Nullius in Verba

As per Norberg usual, excellent documentary on capitalism’s benefits:

More Klein stupidity:

Government intervention = disaster economics:

Some few of you may be wondering what exactly happened to my website, and me for that matter over the last few weeks. Well to put it simply Rogers decided that I probably didn’t need a phone line and so they cancelled it. For no reason. After phoning their useless customer service over days and hours at a time and getting absolutely no-where my poor wife decided to go with another phone line carrier. And there it is. Thank God for the free market because it is truly what saves us from useless people and ineffective government.

(British Telecom used to “rent” people standard crappy phones like this one, whether the customer wanted it or not. As part of the phone line package one had to rent it. The joke was that there were hundreds of these things littering British junkyards as people quickly replaced them with modern phones. Thus you were renting an invisible phone.)

When the British people awoke from the stuporous haze of socialism and realized that it was at fault for their floundering economy, Margaret Thatcher privatized British Telecommunications, leaving economists with one of the greatest examples of why privatization is better for the welfare of all people. Even scientists with a social bent had to agree, as the landmark study by Galal et al. revealed that post privatization British people were better off as a whole.

***

I have just finished one of those crappy weeks where I am left to contemplate the raw state of mankind. It is quite evident from my observations working as a doctor that to put it quite simply there are some people who don’t care how much the rest of us pay for their health care. For example, they will continue to smoke when they have Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease and burn wads of taxpayer money with each breath of forced Oxygen, atrovent, ventolin, and the pitiful salary they are paying me to push on their chest when they try and die. Apparently another doctor feels the same way.

We spend a lot of money on mentally competent people who don’t value themselves. An economist would not be as judgemental, however. An economist would dryly state the fact: some people would rather trade years of life for enjoyment in the here and now. Its called opportunity costs and present value. An economist would beg the question of why we would pay to prolong someone’s life when they clearly wanted to trade years of life for puffs of smoke? Perhaps we are making the wrong moral judgement by treating them?

Unfortunately as a bleeding heart, even in a realistically structured insurance system where people pay higher costs if they chose to abuse their bodies unlike the naive one in Canada, people like me would still donate their time to push on the chests of those who try and kill themselves.

However what really crushes my soul is that some people have absolutely no emotional attachment to their children. I have seen people rather take care of a pet dog than be there for their child who is dying in hospital. It has nothing to do with being poor or rich, high IQ or low, but rather a clear lack of integrity. And this happens way too often.

The worst example of human selfishness is the woman who abuses drugs during pregnancy. As a libertarian I don’t specifically feel government has a role in regards to drug abuse, but in the case of pregnant women this is one case where government can actually do something. When anyone has a child they make a moral agreement to be there for the child and do everything to preserve the child’s health.

However government fails us here, as usual. A pregnant woman who abuses drugs cannot be incarcerated against her will in order to protect the child until it is delivered. This is a by-product ruling from our generally useless Supreme Court, made after the state of Saskatchewan incarcerated one of these women (who incidently became rehabilitated during this time and afterwards). (Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. D.F.G. in 1997). The main reason is simply to protect the women who choose to have abortions since the courts try and do everything in their power to ensure a fetus is not a human being until delivered. Only two Supreme Court judges had the intelligence to make the argument of “intent” that we make all the time for murder: if a woman intends to carry a child to term she must do everything a reasonable human would do to protect the child.

As Homer Simpson once said, “Humans are the only animals that will weasel out of things, except for the weasel.” And what do you expect of a system of toad-stools appointed by the Liberal Party of Canada?

(Pope Alexander VI was one of the most corrupt popes the world has ever known. His so called “piety” reminds me of the double-speak we get from the left. On the outside is this projection of virtue while inside is a devilish self interest.)

So there it is, another mini-tragety week.

***

A while ago I spoke of an organization called Kiva.org where you can make interest free loans to people in developing countries who are trying to make their lives better. This is much better than a subsidy since it works on a system of responsibility rather than government bureaucracy.

Anyhow my first repayment has come in from the person I lent money to. Very good. I encourage you all to give this a try instead of all the usual top heavy charities out there.

(As Promised, Monthly Blog Update) 

When it comes to the market place the Government is like a fat kid on a teeter-totter. One knows which end is coming down, and its sure to be as balanced as an elephant on ice. But how do governments in a democracy become corrupted? Surely with the voting public and the vociferous media hounding them there is no way for the fat evil merchants of capitalism to stroll in and take things from the collective?

If you have a moment, I’ll tell you how it happens.

It comes from our own best intentions gone wrong.

The latest squawking to come from the Liberals is the revival of the Income Trusts issue. For those of you unaware of what the big deal about income trusts is, I’ll explain briefly. Income trusts are a method corporations use to avoid income taxes. Plain and simple, and while some people will deny this, mature corporations wouldn’t be doing it if it weren’t advantageous to them. As any accountant knows deep down inside, the more convoluted a tax system is, the more loopholes there are. It’s called Langmann’s Law which states: l=n/5, where l is number of loopholes, and n is the number of tax legislative sections or something.

And seriously though, as economist James R. Hines points out, the more government attempts to fix tax loopholes, the more they actually encourage the implementation of new loopholes. This is one of the main reasons the old Reform Party of Canada proposed a flat personal and corporate income tax with your only deduction being your children and the basic personal exemption.

Anyhow, in case anyone didn’t notice, the Conservative government did the unthinkable late last year by taxing Income Trusts and thus slamming the lid down on this particular avoidance strategy. They did this against the promise of not doing this, which is a clear violation and a shameful act. I personally am not completely against governments changing their promises based upon new evidence as long as they were sincere in their previous promise, that the new evidence is decisive,  that keeping a promise will result in a catastrophe, and that their decision isn’t for simple political gain. We must also bear in mind that a government which makes mistaken promises should be taken to the crucible for ineffectively analysing the data. This all being said there is nothing worse than the old Liberal strategy of promising action, not doing anything, and still promising action, ie: Kyoto.

Angry in the Great White North writes about slim shady Garth Turner (a man I mistakenly used to believe was a straight shooter even while he was burning the Conservatives from within) and his grand Canada tour railing against the Conservative actions on income trusts and how the great Liberal party will do all in its power if it gets elected to make everything better for the holders of income trusts and the corporations who created them. Angry points out several interesting flaws in Garth’s argument that the taxing of income trusts hurt seniors and instead points out that income trusts were in some cases preying on ignorant seniors.

However lets look deeper into what is going on. Garth is a member of the Canadian Parliament and within the Liberal Party of Canada’s caucus. Garth is going on a trans-Canada tour who’s theme is how the Conservatives ripped off the poor senior citizens and that we should instead vote Liberal so they can fix this tragety. The sponsor of Garth’s little anti-government tour is an organization called CAITI which is in fact made up on a number of organizations that sell income trusts. Basically what we have here is the direct efforts of a series of corporations to have a government elected that will give them a market advantage simply by setting up legislation. Your vote cast for the Liberals because you feel bad for the poor ripped off seniors is how they get you to vote for their personal advantage.

That is, folks, how corruption happens.

(The Boston Tea Party - A government granted monopoly to the British East India Company culminated to this famous riot, provided evidence for the new liberal philosophy of the proper role of government and created the U.S.A. under a constitution which was supposed to protect people from the government itself)

Milton Friedman used to use the Interstate Commerce Commission as an example of how the government tries to act in the best interests and protect citizens by setting up regulatory bodies but those same bodies end up becoming a direct method corporations use to lobby governments into giving them specific entitlements to markets.

In economics this is known as regulatory capture. In Canada we have several such groups, the Canadian Wheat Board is one currently in the news as the Conservatives try and end that bloated travesty.

How does one prevent regulatory capture of a market? Simple. Define property rights and then stay out of a market no matter how tempting it is. In the case of taxes, a simple flat tax is the best way to prevent loopholes and provide equality.

Update:

I few times I have hinted at ways to responsibly help out other people while not relying on either government ineptitude and/or corporate foundations that steal most of your donated money to pay for employees, computers, or glossy pamphlets. I’d like to point your attention to a non-profit organization I think appears to be doing the kind of giving a libertarian can only dream of.

Kiva.org is a website at which you can set up private loans to other people in third world countries who are trying to better their lives by working and being entrepreneurs. All of your donated money goes directly to the borrower. You can also make a small donation to Kiva to keep them running but its not compulsory. The money gets transferred to a private bank in the borrower’s country. They then pay you back over a period of set time.

So far this looks to be on the up and up. Recently they have been covered by bloggers and media. I have tried it out and I’ll see how it goes. Let’s hope this works out.

Why is Kiva responsible giving? Because you are helping someone become self sufficient and they are paying you back. You’re also watching the borrower’s report to make sure that your investment is being used for what it was meant for. The worst kind of subsidy is one that never gets paid back.

Some more good news below which you won’t hear on CBC but first I must rant.

Imagine if you told your friend you’d help him fix his car, took apart his car, and then buggered off to the beach leaving the bits of car lying around the yard because you got tired. 

I am generally not in favor of going into other countries and trying to fix things since in the long run its probably a waste of money, may not be wanted by the people themselves, in the long run may lead to dependency (Africa?), and there may be some legitimacy in the argument of where does an intervention begin or end?

Take up the White Man’s burden–
The savage wars of peace–
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

-Rudyard Kipling

That being said we have a moral obligation to Afghanistan now that we went in and took it apart. The same way our cousins to the south have an obligation to Iraq.

(Occasionally some people take a moral stand regardless of the risk of death and make things better for everyone, like Martin Luther here. This event at the Diet of Worms produced woodcuts for rapid duplication and distribution of the “Here I Stand” message on a primitive press by the forebearers of our current media [I discuss them previously here]. Even back then the media sensationalizes as the “Here I Stand” quote was simply a reduction of Luther’s speech and never actually stated.)

The media have done a bang up job of correctly counting the number of poor individuals who have died or been seriously injured during our time in Afghanistan. What they haven’t done is do a decent jop of speaking about how things have changed. But really what do you expect when the leading story is a helicopter crash between two news-copters following a mundane car chase? 

Personally I cannot remember the last time I watched CTV or CBC for news on Afghanistan or Iraq, its a big waste of my time. All they report is the big explosions, and the terrorists/criminals know this and it encourages them to try and outdo their previous body counts. Luckily the people in Iraq and Afghanistan appear to be turning on criminal groups like Al Queda (Bin Laden was first and foremost a drug smuggler making up to billions selling opium). Intelligent people predicted that the citizens and militia would turn on Al Queda and other criminal elements because most sane people don’t like seeing their friends and children getting blown to tiny bits every day. Moreover it appears good rule of law applied equally and unbiased is something third world people appreciated which is why they come to tribe America or Canada vs their own corrupt or ineffective police when they have a problem. In fact according to Michael Yon, an indie who was the first to report that there was a civil war brewing in Iraq, the “Surge” is actually working.

The number of other people in North America who feel this way about the media is likely increasing as well, since the popularity of and viability through private donation to independent journalists seems to be increasing. I routinely check the sites of several, and have donated to them as well. What makes these independents interesting and credible is that they are devoted to telling a detailed and comprehensive story by embedding themselves for up to months or even years in the actual event they are covering instead of the fly-by-night reporting of, say, Associated Press. For those who aren’t familiar with some of these independent journalists (indie) I’ll list some of my favorites, and I invite you to check them out:

• Michael Yon (I linked some of my favorite recent threads above.)
• Bill Roggio
• Michael J. Totten
• Omar and Mohammed

Anyhow I got this tid-bit in my email bin today, some people may enjoy hearing some more good news. Either way, its evident that if Jack Layton were leading Canada instead of Stephen Harper this good new wouldn’t be happening.

Substantial Improvements Achieved in Afghanistan’s Health Sector

Results from assessments conducted by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Indian Institute of Health Management Research show substantial improvements in the health status of the people of Afghanistan after decades of conflict. From 2004 to 2006, the health system has shown improvement for many key measures in a majority of provinces. These results demonstrate that improvements in health service delivery have been achieved across the country in a short period of time, according to the researchers. The results from the assessments were presented to the Ministry of Public Health in June.

“The delivery of public health service is improving steadily in Afghanistan as the Ministry of Public Health makes progress towards meeting its goals,” said principal investigator Gilbert Burnham, MD, professor of international health at the Bloomberg School of Public Health and director of the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response. “Despite these gains, health facilities in Afghanistan have room for improvement in several areas.”

The researchers utilized the Balanced Scorecard—a tool designed to rapidly measure key components of basic health services—to measure and manage public health services countrywide.

For 2006, the Afghanistan Health Sector Balanced Scorecard showed continued performance improvements in health facilities across the country. Driving these advances were increased availability of essential drugs and family planning supplies, improved quality of patient care, increased provision of antenatal care to pregnant women, upgraded skills among health workers, increases in the number of female health workers providing care throughout the country and relatively high levels of patient satisfaction.

According to the 2006 assessment, more female patients than male patients used outpatient services, and the poor were more likely to use public sector services than the non-poor, which is in line with the Ministry of Public Health’s stated goal for equitable health care. Additionally, household surveys implemented by researchers from Johns Hopkins and the Indian Institute of Health Management Research in late 2006 estimated that of every 1,000 children born in Afghanistan, on average 129 die in the first year of life (infant mortality rate) and 191 die before reaching the age of five years (under 5 mortality rate). The surveys covered more than 8,200 households in rural areas in 29 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. Previous estimates from UNICEF for the year 2000 place the infant mortality rate in Afghanistan at 165 per one thousand live births and the under 5 mortality rate at 257 per one thousand live births.

The percentage of women in rural Afghanistan receiving antenatal care during pregnancy from a skilled provider increased from an estimated 4.6 in 2003 to 32.2 in 2006. Over the same time period, the percentage of women in rural Afghanistan who had a doctor, nurse or midwife assist with their last delivery increased from 6.0 to 18.9.

More children are receiving vital childhood immunizations, according to the assessments. The percentage of children 12-23 months of age in rural Afghanistan who received the BCG vaccine to protect against tuberculosis increased from an estimated 56.5 in 2003 to 70.2 in 2006. The percentage of children 12-23 months of age in rural Afghanistan who received the full dosage of oral polio vaccine increased to 69.7 in 2006, from 29.9 in 2003.

The researchers found improvement was needed in the management of tuberculosis treatment, laboratory services, reaching women for care during pregnancy and delivery, and health workers spending a sufficient amount of time with each patient.

“While deaths of infants and children under age five in Afghanistan remain high and the level of coverage of health services is still below the ideal, these results indicate that substantial progress has been made in improving the health of the people of Afghanistan since 2003,” said Burnham.

The assessments were funded by the Ministry of Public Health through grants from the World Bank.

Public Affairs media contacts for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health: Tim Parsons or Kenna Lowe at 410-955-6878 or paffairs@jhsph.edu.

Sounds like its the perfect time to cut and run right?