Posts
Big fans put 2 houses to hurricane-force wind test - FoxNews.com: "The conventional house in the test was built to the standard required in the Midwest. Houses in coastal areas would typically have more reinforced construction"
So the test wasn't very useful -- it didn't compare what is normally used on the coast.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
GOP 'Pledge' Lacks Both Cuts and Courage | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary
GOP 'Pledge' Lacks Both Cuts and Courage | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Should Republicans recapture the House, they promise to cut an unspecified $100 billion from a $3.8 trillion federal budget in 2011."
"one of the Pledge's architects wouldn't name a single program he'd cut, even in nondefense discretionary spending."
"one of the Pledge's architects wouldn't name a single program he'd cut, even in nondefense discretionary spending."
Regulators Have Learned Nothing from the Financial Crisis | Mark A. Calabria | Cato Institute: Commentary
Regulators Have Learned Nothing from the Financial Crisis | Mark A. Calabria | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The favoring, if not actual subsidizing, of sovereign and mortgage debt not only remains, but is expanded, under Basel III.
It is no coincidence that these are also the markets that have suffered the most disruptions and required the largest bailouts. Any framework that treats debt issued by entities such as Fannie Mae and Greece as essentially risk-free is a framework that cannot be taken seriously."
It is no coincidence that these are also the markets that have suffered the most disruptions and required the largest bailouts. Any framework that treats debt issued by entities such as Fannie Mae and Greece as essentially risk-free is a framework that cannot be taken seriously."
Tax Cuts and Revenue: What We Learned in the 1980s | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
Tax Cuts and Revenue: What We Learned in the 1980s | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The Reagan tax-rate reductions did, in fact, pay for themselves — but it took about seven years."
"In the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000, the maximum tax rate on individual income ranged from 28% to 70%, yet individual tax revenue as a percentage of GDP ranged from a low of 7.6% (when the maximum rate was 70%) to a high of 9.6%. Total tax revenues ranged from a low of 17.1% of GDP to a high of 19.8% during that same 30 years. Over the long run (seven years or more), individual federal tax rates not exceeding 25% or so would probably maximize federal tax revenues"
"Their analyses show that increasing the capital-gains tax rate would result in lower tax revenue and higher deficits. The studies are also congruent with the historical experience of the last 40 years.
The official government tax revenue and economic forecast models are still largely Keynesian static models, rather than dynamic; they do not capture most of the incentive and long-term effects of tax-rate changes. As a result, they give the wrong answers. These models missed the revenue gains from the 1978 and 1997 capital-gains rate cuts. They missed the economic gains from the Reagan-era tax cuts. Most recently, they spectacularly failed in their employment, tax revenue and economic growth forecasts from the Obama 'stimulus' program."
"In the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000, the maximum tax rate on individual income ranged from 28% to 70%, yet individual tax revenue as a percentage of GDP ranged from a low of 7.6% (when the maximum rate was 70%) to a high of 9.6%. Total tax revenues ranged from a low of 17.1% of GDP to a high of 19.8% during that same 30 years. Over the long run (seven years or more), individual federal tax rates not exceeding 25% or so would probably maximize federal tax revenues"
"Their analyses show that increasing the capital-gains tax rate would result in lower tax revenue and higher deficits. The studies are also congruent with the historical experience of the last 40 years.
The official government tax revenue and economic forecast models are still largely Keynesian static models, rather than dynamic; they do not capture most of the incentive and long-term effects of tax-rate changes. As a result, they give the wrong answers. These models missed the revenue gains from the 1978 and 1997 capital-gains rate cuts. They missed the economic gains from the Reagan-era tax cuts. Most recently, they spectacularly failed in their employment, tax revenue and economic growth forecasts from the Obama 'stimulus' program."
Six Months Later... | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary
Six Months Later... | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary: "ven before the price controls affecting children took effect today, major insurers Wellpoint, Cigna, Aetna, Humana and CoventryOne announced they will simply stop writing child-only policies rather than suffer the inevitable losses. Thanks to this 'consumer protection,' many parents will be unable to insure their children. Expect other insurers to follow suit as adverse selection causes premiums for existing child-only policies to rise.
When those price controls go marketwide in 2014, they will force insurers to avoid sick adults as well. Economists have shown that unless insurers avoid the sick, the price controls will put them out of business. Look for insurers to avoid, mistreat and dump the sick by marketing themselves only to healthy people, skimping on claims processing and customer service, and dropping benefits that sick people value — not because insurers are heartless, but because that is what Obamacare rewards.
The law's authors admitted as much when they included new subsidies and regulations (on marketing, claims payments and benefit design) to mitigate those perverse incentives."
"For example, three years before they even take effect, the marketwide price controls are eliminating an innovation called 'guaranteed renewability,' which protects sick patients from high premiums and skimping. Obamacare has pushed BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina to dismantle its guaranteed-renewability feature and transfer more than $100 million from sick to healthy customers."
When those price controls go marketwide in 2014, they will force insurers to avoid sick adults as well. Economists have shown that unless insurers avoid the sick, the price controls will put them out of business. Look for insurers to avoid, mistreat and dump the sick by marketing themselves only to healthy people, skimping on claims processing and customer service, and dropping benefits that sick people value — not because insurers are heartless, but because that is what Obamacare rewards.
The law's authors admitted as much when they included new subsidies and regulations (on marketing, claims payments and benefit design) to mitigate those perverse incentives."
"For example, three years before they even take effect, the marketwide price controls are eliminating an innovation called 'guaranteed renewability,' which protects sick patients from high premiums and skimping. Obamacare has pushed BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina to dismantle its guaranteed-renewability feature and transfer more than $100 million from sick to healthy customers."
Why Derek Jeter and LeBron James Are Running for Florida | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary
Why Derek Jeter and LeBron James Are Running for Florida | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Commentary: "These cases offer a reminder of the futility of trying to soak the rich — something President Obama wants to do by letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income earners. These people typically have skills that are in demand around the country and often around the world. They can live practically anywhere without impairing their ability to earn a lot of money. And so they will move somewhere else that is glad to leave their bank accounts alone."
Tax Hikes Not Needed to Balance the Budget | Daniel J. Mitchell | Cato Institute: Commentary
Tax Hikes Not Needed to Balance the Budget | Daniel J. Mitchell | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Washington insiders say that tax increases are unavoidable because deficits are too large. Since these often are the same people who supported 'Obamacare' and the so-called stimulus, their crocodile tears about red ink probably are not very sincere. But hypocrisy is not necessarily the same as inaccuracy, so let's look at whether it is possible to balance the budget without higher taxes."
"One approach would be to get rid of counterproductive forms of spending such as the Department of Agriculture, energy-subsidy programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Small Business Administration, Department of Education, National Endowment for the Arts, and Department of Transportation."
"For much of America's history, when such restraints were honored, federal spending was on average only 3 percent of economic output. If we did the same thing today, federal spending would be about $450 billion. We'd not only have a balanced budget; we'd have a giant surplus and could easily afford to abolish the income tax."
"Politicians simply need to reduce the rate at which spending is growing.
It's a simple matter of mathematics. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that tax revenue will grow by an average of 7.3 percent annually over the next 10 years. Reducing the budget deficit is easy — so long as politicians increase overall spending by less than that amount. And with inflation projected to be about 2 percent over the same period, this is an ideal environment for some long-overdue fiscal discipline."
"If spending is simply capped at the current level with a hard freeze, the budget is balanced by 2016. If we limit spending growth to 1 percent each year, the budget is balanced in 2017. And if we allow 2 percent annual spending growth — letting the budget keep pace with inflation, the budget balances in 2020."
"Milton Friedman was correct many years ago when he warned that, 'In the long run government will spend whatever the tax system will raise, plus as much more as it can get away with.'"
"One approach would be to get rid of counterproductive forms of spending such as the Department of Agriculture, energy-subsidy programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Small Business Administration, Department of Education, National Endowment for the Arts, and Department of Transportation."
"For much of America's history, when such restraints were honored, federal spending was on average only 3 percent of economic output. If we did the same thing today, federal spending would be about $450 billion. We'd not only have a balanced budget; we'd have a giant surplus and could easily afford to abolish the income tax."
"Politicians simply need to reduce the rate at which spending is growing.
It's a simple matter of mathematics. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that tax revenue will grow by an average of 7.3 percent annually over the next 10 years. Reducing the budget deficit is easy — so long as politicians increase overall spending by less than that amount. And with inflation projected to be about 2 percent over the same period, this is an ideal environment for some long-overdue fiscal discipline."
"If spending is simply capped at the current level with a hard freeze, the budget is balanced by 2016. If we limit spending growth to 1 percent each year, the budget is balanced in 2017. And if we allow 2 percent annual spending growth — letting the budget keep pace with inflation, the budget balances in 2020."
"Milton Friedman was correct many years ago when he warned that, 'In the long run government will spend whatever the tax system will raise, plus as much more as it can get away with.'"
"Trannie Mae" and Special Interests | Randal O'Toole | Cato Institute: Commentary
"Trannie Mae" and Special Interests | Randal O'Toole | Cato Institute: Commentary: "A real bank lends money for projects that are likely to cover their costs and repay the loans. Many of the projects Mr. Obama wants the new 'bank' to fund, including high-speed rail and rail transit, will not see a single dime; they won't cover their operating costs, much less the capital costs of the projects. So much of Trannie Mae's money will have to be in the form of grants, not loans."
"For example, the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) New Starts program gives out billions of dollars each year to rail-transit projects using supposedly clear, analytical criteria. Those criteria include 'cost effectiveness' and 'mobility improvement' ratings. However, the FTA does not require transit agencies to compare the added efficiency of rail transit with alternatives, such as bus-rapid transit or simply building new highway lanes.
As a result, decisions about New Starts funding are highly subjective and subject to meddling by lawmakers. If powerful members of Congress find that a favored project is rated low by one or more criteria, they simply exempt the project from those criteria."
"For example, the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) New Starts program gives out billions of dollars each year to rail-transit projects using supposedly clear, analytical criteria. Those criteria include 'cost effectiveness' and 'mobility improvement' ratings. However, the FTA does not require transit agencies to compare the added efficiency of rail transit with alternatives, such as bus-rapid transit or simply building new highway lanes.
As a result, decisions about New Starts funding are highly subjective and subject to meddling by lawmakers. If powerful members of Congress find that a favored project is rated low by one or more criteria, they simply exempt the project from those criteria."
Hooray, the Recession Is Over! - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Daily
Hooray, the Recession Is Over! - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Daily: "Rather, I am pointing out the virtual uselessness of the empirical approach when it comes to 'fine-tuning' the macroeconomy. Even if we had reason to believe that government policies could overcome the failings of the free market, such interventions would be as hopeless as those of an Earth surgeon operating on a Martian patient with a remote-controlled scalpel. The information lag would be enormous."
"According to the NBER, the US economy went through a severe recession from December 2007 to June 2009. Now it took the NBER until December 1, 2008 to announce that the economy was in a recession — a full year after it began (according to the same NBER). And then, with this week's announcement, the NBER announced that the economy had exited the recession, a full 15 months after the fact."
"Let's say you are running and then break a leg. You have to crawl now, but you develop that skill and are able to get from here to there. Are you in recovery from the accident? According to the NBER, yes — so long as you are crawling faster than when you first hit the ground in agony."
"According to the NBER, the US economy went through a severe recession from December 2007 to June 2009. Now it took the NBER until December 1, 2008 to announce that the economy was in a recession — a full year after it began (according to the same NBER). And then, with this week's announcement, the NBER announced that the economy had exited the recession, a full 15 months after the fact."
"Let's say you are running and then break a leg. You have to crawl now, but you develop that skill and are able to get from here to there. Are you in recovery from the accident? According to the NBER, yes — so long as you are crawling faster than when you first hit the ground in agony."
The Curse of Government Failure | Steve H. Hanke | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Curse of Government Failure | Steve H. Hanke | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Without the Fed pushing interest rates to artificially low levels, yield-chasing speculators, who employed carry trades and fantastic leverage, would have never seen the light of day. Yes, there were other government failures that contributed to various asset bubbles and associated instabilities in the real estate markets, for example. But, the primary enabler was the Fed and its ultra-accommodative monetary policy. Among other things, it was the Fed's monetary laxity that led to the fall of the dollar against the euro and the dramatic rise in commodity prices that climaxed in July 2008."
"$3.40 of lost output is associated with every dollar of government spending. So, the much touted fiscal multiplier is negative, not positive. This is a case — like many others in the government sphere — in which doing nothing would have been superior to doing something."
"there were over 115 government regulatory agencies for financial services before the crisis. Where were they as the Fed-induced credit mania built to a climax?"
"$3.40 of lost output is associated with every dollar of government spending. So, the much touted fiscal multiplier is negative, not positive. This is a case — like many others in the government sphere — in which doing nothing would have been superior to doing something."
"there were over 115 government regulatory agencies for financial services before the crisis. Where were they as the Fed-induced credit mania built to a climax?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)