Wednesday, April 16, 2014

The NCAA has an Agreement on Athlete Compensation but not on Coach Compensation

The NCAA has an agreement on athlete compensation and they enforce it pretty well, but interestingly they have no agreements on coach or executive or for that matter professor compensation.   It might be difficult to have an effective agreement on executive compensation because the better executives could move to non NCAA organizations, professors you could probably do as long as the cap is high enough and coaches could surely be done because:

  1.  Where would the coaches go.  Some could go to professional sports but those positions are limited.
  2. Winning in NCAA sports is a zero sum game and though you would loose some talent the effect would be inconsequential.

So I propose that the NCAA members agree that coaches  not be compensated more that $250,000/year.  That is enough that they should still be able to attract sufficiently qualified candidates. 

This would mean that we are treating the NCAA as a single organization as fare as sports goes.  

Friday, April 11, 2014

Response to Dean Baker's Great Post: "Medicare Is a Steal, but for Whom?"

Clearly our Governments Fed and local should combine all Medicare, Medicaid and all 

Government employees into one insurance program to maximize buying power and:
1. Squeeze providers.
2. Refuse to pay for care that has not shown strong evidence of net benefit.  

But our politicians are so corrupt (and fearful of seniors and Government employee unions) that they will not even do that. AND BTW Seniors and Government employee unions would not in the long run be hurt but helped on net by such a move though they would surely see it as a negative.

When given a choice between what is good and right for the people and what is good them politicians will choose to do what is good for them 90%+ of the time. You can count on that.

Friday, March 21, 2014

Health Income Gradient Steeper in Canada than USA

This is from

Indeed, the health-income gradient is slightly steeper in Canada than it is in the U.S. 

Now the folks over at knew this at one time and yet they post this:

Fairfax County, Lowrey explains, is one of the richest counties in America, and in turn has one of the highest life expectancies in the country: 82 for men and 85 for women. McDowell County, on the other hand, is one of the poorest in the country, with predictably short life expectancy: 64 for men and 73 for women—about the same as in Iraq.It’s excellent reporting, especially with its grasp of the underlying research, so go read it in full. One thing Lowrey didn’t mention, however, was the link between the social determinants of health (which often correlate with geography) and healthcare costs. That’s where The American Health Care Paradox, a new book by Elizabeth H. Bradley and Lauren A. Taylor, comes in.
Just me trying to set the record straight. Even if you are all for more Government Social spending you should avoid the use of irrelevant arguments even if they are for more Government Social spending.  

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Anthropogenic Global Warming

BTW anthropogenic global warming is the correct description the description climate change is not a good description. The only solid scientific prediction from increased co2 is higher highs and lower lows.  

Interesting discussion  here, Summers, Lomborg, Tabarrok, and Cowen on climate change.  

My thoughts are that you need a carbon tax and a payout to those who net remove CO2 from the air then you could reach equilibrium. 

But, could rationally ignorant voters ever get the politicians to properly implement such a scheme, not until AGW brings temperatures to a level where negative effects are obvious. So sit back and enjoy milder winters for now.

Another possibility would be geoengineering measures to cool the planet.
I am not worried though because I think that removing co2 from the air or cooling the planet will not be very expensive.

So don’t worry be happy.

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Many US Citizens Earn at Poverty Levels but Few Consume at Poverty Levels.

The link below highlights a study that shows that though many US citizens still earn at poverty levels, almost no USA citizens consume at poverty levels.

Thus, they write: "The results in this paper contradict the claim that poverty has shown little  improvement over time and that antipoverty efforts have been ineffective.  We show that moving from traditional income-based measures of poverty to  a consumption-based measure, which is arguably superior on both theoretical and practical grounds—and, crucially, accounting for bias in the cost-of-living adjustment—leads to the conclusion that the poverty rate declined by 26.4 percentage points between 1960 and 2010, with 8.5 percentage points  of that decline occurring since 1980."Just to be clear, the notion that the consumption-based poverty rate nearly reached zero percent does not mean that the war on poverty is won.

That is a very important point made by "The conversable Economist" Tim Taylor.

The above implies that we should continue to work on getting people to earn more but that poverty of consumption is no longer found in the USA except among the Homeless who are often very difficult to help due to mental illness and drug habits (the worst of which is booze.)

There are of course people who drop through the cracks but that is problem of Government ineptitude rather than a lack of money and I am afraid that Government ineptitude will be forever with us.

Friday, November 15, 2013

To PPACA Supporters

To PPACA supporters.

Let us admit that among people who are well informed on the state of healthcare in the USA there is agreement that PPACA is horrible but the supporters think that it is clearly better than nothing and that it is unlikely that better laws are attainable at this time. I can certainly understand and respect that position but I think supporters should do more bashing the bad aspects of the law.  They should also bash the dishonest politicians that made the law, of course always pointing out that the politicians on the other side are just as bad or worse.

The bad aspects of PPACA:

The fact that the PPACA does almost nothing on the supply side is very disappointing.  Lower cost/prices would help everyone.

The employer mandate is a horrible thing.  The push should be in the other direction.  People do not even know what  they are spending on healthcare!

You cannot subsidize the median person so it is an outrage that subsidies go up to $95,000.  The politicians are scamming rationally ignorant voters taxing people $1 to subsidize them with $1!

Capping the deductibles at under $7,000 is also a very bad policy they should be pushing people with above median income in fair health toward much high deductibles.

The tax on Medical equipment manufacturers is a dishonest, underhanded way to tax the people.

Mandating birth control is a Democrat party give away to a voting block important to them.

The 3 to 1 cap on old people's insurance makes no sense but for the fact that old people vote more that young people. Corruption.

There is very little evidence that Many of the mandated coverages make medical sense.

The good aspects of PPACA:

People with preexisting conditions can get coverage easier and at a lower cost. 

The exchanges have the potential if structured correctly to lower that marginal tax on those people near the medicaid cut off. 

What people have called "death panels", really the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB),  medicare might stop some care that has not shown net benefit.

Friday, November 8, 2013

Politicians and the Minimum Wage

Hide the costs show the benefit. 

Who pays for the minimum wage increase.  If it were a tax who would it fall on?

It clarifies things to think in terms of consumption so for the minimum wage workers to consume more who consumes less.

In the short run business owner who hire minimum wage workers will consume less.  Why do we want them to consume less rather than using a broad based tax.

In the long run consumers who consume products and services produced by business who hire minimum wage workers will consume less.  Why do we want them to consume less rather than using a broad based tax.

In the all time periods minimum wage laws tend to decrease employment so the low skilled unemployed consume less . Why do we want them to consume less rather than using a broad based tax.

A negative income tax or a basic income guaranty seems far superior  for everyone except for  the politicians. The minimum wage lets the politicians hide the costs show the benefit.