You know, one thing I cannot get over is how so many on the Left seem to admire the "China model" of economy. You read talk about China's "benevolent dictatorship" and how it is headed by a group of "enlightened" people (Thomas Friedman there). But I mean, seriously? Many of these people are the same kinds who RAILED against the policies of the Bush administration as being too oppressive. Well the Bush administration, love it or hate it, was no equivalent of the Chinese Communist Party. If anyone questions that, try criticizing the Chinese Communist Party from within China the way people criticized the Bush administration.
These people remind me of the types who would sit from the comfort and freedom of a Western democratic country and romanticize about the (supposed) greatness of the Soviet Union or Castro's Cuba or even Mao's China. But yet, few of these types would ever go and actually live in such a country. Now we see the same with these admirers (almost all on the left-wing end of the political spectrum) of the so-called China model. Oh, they will sing the praises of authoritarian government so long as it is doing the things they like and want to be done, and usually so long as it is in a different country.
But it probably isn't very difficult to describe how these same China-model admiring elites would respond if say a Republican administration took control of the government and decided to implement its own brand of authoritarian rule. As I've pointed out, it's generally thought that economic freedom cannot exist without political freedom, although this isn't known for sure (and transitioning from an authoritarian government to a liberal democracy can take some time). For example, if China's economy is allowed to become freer (which the government isn't allowing at the moment), will it eventually lead to China becoming a liberal democracy? There's a joke that in the late 19th century, Germany began adopting the principles of liberal democracy and market capitalism, and within only sixty years, West Germany was a vibrant market capitalist economic system and liberal democracy. Of course, as everyone knows, there was a whole bunch of other very bad stuff that happened in between! Similarly, with China, it could take a few decades to get to liberal democracy, and in the intervening space, some nasty things could occur. So anyways, what if some form of "right-wing" authoritarian govenrment decided to take over in America, where it would seek to maintain an authoritarian government while at the same time maintaining a strong market economy. I'd be willing to bet that these same elites would blow a fuse.
Many people would rightly blow a fuse over something like that (myself included), BUT, I can never get over how so many who railed against the Bush administration and would rail against any kind of right-wing authoritarian government in the United States, actually show admiration for the actual authoritarian government of China, all because that government is able to do the things by force that the Left want to do to America. Many among the so-called Progressives it seems only admire liberal democracy when it counters right-wing ideas. However, whenever liberal democracy prevents them from being able to push through a whole bunch of big government schemes and proposals they have, well then you get people like Thomas Friedman saying, "Why can't we be China for a day?" And the real kicker here is that a lot of the things that he thinks would be great for America if only we could force them through, would actually be terrible for America at the moment (i.e. high-speed rail, alternative energy, etc...) (in which I say thank goodness we are a democratic system).
One final thing, but in pointing out that so many of the China admirers are on the political left, I am not saying that all people on the Left admire China's system (many disdain their lack of democracy), but just that of those that do, they all seem to be on the Left. I don't know of any limited-government right-wing free-market oriented people who admire the Chinese system.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
On Healthcare Again
So I am wondering now how our nation will fare in the wake of this ruling. Was Roberts a genius or did he fold to political pressures in fearing that if he completely struck down the mandate, that the Court was be assailed as hyper-partisan and so forth? Many conservatives are saying that the Court has now given the government a brand-new power to be able to coerce us to do as they please via the power of taxation and thus their striking down the ability to control anything and everything via the Commerce Clause is essentially worthless.
Now I am no legal scholar, but this argument confuses me some. For example, many say that the purpose of a tax is to raise revenue, not penalize, and thus the mandate cannot be a tax, that it's a flimsy argument Roberts engaged in. For example, a traffic ticket is not a tax, it's a penalty. One example used by Roberts was the government using taxation to affect behavior such as putting a tax on gasoline, which conservatives have countered is activity you voluntarily engage in, not inactivity. The right also point out that a tax has to originate in the House, which the mandate did not, and thus technically, the mandate cannot be a tax (although this is disputed: LINK The thing is though, the "mandate," from what I understand of the bill, does function as a tax. The administration may have sworn up and down that it is not a tax (they argued it "was" a tax before the Court, now that it has been upheld as a tax, they are again saying it's not a tax, talk about politics!), and the bill itself I think claimed it wasn't a tax, but it:
1) Exists to raise revenue to fund the PPACA ("Patient Protection Affordable Care Act")
2) Is enforced by the IRS
So the only thing that seems to keep it possibly from being a tax as far as I can tell are that it is a tax on inactivity, meant to compel people into engaging in activity, not a tax on activity people voluntarily engage in. However, the thing is, as mentioned in my previous post on the mandate, the hospital system is required to treat people regardless of whether they have health insurance or not, and this is a law that most Americans want to remain in place. The only way to be able to make such a system sustainable is to have a special tax. The way I see it, one could have a tax which you either pay or that you can be exempted from so long as you purchase your own health insurance. This is part of what the PPACA does.
The thing is, as a tax in this sense, it isn't solely a tax meant to control people's behavior. For example, it isn't the government saying, "Use Energy Star appliances or else pay a tax," it's the government saying, "We provide this service that you, the population, want to remain in place, so therefore to be able to pay for said service, we are going to levy a tax on you, and if you don't want to pay this tax, you can be exempted from it if you choose to purchase your own health insurance."
While the ability of the government to use taxation as a means to control people is very bad, I think that the government in the end might have a lot of trouble implementing any such policy. The Court struck down the idea that the Commerce Clause allows the government to regulate inactivity, so now any such attempts by the government will have to be framed as a tax. The Democratic party and the Left in general may be partying right now over the PPACA being able to remain law, but, in the longer term, this could be a real roadblock to any attempts to seriously expand the power of the federal government. Any attempt to impose a tax to regulate inactivity or coerce people will give the political opposition a lot of ammunition to use (we see that from how this current administration has sworn that the mandate is not a tax and still is swearing such). I don't know if the government could try to implement such taxes by calling them a "penalty" or whatnot, or if they now would all have to be called a tax, but I hope that their having to be a tax will be sufficient to keep the government from seeking to expand federal power by excessive amounts.
I must say that I do wish the Court had just out-and-out struck the whole thing down. It would have simplified things by getting rid of the bill outright. And I do not agree with those on the Left that were hoping that it would be struck down so as to make way for full-on single-payer healthcare, as I do not think the Democrats would have been able to get that implemented. As for those that would accuse the Court of having ruled in a blatantly partisan manner, I'd say let them. Their arguments I think would have been incredibly flimsy as it is difficult to argue that the Commerce Clause allows the government to actually mandate that people purchase something, that it allows them to regulate inactivity. I think many conservatives could have pointed out and explained quite clearly that the Court had ruled in a non-partisan manner had such a ruling occurred, and it would be the four dissenting justices, who ruled (even in the ruling that did happen) that the Commerce Clause does allow the government to do such things, that were ruling in a partisan manner.
Now I am no legal scholar, but this argument confuses me some. For example, many say that the purpose of a tax is to raise revenue, not penalize, and thus the mandate cannot be a tax, that it's a flimsy argument Roberts engaged in. For example, a traffic ticket is not a tax, it's a penalty. One example used by Roberts was the government using taxation to affect behavior such as putting a tax on gasoline, which conservatives have countered is activity you voluntarily engage in, not inactivity. The right also point out that a tax has to originate in the House, which the mandate did not, and thus technically, the mandate cannot be a tax (although this is disputed: LINK The thing is though, the "mandate," from what I understand of the bill, does function as a tax. The administration may have sworn up and down that it is not a tax (they argued it "was" a tax before the Court, now that it has been upheld as a tax, they are again saying it's not a tax, talk about politics!), and the bill itself I think claimed it wasn't a tax, but it:
1) Exists to raise revenue to fund the PPACA ("Patient Protection Affordable Care Act")
2) Is enforced by the IRS
So the only thing that seems to keep it possibly from being a tax as far as I can tell are that it is a tax on inactivity, meant to compel people into engaging in activity, not a tax on activity people voluntarily engage in. However, the thing is, as mentioned in my previous post on the mandate, the hospital system is required to treat people regardless of whether they have health insurance or not, and this is a law that most Americans want to remain in place. The only way to be able to make such a system sustainable is to have a special tax. The way I see it, one could have a tax which you either pay or that you can be exempted from so long as you purchase your own health insurance. This is part of what the PPACA does.
The thing is, as a tax in this sense, it isn't solely a tax meant to control people's behavior. For example, it isn't the government saying, "Use Energy Star appliances or else pay a tax," it's the government saying, "We provide this service that you, the population, want to remain in place, so therefore to be able to pay for said service, we are going to levy a tax on you, and if you don't want to pay this tax, you can be exempted from it if you choose to purchase your own health insurance."
While the ability of the government to use taxation as a means to control people is very bad, I think that the government in the end might have a lot of trouble implementing any such policy. The Court struck down the idea that the Commerce Clause allows the government to regulate inactivity, so now any such attempts by the government will have to be framed as a tax. The Democratic party and the Left in general may be partying right now over the PPACA being able to remain law, but, in the longer term, this could be a real roadblock to any attempts to seriously expand the power of the federal government. Any attempt to impose a tax to regulate inactivity or coerce people will give the political opposition a lot of ammunition to use (we see that from how this current administration has sworn that the mandate is not a tax and still is swearing such). I don't know if the government could try to implement such taxes by calling them a "penalty" or whatnot, or if they now would all have to be called a tax, but I hope that their having to be a tax will be sufficient to keep the government from seeking to expand federal power by excessive amounts.
I must say that I do wish the Court had just out-and-out struck the whole thing down. It would have simplified things by getting rid of the bill outright. And I do not agree with those on the Left that were hoping that it would be struck down so as to make way for full-on single-payer healthcare, as I do not think the Democrats would have been able to get that implemented. As for those that would accuse the Court of having ruled in a blatantly partisan manner, I'd say let them. Their arguments I think would have been incredibly flimsy as it is difficult to argue that the Commerce Clause allows the government to actually mandate that people purchase something, that it allows them to regulate inactivity. I think many conservatives could have pointed out and explained quite clearly that the Court had ruled in a non-partisan manner had such a ruling occurred, and it would be the four dissenting justices, who ruled (even in the ruling that did happen) that the Commerce Clause does allow the government to do such things, that were ruling in a partisan manner.
On Small Business
So one thing I have been reading as of late in some publications on small business that I hadn't thought of before, and that I think many don't take into consideration, is that the definition for "small business" in our nation is over-simplified. Now I was well-aware of this regarding the term "entrepreneur" from the author Michael Gerber. Gerber writes in his book "The E-Myth" about how most small businesses in America are not started by people who could truly be called entrepreneurs, as they aren't started for entrepreneurial reasons by most people.
The average person starting a gas station, opening up a small store, opening up a restaurant, opening a dry cleaners, etc...isn't starting said business for entrepreneurial reasons, i.e. identifying a need in the marketplace, then seeking to fullfill that need in a very efficient and effective way. Instead, for most such people, generally starting a business is about just being able to make a decent living for themselves or because they just want to work for themselves and get away from their jerk of a boss. It isn't necessarilly about whether or not an actual "need" exists for such a business in the marketplace.
But just as many people misunderstand the term entrepreneur and what it really means, we also as a result misunderstand small business in America as well. For example, it is often stated about how small business is the major, or at least one of the major, job creation engines for our economy, how small business is a major source of innovation for our economy, how tax credits should be aimed at small business to incentivize them to hire more people and grow, and so forth.
The problem with this argument is that it completely misses that not all small businesses are started/owned/operated by people who could be defined as entrepreneurs. For a great many small businesses, maybe even most small businesses, things like innovation and growth are not what the owners are after. The average store owner or gas station owner, for example, is not out to completely shake up and re-form their industry. IF ANYTHING, change is something they fear, as it could mess up their business. They don't want change, they want security. They want the ability to have a decent retirement, send their children to college, and live an okay lifestyle. So the idea that small businesses are responsible for a lot of innovation, well that would likely be only a small portion of the total number of small businesses that exist in the country. Probably your various technology startups, certain franchise startups, and so such.
On job creation, it also means a problem. When new small businesses are started, yes it can mean job creation for the economy from those businesses that are successful, but this job creation will be limited as the business is not likely going to grow that much. The owner only needs to hire an adequate number of employees to be able to run the business. So when it comes to something like tax cuts, this creates a problem. Because small businesses that already have an adequate number of employees are not going to hire more than they need, no matter what the tax cut. If a restaurant needs ten employees, the owner isn't going to hire additional employees that aren't even needed just because they get a tax cut. This is something that policymakers seem to miss however, due to the oversimplification of the term "small business" in trying to create ways to incentivize economic growth.
The average person starting a gas station, opening up a small store, opening up a restaurant, opening a dry cleaners, etc...isn't starting said business for entrepreneurial reasons, i.e. identifying a need in the marketplace, then seeking to fullfill that need in a very efficient and effective way. Instead, for most such people, generally starting a business is about just being able to make a decent living for themselves or because they just want to work for themselves and get away from their jerk of a boss. It isn't necessarilly about whether or not an actual "need" exists for such a business in the marketplace.
But just as many people misunderstand the term entrepreneur and what it really means, we also as a result misunderstand small business in America as well. For example, it is often stated about how small business is the major, or at least one of the major, job creation engines for our economy, how small business is a major source of innovation for our economy, how tax credits should be aimed at small business to incentivize them to hire more people and grow, and so forth.
The problem with this argument is that it completely misses that not all small businesses are started/owned/operated by people who could be defined as entrepreneurs. For a great many small businesses, maybe even most small businesses, things like innovation and growth are not what the owners are after. The average store owner or gas station owner, for example, is not out to completely shake up and re-form their industry. IF ANYTHING, change is something they fear, as it could mess up their business. They don't want change, they want security. They want the ability to have a decent retirement, send their children to college, and live an okay lifestyle. So the idea that small businesses are responsible for a lot of innovation, well that would likely be only a small portion of the total number of small businesses that exist in the country. Probably your various technology startups, certain franchise startups, and so such.
On job creation, it also means a problem. When new small businesses are started, yes it can mean job creation for the economy from those businesses that are successful, but this job creation will be limited as the business is not likely going to grow that much. The owner only needs to hire an adequate number of employees to be able to run the business. So when it comes to something like tax cuts, this creates a problem. Because small businesses that already have an adequate number of employees are not going to hire more than they need, no matter what the tax cut. If a restaurant needs ten employees, the owner isn't going to hire additional employees that aren't even needed just because they get a tax cut. This is something that policymakers seem to miss however, due to the oversimplification of the term "small business" in trying to create ways to incentivize economic growth.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Individual Mandate Upheld As a Tax
Something told me that people were doing too much assuming on this, in assuming that, due to the nature of the questioning during the oral arguments, that the Supreme Court was going to strike down the individual mandate. Maybe it is the natural pessimist in me though. Anyhow, the individual mandate has been upheld. But at least it seems that Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, took seriously the question of whether or not the government actually has the power to mandate people purchase something.
In terms of the mandate being upheld, it's an obvious loss for the right-wing. But it was upheld as a tax that is collected via the IRS, not as within the government's power via the Commerce Clause. So in an odd kind of way, I think it can be said both sides won. The left got their mandate, and the right got the idea of it being constitutional via the Commerce Clause to mandate people purchase insurance shot down. As a tax, I've always been okay with the "mandate" as hospitals are required by law to treat patients even if they lack health insurance, and as Milton Friedman, the late great economist once said, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
The SCOTUS also ruled that the states can choose to opt out of the Medicaid expansion part of the bill without the federal government being able to punish them by threatening to take away all of their Medicaid funding.
In terms of the mandate being upheld, it's an obvious loss for the right-wing. But it was upheld as a tax that is collected via the IRS, not as within the government's power via the Commerce Clause. So in an odd kind of way, I think it can be said both sides won. The left got their mandate, and the right got the idea of it being constitutional via the Commerce Clause to mandate people purchase insurance shot down. As a tax, I've always been okay with the "mandate" as hospitals are required by law to treat patients even if they lack health insurance, and as Milton Friedman, the late great economist once said, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
The SCOTUS also ruled that the states can choose to opt out of the Medicaid expansion part of the bill without the federal government being able to punish them by threatening to take away all of their Medicaid funding.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Awesome Night Sky Video and Pictures
This video won the Starmus astrophotography competition. Check the other links for an article with some really neat pictures and the guy's website for some really great pictures. These photos I think show more stuff than can be seen by the naked eye on a night without light pollution because the camera can absorb more light. For anyone unaware, that big band of light in the night sky, from which the name "Milky Way" is derived, is our galaxy's center, as we are in one of the arms of a spiral galaxy. Somewhere within that center lurks a big black hole.
Ocean Sky (video)
Article
Website
Ocean Sky (video)
Article
Website
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Scott Walker Wins Re-Election In Wisconsin
This is a major blow to the public-sector unions. It will be interesting to see how this affects how other states deal with public unions and if this means a shift in the political climate of Wisconsin for the November presidential election. Some say it will benefit the Republicans now, but some have pointed out that many of the people in Wisconsin who supported Walker also support President Obama, which is one reason some speculate Obama stayed away from this election, because he didn't want to alienate pro-Obama, pro-Walker supporters.
Personally, I am happy with this, as I do believe public-sector unions need to be reigned in. Also, even if one vehemently disagrees with Walker's policies, what he did wasn't criminal, and recall elections are usually supposed to be for literally criminal actions on the part of the governor. Walker was the third U.S. governor to face a recall election, and is now the first to survive one.
Personally, I am happy with this, as I do believe public-sector unions need to be reigned in. Also, even if one vehemently disagrees with Walker's policies, what he did wasn't criminal, and recall elections are usually supposed to be for literally criminal actions on the part of the governor. Walker was the third U.S. governor to face a recall election, and is now the first to survive one.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)