Saturday, October 08, 2016

The movie "13th" asserts that the US 13th Amendment which banned slavery, had a loophole- that loophole was that people could be incarcerated after being convicted of a crime. Further, it asserts that that so called loophole was created to keep black people enslaved.

Of course if the usual suspects want to cut back on the US incarceration rate, we could have more crimes and more criminals subject to the death penalty.

Rape- death penalty (Hear that Bill Clinton?)
Robbery- death penalty
Burglary- death penalty
Aggravated Assault- Death Penalty
Manslaughter- Death Penalty
Drug trafficking- Death Penalty.

That would cut back on the incarceration rate. I don't favor it, but it would be one alternative. So, are we really about cutting back on the incarceration rate?

One approach would be to stop punishing people (Think George Zimmerman) when they protect themselves from crime.

Friday, March 08, 2013

Why are politicans not libertarian?

After about two weeks in office they figure out, that if there is no graft in government, there is no point (for them) in being at the top.

Some rich people run for office and steer contracts to their companies or to their husband's companies (Pelosi).  It is rare to find someone honest as Palin, who turned down Fox News contract, resigned from an oil board to be free to reveal the shady dealings going on, and resigned from being governor to avoid killing Alaska with legal dealings.

The most important qualification for being president is to not want the job.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

One way to reduce tax burdern from Obamacare

I would like to understand what would happen if a state established an Obamacare "State-Exchange", and then abolished it.

That way Obama care mandates and taxes could not be collected via the State Exchange, but since a State Exchange was established, no Federal Exchange could be established in competition with the now defunct state exchange.

Sunday, July 08, 2012

People of the Gun....

Sunday, March 04, 2012

Including Contraception in Health Insurance

Health Insurance regulation should not be a federal function. It would not be under the interstate commerce clause, because the original meaning of commerce included goods, not mere promises or financial transactions not include insurance. Accordingly, insurance should be regulated by the states, perhaps guided by the full faith and credit clause.

The supreme court precedent for an individual mandate is Korematsu vs US which required Mr. Korematsu, an American citizen of Japanese ancestry, to report to a concentration camp. I would hope and pray that the SCOTUS uses its review of health care legislation to overturn the shameful Korematsu vs. US. At least that precedent shows that the ability of the federal government to mandate individual behavior would end with all of us in concentration camps.

The federal requirement that health insurance include contraception violates some American's religious beliefs. I am sad to say for some in the current administration that is not a bug, but rather a feature. If the left can force the most righteous to commit a crime in their own eyes, then they are half way home. Still, all are sinners in the eyes of the divine, and we depend on the grace of the divine for our salvation.

Birth control pills cost perhaps 5$ a month. No one needs insurance for that. Insurance is needed to pool risk, taking money from many, and paying money out for for few who have a bad event (less the cut for administration). If routine costs are covered, there is no risk pool created, everyone has the perverse incentive to get as much care as possible, for money saved is an opportunity for benefit that has been missed.

I have a religious objection to paying more for insurance than needed. I prefer to spend money on myself and my family, or on the needy. I want a high deductible, and low rates, just like my car insurance- I don't have insurance that covers gas, or oil changes. I want insurance that protects me from risk of an expensive accident (a rare event) that could cost a lot of money. Routing money through the insurance company doesn't multiply the amount of money available- and is logically reduces the amount of money because the insurance companies need to pay for their administration and profit. Let me pay for gas and oil changes, let me pay for tires and the occasional windshield replacement. Let them take their legitimate cut out of the risk pool money. Let the market help set that price level.

Where insurance pays for contraception, then there is no advantage to those who are moral, and don't need it, or for those who are old, and don't need it, or those who have resolved such matters years ago. They are not part of the risk pool, and should not pay for others risk who are in that group. The market can provide alternative plans for people who don't want certain services. The federal government has no legal authority to interfere, and no moral authority to set perverse incentives that encourage bad behavior.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Why keep tax rates low?

We know what happens when there are high tax rates for high earners. They pay less.

During the Carter Administration, the tax rates were 70% at the highest level. The top 1% paid only 18% of the income tax. Now when they pay about 30%, the top 1% pays 30% of the income tax.

If you increase the top rate to 100%, they will pay zero. Who would work if they would not gain? Of course productive people, if they work less, produce less, so we are all poorer, with fewer houses, cars, cloths, or electronic devices.

The productive workers are not slaves. We can't whip them to force them to work. We depend on them handing the products of their work over to the government willingly. That happens best at low rates.

Better than a single tax at high rates, is many taxes at low rates. At low rates, it is easier to pay the tax than to change your behavior to avoid the tax. That means willing compliance.

Democrats like high rates, apparently. They can then broker tax exemptions for the very few in return for campaign contributions. GE used tax exemptions last year to pay less than no income tax. The Democrats then use the campaign contributions to tell stupid people how lucky they are that the rich have high tax rates, not that Democratic rich ever pay those rates.

Republicans seem to prefer lower rates. They use the threat of higher tax rates promoted by the Democrats to get campaign contributions from the mass of people who can't manage a special tax exemption.

Monday, November 14, 2011

Why a recession?

Above blog post has a good explaination of why there is a recession.

People want too much money for what they do. They don't understand that the value of money has increased. People are pulling their money from investments, and buying gold, a practically worthless commodity with high liquidity costs.

So the work that their money does leads to no production. Why do it? Because we don't trust the government's fiat money. We expect the government to respond with inflation. The government can create money from nothing, and increases in productivity can't keep up with that.

Why do people want too much money? Because they expect inflation, just as they expected inflation in the Carter Administration, and demanded a new job pay them in advance for the inflation they inspected. Inquiring minds may recall that the Phillips curve asserted that some inflation encouraged consumption, and it was thought that creating inflation would decrease unemployment. But that only worked until people caught on and expected unemployment. At that time, rather than accept a job that resulted in lower pay from inflation, they demanded higher wages to pre-empt the inflation they inspected. If they didn't get that job, they stayed unemployed or under employed for longer, and so the unemployment rate of the later Carter administration remained high.

Under Reagan's first term, the Fed chief cut money creation, and thus inflation expectations. People didn't expect so much inflationary compensation, and accepted jobs.

What is wrong with prices now? We have a Socialist as president. So soon as it became likely that he would be elected, it was expected that taxes would increase, that money would be created to pay for the government programs, and eventually inflation would be the result. People know that drill, and want to be paid up front for the money they will lose to inflation, and so don't take jobs. Company management don't see how they can raise prices for their products, and so don't increase production. Government has stopped or slowed the forclosure process to clear the housing glut. Housing prices are wrong, but not allowed to change.

Recession. Not man caused- Government caused.

Prices clear markets.