Stronach went to U.S. for cancer treatment: report
Stronach is a Canadian MP.
This is of course a tragedy, but proves the point that if you want good health care, you have to come to the United States. Why? Because where there is profit involved, there is a need to compete to be the best. In countries with socialized medicine like Canada and Britain, the lack of profit and motivation on the part of health care providers means consistent and slow mediocrity. You need only talk to someone who lives in such a system to realize how utterly horrendous socialized medicine is for those who have to use it.
Actually, from what I have been reading, the best places in the world right now to get good, affordable medical care are in southeast Asia and parts of Latin America. This is because it is still the "Wild West" there in terms of government interference in health care. Regulations are few so doctors can charge less and still do well. In the western world, your doctor bill is almost more a reflection of HIPAA, malpractice insurance, and other regulations than it is of the actual medical care.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Pennsylvania and its immediate needs
Reform Government
* Eliminate Pension for government
* Eliminate Health Insurance for government
* Eliminate Corruption
* Reduce size of legislature and government in general.
* Appointment of Appellate Court Judges
* Real Open Records Law
* Open government
* Eliminate PHEAA
* More open Lobbying Law
Apply Capitalism
* Eliminate PHEAA
* Lease the Turnpike (use money to fix bridges)
* School Choice
* Eliminate Government subsidies for everything (PNC, Professional Sports, Comcast, etc.)
* Eliminate PA Gaming Commission
* Sell the State Stores
* Repeal and statewide smoking ban in privately owned businesses
* Eliminate Pension for government
* Eliminate Health Insurance for government
* Eliminate Corruption
* Reduce size of legislature and government in general.
* Appointment of Appellate Court Judges
* Real Open Records Law
* Open government
* Eliminate PHEAA
* More open Lobbying Law
Apply Capitalism
* Eliminate PHEAA
* Lease the Turnpike (use money to fix bridges)
* School Choice
* Eliminate Government subsidies for everything (PNC, Professional Sports, Comcast, etc.)
* Eliminate PA Gaming Commission
* Sell the State Stores
* Repeal and statewide smoking ban in privately owned businesses
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Cospicuous Consumption or Capital Investment?
Dubai Tower Now World's Tallest Building
Eventually the oil will run out in the Middle East. Not any time real soon, of course, but almost certainly in the next 50 years. It will likely start declining in the next 30 years, maybe sooner, but as someone who has heard and read such predictions of a sudden shortage occurring in 10 years for roughly the last 30 years, I don't want to make to rash a prediction.
Here is the question though regarding the recent construction of the world's tallest building. There is something called "Dutch Disease" by economists, somewhat unfairly against the Dutch, but it applies primarily to countries that have large natural resource reserves. What appears to happen in these countries is that because so much wealth initially flows from natural resources, the economy develops around exportation of those resources at the expense of manufacturing or other productive industries. The resulting economy is therefore built on a foundation that will ultimately one day collapse through the disappearance of a limited resource.
The problem can witness right now in countries like Iran where, ironically, gasoline is relatively expensive, because so much of the refining of their oil is actually done outside of the country. Other oil wealthy countries seem to suffer the same problem of a lack of other industries because everything is focused on the oil. A roughly similar problem happened historically with Spain. It was noticed that Spain was a wealthy country that was buying up and importing from other countries in Europe and the world beyond, but that this was based primarily on the wealth being taken from Latin America, primarily in the form of gold and silver. Because of this Spain's economy moved to one dependent solely on that supply of money (which was not even produced from other capital such as farming or manufacturing). When the supply of money eventually ran out, Spain's economy collapsed because their natural resource in the form of gold and silver dried up.
The question with Dubai is this: is this building (and the other development in Dubai) really adding to the assets and capital of the country or is just conspicuous consumption. The question is who is going to be occupying those offices and apartments. If they are all solely connected to the oil wealth, than this will be an empty shell in about 50 years. If, on the other hand, Dubai hopes to become a Honk Kong or Singapore (which it can undoubtedly do with the leverage it has now) then we may see a wealthy Arab country looking toward its future.
The problem now with most if not all of these wealthy Arab countries is that they use their money to buy consumer goods and luxury housing for themselves. They do not actually produce anything but oil. This has made the owners of the oil and those closely connected to the owners wealthy, but it has resulted in a country where cheap labor has to be imported from other countries and where there are very few modern jobs in other sectors of the economy.
I realize I don't have any facts to back this up, but when is the last time you saw or heard of anything for sale manufactured in Saudi Arabia? Why are there no major stock exchanges or financial international companies in the Arab World? We all know about Arab sheiks who own luxury real estate in this country and who gamble in Monte Carlo and Vegas, but even what they own eventually will depreciate. Even real estate can become a drain on finances if it is a white elephant not generating any rental income.
I have referred to this type of conspicuous consumption in the oil-rich states as "Elvis Syndrome" because they, like Elvis, suffered from the problem of getting too much wealth too quickly with relatively little effort. Those who don't work hard enough for their money tend to spend it on extravagances that border on the tasteless and gaudy. Gold-plated everything, diamond studded dog collars, etc. Things that scream, look at me, I'm rich! The problem is that most of these items are almost worthless as soon as they are created because they could never be resold at for the same value at which they were purchased.
The question is whether building the world's tallest building is just the cherry on top of a serious investment in Dubai's future or a multi-stories Graceland without the musical heritage.
Eventually the oil will run out in the Middle East. Not any time real soon, of course, but almost certainly in the next 50 years. It will likely start declining in the next 30 years, maybe sooner, but as someone who has heard and read such predictions of a sudden shortage occurring in 10 years for roughly the last 30 years, I don't want to make to rash a prediction.
Here is the question though regarding the recent construction of the world's tallest building. There is something called "Dutch Disease" by economists, somewhat unfairly against the Dutch, but it applies primarily to countries that have large natural resource reserves. What appears to happen in these countries is that because so much wealth initially flows from natural resources, the economy develops around exportation of those resources at the expense of manufacturing or other productive industries. The resulting economy is therefore built on a foundation that will ultimately one day collapse through the disappearance of a limited resource.
The problem can witness right now in countries like Iran where, ironically, gasoline is relatively expensive, because so much of the refining of their oil is actually done outside of the country. Other oil wealthy countries seem to suffer the same problem of a lack of other industries because everything is focused on the oil. A roughly similar problem happened historically with Spain. It was noticed that Spain was a wealthy country that was buying up and importing from other countries in Europe and the world beyond, but that this was based primarily on the wealth being taken from Latin America, primarily in the form of gold and silver. Because of this Spain's economy moved to one dependent solely on that supply of money (which was not even produced from other capital such as farming or manufacturing). When the supply of money eventually ran out, Spain's economy collapsed because their natural resource in the form of gold and silver dried up.
The question with Dubai is this: is this building (and the other development in Dubai) really adding to the assets and capital of the country or is just conspicuous consumption. The question is who is going to be occupying those offices and apartments. If they are all solely connected to the oil wealth, than this will be an empty shell in about 50 years. If, on the other hand, Dubai hopes to become a Honk Kong or Singapore (which it can undoubtedly do with the leverage it has now) then we may see a wealthy Arab country looking toward its future.
The problem now with most if not all of these wealthy Arab countries is that they use their money to buy consumer goods and luxury housing for themselves. They do not actually produce anything but oil. This has made the owners of the oil and those closely connected to the owners wealthy, but it has resulted in a country where cheap labor has to be imported from other countries and where there are very few modern jobs in other sectors of the economy.
I realize I don't have any facts to back this up, but when is the last time you saw or heard of anything for sale manufactured in Saudi Arabia? Why are there no major stock exchanges or financial international companies in the Arab World? We all know about Arab sheiks who own luxury real estate in this country and who gamble in Monte Carlo and Vegas, but even what they own eventually will depreciate. Even real estate can become a drain on finances if it is a white elephant not generating any rental income.
I have referred to this type of conspicuous consumption in the oil-rich states as "Elvis Syndrome" because they, like Elvis, suffered from the problem of getting too much wealth too quickly with relatively little effort. Those who don't work hard enough for their money tend to spend it on extravagances that border on the tasteless and gaudy. Gold-plated everything, diamond studded dog collars, etc. Things that scream, look at me, I'm rich! The problem is that most of these items are almost worthless as soon as they are created because they could never be resold at for the same value at which they were purchased.
The question is whether building the world's tallest building is just the cherry on top of a serious investment in Dubai's future or a multi-stories Graceland without the musical heritage.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Three or Four Easy Pieces instead of an Uneasy Peace
The Partitioning of Iraq
Jim Pinkerton: Iraq War storyline has three parts
So the story is not necessarily that the Surge is working, but a de facto partitioning of Iraq has been steadily taking place and that as a result of this loosening of central authority, some of the strife between insurgents (especially the Sunnis) and the central government has disappeared. A Shi'ite civil war of sorts appears to be taking place in southern Iraq, but no one really cares.
In short, partitioning is happening whether anyone wants it or not. I believe this was the best solution to begin with and think that Pinkerton and Krauthammer do not understand why this is a much better outcome than any hope for a strong central AND democratic government. Iraq is simply not ready for that and likely never will be since it is not a nation-state and can only become a nation-state through direct coercion - the antithesis of democracy.
Hoping for democracy and a strong central government in Iraq is sort of like making a college graduate a jet pilot without any training. He might have all of the intelligence in the world, but nothing short of real training and real experience will make him capable of handling a complex and powerful machine correctly. Iraq needs to go through the same process that every other thriving democracy on the planet has undergone in order to evolve to representative government controlled by a written constitution. This has always been a multi-generational process, so don't hope for any magic in this area any time soon.
Jim Pinkerton: Iraq War storyline has three parts
So the story is not necessarily that the Surge is working, but a de facto partitioning of Iraq has been steadily taking place and that as a result of this loosening of central authority, some of the strife between insurgents (especially the Sunnis) and the central government has disappeared. A Shi'ite civil war of sorts appears to be taking place in southern Iraq, but no one really cares.
In short, partitioning is happening whether anyone wants it or not. I believe this was the best solution to begin with and think that Pinkerton and Krauthammer do not understand why this is a much better outcome than any hope for a strong central AND democratic government. Iraq is simply not ready for that and likely never will be since it is not a nation-state and can only become a nation-state through direct coercion - the antithesis of democracy.
Hoping for democracy and a strong central government in Iraq is sort of like making a college graduate a jet pilot without any training. He might have all of the intelligence in the world, but nothing short of real training and real experience will make him capable of handling a complex and powerful machine correctly. Iraq needs to go through the same process that every other thriving democracy on the planet has undergone in order to evolve to representative government controlled by a written constitution. This has always been a multi-generational process, so don't hope for any magic in this area any time soon.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Avoiding Accountability
Retreat of the anti-war Democrats
Another good one from Pat Buchanan who, like me, was opposed to the invasion of Iraq in the first place. He is once again highlighting the hypocrisy of the democrats on this issue, who have spent much of the past several years criticizing being "misled" into voting for the war and then criticizing the way Bush has handled the war.
Now that they are in power in Congress they continue to prove that they are truly the party without ideas. This is because their basis for any vote continues to come from whatever they think will keep them in office. They voted for the war not because Bush "lied" to them (they had the same information available from which to draw their own conclusions), but because they were afraid that if the war succeeded they wouldn't be able to take credit or that their lack of support might be used to portray them negatively. So much for having principles.
Now that the democrats finally have power and have the ability to end the war or put more pressure to bring the troops back, they are still stuck with the idea of criticizing being their #1 aim and goal. Being a critic is easy because you can never fail. If they actually made decisions based on what they believe (or what they said they believed last year) then they could change current U.S. policy on the issue. Instead, they have decided that it is much safer to criticize and pretend they have no control over the situation rather than carry out their promises and risk the consequences.
They even attempted to undermine General Petraeus' credibility before his report was released this week in order to keep up the criticism without actually offering any ideas. The point isn't whether things are going good or bad to them, the point is that no matter what happens Bush's policies are wrong. One day, they may come up with their own. In the meantime they will sit back and claim that all of the wasted lives and money are Bush's fault entirely and that they are merely reluctant passengers along for the ride. It would be interesting if we could one of the dems on the spot and have them elaborate a detailed strategy, implement it, and see what happens. That is, of course, impossible, but an interesting thought.
Another good one from Pat Buchanan who, like me, was opposed to the invasion of Iraq in the first place. He is once again highlighting the hypocrisy of the democrats on this issue, who have spent much of the past several years criticizing being "misled" into voting for the war and then criticizing the way Bush has handled the war.
Now that they are in power in Congress they continue to prove that they are truly the party without ideas. This is because their basis for any vote continues to come from whatever they think will keep them in office. They voted for the war not because Bush "lied" to them (they had the same information available from which to draw their own conclusions), but because they were afraid that if the war succeeded they wouldn't be able to take credit or that their lack of support might be used to portray them negatively. So much for having principles.
Now that the democrats finally have power and have the ability to end the war or put more pressure to bring the troops back, they are still stuck with the idea of criticizing being their #1 aim and goal. Being a critic is easy because you can never fail. If they actually made decisions based on what they believe (or what they said they believed last year) then they could change current U.S. policy on the issue. Instead, they have decided that it is much safer to criticize and pretend they have no control over the situation rather than carry out their promises and risk the consequences.
They even attempted to undermine General Petraeus' credibility before his report was released this week in order to keep up the criticism without actually offering any ideas. The point isn't whether things are going good or bad to them, the point is that no matter what happens Bush's policies are wrong. One day, they may come up with their own. In the meantime they will sit back and claim that all of the wasted lives and money are Bush's fault entirely and that they are merely reluctant passengers along for the ride. It would be interesting if we could one of the dems on the spot and have them elaborate a detailed strategy, implement it, and see what happens. That is, of course, impossible, but an interesting thought.
Monday, September 10, 2007
High Speed Rail
Gas Costs Spark High-Speed Rail Interest
Amtrak booming amid bust
I'll probably have more on the specifics of these articles later - although the topic will undoubtedly come up again.
I am a big fan of high speed rail and have ridden on it in Europe and Japan. It is expensive, but much cheaper than the airlines. I'm not sure how much of a subsidy it gets from the various governments, but a guess is that both the airline and rail get a rough equivalent in subsidies which is why they are both pricey but not astronomical. In the U.S., we subsidize the roads and the air traffic control system (and bailout the airlines periodically), but the rail lines, without a subsidy, that compete with heavily subsidized forms of transportation, lose money, and so are accused of being inefficient, a relic of the past, a waste, etc.
The stats are already out there regarding how little public rail gets compared to our roads and air traffic control system, so I won't go into that here.
My thinking though is not to worsen the problem of government subsidies by giving even more taxpayer money away - this time to the railroads, but that the subsidies for the other forms of transportation should be taken away. Let the airlines pay for the air traffic control system or add it to the price of the airline ticket. Toll the interstates and make them independent commissions so that the money goes solely to funding the care and maintenance of the road instead of just another source of revenue for government to waste. I'm sure that will keep the tolls sufficiently low enough to not burden interstate commerce while lifting that expense out of the federal budget. If not, then the amount of money to support the highways must be for out of proportion for the benefit they bring.
If all of these forms of transportation were allowed to compete fairly - without government subsidies, we would see a huge turn-around in the use and profitability of passenger rail. It could likely be turned over to a private company and a private company would probably bring high speed rail to the country a lot faster and on better terms than any central planning from the government.
That said, I think the government may have a role to play in passenger rail in two major areas. The first is deregulation so that trains can travel faster in residential areas. The second is in straightening out the right of ways. I don't like the idea of government seizing private land for someone else's gain, but this would be a public need. Even then, although I'm not fond of the idea of government seizing property except for emergencies, I think the government could at least help in obtaining the rights for the right of way to avoid litigation that might be undertaken solely for the purpose of driving up costs, rather than giving people a strictly fair sum for their house. The devil will be in the details of that undertaking however.
So, in short, stop subsidizing everything with our tax dollars, give them back to us, and we will use them to determine what forms of transportation we want to take. Right now we all have to drive in cars or take planes because that still makes the most economic sense since we are already keeping those prices low with our tax dollars. Let the trains compete on equal terms and I'm sure we will see high-speed passenger rail in 10 years. At the going rate, we will either have no change or have some massive tax increase to cover a government controlled fiasco/boondoggle that will promise high-speed rail and deliver an Edsel.
And if we follow this plan and passenger rail still fails, we should let private companies take over Amtrak. They will immediately increase the amount of freight on those lines and be able to deliver freight at a much cheaper costs that trucking. This will take more trucks off the roads and decrease the amount we have to spend on maintenance of the roads.
Amtrak booming amid bust
I'll probably have more on the specifics of these articles later - although the topic will undoubtedly come up again.
I am a big fan of high speed rail and have ridden on it in Europe and Japan. It is expensive, but much cheaper than the airlines. I'm not sure how much of a subsidy it gets from the various governments, but a guess is that both the airline and rail get a rough equivalent in subsidies which is why they are both pricey but not astronomical. In the U.S., we subsidize the roads and the air traffic control system (and bailout the airlines periodically), but the rail lines, without a subsidy, that compete with heavily subsidized forms of transportation, lose money, and so are accused of being inefficient, a relic of the past, a waste, etc.
The stats are already out there regarding how little public rail gets compared to our roads and air traffic control system, so I won't go into that here.
My thinking though is not to worsen the problem of government subsidies by giving even more taxpayer money away - this time to the railroads, but that the subsidies for the other forms of transportation should be taken away. Let the airlines pay for the air traffic control system or add it to the price of the airline ticket. Toll the interstates and make them independent commissions so that the money goes solely to funding the care and maintenance of the road instead of just another source of revenue for government to waste. I'm sure that will keep the tolls sufficiently low enough to not burden interstate commerce while lifting that expense out of the federal budget. If not, then the amount of money to support the highways must be for out of proportion for the benefit they bring.
If all of these forms of transportation were allowed to compete fairly - without government subsidies, we would see a huge turn-around in the use and profitability of passenger rail. It could likely be turned over to a private company and a private company would probably bring high speed rail to the country a lot faster and on better terms than any central planning from the government.
That said, I think the government may have a role to play in passenger rail in two major areas. The first is deregulation so that trains can travel faster in residential areas. The second is in straightening out the right of ways. I don't like the idea of government seizing private land for someone else's gain, but this would be a public need. Even then, although I'm not fond of the idea of government seizing property except for emergencies, I think the government could at least help in obtaining the rights for the right of way to avoid litigation that might be undertaken solely for the purpose of driving up costs, rather than giving people a strictly fair sum for their house. The devil will be in the details of that undertaking however.
So, in short, stop subsidizing everything with our tax dollars, give them back to us, and we will use them to determine what forms of transportation we want to take. Right now we all have to drive in cars or take planes because that still makes the most economic sense since we are already keeping those prices low with our tax dollars. Let the trains compete on equal terms and I'm sure we will see high-speed passenger rail in 10 years. At the going rate, we will either have no change or have some massive tax increase to cover a government controlled fiasco/boondoggle that will promise high-speed rail and deliver an Edsel.
And if we follow this plan and passenger rail still fails, we should let private companies take over Amtrak. They will immediately increase the amount of freight on those lines and be able to deliver freight at a much cheaper costs that trucking. This will take more trucks off the roads and decrease the amount we have to spend on maintenance of the roads.
Friday, September 7, 2007
The Cult of Global Warming
Have you ever noticed how Al Gore and the cult of Global Warming resemble a lot of other cults from our recent past. Remember the Bagwan Shree Rajneesh? He encouraged all of his followers to give up their belongings in order to achieve peace and enlightenment. He then used their belongings to purchase and travel around in several Rolls Royces.
So now we see Gore proclaiming the message of Global Warming encouraging all of us to achieve peace and happiness by abandoning our greedy and consumptive ways as he darts between his three giant houses in a Gulf Stream. It's hard for me not see the parallels.
Add to the is the overriding need for the members of the cult to threaten, belittle, and shout down anyone who dares to defy the orthodox opinion that everyone already agrees that Global Warming is definite and that it is definitely causes primarily by human activity and you have all the makings of a loyal cult following.
I still have to do a little more investigation of the matter, but I have read and seen that the so-called "Global Warming" statistics and facts all stop around the late 1990s, because the meteorological data shows a slight cooling trend.
By the way, what happened to the massive hurricane season were we supposed to have the last several years? Is the theory wrong? No. The great thing about the cult of Global Warming is that if any prediction about the weather is wrong, it is because Global Warming has so radically changed the environment that even predictions about the effects of Global Warming are no longer accurate! Pure sophistry. Unfortunately a cult based on a sophistry that has government funding and a brainwashed following can change the world.
The times is soon!
So now we see Gore proclaiming the message of Global Warming encouraging all of us to achieve peace and happiness by abandoning our greedy and consumptive ways as he darts between his three giant houses in a Gulf Stream. It's hard for me not see the parallels.
Add to the is the overriding need for the members of the cult to threaten, belittle, and shout down anyone who dares to defy the orthodox opinion that everyone already agrees that Global Warming is definite and that it is definitely causes primarily by human activity and you have all the makings of a loyal cult following.
I still have to do a little more investigation of the matter, but I have read and seen that the so-called "Global Warming" statistics and facts all stop around the late 1990s, because the meteorological data shows a slight cooling trend.
By the way, what happened to the massive hurricane season were we supposed to have the last several years? Is the theory wrong? No. The great thing about the cult of Global Warming is that if any prediction about the weather is wrong, it is because Global Warming has so radically changed the environment that even predictions about the effects of Global Warming are no longer accurate! Pure sophistry. Unfortunately a cult based on a sophistry that has government funding and a brainwashed following can change the world.
The times is soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)