As I mentioned earlier, I have been doing quite a bit of traveling lately. One of the unfortunate side effects is that I have been over-eating. You see, since I am traveling for business they have been paying for all my meals with a healthy per diem allowance.
Since I am not paying for my own meals, I haven't been paying much attention to what I consume. I pay relatively close attention to how much I am spending, but very little to the amount of food. I don't spend much time in Subway or Quiznos, preferring, instead, Tuscan Kitchen and Ramsi's Cafe on the World.
Now when you go to someplace like Ramsi's you can't just order a salad and a water, well at least I can't. Food is one of life's great pleasures and when confronted with a unique menu I simply have to try something that I have never had before. So bring me the Brie Bernadette followed by Smoked Salmon and Kentucky White Cheddar Strudel (BTW, if you ever find yourself within 100 miles of Louisville, go to Ramsi's just to have the Brie Bernadette, it's worth it!) . If I'm feeling particularly decadent I'll even throw in a dessert, especially if it is something I have never had before.
So the long and the short of it is I've put on a couple pounds, but what does this have to do with anything beyond my bragging about eating at some fabulous restaurants on someone else's dime and probably need to take some extra trips to the gym? Well, that is the point. Since I am not paying for what I'm consuming I'm consuming more than I would if I had to pay for my meals out of my own wallet.
When someone else picks up the tab you don't care about how much you consume - to be honest I try to get as close to the per diem as possible to get the full value from my perk. It's an odd incentive and one that I hadn't truly considered until I wrote this post - but there you have it.
Still don't get the point? Why are my culinary habits fundamentally different from health care? Certainly not all medical procedures and doctor visits are necessary, but if someone is picking up the bill why wouldn't you make the trip? In fact, isn't it in your best interest to go as often as possible since something might be wrong with you? Why go through a couple days of a runny nose when you can get full strength decongestants that aren't available over the counter? Isn't it every Americans God Given Right to feel as good as possible at all times?
Unless there is market discipline in the health industry there will be over-consumption and the consequences of that over-consumption will be much more severe than my pants fitting a little too tight.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Lessons from Jefferson
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.I'm not sure if Thomas Jefferson was extremely prescient or if merely the more things change the more things stay the same. When I browse though his quotable quotes and it seems like he is speaking about current events.
What confuses me about the liberal agenda is that they profess distrust of the wealth and powerful, while consistently ignoring that government is run by the wealth and powerful and vesting in them more and more power.
Perhaps liberals and democrats should study Jefferson more thoroughly and take lessons from his distrust with power.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Wal-Mart - Just Greedy
[T]his week, the mega-retailer stood its ground and resisted calls from the American Family Association to refuse to sell the "Brokeback Mountain" DVD.Emphasis mine. Isn't that what capitalism is all about? Providing people what they want? Wal-Mart just happens to do it at a lower cost than most people. Now when you consider that Wal-Mart has historically caved to RedState conservatism by keeping some products off the shelf, perhaps some kudos are in order.Wal-Mart even promoted the DVD in displays featuring the gay characters portrayed by Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger.
...
Some will say that Wal-Mart is just greedy and knows a hot-selling product when it sees it. But the behemoth is uber-popular in the red states where the American Family Association and other so-called Christian groups hold lots of influence.So, just this once, kudos to Wal-Mart.
Kudos for allowing greed to finally win out!
The Problem With Massachusetts
The biggest disappointment with
The problem is that it isn’t a free-market system – consumers are insolated from the costs of health care and only pay indirectly via co-pays and premiums. The result will be even more over consumption of healthcare and slowly increasing costs. It wouldn’t surprise me if lower quality of care is experienced as well.
The incentive problem, of course, is little different from the current system of employer-paid healthcare, but now we’ve added rent seekers to the mix as providers soak up government provided dollars to cover those at the bottom. It will take years for the system to degenerate into a complete cluster, but by that time more states will have joined the bandwagon bringing us to a point of no return.
It would be encouraging to see a state trying the opposite approach of dealing with the incentives that cause high costs, but the federal government has caused most of that problem so I’m not optimistic that any will have the courage to try.
Victory for the Proletariat
How depressing - faced with violent hooligans the French government resorts to handouts.
At the height of the demonstrations, he was sidelined in efforts to broker talks, with Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy -- a presidential hopeful -- taking the helm.
But, according to Chirac, new measures in the stead of the controversial clause had come at the suggestion of De Villepin.
Unveiling details of the replacement, Bernard Accoyer, the head of the ruling UMP party, said there would be no new law but the government would introduce policy that would directly help disadvantaged youths. [emphasis mine]
So instead of providing he means for the French youth to help themselves they are just going to open up the wallet book. Perhaps this is a good thing - as France descends further and further into socialism perhaps the whole system will crumble leaving capitalism as the sole survivor.
However, I'm not optimistic that any good can come from this.
HatTip: Marginal RevolutionConservation
I entered my hotel room last evening and found several friendly placards information me, in part:
Now, I don't know about you, but I'm rather skeptical that reducing laundry will have any appreciable effect on the environment. Indoor plumbing is very near a closed loop system, and when you add in central sewer system it is all but a closed loop system.
We use water, we send water down the sewer, they clean the water and they send it back to us again. So I don't beleive for a minute that it has anything to do with water conservation, but everything to do with money conservation.
Of course, unlike some people, I don't begudge a guy (or a corporation) from trying to save a couple bucks (and thus me a couple bucks). It's just sad that they have to lie to us to get us to cooperate.
If you are staying with us for more than one night, as part of [our conservation] program, we will launder your linens every three days.
Now, I don't know about you, but I'm rather skeptical that reducing laundry will have any appreciable effect on the environment. Indoor plumbing is very near a closed loop system, and when you add in central sewer system it is all but a closed loop system.
We use water, we send water down the sewer, they clean the water and they send it back to us again. So I don't beleive for a minute that it has anything to do with water conservation, but everything to do with money conservation.
Of course, unlike some people, I don't begudge a guy (or a corporation) from trying to save a couple bucks (and thus me a couple bucks). It's just sad that they have to lie to us to get us to cooperate.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Liberals Can't Afford To Educate The Poor
Partisans on the right and left rarely agree on anything, but they do agree that there is something wrong with the public school system where performance is static at best. Conservatives and libertarians have been arguing that lack of competition is what is ailing public schools and have proposed a number of voucher based systems to help correct the situation.
This leaves the left with something of a quandary because their typical attacks of “help the rich at the expense of the poor” doesn’t fit the bill. The wealthy already have school choice so would have little to gain from a voucher system, even middle class parents have little to gain as suburban schools far outperform urban schools in every category. So how do liberals challenge vouchers?
Hmmm. The right is offering frustrated minority parents on opportunity to provide better education for their children and this is bad. Is it bad because it matches the rights agenda? That doesn’t make any sense because it’s Mr. Weaver’s agenda to expand public education. Does that automatically marginalize anything that Mr. Weaver says? I doubt he would legitimize such a claim. If private schools provided for through vouchers are better than public schools who cares if public schools are undermined? Is it the ends that matter or the means (assuming that the means are just)?
That’s just one opponent, perhaps others are more eloquent.
Maybe I’m missing her point, but it sounds like she is saying that giving everyone crappy education is better than giving some crappy education and others a better education. Well, I suppose that is the logic that the Florida Supreme Court used to outlaw vouchers in that state, so maybe it’s not so farfetched after all. But take note, there is no argument that vouchers wouldn’t be successful at improving conditions for many students looking for a way out of failing schools.
Admittedly these were not compelling arguments against vouchers, I’m sure that there may be some out there, but I only had what the NYT provided for me. I’m generally very confused by the left’s opposition to vouchers because the poor have the most to gain and that is supposedly who progressives are “fighting” for. In fact the program seems custom made for progressives everywhere – government provided education that is identical to the education procured by the wealthy – why are they so opposed to the proposition? Maybe they are worried that conservatives will finally have proof that market based reforms perform better than government provided programs – and that would be the ultimate defeat.
HatTip: The Case For Small Government
This leaves the left with something of a quandary because their typical attacks of “help the rich at the expense of the poor” doesn’t fit the bill. The wealthy already have school choice so would have little to gain from a voucher system, even middle class parents have little to gain as suburban schools far outperform urban schools in every category. So how do liberals challenge vouchers?
National critics of school choice like Reg Weaver, president of the country's largest teachers' union, the National Education Association, accused voucher supporters of "exploiting the frustration of these minority parents to push for a political agenda" intended to undermine public schools.
Hmmm. The right is offering frustrated minority parents on opportunity to provide better education for their children and this is bad. Is it bad because it matches the rights agenda? That doesn’t make any sense because it’s Mr. Weaver’s agenda to expand public education. Does that automatically marginalize anything that Mr. Weaver says? I doubt he would legitimize such a claim. If private schools provided for through vouchers are better than public schools who cares if public schools are undermined? Is it the ends that matter or the means (assuming that the means are just)?
"They're really about subsidizing private schools, not about improving schools for all children," Mr. Weaver said in an interview.A common logical fallacy – you can’t undermine an argument by showing that there may be ulterior motives involved. Either the proposal will be successful or it won’t the motives of those advocating vouchers is irrelevant. Though I have to point out, again, that the wealthy – those dirty rotten scoundrels that control the Republican party – have little, if anything, to gain from vouchers.
That’s just one opponent, perhaps others are more eloquent.
At Turner Elementary School in the hard-edged Anacostia neighborhood, Marcia Parker, the principal, picked up candy wrappers from the stairwells as she toured classrooms equipped with computers and books. She insisted that private and charter schools had nothing on Turner. Four students had returned from charters this year, some expelled for misbehavior, she said.
"We're about educating everybody," Ms. Parker said, dismissing vouchers and charters as "a way of raping the public schools of students and resources.
Maybe I’m missing her point, but it sounds like she is saying that giving everyone crappy education is better than giving some crappy education and others a better education. Well, I suppose that is the logic that the Florida Supreme Court used to outlaw vouchers in that state, so maybe it’s not so farfetched after all. But take note, there is no argument that vouchers wouldn’t be successful at improving conditions for many students looking for a way out of failing schools.
Admittedly these were not compelling arguments against vouchers, I’m sure that there may be some out there, but I only had what the NYT provided for me. I’m generally very confused by the left’s opposition to vouchers because the poor have the most to gain and that is supposedly who progressives are “fighting” for. In fact the program seems custom made for progressives everywhere – government provided education that is identical to the education procured by the wealthy – why are they so opposed to the proposition? Maybe they are worried that conservatives will finally have proof that market based reforms perform better than government provided programs – and that would be the ultimate defeat.
HatTip: The Case For Small Government
Does Apple Finally Get It?
In what may be one of the brightest move Apple has made in awhile, they have released an official utility that will allow users to dual-boot Windows and Mac on the Apple Intel platform.
I have been saying for quite a while now that the number one thing that is keeping Apple down is it’s all or none approach to everything. Apple runs proprietary software on proprietary hardware that requires third party software/hardware that won’t work on anything but Apple products. By increasing the risk associated with buying into Apple they lock some users out.
I’m hoping that this initial move is a test for wider availability across the board. I would love to have the option to run Macintosh on my existing hardware, I would also love to play my existing MP3s on iPod – but I won’t do it unless the stuff that I buy from iTunes can also be played on my other MP3 players.
When Apple finally learns that consumers like choice generally more than they like features they may actually hit the big time. When they do we will finally see what innovation really is as Apple and Microsoft actively start competing for customers.
In a stunning move, Apple on Wednesday officially sanctioned the running of the Windows XP operating system on Intel-based Macs through the release of a software package. Called Boot Camp, the 86MB beta product provides a dual-boot sequence and the drivers necessary to run Windows.
"Apple has no desire or plan to sell or support Windows, but many customers have expressed their interest to run Windows on Apple's superior hardware now that we use Intel processors," said Philip Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing.
"We think Boot Camp makes the Mac even more appealing to Windows users considering making the switch."
I have been saying for quite a while now that the number one thing that is keeping Apple down is it’s all or none approach to everything. Apple runs proprietary software on proprietary hardware that requires third party software/hardware that won’t work on anything but Apple products. By increasing the risk associated with buying into Apple they lock some users out.
I’m hoping that this initial move is a test for wider availability across the board. I would love to have the option to run Macintosh on my existing hardware, I would also love to play my existing MP3s on iPod – but I won’t do it unless the stuff that I buy from iTunes can also be played on my other MP3 players.
When Apple finally learns that consumers like choice generally more than they like features they may actually hit the big time. When they do we will finally see what innovation really is as Apple and Microsoft actively start competing for customers.
What Is A Right?
All sorts of special interests have hijacked the term ‘right’ in order to convey some magic meaning that simply doesn’t exist. They insist that we have a RIGHT to healthcare (I presume they actually mean a RIGHT to government provided healthcare), they argue that we have a RIGHT to work, even a RIGHT to not be offended by anyone and everyone. It’s almost as if by elevating something to a RIGHT proponents simultaneously label the opposition as tyrants and themselves as warriors for liberty and justice.
Obviously this is a bunch of poppycock; by defining ‘right’ so broadly it loses all possible meaning – and our rights are entirely too important to become meaningless at the hands of special interests.
Properly defined, rights are self-evident and exist even without government and government interference. This means, by definition, if the special interest could not achieve their ends without government interference it cannot be a right. Let’s try some examples.
Speech (Expression) – Can you speak your mind in the absence of government? Yep! That means it is a legitimate right.
Healthcare (Government Provided) – This one is too easy; it says government right in the description so obviously cannot be a right. What happens if you change the assumption to remove the government provided part? Well, it just becomes a service that is available for purchase – you have the right to purchase healthcare from voluntary providers since that is something that you could do without government intervention, but you have no RIGHT to those services if they don’t want to sell them to you since it would take a third party (government) to force them to exchange services.
Property – The fruits of my labor are mine before government gets involved – oddly enough governments were created to protect the fruits of that labor but are the thieves more often than not. So properly defined property is a right because without government or other coercive entities my property is always mine.
Employment – Can you force someone to employ you without government intervention? Of course not, therefore you have no RIGHT to work. You have the right to look for employment – to find an arrangement that is mutually beneficial for both you, as employee and employer. However, the arrangement is (or at least should be) voluntary – when the arrangement is no longer mutually beneficial either party should be allowed to terminate the agreement.
The Founding Fathers saw government as a necessary evil whose purpose was to protect the natural rights of citizens from the powerful – how did we stray so far as to think that governments role is to subjugate those natural rights to the benefits of special interests?
Obviously this is a bunch of poppycock; by defining ‘right’ so broadly it loses all possible meaning – and our rights are entirely too important to become meaningless at the hands of special interests.
Properly defined, rights are self-evident and exist even without government and government interference. This means, by definition, if the special interest could not achieve their ends without government interference it cannot be a right. Let’s try some examples.
Speech (Expression) – Can you speak your mind in the absence of government? Yep! That means it is a legitimate right.
Healthcare (Government Provided) – This one is too easy; it says government right in the description so obviously cannot be a right. What happens if you change the assumption to remove the government provided part? Well, it just becomes a service that is available for purchase – you have the right to purchase healthcare from voluntary providers since that is something that you could do without government intervention, but you have no RIGHT to those services if they don’t want to sell them to you since it would take a third party (government) to force them to exchange services.
Property – The fruits of my labor are mine before government gets involved – oddly enough governments were created to protect the fruits of that labor but are the thieves more often than not. So properly defined property is a right because without government or other coercive entities my property is always mine.
Employment – Can you force someone to employ you without government intervention? Of course not, therefore you have no RIGHT to work. You have the right to look for employment – to find an arrangement that is mutually beneficial for both you, as employee and employer. However, the arrangement is (or at least should be) voluntary – when the arrangement is no longer mutually beneficial either party should be allowed to terminate the agreement.
The Founding Fathers saw government as a necessary evil whose purpose was to protect the natural rights of citizens from the powerful – how did we stray so far as to think that governments role is to subjugate those natural rights to the benefits of special interests?
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
MSM Proves America Sucks At Science
I’ve just returned from a pleasant five day vacation in Florida where the news coverage is wall to wall arm waving about the upcoming Hurricane Season (at least when they weren’t celebrating the Gators victory over UCLA).
News anchors were wringing their hands that about an “expert” that predicted only thirteen named storms last year (which ended with a total of 27 names storms) is now calling for nearly thirty this season. Now I don’t know about you, but if I had asked an “expert” his opinion on something and they were off by 50% I wouldn’t be knocking down his door for the latest analysis. Or maybe he didn’t see the same reports that I had been hearing about since 2004 – that 2005 was going to be the start of a 20 year cycle of increased hurricane activity.
Obviously, each of these reports had to be followed up with stories about global warming so that viewers had no choice be to connect the two stories (i.e. global warming causes hurricanes) despite wide consensus that there are no links between the two. I guess the five minute story didn’t have time to include an analytical point of view.
Similar chicken little reporting was recently published in Time magazine where they tell you that over 50% of people believe that global warming is caused by human activity. Oddly enough there is no survey on what most scientists believe – I imagine it’s because they are too busy building emergency shelters to answer reporters’ calls.
When this is the quality of scientific study that the general populous is exposed to it is no wonder that everyone believes that Americans are falling behind the rest of the word.
News anchors were wringing their hands that about an “expert” that predicted only thirteen named storms last year (which ended with a total of 27 names storms) is now calling for nearly thirty this season. Now I don’t know about you, but if I had asked an “expert” his opinion on something and they were off by 50% I wouldn’t be knocking down his door for the latest analysis. Or maybe he didn’t see the same reports that I had been hearing about since 2004 – that 2005 was going to be the start of a 20 year cycle of increased hurricane activity.
Obviously, each of these reports had to be followed up with stories about global warming so that viewers had no choice be to connect the two stories (i.e. global warming causes hurricanes) despite wide consensus that there are no links between the two. I guess the five minute story didn’t have time to include an analytical point of view.
Similar chicken little reporting was recently published in Time magazine where they tell you that over 50% of people believe that global warming is caused by human activity. Oddly enough there is no survey on what most scientists believe – I imagine it’s because they are too busy building emergency shelters to answer reporters’ calls.
When this is the quality of scientific study that the general populous is exposed to it is no wonder that everyone believes that Americans are falling behind the rest of the word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)