Posts
Homegrown Failure: Why the Domestic Terror Threat Is Overblown | Benjamin H. Friedman | Cato Institute: Commentary: " there is far less homegrown terrorism today than in the 1970s, when the Weather Underground, the Jewish Defense League, anti-Castro Cuban exile groups, and the Puerto Rican Nationalists of the FALN were setting off bombs on U.S. soil.
There was an increase in homegrown terrorism arrests in the late 2000s, with the decade's high coming in 2009. That year saw the decade's deadliest act of homegrown terrorism when Nidal Hasan killed thirteen people at Ft. Hood. Homegrown terrorism has declined since. According a report published earlier this year by Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina, arrests of homegrown terrorists fell from 47 in 2009 to 20 in 2011. No more successful plots have occurred."
"a sizeable minority of those arrested for terrorism in the late 2000s were U.S. nationals trying to help the al-Shabaab group in Somalia, either by recruiting, fundraising or joining its ranks. That counts as terrorism because the U.S. government categorizes al-Shabaab as a terrorist organisation and criminalises support for it. But it is an insurgent organisation chiefly interested in Somalia politics that has not attempted terrorism in the United States."
"Ferdaus had no accomplices, aside from those provided by the FBI, no money for the planes, other than what the FBI loaned him, and no explosives, beyond the fake sort that the FBI provides."
"By supporting the murder of most people, including most Muslims, al Qaeda ensures that it remains wildly unpopular in most places. Their ideology is especially noxious to those living in coherent, liberal societies like the United States. Americans drawn to al Qaeda are likely to be a troubled and disaffected lot, lacking traits that most organisations value in recruits."
Monday, July 30, 2012
Europe Suffers a Failure on the Part of Its Leaders to Lead | Alberto Mingardi | Cato Institute: Commentary
Europe Suffers a Failure on the Part of Its Leaders to Lead | Alberto Mingardi | Cato Institute: Commentary: "nobody seems to be ready to try the straightforward device to trim the public debt by virtue of selling the huge Italian state holdings or severely cutting public spending. Instead, the political class seeks to squeeze its already highly taxed citizens like lemons."
"Italy's public spending is worth half of the national income"
"national governments estimate the political cost of cutting public employment to be too high, particularly in a recession and fear the possible social unrest this would likely cause. Blaming financial markets, Mrs. Merkel, or the euro for their current predicament is much cheaper."
"Italy's public spending is worth half of the national income"
"national governments estimate the political cost of cutting public employment to be too high, particularly in a recession and fear the possible social unrest this would likely cause. Blaming financial markets, Mrs. Merkel, or the euro for their current predicament is much cheaper."
Homeowners Need to Take Responsibility | Randal O'Toole | Cato Institute: Commentary
Homeowners Need to Take Responsibility | Randal O'Toole | Cato Institute: Commentary: "There are risks to living everywhere, and denying people the right to use their own land in the forests will simply lead them to build in the path of tornados, floods, earthquakes or other potential threats.
Regulation isn't necessary because Forest Service research has shown that wildland property owners can use simple techniques to protect their structures from the worst of fires, including using non-flammable materials for roofs and eaves and keeping vegetation within about 140 feet of the structure neatly trimmed. Such techniques are called "firewise," and the most extreme measures produce "shelter-in-place" homes that are so fire-resistant that the safest place to be in the event of a wildlife is in the house."
"When a 2007 fire swept through five shelter-in-place communities outside of San Diego, not a single home was scorched."
Regulation isn't necessary because Forest Service research has shown that wildland property owners can use simple techniques to protect their structures from the worst of fires, including using non-flammable materials for roofs and eaves and keeping vegetation within about 140 feet of the structure neatly trimmed. Such techniques are called "firewise," and the most extreme measures produce "shelter-in-place" homes that are so fire-resistant that the safest place to be in the event of a wildlife is in the house."
"When a 2007 fire swept through five shelter-in-place communities outside of San Diego, not a single home was scorched."
Forget about the Mandate. Let's Fix Health Care | John H. Cochrane | Cato Institute: Commentary
Forget about the Mandate. Let's Fix Health Care | John H. Cochrane | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The legal distinctions among a mandate, a tax, a penalty, or a credit, and between federal and state powers, are important legally and constitutionally. But they are irrelevant in economic terms for this law.
To commentators who are apoplectic that the federal government is using taxes to nudge us to buy health insurance, I say this: Hello? The tax deduction for buying an electric car, or the mortgage-interest deduction for buying a house, is economically equivalent to a tax for not buying health insurance. Maybe all are bad, but did you really expect the Supreme Court to rule the mortgage-interest deduction unconstitutional in a case brought against the health-care law?"
"Who is going to pay for all this? Someone has to pay for every expanded benefit, whether through higher premiums, higher prices or higher taxes. And tapping “the rich,” reducing administrative costs or executive pay would just be a drop in the bucket."
"Imagine if the government decreed that law firms, car-repair shops, or home contractors had to charge everyone the same price, and couldn’t turn anyone away. “House fix,” for example, would be $1,000 per year, no matter how large the house or what shape it’s in. Why do we think this will work for medical services?
Health care will be rationed. Period. If we don’t ration by price, we will ration directly.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a bureaucratic nightmare. About 2,700 pages of law, 13,000 pages of regulations and counting, 180 boards, commissions and bureaus, according to one media report.
It’s an invitation to crony capitalism. Thousands of companies have already asked for, and won, exemptions."
"Where are the health-care equivalents of Southwest Airlines Co., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) and Apple Inc. — innovating, dramatically lowering costs and bringing everyday low prices to health care? They have been kept out of the market by anti-competitive regulation. As one small example, in my state of Illinois, every new hospital, expansion of an existing facility or major equipment purchase must obtain a “certificate of need” from a state board. “Need” explicitly means that it doesn’t undermine incumbents’ profits.
Insurance should be insurance, reserved for unpredictable and catastrophic expenses. Car insurance doesn’t pay for oil changes, and you shouldn’t pay for checkups through health- insurance premiums. Such insurance would be a lot cheaper, and more people would buy it.
Insurance should be individual, portable from job to job and state to state, and guaranteed renewable for people who get sick. That neatly solves the pre-existing-condition nightmare. Insurance companies would be happy to sell such coverage. The government stands in the way, by subsidizing employer-based group plans at the expense of individual insurance."
To commentators who are apoplectic that the federal government is using taxes to nudge us to buy health insurance, I say this: Hello? The tax deduction for buying an electric car, or the mortgage-interest deduction for buying a house, is economically equivalent to a tax for not buying health insurance. Maybe all are bad, but did you really expect the Supreme Court to rule the mortgage-interest deduction unconstitutional in a case brought against the health-care law?"
"Who is going to pay for all this? Someone has to pay for every expanded benefit, whether through higher premiums, higher prices or higher taxes. And tapping “the rich,” reducing administrative costs or executive pay would just be a drop in the bucket."
"Imagine if the government decreed that law firms, car-repair shops, or home contractors had to charge everyone the same price, and couldn’t turn anyone away. “House fix,” for example, would be $1,000 per year, no matter how large the house or what shape it’s in. Why do we think this will work for medical services?
Health care will be rationed. Period. If we don’t ration by price, we will ration directly.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a bureaucratic nightmare. About 2,700 pages of law, 13,000 pages of regulations and counting, 180 boards, commissions and bureaus, according to one media report.
It’s an invitation to crony capitalism. Thousands of companies have already asked for, and won, exemptions."
"Where are the health-care equivalents of Southwest Airlines Co., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) and Apple Inc. — innovating, dramatically lowering costs and bringing everyday low prices to health care? They have been kept out of the market by anti-competitive regulation. As one small example, in my state of Illinois, every new hospital, expansion of an existing facility or major equipment purchase must obtain a “certificate of need” from a state board. “Need” explicitly means that it doesn’t undermine incumbents’ profits.
Insurance should be insurance, reserved for unpredictable and catastrophic expenses. Car insurance doesn’t pay for oil changes, and you shouldn’t pay for checkups through health- insurance premiums. Such insurance would be a lot cheaper, and more people would buy it.
Insurance should be individual, portable from job to job and state to state, and guaranteed renewable for people who get sick. That neatly solves the pre-existing-condition nightmare. Insurance companies would be happy to sell such coverage. The government stands in the way, by subsidizing employer-based group plans at the expense of individual insurance."
Why NOT Make Olympic Uniforms in China? | Daniel J. Ikenson | Cato Institute: Commentary
Why NOT Make Olympic Uniforms in China? | Daniel J. Ikenson | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Trade is not a competition between "our producers" and "their producers." In fact, U.S.-based firms benefit from collaborating with foreign firms by carving up the production process into distinct functions and processes that suit each location's efficiencies and strengths. Just as trade enables U.S. consumers to benefit from lower-cost final goods, globalization enables U.S. producers to benefit from access to lower-cost resources put into the manufacturing system. That enables them to compete more effectively at home and abroad.
In the typical production supply chain for consumer products, of which apparel production is a good example, the higher-value, pre-manufacturing activities like designing, engineering, and branding, and post-manufacturing activities like marketing, warehousing, transporting, and retailing happen in the United States, while the mostly lower-end manufacturing and assembly activities take place abroad. In the end, the final product is a collaborative effort, with the majority of the value accruing to U.S. workers, firms, and shareholders."
"With a very few exceptions, we simply don't cut and sew clothing much in the United States anymore.
But we design clothing here. We brand clothing here. We market and retail clothing here.
The apparel industry employs plenty of Americans, just not in the cutting and sewing operations that our parents and grandparents endured, working long hours for low wages."
"As our U.S. athletes march around the track at London's Olympic stadium wearing their Chinese-made uniforms and waving their Chinese-made American flags, there is a good chance that Chinese athletes will have arrived in London byU.S.-made aircraft, been trained on U.S.-designed and -engineered equipment, wearing U.S.-designed and -engineered footwear, many having perfected their skills using U.S.-created technology.
Our economic relationship with China, characterized by transnational supply chains and disaggregated production sharing, is more collaborative than competitive.
The nature of that relationship is inherently beneficial to American consumers and the economy at large; despite the alarmism emanating from the halls of power, trade is not a win-lose proposition."
In the typical production supply chain for consumer products, of which apparel production is a good example, the higher-value, pre-manufacturing activities like designing, engineering, and branding, and post-manufacturing activities like marketing, warehousing, transporting, and retailing happen in the United States, while the mostly lower-end manufacturing and assembly activities take place abroad. In the end, the final product is a collaborative effort, with the majority of the value accruing to U.S. workers, firms, and shareholders."
"With a very few exceptions, we simply don't cut and sew clothing much in the United States anymore.
But we design clothing here. We brand clothing here. We market and retail clothing here.
The apparel industry employs plenty of Americans, just not in the cutting and sewing operations that our parents and grandparents endured, working long hours for low wages."
"As our U.S. athletes march around the track at London's Olympic stadium wearing their Chinese-made uniforms and waving their Chinese-made American flags, there is a good chance that Chinese athletes will have arrived in London byU.S.-made aircraft, been trained on U.S.-designed and -engineered equipment, wearing U.S.-designed and -engineered footwear, many having perfected their skills using U.S.-created technology.
Our economic relationship with China, characterized by transnational supply chains and disaggregated production sharing, is more collaborative than competitive.
The nature of that relationship is inherently beneficial to American consumers and the economy at large; despite the alarmism emanating from the halls of power, trade is not a win-lose proposition."
The Crippling Nature of Minimum-Wage Laws - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily
The Crippling Nature of Minimum-Wage Laws - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily: "In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum-wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The law says, it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum-wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result."
"this means that the people who will be disemployed and devastated by this prohibition will be precisely the "marginal" (lowest wage) workers, e.g. blacks and teenagers, the very workers whom the advocates of the minimum wage are claiming to foster and protect."
"this means that the people who will be disemployed and devastated by this prohibition will be precisely the "marginal" (lowest wage) workers, e.g. blacks and teenagers, the very workers whom the advocates of the minimum wage are claiming to foster and protect."
New Hudson police captain’s salary will be $79,000-$83,000 | Hudson Star-Observer | Hudson, Wisconsin
New Hudson police captain’s salary will be $79,000-$83,000 | Hudson Star-Observer | Hudson, Wisconsin: "Without an increase from what Atkinson was being paid, the department’s union-represented sergeants would make almost as much as the new captain, he said."
There is no good reason to demand that a supervisor always make more than the people they supervise!
There is no good reason to demand that a supervisor always make more than the people they supervise!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)