Ok. It came to me in a flash. I know that most people who are “partisan” (which means politically bias for those of you not afflicted with the mind-numbing need to watch politics as avid as any other sport) consider the other party exactly wrong on all issues. I found a decent way to put into words my feelings why “my side of the aisle” believes government is not the solution to an individual’s problems.
It comes down to ethics. Now, this is not going to be an admonishment of anyone’s moral code, so please read on. I think you’ll find yourself understanding my point and it never brings YOUR ethics up (unless you’re a government bureaucrat, though even then it makes allowances).
The very complaint that is lodged against capitalists is that they will screw anyone to make a buck, that without regard for “the little guy” they price gouge or put competitors out of business, all so a few rich people at the head of the company can get richer while they stand upon the shoulders of their poor, whipped workers.
This is, in fact, acting unethically. I think any of us would agree the (admittedly extreme) picture that paints is unethical.
However, there are several safeguards built into the system. You can buy your product from someone else. Don’t like Wal Mart, shop at Target, HEB, K-Mart, Walgreens, your local grocer, etc. Is it “unfair” that Wal Mart has lower prices? No more than it’s “unfair” that HEB has better produce or a more interesting selection. I choose where I go.
The problem comes in when there is a genuine monopoly. Those continue to disappear. It used to be electricity and cable were monopolies. Now deregulation has put competition into electricity and satellite TV (of which there are choices) has taken a huge chunk out of the cable market. Unfortunately, there is no competition for government. Nor, do I think, there should be. Just look at Israel and Palestine. Or Kashmir. Or Taiwan.
The assumptions made about government include the assumption that it, and the various programs it oversees, are going to be run by ethical people. Ok, before you laugh so hard you snort coffee out your nose into your keyboard, this is where I bring it back to my mean-spirited, right-wing attack machine, capitalist blah blah blah blah blah.
Which party promotes smaller government (letting entities like the Salvation Army handle charity style programs) and claims character matters?
Which party promotes larger government with more monopoly-style programs (you think healthcare is bad NOW, wait until you have no choice because it’s all government) AND tells you character isn’t “as important”. It doesn’t matter WHAT they’re doing in their office. It doesn’t matter WHERE they got the money for their campaign. It doesn’t matter that they change their minds more regularly than we change our shirts.
Someone is telling you they’re out to protect you from the greedy “big guy” by setting up an even bigger monopoly run by people who are made less accountable due to the fact that they are part of the very government that is supposed to be watch dogging those people. You think CEOs get protected and special treatment...
Again, it comes down to ethics. If you could assure me you were going to elect people who themselves are not only going to run things ethically but are going to appoint people to run things ethically, I would be less inclined to rail against larger government. The problem “the other side” has is ethical politicians would reduce the size of the government. They have to elect the unethical ones to get their agenda passed.
Sunday, July 25, 2004
Friday, July 23, 2004
Inappropriate Expectation
I received an e-mail yesterday that put a lot into perspective. I have been thinking about exactly the things in here, but didn't realize there was already a theory about it.
--==<<>>==--
At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior.
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent
Presidential election: Population of counties won by:
Gore=127 million
Bush=143 million
Square miles of land won by:
Gore=580,000
Bush=2,2427,000
States won by:
Gore=19
Bush=29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore=13.2
Bush=2.1
Professor Olson adds:
"In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly
encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..."
Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "complacency and "apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
--==<<>>==--
I also liked the e-mail signature from this person (whom I did not know)
“ Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.” Thomas Jefferson
--==<<>>==--
At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior.
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent
Presidential election: Population of counties won by:
Gore=127 million
Bush=143 million
Square miles of land won by:
Gore=580,000
Bush=2,2427,000
States won by:
Gore=19
Bush=29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore=13.2
Bush=2.1
Professor Olson adds:
"In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly
encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..."
Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "complacency and "apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
--==<<>>==--
I also liked the e-mail signature from this person (whom I did not know)
“ Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.” Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Always another skill
I work in the computer industry. It happened somewhat by default, because I have had an aptitude for computers since I was in sixth grade (and if you can’t calculate when that was, I’m not going to blow my image by telling you how ancient I am). Anyway, though I could probably dwarf my other blog entries combined by talking about my career (wow can I blab) it just happened because nobody else in the building at my first long-term job was good with computers. Ten years later I was starting an IT department for a dot-com startup in NYC.
Along the way I learned one important, somewhat ironic thing: there is always another skill you need. At first it was simply how to handle a PC – the cables and plugs, where they went, how to do some easy console commands. Then you needed to know how to take it apart and put pieces in it or take them out. Then you needed to learn how to mess with the configuration files at boot-up, especially how to manage memory – then that some programs wanted one type of memory and others wanted a different type (yikes! a computer has more than one type of memory?) then you needed to be able to explain to a person the difference between active memory and a hard drive or other storage device.
Then came networks, and a whole host of new skills. Networking required knowing not only what a server is, but the various levels of cabling (needing a hub or not, network cards in the machines, drivers to make the cards function, a server or not, software to run the server, how information is parceled up and shared, etc.) Skip several steps and learning requirements to get to the Internet (succinct, be succinct).
After I learned all these various hardware issues, and the amazing politics of being a middle manager, I left the computer “support” world to become a programmer. WOW are there levels here. It sure helped to have a background in support, because every project required something new. Because I had skill in Access, I was suddenly billed as a “visual basic” expert. Because I’d actually held the boxes in which both Novell and Windows NT had come in, I was the only one with experience in “both”. So I needed to learn both, and Visual Basic, but they were really only useful for one project. The next project was in Cold Fusion (a server-side product for the Internet). The next was in ASP (a competing project). One used IBM’s database. The next MySQL. Most of them used HTML, but some crequired C++, some Java, and some Visual Basic Scripting. Then I got into Neverwinter Nights and needed to learn a proprietary version of C++.
Now, because of what I want to accomplish, I have actually had to teach myself 3D modeling. But because I learned my first 3D moves in “Maya”, and the Neverwinter Nights files only translate into 3D Studio Max, I had to learn 3DS Max too.
But don’t worry, the fact that I am rated by a recruiter as an “expert” in HTML, SQL Syntax, WindowsNT, Novell, Cold Fusion, Visual Basic, C++, Java, VB Scripting, MySQL, Microsoft support (like Office), hardware support, networking (physical and digital), Maya, 3D Studio Max, DOS, Clairvoyance, Basket Weaving, and Management Relations, none of that will actually apply to my next computer need. Which will doubtless require me to learn the intricacies of IP packets or vacuum tube construction.
My frustration isn’t so much that there’s always something new to learn, but that after you spend three months beating your head against the latest new thing, not only does whoever write the paycheck complain that it took you so damned long, your knowledge is immediately obsolete because you will never use it again. You need to learn something new next time.
So. Here’s to all that coffee that keeps us going. I’m headed back into 3DS to keep making these cool graphics.
Along the way I learned one important, somewhat ironic thing: there is always another skill you need. At first it was simply how to handle a PC – the cables and plugs, where they went, how to do some easy console commands. Then you needed to know how to take it apart and put pieces in it or take them out. Then you needed to learn how to mess with the configuration files at boot-up, especially how to manage memory – then that some programs wanted one type of memory and others wanted a different type (yikes! a computer has more than one type of memory?) then you needed to be able to explain to a person the difference between active memory and a hard drive or other storage device.
Then came networks, and a whole host of new skills. Networking required knowing not only what a server is, but the various levels of cabling (needing a hub or not, network cards in the machines, drivers to make the cards function, a server or not, software to run the server, how information is parceled up and shared, etc.) Skip several steps and learning requirements to get to the Internet (succinct, be succinct).
After I learned all these various hardware issues, and the amazing politics of being a middle manager, I left the computer “support” world to become a programmer. WOW are there levels here. It sure helped to have a background in support, because every project required something new. Because I had skill in Access, I was suddenly billed as a “visual basic” expert. Because I’d actually held the boxes in which both Novell and Windows NT had come in, I was the only one with experience in “both”. So I needed to learn both, and Visual Basic, but they were really only useful for one project. The next project was in Cold Fusion (a server-side product for the Internet). The next was in ASP (a competing project). One used IBM’s database. The next MySQL. Most of them used HTML, but some crequired C++, some Java, and some Visual Basic Scripting. Then I got into Neverwinter Nights and needed to learn a proprietary version of C++.
Now, because of what I want to accomplish, I have actually had to teach myself 3D modeling. But because I learned my first 3D moves in “Maya”, and the Neverwinter Nights files only translate into 3D Studio Max, I had to learn 3DS Max too.
But don’t worry, the fact that I am rated by a recruiter as an “expert” in HTML, SQL Syntax, WindowsNT, Novell, Cold Fusion, Visual Basic, C++, Java, VB Scripting, MySQL, Microsoft support (like Office), hardware support, networking (physical and digital), Maya, 3D Studio Max, DOS, Clairvoyance, Basket Weaving, and Management Relations, none of that will actually apply to my next computer need. Which will doubtless require me to learn the intricacies of IP packets or vacuum tube construction.
My frustration isn’t so much that there’s always something new to learn, but that after you spend three months beating your head against the latest new thing, not only does whoever write the paycheck complain that it took you so damned long, your knowledge is immediately obsolete because you will never use it again. You need to learn something new next time.
So. Here’s to all that coffee that keeps us going. I’m headed back into 3DS to keep making these cool graphics.
Saturday, July 17, 2004
Life a'int short, pal.
Ok. Time to do some Cliché Culling. Life really isn’t short. It came to me as I was considering why someone I know can’t sit still through anything. He loves the part of GOING to do something, say, a movie, but as soon as the movie actually starts, he’s squirming in his seat and ready for the movie to be over. He likes the idea of getting in the truck, but can’t stand sitting while you go anywhere. He likes the idea of playing a game, but if it isn’t paced faster than speed metal compressed to time-and-a-half, he’s ready for it to be over.
I think this is a symptom of “life is too short” syndrome. So where does this syndrome come from? Ugh. I called it a syndrome. Someone could make a cottage industry out of Life Is Too Short Therapy. I hate that.
Believe me, I am all for capitalism. I think free markets are the ONLY way to keep power in the hands of the PEOPLE rather than dictators. However, I think with free enterprise comes a measure of responsibility that the ignoramus or the unscrupulous are not prepared to deal with. Do I think they need government regulation? No. I will come to my solution in a little bit but I don’t want to turn people off that fast.
I think the problem is that we’re letting “pop culture” define us rather than us defining our pop culture. A little thing catches on (dark humor in commercials) and suddenly everyone thinks all commercials, to be successful, need dark humor. The damage that is done is seen in things like “life is too short” syndrome. It’s a catchy phrase and gets plastered all over the place, but what it does is cause a frantic fear of death manifested in frenetic instability and short attention spans. In other words, if we’re not getting maximum gratification NOW, we’d better stop what we’re doing and try something else.
The fact of the matter is, though people may look at our lifespan and say “wow, I’m going to die before Star Trek comes to pass! I’m a loser mortal with a speck of time to live, and I won’t get ANYTHING done of importance – I’m insignificant and I need someone to blame, or a ‘lucky shot’ to make me significant”.
Yet, how many of us sit for hours on end either bored out of our skull, watching re-runs or movies that we don’t really care to see again (some are worth it, but how many times do we think we’re wasting our time ‘this time’?), or playing hours on end of solitaire because we want something mindless and at least somewhat gratifying (hey, if I’m lucky, those cards will bounce – nobody will KNOW it but me, but I WON!!).
I’m not saying we shouldn’t take time to play silly computer games. Rather the opposite. We should recognize that, since we CAN, life is not only plenty long, there are hours and hours to fritter away every week. Ok, some weeks are so packed full all we want to do is go to bed, but in general every week has several hours in it (sometimes evenly across the evenings, sometimes packed into one ‘lost’ Saturday afternoon) in which we have no plans.
Relax. Take a deep breath. Calm yourself for just a few moments and listen. Let your mind clear as much as possible (this is actually one of the toughest skills in life, I believe) and then see if one of those quiet little voices that’s been nagging at you comes out. “Hey, I’ve been meaning to gather all the pictures of my last vacation and write some good captions to go with them.” “Oooo... I wanted to wash the truck yesterday, make it sparkle, but I was in the middle of a long, boring meeting with that sloth the company appointed to be my division manager.” “Oh! I have hoped to pull out that old Rush album and listen to it again.” Some things that come up may be chores, some things may cost money “That’s it! I wanted to go see what new Lego sets were at Toys’r’us! I could go to the toy store!”, some things may seem like a waste of time. However, they are things that you wanted to do that you didn’t get to. Realize you CAN get to everything. Write that book. Draw that picture. Buy that modeling clay and make something.
I carry a little notepad around with me. It’s in one of those small zipper containers that looks like a Day-Timer wannabe. I take it into movies, I take it to my kids’ gymnastics classes, I take it to meetings, I take it to the park. It’s not heavy, and it’s not big. If I think of something I want to do but can’t at the moment, I write it down. Since I love writing so much, often what I want to do IS write, so I can do that right then and there.
Ok. So what is the solution to pop culture I was talking about? Now, I don’t think you can get rid of pop culture. It’s a concept, really. I would define it as parcel-glimpses into what is attractive to our society at large. My contention was that we’re letting those parcel-glimpses get out of hand and define what is attractive instead of what is attractive defining the successful parcel-glimpses. What is it that fortifies us, makes it so WE define pop culture instead of pop culture defining US? We need to be strong and self-assured. We need to not only believe we know when something is influencing us, but we need to believe we can turn off its influence. We need to believe we are stronger than a clever marketer. Not that we don’t need products and services, but that we have the strength to buy (or buy into) only what we truly want or need, not what someone else is trying to make us think we want or need.
The answer is religion. Whether it is Hindu, Moslem, Christian, Hebrew, Shinto, Buddhism, Therapy-ism, or whatever, it is actually designed to help us recognize right from wrong. People can set up awful prey-upon-the-weak industries in the NAME of religion, but I’m not talking about the organized institutions ostensibly set up to perpetuate religion. I’m talking about the religion itself. Some of them don’t agree on God (ok, none of them really agree on God) and many of them appear to be at direct odds with each other. But when you get down to it, every major religion in the world says specifically that you should try to get along with and live peaceably with all your neighbors, be they of another religion or yours.
In one sense, religion is the study that there is another power apart from pop culture and peer pressure. The other thing every major religion deals with is our tenure here. Whether they preach of a promised paradise in after-life or they teach that life itself is eternal and all around us is allegorical, mystifying illusion, they talk of more than the “short span” we fear here. Now, whether you believe they’re right or wrong, whether you believe they’re brainwashing or re-directing attention, one important thing happens:
You take your panicked attention of the supposed short-term of your life. The nice surprise? You may look up from your fulfilled life and realize you have accomplished all sorts of stuff, and have PLENTY of time left to do more.
The danger, or “wrongness” (I prefer that word to the mis-understood “sin”) of instant gratification is that it pre-supposes there is no set-up or build-up to gratification, that there is no pleasure in the set-up or build-up to gratification, and even tries to dim the fact that gratification is GREATER if one has done the set-up or build-up.
Try living without your cell-phone for a month. I did and I haven’t had one for years. Not only do I feel I have plenty going on, and therefore that a cell phone is not vital to my success, but I have re-learned not only to trust others (that they will follow a plan without constant goading or progress reports) but to trust myself as well (that I will follow OR MAKE a plan without constant tweaking, poking, prodding, changing, nudging, or assuring others that I’m doing it). I also get a HELL of a lot more done.
Don’t become a victim of the dark parts of pop culture.
I think this is a symptom of “life is too short” syndrome. So where does this syndrome come from? Ugh. I called it a syndrome. Someone could make a cottage industry out of Life Is Too Short Therapy. I hate that.
Believe me, I am all for capitalism. I think free markets are the ONLY way to keep power in the hands of the PEOPLE rather than dictators. However, I think with free enterprise comes a measure of responsibility that the ignoramus or the unscrupulous are not prepared to deal with. Do I think they need government regulation? No. I will come to my solution in a little bit but I don’t want to turn people off that fast.
I think the problem is that we’re letting “pop culture” define us rather than us defining our pop culture. A little thing catches on (dark humor in commercials) and suddenly everyone thinks all commercials, to be successful, need dark humor. The damage that is done is seen in things like “life is too short” syndrome. It’s a catchy phrase and gets plastered all over the place, but what it does is cause a frantic fear of death manifested in frenetic instability and short attention spans. In other words, if we’re not getting maximum gratification NOW, we’d better stop what we’re doing and try something else.
The fact of the matter is, though people may look at our lifespan and say “wow, I’m going to die before Star Trek comes to pass! I’m a loser mortal with a speck of time to live, and I won’t get ANYTHING done of importance – I’m insignificant and I need someone to blame, or a ‘lucky shot’ to make me significant”.
Yet, how many of us sit for hours on end either bored out of our skull, watching re-runs or movies that we don’t really care to see again (some are worth it, but how many times do we think we’re wasting our time ‘this time’?), or playing hours on end of solitaire because we want something mindless and at least somewhat gratifying (hey, if I’m lucky, those cards will bounce – nobody will KNOW it but me, but I WON!!).
I’m not saying we shouldn’t take time to play silly computer games. Rather the opposite. We should recognize that, since we CAN, life is not only plenty long, there are hours and hours to fritter away every week. Ok, some weeks are so packed full all we want to do is go to bed, but in general every week has several hours in it (sometimes evenly across the evenings, sometimes packed into one ‘lost’ Saturday afternoon) in which we have no plans.
Relax. Take a deep breath. Calm yourself for just a few moments and listen. Let your mind clear as much as possible (this is actually one of the toughest skills in life, I believe) and then see if one of those quiet little voices that’s been nagging at you comes out. “Hey, I’ve been meaning to gather all the pictures of my last vacation and write some good captions to go with them.” “Oooo... I wanted to wash the truck yesterday, make it sparkle, but I was in the middle of a long, boring meeting with that sloth the company appointed to be my division manager.” “Oh! I have hoped to pull out that old Rush album and listen to it again.” Some things that come up may be chores, some things may cost money “That’s it! I wanted to go see what new Lego sets were at Toys’r’us! I could go to the toy store!”, some things may seem like a waste of time. However, they are things that you wanted to do that you didn’t get to. Realize you CAN get to everything. Write that book. Draw that picture. Buy that modeling clay and make something.
I carry a little notepad around with me. It’s in one of those small zipper containers that looks like a Day-Timer wannabe. I take it into movies, I take it to my kids’ gymnastics classes, I take it to meetings, I take it to the park. It’s not heavy, and it’s not big. If I think of something I want to do but can’t at the moment, I write it down. Since I love writing so much, often what I want to do IS write, so I can do that right then and there.
Ok. So what is the solution to pop culture I was talking about? Now, I don’t think you can get rid of pop culture. It’s a concept, really. I would define it as parcel-glimpses into what is attractive to our society at large. My contention was that we’re letting those parcel-glimpses get out of hand and define what is attractive instead of what is attractive defining the successful parcel-glimpses. What is it that fortifies us, makes it so WE define pop culture instead of pop culture defining US? We need to be strong and self-assured. We need to not only believe we know when something is influencing us, but we need to believe we can turn off its influence. We need to believe we are stronger than a clever marketer. Not that we don’t need products and services, but that we have the strength to buy (or buy into) only what we truly want or need, not what someone else is trying to make us think we want or need.
The answer is religion. Whether it is Hindu, Moslem, Christian, Hebrew, Shinto, Buddhism, Therapy-ism, or whatever, it is actually designed to help us recognize right from wrong. People can set up awful prey-upon-the-weak industries in the NAME of religion, but I’m not talking about the organized institutions ostensibly set up to perpetuate religion. I’m talking about the religion itself. Some of them don’t agree on God (ok, none of them really agree on God) and many of them appear to be at direct odds with each other. But when you get down to it, every major religion in the world says specifically that you should try to get along with and live peaceably with all your neighbors, be they of another religion or yours.
In one sense, religion is the study that there is another power apart from pop culture and peer pressure. The other thing every major religion deals with is our tenure here. Whether they preach of a promised paradise in after-life or they teach that life itself is eternal and all around us is allegorical, mystifying illusion, they talk of more than the “short span” we fear here. Now, whether you believe they’re right or wrong, whether you believe they’re brainwashing or re-directing attention, one important thing happens:
You take your panicked attention of the supposed short-term of your life. The nice surprise? You may look up from your fulfilled life and realize you have accomplished all sorts of stuff, and have PLENTY of time left to do more.
The danger, or “wrongness” (I prefer that word to the mis-understood “sin”) of instant gratification is that it pre-supposes there is no set-up or build-up to gratification, that there is no pleasure in the set-up or build-up to gratification, and even tries to dim the fact that gratification is GREATER if one has done the set-up or build-up.
Try living without your cell-phone for a month. I did and I haven’t had one for years. Not only do I feel I have plenty going on, and therefore that a cell phone is not vital to my success, but I have re-learned not only to trust others (that they will follow a plan without constant goading or progress reports) but to trust myself as well (that I will follow OR MAKE a plan without constant tweaking, poking, prodding, changing, nudging, or assuring others that I’m doing it). I also get a HELL of a lot more done.
Don’t become a victim of the dark parts of pop culture.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
The Economy Thing I Promised.
Ok. Picking up where I left off, there is the suppression angle. This can be confusing, but I’m going to say it anyway. There are several kinds of “revenue models”. A few are: profit, non-profit, regulated, and governmental (for lack of knowing the right term, which might be called “forced or involuntary non-profit”).
In profit, the model is simple. You pay out overhead (materials, labor, facilities) and you charge for the product you deliver (be it a good or service). The difference between what you charge and what you pay out is the money you keep. This system thrives on competition, and where competition is lacking, it can be tough on the consumer.
In non-profit, the model is also simple. It is as above, though you attempt to match your charge and pay out as closely as possible so you keep your prices low. You are also allowed to accept “donations”, which is in essence receiving capital without producing a product or service (or the payee has you give that good or service to someone else).
In the regulated model we start to get more complex. I used to work for a utility company in San Diego. It was a regulated business. That is, because electricity was a monopoly, the government stepped in and regulated how much the company could charge so they didn’t gouge their clients (the theory being that you can’t get your electricity from somewhere else, so they could charge whatever they wanted). The government solved this by stating before the year started how much the company could “make”. They’d say, for example, you can have a 25% profit over materials. Or (and my math is not perfect here but illustrates close enough), if you spent at total of $75 Millon on materials (fuel, power stations, etc.) you were allowed to charge a total of $100 Million across all your customers. You had to fit your labor costs and other expenses into that $25 Million margin, and you could be given “bonuses” if you proved you had worked more efficiently or done certain environmental things. Thus, you actually made profits by being more efficient, not by producing more or servicing better or charging higher rates. This is a simplified model with some flaws, but close enough for this illustration.
Finally, governments operate on a percentage tax basis. That is to say, They get a percentage of the income of every citizen and business in its country. Let’s over-simplify and say it’s 20% (its way higher than that for “rich” people and companies, and way lower than that for “poor” people and companies). You would think that it would behoove the government to have a thriving economy where people are making as much money as possible. Thus, they would bring in more taxes. The more money you make, the more money they make. Right?
Here’s the problem. There is a perception that “ceteris paribus” applies to income. There is a narrowed outlook, and it is preyed upon by a certain segment of society. The government promotes the idea that if it needs more money, it should raise taxes. After all, if you want all the programs the government provides (welfares in the form of direct giving or medical subsidy, services in the form of roads and regulations, defense of our country, etc.) you need to fork over and pay for them. We understand the fork over and pay for it concept. We can see it. We can put our hands on it. Or, at least, we can see it as others put their hands on it.
Unfortunately, not “all other factors remain the same”. Let’s say the simplified tax rate is 20% across the population (just bear with me here, I know it’s actually higher), and taxes are increased to 25%. What happens? A company that is breaking even has to lay off workers. After all, they can’t sell equipment for regular income, they can’t suddenly force people to buy more, and they can’t raise THEIR prices without affecting the number of products and services they sell. So let’s say three workers get laid off. Two “blue” and one “white” collar. The net loss of those workers in direct taxed income is (again in the simple model) equivalent to the increase on TWELVE other people. Reverse that in simplistic terms, and with the HIRING of three people, you have the tax benefit of reducing taxes on TWELVE.
Now, before you get mad at the simplistic angle and say I’m an incompetent boob, here comes my entire point.
We’re talking about disposable income. Consider how much disposable income YOU have. That is, money you have left over every month. You know, that isn’t committed to anything. If the government increases taxes, that amount is going to shrink (unless it’s already negative). If the government decreases taxes, that amount is going to grow. If you have $100/month in disposable income (please don’t laugh, just go with me here) and the government increases taxes on your $50,000 income from the current 25% to 30%, you have to come up with $2500 more across the year. That’s just over $200/month.
Now... let’s say the government REDUCES taxes 5% instead. Your disposable income goes from $100/month to OVER $300 A MONTH. How many of you are already spending that money in your head. Saying to yourself: “wow, I would build a deck, buy a new entertainment center, get a new computer, go on vacations... think about it, in three months, if you saved your extra each month, you’d have $1000. Trust me, I was in this position a few months ago, and we had a great plan on the things we were going to do – and we did it!
Where does that money go? Into more companies, who have to hire more people, who have to pay them better to keep them from other companies who are hiring, all of whom pay taxes. Not to mention the companies THEMSELVES are paying more taxes, even if they DON’T hire more people, because they are taxed on their profits too. And higher than you are. So the $200 the government would have gotten 25% out of from you is $200 the government is going to get 35% out of when it’s extra profits for a company.
I know all this is simplistic, but here’s the sinister part of all this. When you realize that after every major tax cut in history the government has ended up with MORE money instead of less, there is only one reason to actually increase taxes, or at least only one reason NOT to decrease taxes. To remove your disposable income. After all, when you get right down to it, that kind of money changes your mood. Scared, panicked, or angry people are much easier to manipulate than happy, healthy, well-adjusted people.
I don’t think there’s some Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy out there, I think it’s done by a bunch of individuals, with the same goals, who aren’t so much helping each other or doing these things in a targeted, goal-oriented, sinister way, but rather it is just one step ahead of being subconscious. They’re doing it because it makes their jobs easier.
Heads up for the “work ethic” observation in a post coming soon. Warning, these posts are going to become tougher and tougher to read, not easier. I will probably be blogged right out of a readership.
In profit, the model is simple. You pay out overhead (materials, labor, facilities) and you charge for the product you deliver (be it a good or service). The difference between what you charge and what you pay out is the money you keep. This system thrives on competition, and where competition is lacking, it can be tough on the consumer.
In non-profit, the model is also simple. It is as above, though you attempt to match your charge and pay out as closely as possible so you keep your prices low. You are also allowed to accept “donations”, which is in essence receiving capital without producing a product or service (or the payee has you give that good or service to someone else).
In the regulated model we start to get more complex. I used to work for a utility company in San Diego. It was a regulated business. That is, because electricity was a monopoly, the government stepped in and regulated how much the company could charge so they didn’t gouge their clients (the theory being that you can’t get your electricity from somewhere else, so they could charge whatever they wanted). The government solved this by stating before the year started how much the company could “make”. They’d say, for example, you can have a 25% profit over materials. Or (and my math is not perfect here but illustrates close enough), if you spent at total of $75 Millon on materials (fuel, power stations, etc.) you were allowed to charge a total of $100 Million across all your customers. You had to fit your labor costs and other expenses into that $25 Million margin, and you could be given “bonuses” if you proved you had worked more efficiently or done certain environmental things. Thus, you actually made profits by being more efficient, not by producing more or servicing better or charging higher rates. This is a simplified model with some flaws, but close enough for this illustration.
Finally, governments operate on a percentage tax basis. That is to say, They get a percentage of the income of every citizen and business in its country. Let’s over-simplify and say it’s 20% (its way higher than that for “rich” people and companies, and way lower than that for “poor” people and companies). You would think that it would behoove the government to have a thriving economy where people are making as much money as possible. Thus, they would bring in more taxes. The more money you make, the more money they make. Right?
Here’s the problem. There is a perception that “ceteris paribus” applies to income. There is a narrowed outlook, and it is preyed upon by a certain segment of society. The government promotes the idea that if it needs more money, it should raise taxes. After all, if you want all the programs the government provides (welfares in the form of direct giving or medical subsidy, services in the form of roads and regulations, defense of our country, etc.) you need to fork over and pay for them. We understand the fork over and pay for it concept. We can see it. We can put our hands on it. Or, at least, we can see it as others put their hands on it.
Unfortunately, not “all other factors remain the same”. Let’s say the simplified tax rate is 20% across the population (just bear with me here, I know it’s actually higher), and taxes are increased to 25%. What happens? A company that is breaking even has to lay off workers. After all, they can’t sell equipment for regular income, they can’t suddenly force people to buy more, and they can’t raise THEIR prices without affecting the number of products and services they sell. So let’s say three workers get laid off. Two “blue” and one “white” collar. The net loss of those workers in direct taxed income is (again in the simple model) equivalent to the increase on TWELVE other people. Reverse that in simplistic terms, and with the HIRING of three people, you have the tax benefit of reducing taxes on TWELVE.
Now, before you get mad at the simplistic angle and say I’m an incompetent boob, here comes my entire point.
We’re talking about disposable income. Consider how much disposable income YOU have. That is, money you have left over every month. You know, that isn’t committed to anything. If the government increases taxes, that amount is going to shrink (unless it’s already negative). If the government decreases taxes, that amount is going to grow. If you have $100/month in disposable income (please don’t laugh, just go with me here) and the government increases taxes on your $50,000 income from the current 25% to 30%, you have to come up with $2500 more across the year. That’s just over $200/month.
Now... let’s say the government REDUCES taxes 5% instead. Your disposable income goes from $100/month to OVER $300 A MONTH. How many of you are already spending that money in your head. Saying to yourself: “wow, I would build a deck, buy a new entertainment center, get a new computer, go on vacations... think about it, in three months, if you saved your extra each month, you’d have $1000. Trust me, I was in this position a few months ago, and we had a great plan on the things we were going to do – and we did it!
Where does that money go? Into more companies, who have to hire more people, who have to pay them better to keep them from other companies who are hiring, all of whom pay taxes. Not to mention the companies THEMSELVES are paying more taxes, even if they DON’T hire more people, because they are taxed on their profits too. And higher than you are. So the $200 the government would have gotten 25% out of from you is $200 the government is going to get 35% out of when it’s extra profits for a company.
I know all this is simplistic, but here’s the sinister part of all this. When you realize that after every major tax cut in history the government has ended up with MORE money instead of less, there is only one reason to actually increase taxes, or at least only one reason NOT to decrease taxes. To remove your disposable income. After all, when you get right down to it, that kind of money changes your mood. Scared, panicked, or angry people are much easier to manipulate than happy, healthy, well-adjusted people.
I don’t think there’s some Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy out there, I think it’s done by a bunch of individuals, with the same goals, who aren’t so much helping each other or doing these things in a targeted, goal-oriented, sinister way, but rather it is just one step ahead of being subconscious. They’re doing it because it makes their jobs easier.
Heads up for the “work ethic” observation in a post coming soon. Warning, these posts are going to become tougher and tougher to read, not easier. I will probably be blogged right out of a readership.
Monday, July 12, 2004
Why America Bash?
First, let me clear one thing up. I am not convinced that the whole world America-bashes. I am not convinced there is seething hatred in every non-American’s heart for citizens of the United States of America. And, I think in this context people are talking about the USA, not the Western Hemisphere. However, we see a lot of stories about it – how Anti-Americanism is on the rise. Of course, the irony of it is, “on the rise” means other countries are only catching up with the size of our own wacko contingents, who are themselves Americans even as they bash Americans.
Nevertheless, let’s assume for the moment there IS Anti-USA building out there. Why would that be? What is it about a nation that promotes freedom, does 94% of the world’s charitable giving (according to the UN) and uses our might to give power to the “little people”?
If you haven’t figured it out... it’s that last thing.
There are a couple subtle concepts at work here, but see if they make sense to you.
First, I believe that people naturally tend to think everyone else’s life is largely like their own – or at least they try to put other people’s lives into their framework. How this applies is that we tend to think, for example, that because our “press” or news media is free, unbounded, and often completely out of control, every society’s news media or press is equally independent of its government. And we tend to quote those sources as though they were that free.
Second, if you consider it is possible (and I think it’s a lot more than “possible”) that governments outside our own exert more pressure on their news outlets (or outright control in many places) it becomes possible that there are government-based reasons for the news stories we see. We hear constantly that leaders support our initiatives, but then go to their news media and bash us “for public consumption”.
I think that’s sick, personally. Their own terms suggest they’re FEEDING these lies to their own people. Why would they do that? I think the concept is marginally complex, but boils down to this:
People see how free and wealthy we are as a people, and how powerful as a nation, and they feel inferior or even outright miserable by comparison. They need a reason for this disparity. They are told they need someone to blame, or they need a reason why we are worse than they are, because world leaders recognize we are the most dangerous thing to their positions. Unless they’re actually attempting to give power to the people, to promote the kinds of free enterprise and democracy that got us where WE are, they are suppressing their own people and are in danger of being exposed. If people thought we were RIGHT, they would demand changes until they could do what we’re doing (and believe me, we would not be the only superpower if more nations instituted capitalism over socialism).
So why would world leaders want to promote the USA as vile, when instead they could increase their country’s power (and ostensibly their own) by focusing instead on improving their own country? Yes, it would require that they admit they’ve been wrong, which they probably think they can’t get away with (though I think they could in a BIG way if they showed results to their people) but even more there is another irony: the power that the President has carries more responsibility and more scrutiny than any other leader in the world. The leader of a country, like (say) France can get away with increasing personal power and wealth through (say) illegal deals with dictators and tyrants like (say) Saddam Hussein.
Lastly, there is the suppression angle. This can be confusing, but I’m going to say it anyway. There are several kinds of “revenue models”. The four I can think of are: profit, non-profit, regulated, and governmental (for lack of knowing the right term, which might be called “forced or involuntary non-profit”). This post has gotten out of hand, so I will write the next one up and attempt to explain in my next entry. It is technically part of the America-Bash phenomenon, but there is enough here that I think I have explained my point:
People tell us we’ve brought this hatred upon ourselves, and in a way they are right. We are successful, we have given ourselves the tools to succeed, and we have refused to give in to suppression. Additionally, we have a section of our free population that spews out despicable imagery about our own country (false imagery, I am convinced) but it is distributed to the whole world, who then believes that all we are is what they’ve seen on that screen.
However, I contend that the real reason is world leaders promote America-Bashing (and it gets picked up by media outlets) because they can’t afford to have their own people admiring us and demanding that their countries emulate those parts of us which would make the people stronger. They require misery (it’s a term called “immiseration”) to focus the public’s attention, to keep them incapable of doing without an overseeing government, and (in short) to keep themselves in power.
Nevertheless, let’s assume for the moment there IS Anti-USA building out there. Why would that be? What is it about a nation that promotes freedom, does 94% of the world’s charitable giving (according to the UN) and uses our might to give power to the “little people”?
If you haven’t figured it out... it’s that last thing.
There are a couple subtle concepts at work here, but see if they make sense to you.
First, I believe that people naturally tend to think everyone else’s life is largely like their own – or at least they try to put other people’s lives into their framework. How this applies is that we tend to think, for example, that because our “press” or news media is free, unbounded, and often completely out of control, every society’s news media or press is equally independent of its government. And we tend to quote those sources as though they were that free.
Second, if you consider it is possible (and I think it’s a lot more than “possible”) that governments outside our own exert more pressure on their news outlets (or outright control in many places) it becomes possible that there are government-based reasons for the news stories we see. We hear constantly that leaders support our initiatives, but then go to their news media and bash us “for public consumption”.
I think that’s sick, personally. Their own terms suggest they’re FEEDING these lies to their own people. Why would they do that? I think the concept is marginally complex, but boils down to this:
People see how free and wealthy we are as a people, and how powerful as a nation, and they feel inferior or even outright miserable by comparison. They need a reason for this disparity. They are told they need someone to blame, or they need a reason why we are worse than they are, because world leaders recognize we are the most dangerous thing to their positions. Unless they’re actually attempting to give power to the people, to promote the kinds of free enterprise and democracy that got us where WE are, they are suppressing their own people and are in danger of being exposed. If people thought we were RIGHT, they would demand changes until they could do what we’re doing (and believe me, we would not be the only superpower if more nations instituted capitalism over socialism).
So why would world leaders want to promote the USA as vile, when instead they could increase their country’s power (and ostensibly their own) by focusing instead on improving their own country? Yes, it would require that they admit they’ve been wrong, which they probably think they can’t get away with (though I think they could in a BIG way if they showed results to their people) but even more there is another irony: the power that the President has carries more responsibility and more scrutiny than any other leader in the world. The leader of a country, like (say) France can get away with increasing personal power and wealth through (say) illegal deals with dictators and tyrants like (say) Saddam Hussein.
Lastly, there is the suppression angle. This can be confusing, but I’m going to say it anyway. There are several kinds of “revenue models”. The four I can think of are: profit, non-profit, regulated, and governmental (for lack of knowing the right term, which might be called “forced or involuntary non-profit”). This post has gotten out of hand, so I will write the next one up and attempt to explain in my next entry. It is technically part of the America-Bash phenomenon, but there is enough here that I think I have explained my point:
People tell us we’ve brought this hatred upon ourselves, and in a way they are right. We are successful, we have given ourselves the tools to succeed, and we have refused to give in to suppression. Additionally, we have a section of our free population that spews out despicable imagery about our own country (false imagery, I am convinced) but it is distributed to the whole world, who then believes that all we are is what they’ve seen on that screen.
However, I contend that the real reason is world leaders promote America-Bashing (and it gets picked up by media outlets) because they can’t afford to have their own people admiring us and demanding that their countries emulate those parts of us which would make the people stronger. They require misery (it’s a term called “immiseration”) to focus the public’s attention, to keep them incapable of doing without an overseeing government, and (in short) to keep themselves in power.
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Our kids: The Exciting Prospect of Mankind?
Instead of posting the entire article here on the blog, I am going to seriously encourage you to read the link of "hope" at the bottom of this entry. I remember someone close to me once asked, since each generation rebelled against the previous, and in particular through their music, could we possibly imagine what our children would listen to? I remember I answered something to the effect that they would rebel by refusing to be rebels, but rather by liking our music. The reply was a frustrated frown and the query how could that possibly be a rebellion? I said because we considered it OUR music and they would take it away from us (face it, once a teenager claims something, they can out-hip us five ways to Sunday without stopping at Denny's). They would rebel by liking us and being likeable.
I didn’t understand it back then (this must have been 20 years ago, yikes!!) but what I think I’m saying is that because there would be those among us who wanted to justify our own rebellion by pointing to our kids and saying “all kids rebel, we were just kids” our kids would deny us that justification. Additionally, I think (though the phrase had not been coined then) I saw then that our kids would carry off the ultimate dig: they would take away from us the chance to be the next “greatest generation” by so clearly being ready to overshadow us.
I’m not talking about kids being perfect little angels. My own kids argue, they do things wrong, they hide candy in their room, they get suspended from the school bus... rebellion goes much deeper than that. It’s doing things behind my back, it’s running away from home a few times – and then for real, it’s doing drugs and having sex before they can even drive a car.
I find incredible hope in this article. I am excited for what may happen in my lifetime. Which of us might be patiently trying explaining third grade math to the next Albert Einstein? What could Einstein have done if instead of starting where he did; he could start at the end of his work and move beyond that?
There is an interesting article relating the policies that the “left” espouses and the loss of population (Christian Europeans, for example, have not been replacing themselves even 1:1 for 30 years). If you look at the things they scorn and the things they support, they take a very self-destructive stance overall (conspiracy theories here might suggest this was done deliberately during the 60s and 70s by our enemy then, but you’re not really suggesting *I* am a conspiracy theorist... er... are you? Hey... why are you looking at me that way? You don’t have any funny business in mind do you? Hey! Stop it!)
The Article of Hope:
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=40424
An example of self-destructive politics follows. Let me know if I need to blog about this one, though my point will not be about individual choice but rather because one party has forced this issue into national debate, they have espoused self-destruction. Again, I have no problem with people making individual choices that seem counter to what's being said here, I'm looking at the overall swing.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277
I didn’t understand it back then (this must have been 20 years ago, yikes!!) but what I think I’m saying is that because there would be those among us who wanted to justify our own rebellion by pointing to our kids and saying “all kids rebel, we were just kids” our kids would deny us that justification. Additionally, I think (though the phrase had not been coined then) I saw then that our kids would carry off the ultimate dig: they would take away from us the chance to be the next “greatest generation” by so clearly being ready to overshadow us.
I’m not talking about kids being perfect little angels. My own kids argue, they do things wrong, they hide candy in their room, they get suspended from the school bus... rebellion goes much deeper than that. It’s doing things behind my back, it’s running away from home a few times – and then for real, it’s doing drugs and having sex before they can even drive a car.
I find incredible hope in this article. I am excited for what may happen in my lifetime. Which of us might be patiently trying explaining third grade math to the next Albert Einstein? What could Einstein have done if instead of starting where he did; he could start at the end of his work and move beyond that?
There is an interesting article relating the policies that the “left” espouses and the loss of population (Christian Europeans, for example, have not been replacing themselves even 1:1 for 30 years). If you look at the things they scorn and the things they support, they take a very self-destructive stance overall (conspiracy theories here might suggest this was done deliberately during the 60s and 70s by our enemy then, but you’re not really suggesting *I* am a conspiracy theorist... er... are you? Hey... why are you looking at me that way? You don’t have any funny business in mind do you? Hey! Stop it!)
The Article of Hope:
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=40424
An example of self-destructive politics follows. Let me know if I need to blog about this one, though my point will not be about individual choice but rather because one party has forced this issue into national debate, they have espoused self-destruction. Again, I have no problem with people making individual choices that seem counter to what's being said here, I'm looking at the overall swing.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277
Friday, July 09, 2004
Hyphenated Americans.
Shorter posts. Shorter posts. Whoosh. Shorter posts.
See if you can go all week without saying African-American, Italian-American, Native-American, whatever.
When I talked to someone else about this, they said “Earthling” would be even better. I agree, when you’re talking to someone outside the country. But what I’d like to see is unification, not division, within our OWN country. It’s not so much Earth that is under attack as America. So let’s have Americans recognize we’re Americans, not divided little sub-groups.
Remember, we’re not the only people who understand VERY clearly: “Divide, and conquer”.
See if you can go all week without saying African-American, Italian-American, Native-American, whatever.
When I talked to someone else about this, they said “Earthling” would be even better. I agree, when you’re talking to someone outside the country. But what I’d like to see is unification, not division, within our OWN country. It’s not so much Earth that is under attack as America. So let’s have Americans recognize we’re Americans, not divided little sub-groups.
Remember, we’re not the only people who understand VERY clearly: “Divide, and conquer”.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Tort Reform, or The Healthcare Spiral
It’s hard to talk about certain subjects because even those people who agree with me have fears that change their politics. We all recognize that people have different issues they cling to, so you’re not going to be “all conservative” or “all liberal”. One that I see a lot of uncertainty over is healthcare.
We see rising healthcare costs and we panic – after all we’re conditioned to believe things never get cheaper, they only get more expensive (despite some examples to the contrary like gas). And most of the time we have the same reaction when something gets expensive. “How are we going to pay for that?”
I would like to look at the other side of this issue. There are two parts to healthcare that cause huge bills, and they both boil down to abuse. Abuse of the legal system, and abuse of coverage.
The problem is, whenever a sensible conservative starts to talk on this issue, people jump to conclusions and put words and concepts into the conservative’s mouth. I believe overzealous trial lawyers cause incredible damage to healthcare costs. Does that mean I feel nobody should be able to sue for malpractice? No, it means I believe it has gotten out of hand. I believe people use their healthcare coverage for the wrong things. Does that mean I believe nobody should have healthcare coverage? No, it means that they’re using their coverage for things they shouldn’t.
What are the results? The money has to come from SOMEWHERE. Illustration: Doctor performs surgery and makes a mistake. Patient sues doctor. Patient and their lawyers get large compensation packages. Doctor needs to get the money back from somewhere, supposedly they have insurance to cover the claim. Whether it’s the doctor themselves or the insurer who pays, that money that went to a very few people has to come from SOMEWHERE. Insurance companies don’t mint money. They take it from you in the form of premiums. So let’s say your insurance company, which has been slowly building up its cash buffer, has to pay out $50 million to this patient and their lawyers. Let’s use example numbers and say they’ve got $40 million in the bank. They borrow the extra $10 million and raise your rates in order to not only fill their reservoir back up (hopefully faster this time so they don’t have to borrow to pay out) but also to pay interest on their loan. So... who paid that patient and their lawyers? Did the doctor pay? No. YOU paid. Your insurance rates went up. You didn’t pay the whole $50 million, you just paid a little of it. You and everyone else at that insurance company just paid “punitive damages” two one patient and a few lawyers.
I do not have health insurance. I have rarely had it. I paid for two of my children’s births (please realize that my wife and I are a unified team, so “we” might be a better word to use, but may be confusing). I have had two “procedures” and have paid for them both out of my own pocket. I went into debt, and paid it out.
It is not easy. It is always frustrating. And it’s bloody expensive. Now, if healthcare were more commensurate with, say, auto repair – your regular needs cost you like oil changes and tune ups, and occasionally you had a $200 or $500 or even $1000 job you needed done – we could all pay for it as it came up. We’d grumble, just as we do when our car isn’t working and is going to cost a lot to fix, but we’d deal with it.
I don’t want to do away with healthcare coverage. There are actually many things that a “regular Joe” (not schmo) can’t afford. But if healthcare covered those things, in full or with reasonable deductibles, and we put a cap on what a lawyer could make as a fee (make the cap huge, but put it on there) the overhead we’re paying, not for quality care, not for quality facilities, not for necessary procedures, but to patients and particularly their lawyers (who were not injured or damaged by the malpractice) would stop coming out of OUR paychecks.
Yes, this entire illustration works for taxes too. Perhaps that’s a future post, so you can see it written somewhere that a conservative (looking more and more archetypal all the time) WANTS taxes. But that he wants reasonable taxes, and them spent on reasonable things.
You see, in both cases, this is the ultimate thrust: I support the government looking out for “the little guy” (defining “the little guy” is a whole topic by itself) but I do not support the government trying to turn “the little guy” into “the big guy”. The fact is that turning the little guy into the big guy is almost always done at the expense of other little guys. They make it LOOK like the “big guy” is being hurt, being chipped away at, but when you actually follow the money you see it doesn’t come from so-called big guys. It comes from you and me. And to feed the system, proponents of it must accelerate the attrition.
Then there’s the “moving doctor” phenomenon. Doctors leaving places like Canada and Mississippi in droves because they can’t afford to work there. When the cost of insurance overshadows the fee you charge, becomes your number one expense, you move to where it isn’t so bad. When was the last time you looked at just how much you’re paying in homeowner’s insurance and taxes? I looked at my bill. More than 35% of what I pay in my monthly mortgage is taxes and insurance. On a mortgage of $1000 that means you’re actually only paying $650 for your house, the rest is insurance and taxes. Extrapolating this analogy, the mortgage I pay here would be $1500 in Canada or Mississippi. For the same $650 house payment. At that point I move back to Texas. That’s what it’s like to be a doctor today.
Again, I’m not against insurance, or healthcare, I’m against the swelling leech that sucks the blood out of our economy so that we’re all a bunch of people paying more for the extras and overheads than the actual services themselves.
We see rising healthcare costs and we panic – after all we’re conditioned to believe things never get cheaper, they only get more expensive (despite some examples to the contrary like gas). And most of the time we have the same reaction when something gets expensive. “How are we going to pay for that?”
I would like to look at the other side of this issue. There are two parts to healthcare that cause huge bills, and they both boil down to abuse. Abuse of the legal system, and abuse of coverage.
The problem is, whenever a sensible conservative starts to talk on this issue, people jump to conclusions and put words and concepts into the conservative’s mouth. I believe overzealous trial lawyers cause incredible damage to healthcare costs. Does that mean I feel nobody should be able to sue for malpractice? No, it means I believe it has gotten out of hand. I believe people use their healthcare coverage for the wrong things. Does that mean I believe nobody should have healthcare coverage? No, it means that they’re using their coverage for things they shouldn’t.
What are the results? The money has to come from SOMEWHERE. Illustration: Doctor performs surgery and makes a mistake. Patient sues doctor. Patient and their lawyers get large compensation packages. Doctor needs to get the money back from somewhere, supposedly they have insurance to cover the claim. Whether it’s the doctor themselves or the insurer who pays, that money that went to a very few people has to come from SOMEWHERE. Insurance companies don’t mint money. They take it from you in the form of premiums. So let’s say your insurance company, which has been slowly building up its cash buffer, has to pay out $50 million to this patient and their lawyers. Let’s use example numbers and say they’ve got $40 million in the bank. They borrow the extra $10 million and raise your rates in order to not only fill their reservoir back up (hopefully faster this time so they don’t have to borrow to pay out) but also to pay interest on their loan. So... who paid that patient and their lawyers? Did the doctor pay? No. YOU paid. Your insurance rates went up. You didn’t pay the whole $50 million, you just paid a little of it. You and everyone else at that insurance company just paid “punitive damages” two one patient and a few lawyers.
I do not have health insurance. I have rarely had it. I paid for two of my children’s births (please realize that my wife and I are a unified team, so “we” might be a better word to use, but may be confusing). I have had two “procedures” and have paid for them both out of my own pocket. I went into debt, and paid it out.
It is not easy. It is always frustrating. And it’s bloody expensive. Now, if healthcare were more commensurate with, say, auto repair – your regular needs cost you like oil changes and tune ups, and occasionally you had a $200 or $500 or even $1000 job you needed done – we could all pay for it as it came up. We’d grumble, just as we do when our car isn’t working and is going to cost a lot to fix, but we’d deal with it.
I don’t want to do away with healthcare coverage. There are actually many things that a “regular Joe” (not schmo) can’t afford. But if healthcare covered those things, in full or with reasonable deductibles, and we put a cap on what a lawyer could make as a fee (make the cap huge, but put it on there) the overhead we’re paying, not for quality care, not for quality facilities, not for necessary procedures, but to patients and particularly their lawyers (who were not injured or damaged by the malpractice) would stop coming out of OUR paychecks.
Yes, this entire illustration works for taxes too. Perhaps that’s a future post, so you can see it written somewhere that a conservative (looking more and more archetypal all the time) WANTS taxes. But that he wants reasonable taxes, and them spent on reasonable things.
You see, in both cases, this is the ultimate thrust: I support the government looking out for “the little guy” (defining “the little guy” is a whole topic by itself) but I do not support the government trying to turn “the little guy” into “the big guy”. The fact is that turning the little guy into the big guy is almost always done at the expense of other little guys. They make it LOOK like the “big guy” is being hurt, being chipped away at, but when you actually follow the money you see it doesn’t come from so-called big guys. It comes from you and me. And to feed the system, proponents of it must accelerate the attrition.
Then there’s the “moving doctor” phenomenon. Doctors leaving places like Canada and Mississippi in droves because they can’t afford to work there. When the cost of insurance overshadows the fee you charge, becomes your number one expense, you move to where it isn’t so bad. When was the last time you looked at just how much you’re paying in homeowner’s insurance and taxes? I looked at my bill. More than 35% of what I pay in my monthly mortgage is taxes and insurance. On a mortgage of $1000 that means you’re actually only paying $650 for your house, the rest is insurance and taxes. Extrapolating this analogy, the mortgage I pay here would be $1500 in Canada or Mississippi. For the same $650 house payment. At that point I move back to Texas. That’s what it’s like to be a doctor today.
Again, I’m not against insurance, or healthcare, I’m against the swelling leech that sucks the blood out of our economy so that we’re all a bunch of people paying more for the extras and overheads than the actual services themselves.
Friday, July 02, 2004
America's Heart & Soul
AMC Huebner Oaks 24
11075 1H 10 West
America’s Heart and Soul.
Heard about this movie?
Let me try another title.
Fahrenheit 9/11.
While the press couldn’t wait to extol the controversies surrounding Michael Moore’s filth (which is now being completely debunked by Richard Clark, who is quoted constantly in the movie as a reliable source – how do you spin that one Mr. Moore??) the big names in movie critics (don’t get me started) are all attempting to say that America’s Heart and Soul, which WILL be distributed by Disney, is nothing but “... a way to escape contemporary America rather than celebrate it.” (Dave Kehr, New York Times).
What?? Contemporary America ... oooooooooooooooodon’tgetmestarted. Two problems here. First, isn’t that what Disney IS SUPPOSED TO BE??? I thought, forgive me if I’m having one of those childhood moments here, Disney was all about being positive, reinforcing, and on the sunny side of life. Are we suggesting that the icon of American Happiness is now supposed to be dark and gloomy? Besides, their films are dark and gloomy most of the time now. Do we KNOW they didn’t distribute F9/11 because it was anti-Bush, or perhaps they saw it and knew the inaccuracies and didn’t want to be associated with the fall-out?
Furthermore, this crap about Contemporary America. Actually, first let me give you the next article, as it adds to what I want to say on that score. Here the Hollywood Reporter actually comes out and suggests they are the center of the universe and anyone who likes this film is completely out of touch: “In cinemas, ‘Heart & Soul’ is an odd duck, out of sync with the current generation of documentarians whose films dig deep into stories and issues the media generally overlooks.”
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000554196
Did anyone else fall apart laughing at the suggestion those tripe films dig into issues "the media generally overlooks"? Seems to me the problem is there's too much looking so by the time the film comes out there's "nothing new in it" (according to the NYT which still gave it a thumbs up).
I encourage you to read this article. It was, to me, a great example of how spin backfires when you are too blatantly obvious about it. In order to spin the subject, you still have to state the subject, and I found myself agreeing more with the unheard film than with the outspoken critic.
Here’s my beef. In this very article this critic suggests that the film should have presented the frustrations as well as the positives. Like.... Michael Moore did? How many “well rounded” anti-Bush films are there? Have they shown what we ACCOMPLISHED over in Iraq? Have they bothered to point out that WE HAVE FOUND AND CONTINUE TO FIND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
In our own country it’s no different. If you don’t live in Hollywood or where you can look enviously at the sign on the hill, or in New York or close enough to smell the dump on Staten Island, or in Boston where you can vote for Ted Kennedy and John Kerry... YOU are apparently a relic, a throwback, a red-neck hick hillbilly and you are NOT contemporary America. So in a completely self-contradictory way this critic is asking us to be well rounded but wants to discount anyone who lives where there’s breathing room between their stucco and their neighbor’s stucco. It seems to me diversity is only convenient when it benefits them, not when it suggests there’s something else actually out there besides their narrow view.
Personally, I am NOT an Eisner fan. I think he’s screwed Disney up in ways I can’t even fathom. But you should talk to my sister about that. She not only knows Disney much better than I do, but she knows investing pretty darn well and can probably speak to the financial ways Eisner has damaged the company by taking so much “personal money” out in the way of stock options. Like HE was responsible for the stock being that high in the first place. Well, I don’t pretend that he makes every little decision about what Disney shows and doesn’t, but whoever over there is finally showing something upbeat and encouraging, you may have earned my only movie ticket this year (admittedly I don’t go to the movies that much).
It was hard to find where this movie is playing near me, but I found on theater about 45 miles away (Moore complained that his film started in only 898 theaters, this one opened today in 90). I can’t afford to go to the movies right now, but I will skip a meal to see this film.
11075 1H 10 West
America’s Heart and Soul.
Heard about this movie?
Let me try another title.
Fahrenheit 9/11.
While the press couldn’t wait to extol the controversies surrounding Michael Moore’s filth (which is now being completely debunked by Richard Clark, who is quoted constantly in the movie as a reliable source – how do you spin that one Mr. Moore??) the big names in movie critics (don’t get me started) are all attempting to say that America’s Heart and Soul, which WILL be distributed by Disney, is nothing but “... a way to escape contemporary America rather than celebrate it.” (Dave Kehr, New York Times).
What?? Contemporary America ... oooooooooooooooodon’tgetmestarted. Two problems here. First, isn’t that what Disney IS SUPPOSED TO BE??? I thought, forgive me if I’m having one of those childhood moments here, Disney was all about being positive, reinforcing, and on the sunny side of life. Are we suggesting that the icon of American Happiness is now supposed to be dark and gloomy? Besides, their films are dark and gloomy most of the time now. Do we KNOW they didn’t distribute F9/11 because it was anti-Bush, or perhaps they saw it and knew the inaccuracies and didn’t want to be associated with the fall-out?
Furthermore, this crap about Contemporary America. Actually, first let me give you the next article, as it adds to what I want to say on that score. Here the Hollywood Reporter actually comes out and suggests they are the center of the universe and anyone who likes this film is completely out of touch: “In cinemas, ‘Heart & Soul’ is an odd duck, out of sync with the current generation of documentarians whose films dig deep into stories and issues the media generally overlooks.”
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000554196
Did anyone else fall apart laughing at the suggestion those tripe films dig into issues "the media generally overlooks"? Seems to me the problem is there's too much looking so by the time the film comes out there's "nothing new in it" (according to the NYT which still gave it a thumbs up).
I encourage you to read this article. It was, to me, a great example of how spin backfires when you are too blatantly obvious about it. In order to spin the subject, you still have to state the subject, and I found myself agreeing more with the unheard film than with the outspoken critic.
Here’s my beef. In this very article this critic suggests that the film should have presented the frustrations as well as the positives. Like.... Michael Moore did? How many “well rounded” anti-Bush films are there? Have they shown what we ACCOMPLISHED over in Iraq? Have they bothered to point out that WE HAVE FOUND AND CONTINUE TO FIND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
In our own country it’s no different. If you don’t live in Hollywood or where you can look enviously at the sign on the hill, or in New York or close enough to smell the dump on Staten Island, or in Boston where you can vote for Ted Kennedy and John Kerry... YOU are apparently a relic, a throwback, a red-neck hick hillbilly and you are NOT contemporary America. So in a completely self-contradictory way this critic is asking us to be well rounded but wants to discount anyone who lives where there’s breathing room between their stucco and their neighbor’s stucco. It seems to me diversity is only convenient when it benefits them, not when it suggests there’s something else actually out there besides their narrow view.
Personally, I am NOT an Eisner fan. I think he’s screwed Disney up in ways I can’t even fathom. But you should talk to my sister about that. She not only knows Disney much better than I do, but she knows investing pretty darn well and can probably speak to the financial ways Eisner has damaged the company by taking so much “personal money” out in the way of stock options. Like HE was responsible for the stock being that high in the first place. Well, I don’t pretend that he makes every little decision about what Disney shows and doesn’t, but whoever over there is finally showing something upbeat and encouraging, you may have earned my only movie ticket this year (admittedly I don’t go to the movies that much).
It was hard to find where this movie is playing near me, but I found on theater about 45 miles away (Moore complained that his film started in only 898 theaters, this one opened today in 90). I can’t afford to go to the movies right now, but I will skip a meal to see this film.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Positive Reinforcement II
Just when you thought the 9/11 Commission was all about trashing the President, just when you thought they were going to find we're losing the war on terrorism... you find out it's not the 9/11 Commission against the President or hoping we lose the war, it's "selective journalism" that chose to report 1/2 of one sentence (that basically said while there WAS a relationship between Al' Qaeda and Iraq, there appeared to be no collusion between them specifically on 9/11) they completely ignored SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS of extremely positive news. Sigh.
Here's the part of Staff Statement 15 that the press decided Americans didn't need to hear about, as reported by the Commission under the heading "Al Qaeda* Today."
"Since the September 11 attacks and the defeat of the Taliban, as Qaeda's funding has decreased significantly. The arrests or deaths of several important financial facilitators have decreased the amount of money al Qaeda has raised and increased the costs and difficulty of raising and moving that money.
"Some entirely corrupt charities are now out of business, with many of their principals killed or captured, although some charities may still be providing support to al Qaeda.
"Moreover, it appears that the al Qaeda attacks within Saudi Arabia in May and November 2003 have reduced - perhaps drastically - at Qaeda's ability to raise funds from Saudi sources. Both an increase in Saudi enforcement and a more negative perception of al Qaeda by potential donors have cut its income." [END OF EXCERPT]
And the good news for America - not to mention the Bush administration - doesn't end there. In the same section, Staff Statement 15 notes:
"Prior to 9/11, al Qaeda was a centralized organization which used Afghanistan as a war room to strategize, plan attacks, and dispatch operatives worldwide." But now, says the Commission, "Bin Ladin's* seclusion [has] forced operational commanders and cell leaders to assume greater authority; they are now making the command decisions previously made by him."
The report concluded that Al Qaeda is not capable of the kind of massive attack they once carried out on our east coast. Sounds to me like we're winning. Wouldn't it be nice to at least know that? How many people are carrying around extra stress, perhaps claiming they need state sponsored (read, your tax-money sponsored) therapy who could rest easier of the press weren't so hell bent on making them miserable?
Here's the part of Staff Statement 15 that the press decided Americans didn't need to hear about, as reported by the Commission under the heading "Al Qaeda* Today."
"Since the September 11 attacks and the defeat of the Taliban, as Qaeda's funding has decreased significantly. The arrests or deaths of several important financial facilitators have decreased the amount of money al Qaeda has raised and increased the costs and difficulty of raising and moving that money.
"Some entirely corrupt charities are now out of business, with many of their principals killed or captured, although some charities may still be providing support to al Qaeda.
"Moreover, it appears that the al Qaeda attacks within Saudi Arabia in May and November 2003 have reduced - perhaps drastically - at Qaeda's ability to raise funds from Saudi sources. Both an increase in Saudi enforcement and a more negative perception of al Qaeda by potential donors have cut its income." [END OF EXCERPT]
And the good news for America - not to mention the Bush administration - doesn't end there. In the same section, Staff Statement 15 notes:
"Prior to 9/11, al Qaeda was a centralized organization which used Afghanistan as a war room to strategize, plan attacks, and dispatch operatives worldwide." But now, says the Commission, "Bin Ladin's* seclusion [has] forced operational commanders and cell leaders to assume greater authority; they are now making the command decisions previously made by him."
The report concluded that Al Qaeda is not capable of the kind of massive attack they once carried out on our east coast. Sounds to me like we're winning. Wouldn't it be nice to at least know that? How many people are carrying around extra stress, perhaps claiming they need state sponsored (read, your tax-money sponsored) therapy who could rest easier of the press weren't so hell bent on making them miserable?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)