Posts
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Fraudulent Tax Revenue Forecasts | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
Fraudulent Tax Revenue Forecasts | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: "To understand how serious this type of fraud is, think about how government officials would react if a company forecast a huge increase in revenues — and sent press releases of the forecast to the investment community, but failed to reveal that this forecast was based on the intention to double the prices for the company's products while assuming it will not reduce demand. Such actions by company officials would be considered irresponsible misrepresentation, for which they could be held legally liable."
The Best and Worst Health Care Reform Ideas | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Best and Worst Health Care Reform Ideas | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Republicans want federal law to limit medical malpractice lawsuits. But the Constitution does not give Congress the power to do so.
Setting those rules is a state responsibility. Many states have enacted reforms, and other states are learning from those experiments. A one-size-fits-all federal law could harm patients, preventing them from filing legitimate claims."
Setting those rules is a state responsibility. Many states have enacted reforms, and other states are learning from those experiments. A one-size-fits-all federal law could harm patients, preventing them from filing legitimate claims."
The Reconciliation Rulebook | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Reconciliation Rulebook | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Reconciliation was established in 1974 to make it easier for Congress to adjust taxes and spending in order to 'reconcile' actual revenues and expenditures with a previously approved budget resolution. Thus, at the end of the year, if Congress found that it was running a budget deficit higher than previously projected, it could quickly raise taxes or cut spending to bring the budget back into line. Debate on such measures was abbreviated to just 20 hours (an eyeblink in Senate terms), and there could be no filibuster."
Can Obama Assassinate Americans? | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary
Can Obama Assassinate Americans? | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Obama, our commander in chief, who, as I've previously reported, has authorized in his first year more such assassinations than Bush and Cheney in their last years. The result, as the Washington Post noted, 'has been dozens of targeted killings and no reports of high-value detentions.'
After all, there can be no fierce arguments about whether a charred corpse should be tried in a federal civilian court or by a military commission."
"And 'if we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.'
Glenn Greenwald, a former constitutional lawyer turned news analyst, avoids euphemisms. 'Special permissions' without judicial authorization, says Greenwald, amounts to 'basically giving the president the power to impose death sentences on his own citizens without any charges or trial'"
"While there is little doubt that a U.S. citizen fighting for an enemy army could lawfully be killed on the battlefield in the course of fighting, this policy goes far beyond the ordinary parameters of battlefield combat."
After all, there can be no fierce arguments about whether a charred corpse should be tried in a federal civilian court or by a military commission."
"And 'if we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.'
Glenn Greenwald, a former constitutional lawyer turned news analyst, avoids euphemisms. 'Special permissions' without judicial authorization, says Greenwald, amounts to 'basically giving the president the power to impose death sentences on his own citizens without any charges or trial'"
"While there is little doubt that a U.S. citizen fighting for an enemy army could lawfully be killed on the battlefield in the course of fighting, this policy goes far beyond the ordinary parameters of battlefield combat."
Opening the Internet — with an Axe - Fernando Herrera-Gonzalez - Mises Institute
Opening the Internet — with an Axe - Fernando Herrera-Gonzalez - Mises Institute: "governments want citizens to believe that private enterprises have some kind of power over them. But the reality is just the contrary: it is the operator who is at the mercy of the customer. The customer decides whether or not to contract the operator's services."
"The Principle of Nondiscrimination
According to this principle, operators are not allowed to discriminate among specific contents or applications. In practice, this means that operators cannot provide services of different quality for different content providers.
If enforced, this obligation would make the provision of real-time services or of high-definition TV through the Internet impossible, because such applications require specific network conditions for the transmission of information."
"The Principle of Nondiscrimination
According to this principle, operators are not allowed to discriminate among specific contents or applications. In practice, this means that operators cannot provide services of different quality for different content providers.
If enforced, this obligation would make the provision of real-time services or of high-definition TV through the Internet impossible, because such applications require specific network conditions for the transmission of information."
March 12
March 12: "As currently drafted, a farmer selling raw milk is exempt from any civil liability. In short, if someone gets sick from raw milk, the bill would prohibit the individual from filing a civil suit against the farmer selling the product.
If there is a desire to open up new milk markets, and give people more freedom in what kinds of foods they eat, there must also be assurances that if someone gets sick, the producer of the milk should be held responsible for selling an inferior product. This is standard in virtually every other aspect of the dairy industry, and sellers of raw milk should be held to this same standard."
If there is a desire to open up new milk markets, and give people more freedom in what kinds of foods they eat, there must also be assurances that if someone gets sick, the producer of the milk should be held responsible for selling an inferior product. This is standard in virtually every other aspect of the dairy industry, and sellers of raw milk should be held to this same standard."
Google Public Policy Blog: Newspaper economics: online and offline
Google Public Policy Blog: Newspaper economics: online and offline: "The news industry's financial problems started well before the web came along. Circulation has been falling since 1985 and circulation per household has been falling since 1947! Ad revenue for newspapers was roughly constant in real terms up until 2005, and ad revenue per reader actually increased up until that time."
" the real money in search engine advertising is in the highly commercial verticals like Shopping, Health, and Travel. Unfortunately, most of the search clicks that go to newspapers are in categories like Sports, News & Current Events, and Local, which don’t attract the biggest spending advertisers.
This isn't so surprising: the fact of the matter is that newspapers have never made much money from news. They’ve made money from the special interest sections on topics such as Automotive, Travel, Home & Garden, Food & Drink, and so on. These sections attract contextually targeted advertising, which is much more effective than non-targeted advertising. After all, someone reading the Automotive section is likely to be more interested in cars than the average consumer, so advertisers will pay a premium to reach those consumers.
Traditionally, the ad revenue from these special sections has been used to cross-subsidize the core news production. Nowadays internet users go directly to websites like Edmunds, Orbitz, Epicurious, and Amazon to look for products and services in specialized areas. Not surprisingly, advertisers follow those eyeballs, which makes the traditional cross-subsidization model that newspapers have used far more difficult."
" the real money in search engine advertising is in the highly commercial verticals like Shopping, Health, and Travel. Unfortunately, most of the search clicks that go to newspapers are in categories like Sports, News & Current Events, and Local, which don’t attract the biggest spending advertisers.
This isn't so surprising: the fact of the matter is that newspapers have never made much money from news. They’ve made money from the special interest sections on topics such as Automotive, Travel, Home & Garden, Food & Drink, and so on. These sections attract contextually targeted advertising, which is much more effective than non-targeted advertising. After all, someone reading the Automotive section is likely to be more interested in cars than the average consumer, so advertisers will pay a premium to reach those consumers.
Traditionally, the ad revenue from these special sections has been used to cross-subsidize the core news production. Nowadays internet users go directly to websites like Edmunds, Orbitz, Epicurious, and Amazon to look for products and services in specialized areas. Not surprisingly, advertisers follow those eyeballs, which makes the traditional cross-subsidization model that newspapers have used far more difficult."
Using Guns to Protect Liberty | Ilya Shapiro and Josh Blackman | Cato Institute: Commentary
Using Guns to Protect Liberty | Ilya Shapiro and Josh Blackman | Cato Institute: Commentary: "A different 14th Amendment clause, however, forbidding states from passing 'any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,' is a better way of extending the right to keep and bear arms."
Commission of Sin | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
Commission of Sin | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: "But to focus on the deficit is to confuse the symptom with the disease.
As Milton Friedman often explained, the real issue is not how you pay for government spending—debt or taxes—but the spending itself. In other words, don't just look at the deficit; look at why we have a deficit. And the reason why we have a deficit is pretty simple—government spends too much.
For years, Republicans have tried to dodge the tough questions about government spending by substituting debt for taxes. They felt that as long as they were cutting taxes, no one would notice that they were spending like drunken Democrats."
"After all, every dollar that government spends is a dollar that is siphoned off from American workers regardless of whether it is raised through debt or taxes. Both divert money from more efficient uses in the private sector to less-productive uses in the public sector. Both mean fewer jobs and less economic growth."
As Milton Friedman often explained, the real issue is not how you pay for government spending—debt or taxes—but the spending itself. In other words, don't just look at the deficit; look at why we have a deficit. And the reason why we have a deficit is pretty simple—government spends too much.
For years, Republicans have tried to dodge the tough questions about government spending by substituting debt for taxes. They felt that as long as they were cutting taxes, no one would notice that they were spending like drunken Democrats."
"After all, every dollar that government spends is a dollar that is siphoned off from American workers regardless of whether it is raised through debt or taxes. Both divert money from more efficient uses in the private sector to less-productive uses in the public sector. Both mean fewer jobs and less economic growth."
The Progressive Fallacy on Free Speech | Will Wilkinson | Cato Institute: Commentary
The Progressive Fallacy on Free Speech | Will Wilkinson | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Corporations are not essentially villainous agglomerations of money and power. They are a convenient form of social organization that enables large numbers of people to undertake cooperative endeavors. Non-profit corporations, like Citizens United or the ACLU, provide individuals the opportunity to amplify their lone voices in harmony with like-minded others. Meanwhile, for-profit corporations are little more than lenders' co-ops — a way for people to pool their resources to finance what look to be profitable lines of business. It is true that managers of corporations can — and do — take advantage of their owners and creditors. But there is a staggering number and diversity of for-profit corporations, and most of them, most of the time, do right by their stakeholders. Moreover, very few ever get involved in electoral politics in a significant way."
"A single lobbyist with a good friend in the right place can deliver more to a special interest than many millions spent on campaign advertising. In 2009, $3.47 billion was spent on federal lobbying — a large sum, certainly, but not when you consider that the stimulus bill alone dispensed nearly $800 billion in public funds."
"A government that can make or break great fortunes invites a bruising and wasteful competition for its favor."
"A single lobbyist with a good friend in the right place can deliver more to a special interest than many millions spent on campaign advertising. In 2009, $3.47 billion was spent on federal lobbying — a large sum, certainly, but not when you consider that the stimulus bill alone dispensed nearly $800 billion in public funds."
"A government that can make or break great fortunes invites a bruising and wasteful competition for its favor."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)