Bono of U2:
“
Aid is just a stopgap,” he said. “Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism take more people out of poverty than aid. We need Africa to become an economic powerhouse.”
"And where are you going to find these angels to organize society for us?"
A Kansas physician says he makes the same income and offers better quality care to his patients after he dumped all health insurance companies.
Thirty-two-year old family physician Doug Nunamaker of Wichita, Kan., said after five years of dealing with the red tape of health insurance companies and the high overhead for the staff he hired just to deal with paperwork, he switched to a system of charging his patients a monthly fee plus the price of an office visit or test, CNN/Money reported.
For example, under Nunamaker's membership plan -- also known as "concierge" medicine or "direct primary care" practices -- each patient pays a flat monthly fee to have unlimited access to the doctors and any medical service they can provide in the practice, such as stitches or an EKG.
For adults up to age 44, Nunamaker charges $50 a month, pediatric services are $10 a month, and for adults age 44 and older it costs $100 a month. Although Nunamaker calls the practice "cash-only," he accepts credit and debit cards for the fees and services.
Nunamaker and his partner negotiated deals for services outside the office. A cholesterol test costs the patient for $3, versus the $90 or more billed to insurance companies; an MRI can cost $400, compared with $2,000 or more billed to insurance companies.
The practice encourages patients and families to also carry some type of high-deductible health insurance plan in case of an emergency or serious illness requiring hospitalization, Nunamaker said.
Nunamaker said his annual salary is around $200,000, and he gets to spend more time with patients providing better care because he is not watching the clock and he gets to spend more time with this family.
Most of Nunamaker's clients are self-employed, small business owners, or small companies that found the monthly fee and the cost of the high-deductible plan was a cheaper option, CNN/Money reported.
.
We were doing some quality control of our blog post archives when we ran across the post below from over two years ago. It concerned the increase in scope and breadth of our entitlement society and the deleterious effects it has on the individual which then is passed along to our society as a whole.
Look at what has happened in Europe, particularly southern Europe, where even talk of relatively modest austerity measures to their massive social safety net is cause for rioting in the streets. The rioters haven't figured out or refuse to acknowledge basic economics: you may vote for free stuff but in reality, that stuff is not free; the cost has to be picked up somewhere and by someone and with an aging population, someone is becoming an increasingly smaller number paying out benefits to a growing population of pensioners. The math dictates that this is an unsustainable situation and math wins, math always wins.
From April of 2011:
Give us a chance so we can dicover the most valuable ways to serve one another.
Dennis Prager from NRO on entitlements vs. rights and free markets vs. the welfare state:
What handouts do, and what the transformation of handouts into rights does, is create a citizenry that increasingly lacks the most important character trait - gratitude. Of all the characteristics needed for both a happy and morally decent life, none surpasses gratitude. Grateful people are happier, and grateful people are more morally decent. That is why we teach our children to say "thank you." But the welfare state undoes that. One does not express thanks for a right. So, instead of "thank you," the citizen of the welfare state is taught to say, "What more can I get?"
Yet, while producing increasingly selfish people, the mantra of the Left, and therefore of the universities and the media, has been for generations that capitalism and the free market, not the welfare state, produces selfish people.
John Stossel was on O'Reilly the other night and claimed that private charity would step in and replace the broader government-sponsored and managed social safety net were it ever dismantled. We tend to agree with him but we wonder if we've passed the point of no return in that our desire and incentive to voluntarily give our time, talent and treasure to helping those less fortunate than us has been blunted to the point that our belief is no longer true.
When one starts claiming that a job, a house and health care are "rights", how is anything then not on the table to be provided and which results in the involuntary confiscation of those that create, build and provide those assumed rights?
We're seeing some positive signs particularly at the state level where steps are being taken to curtail the collective bargaining "rights" of government employee unions and also to prevent the automatic deduction (see also, confiscation) of tax-payer-funded salaries which go directly to political causes, most notably those that involve the further expansion of union "rights".
Rights supported by the confiscation of goods and services are not right at all and that's why we love that quote above that was taken from the Keynes v Hayek smackdown in the previous post.
Give us a chance = Free will not top down/command and control decision-making will allow...
So we can discover = our God-given talents, intellect and ability to figure out...
the most valuable ways = achieving the most efficient means...
to serve one another = of being a positive force in society whether in the market place or charity.
.
Back in October of 2009 we went to a buy-cott of Whole Foods to support its CEO John Mackey, a "soft-core" libertarian, who had horrified his Prius and Volvo-driving patrons because of his opposition to ObamaCare.
Matt Welch of Reason.com sat down with Mackey at FreedomFest 2012 for a chat.
(video about 6-1/2 minutes long)
0:30 : Welch: (Liberals can be awfully illiberal when it comes to other people's choices.)
0:50 : Mackey: "Some people aren't happy unless they're telling other people what to do."
2:25 : Mackey: "You have to understand the narrative that many people have about capitalism and corporations that they are fundamentally selfish and greedy and exploitative, that corporations are sociopaths, that they don't care about anything or anyone but themselves and want to make as much money as possible... that they are fundamentally evil."
3:35 : Mackey: "Business is the greatest value-creator in the world."
Mackey, who is pimping a new book, returns to the narrative that we latched onto at the link above; that champions of capitalism and free enterprise have done a horrible job of making their case against statism and collectivism.
Mackey explains that defending rational self-interest and the profit motive has to be balanced against making the case for how capitalism generates what we will call "best value", not for just the owner who reaps the profits but for the employees, the customers and for society at large as well.
Here is what we wrote 3 years ago after attending the buy-cott:
One of his criticisms of the freedom movement is that he believes it to be overly-provocative and he goes all the way back to Ayn Rand’s seminal Atlas Shrugged for deliberately conflating selfishness and self-interest and fast forwards to the 80s movie Wall Street and Gordon Gekko’s famous line, “Greed is Good”. He believes the freedom movement has allowed themselves to be painted into a corner as evil corporatists because of Rand’s original sin which was manifested in popular culture by Oliver Stone’s movie (Wall Street) 30 years later.
I believe that business has a much greater purpose. Business, working through free markets, is possibly the greatest force for good on the planet today. When executed well, business increases prosperity, ends poverty, improves the quality of life, and promotes the health and longevity of the world population at an unprecedented rate. This audience understands these truths, but how many people in our greater society comprehend it? The freedom movement has also poorly defended the social legitimacy of both business and free markets. A new paradigm for business and the free market is necessary — one that accepts the importance of profits, of course, but also one that recognizes that business has legitimate social responsibilities that go far beyond merely maximizing profits.
(The following is a re-post of an article that originally appeared on these pages back in January of 2011)
.
The intellectual arguments regarding collectivism/statism vs. free market democracy have raged for decades. One would think that empirical evidence should have settled the debate long ago but old dreams of creating a heaven here on earth die hard.
But academic and intellectual exercises aside, there is one thing, over the years, that has occurred to us and that is collectivism/statism just doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun.
Seriously, what sort of curb appeal does "command and control", "top-down" and "redistribution" really have? Does that sound like much fun? It's like kindergarten without the nap time.
The founding fathers, then, were on to something with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It was their gift to us: "Constitutional Republics for Dummies". It was their way of saying, "Don't sweat the small stuff...go ahead and do whatever you want and we'll set up these rules here to make sure no one messes with you". Now, that sounds like fun.
Over-simplification? Perhaps, but it works for us and that's all that matters.
.
2) Bourgeois vs. Non-Bourgeois Revolutions: A Comparison and Contrast. The Occupy movement left its major sites—McPherson Square in D.C., Zuccotti Park in Manhattan, Dewey Square in Boston—filthy and disheveled. By contrast, the tea party protests famously left the Washington Mall and other locations cleaner than they found them, with members proudly performing cleanup duties.
This unit would note that social-protest movements are sometimes orderly and sometimes disorderly as a matter of approach, and it would compare the effectiveness and ultimate success of such relentlessly bourgeois movements as the tea party, the pre-1964 Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffrage activists, and the American Revolution, against such anti-Bourgeois movements as the post-1968 Black Power and New Left movements, and the French Revolution.
Which accomplished more lasting good? Is Max Weber's Protestant work ethic applicable to social movements?
Capitalism, aka the free market, is the best assurance of individual and societal prosperity. Turns out, capitalism is also the best spur towards charity and generosity to the less fortunate. People are most generous to others when their own needs are secure. Capitalism provides the economic security necessary to inspire charity. The cold-hearted businessman is a tired Marxist myth.
The Trenberth letter tells us that decarbonization of the world's economy would "drive decades of economic growth." This is not a scientific statement nor is there evidence it is true. A premature global-scale transition from hydrocarbon fuels would require massive government intervention to support the deployment of more expensive energy technology. If there were economic advantages to investing in technology that depends on taxpayer support, companies like Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Solar Millenium, SpectraWatt, Solyndra, Ener1 and the Renewable Energy Development Corporation would be prospering instead of filing for bankruptcy in only the past few months.
... in per capita debt.
The State Department has begun coordinating with Syria's neighbors to prepare for the handling of President Bashar al-Assad's extensive weapons of mass destruction if and when his regime collapses, The Cable has learned.
This week, the State Department sent a diplomatic demarche to Syria's neighbors Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, warning them about the possibility of Syria's WMDs crossing their borders and offering U.S. government help in dealing with the problem, three Obama administration officials confirmed to The Cable. For concerned parties both inside and outside the U.S. government, the demarche signifies that the United States is increasingly developing plans to deal with the dangers of a post-Assad Syria -- while simultaneously highlighting the lack of planning for how to directly bring about Assad's downfall.
Peter Schiff, radio host, financier and unabashed capitalist and proud member of the 1% went down to the Occupy Wall Street encampment in Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan to chat up the Occupiers.
Touring the Occupy Wall Street scene in New York with a sign that read "I Am the 1%, Let's Talk," Schiff spent more than three hours on the scene, explaining the difference between cronyism and capitalism, bailouts and balance sheets, and more.
"The regulation we want is the market," said Schiff. "That's what works."
Schiff describes himself as "sympathetic" to the plight of the OWS protesters, but thinks their anger is misdirected at legitimate business interests and should be better at the White House, Congress, the Federal Reserve, and the crony capitalists they've bailed out.
After largely staying out of the protests thus far, “MoveOn.org is expected to mobilize its extensive online regional networks to drum up support for the effort,” reports Crain’s New York Business.
The Obama front organization has supported the demonstrators by way of its website coverage, but this marks the first time that MoveOn will actively engage to organize ‘Occupy Wall Street’ events which its members will attend.
The zeal for totalitarian government amongst some of the “protesters” is shocking. One sign being carried around read, “A government is an entity which holds the monopolistic right to initiate force,” which seems a little ironic when protesters complain about being physically assaulted by police in the same breath.
Well, damn thatJohn Boehner
President Obama is still pressing Congress to pass his jobs-stimulus bill immediately, but Democratic Party leaders in the Senate once again have delayed taking a vote on the legislation and instead will take up a bill to punish China over its currency valuation.You know, considering the abject failure of the original $800 billion Porkulus "jobs bill" which is mirrored by half, the son of Porkulus, perhaps the Senate Leader is doing the President a favor.
Senators late Monday passed a bill to keep the government open into the next fiscal year and then adjourned for the rest of the week, but Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said when they return they’ll take up the China measure rather than Mr. Obama’s jobs plan.
“I don’t think there’s anything more important for a jobs measure than China trade,” said Mr. Reid, who is the chief Senate sponsor of Mr. Obama’s plan, but who said taking on China is a bigger priority right now.
“Some of you here may be folks who actually used to be Republicans but are puzzled by what’s happened to that party, are puzzled by what’s happening to that party. I mean, has anybody been watching the debates lately? You’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change,”
.... and speaking of greed, it always reminds us of this guy:
Liberals always paint this as an issue of tax policy and campaign finance reform. But that is a naive view. Where there is money and power, it will find influence. The Wall Street - Washington cabal is far too deep and intertwined to be restrained by campaign finance rules, and they will always find a way to push the burden of higher tax rates onto the middle class while buying loopholes for themselves. The revolving door between Wall Street and Washington is far more pernicious than any campaign contributions. Hank Paulson was a Wall Street multi-multi-millionaire before he came to the Treasury and used his position to bail out his Wall Street buddies. And Timmy the Tax Cheat knows that he'll have a seven-figure Wall Street job waiting for him as long as he does Wall Street's bidding as Treasury Secretary. That kind of giant personal wealth incentive makes any campaign contributions seem quaint by comparison.
President Barack Obama on Thursday said the U.S. has lost some of its competitive edge and gotten a “little soft.”
Mr. Obama, in an interview with WESH-TV in Orlando, said his administration has been tough on the country’s trading partners and tried to strengthen U.S. manufacturing.
“This is a great great country that had gotten a little soft and we didn’t have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades,” Mr. Obama said in response to a question about the country’s economic future. “We need to get back on track.”
Seriously, in 2008 we elected a community organizer, state senator, college instructor first term senator over a guy who spent five years in a Vietnamese prison. And now he’s lecturing us about how America’s gone “soft”? Really?
I am struck by who is not running in the Republican field, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, and Sarah Palin. It seems that each of these potential candidates has a cache of highly enthusiastic supporters that none of the current crop, Ron Paul excepted seems to bring to the race. The good news is that Republican voters tend to be grown-ups about these choices and are less likely to fall in love with a candidate who is all show and no dough like the incumbent. The bad news is that this will leave the tea party movement split, whose energy will be needed to unseat Obama. Further, since the eventual nominee is unlikely to please the tea party to the extent that Palin might have, the movement may suffer a loss of enthusiasm for participation in the political process. The other bit of bad news is that Republicans have shown a certain trend over the last 20 years. Two Bushes, McCain, and Dole all have that "I'm a conservative, but maybe not one to limit government growth and interference in the markets when it suits my purposes" quality.
... a belated happy 99th to a true champion of freedom and liberty, the late great Milton Friedman whose 99th birthday was yesterday.
The ultimate unit is the human being.
Would you give up the internet for the rest of your life for one million dollars?
If not, for what amount would you give it up?
Oh, and let's hear it for the rich who purchase technology way before the rest of us and thus subsidize that technology's maturation and advancement so that the rest of us can purchase that more reliable and user-friendly technology later on when the cost has come down. Think: that $4,000 brick Michael Douglas was chugging around in Wall Street.
Capitalism has a built-in wealth transfer system of its own. We don't buy much until the filthy rich try it our first.
Things get better because in order for me to succeed I have to pay attention to your needs and wants, I have to create a product that you will voluntarily buy, so I cannot make myself better off apart from making you better off as well.
Capitalism (paradoxically) maximizes social welfare.
Via KT over at The Scratching Post who has been doing yeoman's work in breaking down the Eurozone debt crisis where a sizable number of people there, even now, refuse to believe that, as illustrated by Milton Friedman below, there just isn't any such thing as a free lunch.
And where a smarmy Icelandic professor gets owned by Friedman.
"Giving back to society" is a swell little notion but an entirely loaded one in our opinion for if you "give back", what exactly did you "take" in the first place?
Excellent video below that explores the morality of profits and conversely the immorality of subsidies that is exemplified (but not called out, specifically) in the rigged, crony capitalism of the Big Green sector of our nation's economy.
"We deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner." - Hank Rearden, Atlas Shrugged
"When people enter into a voluntary transaction, they all expect to benefit but an involuntary transaction benefits some at the expense of others."
"Profits earned honestly in the market place are moral. They arise from morality and they reinforce morality. The search for profit through voluntary exchange teaches people to be civil."
A little too edgy for ya? Too representative of rapacious Wall St. fat cats getting over on everybody?
Well, think of the alternative where nobody has the desire to seek a profit from the goods and/or services they have the ability to sell on the market. That wouldn't be too cool now would it?
Allow KT to round some of the rough edges off mankind's natural naked ambitions, here.
As you may have noticed, we've been doing some remodeling with respect to the layout of this site. Unfortunately, our desire to highlight our "most popular posts" from the last 30 days winds up being that from the entire 3-1/2 year history of this blog while looking absolutely horrible presentation-wise while doing it. We'll probably just scrap it if we cannot find a solution.
On the bright side of things, according to Blogger, one of our most popular posts featured a gentleman upon which we have a huge man-crush and whom we've featured in other posts in the past.
Here's Milton Friedman talking about something that's always the other guy's fault.
As baffled as Phil Donahue looks, we would've paid good money to see the look on Liza Minelli's face.
We've been made aware of whining in some quarters with respect to the opinion that conservatives go overboard in politicizing Thanksgiving.
While we are not quite sure what is so "political" regarding the celebration of property rights and ownership, we have respected this complaint and have chosen to air this clip only now, the day after Thanksgiving.
Having seen this at a couple other of our usual interwebs stops, just consider this as you would the glorious Thanksgiving left-overs that you will be enjoying over the next few days.
Sour dough or French bread, toasted, light on the mayo and dark meat only, please. Cranberry and dressing on the side.
From Reason.tv:
For an industry that absolutely obsesses over the box office and the bottom line, Hollywood sure does have an odd view of capitalism.
Is it self-loathing? Or is it a peculiar statist disorder that sees its own profiteering as somehow more pure than other capitalist endeavors. Who knows?
Just keep making those movies, guys and maybe one of these days we'll get around to enduring the soul-crushing experience of the multiplex to watch one.
... and all Paul McCartney gets is a crappy little plaque.
It's all about who you run with, Sir Paul.
But back to Elton and El Rushbo. Because of the spirit of open minds and free markets, this isn't the cats-and-dogs-living-together scenario you would think.
Left Coast Rebel has more, here.
(please scroll to bottom for update)
By now you've probably heard about the 5 kids who got sent home from high school up in the Bay Area for wearing American flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. Story here.
And from the last paragraph:
The boys will not be suspended and were allowed to return to school Thursday. We spotted one of them when he got to campus -- and, yes, he was sporting an American flag T-shirt.
About 200 Hispanic teens are marching in Morgan Hill yelling "We want respect!" and "Si se puede!" in reaction to a controversy ignited when the Live Oak High School principal effectively sent four students home for wearing T-shirts with American flags on them during Cinco de Mayo.
Mexican-American students felt the students were being disrespectful on the only day they celebrate their heritage while students sporting red, white and blue said it violated their First Amendment rights.
Six police cars and a Morgan Hill motorcycle officer have been cruising alongside the large group as it marches.
The group - mostly high school students - walked out of school this morning after the story of four students who were sent home because they wore American flag T-shirts went viral on TV and online. Many wear red, white and green and two large Mexico flags can be seen at the front of the line.
The students say they want people to know they're proud of their heritage and they believe wearing red, white and blue on Cinco de Mayo is disrespectful.
Posts
All Comments
