Tag Archives: incentives

Socialized Heathcare… Do we want this?

Posted on by
Reply

First Step: Watch this video on Canadian Healthcare

Did you watch the video?  I would embed it so you can watch it here, but it seems that due to technological limitations (or decisions) that isn’t going to happen.  And no I’ve decided against figuring out how to circumvent such actions.  So, click the link already.  It is only 20 minutes out of your life to watch a humorous yet somewhat painful video on the realization of socialized health care.  Don’t believe me then click the link.

Obama Plan: How do we pay for it?

You may be wondering what my take on the Obama plan is.  Well, firstly I want to know how we are going to pay for it.  Really, Social Security is going in the red, and so is Medicare.  Last I check in the red means that it isn’t profitable, and also means that there is no money to fund it.  Tax reciepts are down significantly, not to mention State Tax receipts.

So, the “income” that the Federal Governement receives is down.  Remember that the government doesn’t actually make or produce anything and is soley funded by us the taxpayer.  So, to pay for this we are going to go further in the red.  We already have a trillion plus deficit for 2009, which means borrowing or printing substantial sums of money.

While Univeral Health Care sounds wonderful, but again to pay for it we have to get the money from somewhere.  That somewhere is from the “rich”.  Maybe you feel entitled to health care, maybe not.  Essentially what is going to happen is that money will be siphoned from those with high incomes to subsidize the plans.  This is a blatant transfer of wealth, which is what the government does.

At what point do high income earners decide that enough is enough and decide to earn less?  If I were taxed at say 60%, which means I get to keep 40% of my income my incentive to earn more declines.

Rationing: Supply and Demand

Here is where socialized health care gets interesting.  Let’s say there is $100 billion dollars allocated to public health care per year.  For the moment don’t worry about the exact sums of money as this is an example.

With that $100b services can be provided up to that point.  Once that point is reached or even if we start to near that point where if anything else is spent then the program is in the red.  How might the administrators prevent that from happening?

1) You have to wait in line for your turn… these lines could get really long

2) Deny you service… bummer looks like you don’t get that MRI

3) Rationing, where there is a limited number of services available

So, in a perfect world we would all be healthy, and have 100% health care.  As much as I’d like that to be a reality we have to be realistic.  The only thing we get for free is the air we breath.  Anything else requires work, which then can be exchanged for a good or service.  I’m not saying our present system is perfect, by no means, but I don’t think this is the way.

A bond bubble… Really?

Posted on by
Reply

Bonds, bonds, bonds…  United States Government bonds ARE the safest investment in the world besides cash.  Right?  They are aren’t they?  I mean they are backed by the taxing power of the United States Government so they have to be.  Well, sure you will get your money back at a measly 2.x% these days.  Isn’t that below the rate of inflation you ask…  why yes it is.  T-bills are paying tenths of a percentage so you choose.  Besides stocks and commodites have cost many a small fortune so investing in bonds is a wise decision.  Right?

There is much talk about a bond bubble, and I’ve been watching bond prices and their rates take off recently and also have a nice correction.   Generally I watch $TNX, which is the 10-year government bond yield.  Remember bond yields move inversley to their prices.  So, if yields go down then prices go up and vice versa.

So, we have seen equity and commodity prices collapse, housing prices, and while that was occuring treasury bond prices have taken off.  This MUST be a bubble right?  Perhaps, but you have to take into account who buys and sells bonds.  We have the individual investor, which makes up a small group.  The major purchasers of bonds are large institutions and governments.  For institutions let’s look at the money market industry.  They must hold a number of bonds based on their funds requirements.  For governments they buy and sell bonds all the time.  They sell them to raise money and other governments or institutions buy them for a “safe” return.

As a last resort the Federal Reserve will purchase bonds directly, thus monetizing debt (PRINTING MONEY), thus keeping bond prices high and yields low. Therefore bonds aren’t really controlled by investors as we like to think, but much larger fish in the sea.

So, what might we see when the world loses faith in the bond markets?  Auctions will be devoid of foreign buyers signaling that foreign demand has dried up.  This will spark the necesitated increase in interst rate as an incentive for others to borrow.  Simultaneously we might see a flee from bonds as investors are concerned about their future safety.

If you look at the news you will see exports are way down from exporting countries, which means that importing coutries aren’t importing anywhere near previous levels.  Welcome to a major recession, yes there are grumblings of this being a depresssion.  I supose it depends on your viewpoint.  Now what happens when these net exporting countries decide to stop buying our debt because they have their own problems at home and have to use their saving?  They will no longer be purchasing our debt, which will make it more and more difficult for the USA to spend, and service existing debt.  Being that most of our debt is short term as the interest rate rises so do the debt servicing costs.  As these costs rise, tax income decreases then we are stuck with either printing more money (the short and easy “solution”), we cut back on gov’t services, or a combination of both.

Watch out for rising interest rates and a falling dollar.  So far we have neither, but once we do this will signal a shift from the US Dollar as secure to the US dollar as a high risk.  Expect other currencies in better situtations than us to see their currencies gain value, while the major winners will be commodities and gold.

Another bailout, more credit… when will we learn?

Posted on by
Reply

It seems that the tune to march to these days is credit o credit we need more credit.  Somehow somewhere we forgot quite quickly that credit got us into this mess.  If credit is expanding much faster than real economic growth the outcome will be instability in the economy.  That is like an individual taking on more debt while their income stays steady or worse is in decline.  At some point in the future the debt will become unmanageable.  Once debt is too great a burden that individual is going to have to either sell assets to pay off the debt, declare bankruptcy, increase their income, or default.  The one thing that makes the government lucky or so it seems is that they can increase “income” through inflating the money supply event hough it is really illusionary.  All they have done is take money from every taxpayer to service the ever growing debt burden.

I find it distressing that Bernake and Co. are talking about further fiscal stimulus to the tune of $150 billion dollars and Democrats want double that.  We are already over $1 trillion in debt for this year.  Where o where are we to find this money?  Perhaps a leprechaun will appear beneath the rainbow and we will be saved.  If the politicians and bureaucrats have their way this is exactly what will happen.  

American’s have no or very little savings to invest in capital goods.  We are laden in debt and attempting to service that debt.  If unemployment rises substantially then servicing that debt will become even more burdensome.  Another stimulus package will probably be used to payoff existing debt, which does nothing for stimulating growth.

So, what do we do…  Many have proposed various solutions.  

Why not reduce the size of the government for one. 
– Yes, people will lose their jobs.  However, with time they will find other jobs as that money can now be used for other things.

Reduce taxes, and the size of the tax code.
 —  Our tax code is way to complicated and confusing.  I would love to know the cumulative hours wasted on tax returns every year by companies and individuals.  Imagine if we had a flat tax of 10-15%…  get rid of tax incentives, credits, exemptions, etc…  Not everyone is going to be happy about it, but a reduction in the tax burden in actual numbers and time would enable people to use their money elsewhere and as they choose versus having someone decide for them where to best put it to use.   

Return our currency to one backed by a physical commodity — GOLD and SILVER
 — The government would hate this, but it would eliminate the major booms and busts and enable constant growth.  Money would again have a true value versus the value instilled by the gov’t.  Money’s value would be returned to the people and taken away from the money printers, and confiscators of our savings.

Bring our troops home
 — We don’t need to be the world’s police.  Occupying over 140 countries is absurd and very costly.  I agree that we need to have an army to defend the country, but it needs to be defensive and not offensive.  Our paws are in too many honey jars.  We are bound to piss off the bees, which we are continually doing and then blame them for getting upset at us.  Ironic don’t you think.

Remove all subsidies and tariffs
 — All they do is distort the market place and what people produce.  For example why do we have corn syrup in our soda, but in the rest of the world they use sugar?  Corn is highly subsidized, while sugar has many tariffs on it.  Corn Syrup is cheaper due to government policy.  Corn farmers love this, while it hurts all of us.  We pay for those subsidies, and also pay high sugar prices.

I’m going to leave it at that, but there are plenty more options.  People say that ignorance is bliss.  NO it isn’t bliss it is being LAZY.  Will you get out of a parking ticket or a speeding ticket if you claim ignorance?  Not unless you are really smooth with words.  

What happened to being responsible? If you take on too much debt then you have a problem.  American’s have a virus, and it is contagious.  We live beyond our means, and then when we get in trouble someone bails us out at the cost of everyone.  The one’s who really pay are the responsible ones who are living within their means.

Your Vote?

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been trying to educate people why voting for candidate A or B isn’t the only option.  This article  explains it nicely.

Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin recently published an article entitled “A Wasted Vote,” in which he expounds the virtue of voting on uncompromised principles, viz. voting for Chuck Baldwin, as opposed to casting one’s vote for what Chuck calls “the evil of two lessers.”

Here, I would like to offer an addendum to Mr. Baldwin’s points; I have a couple of observations of my own with regard to the old “wasted vote” argument I often hear when I make it clear to well-meaning McCain and Obama supporters that I do not intend to participate in perpetuating the American two-party duopoly this November:

1. In the grand scheme of things, in a national election, one’s vote is insignificant. That’s right, your vote is insignificant. The notion that a single individual’s vote might sway a presidential election one way or another is completely out of touch with reality. In reality, an individual’s vote has virtually no say over who gets elected president. With that in mind, on an individual basis, why would one not vote for a candidate one actually wants to be president, as opposed to a candidate one imagines has close to a 50% chance of winning and who kinda sorta represents one’s ideals, or who is perhaps a little better than “the other guy”?

2. Voting for a losing candidate has ramifications beyond the immediate outcome of an election. In other words, winning isn’t everything. Granted, as per the above point, the impact your vote will have is an infinitesimally small one, but nonetheless it will have an infinitesimally small impact. The support third-party candidates receive is duly noted by the Democrats and Republicans. Votes garnered by “far left,” third-party candidates–Ralph Nader, for example–are incentives for the Democrats to “move left” in an attempt to obtain those votes the next election cycle. Likewise, votes garnered by “far right,” third-party candidates–Chuck Baldwin, for example–are incentives for the Republicans to “move right” in an effort to secure those votes. On the opposite side of the coin, if you cast your vote for an establishment candidate, you are essentially assenting to the status quo via the voting booth. You are sending a message to the Democrats or Republicans that you accept the candidate, however lukewarm or otherwise terrible, that they have presented to you this election cycle, and that you will complacently vote for more like him or her in the future.