for criminals. Harvard University's Malcolm Sparrow, a specialist in health-care fraud, recently testified to Congress that official estimates are 'lacking in rigor,' are 'comfortingly low and quite misleading,' and exclude many kinds of fraud and abuse. He thinks that as much as 20 percent of the federal health-care budget is consumed by fraud, which would be $85 billion a year for Medicare."
'The bottom line is that the enormous size and complexity of federal health programs results in a huge waste of taxpayer funds. The inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services recently told Congress: "Although it is not possible to measure precisely the extent of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, everywhere it looks the Office of Inspector General continues to find fraud against these programs."'
'The bottom line is that the enormous size and complexity of federal health programs results in a huge waste of taxpayer funds. The inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services recently told Congress: "Although it is not possible to measure precisely the extent of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, everywhere it looks the Office of Inspector General continues to find fraud against these programs."'
Mischa Barton Hospitalized Under Involuntary Psychiatric Hold - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News | Arts And Entertainment - FOXNews.com
Mischa Barton Hospitalized Under Involuntary Psychiatric Hold - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News | Arts And Entertainment - FOXNews.com: "where she was hospitalized under Section 5150 of the California Welfare & Institutions Code, which allows authorities to hold a person for up to 72 hours if they present a danger to themselves or to others."
Is that pre-crime?
Is that pre-crime?
The Jobs Problem - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. - Mises Institute
The Jobs Problem - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. - Mises Institute: "Mandating benefits for employees imposes costs on employment. The would-be worker bears the cost. It makes the worker more expensive to hire. The employer has to pay not only a salary but also a benefit. If you make it more expensive to hire people, fewer people will be hired.
It is no different from eggs at the supermarket. If they are $2 each, you will purchase fewer of them — you will economize. This is nothing but the law of demand: consumers will demand less of a good at a higher price than of a good at a lower price. A salary plus benefits amounts to a price that the employer must pay to purchase the work of a laborer. At a higher price, less work will be purchased by the employer.
That means that requiring employers to provide health benefits to employees will make the present job situation worse, not better. It will intensify the current problem that people want to work more but are having a hard time getting employers to hire them."
It is no different from eggs at the supermarket. If they are $2 each, you will purchase fewer of them — you will economize. This is nothing but the law of demand: consumers will demand less of a good at a higher price than of a good at a lower price. A salary plus benefits amounts to a price that the employer must pay to purchase the work of a laborer. At a higher price, less work will be purchased by the employer.
That means that requiring employers to provide health benefits to employees will make the present job situation worse, not better. It will intensify the current problem that people want to work more but are having a hard time getting employers to hire them."
The Zimbabwe-ification of South Africa? | Marian L. Tupy and Michael Kransdorff | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Zimbabwe-ification of South Africa? | Marian L. Tupy and Michael Kransdorff | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Even when the government has succeeded in distributing land, much of it has ceased to be economically viable. According to the government's own statistics, some 50% of land reform projects have failed. A once thriving potato farm in the KwaZulu-Natal Midlands is now a makeshift soccer field. A former tea estate in Magoebaskloof in Limpopo has become an overgrown forest. The list goes on."
Obama's Disappointing Secrecy | Benjamin H. Friedman | Cato Institute: Commentary
Obama's Disappointing Secrecy | Benjamin H. Friedman | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The administration recently threatened to veto the intelligence authorization bill, the annual legislation that funds the Central Intelligence Agency.
The trouble with the bill, according to the administration, is a requirement that intelligence officials brief some secret intelligence activities to Congress's full intelligence committees rather than just the 'gang of eight' (each party's leader in each house and the chairmen and ranking members of those committees). The administration wants to keep the power to determine whom it briefs."
"Thanks to a report written by the inspector generals of several federal agencies, we also learned last week that the National Security Agency's controversial, warrantless wiretapping program (the "terrorist surveillance program" to its Orwellian creators) found few, if any, terrorists, contrary to its advocates' claims."
The trouble with the bill, according to the administration, is a requirement that intelligence officials brief some secret intelligence activities to Congress's full intelligence committees rather than just the 'gang of eight' (each party's leader in each house and the chairmen and ranking members of those committees). The administration wants to keep the power to determine whom it briefs."
"Thanks to a report written by the inspector generals of several federal agencies, we also learned last week that the National Security Agency's controversial, warrantless wiretapping program (the "terrorist surveillance program" to its Orwellian creators) found few, if any, terrorists, contrary to its advocates' claims."
Friday, July 24, 2009
The Bureaucracy Problem - David Osterfeld - Mises Institute
The Bureaucracy Problem - David Osterfeld - Mises Institute: "It is not surprising, therefore, that the Soviet Union is regularly plagued by gluts of some items and acute shortages of others. When quotas for the shoe and nail industries were set according to quantity, for example, production managers in the nail industry found that it was easiest to meet their quotas by producing only small nails, while those in the shoe industry made only small shoes. This meant gluts of small nails and children's shoes and shortages of large nails and adults' shoes. But setting quotas by weight meant the opposite: gluts of large fat nails and adults' shoes. Similarly, since dress-makers don't have to sell their products they don't have to worry about style preferences. The result is periodic warehouses full of unwanted dresses. And at another time the Soviet Union found itself in the embarrassing position of having only one size of men's underwear and that only in blue.[5]
Thus it is not surprising that the quality of consumer goods in the Soviet Union is notoriously low, the average standard of living is about one-quarter to one-third that of the United States, and so many goods are in short supply that one must stand in line three to four hours each day just to get the basic necessities.[6] While capitalism can function with a minimum of bureaucracy, we have seen that socialism, far from eliminating it, requires a host of bureaucratic agencies. These are necessary in order to (1) collect the data for the construction of the plan, (2) formulate the plan, and (3) inspect the plants to insure that the plan is being carried out."
"This problem became evident in the only attempt to establish a pure socialist, Le., non-market, economy: The "War Communism" period in the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1921. By 1920, average productivity was only ten percent of the 1914 volume with that of iron ore and cast iron falling to 1.9 and 2.4 percent of their 1914 totals. In the early 1920s "War Communism" was abandoned and since that time production has been guided by means of restricted domestic markets and by co-opting the methods determined in the foreign Western markets."
"Perhaps the absurd lengths to which attempts at central planning can be carried is illustrated in an incident reported by Joseph Berliner. A plant inspector, with the job of seeing why a plant had fallen behind on its delivery of mining machines, found that the "machines were piled up all over the place." When he asked the manager why he didn't ship them out he was told that according to the plan the machines were to be painted with red paint but the manager only had green and was afraid to alter the plan. Permission was granted to use green, but only after considerable delay since each layer of the bureaucracy was also afraid to authorize a plan change on its own and so sent the request to the next highest agency. Meanwhile, the mines had to shut down while the machines piled up in the warehouses.[12]"
Thus it is not surprising that the quality of consumer goods in the Soviet Union is notoriously low, the average standard of living is about one-quarter to one-third that of the United States, and so many goods are in short supply that one must stand in line three to four hours each day just to get the basic necessities.[6] While capitalism can function with a minimum of bureaucracy, we have seen that socialism, far from eliminating it, requires a host of bureaucratic agencies. These are necessary in order to (1) collect the data for the construction of the plan, (2) formulate the plan, and (3) inspect the plants to insure that the plan is being carried out."
"This problem became evident in the only attempt to establish a pure socialist, Le., non-market, economy: The "War Communism" period in the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1921. By 1920, average productivity was only ten percent of the 1914 volume with that of iron ore and cast iron falling to 1.9 and 2.4 percent of their 1914 totals. In the early 1920s "War Communism" was abandoned and since that time production has been guided by means of restricted domestic markets and by co-opting the methods determined in the foreign Western markets."
"Perhaps the absurd lengths to which attempts at central planning can be carried is illustrated in an incident reported by Joseph Berliner. A plant inspector, with the job of seeing why a plant had fallen behind on its delivery of mining machines, found that the "machines were piled up all over the place." When he asked the manager why he didn't ship them out he was told that according to the plan the machines were to be painted with red paint but the manager only had green and was afraid to alter the plan. Permission was granted to use green, but only after considerable delay since each layer of the bureaucracy was also afraid to authorize a plan change on its own and so sent the request to the next highest agency. Meanwhile, the mines had to shut down while the machines piled up in the warehouses.[12]"
Let Customers Control The Money And Market Will Cure Health Care | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary
Let Customers Control The Money And Market Will Cure Health Care | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Experts suggest that one-third of U.S. health care spending, or about 6% of GDP, is pure waste. The reason is simple: Government controls half of our nation's health care dollars, and lets employers control an additional quarter. And nobody spends other people's money as carefully as they spend their own.
Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag told Congress last year: 'Imagine what the world would be like if workers (understood) that today it was costing them $10,000 a year in take-home-pay for their employer-sponsored insurance, and that could be $7,000 and they could have $3,000 more in their pockets today if we could relieve these inefficiencies out of the health system.' Nothing will increase consumers' understanding like giving them that $10,000 directly."
Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag told Congress last year: 'Imagine what the world would be like if workers (understood) that today it was costing them $10,000 a year in take-home-pay for their employer-sponsored insurance, and that could be $7,000 and they could have $3,000 more in their pockets today if we could relieve these inefficiencies out of the health system.' Nothing will increase consumers' understanding like giving them that $10,000 directly."
Why Obamacare Can't Work: The Calculation Argument - Gabriel E. Vidal - Mises Institute
Why Obamacare Can't Work: The Calculation Argument - Gabriel E. Vidal - Mises Institute: "Obama assures us that this is not government-run healthcare, that this is not a single-payer system, that the only consequence to these reforms is that healthcare will cost less and that anybody who denies this is misleading or does not understand the facts. Without his reform, he insists, costs will grow unsustainably, which will threaten reimbursements and the stability of the healthcare system.
Unfortunately, since Obama uses faulty logic to diagnose the problem, his solutions will only make matters worse faster. The correct framework within which to diagnose the problem is to admit that costs are out of control because they do not reflect prices created by the voluntary exchange between patients and providers, between customers and producers, like every well-functioning industry."
"But it is theoretically and practically impossible for a bureaucrat — no matter how accurate the cost data, how well intentioned and how sophisticated his computer program — to come up with the correct and just price. The just price of a health service can only be determined by the voluntary exchange of a patient with his hospital, physician, and pharmacist. The relationship between the patient and his private provider has been corrupted by the intrusion of government and its intermediaries (HMOs, for example) to such an extent that we can no longer speak of a relationship that can produce meaningful pricing information."
"Billions of dollars have already been invested in HIT. Some systems have worked, while others have not. Billions more will need to be allocated until the best systems are adopted. But the idea that somehow a government agency with no shareholders at risk will help us better coordinate the allocation of capital and the experimentation necessary to develop these solutions is laughable, especially when one of its agents, the Department of Veterans Affairs, in all likelihood has the record for the most expensive failed HIT experiment to date, the $467 million computer system at its Bay Pines hospital in Florida."
Unfortunately, since Obama uses faulty logic to diagnose the problem, his solutions will only make matters worse faster. The correct framework within which to diagnose the problem is to admit that costs are out of control because they do not reflect prices created by the voluntary exchange between patients and providers, between customers and producers, like every well-functioning industry."
"But it is theoretically and practically impossible for a bureaucrat — no matter how accurate the cost data, how well intentioned and how sophisticated his computer program — to come up with the correct and just price. The just price of a health service can only be determined by the voluntary exchange of a patient with his hospital, physician, and pharmacist. The relationship between the patient and his private provider has been corrupted by the intrusion of government and its intermediaries (HMOs, for example) to such an extent that we can no longer speak of a relationship that can produce meaningful pricing information."
"Billions of dollars have already been invested in HIT. Some systems have worked, while others have not. Billions more will need to be allocated until the best systems are adopted. But the idea that somehow a government agency with no shareholders at risk will help us better coordinate the allocation of capital and the experimentation necessary to develop these solutions is laughable, especially when one of its agents, the Department of Veterans Affairs, in all likelihood has the record for the most expensive failed HIT experiment to date, the $467 million computer system at its Bay Pines hospital in Florida."
Banning Alcohol Ads Won't Cure Alcoholism | Patrick Basham and John Luik | Cato Institute: Commentary
Banning Alcohol Ads Won't Cure Alcoholism | Patrick Basham and John Luik | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The US Surgeon General's warnings about the risks to pregnant women from drinking have been mandatory since 1989. A study of alcohol consumption by pregnant women reported by the US Centers for Disease Control noted that almost eight years after the implementation of the warning labels the number of women drinking during pregnancy had risen. As Dr Janet Hankin in a review of fetal alcohol prevention discovered, only the lighter drinkers who were less at risk of having children with fetal alcohol syndrome followed the warning. 'Among high-risk drinkers', Dr Hankin noted, 'the label law clearly has not affected drinking behaviour'."
"The World Health Organisation's 2003 study on alcohol noted that warnings failed to increase young people's perceptions of alcohol risks and had 'no direct impacts' on consumption. Studies have also found that heavy drinkers, while aware of the warnings (they see them more frequently), are more likely to consider them less believable and to discount them more than other drinkers."
"The World Health Organisation's 2003 study on alcohol noted that warnings failed to increase young people's perceptions of alcohol risks and had 'no direct impacts' on consumption. Studies have also found that heavy drinkers, while aware of the warnings (they see them more frequently), are more likely to consider them less believable and to discount them more than other drinkers."
Do Anti-Smoking Programs Work to Reduce Smoking? | Michael Marlow | Cato Institute: Commentary
Do Anti-Smoking Programs Work to Reduce Smoking? | Michael Marlow | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Statistical analysis that I've conducted shows that there is a very tenuous link between cigarette sales and state anti-tobacco spending. At best, spending large amounts of money on anti-tobacco programs seems to produce a trivial drop in cigarette sales — less than a pack a year per capita. States would be better advised to put these resources toward other public health policies that produce larger results."
Why the Obama Stimulus Plan Must Fail | Richard A. Epstein | Cato Institute: Commentary
Why the Obama Stimulus Plan Must Fail | Richard A. Epstein | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Congress passed the President's $787 billion package this past February with no Republican support in the House and only three Republican defections in the Senate. At the time, brave presidential words promised that this package could create some 4 million new jobs, so that the unemployment rate would top at around 8%. Alas, there are 2.6 million fewer jobs today than when the bill passed, with an unemployment rate of 9.5%, which is still inching upward."
"One component of these programs is to funnel cash in the form of one-time rebates or tax cuts to particular individuals. But that money has to come from somewhere else."
"One component of these programs is to funnel cash in the form of one-time rebates or tax cuts to particular individuals. But that money has to come from somewhere else."
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Time To End The Monopoly In Education | Andrew J. Coulson | Cato Institute: Commentary
Time To End The Monopoly In Education | Andrew J. Coulson | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The productivity collapse in education is more than staggering; it's unparalleled. Can you name any other service or product that has gotten worse and less affordable over the past two generations? The reason you can't is that no other field is organized as a state-run monopoly.
The general argument against monopolies is well understood and accepted. A concrete case study might drive home the point that monopolies are just as harmful in education as in other fields."
"That is, the [D.C.] voucher program yields substantially better results at less than one-quarter the cost.
For those unfamiliar with the D.C. voucher program, it is the one that President Obama has decided to phase out, despite his stated goal of pursuing education reform that's effective and efficient."
"In literature on education, 59 findings show that markets outperform school monopolies. Not a single study has found a monopoly school system to be as efficient as a market system."
The general argument against monopolies is well understood and accepted. A concrete case study might drive home the point that monopolies are just as harmful in education as in other fields."
"That is, the [D.C.] voucher program yields substantially better results at less than one-quarter the cost.
For those unfamiliar with the D.C. voucher program, it is the one that President Obama has decided to phase out, despite his stated goal of pursuing education reform that's effective and efficient."
"In literature on education, 59 findings show that markets outperform school monopolies. Not a single study has found a monopoly school system to be as efficient as a market system."
Doctors Wage War Against Obama's Health Care Overhaul - Political News - FOXNews.com
Doctors Wage War Against Obama's Health Care Overhaul - Political News - FOXNews.com: "As President Obama pushes for passage of his first major domestic policy change, some physicians are waging an all-out war against a health care reform bill they say amounts to nothing more than socialized medicine."
"Some doctors charge the bill will lead to inferior patient care as physician offices around the country triple their patient lists and become forced to ration care."
'"The doctors who have responded this way exhibit a serious case of doctor greed," McDermott told FOXNews.com. "They have lost sight of the common good and the pledge they took in the Hippocratic Oath."'
How will rationing help the common good or be in line with the Hippocratic Oath?
'"These people are practicing fear without a license and they should be subject to a malpractice suit. If things are so good, why are doctors buried under an ever-increasing mountain of paperwork from insurance companies?" McDermott asked.'
No one said that the current system is good -- but the proposed system is much worse!
"Some doctors charge the bill will lead to inferior patient care as physician offices around the country triple their patient lists and become forced to ration care."
'"The doctors who have responded this way exhibit a serious case of doctor greed," McDermott told FOXNews.com. "They have lost sight of the common good and the pledge they took in the Hippocratic Oath."'
How will rationing help the common good or be in line with the Hippocratic Oath?
'"These people are practicing fear without a license and they should be subject to a malpractice suit. If things are so good, why are doctors buried under an ever-increasing mountain of paperwork from insurance companies?" McDermott asked.'
No one said that the current system is good -- but the proposed system is much worse!
Dems Plotting Health Bill Seek $245B for Doctors - Political News - FOXNews.com
Dems Plotting Health Bill Seek $245B for Doctors - Political News - FOXNews.com: "House Democrats want to give doctors a $245 billion sweetener that helps ensure their critical support for a health care overhaul bill."
If they have to bribe them then maybe it isn't such a good idea.
"Their only-in-Washington reasoning is that they already decided to exempt it from congressional "pay-as-you-go" rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn't have to be paid for because they decided it doesn't have to be paid for."
If they have to bribe them then maybe it isn't such a good idea.
"Their only-in-Washington reasoning is that they already decided to exempt it from congressional "pay-as-you-go" rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn't have to be paid for because they decided it doesn't have to be paid for."
Bernanke: Fed Can Handle Financial Supercop Role - Political News - FOXNews.com
Bernanke: Fed Can Handle Financial Supercop Role - Political News - FOXNews.com: "'The Fed has made some big mistakes,' said the panel's highest-ranking Republican, Spencer Bachus of Alabama. Letting the Fed become the financial supercop would be 'just inviting a false sense of security' that would be shattered at taxpayers' expense, he warned."
"Bernanke urged Congress to keep proposals to audit the Fed away from monetary policy duties. 'A perceived loss of monetary policy independence could raise fears about future inflation,' he warned."
i.e. Don't watch what we are doing or bad things will happen. That would be funny if the impact weren't so huge.
"Bernanke sought to assure investors and Congress that the Fed will be able to reel in its extraordinary economic stimulus and prevent a flare up of inflation when the recovery is more firmly rooted."
With the huge increases in the money supply, the political pressure for short-term growth, and the complexity of the economy this is virtually impossible. If the Fed can do that effectively why couldn't it prevent the recession?
"Bernanke urged Congress to keep proposals to audit the Fed away from monetary policy duties. 'A perceived loss of monetary policy independence could raise fears about future inflation,' he warned."
i.e. Don't watch what we are doing or bad things will happen. That would be funny if the impact weren't so huge.
"Bernanke sought to assure investors and Congress that the Fed will be able to reel in its extraordinary economic stimulus and prevent a flare up of inflation when the recovery is more firmly rooted."
With the huge increases in the money supply, the political pressure for short-term growth, and the complexity of the economy this is virtually impossible. If the Fed can do that effectively why couldn't it prevent the recession?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Shortage of Cyber Experts Could Pose Threat to U.S. National Security - Political News - FOXNews.com
Shortage of Cyber Experts Could Pose Threat to U.S. National Security - Political News - FOXNews.com: "The size of the government's cyber work force is largely unknown, because agencies often classify their employees differently. The Pentagon says it has more than 90,000 personnel involved with cybersecurity, while the non-defense department civilian cybersecurity work force has been estimated at 35,000 to 45,000. Intelligence community estimates are classified."
Over 125,000 cybersecurity experts sure seems like a lot to me!
Over 125,000 cybersecurity experts sure seems like a lot to me!
Walker again advocates dismantling county government - JSOnline
Walker again advocates dismantling county government - JSOnline: "Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker on Monday renewed his call to blow up county government, suggesting that many functions could be parceled out to the state, municipalities and new entities."
Removing extra government layers: good
Giving more control to higher government: bad
Giving more control to lower government: good
Removing extra government layers: good
Giving more control to higher government: bad
Giving more control to lower government: good
Mr. President, We Are Still Torturing? | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary
Mr. President, We Are Still Torturing? | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary: "More conservatively, actual autopsy reports obtained by the ACLU disclose that at least 21 Bagram 'detainees,' and possibly more, have been killed during 'coercive interrogations.' It's difficult to get precise statistics from legal black holes."
A Closer Look at Those Industry Deals | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary
A Closer Look at Those Industry Deals | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Yet the PhRMA agreement would not save taxpayers $80 billion. It would cost them $80 billion, and then some.
Under the agreement, the full price of each drug would continue to count toward seniors' catastrophic deductible. As a result, even more seniors would exceed that deductible, after which taxpayers would pay 95 percent of their drug costs. Obama also agreed to oppose stricter price controls for government purchases. PhRMA members agreed to cut their prices for seniors only because Obama agreed that taxpayers would buy more drugs at higher prices.
Think about it: Would drug companies enter this agreement unless they knew they would be net winners? Lobbyists never advocate less revenue for their members.
An agreement reached with Wal-Mart was also deceptively self-serving. Two weeks ago, the nation's largest private employer pledged to support a key Obama priority: a mandate requiring all employers to offer health benefits. An administration official called Wal-Mart's support for an employer mandate "significant."
Yet Wal-Mart's announcement was less Nixon going to China than, say, Stalin going to China. As one Wal-Mart lobbyist candidly explained to me, the company supports an employer mandate because it would primarily harm Wal-Mart's competitors. (The 315,000 jobs an employer mandate would destroy? Collateral damage.) Wal-Mart's competitors are not amused."
"Finally, last week Vice President Joe Biden announced that three hospital groups agreed to support $155 billion in cuts in federal payments to hospitals."
"The Obama administration essentially issued those groups an insurance policy. To guarantee that the groups would get at least $155 billion back from the government in the form of newly insured customers, the administration agreed that the new subsidies would start flowing immediately, while the pay cuts would take effect over time. That means the pay cuts may never take effect at all: physicians have been blocking their own scheduled pay cuts for nearly a decade.
The administration further bribed the hospital groups with unspecified protections from competing physician-owned hospitals as well as protections for the same inefficient hospitals Obama has criticized."
"Each agreement was negotiated behind closed doors, away from public scrutiny. All are contingent on the favored groups getting something they want, and all "savings" could be undone by future lobbying. To paraphrase George Bailey, the industry isn't selling — the industry is buying."
Under the agreement, the full price of each drug would continue to count toward seniors' catastrophic deductible. As a result, even more seniors would exceed that deductible, after which taxpayers would pay 95 percent of their drug costs. Obama also agreed to oppose stricter price controls for government purchases. PhRMA members agreed to cut their prices for seniors only because Obama agreed that taxpayers would buy more drugs at higher prices.
Think about it: Would drug companies enter this agreement unless they knew they would be net winners? Lobbyists never advocate less revenue for their members.
An agreement reached with Wal-Mart was also deceptively self-serving. Two weeks ago, the nation's largest private employer pledged to support a key Obama priority: a mandate requiring all employers to offer health benefits. An administration official called Wal-Mart's support for an employer mandate "significant."
Yet Wal-Mart's announcement was less Nixon going to China than, say, Stalin going to China. As one Wal-Mart lobbyist candidly explained to me, the company supports an employer mandate because it would primarily harm Wal-Mart's competitors. (The 315,000 jobs an employer mandate would destroy? Collateral damage.) Wal-Mart's competitors are not amused."
"Finally, last week Vice President Joe Biden announced that three hospital groups agreed to support $155 billion in cuts in federal payments to hospitals."
"The Obama administration essentially issued those groups an insurance policy. To guarantee that the groups would get at least $155 billion back from the government in the form of newly insured customers, the administration agreed that the new subsidies would start flowing immediately, while the pay cuts would take effect over time. That means the pay cuts may never take effect at all: physicians have been blocking their own scheduled pay cuts for nearly a decade.
The administration further bribed the hospital groups with unspecified protections from competing physician-owned hospitals as well as protections for the same inefficient hospitals Obama has criticized."
"Each agreement was negotiated behind closed doors, away from public scrutiny. All are contingent on the favored groups getting something they want, and all "savings" could be undone by future lobbying. To paraphrase George Bailey, the industry isn't selling — the industry is buying."
Monday, July 20, 2009
Baldwin Bulletin Baldwin Wisconsin: Cheri Morton combines her passions at Pine Lake Pastures
Baldwin Bulletin Baldwin Wisconsin: Cheri Morton combines her passions at Pine Lake Pastures: "Beseler and county finance director Tonya Weinert said that if the county were to begin the window replacement project before being awarded stimulus package money it would no longer be eligible for such federal funding for energy efficiency."
Government rules are regulations once again cause problems.
Government rules are regulations once again cause problems.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Biden: Without Stimulus, U.S. Would Go Bankrupt - Political News - FOXNews.com
Biden: Without Stimulus, U.S. Would Go Bankrupt - Political News - FOXNews.com: "'We're going to go bankrupt as a nation,' Biden warned at an event in the backyard of the House's No. 2 Republican.
'People, when I say that, look at me and say, 'What are you talking about, Joe? You're telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?' he said. 'The answer is yes.'"
He is good about showing how dumb the ideas are.
'"Those billions of dollars get poured back in the economy," he said, turning to face John Fernandez, owner of DayStar Desserts in Richmond. "It means someone's buying your desserts, it means someone's going to the local shoe store. It means people's jobs."'
In order to get those billions of dollars the government needs to take them out of the economy -- so if the government was perfectly efficient then at best it wouldn't change anything.
'People, when I say that, look at me and say, 'What are you talking about, Joe? You're telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?' he said. 'The answer is yes.'"
He is good about showing how dumb the ideas are.
'"Those billions of dollars get poured back in the economy," he said, turning to face John Fernandez, owner of DayStar Desserts in Richmond. "It means someone's buying your desserts, it means someone's going to the local shoe store. It means people's jobs."'
In order to get those billions of dollars the government needs to take them out of the economy -- so if the government was perfectly efficient then at best it wouldn't change anything.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Government Grinds the Gears | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
Government Grinds the Gears | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: "f you knew that baseball teams with winning records tended to be more profitable for their owners than those with losing records — and if you learned that the Baltimore Orioles had just been purchased by the major league umpire's union, would you expect the Orioles to win more or fewer games? Almost everyone implicitly understands why the umpires should not be allowed to own teams they referee.
In a free-market economic system, the government is supposed to be the referee and not a player. Its job is to set and enforce the rules, but if it is allowed to also become a player, by owning and managing business enterprises, it is unlikely to treat the competing companies fairly, and there will be little check on its own misbehavior. Congress is now debating whether the U.S. government will create its own national health provider. The government is now the majority owner of the nation's biggest automobile manufacturer (General Motors Corp.), the biggest bank (Citigroup Inc.), and the biggest insurance company (American International Group Inc.). The record of government ownership and/or control of companies in the United States and elsewhere has been one long disaster.
Look at the past year alone. The nation's largest man-made environmental disaster (according to the New York Times) was the coal-ash spill in Tennessee on Dec. 28, 2008, caused by negligence at the Tennessee Valley Authority (a federal-government-owned enterprise). By volume, this spill was 48 times bigger than the Exxon Valdez spill. This September, the government formally took over mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose financial holes were many times larger than those of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., WorldCom, Enron Corp. or GM. Fannie and Freddie were both U.S. government-sponsored and -regulated companies that had the implicit guarantee of the U.S. taxpayer.
Yet the companies not only failed, but between them have also left the U.S. taxpayer liable for more than $1 trillion. All too many in the mainstream media choose to ignore or underreport government failures while hyping private- company failures. Just look at the press coverage of the Exxon Valdez versus the TVA Tennessee spill, or the coverage given Enron versus Fannie and Freddie."
In a free-market economic system, the government is supposed to be the referee and not a player. Its job is to set and enforce the rules, but if it is allowed to also become a player, by owning and managing business enterprises, it is unlikely to treat the competing companies fairly, and there will be little check on its own misbehavior. Congress is now debating whether the U.S. government will create its own national health provider. The government is now the majority owner of the nation's biggest automobile manufacturer (General Motors Corp.), the biggest bank (Citigroup Inc.), and the biggest insurance company (American International Group Inc.). The record of government ownership and/or control of companies in the United States and elsewhere has been one long disaster.
Look at the past year alone. The nation's largest man-made environmental disaster (according to the New York Times) was the coal-ash spill in Tennessee on Dec. 28, 2008, caused by negligence at the Tennessee Valley Authority (a federal-government-owned enterprise). By volume, this spill was 48 times bigger than the Exxon Valdez spill. This September, the government formally took over mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose financial holes were many times larger than those of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., WorldCom, Enron Corp. or GM. Fannie and Freddie were both U.S. government-sponsored and -regulated companies that had the implicit guarantee of the U.S. taxpayer.
Yet the companies not only failed, but between them have also left the U.S. taxpayer liable for more than $1 trillion. All too many in the mainstream media choose to ignore or underreport government failures while hyping private- company failures. Just look at the press coverage of the Exxon Valdez versus the TVA Tennessee spill, or the coverage given Enron versus Fannie and Freddie."
High Speed Spending | Randal O'Toole | Cato Institute: Commentary
High Speed Spending | Randal O'Toole | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Would you pay $1,000 so that someone – probably not you – can ride high-speed trains 58 miles a year? That's what the Obama Administration's high-speed rail plan is going to cost every federal income taxpayer in the country."
"Taxpayers will also have to cover operating losses: Amtrak loses $28 to $84 per passenger in most of its short-distance corridors. In 2001, it lost the most - $84 per passenger in the state-subsidized Raleigh-Charlotte corridor."
"As of this writing, $99 will get you from Washington to New York in two hours and fifty minutes on Amtrak's high-speed train, while $49 pays for a moderate-speed train ride that takes three hours and fifteen minutes. Meanwhile, relatively unsubsidized and energy-efficient buses cost $20 for a four-hour-and-fifteen-minute trip with leather seats and free Wi-Fi. Airfares start at $119 for a one-hour flight.
Few people who pay their own way will spend an extra $79 to save an hour and twenty-five minutes of their time. But anyone who values their time that highly would be willing to pay an extra $20 to save an hour by taking the plane. The train's only advantage is for people who are going from downtown to downtown.
Who works downtown? Bankers, lawyers, government officials, and other high-income people who hardly need subsidized transportation. Not only will you pay $1,000 for someone else to ride the train; that someone probably earns more than you."
"Taxpayers will also have to cover operating losses: Amtrak loses $28 to $84 per passenger in most of its short-distance corridors. In 2001, it lost the most - $84 per passenger in the state-subsidized Raleigh-Charlotte corridor."
"As of this writing, $99 will get you from Washington to New York in two hours and fifty minutes on Amtrak's high-speed train, while $49 pays for a moderate-speed train ride that takes three hours and fifteen minutes. Meanwhile, relatively unsubsidized and energy-efficient buses cost $20 for a four-hour-and-fifteen-minute trip with leather seats and free Wi-Fi. Airfares start at $119 for a one-hour flight.
Few people who pay their own way will spend an extra $79 to save an hour and twenty-five minutes of their time. But anyone who values their time that highly would be willing to pay an extra $20 to save an hour by taking the plane. The train's only advantage is for people who are going from downtown to downtown.
Who works downtown? Bankers, lawyers, government officials, and other high-income people who hardly need subsidized transportation. Not only will you pay $1,000 for someone else to ride the train; that someone probably earns more than you."
Detainees, Even if Acquitted, Might Not Go Free - Political News - FOXNews.com
Detainees, Even if Acquitted, Might Not Go Free - Political News - FOXNews.com: "The Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission.
Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department's chief lawyer, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that releasing a detainee who has been tried and found not guilty was a policy decision that officials would make based on their estimate of whether the prisoner posed a future threat.
Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration argues that the legal basis for indefinite detention of aliens it considers dangerous is separate from war-crimes prosecutions. Officials say that the laws of war allow indefinite detention to prevent aliens from committing warlike acts in future, while prosecution by military commission aims to punish them for war crimes committed in the past."
Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department's chief lawyer, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that releasing a detainee who has been tried and found not guilty was a policy decision that officials would make based on their estimate of whether the prisoner posed a future threat.
Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration argues that the legal basis for indefinite detention of aliens it considers dangerous is separate from war-crimes prosecutions. Officials say that the laws of war allow indefinite detention to prevent aliens from committing warlike acts in future, while prosecution by military commission aims to punish them for war crimes committed in the past."
Iran's Failed Revolution | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary
Iran's Failed Revolution | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: "For a quarter century Washington backed the shah's dictatorship. After years of repression, Islamic fundamentalists emerged stronger than liberal secularists, leading to the creation of the Islamic Republic in 1979. Then the United States supported Iraq's Saddam Hussein after he invaded Iran. Later, President George W. Bush termed Iran a member of the 'Axis of Evil' even as his administration destroyed the Iraqi regime which had helped restrain Tehran's regional ambitions."
"This history continues to afflict America's relationship with Iranians. Persistent threats of military strikes and cheery jingles about bombing campaigns—which undoubtedly would have killed some of the demonstrators whose cause the U.S. government now champions—also taint Washington's call for democracy. So, too, the preelection admission of such neoconservatives as Max Boot and Daniel Pipes that they would prefer the reelection of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Not all Iranians are likely to see Washington as a disinterested advocate of the best interests of the Iranian people."
"But for the U.S. government to be perceived as interfering—yet again—in Iran's affairs would retard rather than accelerate reform. Ahmadinejad has won on force but lost on legitimacy: Moussavi, fellow reform candidate Mehdi Karroubi, and former-President Mohammad Khatami continue to criticize the fraudulent result. The worst thing Washington could do is turn the issue into a conflict between the U.S. and Iranian governments instead of one between the Iranian government and its people. And if Moussavi unexpectedly triumphed, the United States would not want to be tied to him either. After all, he looks moderate only in comparison to Ahmadinejad."
"However, the nuclear issue is too important to leave unaddressed. Military strikes might only delay Iran's possible development of nuclear weapons. Moreover, such an attack would increase Tehran's incentive to develop an arsenal. U.S. intelligence does not believe that Iran has an active weapons program underway, though the mullahs may hope to create "turn-key" capability; military action likely would remove any doubt in the regime's mind about the desirability of possessing an atomic deterrent.
Moreover, war would destroy the democracy movement and solidify support for the regime. Worse, the violent, destabilizing consequences would ripple throughout the Muslim and Arab worlds, starting next door in Iraq, where one hundred thirty one thousand U.S. troops remain on station."
"This history continues to afflict America's relationship with Iranians. Persistent threats of military strikes and cheery jingles about bombing campaigns—which undoubtedly would have killed some of the demonstrators whose cause the U.S. government now champions—also taint Washington's call for democracy. So, too, the preelection admission of such neoconservatives as Max Boot and Daniel Pipes that they would prefer the reelection of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Not all Iranians are likely to see Washington as a disinterested advocate of the best interests of the Iranian people."
"But for the U.S. government to be perceived as interfering—yet again—in Iran's affairs would retard rather than accelerate reform. Ahmadinejad has won on force but lost on legitimacy: Moussavi, fellow reform candidate Mehdi Karroubi, and former-President Mohammad Khatami continue to criticize the fraudulent result. The worst thing Washington could do is turn the issue into a conflict between the U.S. and Iranian governments instead of one between the Iranian government and its people. And if Moussavi unexpectedly triumphed, the United States would not want to be tied to him either. After all, he looks moderate only in comparison to Ahmadinejad."
"However, the nuclear issue is too important to leave unaddressed. Military strikes might only delay Iran's possible development of nuclear weapons. Moreover, such an attack would increase Tehran's incentive to develop an arsenal. U.S. intelligence does not believe that Iran has an active weapons program underway, though the mullahs may hope to create "turn-key" capability; military action likely would remove any doubt in the regime's mind about the desirability of possessing an atomic deterrent.
Moreover, war would destroy the democracy movement and solidify support for the regime. Worse, the violent, destabilizing consequences would ripple throughout the Muslim and Arab worlds, starting next door in Iraq, where one hundred thirty one thousand U.S. troops remain on station."
Paulson Justifies Threatening BofA's CEO - Political News - FOXNews.com
Paulson Justifies Threatening BofA's CEO - Political News - FOXNews.com: "'It is a threat to the foundations of our free society when government officials, acting in the midst of a crisis, use dire predictions of imminent disaster to justify their encroachment on our individual liberty and the rule of law,' said Issa.
In prepared testimony, Paulson said he told Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis last year that reneging on his promise to purchase Merrill would show a 'colossal lack of judgment.'
Paulson said that 'under such circumstances,' the Federal Reserve would be justified in removing management at the bank."
In prepared testimony, Paulson said he told Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis last year that reneging on his promise to purchase Merrill would show a 'colossal lack of judgment.'
Paulson said that 'under such circumstances,' the Federal Reserve would be justified in removing management at the bank."
Heavy Foot of Government | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
Heavy Foot of Government | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The stimulus bill is objectively not working as promised by the advocates because, as many correctly warned, it is not possible for either individuals or governments to spend themselves into prosperity, nor will the political forces allow tax revenues to be spent wisely and effectively. If you look at the Obama officials' unemployment projections (with and without the stimulus bill), as well as the actual unemployment numbers, it is ironic that, if those in the Obama administration had not put forth the stimulus bill, the economy, by their own projections, would probably have been better off."
"If governments try to control prices, oil companies and investors will invest less in new production, thus reducing future supply, which will lead to higher prices in the future. Speculators are necessary to allow producers to shift part of the risk of their investments."
"And if speculation were as risklessly profitable as [the critics] presume it to be, then high gasoline prices would pose no problem because everyone would be raking in the riches by speculating in oil markets."
"If governments try to control prices, oil companies and investors will invest less in new production, thus reducing future supply, which will lead to higher prices in the future. Speculators are necessary to allow producers to shift part of the risk of their investments."
"And if speculation were as risklessly profitable as [the critics] presume it to be, then high gasoline prices would pose no problem because everyone would be raking in the riches by speculating in oil markets."
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Jaguar to Kill Entry Level X-Type Model - Auto - FOXNews.com
Jaguar to Kill Entry Level X-Type Model - Auto - FOXNews.com: "Jaguar Land Rover said Wednesday it will cease production of its X-Type car by the end of the year, eliminating 300 jobs at its Halewood plant near Liverpool, England."
That is a good move because the X-Type diluted the Jaguar brand.
That is a good move because the X-Type diluted the Jaguar brand.
U.S., State Officials Need to Stop Micromanaging Care | Shirley Svorny | Cato Institute: Commentary
U.S., State Officials Need to Stop Micromanaging Care | Shirley Svorny | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The Veterans' Administration was mentioned twice as a model for the provision of care."
It probably is a good model for the kind of care that the government will provide but it isn't a good model of the kind of care I want or a good model for an improvement.
"Government programs are not less expensive to administer if you include fraud as a cost. Fraud on the part of providers seeking government reimbursement, although hard to measure, is thought to dwarf administrative costs in private companies. Medicare and Medi-Cal have cut costs by limiting what physicians and other providers get paid, a poor long-run strategy for the country as a whole."
"The role of profits in motivating desirable outcomes has to be one of the most poorly understood concepts on the planet. Profits reward efficiency and innovation. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies only make profits if they produce something people want to buy."
"Health care is delivered in much the same way it was delivered 40 years ago because that is how it is reimbursed. In addition, providers are constrained by state laws which dictate limited scope of practice and excessive education requirements for medical professionals."
"Those in attendance Tuesday night went though a long wish list that included longer doctor visits, more accessible health care and additional services (including interpreting) and higher rates of reimbursement for physicians. Union representatives encouraged everyone to call their legislators to demand universal coverage. But universal coverage would not lead to higher reimbursement rates for physicians, an extension of services, or longer doctor visits. Just the opposite, as health care dollars would be stretched even further."
It probably is a good model for the kind of care that the government will provide but it isn't a good model of the kind of care I want or a good model for an improvement.
"Government programs are not less expensive to administer if you include fraud as a cost. Fraud on the part of providers seeking government reimbursement, although hard to measure, is thought to dwarf administrative costs in private companies. Medicare and Medi-Cal have cut costs by limiting what physicians and other providers get paid, a poor long-run strategy for the country as a whole."
"The role of profits in motivating desirable outcomes has to be one of the most poorly understood concepts on the planet. Profits reward efficiency and innovation. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies only make profits if they produce something people want to buy."
"Health care is delivered in much the same way it was delivered 40 years ago because that is how it is reimbursed. In addition, providers are constrained by state laws which dictate limited scope of practice and excessive education requirements for medical professionals."
"Those in attendance Tuesday night went though a long wish list that included longer doctor visits, more accessible health care and additional services (including interpreting) and higher rates of reimbursement for physicians. Union representatives encouraged everyone to call their legislators to demand universal coverage. But universal coverage would not lead to higher reimbursement rates for physicians, an extension of services, or longer doctor visits. Just the opposite, as health care dollars would be stretched even further."
The Seinfeld Hearings | Randy Barnett | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Seinfeld Hearings | Randy Barnett | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Supreme Court confirmation hearings do not have to be about either results or nothing. They could be about clauses, not cases. Instead of asking nominees how they would decide particular cases, ask them to explain what they think the various clauses of the Constitution mean. Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to arms? What was the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment? (Hint: It included an individual right to arms.) Does the 14th Amendment 'incorporate' the Bill of Rights and, if so, how and why? Does the Ninth Amendment protect judicially enforceable unenumerated rights? Does the Necessary and Proper Clause delegate unlimited discretion to Congress? Where in the text of the Constitution is the so-called Spending Power (by which Congress claims the power to spend tax revenue on anything it wants) and does it have any enforceable limits?
Don't ask how the meaning of these clauses should be applied in particular circumstances. Just ask about the meaning itself and how it should be ascertained. Do nominees think they are bound by the original public meaning of the text? Even those who deny this still typically claim that original meaning is a "factor" or starting point. If so, what other factors do they think a justice should rely on to "interpret" the meaning of the text? Even asking whether "We the People" in the U.S. Constitution originally included blacks and slaves -- as abolitionists like Lysander Spooner and Frederick Douglass contended, or not as Chief Justice Roger Taney claimed in Dred Scott v. Sandford -- will tell us much about a nominee's approach to constitutional interpretation. Given that this is hardly a case that will come before them, on what grounds could nominees refuse to answer such questions?"
Don't ask how the meaning of these clauses should be applied in particular circumstances. Just ask about the meaning itself and how it should be ascertained. Do nominees think they are bound by the original public meaning of the text? Even those who deny this still typically claim that original meaning is a "factor" or starting point. If so, what other factors do they think a justice should rely on to "interpret" the meaning of the text? Even asking whether "We the People" in the U.S. Constitution originally included blacks and slaves -- as abolitionists like Lysander Spooner and Frederick Douglass contended, or not as Chief Justice Roger Taney claimed in Dred Scott v. Sandford -- will tell us much about a nominee's approach to constitutional interpretation. Given that this is hardly a case that will come before them, on what grounds could nominees refuse to answer such questions?"
Campaign For Liberty — Health Care: Who should run what
Campaign For Liberty — Health Care: Who should run what: "The big issue of the day right now is universal health care. Well, we have universal health care already, since it is illegal to deny health care to anyone in the US."
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
More Friends, More War | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary
More Friends, More War | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The argument for incorporating Tbilisi into the alliance reflects fear of Russian domination of the region, yet it is striking how ineffective Moscow has been in intimidating members of the 'near abroad.' If anything, the war with Georgia appears to have reduced Russia's clout. Observes Ellen Barry in the New York Times: 'Rather than being cowed into obedience, as most Western observers feared, the former republics seem to have grown even more protective of their sovereignty.'"
In Love? It's Not Enough to Keep a Marriage, Study Finds - Sex | Erectile Dysfunction | Sexual Health - FOXNews.com
In Love? It's Not Enough to Keep a Marriage, Study Finds - Sex | Erectile Dysfunction | Sexual Health - FOXNews.com: "A couple's age, previous relationships and even whether they smoke or not are factors that influence whether their marriage is going to last, according to a study by researchers from the Australian National University.
The study, entitled 'What's Love Got to Do With It', tracked nearly 2,500 couples — married or living together — from 2001 to 2007 to identify factors associated with those who remained together compared with those who divorced or separated."
The study, entitled 'What's Love Got to Do With It', tracked nearly 2,500 couples — married or living together — from 2001 to 2007 to identify factors associated with those who remained together compared with those who divorced or separated."
Monday, July 13, 2009
Iran's Failed Revolution | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary
Iran's Failed Revolution | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: "In 1953 the U.S. government terminated Iran's earlier democracy by orchestrating the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh, Time's 1951 Man of the Year, died under house arrest by Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.
For a quarter century Washington backed the shah's dictatorship. After years of repression, Islamic fundamentalists emerged stronger than liberal secularists, leading to the creation of the Islamic Republic in 1979. Then the United States supported Iraq's Saddam Hussein after he invaded Iran. Later, President George W. Bush termed Iran a member of the 'Axis of Evil' even as his administration destroyed the Iraqi regime which had helped restrain Tehran's regional ambitions."
"This history continues to afflict America's relationship with Iranians. Persistent threats of military strikes and cheery jingles about bombing campaigns—which undoubtedly would have killed some of the demonstrators whose cause the U.S. government now champions—also taint Washington's call for democracy. So, too, the preelection admission of such neoconservatives as Max Boot and Daniel Pipes that they would prefer the reelection of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Not all Iranians are likely to see Washington as a disinterested advocate of the best interests of the Iranian people."
"But for the U.S. government to be perceived as interfering—yet again—in Iran's affairs would retard rather than accelerate reform. Ahmadinejad has won on force but lost on legitimacy: Moussavi, fellow reform candidate Mehdi Karroubi, and former-President Mohammad Khatami continue to criticize the fraudulent result. The worst thing Washington could do is turn the issue into a conflict between the U.S. and Iranian governments instead of one between the Iranian government and its people. And if Moussavi unexpectedly triumphed, the United States would not want to be tied to him either. After all, he looks moderate only in comparison to Ahmadinejad.
While unlikely to help unseat the current regime, expansive statements of U.S. government support and generous cash grants risk giving democracy activists a false sense of security. It wouldn't be the first time: Hungarian revolutionaries confronting the Soviet Union in 1956, Shiites rising against Saddam Hussein's regime in 2001, and Georgians battling Russian forces in 2008 all appeared to treat American verbal endorsements as a precursor to armed intervention on their behalf."
"However, the nuclear issue is too important to leave unaddressed. Military strikes might only delay Iran's possible development of nuclear weapons. Moreover, such an attack would increase Tehran's incentive to develop an arsenal. U.S. intelligence does not believe that Iran has an active weapons program underway, though the mullahs may hope to create "turn-key" capability; military action likely would remove any doubt in the regime's mind about the desirability of possessing an atomic deterrent.
Moreover, war would destroy the democracy movement and solidify support for the regime."
For a quarter century Washington backed the shah's dictatorship. After years of repression, Islamic fundamentalists emerged stronger than liberal secularists, leading to the creation of the Islamic Republic in 1979. Then the United States supported Iraq's Saddam Hussein after he invaded Iran. Later, President George W. Bush termed Iran a member of the 'Axis of Evil' even as his administration destroyed the Iraqi regime which had helped restrain Tehran's regional ambitions."
"This history continues to afflict America's relationship with Iranians. Persistent threats of military strikes and cheery jingles about bombing campaigns—which undoubtedly would have killed some of the demonstrators whose cause the U.S. government now champions—also taint Washington's call for democracy. So, too, the preelection admission of such neoconservatives as Max Boot and Daniel Pipes that they would prefer the reelection of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Not all Iranians are likely to see Washington as a disinterested advocate of the best interests of the Iranian people."
"But for the U.S. government to be perceived as interfering—yet again—in Iran's affairs would retard rather than accelerate reform. Ahmadinejad has won on force but lost on legitimacy: Moussavi, fellow reform candidate Mehdi Karroubi, and former-President Mohammad Khatami continue to criticize the fraudulent result. The worst thing Washington could do is turn the issue into a conflict between the U.S. and Iranian governments instead of one between the Iranian government and its people. And if Moussavi unexpectedly triumphed, the United States would not want to be tied to him either. After all, he looks moderate only in comparison to Ahmadinejad.
While unlikely to help unseat the current regime, expansive statements of U.S. government support and generous cash grants risk giving democracy activists a false sense of security. It wouldn't be the first time: Hungarian revolutionaries confronting the Soviet Union in 1956, Shiites rising against Saddam Hussein's regime in 2001, and Georgians battling Russian forces in 2008 all appeared to treat American verbal endorsements as a precursor to armed intervention on their behalf."
"However, the nuclear issue is too important to leave unaddressed. Military strikes might only delay Iran's possible development of nuclear weapons. Moreover, such an attack would increase Tehran's incentive to develop an arsenal. U.S. intelligence does not believe that Iran has an active weapons program underway, though the mullahs may hope to create "turn-key" capability; military action likely would remove any doubt in the regime's mind about the desirability of possessing an atomic deterrent.
Moreover, war would destroy the democracy movement and solidify support for the regime."
The Case for Doing Nothing | Jeffrey A. Miron | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Case for Doing Nothing | Jeffrey A. Miron | Cato Institute: Commentary: "When people try to pin the blame for the financial crisis on the introduction of derivatives, or the increase in securitization, or the failure of ratings agencies, it's important to remember that the magnitude of both boom and bust was increased exponentially because of the notion in the back of everyone's mind that if things went badly, the government would bail us out. And in fact, that is what the federal government has done. But before critiquing this series of interventions, perhaps we should ask what the alternative was."
"From the distributional perspective, the choice is a no-brainer. Bailouts took money from the taxpayers and gave it to banks that willingly, knowingly, and repeatedly took huge amounts of risk, hoping they'd get bailed out by everyone else. It clearly was an unfair transfer of funds. Under bankruptcy, on the other hand, the people who take most or even all of the loss are the equity holders and creditors of these institutions. This is appropriate, because these are the stakeholders who win on the upside when there's money to be made. Distributionally, we clearly did the wrong thing."
"The problem isn't only that the bailout wasn't necessary in the first place. The bailout may have made the credit situation worse. When banks hear that the Treasury Department is dangling hundreds of billions of dollars out there to purchase their toxic assets, what are they going to do? Sell their assets for 20 cents on the dollar, or hold onto them in the hope that the government will eventually buy them for 80 cents on the dollar?
The moment Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got in front of the cameras last fall and announced that we were on the brink of catastrophe, Wall Street was bound to freeze, because bankers wanted to figure out how much money was available and how they could get some. Let's not realize any losses we don't have to realize, they figured, because Treasury's going to bail us out."
"From the distributional perspective, the choice is a no-brainer. Bailouts took money from the taxpayers and gave it to banks that willingly, knowingly, and repeatedly took huge amounts of risk, hoping they'd get bailed out by everyone else. It clearly was an unfair transfer of funds. Under bankruptcy, on the other hand, the people who take most or even all of the loss are the equity holders and creditors of these institutions. This is appropriate, because these are the stakeholders who win on the upside when there's money to be made. Distributionally, we clearly did the wrong thing."
"The problem isn't only that the bailout wasn't necessary in the first place. The bailout may have made the credit situation worse. When banks hear that the Treasury Department is dangling hundreds of billions of dollars out there to purchase their toxic assets, what are they going to do? Sell their assets for 20 cents on the dollar, or hold onto them in the hope that the government will eventually buy them for 80 cents on the dollar?
The moment Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got in front of the cameras last fall and announced that we were on the brink of catastrophe, Wall Street was bound to freeze, because bankers wanted to figure out how much money was available and how they could get some. Let's not realize any losses we don't have to realize, they figured, because Treasury's going to bail us out."
A Second Stimulus Package? Yikes! | Alan Reynolds | Cato Institute: Commentary
A Second Stimulus Package? Yikes! | Alan Reynolds | Cato Institute: Commentary: "'Indian stocks fell 5.8% Monday amid concern the proposed government budget will add to the country's fiscal deficit.'
Investors understand that increased government spending diverts valuable resources away from the private sector and ends up imposing even more demoralizing taxes on labor and capital."
"A major study of 18 large economies by Alberto Alesina of Harvard and three colleagues appeared in the 2002 American Economic Review. This paper, "Fiscal Policy, Profits and Investment" found that the surest way to make economies boom can be through deep cuts in government spending--the exact opposite of the "fiscal stimulus" snake oil.
Ireland, for example, slashed government spending by more than 7% of GDP from 1986 to 1989--nearly as much as the 8.4% of GDP the U.S. spends on Social Security and Medicare combined. The Irish economy suddenly switched from a 0.2% pace of economic growth in the early 1980s to annual real GDP growth of 7.2% from 1989 to 2001. With GDP doubling every decade, government debt dropped from 125% of GDP to less than 40%.
By contrast, Japan spent trillions on Keynesian "stimulus" schemes after 1991, doubling the ratio of national debt to GDP. Amazingly, they are doing it still. Japan's "lost decade" of economic stagnation is now approaching two decades with no end in sight."
Investors understand that increased government spending diverts valuable resources away from the private sector and ends up imposing even more demoralizing taxes on labor and capital."
"A major study of 18 large economies by Alberto Alesina of Harvard and three colleagues appeared in the 2002 American Economic Review. This paper, "Fiscal Policy, Profits and Investment" found that the surest way to make economies boom can be through deep cuts in government spending--the exact opposite of the "fiscal stimulus" snake oil.
Ireland, for example, slashed government spending by more than 7% of GDP from 1986 to 1989--nearly as much as the 8.4% of GDP the U.S. spends on Social Security and Medicare combined. The Irish economy suddenly switched from a 0.2% pace of economic growth in the early 1980s to annual real GDP growth of 7.2% from 1989 to 2001. With GDP doubling every decade, government debt dropped from 125% of GDP to less than 40%.
By contrast, Japan spent trillions on Keynesian "stimulus" schemes after 1991, doubling the ratio of national debt to GDP. Amazingly, they are doing it still. Japan's "lost decade" of economic stagnation is now approaching two decades with no end in sight."
Hate Crime Legislation Would Backfire | David Rittgers | Cato Institute: Commentary
Hate Crime Legislation Would Backfire | David Rittgers | Cato Institute: Commentary: "First, crimes motivated by racial animus, misogyny, or homophobia are already recognized as atrocities and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No new law is needed. Second, making the ideology of the perpetrator a centerpiece of the trial doesn't deter like-minded extremists; it encourages them."
"Worse yet, the proposed legislation picks favorites among the public. Mr. Von Brunn could arguably be charged under the proposed hate-crime legislation because he targeted a Jewish museum and shot an African-American guard. Mr. Roeder's crime had the same death toll, but because there is no hate-crime protection for abortion providers he is outside the hate-crime ambit (though arguably subject to prosecution under a separate overfederalization of violence against abortion providers).
Mr. Muhammad wanted to kill an American soldier and he did, but it's not a hate crime unless he was specifically looking for a Christian, female, or gay soldier."
"Worse yet, the proposed legislation picks favorites among the public. Mr. Von Brunn could arguably be charged under the proposed hate-crime legislation because he targeted a Jewish museum and shot an African-American guard. Mr. Roeder's crime had the same death toll, but because there is no hate-crime protection for abortion providers he is outside the hate-crime ambit (though arguably subject to prosecution under a separate overfederalization of violence against abortion providers).
Mr. Muhammad wanted to kill an American soldier and he did, but it's not a hate crime unless he was specifically looking for a Christian, female, or gay soldier."
Obama: Recovery Will Take Years Not Months - Political News - FOXNews.com
Obama: Recovery Will Take Years Not Months - Political News - FOXNews.com: "Health care costs must be controlled, jobs created within the U.S., worker training programs established and budget deficits reduced, he said."
Too bad his policies do the opposite. The government has never been good at controlling costs so government health care won't help. The stimulus bills take massive amounts of money from the economy which kills many jobs and creates only a relative few jobs. Government worker training programs will be inefficient. Budget deficits have smashed records.
Too bad his policies do the opposite. The government has never been good at controlling costs so government health care won't help. The stimulus bills take massive amounts of money from the economy which kills many jobs and creates only a relative few jobs. Government worker training programs will be inefficient. Budget deficits have smashed records.
Friday, July 10, 2009
The Expanding Fed Role | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Expanding Fed Role | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The Fed is supposed to provide the United States with stable currency yet it now takes $21.60 to equal the purchasing power of $1 in 1913, the year the Fed was established. (In the 124 years prior to the founding of the Fed, there was almost no permanent change in the purchasing power of the dollar. There was some inflation during the Civil War, which was offset by a slow deflation in the 40 years after the war.)
The Fed is supposed to regulate the banking system to provide financial stability, yet far more banks have failed since the Fed was created, and events of the past year illustrate how the Fed has failed at providing financial stability."
The Fed is supposed to regulate the banking system to provide financial stability, yet far more banks have failed since the Fed was created, and events of the past year illustrate how the Fed has failed at providing financial stability."
Going 'All In' with North Korea | Ted Galen Carpenter | Cato Institute: Commentary
Going 'All In' with North Korea | Ted Galen Carpenter | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The United States should offer a comprehensive bargain to North Korea. Washington should agree to sign a treaty formally ending the state of war on the Korean Peninsula, ink a nonaggression pact, establish diplomatic relations with Pyongyang and end all economic sanctions against the regime, except those that have direct military applications. In exchange, Washington should insist on the simultaneous implementation of a verifiable agreement (including a rigorous inspections system) to terminate North Korea's nuclear program.
Such concessions would cost the United States very little. Signing a peace treaty to end the Korean War would merely formalize the state of affairs that has existed on the ground since the signing of the armistice in 1953. Agreeing to a nonaggression pact is even less of a substantive concession. Even the most reckless American hawks hesitate about advocating an attack on North Korea to achieve regime change — however much all of us want to see that odious system on the ash heap of history. Using military force against North Korea might well trigger a major war on the Korean Peninsula and perhaps a general war throughout East Asia. That is a risk no rational person would wish to take. So giving North Korea "security assurances" (i.e., a nonaggression pact) merely renounces an option we would not want to pursue in the first place.
Similarly, establishing diplomatic and economic relations with Pyongyang is a step the United States should have taken many years ago. Indeed, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, a key component of U.S. foreign policy in the region was a proposal to Moscow and Beijing for cross recognition of the two Korean states. At the end of the cold war, Russia and China both recognized South Korea, but the United States never kept its part of the bargain by recognizing North Korea."
Such concessions would cost the United States very little. Signing a peace treaty to end the Korean War would merely formalize the state of affairs that has existed on the ground since the signing of the armistice in 1953. Agreeing to a nonaggression pact is even less of a substantive concession. Even the most reckless American hawks hesitate about advocating an attack on North Korea to achieve regime change — however much all of us want to see that odious system on the ash heap of history. Using military force against North Korea might well trigger a major war on the Korean Peninsula and perhaps a general war throughout East Asia. That is a risk no rational person would wish to take. So giving North Korea "security assurances" (i.e., a nonaggression pact) merely renounces an option we would not want to pursue in the first place.
Similarly, establishing diplomatic and economic relations with Pyongyang is a step the United States should have taken many years ago. Indeed, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, a key component of U.S. foreign policy in the region was a proposal to Moscow and Beijing for cross recognition of the two Korean states. At the end of the cold war, Russia and China both recognized South Korea, but the United States never kept its part of the bargain by recognizing North Korea."
It Wasn't A 'Coup' | Juan Carlos Hidalgo | Cato Institute: Commentary
It Wasn't A 'Coup' | Juan Carlos Hidalgo | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The Honduran constitution does not establish an impeachment process by Congress. However, in 2003 the constitution was amended, giving the Supreme Court, and not Congress, the duty to handle the processes initiated against 'the highest ranking officials of the State.' This amendment also eliminated the benefit of immunity that high-ranking officials had enjoyed until then. Thus, the president is subject to prosecution — just like any other citizen.
It is also important to note that after Zelaya's ouster, the army didn't seize or retain power. The Honduran Congress, as specified by the constitution, promptly swore in the speaker of Congress as the new president. Consequently, power stayed in civilian hands. The army merely enforced a court ruling, as provided for in the constitution."
It is also important to note that after Zelaya's ouster, the army didn't seize or retain power. The Honduran Congress, as specified by the constitution, promptly swore in the speaker of Congress as the new president. Consequently, power stayed in civilian hands. The army merely enforced a court ruling, as provided for in the constitution."
Study: 1 in 3 Breast Cancer Patients Given Unnecessary Treatment - Cancer - FOXNews.com
Study: 1 in 3 Breast Cancer Patients Given Unnecessary Treatment - Cancer - FOXNews.com: "Overall, the study found that one-third of the women identified as having breast cancer didn't actually need to be treated.
Some cancers never cause symptoms or death, and can grow too slowly to ever affect patients. As it is impossible to distinguish between those and deadly cancers, any identified cancer is treated. But the treatments can have harmful side effects and be psychologically scarring."
Some cancers never cause symptoms or death, and can grow too slowly to ever affect patients. As it is impossible to distinguish between those and deadly cancers, any identified cancer is treated. But the treatments can have harmful side effects and be psychologically scarring."
Thursday, July 09, 2009
OpenSecrets | Congressional Lawmakers Invest in Their (Financial) Health - Capital Eye
OpenSecrets | Congressional Lawmakers Invest in Their (Financial) Health - Capital Eye: "As members of Congress assess the proper dose of reform for the nation's health care system, many of them have likewise invested hundreds of thousands of dollars of their personal funds into the very companies whose financial fortunes depend on what measures become law."
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
The Economics of Illusion - L. Albert Hahn - Mises Institute
The Economics of Illusion - L. Albert Hahn - Mises Institute: "For it presupposes an economy whose members do not see through the changes brought about by monetary or fiscal manipulation — or, as some might say, the swindle. Above all, it presupposes that people are blinded by the idea that the value of money is stable"
Studies Say $196 Billion Wasted on United Nations Health Programs - United Nations - FOXNews.com
Studies Say $196 Billion Wasted on United Nations Health Programs - United Nations - FOXNews.com: "In one paper, WHO researchers examined the impact of various global health initiatives during the last 20 years.
They found some benefits, like increased diagnosis of tuberculosis cases and higher vaccination rates. But they also concluded some U.N. programs hurt health care in Africa by disrupting basic services and leading some countries to slash their health spending."
It shouldn't be surprising that a large bureaucracy is very ineffective.
They found some benefits, like increased diagnosis of tuberculosis cases and higher vaccination rates. But they also concluded some U.N. programs hurt health care in Africa by disrupting basic services and leading some countries to slash their health spending."
It shouldn't be surprising that a large bureaucracy is very ineffective.
Obama: Status Quo Will Be Much More Costly Than Price of Overhaul Bill - Political News - FOXNews.com
Obama: Status Quo Will Be Much More Costly Than Price of Overhaul Bill - Political News - FOXNews.com: "President Obama says he recognizes the heavy price tag of revamping the health care system but that it would be much more costly to do nothing."
Then he should be able to prove that.
Then he should be able to prove that.
Planned Economy or Planned Destruction?
Campaign For Liberty — Planned Economy or Planned Destruction?: "How anyone could believe all the lies about capitalism and business and then believe that an omnipotent government knows all the answers, has no corruption, and will 'protect' us is beyond me. I am much more afraid of a tyrannical government than any private business. Virtually ALL evil throughout the history of the world was purported by governments, not the free market. Nazi Germany, Stalin, Mao, Castro et cetera were all oligarchies - not bastions of laissez-faire capitalism.
The ONLY way a business can harm the people is with government privilege that FORCES the people to use their product or service through some government act, legislation, or coercion. Otherwise, market forces come into effect and bad, evil, inefficient business would go away because people, voting with THEIR money, will in effect vote them out of existence by not patronizing that particular business."
The ONLY way a business can harm the people is with government privilege that FORCES the people to use their product or service through some government act, legislation, or coercion. Otherwise, market forces come into effect and bad, evil, inefficient business would go away because people, voting with THEIR money, will in effect vote them out of existence by not patronizing that particular business."
How Much Money Inflation? - Howard S. Katz - Mises Institute
How Much Money Inflation? - Howard S. Katz - Mises Institute: "In pursuit of the answer to how the monetary base got to be bigger than the money supply itself, I called the St. Louis Federal Reserve, and they were good enough to send me the following reply:
Half of all transaction deposits do not appear in M1 [the money supply] due to retail deposit sweeping. Adding these back into M1 causes M1 to be larger than the monetary base. (In retail deposit sweeping, banks reclassify checkable deposits as savings deposits so as to reduce statutory reserve requirements. Within certain legal bounds, such behavior is acceptable to the Fed. Bank customers are unaware that such reclassification is occurring.)
Plus the FOMC has increased the Fed balance sheet to levels never before seen. Banks are holding deposits at the Fed and not making a great deal of new loans (they are making some, but it is a recession after all). If the banks made new loans, that would generate more deposits to be included in M1.
Transactions deposits are simply demand deposits plus other checkable deposits. That is, they are total bank deposits and, as such, are an important part of the money supply."
Half of all transaction deposits do not appear in M1 [the money supply] due to retail deposit sweeping. Adding these back into M1 causes M1 to be larger than the monetary base. (In retail deposit sweeping, banks reclassify checkable deposits as savings deposits so as to reduce statutory reserve requirements. Within certain legal bounds, such behavior is acceptable to the Fed. Bank customers are unaware that such reclassification is occurring.)
Plus the FOMC has increased the Fed balance sheet to levels never before seen. Banks are holding deposits at the Fed and not making a great deal of new loans (they are making some, but it is a recession after all). If the banks made new loans, that would generate more deposits to be included in M1.
Transactions deposits are simply demand deposits plus other checkable deposits. That is, they are total bank deposits and, as such, are an important part of the money supply."
The China Card | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary
The China Card | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: "First, the United States should indicate that it is willing to share the cost of caring for any refugees who end up over the border in China (or Chinese humanitarian activities in the North in the aftermath of a collapse). The price would be small compared to the cost of North Korea's current regime. And over the long-term a stable, reform-oriented government in the North or a reunified peninsula would offer Beijing obvious economic benefits. The PRC already trades more with South Korea than does the United States. It likely would enjoy a similar advantage in a more prosperous North Korea.
Second, the Republic of Korea, with a nearly $900 billion GDP, should join Washington in making such an offer. The cost of German reunification caused Seoul to hope for at least a modest North Korean economic revival before reunification on the peninsula. However, Pyongyang's increasingly provocative behavior suggests that the price of immediate reunification would be smaller than that of a war or arms race.
Third, the United States should enlist Japan, with the world's second largest GDP of $4.8 trillion, in this effort. Nearly one million ethnic Koreans live in Japan, with the majority hailing from the North. Tokyo could pledge its financial support, as well as indicate its willingness to accept the return of the one hundred thousand ethnic Koreans who emigrated to the DPRK during the 1960s along with their estimated two hundred thousand family members. In return, a new regime in Pyongyang might be more willing to satisfy Japan's demands for an accounting of its citizens kidnapped over the years.
Fourth, the Korean Diaspora could offer its private support. There are more than two million Korean-Americans, more than two hundred thousand ethnic Koreans in both Canada and Russia, about one hundred twenty-five thousand in Australia, and tens of thousands each in countries throughout Asia and Europe. All could assist in the event of a messy end to the Kim regime.
Fifth, the Obama administration should promise the PRC that the United States would not take geopolitical advantage of Chinese intervention. Thus, Korean reunification would not result in American troops on China's border. Instead, U.S. forces would come home. They aren't needed even today to defend the South. And they certainly wouldn't be required if the DPRK disappeared.
Sixth, Washington should point to the risk of further proliferation throughout East Asia. A nuclear North Korea is more a problem for its neighbors than for America. China should not assume that the United States would or could forever restrain the ROK and Japan from responding in kind if they found themselves facing a hostile, nuclear-armed North. Nor is it in the interest of America to remain in the middle of such an unstable geopolitical mix. In short, Beijing would share the nightmare of a nuclear DPRK.
Finally, the United States, backed by leading Asian and European states, should point out that Chinese leadership in resolving the problem of North Korea would enhance the PRC's international reputation. China has emphasized its determination to "rise" peacefully; there would be no better evidence of its good intentions or leadership potential than helping to rid the world of the brutal, threatening regime in Pyongyang."
Second, the Republic of Korea, with a nearly $900 billion GDP, should join Washington in making such an offer. The cost of German reunification caused Seoul to hope for at least a modest North Korean economic revival before reunification on the peninsula. However, Pyongyang's increasingly provocative behavior suggests that the price of immediate reunification would be smaller than that of a war or arms race.
Third, the United States should enlist Japan, with the world's second largest GDP of $4.8 trillion, in this effort. Nearly one million ethnic Koreans live in Japan, with the majority hailing from the North. Tokyo could pledge its financial support, as well as indicate its willingness to accept the return of the one hundred thousand ethnic Koreans who emigrated to the DPRK during the 1960s along with their estimated two hundred thousand family members. In return, a new regime in Pyongyang might be more willing to satisfy Japan's demands for an accounting of its citizens kidnapped over the years.
Fourth, the Korean Diaspora could offer its private support. There are more than two million Korean-Americans, more than two hundred thousand ethnic Koreans in both Canada and Russia, about one hundred twenty-five thousand in Australia, and tens of thousands each in countries throughout Asia and Europe. All could assist in the event of a messy end to the Kim regime.
Fifth, the Obama administration should promise the PRC that the United States would not take geopolitical advantage of Chinese intervention. Thus, Korean reunification would not result in American troops on China's border. Instead, U.S. forces would come home. They aren't needed even today to defend the South. And they certainly wouldn't be required if the DPRK disappeared.
Sixth, Washington should point to the risk of further proliferation throughout East Asia. A nuclear North Korea is more a problem for its neighbors than for America. China should not assume that the United States would or could forever restrain the ROK and Japan from responding in kind if they found themselves facing a hostile, nuclear-armed North. Nor is it in the interest of America to remain in the middle of such an unstable geopolitical mix. In short, Beijing would share the nightmare of a nuclear DPRK.
Finally, the United States, backed by leading Asian and European states, should point out that Chinese leadership in resolving the problem of North Korea would enhance the PRC's international reputation. China has emphasized its determination to "rise" peacefully; there would be no better evidence of its good intentions or leadership potential than helping to rid the world of the brutal, threatening regime in Pyongyang."
Biden: 'We Misread How Bad the Economy Was' - Political News - FOXNews.com
Biden: 'We Misread How Bad the Economy Was' - Political News - FOXNews.com: "The vice president says the Obama administration 'misread how bad the economy was' but stands by its stimulus package and believes the plan will create more jobs as the pace of its spending gains momentum."
You were wrong again but you assure us that you are right now? Sounds hard to believe.
You were wrong again but you assure us that you are right now? Sounds hard to believe.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
The 10 Most-American Cars - Auto - FOXNews.com
The 10 Most-American Cars - Auto - FOXNews.com: "So, it's the Fourth of July, and you're feeling a little more patriotic than usual. Sounds like a great time to buy a domestic car, right?
Well, first you need to answer the question: 'what is a domestic car?' Is a Chevy built in South Korea domestic, or how about a Hyundai assembled in Alabama?
Since that debate is not likely to be settled anytime soon, we've decided to keep it simple and list the top 10 domestic cars based strictly on content, as compiled by the National Highway and Transportation Administration."
Well, first you need to answer the question: 'what is a domestic car?' Is a Chevy built in South Korea domestic, or how about a Hyundai assembled in Alabama?
Since that debate is not likely to be settled anytime soon, we've decided to keep it simple and list the top 10 domestic cars based strictly on content, as compiled by the National Highway and Transportation Administration."
Inflation: What You See and What You Don't See - Thorsten Polleit - Mises Institute
Inflation: What You See and What You Don't See - Thorsten Polleit - Mises Institute: "As far as its impact on prices goes, the rise in the monetary base sponsored by the Fed has so far been restricted to an invisible effect.
First and foremost, the base money increase prevents banks' troubled asset prices from adjusting to lower levels. Buyers of these assets have to pay a higher price when compared to the scenario in which the Fed hadn't increased the money supply.
In addition, prohibiting the prices of banks' assets from adjusting downwards keeps markets from performing an essential function, namely, rewarding those players who serve the needs of their clients and pushing those players out of the market who do not.
Furthermore, as prices of banks' troubled assets are kept from declining, the need for revaluing other assets (such as book loans extended to firms, house builders, and governments; bonds; stocks, etc.) tends to decline or is prevented altogether."
First and foremost, the base money increase prevents banks' troubled asset prices from adjusting to lower levels. Buyers of these assets have to pay a higher price when compared to the scenario in which the Fed hadn't increased the money supply.
In addition, prohibiting the prices of banks' assets from adjusting downwards keeps markets from performing an essential function, namely, rewarding those players who serve the needs of their clients and pushing those players out of the market who do not.
Furthermore, as prices of banks' troubled assets are kept from declining, the need for revaluing other assets (such as book loans extended to firms, house builders, and governments; bonds; stocks, etc.) tends to decline or is prevented altogether."
The Consequences of the Culture of Death | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Consequences of the Culture of Death | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: "There's no doubt that the circumstances of many of those seeking abortions are difficult. Nor can any defender of liberty feel comfortable advocating government intrusion in such a personal matter as childbirth.
Yet a baby is not the property of his or her mother. Few people disagree that children have the full right to life like adults. Moreover, the moment of birth makes no difference in the moral value of life. Even some abortion advocates are uncomfortable with the brutality of many late term abortions, of which the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said 'This is too close to infanticide.'
Nevertheless, 'viability' should have no more moral significant than birth. Once formed, every human life is unique. That death is presented as the preferred option for 'unwanted' children is bizarre."
"The strongest argument for not restricting abortion is personal liberty. Yet liberty always has been constrained when another person is involved. Especially when the other person exists only because of one's free choice.
Abortion is not a matter of choice, but an attempt to flee from responsibility. Other than in the case of rape, pregnancy results from the decision to have sex, freely made. People are, rightly, legally free to have sex with whomever they desire whenever they desire. That being the case, they also should be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions. One of those consequences is a baby."
"We also see the demand to force medical students to learn and hospitals to provide abortion. And for pharmacies to provide abortifacients. Freedom of conscience is twisted to mean the denial of freedom of conscience."
Yet a baby is not the property of his or her mother. Few people disagree that children have the full right to life like adults. Moreover, the moment of birth makes no difference in the moral value of life. Even some abortion advocates are uncomfortable with the brutality of many late term abortions, of which the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said 'This is too close to infanticide.'
Nevertheless, 'viability' should have no more moral significant than birth. Once formed, every human life is unique. That death is presented as the preferred option for 'unwanted' children is bizarre."
"The strongest argument for not restricting abortion is personal liberty. Yet liberty always has been constrained when another person is involved. Especially when the other person exists only because of one's free choice.
Abortion is not a matter of choice, but an attempt to flee from responsibility. Other than in the case of rape, pregnancy results from the decision to have sex, freely made. People are, rightly, legally free to have sex with whomever they desire whenever they desire. That being the case, they also should be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions. One of those consequences is a baby."
"We also see the demand to force medical students to learn and hospitals to provide abortion. And for pharmacies to provide abortifacients. Freedom of conscience is twisted to mean the denial of freedom of conscience."
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Kids cheating with tech but are schools cheating kids? | Larry Magid at Large - CNET News
Kids cheating with tech but are schools cheating kids? | Larry Magid at Large - CNET News: "But in addition to admonishing kids about why it's wrong to cheat, perhaps it's also time to rethink what it means to evaluate students in the age of the Internet and omnipresent mobile devices."
"But this survey might also present an opportunity for educators to re-evaluate the type of tests they're giving. I think there is a role for tests that measure a student's ability to quickly acquire and interpret information through mobile devices, even if they know nothing about the subject prior to sitting down for the test."
"But this survey might also present an opportunity for educators to re-evaluate the type of tests they're giving. I think there is a role for tests that measure a student's ability to quickly acquire and interpret information through mobile devices, even if they know nothing about the subject prior to sitting down for the test."
The Deflating Bubble - Doug French - Mises Institute
The Deflating Bubble - Doug French - Mises Institute: "Guaranty Bank of Austin recently demolished 16 new and partially built homes in Victorville, California. The cost of finishing the development exceeded what they could sell the homes for despite four of the homes already being complete."
"Morgan points to a California program that offers a $10,000 tax credit for buyers of new homes. Thus, encouraging the building of redundant houses, at the same time homes are being bulldozed in Victorville. The annual sales pace is 300,000 homes, yet 500,000 new homes are being started that will just add to a bloated inventory."
"Morgan points to a California program that offers a $10,000 tax credit for buyers of new homes. Thus, encouraging the building of redundant houses, at the same time homes are being bulldozed in Victorville. The annual sales pace is 300,000 homes, yet 500,000 new homes are being started that will just add to a bloated inventory."
Windfall Profits and That Which Is Not Seen - Art Carden - Mises Institute
Windfall Profits and That Which Is Not Seen - Art Carden - Mises Institute: "The apartments cost you $450 a month to maintain, and you can rent them out for $500 a month for a monthly profit of $50 each. Suppose now that the demand for Cambridge apartments skyrockets, and you can now charge $1,000 a month for the exact same apartment. The rent controllers maintain that it isn't fair that you can now enjoy such higher rents without really changing the product you offer or 'working for it.' Since people supposedly aren't entitled to what they don't 'work for,' the rent controllers step in and cap rental prices at $500 a month. Everyone should be happy because you're still earning a 'reasonable' profit on each apartment, consumers are still able to get cheap apartments, and the Cambridge housing stock has not diminished."
"People will try to get apartments by making bribes or other side payments. Landlords may let their property deteriorate. Landlords may withdraw from the housing market and convert their apartments to offices."
"In this situation, rent controllers objected to windfall profits for the landlord. But what of the renter who has the good fortune to secure for $500 an apartment for which someone else would gladly pay $1,000? This is just as much a windfall as anything else. Moreover, the rent-control board either consigns the second renter to the winds of fate — he will, in all likelihood, be banished to a waiting list — or shuts him out of the housing market altogether because his willingness to pay is not allowed to manifest itself through the market process."
"High profits induce others to enter a market. In this case, high profits signal that there is quite a bit of money to be made in the Cambridge housing market. One of the fundamental precepts of economics is that people respond to incentives; something has to induce people to engage in productive activity (supplying apartments, in this case)."
"If we did nothing else, therefore, the consequence of fixing a maximum price for a particular commodity would be to bring about a shortage of that commodity. But that is precisely the opposite of what government regulators originally wanted to do. For it is the very commodities selected for maximum price-fixing that the regulators most want to keep in abundant supply. But when they limit the wages and the profits of those who make these commodities … they discourage the production of the price-controlled necessities while they relatively stimulate the production of less essential goods."
"People will try to get apartments by making bribes or other side payments. Landlords may let their property deteriorate. Landlords may withdraw from the housing market and convert their apartments to offices."
"In this situation, rent controllers objected to windfall profits for the landlord. But what of the renter who has the good fortune to secure for $500 an apartment for which someone else would gladly pay $1,000? This is just as much a windfall as anything else. Moreover, the rent-control board either consigns the second renter to the winds of fate — he will, in all likelihood, be banished to a waiting list — or shuts him out of the housing market altogether because his willingness to pay is not allowed to manifest itself through the market process."
"High profits induce others to enter a market. In this case, high profits signal that there is quite a bit of money to be made in the Cambridge housing market. One of the fundamental precepts of economics is that people respond to incentives; something has to induce people to engage in productive activity (supplying apartments, in this case)."
"If we did nothing else, therefore, the consequence of fixing a maximum price for a particular commodity would be to bring about a shortage of that commodity. But that is precisely the opposite of what government regulators originally wanted to do. For it is the very commodities selected for maximum price-fixing that the regulators most want to keep in abundant supply. But when they limit the wages and the profits of those who make these commodities … they discourage the production of the price-controlled necessities while they relatively stimulate the production of less essential goods."
Obama Announces $80 Billion Agreement With Drug Companies - Political News - FOXNews.com
Obama Announces $80 Billion Agreement With Drug Companies - Political News - FOXNews.com: "President Obama announced Monday that drug companies have agreed to close the 'donut hole' in Medicare coverage by providing $80 billion in cheaper drugs over the next decade."
There's no such thing as a free lunch. The money will come from somewhere (less research?).
There's no such thing as a free lunch. The money will come from somewhere (less research?).
Health-Care Myths at Emac’s Stock Watch | Fox Business
Health-Care Myths at Emac’s Stock Watch | Fox Business: "Myth: “The U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world.”"
"The U.S. ranks high on this list largely because this country numbers among those that actually measure neonatal deaths, notably in premature infant fatalities, unlike other countries that basically leave premature babies to die, notes health analyst Betsey McCaughey."
"Myth: “About 46 mn Americans lack access to health insurance.”
There is a difference between health care and health insurance, as Fox Business anchor Brian Sullivan points out after researching reports on health care from the Congressional Budget Office, Blue Cross-Blue Shield and Georgetown University.
Everyone has access to health care. They may not have health insurance, but the law mandates everyone who shows up at emergency rooms must be treated, insurance or not, he reports.
About 14 mn of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP 2003, a BlueCross-BlueShield Association study based on 2003 data estimated. These people would be signed up for government insurance if they ever made it to the emergency room, Sullivan says."
"Myth: “The uninsured can’t afford to buy coverage.”
Many may be able to afford health insurance, but for whatever reason choose to not buy it. In 2007, an estimated 17.6 mn of the uninsured made more than $50,000 per year, and 10 mn of those made more than $75,000 a year"
"Myth: “Most of the uninsured do not have health insurance because they are not working and so don’t have access to health benefits through an employer.”"
"According to a 2003 Blue Cross study, 8.2 mn Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care, but earn too much to qualify for government assistance."
"Myth: “Nationalized health care would not impact patient waiting times.”
Waiting time for elective surgery is lower in the US than in countries with nationalized health care.
In 2005, only 8% of U.S. patients reported waiting four months or more for elective surgery.
Countries with nationalized health care had higher percentages with waiting times of four months or more, including Australia (19%); New Zealand (20%); Canada (33%); and the United Kingdom (41%)."
"The U.S. ranks high on this list largely because this country numbers among those that actually measure neonatal deaths, notably in premature infant fatalities, unlike other countries that basically leave premature babies to die, notes health analyst Betsey McCaughey."
"Myth: “About 46 mn Americans lack access to health insurance.”
There is a difference between health care and health insurance, as Fox Business anchor Brian Sullivan points out after researching reports on health care from the Congressional Budget Office, Blue Cross-Blue Shield and Georgetown University.
Everyone has access to health care. They may not have health insurance, but the law mandates everyone who shows up at emergency rooms must be treated, insurance or not, he reports.
About 14 mn of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP 2003, a BlueCross-BlueShield Association study based on 2003 data estimated. These people would be signed up for government insurance if they ever made it to the emergency room, Sullivan says."
"Myth: “The uninsured can’t afford to buy coverage.”
Many may be able to afford health insurance, but for whatever reason choose to not buy it. In 2007, an estimated 17.6 mn of the uninsured made more than $50,000 per year, and 10 mn of those made more than $75,000 a year"
"Myth: “Most of the uninsured do not have health insurance because they are not working and so don’t have access to health benefits through an employer.”"
"According to a 2003 Blue Cross study, 8.2 mn Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care, but earn too much to qualify for government assistance."
"Myth: “Nationalized health care would not impact patient waiting times.”
Waiting time for elective surgery is lower in the US than in countries with nationalized health care.
In 2005, only 8% of U.S. patients reported waiting four months or more for elective surgery.
Countries with nationalized health care had higher percentages with waiting times of four months or more, including Australia (19%); New Zealand (20%); Canada (33%); and the United Kingdom (41%)."
Critics Bemoan Prospect of Obama Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely - Political News - FOXNews.com
Critics Bemoan Prospect of Obama Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely - Political News - FOXNews.com: "'This is not change -- this is more of the same,' Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in response to reports that surfaced Friday of the possible executive order. 'If President Obama issues an executive order authorizing indefinite detention, he'll be repeating the same mistakes of George Bush, and his policies will be destined to fail as were his predecessor's.'
He added, 'Throwing people into prison without charge, conviction or providing them with a trial is about as un-American as you can get.'"
For once I agree with the ACLU.
He added, 'Throwing people into prison without charge, conviction or providing them with a trial is about as un-American as you can get.'"
For once I agree with the ACLU.
Obama Warns Dems on 'Protectionist' Tax in Climate Change Bill - Political News - FOXNews.com
Obama Warns Dems on 'Protectionist' Tax in Climate Change Bill - Political News - FOXNews.com: "Obama told energy reporters that, while he is 'very mindful' of wanting to ensure a 'level playing field internationally,' Congress should consider alternatives to tariffs.
'At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there,' Obama said, according to a transcript of the Sunday session with reporters. 'I think we're going to have to do a careful analysis to determine whether the prospects of tariffs are necessary.'"
Tariffs help special interests and hurt the country as a whole so way to go Obama!
'At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there,' Obama said, according to a transcript of the Sunday session with reporters. 'I think we're going to have to do a careful analysis to determine whether the prospects of tariffs are necessary.'"
Tariffs help special interests and hurt the country as a whole so way to go Obama!
Health Care Reform: Questions for the President | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary
Health Care Reform: Questions for the President | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Before this debate is over, Obama should answer a few questions about his plans for reform, including:
Mr. President, in your inaugural address and elsewhere, you said you are not interested in ideology, only what works. Economists Helen Levy of the University of Michigan and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago, where you used to teach, have researched what works. They conclude there is 'no evidence' that universal health insurance coverage is the best way to improve public health. Before enacting universal coverage, shouldn't you spend at least some of the $1 billion you dedicated to comparative-effectiveness research to determine whether universal coverage is comparatively effective? Absent such evidence, isn't pursuing universal coverage by definition an ideological crusade?
A draft congressional report said that comparative-effectiveness research would "yield significant payoffs" because some treatments "will no longer be prescribed." Who will decide which treatments will get the axe? Since government pays for half of all treatments, is it plausible to suggest that government will not insert itself into medical decisions? Or is it reasonable for patients to fear that government will deny them care?
You recently said the United States spends "almost 50 percent more per person than the next most costly nation. And yet ... the quality of our care is often lower, and we aren't any healthier." Achieving universal coverage could require us to spend an additional $2 trillion over the next 10 years. If America already spends too much on health care, why are you asking Americans to spend even more?
You have said, "Making health care affordable for all Americans will cost somewhere on the order of $1 trillion." Precise dollar figures aside, isn't that a contradiction in terms?
Last year, you told a competitiveness summit that rising health care costs are "a major anchor on the ability of American business to compete." In May, you wrote, "Getting spiraling health care costs under control is essential to ... making our businesses more competitive." The head of your Council of Economic Advisors says such claims are "schlocky." Who is right: you or your top economist?
You recently told an audience, "No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people. ... If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." The Associated Press subsequently reported, "White House officials suggest the president's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally." You then clarified, "What I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform." Would your reforms encourage employers to drop their health plans?
You found $600 billion worth of inefficiencies that you want to cut from Medicare and Medicaid. If government health programs generate that much waste, why do you want to create another?
You and your advisors argue that Medicare creates misaligned financial incentives that discourage preventive care, comparative-effectiveness research, electronic medical records, and efforts to reduce medical errors. Medicare's payment system is the product of the political process. What gives you faith that the political process can devise less-perverse financial incentives this time?
You claim a new government program would create "a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest." Since when is having the government enter a market the remedy for insufficient competition? Should the government have launched its own software company to compete with Microsoft? Are there better ways to create more choices and more competition?
When government entered the markets for workers compensation insurance, crop and flood insurance, and disaster insurance, it often completely crowded out private options. Do you expect a new government health insurance program would do the same?
You have said there are "legitimate concerns" that the government might give its new health plan an unfair advantage through taxpayer subsidies or by "printing money." How do you propose to prevent this Congress and future Congresses from creating any unfair advantages?"
Mr. President, in your inaugural address and elsewhere, you said you are not interested in ideology, only what works. Economists Helen Levy of the University of Michigan and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago, where you used to teach, have researched what works. They conclude there is 'no evidence' that universal health insurance coverage is the best way to improve public health. Before enacting universal coverage, shouldn't you spend at least some of the $1 billion you dedicated to comparative-effectiveness research to determine whether universal coverage is comparatively effective? Absent such evidence, isn't pursuing universal coverage by definition an ideological crusade?
A draft congressional report said that comparative-effectiveness research would "yield significant payoffs" because some treatments "will no longer be prescribed." Who will decide which treatments will get the axe? Since government pays for half of all treatments, is it plausible to suggest that government will not insert itself into medical decisions? Or is it reasonable for patients to fear that government will deny them care?
You recently said the United States spends "almost 50 percent more per person than the next most costly nation. And yet ... the quality of our care is often lower, and we aren't any healthier." Achieving universal coverage could require us to spend an additional $2 trillion over the next 10 years. If America already spends too much on health care, why are you asking Americans to spend even more?
You have said, "Making health care affordable for all Americans will cost somewhere on the order of $1 trillion." Precise dollar figures aside, isn't that a contradiction in terms?
Last year, you told a competitiveness summit that rising health care costs are "a major anchor on the ability of American business to compete." In May, you wrote, "Getting spiraling health care costs under control is essential to ... making our businesses more competitive." The head of your Council of Economic Advisors says such claims are "schlocky." Who is right: you or your top economist?
You recently told an audience, "No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people. ... If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." The Associated Press subsequently reported, "White House officials suggest the president's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally." You then clarified, "What I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform." Would your reforms encourage employers to drop their health plans?
You found $600 billion worth of inefficiencies that you want to cut from Medicare and Medicaid. If government health programs generate that much waste, why do you want to create another?
You and your advisors argue that Medicare creates misaligned financial incentives that discourage preventive care, comparative-effectiveness research, electronic medical records, and efforts to reduce medical errors. Medicare's payment system is the product of the political process. What gives you faith that the political process can devise less-perverse financial incentives this time?
You claim a new government program would create "a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest." Since when is having the government enter a market the remedy for insufficient competition? Should the government have launched its own software company to compete with Microsoft? Are there better ways to create more choices and more competition?
When government entered the markets for workers compensation insurance, crop and flood insurance, and disaster insurance, it often completely crowded out private options. Do you expect a new government health insurance program would do the same?
You have said there are "legitimate concerns" that the government might give its new health plan an unfair advantage through taxpayer subsidies or by "printing money." How do you propose to prevent this Congress and future Congresses from creating any unfair advantages?"
Why a Tesla electric car?
Tesla Motors - Customers: "Ilove the Roadster because it’s a hell of a ride – and the end of the day, for EVs to become mainstream options for customers, that’s all that matters. They need all the performance and convenience attributes of a gasoline car. They need to serve as your only car."
Government healthcare and regulating activities
Campaign For Liberty — Politically Homeless: "Often when the debate over the regulation smoking, fast food, and other health choices is brought up someone will eventually slip up and mention the cost to taxpayers - after all we cover there expenses through medicare, medicaid or some other form of socialized medicine. Taking over health care entirely gives that much more room to take away our ability to choose for ourselves."
Whose Right Is It, Anyway? - Art Carden - Mises Institute
Whose Right Is It, Anyway? - Art Carden - Mises Institute: "You and I disapprove of bigotry. But the private virtue of tolerance and the public virtue of pluralism require us to countenance things we do not approve. Tolerance means accepting the fact that other people's values might be very different than your own. Pluralism means eschewing the use of political power as a means for 'correcting' those values.
The idea of tolerating intolerance sounds suspiciously paradoxical, but so do a lot of other good ideas—like freedom of speech for advocates of censorship. In fact, freedom of speech has a lot in common with tolerance: Neither of them means a thing unless it applies equally to those we applaud and those who offend us most viscerally.
Tolerance is ennobling, which is why we should teach it to our children. Pluralism is insurance against tyranny, which is why we should demand it of our government. To speak up for even the most despised minorities is both morally right and politically prudent."
"If I give a government the power to force you to accept my values, I also give them the power to force me to accept your values at some point in the future. Another way of saying this is that any government with the power to take an atheist's money and give it to my church is also a government with the power to take my money and give it to Planned Parenthood. When we use force to restrict others' liberty, we endanger our own."
The idea of tolerating intolerance sounds suspiciously paradoxical, but so do a lot of other good ideas—like freedom of speech for advocates of censorship. In fact, freedom of speech has a lot in common with tolerance: Neither of them means a thing unless it applies equally to those we applaud and those who offend us most viscerally.
Tolerance is ennobling, which is why we should teach it to our children. Pluralism is insurance against tyranny, which is why we should demand it of our government. To speak up for even the most despised minorities is both morally right and politically prudent."
"If I give a government the power to force you to accept my values, I also give them the power to force me to accept your values at some point in the future. Another way of saying this is that any government with the power to take an atheist's money and give it to my church is also a government with the power to take my money and give it to Planned Parenthood. When we use force to restrict others' liberty, we endanger our own."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)