"The reason the NHTSA couldn't find the cause of sudden acceleration in Toyota isn't because they lack the technological expertise, it's because the problem doesn't exist (at least beyond the obvious mechanical issues like pedals getting caught on floor mats)."
"The symptoms and demographics of "unintended acceleration" are amazingly exactly the same as they've always been since long before cars had any sophisticated electronics. Funny how this new supposed electronic problem should exactly mimic another problem that's been seen for years. Not only that, but the symptoms surprisingly defy logic and physics in exactly the same way - somehow suddenly brakes which when fully applied can stop any modern car even at full throttle, somehow yet again stop working just when they're needed the most. Coincidence? Wouldn't you expect if it were really a new problem with the modern advanced electronics that just maybe it would produce problems previously unseen as well as not disproportionately hitting old people?
Who knows, maybe if NASA can finally put all this obvious nonsense to rest with a thorough debunking it will be worth it. But as it's hard to prove a negative, it will likely just end up with some noncommittal "can't rule anything out" BS and just be a total waste of money and time."
Posted by: Brian Courts
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Why the Government does what it Does
A commenter (with the handle Drewfus) on overcoming Bias wrote the following:
"I don’t think the purpose or motivation of these wars is access to resources, defense against terrorism, WMD’s or really anything particularly concrete. It’s more about confidence. Confidence that the political leadership remains in control of our destiny, and that they have secured the country from physical attack. Social life is just a succession of confidence tricks. Keynesian economics tricks us into believing the government has the economy under its control, and that even if we didn’t avoid recession this time, well, it would have been much worse if the government had done nothing. Same with terrorism. All that airport security really did help to keep the bad guys under control – our leaders have told us so. The medical profession has our health care needs under its control – why else would the government want to spend so much money on it? It must work!" Drewfus
"I don’t think the purpose or motivation of these wars is access to resources, defense against terrorism, WMD’s or really anything particularly concrete. It’s more about confidence. Confidence that the political leadership remains in control of our destiny, and that they have secured the country from physical attack. Social life is just a succession of confidence tricks. Keynesian economics tricks us into believing the government has the economy under its control, and that even if we didn’t avoid recession this time, well, it would have been much worse if the government had done nothing. Same with terrorism. All that airport security really did help to keep the bad guys under control – our leaders have told us so. The medical profession has our health care needs under its control – why else would the government want to spend so much money on it? It must work!" Drewfus
Freedom is Counter Intuitive
You would think that a country could do better with a central plan than with no central plan! But it seems to not work out that way. One would think that having more that one car company is redundant (or more than one currency (BTW we really have one real bank the federal reserve bank) you could eliminate all that redundancy, redundant design departments, Marketing departments (isn't marketing/advertising a complete waste to society? etc. All those economies of scale and all.
Are we not just better off to demand that people do not take drugs that are not OKed and approved by the central planers? Are we not better off to ban the sale of recreational drugs like heroin and why not alcohol too?
Isn't it counter productive that in a free society even BP has rights and can go to court and get a law banning deep water drilling struck down. That we the people should have an energy plan and it should not include BP!
Doesn't it seem crazy that the USA used to allow anyone without TB into the country?
And yet freedom seems to do well wherever it is tried. Freedom is not perfect because people are not perfect but it sure beats the alternatives.
Are we not just better off to demand that people do not take drugs that are not OKed and approved by the central planers? Are we not better off to ban the sale of recreational drugs like heroin and why not alcohol too?
Isn't it counter productive that in a free society even BP has rights and can go to court and get a law banning deep water drilling struck down. That we the people should have an energy plan and it should not include BP!
Doesn't it seem crazy that the USA used to allow anyone without TB into the country?
And yet freedom seems to do well wherever it is tried. Freedom is not perfect because people are not perfect but it sure beats the alternatives.
Responce to crique of Gold and Ron Paul
1. Though Ron Paul talks about the gold standard and 100% reserve banking, what he says he would implement is free banking, he believes that the people should be allowed to choose the form of money that they would like to use.
He believes that people’s choices would lead to 100 percent reserve gold standard banking, I do not. In the case of the Scottish free banking era (about 1750 to 1850) the system moved progressively away from gold through fractional gold reserves and the option cause. Just before the end of Scottish free banking system, the Banks kept gold reserves below 2% and the option clause allowed them to deny gold in case of a run. On the other had bank capital* was typically over 30%. Thus the system was moving toward money backed by only bank assets.
2. According to Christine Romer (no right winger) the depression of 1890 was not nearly as bad the Great depression. So the worst depression occurred after the creation of the Federal Reserve and as far as a financial system collapse the worst ever was the one that just occurred in 2008. The system is obviously fragile with serious feedback problems.
3. In the current monopoly currency system the failure of one bank weakens all the others. This sort of feedback is what led to the collapse in 2008. We need a monetary system where the failure of one bank strengthens all the other banks. I believe that fee banking would evolve into such a system.
4. The current system is not robust to changes in the demand for currency. Currency is not as different from checks as we tend to think. If banks floated their own currency rises in demand for currency could be accommodated without contraction of the money supply. If you think about it in a free banking system, if people drained their demand accounts and horded currency the banks would not need to contract as they do today. Money in currency would be no different to the banks than money in a demand account.
* Bank capital is equal to the value of bank assets - bank liabilities. Your mortgage is a bank asset and the money in your checking and savings account are bank liabilities.
He believes that people’s choices would lead to 100 percent reserve gold standard banking, I do not. In the case of the Scottish free banking era (about 1750 to 1850) the system moved progressively away from gold through fractional gold reserves and the option cause. Just before the end of Scottish free banking system, the Banks kept gold reserves below 2% and the option clause allowed them to deny gold in case of a run. On the other had bank capital* was typically over 30%. Thus the system was moving toward money backed by only bank assets.
2. According to Christine Romer (no right winger) the depression of 1890 was not nearly as bad the Great depression. So the worst depression occurred after the creation of the Federal Reserve and as far as a financial system collapse the worst ever was the one that just occurred in 2008. The system is obviously fragile with serious feedback problems.
3. In the current monopoly currency system the failure of one bank weakens all the others. This sort of feedback is what led to the collapse in 2008. We need a monetary system where the failure of one bank strengthens all the other banks. I believe that fee banking would evolve into such a system.
4. The current system is not robust to changes in the demand for currency. Currency is not as different from checks as we tend to think. If banks floated their own currency rises in demand for currency could be accommodated without contraction of the money supply. If you think about it in a free banking system, if people drained their demand accounts and horded currency the banks would not need to contract as they do today. Money in currency would be no different to the banks than money in a demand account.
* Bank capital is equal to the value of bank assets - bank liabilities. Your mortgage is a bank asset and the money in your checking and savings account are bank liabilities.
The Testing Function of Schooling Often Squeezes out Education.
- Schooling is not equal to Education
- The principles of most subjects including the real though subjects; physics, chemistry, accounting, statistics etc. are quite simple but people do not learn them well due to the need to make the subjects rigorous.
- It is amazing what simple, practical, useful information typical college graduates do not know.
- Why when people discuss schooling and how we need to better educate the population, do they seldom ask or say "what it is that people do not know or cannot do that would benefit them so greatly in life", but rather they make statements like "We need more college grads" or "Our students do less well in international comparisons". It seems we never ask "What is the most efficient way to get valuable knowledge and skills to people. I think it is because think that getting the knowledge and skills to people without credentials is a waste.
- If schools exist to educate why do they do so much testing. Worse they seem very willing to blab the results of all their testing to other organizations.
- Education is free but credentials are rather expensive. You can listen to MIT and Harvard lectures free on-line and you could always go an listen to some classes for free.
- My grand parents went to 1 year of school each, yet they ran a successful barber shop and they seemed more educated than many college grads I know.
- I know college grads who refuse to believe that 100 mpg carburetors do not exist. That despite my attempts to explaining the Carnot limit to them. On the other hand my grand parents could easily understand such things.
How Could the States Experiment with Healthcare and Why Should They
If I had my way Government would get completely out of health care but I do not see that as politically viable so I propose that the states rather than the Federal Government experiment with a program to provide insurance.
If any Government body should be experimenting with providing health care it should be the states rather than the federal government. The sates control medical licensing and that means that they control costs to a large extent. States do things like refusing to accept medical licenses from other states and countries that drive up costs. States refuse to accept medical insurance plans that are accepted in other sates this also drives up costs. If the Federal Government provides the money for heath care the states are not encouraged rightly license to maximize the cost benefit trade offs .
The big obstacle to the states providing health care is the danger that a state would attract the sick and poor from other states. A plan to avoid attracting sick people from out of state to the state would be needed.
The plan could include some period of time to establish residency. For example a state could have a 2 year period to establish residency before one is eligible for existing conditions. Insurance companies already police this sort of thing so it is possible.
To make the plans cheaper and less desirable to out of state people the insurance could be kept simple and minimal. Much medical care in the USA yeailds very low or even no benefit, a state plan could opt out of paying for such procedures. Since people trust Government more that insuarcne companies they could get away with refusing more care. An example or care that might be eliminated is heart bypass, there is no evidence that heart bypass surgery produces better benefits than less invasive and much cheaper care, except if the blockage is in the upper left ventricle (and even then the evidence is weak). Heart bypass is rarely done outside of the USA In the USA though heart bypass is commonly done for all kinds of blockages. The state policy would allow those who wanted to pay for such procedures to do so out of pocket but it would not pay for such procedures.
The states could also establish high means tested deductibles. Here is an article that proposes a $50,000 annual deducible. Here is me advocating a deductible based on income.
States could initiate some other experiments to save money. Here is Dean Baker's proposal to reign in costs.
If any Government body should be experimenting with providing health care it should be the states rather than the federal government. The sates control medical licensing and that means that they control costs to a large extent. States do things like refusing to accept medical licenses from other states and countries that drive up costs. States refuse to accept medical insurance plans that are accepted in other sates this also drives up costs. If the Federal Government provides the money for heath care the states are not encouraged rightly license to maximize the cost benefit trade offs .
The big obstacle to the states providing health care is the danger that a state would attract the sick and poor from other states. A plan to avoid attracting sick people from out of state to the state would be needed.
The plan could include some period of time to establish residency. For example a state could have a 2 year period to establish residency before one is eligible for existing conditions. Insurance companies already police this sort of thing so it is possible.
To make the plans cheaper and less desirable to out of state people the insurance could be kept simple and minimal. Much medical care in the USA yeailds very low or even no benefit, a state plan could opt out of paying for such procedures. Since people trust Government more that insuarcne companies they could get away with refusing more care. An example or care that might be eliminated is heart bypass, there is no evidence that heart bypass surgery produces better benefits than less invasive and much cheaper care, except if the blockage is in the upper left ventricle (and even then the evidence is weak). Heart bypass is rarely done outside of the USA In the USA though heart bypass is commonly done for all kinds of blockages. The state policy would allow those who wanted to pay for such procedures to do so out of pocket but it would not pay for such procedures.
The states could also establish high means tested deductibles. Here is an article that proposes a $50,000 annual deducible. Here is me advocating a deductible based on income.
States could initiate some other experiments to save money. Here is Dean Baker's proposal to reign in costs.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Retirement Spending
Lately there has been a lot of discussion of what the appropriate rate of spending in retirement is. My suggestion is that as far a stocks go you can safely spend your dividend plus half of the companies' retained earnings. Companies retain earnings because they have good investment options for that money. If the investments are in fact good that will increase the value of the company and future dividends and so you should not lose value. So why them do I say its only safe to spend half of the retained earnings 2 reasons: 1. Inflation means new capital inputs cost more than the depreciation of existing inputs. 2. Companies have historically not been good reinvesting retained earnings.
Now all of that is assuming that your stock investing is focused on dividend and future dividends. Thus that you favor companies that have a long record of increasing dividends.
Now all of that is assuming that your stock investing is focused on dividend and future dividends. Thus that you favor companies that have a long record of increasing dividends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)