Posts
How Congress Is Cooking the Books | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Last week, the Senate Finance Committee voted 12-11 not to wait for the Congressional Budget Office to 'score' its health-care bill before the committee votes on it. Imagine that: Some senators actually wanted to know how much the bill costs before voting on it."
"The CBO provides 10- year projections of a bill's cost. But most provisions of the health bill don't take effect until 2014. So the "10-year" cost projection only includes six years of the bill.
Plus, the costs ramp up slowly. In its first year, the House bill would only cost about $6 billion; in its first three, less than $100 billion. The big costs are in the final years of the 10-year budget window — and beyond. In fact, over the first 10 years that the House bill would be in existence (2014 to 2024), its costs would be closer to $2.4 trillion. Similarly, the real cost of the Senate bill over 10 years of operation is estimated at $1.5 trillion.
Worse, the trajectory of the costs after 10 years rises dramatically — meaning 'reform' would cost even more in its second 10 years and beyond."
"For example, the Senate bill relies on Medicare "savings" that Congress keeps refusing to make. Specifically, Medicare has long been ordered to cut 21 percent from what it pays health-care providers — yet, each year since 2003, for reasons both good and bad, Congress has voted to defer the cuts.
Does anyone else really think that Congress is simply going to slash payments to doctors and hospitals by 21 percent across the board?"
Monday, November 02, 2009
Michael Moore Kills Capitalism with Kool-Aid - Michael W. Covel - Mises Institute
Michael Moore Kills Capitalism with Kool-Aid - Michael W. Covel - Mises Institute: "And that view of course puts me in opposition to Moore since he has no problem with government as his and our father figure. That is his utopia. He truly believes that warehouses of federal workers, in Washington, D.C., remotely running our lives is the optimal plan. He is an unapologetic socialist who really doesn't care why the poor are poor or the rich are rich, he just wants it fixed."
"Arguably the most successful documentarian ever — a man who has made untold millions of dollars — was going to legitimately make the case that there was an alternative to capitalism."
"We listen to heartbreaking stories of foreclosed families across America — but we don't learn why the foreclosures happened. Did these people treat their homes as piggy banks? Was there refinancing on top of refinancing just to keep buying mall trinkets and other goodies with no respect to risk or logic? We don't find out."
"We listen to Catholic priests who denounce capitalism as an evil to be eradicated. What would they put in its place and how would the new system work? The priests don't tell us."
"ow does one legislate words like useful, enough, recreation, adequate, decent, and good? Who decides all of this and to what degree?"
"Phil Donahue was interviewing free-market economist Milton Friedman and wanted to know if Friedman had ever had a moment of doubt about "capitalism and whether greed's a good idea to run on?"
Friedman was quick in response:
Donahue then countered saying that capitalism doesn't reward virtue, but instead rewards the ability to manipulate the system. Friedman was having none of it:
"Arguably the most successful documentarian ever — a man who has made untold millions of dollars — was going to legitimately make the case that there was an alternative to capitalism."
"We listen to heartbreaking stories of foreclosed families across America — but we don't learn why the foreclosures happened. Did these people treat their homes as piggy banks? Was there refinancing on top of refinancing just to keep buying mall trinkets and other goodies with no respect to risk or logic? We don't find out."
"We listen to Catholic priests who denounce capitalism as an evil to be eradicated. What would they put in its place and how would the new system work? The priests don't tell us."
"ow does one legislate words like useful, enough, recreation, adequate, decent, and good? Who decides all of this and to what degree?"
"Phil Donahue was interviewing free-market economist Milton Friedman and wanted to know if Friedman had ever had a moment of doubt about "capitalism and whether greed's a good idea to run on?"
Friedman was quick in response:
Is there some society you know that doesn't run on greed? You think Russia doesn't run on greed? You think China doesn't run on greed? … The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it's exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.
Donahue then countered saying that capitalism doesn't reward virtue, but instead rewards the ability to manipulate the system. Friedman was having none of it:
And what does reward virtue? You think the communist commissar rewards virtue? … Do you think American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? … Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?"
Campaign For Liberty — Quit Talking Stupid
Campaign For Liberty — Quit Talking Stupid: "There are 105 million people who work in the private sector - that is where all the money comes from.� We spend $2.6 trillion each year on health care, so do the math: that's $24,762 each if everybody pays their fair share.
�
If we include public sector workers, the share drops to just under $20,000. I know we pay their salaries, so it doesn't change anything, but it would be fun to see university professors and Congressmen put their own money where their mouth is for once.��
���
It is nonsense to keep talking about coverage, access, and rights as if health care were free air.� Rosa Parks sought access to a seat in the front of the bus; she did not demand that the guy in seat 12A pay for it, and she did not call him a racist for thinking they should each buy their own.�
�
No, Ms. Parks did not talk stupid, like our leaders do. How can we possibly expand coverage to 47 million more people without adding a single doctor, and not have longer waits for appointments? That is talking stupid.
How can we possibly cover all those additional people without increasing taxes or increasing the deficit? That is talking stupid.
How can we say the 10-year "cost" of reform will stay under one trillion dollars by simply delaying enactment of the bill's provisions for the first four years and counting zeros in the total? That is talking stupid. "
"Proponents of universal health care like this bumper sticker: 'you should not go broke just because you get sick'. That would be a great ad pitch for an insurance company, but it is a silly moral premise. Who should go broke, then? Or should doctors and nurses and lab techs and billing clerks all have to work as slaves for no pay, so that nobody does?
Here is an improved, quit-talking-stupid version: 'you should not go broke just because I get sick'. Treatment of a serious deadly illness can quickly run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars."
"In Europe, they have universal health care. They also earn 29% less than we do, and they pay twice the payroll tax we do - 30% with no upper limit. And they pay higher income tax than we do, and they pay a VAT tax that we don't. So their disposable income is half of ours on average, and their unemployment rate is double. President Obama forgot to tell you about that stuff when he was bragging up how old they are in Denmark.
So how about it - are you willing to take a 50% pay cut so the government can run health care? Is it worth living half-broke your whole life just to squeeze out an extra year or two warehoused in a government home at the end of it? Not me."
�
If we include public sector workers, the share drops to just under $20,000. I know we pay their salaries, so it doesn't change anything, but it would be fun to see university professors and Congressmen put their own money where their mouth is for once.��
���
It is nonsense to keep talking about coverage, access, and rights as if health care were free air.� Rosa Parks sought access to a seat in the front of the bus; she did not demand that the guy in seat 12A pay for it, and she did not call him a racist for thinking they should each buy their own.�
�
No, Ms. Parks did not talk stupid, like our leaders do. How can we possibly expand coverage to 47 million more people without adding a single doctor, and not have longer waits for appointments? That is talking stupid.
How can we possibly cover all those additional people without increasing taxes or increasing the deficit? That is talking stupid.
How can we say the 10-year "cost" of reform will stay under one trillion dollars by simply delaying enactment of the bill's provisions for the first four years and counting zeros in the total? That is talking stupid. "
"Proponents of universal health care like this bumper sticker: 'you should not go broke just because you get sick'. That would be a great ad pitch for an insurance company, but it is a silly moral premise. Who should go broke, then? Or should doctors and nurses and lab techs and billing clerks all have to work as slaves for no pay, so that nobody does?
Here is an improved, quit-talking-stupid version: 'you should not go broke just because I get sick'. Treatment of a serious deadly illness can quickly run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars."
"In Europe, they have universal health care. They also earn 29% less than we do, and they pay twice the payroll tax we do - 30% with no upper limit. And they pay higher income tax than we do, and they pay a VAT tax that we don't. So their disposable income is half of ours on average, and their unemployment rate is double. President Obama forgot to tell you about that stuff when he was bragging up how old they are in Denmark.
So how about it - are you willing to take a 50% pay cut so the government can run health care? Is it worth living half-broke your whole life just to squeeze out an extra year or two warehoused in a government home at the end of it? Not me."
Campaign For Liberty — Counting Snouts
Campaign For Liberty — Counting Snouts: "By my count, that's 54 snouts in the trough, not including the government snout factory that regulates all and mandates half of this insanity. God forbid an MD and a Ph.D. could manage to exchange $15 on our own; no, we need 54 cubicle jockeys a-heppin' us to get it wrong.
And that, my friends, is what is wrong with health care. That is all that is wrong with health care.
That is how you turn a simple $15 exchange that any two crack-heads can accomplish unaided into a $175 cluster-grunt that takes 54 people with college degrees 6 months to get completed. And we make fun of crack-heads?
How about that public option/single payer idea? That just replaces my claims processor's private sector snouts with government snouts."
And that, my friends, is what is wrong with health care. That is all that is wrong with health care.
That is how you turn a simple $15 exchange that any two crack-heads can accomplish unaided into a $175 cluster-grunt that takes 54 people with college degrees 6 months to get completed. And we make fun of crack-heads?
How about that public option/single payer idea? That just replaces my claims processor's private sector snouts with government snouts."
Forfeiture Laws, the War on Drugs, and Alvarez v. Smith | Ilya Somin | Cato Institute: Commentary
Forfeiture Laws, the War on Drugs, and Alvarez v. Smith | Ilya Somin | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The Illinois Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (DAFPA) allows the police to seize property that may have been involved in a drug-related crime and hold onto it for up to 187 days without any kind of legal hearing. This rule applies even to property owned by completely innocent persons who simply had their possessions caught up in a drug investigation through no fault of their own – for example, if someone else used their car to transport illegal drugs without their knowledge. The three car owners involved in Alvarez were never even charged with a crime, much less convicted. Under DAFPA, the authorities also don't have to prove that keeping innocent owners' property is necessary in order to prevent the loss of valuable evidence."
The Inevitable Medicare Cuts | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Inevitable Medicare Cuts | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The Democrats would have us believe that they can cut $500 billion from Medicare spending over the next 10 years without anyone getting less of anything. They are going to save that money, the president says, by eliminating 'fraud, waste, and abuse.' Undoubtedly that would be the same fraud, waste and abuse that presidents have been eliminating since at least, say, Ronald Reagan."
"The bills currently making their way through Congress would cut payments to Medicare Advantage plans by $100 billion to $150 billion. In response, many insurers are expected to stop participating in the program, while others will probably increase the premiums they charge seniors. Millions of seniors will likely be forced off their current plans and back into traditional Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office makes it clear that, at the very least, the cuts 'would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans.'"
"the bills would reduce reimbursements for diagnostic imaging — things like CT scans, MRIs and X-rays — by as much as 25 percent. And the Senate Finance Committee's bill would penalize doctors who perform too many procedures or tests. Providers whose utilization is in the 90th percentile or above, compared to national averages, will have their Medicare reimbursements cut. The whole point of such provisions is to reduce services.
On top of that, the Senate Finance Committee assumes that there will be a 21 percent across-the-board reduction in what Medicare pays providers. This cut is scheduled under current law and is not technically part of the health care bill, but most observers had expected Congress to defer those cuts, as they have every year since 2001."
"The bills currently making their way through Congress would cut payments to Medicare Advantage plans by $100 billion to $150 billion. In response, many insurers are expected to stop participating in the program, while others will probably increase the premiums they charge seniors. Millions of seniors will likely be forced off their current plans and back into traditional Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office makes it clear that, at the very least, the cuts 'would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans.'"
"the bills would reduce reimbursements for diagnostic imaging — things like CT scans, MRIs and X-rays — by as much as 25 percent. And the Senate Finance Committee's bill would penalize doctors who perform too many procedures or tests. Providers whose utilization is in the 90th percentile or above, compared to national averages, will have their Medicare reimbursements cut. The whole point of such provisions is to reduce services.
On top of that, the Senate Finance Committee assumes that there will be a 21 percent across-the-board reduction in what Medicare pays providers. This cut is scheduled under current law and is not technically part of the health care bill, but most observers had expected Congress to defer those cuts, as they have every year since 2001."
Deafening Silence on Real Climate Change | Patrick J. Michaels | Cato Institute: Commentary
Deafening Silence on Real Climate Change | Patrick J. Michaels | Cato Institute: Commentary: "A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008-09"
"The last three years are clearly those with the lowest aggregate melt on record."
"May 29, 2007: NASA Researcher Finds Days of Snow Melting on the Rise in Greenland. 'In 2006, Greenland experienced more days of melting snow and at higher altitudes than average over the past 18 years.' Stop the presses! The last we heard each and every year has a fifty-fifty chance of being above (or below) average."
"This one is unbelievably misleading. 'In fact, the amount of snow that has melted this year over Greenland is the equivalent of more than twice the surface size of the U.S.'. This is patently impossible — as Greenland's total area is about a quarter of that of the lower 48 states."
"The last three years are clearly those with the lowest aggregate melt on record."
"May 29, 2007: NASA Researcher Finds Days of Snow Melting on the Rise in Greenland. 'In 2006, Greenland experienced more days of melting snow and at higher altitudes than average over the past 18 years.' Stop the presses! The last we heard each and every year has a fifty-fifty chance of being above (or below) average."
"This one is unbelievably misleading. 'In fact, the amount of snow that has melted this year over Greenland is the equivalent of more than twice the surface size of the U.S.'. This is patently impossible — as Greenland's total area is about a quarter of that of the lower 48 states."
See the World Like Elinor Ostrom | Will Wilkinson | Cato Institute: Commentary
See the World Like Elinor Ostrom | Will Wilkinson | Cato Institute: Commentary: "To see the world more like Elinor Ostrom is to see humans and their communities as a natural part of the natural order, not as invading aliens essentially at odds with their environment or one another. Ostrom has emphasized none of us would be here today had our ancestors failed to work together to find ways to align individual interest with public interest."
"But successful solutions to the problems of ecologically embedded common life often depend crucially on the fine-grained details of the problem. That's why top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions so often fail.
According to Ostrom, the terrain of a meadow, shape of a pond, or population of a village can make all the difference."
"Because the devil's in the details, it's hard to say in advance what mix of institutions will work best in a given place."
"Many believed that the consolidation and centralization of police authority and administration would both save money and help fight rising crime rates. But the Ostroms found that the opposite was true; people living in small jurisdictions within large metropolitan regions got better policing for less money. Public order is best assured by what may look like a chaotic hodge-podge of overlapping institutions."
"But successful solutions to the problems of ecologically embedded common life often depend crucially on the fine-grained details of the problem. That's why top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions so often fail.
According to Ostrom, the terrain of a meadow, shape of a pond, or population of a village can make all the difference."
"Because the devil's in the details, it's hard to say in advance what mix of institutions will work best in a given place."
"Many believed that the consolidation and centralization of police authority and administration would both save money and help fight rising crime rates. But the Ostroms found that the opposite was true; people living in small jurisdictions within large metropolitan regions got better policing for less money. Public order is best assured by what may look like a chaotic hodge-podge of overlapping institutions."
Malpractice on the Market - Eric M. Staib - Mises Institute
Malpractice on the Market - Eric M. Staib - Mises Institute: "Malpractice lawsuits, just as lawsuits against corporations, are an important mechanism for the maintenance of financial incentives in the market. While the specialized nature of both physicians and certain afflictions can sometimes limit choice and therefore competition, the threat of a malpractice lawsuit is sufficient to keep doctors from providing reckless care. In this way, the threat of malpractice suits spreads some of the risk of negative health outcomes to doctors. There is a trade-off to this redistribution of risk, however, as doctors who assume a larger portion of malpractice risk will charge higher prices for their services."
"Now that we understand the functions of malpractice lawsuits and insurance, we are able to examine the causes of their failures in America. The symptoms are well-known: unpredictable malpractice rewards, often disproportionate to damages and sometimes even in the millions of dollars, make malpractice insurance unprofitable at low premium levels.
This perverse state of affairs is a result of a government monopoly on malpractice arbitration and the regulation of malpractice contracting between patients and doctors."
"increasingly risk-averse doctors will perform fewer health services, and will discontinue most heavily those services that carry the highest risks. This is precisely why so many doctors are leaving the high-risk fields of obstetrics and gynecology in favor of other areas of practice."
"with higher prices, poor consumers will not have the financial means to acquire these risky services"
"Just as with emergency care, we can see that government regulation, which purportedly protects citizens from the dangers of a free market, forces the most needy patients out of that market. 'Underserved areas' in the medical-care market are visible and tragic government failures."
"attempting to reach more-efficient market outcomes with caps on rewards is just as destructive as allowing 'jackpot justice' and risk-dumping to continue."
"Private negotiation of prices must also be allowed and respected, for at a constant price no doctor will accept a greater share of the procedure's risk. Therefore, what is pejoratively called price discrimination will and should occur on a free market for risk-bearing medical services. With customizable combinations of risk and price, high-income and risk-averse consumers will be able to pay higher prices to be guaranteed large rewards in the case of malpractice, while lower-income consumers will finally achieve greater access to risky procedures, which they're deprived of by the current legal structure."
"Now that we understand the functions of malpractice lawsuits and insurance, we are able to examine the causes of their failures in America. The symptoms are well-known: unpredictable malpractice rewards, often disproportionate to damages and sometimes even in the millions of dollars, make malpractice insurance unprofitable at low premium levels.
This perverse state of affairs is a result of a government monopoly on malpractice arbitration and the regulation of malpractice contracting between patients and doctors."
"increasingly risk-averse doctors will perform fewer health services, and will discontinue most heavily those services that carry the highest risks. This is precisely why so many doctors are leaving the high-risk fields of obstetrics and gynecology in favor of other areas of practice."
"with higher prices, poor consumers will not have the financial means to acquire these risky services"
"Just as with emergency care, we can see that government regulation, which purportedly protects citizens from the dangers of a free market, forces the most needy patients out of that market. 'Underserved areas' in the medical-care market are visible and tragic government failures."
"attempting to reach more-efficient market outcomes with caps on rewards is just as destructive as allowing 'jackpot justice' and risk-dumping to continue."
"Private negotiation of prices must also be allowed and respected, for at a constant price no doctor will accept a greater share of the procedure's risk. Therefore, what is pejoratively called price discrimination will and should occur on a free market for risk-bearing medical services. With customizable combinations of risk and price, high-income and risk-averse consumers will be able to pay higher prices to be guaranteed large rewards in the case of malpractice, while lower-income consumers will finally achieve greater access to risky procedures, which they're deprived of by the current legal structure."
The Illusion of Living Wage Laws - Bill Barnes - Mises Institute
The Illusion of Living Wage Laws - Bill Barnes - Mises Institute: "The data show that the people most likely to be affected by living-wage legislation are black, teenage males. This group had a national unemployment rate of 33.8 percent in 2007. When the data are broken down for black males aged 16 and 17, the unemployment rate is in excess of 40 percent.
These numbers are staggering, and they would only get worse with a living wage. Some teenagers would not even have the option of work because the value of their marginal revenue would not equal their new, higher wage cost.
So, what happens to these people who are left jobless? Well, they still need money and something to do during the day.
Not surprisingly, crime rates are highest among those in their late teens and early twenties. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation cites young people, aged 17–21, as perpetrating 23.4 percent of the crimes in the state.[3]
It is no coincidence that those who cannot find work tend to find things that get them into trouble to fill their time. I argue that enactment of a living wage would only put more young people on the streets rather than in jobs where they can learn skills that will serve them well in the future.
Not only is this lack of work bad for young people and other low-skilled workers, but it also hurts the local economy. Due to the higher mandated wage, jobs that are not worth this wage will no longer be performed legally in the community. Trash pickup, general cleaning, inexpensive food preparation, farming, and many other tasks would be either neglected or moved to places with lower wage costs.
This general lack of production would not be due to people's lack of desire to do the work, but to government's intervention, which would keep the tasks from being done on the grounds that their monetary value doesn't fit with the social agenda. It may seem desirable to keep people from working for too little money, but keeping people who want those jobs out of work is both an attack on liberty and a mistake in economics."
"Standards of living do not increase with wages, but rather with production. Society needs people to produce at any wage, and then prices will reflect the wages being earned for a given task. Once we look at the living-wage law from the point of view of someone who loses his or her job (as opposed to someone who gets a raise), we see its ugly side.
Ultimately, a living wage in Athens (or anywhere) will actually hurt the poor rather than helping them. It will decrease production, increase counterproductive activity for the least skilled, and increase prices for the entire population. Cities like Athens should encourage work instead, by minimizing regulations on labor and allowing everyone's standard of living to increase with unadulterated production."
These numbers are staggering, and they would only get worse with a living wage. Some teenagers would not even have the option of work because the value of their marginal revenue would not equal their new, higher wage cost.
So, what happens to these people who are left jobless? Well, they still need money and something to do during the day.
Not surprisingly, crime rates are highest among those in their late teens and early twenties. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation cites young people, aged 17–21, as perpetrating 23.4 percent of the crimes in the state.[3]
It is no coincidence that those who cannot find work tend to find things that get them into trouble to fill their time. I argue that enactment of a living wage would only put more young people on the streets rather than in jobs where they can learn skills that will serve them well in the future.
Not only is this lack of work bad for young people and other low-skilled workers, but it also hurts the local economy. Due to the higher mandated wage, jobs that are not worth this wage will no longer be performed legally in the community. Trash pickup, general cleaning, inexpensive food preparation, farming, and many other tasks would be either neglected or moved to places with lower wage costs.
This general lack of production would not be due to people's lack of desire to do the work, but to government's intervention, which would keep the tasks from being done on the grounds that their monetary value doesn't fit with the social agenda. It may seem desirable to keep people from working for too little money, but keeping people who want those jobs out of work is both an attack on liberty and a mistake in economics."
"Standards of living do not increase with wages, but rather with production. Society needs people to produce at any wage, and then prices will reflect the wages being earned for a given task. Once we look at the living-wage law from the point of view of someone who loses his or her job (as opposed to someone who gets a raise), we see its ugly side.
Ultimately, a living wage in Athens (or anywhere) will actually hurt the poor rather than helping them. It will decrease production, increase counterproductive activity for the least skilled, and increase prices for the entire population. Cities like Athens should encourage work instead, by minimizing regulations on labor and allowing everyone's standard of living to increase with unadulterated production."
Witness the Freest Economy: the Internet - Dan O'Connor - Mises Institute
Witness the Freest Economy: the Internet - Dan O'Connor - Mises Institute: "In fact, it's such a free market that government doesn't even effectively enforce intellectual property and copyright protection. And what is the result? We see entrepreneurs from other countries imitating successful online programs with very little detriment to the originators. In fact, Chinese entrepreneurs have created very similar programs to both Google and Facebook. As a result, all of these companies have been able to generate profits while their users still enjoy the programs at no cost.
In turn, their Chinese competitors bring increased competition to both Google and Facebook, creating incentives for them to improve their own products and continue to innovate. This example closely resembles capitalist Americans emulating European technology in the 19th century or Japanese entrepreneurs emulating Western technology during the process of their development.
Do patent protection laws truly promote greater and faster innovation? Some companies and individuals are able to avert these government-imposed rigidities online. And the success of this less-inhibited marketplace demonstrates the lack of need for patent protection laws."
"For example, in the past, some families spent several hundred dollars every few years just to update their encyclopedia set, even though all of the content in these encyclopedias was publicly accessible; the encyclopedia companies merely compiled the information into a more concise format.
Although these companies provided a very valuable product to society, there is now a decreased need for physical encyclopedias due to the increase of information available on the internet. Let us hope the Obama administration does not attempt to 'bailout' Britannica anytime soon."
In turn, their Chinese competitors bring increased competition to both Google and Facebook, creating incentives for them to improve their own products and continue to innovate. This example closely resembles capitalist Americans emulating European technology in the 19th century or Japanese entrepreneurs emulating Western technology during the process of their development.
Do patent protection laws truly promote greater and faster innovation? Some companies and individuals are able to avert these government-imposed rigidities online. And the success of this less-inhibited marketplace demonstrates the lack of need for patent protection laws."
"For example, in the past, some families spent several hundred dollars every few years just to update their encyclopedia set, even though all of the content in these encyclopedias was publicly accessible; the encyclopedia companies merely compiled the information into a more concise format.
Although these companies provided a very valuable product to society, there is now a decreased need for physical encyclopedias due to the increase of information available on the internet. Let us hope the Obama administration does not attempt to 'bailout' Britannica anytime soon."
No Such Thing as a Free Flu Shot - Malte Tobias Kahler - Mises Institute
No Such Thing as a Free Flu Shot - Malte Tobias Kahler - Mises Institute: "Before the fact, one cannot be certain about whether or not the medicine will fulfill its aim. The problem here is that during an epidemic there is just not enough time for long-term studies, which could prove the safety of the product in question."
Political Mailing Lists: Rep. Kitty Rhoades eUpdate. October 16, 2009.
Political Mailing Lists: Rep. Kitty Rhoades eUpdate. October 16, 2009.: "According to the [WI] ARRA report, a total of 8,284 jobs have either been created or retained with the spent $679.85 million. (That is roughly $82,067.84 for every retained or created job, in case you don’t have a calculator nearby…)"
"what caught my eye is the reference to point on 6,100 essential police officers, firefighters and teachers. The money Wisconsin receives from the ARRA is one-time cash. That means once the money is used it will be up to either the state or the local government to fill the void of the spent ARRA money."
"what caught my eye is the reference to point on 6,100 essential police officers, firefighters and teachers. The money Wisconsin receives from the ARRA is one-time cash. That means once the money is used it will be up to either the state or the local government to fill the void of the spent ARRA money."
Klaus Is Right | Marian L. Tupy | Cato Institute: Commentary
Klaus Is Right | Marian L. Tupy | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The European Court of Auditors has refused to certify the EU budget for 14 years in a row. Yet no visible action has been taken to make EU accounting more transparent."
Year After TARP: $700 Billion Down the Drain - Randall G. Holcombe - Mises Institute
Year After TARP: $700 Billion Down the Drain - Randall G. Holcombe - Mises Institute: "It is easy to say the program wasn't necessary, despite Paulson's arguments, because the TARP money wasn't used to buy toxic assets. TARP money was instead used to buy preferred stock in banks, shoring up their balance sheets by giving the federal government part ownership of the banks.
Nine of the largest banks were forced to issue stock to the Treasury, paid for with TARP money, even though several of the banks tried to opt out. Secretary Paulson said that if some of the big banks participated and others didn't, it would identify their varying levels of weakness, which Paulson believed was undesirable.
Instead of buying up toxic assets, the TARP money was used to partially nationalize the banking industry. It was also used for a federal takeover of AIG (after it was initially rescued by the Fed) and the bailout of Chrysler and General Motors."
(Accompanying graph shows that commercial and industrial loans dropped when TARP passed.)
Nine of the largest banks were forced to issue stock to the Treasury, paid for with TARP money, even though several of the banks tried to opt out. Secretary Paulson said that if some of the big banks participated and others didn't, it would identify their varying levels of weakness, which Paulson believed was undesirable.
Instead of buying up toxic assets, the TARP money was used to partially nationalize the banking industry. It was also used for a federal takeover of AIG (after it was initially rescued by the Fed) and the bailout of Chrysler and General Motors."
(Accompanying graph shows that commercial and industrial loans dropped when TARP passed.)
Social Security's Coming Crash: The Certain End of Entitlement | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary
Social Security's Coming Crash: The Certain End of Entitlement | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary: "U.S. GDP is about $14 trillion. One year of economic output already is committed to paying off the national debt, which is now above $12 trillion and climbing fast."
"Finally, there are Social Security and Medicare. Together, they have about $107 trillion in 'unfunded liabilities.' In real-people-speak, that is the difference between promised benefits and expected revenues. That amounts to about eight years of America's economic production and twice the world's annual GDP."
"Even before last fall's financial crash, then-comptroller general David M. Walker warned, 'The only thing the United States is able to do a little after 2040 is pay interest on massive and growing federal debt. The model blows up in the mid-2040s.'"
"Last fall's stock-market collapse demonstrates that private markets offer no guarantees. But that uncertainty should be contrasted with the certain bad deal from the federal government. Moreover, the return on private investment has remained well above the levels for Social Security even when measured against major stock-market downturns. The rate of return was over three percent annually, handily beating Social Security's return these days, for even the worst 20-year period in American history, which encompasses the Great Depression."
"Finally, there are Social Security and Medicare. Together, they have about $107 trillion in 'unfunded liabilities.' In real-people-speak, that is the difference between promised benefits and expected revenues. That amounts to about eight years of America's economic production and twice the world's annual GDP."
"Even before last fall's financial crash, then-comptroller general David M. Walker warned, 'The only thing the United States is able to do a little after 2040 is pay interest on massive and growing federal debt. The model blows up in the mid-2040s.'"
"Last fall's stock-market collapse demonstrates that private markets offer no guarantees. But that uncertainty should be contrasted with the certain bad deal from the federal government. Moreover, the return on private investment has remained well above the levels for Social Security even when measured against major stock-market downturns. The rate of return was over three percent annually, handily beating Social Security's return these days, for even the worst 20-year period in American history, which encompasses the Great Depression."
Market Power - The Mistake of Subsidizing Pet Energy Causes | Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren | Cato Institute: Commentary
Market Power - The Mistake of Subsidizing Pet Energy Causes | Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The story most conservatives tell about energy policy is different from the stories they tell about other economic-policy matters. Rather than defend free markets, they bang the table about the need for national energy plans and government timetables for energy-plant construction. (For example, see Lamar Alexander elsewhere in this issue.) We're told that markets will fail to provide the energy we need, fail to prevent demand for energy from surging beyond reason, and fail to attain suchimportant objectives as environmental quality and a strong national defense.
The conservative case for government intervention in energy markets is just as flimsy as the liberal case for government intervention in any other sector of the economy. Energy markets may not work as perfectly as in a textbook model, but they work — and government works even less perfectly."
"Most conservatives seem to believe that a reduction in imports will insulate us from price shocks caused by developments overseas. That is nonsense. A supply disruption anywhere will increase the price of crude oil everywhere for the same reason that an early frost in Florida will increase the price of citrus produced in Florida and California by roughly the same amount."
"Others fear that reliance on imports requires us to undertake military commitments to ensure that oil continues to flow. But producers have even more reason to worry about the safety of their facilities than we do and, likewise, more reason to ensure the security of international oil-shipping lanes. Hence, they have every incentive to defend their oil infrastructure, whether we help foot the bill or not."
"Consider the current love affair of the Right with "clean coal" technology. Billions of federal tax dollars have been spent since the 1980s on various iterations of this concept — most recently via George W. Bush's "FutureGen" project and the "Clean Coal Power Initiative" — yet the marketplace has not been friendly to new coal plants. From 2001 through 2007, 179,382 megawatts of natural-gas-fired electric generators were added, but only 3,311 megawatts of coal-fired generation capacity came online.
It's not that we don't know how to make coal facilities cleaner — it's that we don't know how to make coal plants both cleaner and profitable. Throwing more tax money at this riddle will not necessarily produce an answer. Why are conservatives doubling down on the same ill-fated taxpayer adventure that Ronald Reagan labored so mightily to kill in the 1980s?"
"Despite promises in the 1950s that nuclear power would soon become "too cheap to meter," 50 years of lavish federal subsidies and regulatory preferences have yet to produce an industry that can turn a profit without taxpayer help."
The conservative case for government intervention in energy markets is just as flimsy as the liberal case for government intervention in any other sector of the economy. Energy markets may not work as perfectly as in a textbook model, but they work — and government works even less perfectly."
"Most conservatives seem to believe that a reduction in imports will insulate us from price shocks caused by developments overseas. That is nonsense. A supply disruption anywhere will increase the price of crude oil everywhere for the same reason that an early frost in Florida will increase the price of citrus produced in Florida and California by roughly the same amount."
"Others fear that reliance on imports requires us to undertake military commitments to ensure that oil continues to flow. But producers have even more reason to worry about the safety of their facilities than we do and, likewise, more reason to ensure the security of international oil-shipping lanes. Hence, they have every incentive to defend their oil infrastructure, whether we help foot the bill or not."
"Consider the current love affair of the Right with "clean coal" technology. Billions of federal tax dollars have been spent since the 1980s on various iterations of this concept — most recently via George W. Bush's "FutureGen" project and the "Clean Coal Power Initiative" — yet the marketplace has not been friendly to new coal plants. From 2001 through 2007, 179,382 megawatts of natural-gas-fired electric generators were added, but only 3,311 megawatts of coal-fired generation capacity came online.
It's not that we don't know how to make coal facilities cleaner — it's that we don't know how to make coal plants both cleaner and profitable. Throwing more tax money at this riddle will not necessarily produce an answer. Why are conservatives doubling down on the same ill-fated taxpayer adventure that Ronald Reagan labored so mightily to kill in the 1980s?"
"Despite promises in the 1950s that nuclear power would soon become "too cheap to meter," 50 years of lavish federal subsidies and regulatory preferences have yet to produce an industry that can turn a profit without taxpayer help."
Ford Reports Surprise $1 Billion 3Q Profit - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com
Ford Reports Surprise $1 Billion 3Q Profit - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com: "Ford also has benefited from consumer goodwill after it declined government bailout money and didn't go into bankruptcy over the summer as GM and Chrysler did. Ford grabbed sales from its rivals, posting the largest increase in market share of any automaker in September. Ford expects an overall gain in U.S. market share in 2009, a feat it hasn't accomplished since 1995."
Study: File sharers spend more money on music | Technically Incorrect - CNET News
Study: File sharers spend more money on music | Technically Incorrect - CNET News: "This survey found that 10 percent of the respondents, age range 16-50, admitted illegal downloading. But what might have been instructive would have been to learn just how much music people bought for their average of 77 pounds (around $120) per month and how they made their choice as to what should be bought and what should merely be, um, borrowed."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)