Posts
Monday, December 13, 2010
What Drives Profits? - Kel Kelly - Mises Daily
What Drives Profits? - Kel Kelly - Mises Daily: "Paradoxical as it might sound, lower profits and lower prices — not higher profits and higher prices — are what result from economic progress. All taxes applied to profits, interest, inheritance, etc. — taxes paid with funds that would otherwise support productive processes — reduce economic growth."
Whoppers with Sleaze | Walter Olson | Cato Institute: Commentary
Whoppers with Sleaze | Walter Olson | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Staffers at the Health Department were sharply divided about whether the proposed ads went beyond the available science in demonizing sweet drinks. The city's health commissioner, Dr. Thomas A. Farley, overruled three subordinates, including his chief nutritionist, to push things forward.
• 'The scientists, [the city's nutritionist] said, 'will make mincemeat of us.' ' 'Basic premise doesn't work,' said a Columbia professor of pediatrics and clinical medicine whom the city consulted."
"Incredibly, New York City's latest ad, on salt in processed foods, is even worse. It shows a can of soup bursting at the seams with table salt, whole mounds and piles of it. The city's underlying point is not 100 percent off-base — healthful in most other ways, conventional canned soup is a relatively salty food — but the actual amount of salt in a can is more like 1 teaspoon, not the third of a cup or more depicted in the city's ridiculously exaggerated photo. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Bloomberg soup ad is built on a visual lie.
What would happen if a private advertiser tried to get away with imagery as misleading as this? Well, in 1970, in a case still taught in business schools, Campbell's got caught manipulating the soup pictures in its ads; its photographers had put marbles at the bottom of the bowl so that the pleasing vegetables would be more visible on top. The Federal Trade Commission filed a deceptive-advertising complaint to make the company stop."
• 'The scientists, [the city's nutritionist] said, 'will make mincemeat of us.' ' 'Basic premise doesn't work,' said a Columbia professor of pediatrics and clinical medicine whom the city consulted."
"Incredibly, New York City's latest ad, on salt in processed foods, is even worse. It shows a can of soup bursting at the seams with table salt, whole mounds and piles of it. The city's underlying point is not 100 percent off-base — healthful in most other ways, conventional canned soup is a relatively salty food — but the actual amount of salt in a can is more like 1 teaspoon, not the third of a cup or more depicted in the city's ridiculously exaggerated photo. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Bloomberg soup ad is built on a visual lie.
What would happen if a private advertiser tried to get away with imagery as misleading as this? Well, in 1970, in a case still taught in business schools, Campbell's got caught manipulating the soup pictures in its ads; its photographers had put marbles at the bottom of the bowl so that the pleasing vegetables would be more visible on top. The Federal Trade Commission filed a deceptive-advertising complaint to make the company stop."
The GOP's Budget Cowardice | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
The GOP's Budget Cowardice | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: "It's time to face some hard facts: To actually bring the budget into balance by 2019 will require as much as a 20 percent reduction in spending relative to the level to which it would otherwise grow with inflation. That's total spending, not just domestic discretionary spending. To truly roll back the size of government — to, say, the 18 percent of GDP it consumed during the Clinton presidency — would require even bigger cuts. How does the GOP pretend that we can get there simply by cutting 'waste, fraud, and abuse,' and without putting entitlements or defense on the table?"
Body Scanners: The Naked Truth | David Rittgers | Cato Institute: Commentary
Body Scanners: The Naked Truth | David Rittgers | Cato Institute: Commentary: "the scanners fare poorly against low-density materials such as thin plastics, gels and liquids. Care to guess what Abdulmutallab's bomb was made of? The Government Accountability Office reported in March that it's not clear that a scanner would've detected that device.
Even if the scanners did work against low-density materials, the same group linked to the Christmas bomb, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, has already found another way to defeat the technology: hiding bombs inside the human body: A would-be AQAP assassin tried to kill a senior Saudi counterterrorism official with a bomb hidden where only a proctologist would find it.
That bomb wound up killing only its carrier. But a more enterprising terrorist could go to the plane bathroom to remove bomb components hidden in a body cavity, then place them against the aircraft hull — and the results would be far different.
Terrorists already know how to beat body scanners with low-tech (really, no-tech) techniques, but the federal government still spends billions on this gadget."
"An army of executives for scanner-producing corporations — mostly former high-ranking Homeland Security officials — successfully lobbied Congress into spending $300 million in stimulus money to buy the scanners. But running them will cost another $340 million each year. Operating them means 5,000 added TSA personnel, growing the screener workforce by 10 percent. This, when the federal debt commission is saying that we must cut federal employment rolls, including some FBI agents, just to keep spending sustainable.
Why cut funding for the people who actually catch terrorists to add more pointless hassles at the airport?"
Even if the scanners did work against low-density materials, the same group linked to the Christmas bomb, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, has already found another way to defeat the technology: hiding bombs inside the human body: A would-be AQAP assassin tried to kill a senior Saudi counterterrorism official with a bomb hidden where only a proctologist would find it.
That bomb wound up killing only its carrier. But a more enterprising terrorist could go to the plane bathroom to remove bomb components hidden in a body cavity, then place them against the aircraft hull — and the results would be far different.
Terrorists already know how to beat body scanners with low-tech (really, no-tech) techniques, but the federal government still spends billions on this gadget."
"An army of executives for scanner-producing corporations — mostly former high-ranking Homeland Security officials — successfully lobbied Congress into spending $300 million in stimulus money to buy the scanners. But running them will cost another $340 million each year. Operating them means 5,000 added TSA personnel, growing the screener workforce by 10 percent. This, when the federal debt commission is saying that we must cut federal employment rolls, including some FBI agents, just to keep spending sustainable.
Why cut funding for the people who actually catch terrorists to add more pointless hassles at the airport?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)