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."

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."

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."

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?).

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%)."

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.

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!

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?"

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."