Long post today, because I have literally lost sleep in the last couple of weeks over what will happen here in the months that follow. There will be a political riff in November, and the economic consequences need to be considered. Along with countless articles online, I have been reading Crisis Economics by Nouriel Roubini (aka Dr. Doom), one of the first economists to blow the whistle on the upcoming crisis back in 2006, and in fairly accurate detail. I'm still reading, but at this point I would highly recommend the book. Chapter two gives a brief but in depth review of economic theories and the theorists behind them. He runs through where we came from, what we've learned, where we've failed, and where we are presently. Right now we are at a truly incredible moment in history where there are two main schools of thought with completely opposite conclusions vying for credibility. I will attempt to outline the two here.
The Austrian school of economics preaches against unsustainable debt, and against government intervention. They argue that debt begets more debt, and government intervention will only lead us down the path of ever increasing debt which will eventually lead to a collapse of our system. Looking at our history of government intervention, it is hard to argue that this observation is incorrect. We see increased debt, masked by inflation and the break from the gold standard, and increasingly lax fiscal and monetary policy since the Great Depression. To prove its modern applicability, this most recent bust could be attributed to Greenspan's federal reserve keeping interest rates too low for too long in reaction to the 2001 tech bust, leading to money being too easily available, an excessive lending boom and a speculative bubble in real estate, then before we've recovered from that recession we catapult into stimulus for the next recession. It's never ending!
So, if these Austrians are so on the ball, why don't we do what they recommend: cut spending, raise taxes, and bring down the debt?
At the core of the Austrian school of economics is the concept of "creative destruction." This term is used to describe the need for economies to be torn down and brought up from the ground, having filtered the weak links out. In other words, the Great Depression was the correct reaction to our over speculation prior to that bust. The difference being that rather than using government money to stimulate the economy, we should be left to slowly crawl out on our own. This to me, is the truly logical solution. The weak perish, the strong survive, and we come out of the flames with a smaller, leaner, more efficient economy... oh and by the way there is NO limit to the number of allowed casualties. The economy comes back when it is deserving. Logical, but totally lacking in regard for society, and lord knows where that would leave us politically. We have enough turmoil without the depression.
The Libertarian school of thought is the same, but is in denial of the inevitable destruction caused by the deflationary spiral. For an excellent illustration of just how much deflation spirals on itself, take a look at Ireland, the first of the European countries to enact the austerity measures similar to those recently agreed upon by the rest of Europe at the G20 meeting in Toronto. Here's what's going on RIGHT NOW: Ireland enacted austerity measures 2 years ago (around the same time we started stimulus), and now their unemployment is up to 13.7%, they're still in a recession, their credit rating crashed, wages were cut, and what's worse is their debt as percentage of GDP has more than doubled from roughly 25% to 80%. As a basis for comparison, our debt has risen from roughly 65% to 90% since the beginning of stimulus in 2008, only the last 10% coming during Obama's term, but that number continues to grow. We're both at similar debt/GDP ratios and both are still rising, but we're no longer in a recession, have falling unemployment, and have a good credit rating... oh and we started at a much higher debt level. Ireland vs the US may be apples to oranges, but this is something to consider.
So if the Austrians are right, but have a far too painful remedy, and the Libertarians are just Austrians who are fooling themselves, what's the other option? The other main school of thought on the table is Keynesian economics. Keynesian theory is that in the presence of a crisis, the government should swiftly step in with stimulus targeted at restoring aggregate demand and supplementing liquidity to halt the recession. This stimulus needs to stay in place until confidence has been restored to the system, the recession has been transformed into stable growth, and business as usual is restored. As the recession turns to steady growth, the stimulus should be pulled back gradually to manage inflationary forces. The debt accrued during the stimulus period is slowly repaid during a period of steady inflation, during which time the value of the debt has been gradually decreasing, and more importantly the GDP has been growing.
The problem with this school of thought is judging the duration and severity of the stimulus required. It's like planning a hike across the desert and trying to decide how much water to bring. Too much and you get weighed down, too little and you die of dehydration, and the main problem is that you have no idea how large the desert is. That is the situation we're staring at right now (a good analogy which shows my skepticism of common sense simplicity). Also, Keynesian economists are lousy at judging how to pull back because they're afraid of freaking out the market which has grown dependent on their government safety net. Then when the next recession hits, we're still reeling in debt from the previous one! This is where the infinite inflation scenario comes from.
What Roubini says is that both schools are correct, and it's a darn shame that they fight rather than talk with each other. There is a time and a place for both. During recovery it is critical to stop the fall of the market and encourage growth the way the Keynesians know how to do. Then there should be a firm, but not premature transition to Austrian austerity as the economy flourishes. This cooperation of the two schools is the best possible solution... but improperly timed may be the worst. The WORST possible solution is an attempt at Keynesian recovery, only to be stifled by Austrian austerity at the first sign of the recovery. Then you get Keynesian debt and Austrian "creative destruction." ... Yes, OH SHIT indeed! The worst of both worlds. That is why the treasury and Fed remained firm just prior to the great depression, that is what happened in Japan during the lost decade (except they still held onto some of the stimulus, resulting in stagflation rather than all out depression... almost as bad), and that is what it looks like we're about to do.
Which brings me to the title of this post. In November there is very likely going to be a shift of power, largely due to paranoia and the "common sense" rebellion against the "socialist" Obama administration. The primary purpose of this post is not to convince the conservatives that Obama is doing the right thing. 1) That's a futile effort, and 2) I don't know if he is or isn't, because Keynesian theory isn't money magic, it largely depends on how you spend the money and how you exit the recovery strategy. My point here is to present the two realistic schools of thought, their respective advantages and drawbacks, and to at least introduce the possibility that a) Obama is at least aware of both sides of the argument and went with the more commonly believed school, b) we could possibly be doing the right thing already, and c) that the premature switch from one school to the other could potentially be catastrophic. You may not BELIEVE all of that, but it should at least be plausible.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
You've Got to be Kidding Me: Part 2
Part 2 of the "You've Got to be Kidding Me" series is brought to you by the phrase, "It's common sense!"
Don't bite the hand that feeds you, common sense, don't count your chickens before they've hatched, common sense, bring both a jacket and sunscreen when visiting San Francisco, common sense. For a whole heaping pile of great common sense, I recommend the book of Proverbs, but in matters of politics and economics, common sense is frequently misleading. For some examples, let's play a game. I'll list some applications of common sense, and you tell me which ended disastrously.
1) If you're the president you should be able to get a blow job without causing a scandal.
2) To boost production at home and get us out of the Great Depression the US encouraged "buying American" by increasing taxes on imports and subsidizing American production.
3) In order to protect our oil interests we defended Saudi Arabia, once the threat was over we came home.
4) Sadam Hussein is killing innocent people, may be harboring terrorists and Bush says they have nuclear weapons, so we should go to war with Iraq.
5) The free market caused this financial crisis, the state-capitalists were unharmed except by their dependence on free market countries, so logically state-capitalism is the wave of the future.
6) Reagan believed in small government, cut taxes, brought down unemployment and got us out of a recession, so we should do what he did.
7) Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house and is keeping an eye on them, so we should all sleep well at night.
We can discuss answers to the quiz in the comments section, but the short answer is they're all bullshit. Matters of economics and politics are RARELY simple enough to just apply common sense. Furthermore, common sense should only be accepted from experts. For example, my area of expertise is integrated circuit design, so ideas like cascoding for better supply rejection may sound like jibberish to most, but is common sense to me. Why on earth would we rely on common sense solutions from people who have NO background in topics that are equally complicated!?! That's retarded.
Sarah Palin has no background in international politics, has no background in economics, has no experience in politics at the national level, and has limited local and state level experience. Granted, her experiences in the past 3 years have given her a crash course in all of those topics from her Republican mentors, but that provides at best a shallow one sided perspective on all of those topics. WHY does anybody think her common sense has any application to squat beyond being a mom, being a businesswoman, and having big hair? It's not just her I have a beef with, I'm talking about her whole following of "common sense conservatives," who share the same vain perception that their unqualified opinions somehow carry some weight in matters that affect the nation. Meanwhile, they are free to hide behind the fact that they'll never be in a position of real influence and can happily speculate and say, "see, I told you so!" all they want. The truly sad thing is they are so uninformed that they don't even know if they SHOULD be saying "I told you so!"
Sounds like a lot of harmless speculation, and should be treated as such, but the result in this case is civil unrest. Everybody thinks they know better than the president, and the conservatives cater to their skepticism. It's important for voices to be heard, and if something really is afoot, blow some whistles and find some hard evidence, but the conservatives have crossed the line by portraying Obama as a socialist terrorist threatening our way of life, and with accusations of conspiracy behind EVERY action. Paranoia has been spread to the point where there are local militias sprouting up, politicians threatening "second amendment remedies" (aka armed rebellion), and even a facebook group praying for Obama's death which has over a million members!
I already thought our first black president would likely be assassinated, but with the conservatives portraying him as a terrorist, the man IS going to die, particularly if he wins a second term. Conservative reporting has gotten downright irresponsible and dangerous. Domestic civil unrest is already on the rise and the atmosphere is such that the Department of Homeland Security has issued this warning to all local law enforcement agents to beware of Rightwing Extremists. The new rightwing recruitment strategy is basically to say, "yes, whatever you're skeptical about, you're right! You're too smart to be fooled by this terrorist president, fight with us like minded patriots to defend our way of life!" This partially explains why within the rightwing there are so many denunciations lately. "Oh, most of us do believe in intelligent government regulation, do not support armed rebellion, are not racists, aren't extremists, blah blah blah." There are so many denunciations because there is no definite rightwing agenda, it's basically just whatever the individuals comprising the group pulled off the top of their common sense heads. Yet their conviction is so strong that it's just a matter of time before someone thusly convicted goes all second amendment on the president.
Common sense conservatism is baseless, ridiculous, and dangerous. REAL common sense ought to tell them don't take common sense solutions from amateurs, too vain to realize their baseless opinions are meaningless... EVEN IF THAT AMATEUR IS YOU!
In other news, I highly recommend reading the Rolling Stone article on General McChrystal. The full text is far more valuable than any reports or analysis I have read on the topic. Great article.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you, common sense, don't count your chickens before they've hatched, common sense, bring both a jacket and sunscreen when visiting San Francisco, common sense. For a whole heaping pile of great common sense, I recommend the book of Proverbs, but in matters of politics and economics, common sense is frequently misleading. For some examples, let's play a game. I'll list some applications of common sense, and you tell me which ended disastrously.
1) If you're the president you should be able to get a blow job without causing a scandal.
2) To boost production at home and get us out of the Great Depression the US encouraged "buying American" by increasing taxes on imports and subsidizing American production.
3) In order to protect our oil interests we defended Saudi Arabia, once the threat was over we came home.
4) Sadam Hussein is killing innocent people, may be harboring terrorists and Bush says they have nuclear weapons, so we should go to war with Iraq.
5) The free market caused this financial crisis, the state-capitalists were unharmed except by their dependence on free market countries, so logically state-capitalism is the wave of the future.
6) Reagan believed in small government, cut taxes, brought down unemployment and got us out of a recession, so we should do what he did.
7) Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house and is keeping an eye on them, so we should all sleep well at night.
We can discuss answers to the quiz in the comments section, but the short answer is they're all bullshit. Matters of economics and politics are RARELY simple enough to just apply common sense. Furthermore, common sense should only be accepted from experts. For example, my area of expertise is integrated circuit design, so ideas like cascoding for better supply rejection may sound like jibberish to most, but is common sense to me. Why on earth would we rely on common sense solutions from people who have NO background in topics that are equally complicated!?! That's retarded.
Sarah Palin has no background in international politics, has no background in economics, has no experience in politics at the national level, and has limited local and state level experience. Granted, her experiences in the past 3 years have given her a crash course in all of those topics from her Republican mentors, but that provides at best a shallow one sided perspective on all of those topics. WHY does anybody think her common sense has any application to squat beyond being a mom, being a businesswoman, and having big hair? It's not just her I have a beef with, I'm talking about her whole following of "common sense conservatives," who share the same vain perception that their unqualified opinions somehow carry some weight in matters that affect the nation. Meanwhile, they are free to hide behind the fact that they'll never be in a position of real influence and can happily speculate and say, "see, I told you so!" all they want. The truly sad thing is they are so uninformed that they don't even know if they SHOULD be saying "I told you so!"
Sounds like a lot of harmless speculation, and should be treated as such, but the result in this case is civil unrest. Everybody thinks they know better than the president, and the conservatives cater to their skepticism. It's important for voices to be heard, and if something really is afoot, blow some whistles and find some hard evidence, but the conservatives have crossed the line by portraying Obama as a socialist terrorist threatening our way of life, and with accusations of conspiracy behind EVERY action. Paranoia has been spread to the point where there are local militias sprouting up, politicians threatening "second amendment remedies" (aka armed rebellion), and even a facebook group praying for Obama's death which has over a million members!
I already thought our first black president would likely be assassinated, but with the conservatives portraying him as a terrorist, the man IS going to die, particularly if he wins a second term. Conservative reporting has gotten downright irresponsible and dangerous. Domestic civil unrest is already on the rise and the atmosphere is such that the Department of Homeland Security has issued this warning to all local law enforcement agents to beware of Rightwing Extremists. The new rightwing recruitment strategy is basically to say, "yes, whatever you're skeptical about, you're right! You're too smart to be fooled by this terrorist president, fight with us like minded patriots to defend our way of life!" This partially explains why within the rightwing there are so many denunciations lately. "Oh, most of us do believe in intelligent government regulation, do not support armed rebellion, are not racists, aren't extremists, blah blah blah." There are so many denunciations because there is no definite rightwing agenda, it's basically just whatever the individuals comprising the group pulled off the top of their common sense heads. Yet their conviction is so strong that it's just a matter of time before someone thusly convicted goes all second amendment on the president.
Common sense conservatism is baseless, ridiculous, and dangerous. REAL common sense ought to tell them don't take common sense solutions from amateurs, too vain to realize their baseless opinions are meaningless... EVEN IF THAT AMATEUR IS YOU!
In other news, I highly recommend reading the Rolling Stone article on General McChrystal. The full text is far more valuable than any reports or analysis I have read on the topic. Great article.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
full docs
For your speculative enjoyment, check out the actual documents regarding the 6 month deepwater drilling moratorium: Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar's report on the safety of deepwater drilling, and Judge Martin Feldman's ruling. I'm still making my way through the docs myself, but it seems to me the argument is less about the new safety regulations and whether there needs to be an immediate hiatus to retrofit the rigs with new safety measures, and is more about the arbitrarily placed 6 month time frame. That I can buy, but will weigh in some more after reading.
UPDATE: Ok, so the verdict has a handful of very legitimate complaints with the DOI report.
1) The data reviewed by the panel of experts was different from what was presented in the report because the threshold of "deepwater" was changed from 1000ft to 500ft, which is somewhat justified because that's the threshold at which floating rigs must be used. However, just the use of floating rigs shouldn't be in question, but rather the effects of drilling in deep water that causes equipment failures and restricts access.
2) The report does not defend the need for a 6 month moratorium in particular, and as such was deemed to be arbitrary. Furthermore, the panel of experts never saw this recommendation and more than half do not agree with it. It would make more sense to halt drilling on rigs until new safety standards are met on a case by case basis. That argument would be highly defensible, would not be arbitrary, and would be supported by the panel of experts who do believe in the tightened regulations.
3) Legal precedent says that the moratorium is only appropriate if the threat of injury is certain rather than hypothetical, which it is not. However, if I read the verdict correctly, it is also defensible if the threat is irreparable and far outweighs the harm done to the affected party. It sounds to me the defense just made the wrong argument.
The less legit arguments in the verdict:
1) The possible damages in the absence of the moratorium are not properly described... has the judge not been watching the news? The risk is a repeat of what is happening now.
2) The report is case specific to the Deepwater Horizon disaster and there is no link to the rigs being affected by the moratorium... really? They use the same technology, the operators all have identical emergency protocols, and I don't see how the judge can argue they are unrelated and at the same time agree with the panel of experts that new industry wide safety standards must be implemented. That makes no sense. Need new safety standards for all... but totally unrelated...
3) Drawing the parallel to a car crash or an airplane crash is inappropriate. This is more akin to a recall like with the Prius brake pedal incident. Safety faults have been established, fixes have been mandated, operation should not resume until these requirements are met. The main point being that this is not just operator error or a unique defect, this is an industry wide safety failing with a developing technology.
4) Studies showing statistically significant numbers of mechanical failures exclusive to deep water operations are irrelevant... Are you KIDDING ME!?! With the particular example he gave, there was a 7.5% chance of failure in deep water. That means if there are 100 deepwater rigs, there's a chance 7 of them will have pipe cutting errors, and it only takes 1 error to be potentially catastrophic. How is that not significant? Furthermore, is this REALLY the sort of thing you want to roll the dice on and assume was an isolated incident?
I agree that the moratorium as it was defended should not be upheld, particularly the arbitrary 6 month aspect, but I am calling shenanigans on all four of those last points. In order for an appeal to be accepted the 6mo standard should be changed to a case by case adherence to the new safety regulations, the risk of injury should be very strongly presented, and it needs to be made clear that this is akin to a recall and just as safety regulations should be applied to all rigs using this technology the moratorium should apply to all rigs using this technology.
As a side note, I have been trying to find data on how many commercial drilling platforms and exploratory platforms use the same technology and share the same risks, to see how statistically significant this leak is. I have found it is VERY hard to find data as this blogger suggests, and there really aren't answers available on the internet. The map seems to indicate there are only 5 rigs at the 5000ft+ depths, but hundreds at 500ft+. It would seem to me the definition for deep water should not depend on the use of floating rigs, but rather the impact of the increased pressure and inaccessibility at the greater depths. While increased safety standards may need to be implemented on all floating rigs, the moratorium may only be applicable to a small number of rigs that really are at risk, and I hope this change is considered for the appeal.
Monday, June 21, 2010
You've Got to be Kidding Me: Part 1
Wow, so many things in my Dad's last round of comments, a few of which drive me nuts and I want to talk about. I'll spread them out over a few posts so we can stay focused.
What is with the conservatives latching onto, and demonizing the most OBSCURE liberals!?!
#1 Saul Alinsky, a man who revolutionized the methods of community organization is now under attack by the conservatives because Obama is a student of his teachings. Why would you NOT want your president to be a strong community organizer? Oh yea, because he's organizing communities against what you like. But seriously, who had heard of this guy before the 2008 election? It seems the only people who are really studying his tactics right now are the TEA Party! The fact of the matter is that he is the creator of a tactic which can be used for either side, so why exactly is he the new conservative anti-christ?
Aside from his modern applications, what exactly do the conservatives hate about him so much? Is unifying poor communities to help them better their situation such a detestable cause? Other causes being attributed to him are the civil rights and the anti-Vietnam war movements. While some of those organizers may have used improper versions of his tactics, he was intentionally not involved with these young groups because he thought their tactics like flag burning and aimlessly rebelling against middle-class America were counter-effective and idiotic. And all things said and done, if his tactics had been followed, those movements would have been non-violent, effective movements for honorable causes and probably would be remembered in a more favorable light. Where exactly is the beef with Saul Alinsky, other than the fact that a guy on the other side is intelligent enough to be using his tactics successfully?
#2 George Soros, survivor of the Holocaust, investment genius, self-made billionaire, and major philanthropist, is another totally random and undeserving whipping boy of the conservatives. His life and career are nothing short of inspirational. Over the course of the last 30yrs he's donated over $6 billion to organizations promoting democracy in eastern Europe, desegregating South Africa, ending poverty in Africa, setting up internet infrastructures for Russian students, scientific research grants, etc. The list of worthy causes he has supported seriously goes around the block. So where's the beef? From 2002 to 2004 George Soros became the LOUDEST (that link is not just for reference, I highly recommend reading exactly why he was against Bush, because his points and predictions were unequivocally correct) voice in the battle to get Bush out of office. While not donating any money directly to the campaign, he did donate $18 million to groups supporting the Democrats.
Going back to his investment portfolio, while being well diversified, he is heavily invested in oil, and that has been the source of much recent criticism. But name a major industry and there's bound to be some rich dude heavily invested in it. The fact that he's well invested in Petrobras, the industry's fastest rising star, run by Brazil, one of the fastest growing nations in the world, should be NO SURPRISE. It's what you call smart investing, not a conspiracy. The theory is that he is Obama's puppet master because he wants the oil spill to cause a moratorium on off shore drilling so that the rigs will be sold and leased to Petrobras. Further evidence they site for this is that the government has already given Petrobras a $2 billion of tax payer money to purchase drilling equipment. The truth of the matter is... well, just hit the link, it's bogus on so many levels and already well debunked in that link. Not only was it the equivalent of a dealership lending you money to buy their product, it's COMPLETELY unrelated to either Obama or Soros.
I believe the disconnect between libs and cons in this is the differentiation between a puppet master and an unintended beneficiary. George Bush's puppet master was Karl Rove, the man who engineered his career, stood as his primary senior adviser, and had the power to say yes or no on critical issues. Bush's unintended beneficiaries were Osama Bin Laden and China. Through Bush's actions and policies concerning Iraq, more people rallied behind Al Qaeda's causes and our economy was left badly injured and vulnerable to the political pressures of the East. I don't think anybody would argue Bush was in bed with Osama and China, but they're the unintended beneficiaries. Big difference.
I find both of these cases to be absolutely absurd, but if you have more information than I do, please FACT CHECK IT FIRST, then let me know.
Major gripe #2 to come soon.
What is with the conservatives latching onto, and demonizing the most OBSCURE liberals!?!
#1 Saul Alinsky, a man who revolutionized the methods of community organization is now under attack by the conservatives because Obama is a student of his teachings. Why would you NOT want your president to be a strong community organizer? Oh yea, because he's organizing communities against what you like. But seriously, who had heard of this guy before the 2008 election? It seems the only people who are really studying his tactics right now are the TEA Party! The fact of the matter is that he is the creator of a tactic which can be used for either side, so why exactly is he the new conservative anti-christ?
Aside from his modern applications, what exactly do the conservatives hate about him so much? Is unifying poor communities to help them better their situation such a detestable cause? Other causes being attributed to him are the civil rights and the anti-Vietnam war movements. While some of those organizers may have used improper versions of his tactics, he was intentionally not involved with these young groups because he thought their tactics like flag burning and aimlessly rebelling against middle-class America were counter-effective and idiotic. And all things said and done, if his tactics had been followed, those movements would have been non-violent, effective movements for honorable causes and probably would be remembered in a more favorable light. Where exactly is the beef with Saul Alinsky, other than the fact that a guy on the other side is intelligent enough to be using his tactics successfully?
#2 George Soros, survivor of the Holocaust, investment genius, self-made billionaire, and major philanthropist, is another totally random and undeserving whipping boy of the conservatives. His life and career are nothing short of inspirational. Over the course of the last 30yrs he's donated over $6 billion to organizations promoting democracy in eastern Europe, desegregating South Africa, ending poverty in Africa, setting up internet infrastructures for Russian students, scientific research grants, etc. The list of worthy causes he has supported seriously goes around the block. So where's the beef? From 2002 to 2004 George Soros became the LOUDEST (that link is not just for reference, I highly recommend reading exactly why he was against Bush, because his points and predictions were unequivocally correct) voice in the battle to get Bush out of office. While not donating any money directly to the campaign, he did donate $18 million to groups supporting the Democrats.
Going back to his investment portfolio, while being well diversified, he is heavily invested in oil, and that has been the source of much recent criticism. But name a major industry and there's bound to be some rich dude heavily invested in it. The fact that he's well invested in Petrobras, the industry's fastest rising star, run by Brazil, one of the fastest growing nations in the world, should be NO SURPRISE. It's what you call smart investing, not a conspiracy. The theory is that he is Obama's puppet master because he wants the oil spill to cause a moratorium on off shore drilling so that the rigs will be sold and leased to Petrobras. Further evidence they site for this is that the government has already given Petrobras a $2 billion of tax payer money to purchase drilling equipment. The truth of the matter is... well, just hit the link, it's bogus on so many levels and already well debunked in that link. Not only was it the equivalent of a dealership lending you money to buy their product, it's COMPLETELY unrelated to either Obama or Soros.
I believe the disconnect between libs and cons in this is the differentiation between a puppet master and an unintended beneficiary. George Bush's puppet master was Karl Rove, the man who engineered his career, stood as his primary senior adviser, and had the power to say yes or no on critical issues. Bush's unintended beneficiaries were Osama Bin Laden and China. Through Bush's actions and policies concerning Iraq, more people rallied behind Al Qaeda's causes and our economy was left badly injured and vulnerable to the political pressures of the East. I don't think anybody would argue Bush was in bed with Osama and China, but they're the unintended beneficiaries. Big difference.
I find both of these cases to be absolutely absurd, but if you have more information than I do, please FACT CHECK IT FIRST, then let me know.
Major gripe #2 to come soon.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Laziness
(Having just heard a story about Mike's sister being too lazy to calculate the gas needed for a trip): "Haha, that's funny, I was just going to write a post on laziness, but have put it off because I want it to include research rather than my own opinions." "...so you're procrastinating writing a post on laziness?" "...yes, but for research! ...like those Japanese whaling vessels, I know... haha alright, point taken, I will post whatever I've got immediately after this call." So here it is, with updates coming soon:
---------------------------------------------------
Continuing on a series of more behavioral than political topics, I'd like to talk about laziness, particularly in the US. I feel like an old curmudgeon when I condemn the young people for being lazy, but when it comes to being mentally lazy, there's no generational threshold.Here's a funny video that got me thinking, "Are American's actually stupider than people in other countries, or are we in a habit of mental laziness?" I don't think stupidity happens over night, you have to condition your brain to be lazy for years. How on earth did we accomplish this? A series of cultural trends:
1) Lack of Biological Incentive: Kind of obvious, but the middle-class American lifestyle just doesn't have the same survival requirements that the hunter gatherers or farmers had. Our incredibly efficient society allows us to put our energy into our families, careers, art, hobbies, health, any number of things, but more often than not we're lazy slobs and just do nothing with it.
2) Negligent Parenting: Smart kids with negligent parents have got to be as rare as honest politicians. I don't mean negligent in the sense of not providing food, love and shelter, I mean neglecting to put in the time or effort to provide structure and build character. The kids are intelligent and may become good at what they do, but without parental guidance (or some very strong alternative adult influence) children rarely find their own way to activities that promote critical thinking, awareness and learning. All you good parents with lazy kids, don't worry, it's probably one of these other causes, but do examine what kind of an influence you are having on them.
3) Entertainment: How come educational shows stop being promoted past toddler years? After you've outgrown Sesame Street and Dora, there are really only a handful of shows that are both entertaining and educational for teens and adults. You have to be a tad eccentric to be one of the few people watching the news, Discovery Channel, History Channel, or National Geographics as a teenager, and even those channels are mostly garbage now. National Geographics has become the Armageddon theories channel, history channel is the aliens and Nazis channel, discovery channel lies to me all the time, and the news is, well... the "news." It's a sorry state of being for an activity we pour so many hours into.
On top of that, tying back to my second point, how common is it for parents to need some sort of trade system, where if a child spends x amount of time reading or exercising outdoors they're allowed to play video games for x hours? And that's just the responsible parents. It is HARD to get kids to be productive, and few parents go through the effort.
While I'm griping like Andy Rooney, and the Alvin Greene story is still in the news, I'd like to say, damn you MTV! *shakes fist like an old curmudgeon*. I have hated your "rock the vote" campaign for as long as I've been aware of its existence. "Go out and vote kids, it's cool. Doesn't matter if you know NOTHING, it's important that you exercise your right as an American." WHY do we want your opinion counted if you don't know ANYTHING about what you're voting for!?! "Do you know anything about politics?" "No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night." It really should be disturbing how many more people have a highly informed opinion on Crystal Bowersox vs Lee DeWyze, but have no idea about either Barbara Boxer or Carly Fiorina, yet there will likely be a pretty good voter turn out this election season. I am terrified that Alvin Greene may have legitimately won the Dem primaries in SC, I don't care WHAT the reason. Anyway, I'm straying from the point, I digress.
4) Acceptance without Evidence: Once we're on the right path to actually learning something, how many of us blindly accept whatever we're told, rather than looking for evidence? I've already written a post on this problem, so I won't belabor the point. One related issue that drives me nuts is students who blame poor grades on bad teachers. Most classes come with a book, READ IT! Most things can also be found online, LOOK IT UP! Unless the professor is teaching ground breaking material, the information is out there, FIND IT! Yes, a good teacher can be a great help and inspiration, but seriously, stop with the excuses. Those who want to succeed will succeed.
That's all for now, hopefully more scientific stuff soon to follow, but my first point really sums up my disappointment; we live in a time and society with nearly limitless access to knowledge and opportunity, but so many of us squander it. It wouldn't be that bad if we could keep our laziness to ourselves, but its effects manifest themselves everywhere. Our laziness makes us look like/become ignorant idiots, and our culture celebrates it. Very depressing :\
Honestly, the posts are coming more slowly because the more I write the more research I do, and the more research I do the more depressed I get. This is a truly sad state we're in globally.
~Yasu
Monday, June 14, 2010
Portraits of Insanity
Upon gazing into the eyes of a dying sperm whale that had been harpooned just yards away, Captain Paul Watson, now founder/leader of Sea Shepherds, had this to say, "I saw something else in that eye – it was pity and not for himself but for us – that we could kill so thoughtlessly and so mercilessly and I realized that the reason the Soviets were killing Sperm whales was for spermaceti oil used for lubricating machinery and one of the uses was in the construction on inter-continental ballistic missiles for the purpose of exterminating mass numbers of human beings and that is when it struck me that we, the human species are insane. " ...This coming from a man who is also known for being the complete lunatic who rammed a Japanese "research" vessel in the middle of the Arctic Ocean! His words struck me though. He's right. We are completely insane. His side is insane, the other side is insane, we're all effing INSANE! And how many cases can you look at both sides and say, "you're both insane, why are you doing this?"
The Gaza flotilla incident: Palestinians/Hamas vs Israelis, I'd tend to favor Israel in this case because they were attacked in what should've been a routine search, but I favor the Palestinians in COUNTLESS other skirmishes. It's NEVER ENDING!
Conservatives vs. Liberals: One side is racking up a GINORMOUS debt and deficit, and passing outrageously liberal bills in health care and environmental protection. On the other side we've got downright McCarthyism-style propaganda against EVERYTHING the liberals are doing, with no consideration for facts, history, or constructive criticism. If one side can believe Obama, and the other can believe Glenn Back, we're clearly in a polarized madhouse.
American Culture in General: Divorce rate, adolescent suicides, obesity, debt/over spending/over consumption, destruction of the environment, poor work ethic, poor education, increased welfare, gangs, Hollywood, television, propaganda, partisanship, war mongering, weapons trafficking, drugs, racism, religion, hypocrisy, etc. WTF are we DOING!?!??!
The oil disaster: Why is BP, with their safety record, even allowed to operate in the US? Why do we drill so far offshore just because the rigs are ugly? Why is everyone upset Obama doesn't look pissed off enough and is wearing too nice of close on his visits to Louisiana? How come other deep sea drilling companies weren't brought in to replace BP, who has clearly proven their ineptitude? Who told everybody this was the end of fishing and crabbing in the gulf? Fishing might be amazing with the death of surface predators and the temporary lack of fisherman. Could be the best year of fishing ever once this is cleaned up.
Less depressing things like graffiti: Graffiti is art by the masses, it's fresh, it's brave, but it's illegal because they didn't pay to put it up. Art collections are only what a handful of rich people consider to be art. Billboards are not art yet we're all forced to see them like gigantic visual SPAM, and some graffiti is treasured art if it's in the right location... or done by cavemen or Banksy... o.O?
etc. !!!
I think if I ever make a photography book it'll be on exactly this, "Profiles in Insanity, evidence of our culture. Photos and commentary by James Yasuhara" I think it'll be a slightly less depressing version of that scene in "The Fifth Element" where Lula reads the video encyclopedia chapter on "War." Can't wait. In the mean time, where is the hope for humanity? Where is the good in what we do? Why do we push on through what has to be considered insanity? And where do you fit in? What's your contribution to our collective insanity?
~Yasu
The Gaza flotilla incident: Palestinians/Hamas vs Israelis, I'd tend to favor Israel in this case because they were attacked in what should've been a routine search, but I favor the Palestinians in COUNTLESS other skirmishes. It's NEVER ENDING!
Conservatives vs. Liberals: One side is racking up a GINORMOUS debt and deficit, and passing outrageously liberal bills in health care and environmental protection. On the other side we've got downright McCarthyism-style propaganda against EVERYTHING the liberals are doing, with no consideration for facts, history, or constructive criticism. If one side can believe Obama, and the other can believe Glenn Back, we're clearly in a polarized madhouse.
American Culture in General: Divorce rate, adolescent suicides, obesity, debt/over spending/over consumption, destruction of the environment, poor work ethic, poor education, increased welfare, gangs, Hollywood, television, propaganda, partisanship, war mongering, weapons trafficking, drugs, racism, religion, hypocrisy, etc. WTF are we DOING!?!??!
The oil disaster: Why is BP, with their safety record, even allowed to operate in the US? Why do we drill so far offshore just because the rigs are ugly? Why is everyone upset Obama doesn't look pissed off enough and is wearing too nice of close on his visits to Louisiana? How come other deep sea drilling companies weren't brought in to replace BP, who has clearly proven their ineptitude? Who told everybody this was the end of fishing and crabbing in the gulf? Fishing might be amazing with the death of surface predators and the temporary lack of fisherman. Could be the best year of fishing ever once this is cleaned up.
Less depressing things like graffiti: Graffiti is art by the masses, it's fresh, it's brave, but it's illegal because they didn't pay to put it up. Art collections are only what a handful of rich people consider to be art. Billboards are not art yet we're all forced to see them like gigantic visual SPAM, and some graffiti is treasured art if it's in the right location... or done by cavemen or Banksy... o.O?
etc. !!!
I think if I ever make a photography book it'll be on exactly this, "Profiles in Insanity, evidence of our culture. Photos and commentary by James Yasuhara" I think it'll be a slightly less depressing version of that scene in "The Fifth Element" where Lula reads the video encyclopedia chapter on "War." Can't wait. In the mean time, where is the hope for humanity? Where is the good in what we do? Why do we push on through what has to be considered insanity? And where do you fit in? What's your contribution to our collective insanity?
~Yasu
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Economic Pandas and Earned Success
"Earned Success" is a term Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), author of the new book "The Battle" and recent guest of The Daily Show, uses to promote the benefits of the free market, and I must say, I love the concept. His theory is that people are not made happy by their income level (money doesn't buy happiness), but rather by their level of earned success. This idea is ancient wisdom and is intuitive to the point of being obvious, but is still meaningful and thanks to Mr. Brooks is well backed by data. A quick example is that a person who's just won a million dollars in the lottery will be less happy and feel less successful than somebody who has built a company from the ground up and earned their first million dollars. Simple, yay, go free market!
The ultimate point of the theory is that by giving away money (welfare/entitlement), we are stripping citizens of their right and incentive to earn their own success, and thus their equal right to pursue happiness. Furthermore, the best system is one which gives the most incentive for earned success, which is almost by definition the free market. Very interesting idea.
A Lengthy Aside to Present Some Background Junk: The free market is survival of the fittest for economics. It's a ruthless trial by fire, and even in nature we no longer play by those rules. We provide a safety net and rules to ensure fairness, particularly in cases such as invasive species and over hunting, where we're the primary cause of a species's failure. When goats started eating all the grass in the Galapagos, destroying the food source and population of the tortoises, we killed every last goat on the islands to rescue the species. When the very aggressive snakehead fish were introduced to America we poisoned entire ponds in an effort to kill them. Right now we're doing everything we can to eradicate the tamarisk tree from the shores of the Colorado River as it absorbs as much as 30% of the river's water, water we need to survive. We also take measures to reverse the rules of natural selection in some naturally occurring cases (*cough* PANDAS!).
The whole of economics is a human invention, so it's harder to point to the unnatural culprits. For the sake of argument, I might say the invasive species of economics are corporations who outsource to countries where labor is cheap and working conditions are unregulated (or a few generations ago, the slave traders), or those who hire illegal immigrants. The commercial fisher equivalent would be companies commanding fleets of employees and are so large that they affect the rules by which we all play (monopolies, major corporations particularly before unions, special interest groups). And the poachers are any company that takes advantage of the unwitting (sub-prime lending, ponzi schemes, pyramid schemes). Then there are those who are the pandas of society who are just incapable of surviving, which leads us back to the topic at hand...
The Topic at Hand: Luckily, Mr. Brooks has saved me a lot of arguing and filled me with much faith by saying, "The free enterprise system needs rule of law, and it needs a smart government with good regulation. That's a fact, anyone who says that you either have to have pure socialism or pure free enterprise isn't living in the world." Excellent, he's not Rand Paul, and supports a view of the free market that I can find a lot of common ground with. On to "Economic Pandas." Who are they and what to do with them?
The liberal solution has been to throw money at the whole lot of them, because it is very hard to differentiate between pandas, the parasites and the SIY group. This is apparently not that effective, as it has been the solution for decades and poverty persists in large numbers. The conservative solution appears to be "earned success." Fantastic... how do we do that? How do you motivate a panda to stop being a panda? Sounds a lot like the "give a man a fish, feed him once, teach a man to fish, feed him for life" theory. How do you force underachievers to achieve? Set up non-profit career training and development centers? Already being done, minimally effective, but perhaps their ineffectiveness is due to the fact that the pandas already receive funds, cutting their motivation to participate. Then put a time limit on the funds. Already being done, but only in certain applications, could be spread across the board. Hmm, maybe starting to get somewhere.
I obviously do not have the answer to this problem, but does there exist any real proposed alternative to welfare beyond "cut them off"? I hear a lot about giving them the incentive, but what about the means? And to what extent should this be available? If it's too easy to take advantage of, people may opt for these programs over some state schools. Crime may also be a more attractive option, so I would suggest making prisons even less appealing. In my head, there could be court ordered enrollment, a forced repayment schedule after completion of the program, and reduced spending on living standards in prisons (ie: if they consume 2000cal/day make it 1500cal/day, and cut progressively by security level. Requires research obviously).
I have been unable to find any real proposals relating to promoting earned success. Send me a link if you know of one. Has anybody read "The Battle," and is there a proposal in there? Anyway, the idea sounds compelling, let me know what's out there. Thanks
~Yasu
The ultimate point of the theory is that by giving away money (welfare/entitlement), we are stripping citizens of their right and incentive to earn their own success, and thus their equal right to pursue happiness. Furthermore, the best system is one which gives the most incentive for earned success, which is almost by definition the free market. Very interesting idea.
A Lengthy Aside to Present Some Background Junk: The free market is survival of the fittest for economics. It's a ruthless trial by fire, and even in nature we no longer play by those rules. We provide a safety net and rules to ensure fairness, particularly in cases such as invasive species and over hunting, where we're the primary cause of a species's failure. When goats started eating all the grass in the Galapagos, destroying the food source and population of the tortoises, we killed every last goat on the islands to rescue the species. When the very aggressive snakehead fish were introduced to America we poisoned entire ponds in an effort to kill them. Right now we're doing everything we can to eradicate the tamarisk tree from the shores of the Colorado River as it absorbs as much as 30% of the river's water, water we need to survive. We also take measures to reverse the rules of natural selection in some naturally occurring cases (*cough* PANDAS!).
The whole of economics is a human invention, so it's harder to point to the unnatural culprits. For the sake of argument, I might say the invasive species of economics are corporations who outsource to countries where labor is cheap and working conditions are unregulated (or a few generations ago, the slave traders), or those who hire illegal immigrants. The commercial fisher equivalent would be companies commanding fleets of employees and are so large that they affect the rules by which we all play (monopolies, major corporations particularly before unions, special interest groups). And the poachers are any company that takes advantage of the unwitting (sub-prime lending, ponzi schemes, pyramid schemes). Then there are those who are the pandas of society who are just incapable of surviving, which leads us back to the topic at hand...
The Topic at Hand: Luckily, Mr. Brooks has saved me a lot of arguing and filled me with much faith by saying, "The free enterprise system needs rule of law, and it needs a smart government with good regulation. That's a fact, anyone who says that you either have to have pure socialism or pure free enterprise isn't living in the world." Excellent, he's not Rand Paul, and supports a view of the free market that I can find a lot of common ground with. On to "Economic Pandas." Who are they and what to do with them?
Welfare and government assistance programs are appropriate for people who are either disabled, or have the drive to succeed and may or may not have the skills to succeed (the economic equivalent of the sick, injured, and young. "SIYs" for short). Aid can help those who are legitimately unable to provide for themselves, or may give others in this group the push they need to succeed. They are not the pandas. Then there are the people who could succeed but prefer to mooch off the system (ie: I know a guy who was in Iraq who is now perfectly healthy but continues to claim post traumatic stress so he can smoke weed and play video games all day). These are the parasites, the fix is simple but not easy: identify them and STOP giving them money! Problem solved. Then there are those perpetually in need of assistance because they have neither the skills nor the drive to succeed, and/or have god awful money management that is perpetuated by this economic safety net. These are the economic pandas, and are the hardest to help.
The liberal solution has been to throw money at the whole lot of them, because it is very hard to differentiate between pandas, the parasites and the SIY group. This is apparently not that effective, as it has been the solution for decades and poverty persists in large numbers. The conservative solution appears to be "earned success." Fantastic... how do we do that? How do you motivate a panda to stop being a panda? Sounds a lot like the "give a man a fish, feed him once, teach a man to fish, feed him for life" theory. How do you force underachievers to achieve? Set up non-profit career training and development centers? Already being done, minimally effective, but perhaps their ineffectiveness is due to the fact that the pandas already receive funds, cutting their motivation to participate. Then put a time limit on the funds. Already being done, but only in certain applications, could be spread across the board. Hmm, maybe starting to get somewhere.
I obviously do not have the answer to this problem, but does there exist any real proposed alternative to welfare beyond "cut them off"? I hear a lot about giving them the incentive, but what about the means? And to what extent should this be available? If it's too easy to take advantage of, people may opt for these programs over some state schools. Crime may also be a more attractive option, so I would suggest making prisons even less appealing. In my head, there could be court ordered enrollment, a forced repayment schedule after completion of the program, and reduced spending on living standards in prisons (ie: if they consume 2000cal/day make it 1500cal/day, and cut progressively by security level. Requires research obviously).
I have been unable to find any real proposals relating to promoting earned success. Send me a link if you know of one. Has anybody read "The Battle," and is there a proposal in there? Anyway, the idea sounds compelling, let me know what's out there. Thanks
~Yasu
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
UPDATE: American TurmOIL
Here are a couple of interesting examples that go along the lines of what I was talking about in "American TurmOIL." As the world is getting stared in the face by a possible double-dip recession, state-capitalistic Brazil just posted a 9% economic gain in the past 3 months! Also, remember Dubai's Burj Khalifa tower? It used to be more appropriately named the Burj Dubai tower, but in light of Dubai's economic crash, they renamed it after a neighboring prince of Abu Dhabi and president of the UAE, Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan.
This may not sound like a big deal, but to give the battle some background, the Al Nahyan family and Dubai's ruling family, the Al Maktoum family, have fundamentally differing economic philosophies. Both families are aware that they will not be able to surf the wealth of oil forever, and have made efforts to diversify their economies. Dubai has done this by inviting free-market principles into their country and developing real estate. Abu Dhabi has diversified by setting up a sovereign wealth fund (SWF). SWFs are basically huge pools of government surplus that is set aside for the purpose of investment and may be drawn from for stimulus. Since SWFs are controlled by the state, they are a common tool of the state-capitalists. Again, we see state-capitalism vs free market, and who needed the giant bailout and had their tower renamed? The free market guys.
The reputation of the free market is taking a hit big time, all over the world, yet somehow here in the US, where we should be laying low a bit until things blow over, we have this ridiculous resurgence of free-market purists, even though it was our unregulated private sector that initiated this global bust! And getting back to oil, even the guys who HAVE it and are soon to be rich off of its high demand, are moving away from their economic dependence on it, because they know they're going to run out of the stuff in the relatively near future! Yet HERE we're protesting regulations designed to ween us from our oil habit, and our SOLUTION is to drill more oil... the oil we don't have. That they have and they're running from because it is a dwindling commodity... Unbefreakinlievable. My brain is seriously going to fall out of my face just thinking about the stupidity.
We're idiots. That's got to be it. My next post will expand on this a bit, but hopefully more from a human standpoint than an American standpoint.
This may not sound like a big deal, but to give the battle some background, the Al Nahyan family and Dubai's ruling family, the Al Maktoum family, have fundamentally differing economic philosophies. Both families are aware that they will not be able to surf the wealth of oil forever, and have made efforts to diversify their economies. Dubai has done this by inviting free-market principles into their country and developing real estate. Abu Dhabi has diversified by setting up a sovereign wealth fund (SWF). SWFs are basically huge pools of government surplus that is set aside for the purpose of investment and may be drawn from for stimulus. Since SWFs are controlled by the state, they are a common tool of the state-capitalists. Again, we see state-capitalism vs free market, and who needed the giant bailout and had their tower renamed? The free market guys.
The reputation of the free market is taking a hit big time, all over the world, yet somehow here in the US, where we should be laying low a bit until things blow over, we have this ridiculous resurgence of free-market purists, even though it was our unregulated private sector that initiated this global bust! And getting back to oil, even the guys who HAVE it and are soon to be rich off of its high demand, are moving away from their economic dependence on it, because they know they're going to run out of the stuff in the relatively near future! Yet HERE we're protesting regulations designed to ween us from our oil habit, and our SOLUTION is to drill more oil... the oil we don't have. That they have and they're running from because it is a dwindling commodity... Unbefreakinlievable. My brain is seriously going to fall out of my face just thinking about the stupidity.
We're idiots. That's got to be it. My next post will expand on this a bit, but hopefully more from a human standpoint than an American standpoint.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Unhealthy and Careless
Sorry for the long break. I was out on vacation, then out sick for a couple of days. Feeling like death made me think I should get a post out on health care before it's completely irrelevant. So many points, so little time:
1) Did we have time for health care reform? No, not that year. I think we wasted too much time on health care rather than really working out what we were doing with the economy. I think more consideration could've been spent on what kind of bank reforms if any should be put into place, and also what the possible ramifications of a fall in the Euro would be, and how to prevent one. We got seriously blindsided by the PIGS problem which should've been completely foreseeable. Much like the American TurmOIL post, I would argue that this is a mistake that is a matter of national security. Aside from the money lost by not focusing on the economy, if the cost estimates are not exactly correct, we could be facing increased debt, decreased economic productivity, or both. Our economy has to be the priority in this case and it wasn't.
2) Do we have the money? This is a two part answer because we are attempting to do two things: make the system more efficient, and increase coverage. Yes, we needed to do it from a financial standpoint to make the system more efficient and cut waste in the years to come. No, we cannot afford to, at the same time, risk expanding coverage to 100% of Americans. I don't think very many people actually believe we'll save money by doing this, and even so, it should've first been tested to be a more efficient system, THEN maybe have it forced upon everybody if necessary. The big variables that I think the government may not be correctly accounting for are how private insurance companies, drug companies, and hospitals will react to the changes. Their economic predictions thus far give me little optimism for their ability to forecast through the duration of the implementation of the bill. There are far too many variables and too slim a margin for profit.
3) Partisanship: holy cow, this was THE WORST case of partisan bickering I have ever seen. The dems with their overwhelming numbers managed to pass a bill that I think completely lacked any sort of democratic process, and I blame both sides equally. Had the Reps had more constructive criticism than "start over," I think they could've gotten a lot more in the bill, and America could've had a superior health care bill. The Dems obviously had the numbers and in the absence of constructive criticism pushed the bill through in what should be considered an illegal pace. The bill is SO long that I would not even consider skimming through it, and it was supposed to be read and voted on in 72hrs!?! Come on. Surely this will set a new precedent and define a new method for the exclusive use of stacked Senates. Fooliboosting? Haha, sounds like a naming contest in the making :P
4) What's in the bill? Honestly, who knows!?! I have a great page that'll do side by side comparisons of different proposals, but I seriously still have no idea what's actually in the bill. I also have this more user friendly but outdated timeline. But knowing how it was, how it is, and how it should be are all far beyond my knowledge of the health system. Feel free to comment if you know better.
5) What's NOT in the bill? Conservatives, feel free to chime in here, I forget what major beefs the Reps had with the bill, but from all the articles I could find only 6 real ideas posed by Reps made it into the 1000+ page bill. That's a pretty poor showing.
Conclusion: No time, no money, no consensus... but seriously, who didn't see this coming? Did anyone watch the elections!?! Obama ran on the platform that he was going to radically change health care to make it affordable, available, and mandatory for all. I wasn't a fan of it then, and I'm not now, but it's something everybody should've at least expected.
Well, think this post is long enough without the rant about over-population, and longer unhappier lives. Additional RELEVANT!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!1!! !!!!!1! ... !!!! insights are welcome.
1) Did we have time for health care reform? No, not that year. I think we wasted too much time on health care rather than really working out what we were doing with the economy. I think more consideration could've been spent on what kind of bank reforms if any should be put into place, and also what the possible ramifications of a fall in the Euro would be, and how to prevent one. We got seriously blindsided by the PIGS problem which should've been completely foreseeable. Much like the American TurmOIL post, I would argue that this is a mistake that is a matter of national security. Aside from the money lost by not focusing on the economy, if the cost estimates are not exactly correct, we could be facing increased debt, decreased economic productivity, or both. Our economy has to be the priority in this case and it wasn't.
2) Do we have the money? This is a two part answer because we are attempting to do two things: make the system more efficient, and increase coverage. Yes, we needed to do it from a financial standpoint to make the system more efficient and cut waste in the years to come. No, we cannot afford to, at the same time, risk expanding coverage to 100% of Americans. I don't think very many people actually believe we'll save money by doing this, and even so, it should've first been tested to be a more efficient system, THEN maybe have it forced upon everybody if necessary. The big variables that I think the government may not be correctly accounting for are how private insurance companies, drug companies, and hospitals will react to the changes. Their economic predictions thus far give me little optimism for their ability to forecast through the duration of the implementation of the bill. There are far too many variables and too slim a margin for profit.
3) Partisanship: holy cow, this was THE WORST case of partisan bickering I have ever seen. The dems with their overwhelming numbers managed to pass a bill that I think completely lacked any sort of democratic process, and I blame both sides equally. Had the Reps had more constructive criticism than "start over," I think they could've gotten a lot more in the bill, and America could've had a superior health care bill. The Dems obviously had the numbers and in the absence of constructive criticism pushed the bill through in what should be considered an illegal pace. The bill is SO long that I would not even consider skimming through it, and it was supposed to be read and voted on in 72hrs!?! Come on. Surely this will set a new precedent and define a new method for the exclusive use of stacked Senates. Fooliboosting? Haha, sounds like a naming contest in the making :P
4) What's in the bill? Honestly, who knows!?! I have a great page that'll do side by side comparisons of different proposals, but I seriously still have no idea what's actually in the bill. I also have this more user friendly but outdated timeline. But knowing how it was, how it is, and how it should be are all far beyond my knowledge of the health system. Feel free to comment if you know better.
5) What's NOT in the bill? Conservatives, feel free to chime in here, I forget what major beefs the Reps had with the bill, but from all the articles I could find only 6 real ideas posed by Reps made it into the 1000+ page bill. That's a pretty poor showing.
Conclusion: No time, no money, no consensus... but seriously, who didn't see this coming? Did anyone watch the elections!?! Obama ran on the platform that he was going to radically change health care to make it affordable, available, and mandatory for all. I wasn't a fan of it then, and I'm not now, but it's something everybody should've at least expected.
Well, think this post is long enough without the rant about over-population, and longer unhappier lives. Additional RELEVANT!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!1!! !!!!!1! ... !!!! insights are welcome.
btw, I know this post is lacking a lot of sources, I may add them in the future, but if you want some, just ask for them. Sorry, still a little exhausted from being sick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)