President Obama addresses Congress on health care, 9/9/09
President Obama addressed both houses of Congress tonight in a speech intended to boost support for his health care proposals. If you expected him to state that he’d heard the voices of the opposition and is willing to consider alternatives, you were sorely disappointed. Here is the complete text of the speech. From NYTimes.com.
In it, he implies that fierce opposition to the plan stems mainly from people bent on stopping reform in any incarnation for their own greedy and/or evil purposes. Others are either ignorant, mislead, paranoid idealogues or some combination of the above.
The reason the health care debate has been so intense is that it goes to a very fundamental issue. At the foundation of the argument is whether or not it is the proper role of government to take direct responsibility for the health and welfare of its citizens. Proponents believe it is. Opponents believe it is not. When proponents start with that premise and envision the future it will bring, they see Utopia. When opponents do the same, they see disaster.
When the President tugs at our heart strings and appeals for compassion in the form of support for his plan, it’s not touching, it’s insulting. It’s insulting because it assumes that a reasonable, compassionate, thinking adult can’t possibly be against a caretaker government. Of course if you believe a caretaker government will lead to widespread misery, supporting one wouldn’t be very compassionate, would it?
Both sides of the issue believe they are right. Both cannot be right. There are undecideds and “don’t knows” but there is no middle ground. So, where do we go from here? We could start by taking on the fundamental issue instead of dressing it up as health care reform and dancing around it. This is about collectivism versus individualism. If you have confidence in your convictions, call them by their name and let’s have the debate.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Premature Indoctrination
Turning a capitalist democracy into a socialist autocracy is no easy task. It can be done. But, it takes cunning, planning and lots of patience. The movement was well underway in this country, but the left may have tried to implement the final phase a decade or two too soon. Now they have to try to pull it off in broad daylight before an unreceptive audience.
Before you can put absolute power in the hands of a few for the good of all, you must first lay the groundwork; set the tone, create the proper atmosphere. You need allies in the education sector. You need allies in the media. You need to get big companies on board. All that was done fairly successfully over the past several decades. However, before you can make the final play, you must have the majority of the population at the point where they’re ready to throw up their hands and say “anything is better than this”.
Higher education is staffed mainly with leftists. No problems there. Major media outlets are dutifully providing the right coverage. In fact, the CEO of General Electric (owner of NBC) is now on the board of the New York Federal Reserve and is a chief Obama economic advisor. Everything’s going well there. Big businesses don’t mind tight regulation and expensive mandates. It keeps the competition down. Keeping up the guise of capitalistic activity also allows for blaming capitalism for everyone’s woes when the time comes to make the big switch. Everything looked to be in place. The public was dissatisfied with the status quo. The left made its move.
The Feds took over the mortgage industry, the financial industry, the auto industry, but health care was a bridge too far. The problem is, they misread the mood of the public. We were annoyed, angry, maybe even outraged, but we weren’t miserable. We were outraged at the players, not the game.
Now the White House is staffed with people who openly supported communism not twenty years ago, but twenty weeks ago. They were feeling confident their time had come. No need to hide the agenda anymore!
But the people aren’t buying it. The genie can’t be put back in the bottle. They have to try to play this out. Obama has to either embrace capitalism and free markets, which he will not do, or go down with the ship.
However it goes from here, we’ll still have massive deficits and a debt that can only be dealt with by inflation of epic proportions. Will we take it on the chin and get back to free people, freely associating in free markets or will be all become willing servants of a great society? I’m betting on the former.
Before you can put absolute power in the hands of a few for the good of all, you must first lay the groundwork; set the tone, create the proper atmosphere. You need allies in the education sector. You need allies in the media. You need to get big companies on board. All that was done fairly successfully over the past several decades. However, before you can make the final play, you must have the majority of the population at the point where they’re ready to throw up their hands and say “anything is better than this”.
Higher education is staffed mainly with leftists. No problems there. Major media outlets are dutifully providing the right coverage. In fact, the CEO of General Electric (owner of NBC) is now on the board of the New York Federal Reserve and is a chief Obama economic advisor. Everything’s going well there. Big businesses don’t mind tight regulation and expensive mandates. It keeps the competition down. Keeping up the guise of capitalistic activity also allows for blaming capitalism for everyone’s woes when the time comes to make the big switch. Everything looked to be in place. The public was dissatisfied with the status quo. The left made its move.
The Feds took over the mortgage industry, the financial industry, the auto industry, but health care was a bridge too far. The problem is, they misread the mood of the public. We were annoyed, angry, maybe even outraged, but we weren’t miserable. We were outraged at the players, not the game.
Now the White House is staffed with people who openly supported communism not twenty years ago, but twenty weeks ago. They were feeling confident their time had come. No need to hide the agenda anymore!
But the people aren’t buying it. The genie can’t be put back in the bottle. They have to try to play this out. Obama has to either embrace capitalism and free markets, which he will not do, or go down with the ship.
However it goes from here, we’ll still have massive deficits and a debt that can only be dealt with by inflation of epic proportions. Will we take it on the chin and get back to free people, freely associating in free markets or will be all become willing servants of a great society? I’m betting on the former.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
China, Apple and the economics of free
Apple recently announced that it has reached a deal to bring the iPhone and its Apps Store to China. This is a very interesting and potentially very insightful proving ground for technology and economics which was actually made possible by the Chinese government keeping the masses poor.
The iPhone handsets will be purchased by China Unicom, who will not share subscription revenue with Apple. This means, for Apple to capitalize on this opportunity to reach such a huge market, they have to sell Apps, lots and lots of Apps.
But, that huge marketplace is made up mainly of very low income individuals. Apple, and its army of application developers must come up with highly desired software at a price point that’s agreeable to poor people. In many cases that price point may be zero, or close to zero. The game will be to figure out how to get a little money from an enormous amount of people, consistently. New streams of revenue related to applications may have to subsidize the production and distribution of the applications. It could be advertising, data collection, storage, establishing networks, or some function nobody has imagined yet. There are further challenges. The iPhones in China will not be WiFi enabled. It sounds like a tough bed to grow in, but the parallel processing nature of the world of iPhone application development should make it up to the challenge.
Some believe the “economics of free” is a threat to capitalism. It’s not. Capitalists adapt and continue to find ways to improve their own lot by improving the lot of others. Government can change the rules, but they can’t kill the game. That’s because capitalism takes advantage of and works with human nature, whereas socialism aims to suppress it.
Of course, I don’t endorse repressive dictatorships as a means of market-testing ideas, but there it is. Americans, through commerce, have the opportunity to try to improve the quality of life of people across the globe, under severe restriction. Demonstration of the power of free markets and free people is a far more effective tool than either diplomacy or force in making the most of such an opportunity.
The iPhone handsets will be purchased by China Unicom, who will not share subscription revenue with Apple. This means, for Apple to capitalize on this opportunity to reach such a huge market, they have to sell Apps, lots and lots of Apps.
But, that huge marketplace is made up mainly of very low income individuals. Apple, and its army of application developers must come up with highly desired software at a price point that’s agreeable to poor people. In many cases that price point may be zero, or close to zero. The game will be to figure out how to get a little money from an enormous amount of people, consistently. New streams of revenue related to applications may have to subsidize the production and distribution of the applications. It could be advertising, data collection, storage, establishing networks, or some function nobody has imagined yet. There are further challenges. The iPhones in China will not be WiFi enabled. It sounds like a tough bed to grow in, but the parallel processing nature of the world of iPhone application development should make it up to the challenge.
Some believe the “economics of free” is a threat to capitalism. It’s not. Capitalists adapt and continue to find ways to improve their own lot by improving the lot of others. Government can change the rules, but they can’t kill the game. That’s because capitalism takes advantage of and works with human nature, whereas socialism aims to suppress it.
Of course, I don’t endorse repressive dictatorships as a means of market-testing ideas, but there it is. Americans, through commerce, have the opportunity to try to improve the quality of life of people across the globe, under severe restriction. Demonstration of the power of free markets and free people is a far more effective tool than either diplomacy or force in making the most of such an opportunity.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
It's the volume stupid!
In response to lower revenues and budget shortfalls due to the recession, many state and local governments and agencies have resorted to raising fees, taxes, fines and whatever else they can think of. In my neck of the woods, the City of Fountain is contemplating a sales tax increase to pay for infrastructure projects. While I applaud the proponents for getting their plan before the public well in advance of even attempting to get it on the ballot, I think the focus is in the wrong direction.
It seems to me a better strategy would be to look for ways to increase sales volume rather than the sales tax rate. Government should be looking for opportunities to get out of the way. If government needs to cut spending, how about cutting in areas that make doing business cumbersome. Look for paperwork to eliminate, outdated or unnecessary codes or regulations. Less bureaucracy means fewer man hours. There's your savings.
Yes, that would mean a reduction in government's work force, but I believe those jobs would be made up many times over in a more vibrant private sector. Business doesn't want advisory boards, cheerleaders, commissions or more government assistance. It just wants you out of the way.
It seems to me a better strategy would be to look for ways to increase sales volume rather than the sales tax rate. Government should be looking for opportunities to get out of the way. If government needs to cut spending, how about cutting in areas that make doing business cumbersome. Look for paperwork to eliminate, outdated or unnecessary codes or regulations. Less bureaucracy means fewer man hours. There's your savings.
Yes, that would mean a reduction in government's work force, but I believe those jobs would be made up many times over in a more vibrant private sector. Business doesn't want advisory boards, cheerleaders, commissions or more government assistance. It just wants you out of the way.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Cash for Clunkers for housing?
The Senate has added another $2 billion to the Cash for Clunkers program. This is in addition to the original $1 billion allocated to the program. In all, that's enough to subsidize the purchase of about 750,000 new cars. The program was originally supposed to run through November, but consumers jumped on the deal and even with the new money, it will probably be done within a week or so.
A major component of the program is that the cars traded in to qualify for the rebate must be destroyed. This takes used cars off the road and is allegedly good for the environment (although I don't know if building an entirely new car uses less energy than just keeping your old one). If this program is deemed a success, why not apply it in other areas?
In the housing market, we could reduce inventories and increase energy efficiency by offering a $20,000 rebate on the purchase of a new house when you agree to have your current home destroyed. It would be the end of the housing glut right? One could also apply it to electronics. Smash your old TV, get $100 off a new one. This could be the silver bullet we've been looking for. To get out of an economic downturn, all the government has to do is pay people to destroy their stuff and buy new stuff! It could be applied to services as well. Throw some mud on your car and the government will give you a voucher toward a car wash. Bring a steak to a restaurant and get a voucher toward a meal, providing the steak is destroyed. Show proof that you've destroyed an mp3 file and get half off your next song purchase. Divorce your spouse and get $3,000 toward your next wedding.
This does more than create economic activity. It allows the government to determine which economic activity to create. Instead of individuals running around allocating resources all willy nilly, the much more intelligent and wise experts in Washington D.C. can ensure that you're spending your money on what's best for society as a whole and not just wasting it on yourself and your family.
Sure it will be expensive, but with the government's new policy of actually printing on both sides of paper, the raw materials cost of printing more money should come down. No problem there. Crank up the presses!
A major component of the program is that the cars traded in to qualify for the rebate must be destroyed. This takes used cars off the road and is allegedly good for the environment (although I don't know if building an entirely new car uses less energy than just keeping your old one). If this program is deemed a success, why not apply it in other areas?
In the housing market, we could reduce inventories and increase energy efficiency by offering a $20,000 rebate on the purchase of a new house when you agree to have your current home destroyed. It would be the end of the housing glut right? One could also apply it to electronics. Smash your old TV, get $100 off a new one. This could be the silver bullet we've been looking for. To get out of an economic downturn, all the government has to do is pay people to destroy their stuff and buy new stuff! It could be applied to services as well. Throw some mud on your car and the government will give you a voucher toward a car wash. Bring a steak to a restaurant and get a voucher toward a meal, providing the steak is destroyed. Show proof that you've destroyed an mp3 file and get half off your next song purchase. Divorce your spouse and get $3,000 toward your next wedding.
This does more than create economic activity. It allows the government to determine which economic activity to create. Instead of individuals running around allocating resources all willy nilly, the much more intelligent and wise experts in Washington D.C. can ensure that you're spending your money on what's best for society as a whole and not just wasting it on yourself and your family.
Sure it will be expensive, but with the government's new policy of actually printing on both sides of paper, the raw materials cost of printing more money should come down. No problem there. Crank up the presses!
Friday, August 7, 2009
Sorry Big Brother, Technology Favors Freedom
Some politicians have had more success than others putting new information and communication technology to work for themselves. Ron Paul has used the internet very effectively to get out his message. Obama far out-manuevered his opponents on the net as well. Until recently, it was a matter of being the first to know what was available and how to use it. All that is about to change.
The internet, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and other mass collaboration/communication networks are no longer a mystery to any one group of activists. In fact, the ability to communicate in real time with like minded people across the country and across the globe has made activists out of people who never felt like they had any control over the social-political landscape. This is bad news for collectivists and statists.
The new reality is that interest groups no longer need be a formal organization or even come with a long term commitment. Like minded individuals can band together for a rally this afternoon, and be on opposite sides of a different barricade later the same evening.
This type of "free radical" association favors those who tend to frown on central control in general. For people who truly value the preservation of individuality, free association and free markets, this mode of operating is right in their wheelhouse. It's actually a real life demonstration of the principals they espouse.
The White House is frantically trying to put the genie back in the bottle in response to the ad hoc association of people opposed to the health care overhaul. They've put out a call for people to report "fishy" information put out in emails, blog posts, even casual conversation. If they think that's going to stifle open communication, they couldn't be more wrong. I imagine the inbox at "flag@whitehouse.gov" contains more angry and sarcastic emails than "fishiness" reports.
Monitoring and manipulating groups of neatly organized citizens is far easier than trying to corral 300,000,000 "free radicals". Some are panicked by the emerging social trends enabled by mass communication technology. They would refer to it as chaos. I believe the founders would refer to it as beautiful.
The internet, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and other mass collaboration/communication networks are no longer a mystery to any one group of activists. In fact, the ability to communicate in real time with like minded people across the country and across the globe has made activists out of people who never felt like they had any control over the social-political landscape. This is bad news for collectivists and statists.
The new reality is that interest groups no longer need be a formal organization or even come with a long term commitment. Like minded individuals can band together for a rally this afternoon, and be on opposite sides of a different barricade later the same evening.
This type of "free radical" association favors those who tend to frown on central control in general. For people who truly value the preservation of individuality, free association and free markets, this mode of operating is right in their wheelhouse. It's actually a real life demonstration of the principals they espouse.
The White House is frantically trying to put the genie back in the bottle in response to the ad hoc association of people opposed to the health care overhaul. They've put out a call for people to report "fishy" information put out in emails, blog posts, even casual conversation. If they think that's going to stifle open communication, they couldn't be more wrong. I imagine the inbox at "flag@whitehouse.gov" contains more angry and sarcastic emails than "fishiness" reports.
Monitoring and manipulating groups of neatly organized citizens is far easier than trying to corral 300,000,000 "free radicals". Some are panicked by the emerging social trends enabled by mass communication technology. They would refer to it as chaos. I believe the founders would refer to it as beautiful.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Gangland and Politics
I watch a lot of History Channel's Gangland. I also watch a lot of news. Today, I connected some dots:
How political parties are like gangs
Recruit the needy. Gang members tend to be individuals looking for something to belong to; a family. Politicians, for the most part, are individuals who crave acceptance and approval.
You have to get "beaten in". We call this non-stop barrage of vicious attacks being "vetted by the media". It's a rite of passage. If you survive, your in. If you don't, your out.
Parties stake out territories, just as gangs do. Look at the boundaries of electoral districts. They are designed to favor the incumbents.
Currency transactions are hidden through money laundering. Both gangs and politicians trade in cash and favors and are very careful not to explicitly connect the payment to the deed.
Constantly looking to expand their territory. Being powerful within a single country is not enough. There is a growing "global community" movement, which of course is administered by a level of government above sovereign nations.
Prey on the weak of will. Gangster deal in vices like drugs and prostitution. Politicians deal in vices like government assistance, contracts and subsidies. In both cases, once you become dependent, they own you.
Both gangs and political parties are self-perpetuating and are not dependent on any particular individual for their long-term survival. Police infiltrate gangs with multi-year sting operations, resulting in hundreds of arrests and convictions, and they keep coming back strong. Political parties also have their purges and downfalls, but a new crop of power hungry recruits is always there to take it to a new level.
For the most part, neither gangs nor political parties go directly after the strong of will. Their prey consists of those who are attracted to bright shiny objects; fame, "free" money, drugs, crime, the need to be accepted by a group. Things generally go badly for both when they try to force their world on people who have no interest in it. Political parties have avoided a lot of potential bad blood by directing the cash flow to their organizations through employers. You get paid less, but you don't notice. You just focus on the net take home, and you feel good about the refund check that comes every year because they took a little extra from you each pay period.
Both gangs and political parties prefer to operate in an atmosphere of chaos. There has to be some degree of order, so there will always be someone to rob. But you also want to avoid facing any consequences for your actions. Creating chaos in the political world is simply a matter of expanding "grey areas" and becoming very adept at the art of rationalization and pragmatism. In fact, pragmatism (changing your code of behavior to suit your circumstances) is openly heralded as a virtue among politicians. Actually establishing a core set of beliefs and striving to live by them makes you an "idealogue" which is an insult in the political world. They've sold this mindset to the public at large, and for the most part, we bought it. It's very appealing after all. Rather than feeling bad about your missteps and moments of weakness, you talk yourself into seeing them as virtuous. Others, who do the same, are not going to argue with you, no matter how ridiculous the justification.
So the formula goes something like this: Recruit the needy (emotionally speaking). Create a common bond through trauma. Prey on the weak. Avoid direct confrontation with the strong. Promote ambiguity and chaos and attack any attempt to promote logic and reason as a means of arriving at an objective truth. Distasteful as it is, it seems to be working so far.
How political parties are like gangs
Recruit the needy. Gang members tend to be individuals looking for something to belong to; a family. Politicians, for the most part, are individuals who crave acceptance and approval.
You have to get "beaten in". We call this non-stop barrage of vicious attacks being "vetted by the media". It's a rite of passage. If you survive, your in. If you don't, your out.
Parties stake out territories, just as gangs do. Look at the boundaries of electoral districts. They are designed to favor the incumbents.
Currency transactions are hidden through money laundering. Both gangs and politicians trade in cash and favors and are very careful not to explicitly connect the payment to the deed.
Constantly looking to expand their territory. Being powerful within a single country is not enough. There is a growing "global community" movement, which of course is administered by a level of government above sovereign nations.
Prey on the weak of will. Gangster deal in vices like drugs and prostitution. Politicians deal in vices like government assistance, contracts and subsidies. In both cases, once you become dependent, they own you.
Both gangs and political parties are self-perpetuating and are not dependent on any particular individual for their long-term survival. Police infiltrate gangs with multi-year sting operations, resulting in hundreds of arrests and convictions, and they keep coming back strong. Political parties also have their purges and downfalls, but a new crop of power hungry recruits is always there to take it to a new level.
For the most part, neither gangs nor political parties go directly after the strong of will. Their prey consists of those who are attracted to bright shiny objects; fame, "free" money, drugs, crime, the need to be accepted by a group. Things generally go badly for both when they try to force their world on people who have no interest in it. Political parties have avoided a lot of potential bad blood by directing the cash flow to their organizations through employers. You get paid less, but you don't notice. You just focus on the net take home, and you feel good about the refund check that comes every year because they took a little extra from you each pay period.
Both gangs and political parties prefer to operate in an atmosphere of chaos. There has to be some degree of order, so there will always be someone to rob. But you also want to avoid facing any consequences for your actions. Creating chaos in the political world is simply a matter of expanding "grey areas" and becoming very adept at the art of rationalization and pragmatism. In fact, pragmatism (changing your code of behavior to suit your circumstances) is openly heralded as a virtue among politicians. Actually establishing a core set of beliefs and striving to live by them makes you an "idealogue" which is an insult in the political world. They've sold this mindset to the public at large, and for the most part, we bought it. It's very appealing after all. Rather than feeling bad about your missteps and moments of weakness, you talk yourself into seeing them as virtuous. Others, who do the same, are not going to argue with you, no matter how ridiculous the justification.
So the formula goes something like this: Recruit the needy (emotionally speaking). Create a common bond through trauma. Prey on the weak. Avoid direct confrontation with the strong. Promote ambiguity and chaos and attack any attempt to promote logic and reason as a means of arriving at an objective truth. Distasteful as it is, it seems to be working so far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)