Why democrats continue to believe in Keynesian theory is beyond comprehension when you consider historical empirical evidence.
Government spending does not produce long term economic growth. When government spends more, it purchases real resources and absorbs labor, land, equipment, and materials out of the market, therby raising the cost of production for private sector businesses, reducing the profitability or margin of a business. When businesses can no longer make a positive margin much less a profit, then they go bankrupt or cut costs (cut jobs).
Alberto Alesina of Harvard published a major long term study of fiscal policy changes in 18 countries (18 economies) in the Sept 2002 "The American Economic Review". They found that "fiscal stabilizations that have led to an increase in growth consist mainly of [governmentt] spending cuts, particularly in government wages and transfers, while those associated with a downturn in the economy are characterized by tax increases."
Ireland is an example. In the late 1980's they cut government spending by 7% of GDP, slashed the tax rates on capital gains and on business profit, and experienced excellent economic growth. By contrast, Japan ran budget deficits from 1993 to 2005 and accomplished nothing in terms of improving economic conditions (stagnant) and their standard of living.
Some of this discussion is from Alan Reynolds' acticle in the February 2009 issue of National Review.
And remember these famous and true quotes:
"Never base policy on a forecast."
- John Kenneth Galbraith
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
- Ronald Reagan
And have a good laugh at this one (or cringe in fear):
"It is only government that can break the vicious cycle [...]"
- Barak Obama 2009
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Jim Cramer not a genius
Ok, i like Jim Cramer, but no one can predict the future, you should ignore anyone who acts like they can without caviat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGkrNJ19DSU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGkrNJ19DSU&feature=related
Monday, February 16, 2009
Democrats caused the recession of 2008-2009
As anyone who follows economics and economic policy in detail will tell you, the catalyst of the recession of 2008-2009 was the burst of the housing bubble created by affordable housing laws (by democrats) and the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac government institutions (created by democrats). Here are the dems incriminating themselves is preventing republicans from fixing the problem back around 2004:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqpTKFQI1nY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqpTKFQI1nY
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Keep Healthcare in the Private Sector
This is a good editorial by Newt Gingrich, I just had to pass this along. From US News and World Report February 2009:
"Is there anything in your life you think would be better if it were run by government bureaucrats? For most of us, the answer is a laughable "no" !
Yet oddly, there is sympathy for turning over our most private, personal decisions, not to mention one sixth of our economy, to the same unresponsive, anti-entrepreneurial culture that gave us the response to Hurricane Katrina. Our two largest government-run healthcare programs - Medicare and Medicaid - are on fiscal crash courses that make Social Security seem like a model of solvency. Steep benefit cuts or much higher taxes will be required to sustain them anywhere near their current form.
The dwindling number of doctors who accept Medicare patients resent politicians and government bureaucrats threatening their fees and medling with their judgment. This has aided the rapid expansion of private "concierge" medicine for seniors who can afford it and for physicians who demand more than what Medicaid offers. In the mid 1990s, Tennessee's Medicaid program went further than any other state toward the 1993 Hillary Clinton model of government-run healthcare. It proved so catastrophic that only the capable leadership of Governor Phil Bredesen - who profoundly scaled back the experiment - saved the state.
More government bureaucrats involved in your healtcare would be destructive. Other countries with similar systems face lengthly and often deadly waiting lists. That is the only way to ration unlimited demand in the face of static supply. Go to YouTube and view the short films of Stuart Browning for a flavor of the Canadian system.
Ask government-run healthcare advocates if they would ban all private contracting, which would make it illegal for you to purchase any healthcare service also covered by the government. Instead, you would have to wait in line for care - the length of that line and quality of that care notwithstanding. Horrifying, yes. But that was Canadian law until a 2005 decision by even its left-wing Supreme Court found that "access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare." If those advocates answer no, then they are allowing for what they claim to oppose - two tiered healthcare where the rich use their money and connections to access one system, leaving everyone else to use the lower-quality government system.
Proponents of government run healthcare gain traction exploiting legitimate frustrations with our system, but opponents do not deserve a place in the debate if our only answer is no. We must offer a positive alternative where healthcare becomes more accessible and of higher quality at lower cost. That is what normal markets produce. Think computers and cellphones, where government bureaucrats have zero involvement in design and pricing.
A truly modernized, intelligent health system would focus on measurably improving health outcomes for all Americans. It would be ideologically agnostic about public or private initiatives and instead seek to scale up successful programs and discard those not producing results. A delivery system that allows private and public programs to flourish concurrently is more likely to yield new and better best practices to emulate elsewhere. Many best new practices offer specific financial rewards and incentives to individuals who achieve measurable progress in weight loss, lowering blood pressure, and eliminating tobacco use. Much of your health status is determined by choices you make. Smart health plans incentivize better choices so you are healthier and then share the savings with you. A modern system also will have 100% E-prescribing and electronic health records by a date certain. This will lead to better, more coordinated care with far fewer medical errors, thereby saving lives and money."
"Is there anything in your life you think would be better if it were run by government bureaucrats? For most of us, the answer is a laughable "no" !
Yet oddly, there is sympathy for turning over our most private, personal decisions, not to mention one sixth of our economy, to the same unresponsive, anti-entrepreneurial culture that gave us the response to Hurricane Katrina. Our two largest government-run healthcare programs - Medicare and Medicaid - are on fiscal crash courses that make Social Security seem like a model of solvency. Steep benefit cuts or much higher taxes will be required to sustain them anywhere near their current form.
The dwindling number of doctors who accept Medicare patients resent politicians and government bureaucrats threatening their fees and medling with their judgment. This has aided the rapid expansion of private "concierge" medicine for seniors who can afford it and for physicians who demand more than what Medicaid offers. In the mid 1990s, Tennessee's Medicaid program went further than any other state toward the 1993 Hillary Clinton model of government-run healthcare. It proved so catastrophic that only the capable leadership of Governor Phil Bredesen - who profoundly scaled back the experiment - saved the state.
More government bureaucrats involved in your healtcare would be destructive. Other countries with similar systems face lengthly and often deadly waiting lists. That is the only way to ration unlimited demand in the face of static supply. Go to YouTube and view the short films of Stuart Browning for a flavor of the Canadian system.
Ask government-run healthcare advocates if they would ban all private contracting, which would make it illegal for you to purchase any healthcare service also covered by the government. Instead, you would have to wait in line for care - the length of that line and quality of that care notwithstanding. Horrifying, yes. But that was Canadian law until a 2005 decision by even its left-wing Supreme Court found that "access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare." If those advocates answer no, then they are allowing for what they claim to oppose - two tiered healthcare where the rich use their money and connections to access one system, leaving everyone else to use the lower-quality government system.
Proponents of government run healthcare gain traction exploiting legitimate frustrations with our system, but opponents do not deserve a place in the debate if our only answer is no. We must offer a positive alternative where healthcare becomes more accessible and of higher quality at lower cost. That is what normal markets produce. Think computers and cellphones, where government bureaucrats have zero involvement in design and pricing.
A truly modernized, intelligent health system would focus on measurably improving health outcomes for all Americans. It would be ideologically agnostic about public or private initiatives and instead seek to scale up successful programs and discard those not producing results. A delivery system that allows private and public programs to flourish concurrently is more likely to yield new and better best practices to emulate elsewhere. Many best new practices offer specific financial rewards and incentives to individuals who achieve measurable progress in weight loss, lowering blood pressure, and eliminating tobacco use. Much of your health status is determined by choices you make. Smart health plans incentivize better choices so you are healthier and then share the savings with you. A modern system also will have 100% E-prescribing and electronic health records by a date certain. This will lead to better, more coordinated care with far fewer medical errors, thereby saving lives and money."
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Change we can believe in?
Chicago and Illinois....
Who Ran it?
Senators: Barack Obama & Dick Durbin
Representative: Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Illinois Governor: Rod Blogojevich (impeached)
Illinois House leader: Mike Madigan
Attorney General: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike)
Chicago Mayor: Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley)
The leadership in Illinois? All Democrats.
Body count in Chicago the last six months: 292 killed -- more killed in Chicago than US troops in Iraq in same period.
State pension fund - $44 Billion in debt, worst in the country.
Cook County (Chicago ) sales tax - 10.25% highest in country (Look it up).
Chicago school system - rated one of the worst in the country and Obama just named the Arne Duncan, Superintendent of Chicago Public Schools as his Secretary of Education. Only 17% of 8th graders under his command read at grade level. That means 83% of Chicago aged students are reading below grade level. Over 60% are reading four or more grade levels below.
Illinois democrats cannot blame Republicans because there aren't any there in power !
Obama professes "Change!", i sure hope he does not mean change to how democrats have ruined a state like Illinois, not to mention Michigan, New Jersey, and California (even the Terminator could not save that place, he is handcuffed by the legislature). Funny how all the democrat governors are asking for federal "bail-out" money but generally not republicans. Republicans understand economics, democrats do not, that is the rule-of-thumb and it proves itself true over and over.
Remember, the recession of 2008-2009 was not caused by "failed policies by George Bush", the favorite talking point expression of the democrats, unless you are referring to the inept SEC, there i will agree the Bush gang should have been more involved in cleaning that place out, but that had nothing to do with the recession. The recession was caused by the affordable housing laws (created by democrats awhile back) and the democrat created (and run) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac quasi-government institutions. Remember the CEOs (democrats by the way) who gave themselves huge bonuses while cooking the books? They created the housing bubble that burst that then caused the credit meltdown and all the dominoes after that. You want to blame someone, look in the mirror democrats, this was mostly your fault. Your democrat media outlets do a good job of hiding this fact, but not from those of us who educate ourselves.
Who Ran it?
Senators: Barack Obama & Dick Durbin
Representative: Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Illinois Governor: Rod Blogojevich (impeached)
Illinois House leader: Mike Madigan
Attorney General: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike)
Chicago Mayor: Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley)
The leadership in Illinois? All Democrats.
Body count in Chicago the last six months: 292 killed -- more killed in Chicago than US troops in Iraq in same period.
State pension fund - $44 Billion in debt, worst in the country.
Cook County (Chicago ) sales tax - 10.25% highest in country (Look it up).
Chicago school system - rated one of the worst in the country and Obama just named the Arne Duncan, Superintendent of Chicago Public Schools as his Secretary of Education. Only 17% of 8th graders under his command read at grade level. That means 83% of Chicago aged students are reading below grade level. Over 60% are reading four or more grade levels below.
Illinois democrats cannot blame Republicans because there aren't any there in power !
Obama professes "Change!", i sure hope he does not mean change to how democrats have ruined a state like Illinois, not to mention Michigan, New Jersey, and California (even the Terminator could not save that place, he is handcuffed by the legislature). Funny how all the democrat governors are asking for federal "bail-out" money but generally not republicans. Republicans understand economics, democrats do not, that is the rule-of-thumb and it proves itself true over and over.
Remember, the recession of 2008-2009 was not caused by "failed policies by George Bush", the favorite talking point expression of the democrats, unless you are referring to the inept SEC, there i will agree the Bush gang should have been more involved in cleaning that place out, but that had nothing to do with the recession. The recession was caused by the affordable housing laws (created by democrats awhile back) and the democrat created (and run) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac quasi-government institutions. Remember the CEOs (democrats by the way) who gave themselves huge bonuses while cooking the books? They created the housing bubble that burst that then caused the credit meltdown and all the dominoes after that. You want to blame someone, look in the mirror democrats, this was mostly your fault. Your democrat media outlets do a good job of hiding this fact, but not from those of us who educate ourselves.
Habicrap for Humanity
The intentions of Habitat for Humanity are admirable, but like any feel-good endeavor, the actions sometimes produce unintended consequences. Here is an excerpt from the February 2009 issue of The Limbaugh Letter that i found interesting.
"Eight years ago, Jimmy Carter and a crew of 10,000 volunteers bankrolled by Hollywood celebrities like Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt went on a 17-day building blitz, erecting a model housing complex in northern Florida for Habitat for Humanity. Feeling good about themselves and their ability to remake America and bind us together, the do-gooders went home.
Now many of the 85 homeowners in the Fairway Oaks development complain their houses are falling apart. Turns out, according to The Sunday Times (of UK), Fairway Oaks was apparently built on a dump. One occupant says he pulled up his kitchen floorboards only to discover garbage five feet deep. Other residents report that rats and ants are pouring through cracked walls and rotten doorframes. The signature Jimmy Carter structures are now recognizable to homeowners by their cochroaches, mold, and mildew.
"The intentions are good, but when the politicians and big-shot stars have left, we're stuck with the consequences," says another Fairway Oaks resident, who says her children suffer from mysterious skin rashes. "This house looks pretty but inside it either stinks or sweats."
Attorney April Charney is representing the Fairway Oaks victims in an upcoming legal battle - though she knows Carter's Habitat for Humanity is a 'darling of liberal social activists.'
Lesson 1 of infrastructure building: liberal good intentions cannot cover up a foundation of garbage.
As a professional Civil Engineer, I know home construction requires proper engineering and design by professionals for the foundation and framing, and construction by professional contractors, so I am not surprised one of these do-good activities failed miserably. Those rich actors would have done better to donate money to build quality apartments than trying to build half-ass homes for people who cant afford one anyway. Or use their time to repair homes of poor people, not build new ones when they are not qualified to do so. I volunteered once in college on a Habitat for Humanity outing and appreciated the individual efforts, but an effort should be made for quality in design and construction, not just building low quality homes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)