Tag Archives: economics

Greed and Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

Greed is not good. And, here is a New Year’s Resolution that we will keep: if you do not end your greed, we will end it for you.

That’s Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders (D, VT) claims.

Either he’s never read Adam Smith, never heard of the invisible hand, or he finds free markets and the individual freedom engendered by them anathema to his socialism.

When two men come together to make on exchange of goods—labor for money, for instance, or bread for money, or software coding for bread—each of those two men are acting strictly and solely for his own, personal benefit. Each of those two men is acting on his own greed. Yet, as a result of their voluntary exchange—the one’s money for the other’s item, or the exchange of goods—both men are made better off: both men have something of value to them that neither had before the exchange.

It’s this free market, it’s this basic freedom, that Bernie Sanders wants to destroy.

He uses his line as an excuse to break up entities (banks and insurance companies in his spiel) that he says are too big to fail. It’s certainly true that “too big to fail” is an unacceptable risk to us citizen-taxpayers. But the right answer is not to bail “too big to fail” enterprises out (the risk) or to force onto them a Big Government mandated business decision (the attack on freely agreed exchanges), but to let them fail, with no government—no citizen funded—bailout. Our existing bankruptcy laws are sufficient, and they work well within our free market economy.

We don’t need a Progressive, Know Better Government dictating answers to us, interfering with our own market choices.

Health Insurance and Regulation

Posted on by
Reply

Faith-based organizations that share the costs of health care among their members are a tiny part of the health care coverage industry. They’re also not regulated by government.

[Faith-based] ministry officials say they aren’t offering insurance, don’t guarantee claims will be paid, and don’t need to be regulated.

Naturally, regulators object.

But now, some insurance commissioners are concerned that the ministries could put consumers at risk if bills aren’t paid.

This is the consumer’s choice to risk, though, not government’s authority to command not to. At least in a free society.

And more tellingly:

State regulators also say health ministries disrupt the insurance market because they tend to attract healthier consumers, siphoning them from commercial plans that can be left with sicker or older customers.

What these government regulators carefully omit to mention, though, is that the only “market” liable to disruption is their precious regulated “market.” In a free market economy, such competition is healthy, if disruptive, leading as it does to improving products and lowering costs.

Unfortunately, the number of faith-based health cost sharing entities that are exempt from Obamacare is carefully and deliberately circumscribed by Obamacare. That needs to change.

This is…Foolish

Posted on by
Reply

More on the question of rebuilding Ramadi.

The US government and some of its allies said last week they had contributed $50 million toward a United Nations “stabilization fund” meant to rebuild the country—months after a similar $8.3 million pledge from the United States Agency for International Development.

Even if the UN (and the USAID) were honest thieves, this is just too much middle-man-ery, with too many intervening steps in which to siphon off the money. The funds—and future funds—are better given as loans directly to the Iraqi government, hard-coded for the Ramadi rebuild. Of course, that also assumes the Iraqi government under Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi can be trusted not to siphon, also.

Even better, there are a number of NGOs who would do better at handling directly the task of rebuilding Ramadi, and other Daesh-shattered cities (the current list includes Sinjar, Beiji, and Tikrit; there are some 15 smaller ones, too) when those times come. The shorter the chain, even with honest and well-meaning entities, the more the originally donated or loaned funds make it to the originally intended end users.

Rebuilding Ramadi

Posted on by
1

When Iraq’s prime minister holds a meeting on Monday to discuss the monumental task of rebuilding the recently liberated city of Ramadi, officials will encounter a grim pattern: each time Islamic State is uprooted, the battles and the group’s tactics leave behind a legacy of destruction that will linger for years.

They would do well to learn from Germany and Japan about how to rebuild, not only shattered cities, but shattered nations and economies. Both of those were prospering nations just a few short years after World War II.

Of course, being willing to learn and being equally willing to act on those lessons will require a serious corporate, if not national, shift in culture. And it will require an actual national foundation on which to rebuild.

This is Stupid

Posted on by
1

As the calendar draws closer to the Iowa and New Hampshire contests, the second tier of GOP candidates [those next behind Republican Party Presidential candidate Donald Trump]—along with the super PACs supporting them—are unloading on each other in a blitz of ads, videos, tweets, stump speeches and interviews. The acrimony is at a level until now unseen….

Trump is increasing his focus on Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Is he really the smartest guy in the room? I’d hate to think so.

The rest of the Republican Party Presidential candidates need to focus their arguments on Clinton and the other (serious) Democratic Party Presidential candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders (D, VT).

Aside from providing the Democrat Progressives with ammunition for the general campaign (a bogus beef, anyway, since their own opposition research would turn this stuff up), the internecine squabbling and backbiting is rather offensive to us voters. We’re fully capable of distinguishing among the candidates based on their policy proposals and their plans for correcting the damage done by eight years of a Progressive White House and six years of a Democrat-controlled Senate. Those policies and plans are what the Republican candidates should be talking about, and how those things are better than any of the nonsense Clinton and Sanders are offering.

In the words of a Colonel with whom I worked once, the focus on how bad the fellow Republicans are is the dumbest thing I ever heard of.