Little wonder the 'green' advantage has to have government support to make it work. The market place will do the job if the politicians can be shown that they won't be able to get any money or power by subverting it.
Hybrid Cars' Share of Sales Stalls
Source: Chris Woodyard, "Hybrid Cars' Share of Sales Stalls," USA Today, June 21, 2011.
Despite months of high gas prices, a bevy of new fuel-stingy cars with conventional gas engines may be eating into sales of pricier gas-electric hybrids, reports USA Today. Sales of high-mileage, high-value conventional compacts such as the Hyundai Elantra, Ford Focus and Chevrolet Cruze are hot, while hybrid sales have stagnated.
The hybrid share of U.S. auto sales peaked at 3.6 percent in July 2009, Edmunds.com says.
Last month, it was 1.6 percent, depressed also by production cuts for some models due to the Japan disaster, but not enough to account for the entire drop.
The new conventionally powered cars use various strategies to boost gas mileage to near hybrid levels -- without the batteries and electric motors that can add $6,000 on average to a vehicle's cost, according to J.D. Power and Associates.
"Even with the fuel savings, it doesn't make sense to buy a hybrid" for many buyers, says Power senior manager Mike Omotoso. "This year, we had $4 gas (in many cities), but we saw the introduction of compacts that get 40 miles per gallon (mpg). All of these cars are considerably cheaper than hybrids."
While the nation's top-selling hybrid, the Toyota Prius, has a 50 mpg combined rating, other hybrid sedans get less -- Ford's Fusion hybrid gets 41 mpg in the city and 36 mpg on the highway; Hyundai's Sonata hybrid gets 35 city and 40 highway.
Meanwhile, all Elantras and at least some Focus, Chevy Cruze and Honda Civic models are rated at 40 mpg or more on the highway.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Monday, June 27, 2011
Mortgage Market Solution : More Market Control
What is fantastic about all this melt down in the mortgage arena is the Frank/Dodd bill will continue down the same path that brought us the first disaster resulting in a total crash of the financial markets.
The definition of insanity works well here, in the 'doing something over and over but expecting different results' is accepted as a Washington way of doing things. The only problem is when someone finally turns on the light of reality for these politicians, who will be able to see their way out of the nightmare?
Competitive Private Mortgage Markets Are the Solution, Not the Problem
Source: Kevin Villani and Patric H. Hendershott, "The Subprime Lending Debacle: Competitive Private Markets Are the Solution, Not the Problem," Cato Institute, June 20, 2011.
The United States' market-government hybrid mortgage system nurtured the excessively risky loans, financed with too much leverage, which fueled the U.S. housing bubble of the last decade and resulted in the systemic collapse of the global financial system, say Kevin Villani, former chief economist of Freddie Mac, and Patric Hendershott, a part-time chair in real estate economics and finance at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland.
The responsibility for the massive failures of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac falls directly on regulators and indirectly on their political overseers.
Private and GSE prudential regulators were given politically determined social lending goals that ultimately trumped prudential regulation, forcing the GSEs to fund subprime lending in competition with private label securitizers. The result was the extension of lower and lower quality loans, creating a race-to-the-bottom between the GSEs and private mortgage providers, all while regulators and politicians looked on approvingly.
The financial crisis resulted when many of those loans turned sour in the latter part of the last decade.
There is no evidence that the U.S. housing market has unique characteristics requiring a hybrid GSE system, thus Villani and Hendershott conclude that the system and the political risks it is subject to are unnecessary. Any U.S. housing finance policy that does not safeguard prudential regulation from political influence by separating housing subsidy from finance and eliminating government- induced distortions will result in another systemic failure, say Villani and Hendershott.
The definition of insanity works well here, in the 'doing something over and over but expecting different results' is accepted as a Washington way of doing things. The only problem is when someone finally turns on the light of reality for these politicians, who will be able to see their way out of the nightmare?
Competitive Private Mortgage Markets Are the Solution, Not the Problem
Source: Kevin Villani and Patric H. Hendershott, "The Subprime Lending Debacle: Competitive Private Markets Are the Solution, Not the Problem," Cato Institute, June 20, 2011.
The United States' market-government hybrid mortgage system nurtured the excessively risky loans, financed with too much leverage, which fueled the U.S. housing bubble of the last decade and resulted in the systemic collapse of the global financial system, say Kevin Villani, former chief economist of Freddie Mac, and Patric Hendershott, a part-time chair in real estate economics and finance at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland.
The responsibility for the massive failures of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac falls directly on regulators and indirectly on their political overseers.
Private and GSE prudential regulators were given politically determined social lending goals that ultimately trumped prudential regulation, forcing the GSEs to fund subprime lending in competition with private label securitizers. The result was the extension of lower and lower quality loans, creating a race-to-the-bottom between the GSEs and private mortgage providers, all while regulators and politicians looked on approvingly.
The financial crisis resulted when many of those loans turned sour in the latter part of the last decade.
There is no evidence that the U.S. housing market has unique characteristics requiring a hybrid GSE system, thus Villani and Hendershott conclude that the system and the political risks it is subject to are unnecessary. Any U.S. housing finance policy that does not safeguard prudential regulation from political influence by separating housing subsidy from finance and eliminating government- induced distortions will result in another systemic failure, say Villani and Hendershott.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Pension Plans Costs Drive Taxes Sky High
If you listen to the progressive liberal Democrats, we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem so we have to raise taxes to make ends meet. But what they are referring to here is we have to raise taxes mostly on a small minority of taxpayers, namely the rich or those close to being rich.
More closely defined, we have to tax everyone that has a job. This is the new definition of being rich these days as we are having more and more people out of work. Many progressives believe it's necessary that we just take the money from the industrial sectors by force that are waiting for better environment conditions to arrive where they can make a profit for their companies, and not have to take a loss every year just to satisfy progressive politicians. After all, progressive have a much better plan for the money than the greedy companies, support likely progressive voters.
In the end, higher taxes to support crushing mandates will destroy the gold goose that the liberals are demanded more eggs from than they can give. And when it comes crashing down because we did nothing to stop it, who will the progressives blame. You got it, everyone that tried to stop it.
How Much Would a Fully Funded Pension System Cost?
Source: Robert Novy-Marx and Joshua D. Rauh, "The Revenue Demands of Public Employee Pension Promises," Northwestern University, June 2011.
The condition of state and local government defined benefit pension systems in the United States has received national attention in debates over government budgets. Missing in the discussion has been an analysis of the revenue demands of the pension promises to public employees.
If states and local governments are going to pay pensions under current policies, how much more revenue will need to be devoted to these systems? Robert Novy-Marx of the University of Rochester and Joshua D. Rauh of Northwestern University attempt to fill that gap by providing calculations of the increases in contributions that would be required to achieve fully funded pension systems.
Without policy changes, contributions to state and local pension systems in the United States would have to immediately increase by a factor of 2.5, reaching 14.2 percent of the total own-revenue generated by state and local governments (taxes, fees and charges).
This represents a tax increase of $1,398 per U.S. household per year, above and beyond revenue generated by expected economic growth.
In 13 states the necessary increases are more than $1,500 per household per year, and in five states they are more than $2,000 per household per year.
Shifting all new employees onto defined contribution plans and Social Security still leaves required increases at an average of $1,223 per household. Even with a hard freeze of all benefits at today's levels, contributions still have to rise by more than $800 per U.S. household to achieve full funding in 30 years.
More closely defined, we have to tax everyone that has a job. This is the new definition of being rich these days as we are having more and more people out of work. Many progressives believe it's necessary that we just take the money from the industrial sectors by force that are waiting for better environment conditions to arrive where they can make a profit for their companies, and not have to take a loss every year just to satisfy progressive politicians. After all, progressive have a much better plan for the money than the greedy companies, support likely progressive voters.
In the end, higher taxes to support crushing mandates will destroy the gold goose that the liberals are demanded more eggs from than they can give. And when it comes crashing down because we did nothing to stop it, who will the progressives blame. You got it, everyone that tried to stop it.
How Much Would a Fully Funded Pension System Cost?
Source: Robert Novy-Marx and Joshua D. Rauh, "The Revenue Demands of Public Employee Pension Promises," Northwestern University, June 2011.
The condition of state and local government defined benefit pension systems in the United States has received national attention in debates over government budgets. Missing in the discussion has been an analysis of the revenue demands of the pension promises to public employees.
If states and local governments are going to pay pensions under current policies, how much more revenue will need to be devoted to these systems? Robert Novy-Marx of the University of Rochester and Joshua D. Rauh of Northwestern University attempt to fill that gap by providing calculations of the increases in contributions that would be required to achieve fully funded pension systems.
Without policy changes, contributions to state and local pension systems in the United States would have to immediately increase by a factor of 2.5, reaching 14.2 percent of the total own-revenue generated by state and local governments (taxes, fees and charges).
This represents a tax increase of $1,398 per U.S. household per year, above and beyond revenue generated by expected economic growth.
In 13 states the necessary increases are more than $1,500 per household per year, and in five states they are more than $2,000 per household per year.
Shifting all new employees onto defined contribution plans and Social Security still leaves required increases at an average of $1,223 per household. Even with a hard freeze of all benefits at today's levels, contributions still have to rise by more than $800 per U.S. household to achieve full funding in 30 years.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Canadain HealthCare System Wait Time Goes Up
Just think how a "single payer" system will impact the US given what has transpired in Canada. Do we have more people that are dependent then the Canadians? Do we have more people that want medical care without insurance plans that will depend on government assistance then the Canadians?
All indication point to a complete break down in our health care system if ObamaCare is not stopped. The history of such systems shows the way to ruin. As the saying goes, 'if you ignore the mistakes in history, you certain to repeat them'.
Long Waits Cost Canadians Millions
Source: Nadeem Esmail, "The Private Cost of Public Queues," Fraser Institute, March/April 2011.
The national median waiting time in Canada from specialist appointment to treatment increased from 8 weeks in 2009 to 9.3 weeks in 2010. But the measurement of waiting times, or the examination of the absolute delay Canadians must endure in order to receive medically necessary care, is only one way of looking at the burden of waiting for health care.
We can also calculate the privately borne cost of waiting: the value of the time that is lost while waiting for treatment, says Nadeem Esmail, the Fraser Institute's former Director of Health System Performance Studies and Manager of the Alberta Policy Research Center.
Esmail's estimation of the cost of waiting in 2010 uses a Statistics Canada finding that 11 percent of people were adversely affected by their wait for non-emergency surgery in 2005.
This results in an estimate that nearly 1.13 million weeks were "lost" while patients waited for treatment.
However, because this estimate is based on the assumption that all individuals face the same wait time for treatment in each specialty/province combination, it is mathematically equivalent to assuming that 11 percent of the productivity of all Canadians waiting for care was lost to a combination of mental anguish and the pain and suffering that accompany any wait for treatment.
Multiplying this lost time by an estimate of the average weekly wage of Canadians in 2010 gives an estimate of the cost of the productive time that was lost while individuals waited for medically necessary treatment in 2010.
The estimated cost of waiting for care in Canada was roughly $10,043 for each individual among the 11 percent of patients in the queue. That works out to roughly $912 million in lost productivity and leisure time.
This estimate assumes that only those hours during the average work week should be counted as lost. Valuing all hours of the week, including evenings and weekends but excluding eight hours of sleep per night, at the average hourly wage would increase the estimated cost of waiting to more than $2.79 billion, or about $3,384 per person.
All indication point to a complete break down in our health care system if ObamaCare is not stopped. The history of such systems shows the way to ruin. As the saying goes, 'if you ignore the mistakes in history, you certain to repeat them'.
Long Waits Cost Canadians Millions
Source: Nadeem Esmail, "The Private Cost of Public Queues," Fraser Institute, March/April 2011.
The national median waiting time in Canada from specialist appointment to treatment increased from 8 weeks in 2009 to 9.3 weeks in 2010. But the measurement of waiting times, or the examination of the absolute delay Canadians must endure in order to receive medically necessary care, is only one way of looking at the burden of waiting for health care.
We can also calculate the privately borne cost of waiting: the value of the time that is lost while waiting for treatment, says Nadeem Esmail, the Fraser Institute's former Director of Health System Performance Studies and Manager of the Alberta Policy Research Center.
Esmail's estimation of the cost of waiting in 2010 uses a Statistics Canada finding that 11 percent of people were adversely affected by their wait for non-emergency surgery in 2005.
This results in an estimate that nearly 1.13 million weeks were "lost" while patients waited for treatment.
However, because this estimate is based on the assumption that all individuals face the same wait time for treatment in each specialty/province combination, it is mathematically equivalent to assuming that 11 percent of the productivity of all Canadians waiting for care was lost to a combination of mental anguish and the pain and suffering that accompany any wait for treatment.
Multiplying this lost time by an estimate of the average weekly wage of Canadians in 2010 gives an estimate of the cost of the productive time that was lost while individuals waited for medically necessary treatment in 2010.
The estimated cost of waiting for care in Canada was roughly $10,043 for each individual among the 11 percent of patients in the queue. That works out to roughly $912 million in lost productivity and leisure time.
This estimate assumes that only those hours during the average work week should be counted as lost. Valuing all hours of the week, including evenings and weekends but excluding eight hours of sleep per night, at the average hourly wage would increase the estimated cost of waiting to more than $2.79 billion, or about $3,384 per person.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Medicaid Out of Control : Progesssives Want More
This just we all wanted to here - ObamaCare bring in 3 million more people to Medicaid along with the 20 million for childless adults and, of course, the millions already on the tit and those ready to get on it.
Who will pay for all this? Oh wait, I know, raise taxes to pay for this on everyone except those bottom 50% of the population that pay no taxes. Cool!
Medicaid for the Middle Class?
Source: "A Glitch in Obamacare Could Give Middle Class Insurance Coverage Intended for the Poor," Washington Examiner, June 21, 2011.
President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed, reports the Washington Examiner.
The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department. Up to 3 million people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly.
That's because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility. Early retirees would be a new group for Medicaid. While retirees can now start collecting Social Security at age 62, they must wait another three years to get Medicare, unless they're disabled.
The actuary's office said the 3 million early retirees who would become eligible for Medicaid are on top of an estimated 16 million to 20 million people that the law would already bring into the program, by opening it to childless adults with incomes near the poverty level.
Federal taxpayers will cover all of the initial cost of the expansion.
Who will pay for all this? Oh wait, I know, raise taxes to pay for this on everyone except those bottom 50% of the population that pay no taxes. Cool!
Medicaid for the Middle Class?
Source: "A Glitch in Obamacare Could Give Middle Class Insurance Coverage Intended for the Poor," Washington Examiner, June 21, 2011.
President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed, reports the Washington Examiner.
The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department. Up to 3 million people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly.
That's because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility. Early retirees would be a new group for Medicaid. While retirees can now start collecting Social Security at age 62, they must wait another three years to get Medicare, unless they're disabled.
The actuary's office said the 3 million early retirees who would become eligible for Medicaid are on top of an estimated 16 million to 20 million people that the law would already bring into the program, by opening it to childless adults with incomes near the poverty level.
Federal taxpayers will cover all of the initial cost of the expansion.
Higher Taxes Means Less Revenue - Fewer Jobs
Democrats, progressive liberal socialists, believe the only way to fix the financial mess we are in now is to take more from the economic system through higher taxes. It's hard to understand why Democrats believe taking more from those that fuel the system, by working hard, will some how solve a government spending nightmare?
History is a great teacher - Reagan proved lower taxes and incentives to succeed is the best way to make America prosperous. Progressive have no hint of this history. Progressive socialists believe all things come from government, including everyone eleses money.
Higher Taxes Don't Mean More Revenue
Source: Alan Reynolds, "Why 70 percent Tax Rates Won't Work," Wall Street Journal, June 16, 2011.
The intelligentsia of the Democratic Party is growing increasingly enthusiastic about raising the highest federal income tax rates to 70 percent or more. This is ostensibly with the intent to raise new revenue so federal spending could supposedly remain well above 24 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) rather than be scaled back toward the 19 percent average of 1997-2007, says Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.
All this nostalgia about the good old days of 70 percent tax rates makes it sound as though only the highest incomes would face higher tax rates. In reality, there were a dozen tax rates between 48 percent and 70 percent during the 1970s.
Moreover, the individual income tax actually brought in less revenue when the highest tax rate was 70 percent to 91 percent than it did when the highest tax rate was 28 percent.
When the highest tax rate ranged from 91 percent to 92 percent (1951-63), even the lowest rate was quite high -- 20 percent or 22 percent. However, those super-high tax rates at all income levels brought in revenue of only 7.7 percent of GDP. Since the era of 70 percent tax rates, the U.S. income tax system has become far more "progressive."
Congressional Budget Office estimates show that from 1979 to 2007 average income tax rates fell by 110 percent to minus 0.4 percent from 4.1 percent for the second-poorest quintile of taxpayers. Average tax rates fell by 56 percent for the middle quintile and 39 percent for the fourth, but only 8 percent at the top.
Despite these massive tax cuts for the bottom 80 percent, overall federal revenues were the same 18.5 percent share of GDP in 2007 as they were in 1979 and individual tax revenues were nearly the same -- 8.7 percent of GDP in 1979 versus 8.4 percent in 2007.
History is a great teacher - Reagan proved lower taxes and incentives to succeed is the best way to make America prosperous. Progressive have no hint of this history. Progressive socialists believe all things come from government, including everyone eleses money.
Higher Taxes Don't Mean More Revenue
Source: Alan Reynolds, "Why 70 percent Tax Rates Won't Work," Wall Street Journal, June 16, 2011.
The intelligentsia of the Democratic Party is growing increasingly enthusiastic about raising the highest federal income tax rates to 70 percent or more. This is ostensibly with the intent to raise new revenue so federal spending could supposedly remain well above 24 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) rather than be scaled back toward the 19 percent average of 1997-2007, says Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.
All this nostalgia about the good old days of 70 percent tax rates makes it sound as though only the highest incomes would face higher tax rates. In reality, there were a dozen tax rates between 48 percent and 70 percent during the 1970s.
Moreover, the individual income tax actually brought in less revenue when the highest tax rate was 70 percent to 91 percent than it did when the highest tax rate was 28 percent.
When the highest tax rate ranged from 91 percent to 92 percent (1951-63), even the lowest rate was quite high -- 20 percent or 22 percent. However, those super-high tax rates at all income levels brought in revenue of only 7.7 percent of GDP. Since the era of 70 percent tax rates, the U.S. income tax system has become far more "progressive."
Congressional Budget Office estimates show that from 1979 to 2007 average income tax rates fell by 110 percent to minus 0.4 percent from 4.1 percent for the second-poorest quintile of taxpayers. Average tax rates fell by 56 percent for the middle quintile and 39 percent for the fourth, but only 8 percent at the top.
Despite these massive tax cuts for the bottom 80 percent, overall federal revenues were the same 18.5 percent share of GDP in 2007 as they were in 1979 and individual tax revenues were nearly the same -- 8.7 percent of GDP in 1979 versus 8.4 percent in 2007.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Alternative Tax System Moves to Middle Classes
If there was ever a good reason to institute a 'flat tax', this is it. There are other reasons as well but it stands to reason everyone should pay the same percent of their personal income. Why is this so hard to understand? Shouldn't the lower income earners pay the same percentage rate as the rich? Wouldn't that be fair? Aren't progressive Democrats all about being fair?
Well, of course, it isn't all that hard to understand in that those in power that need the funds to get reelected cater to the moneyed group that pressures the politicians to keep the old system. Why is that? The old system benefits are easier to manipulate and therefore everyone makes out except the middle class that always has to pay the bills.
The Alternative Minimum Tax's Ever-Expanding Reach
Source: Veronique de Rugy, "The Facts about the Alternative Minimum Tax," Reason Magazine, June 10, 2011.
The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was created in 1969 to prevent 155 wealthy taxpayers from using deductions and credits to avoid paying any federal income taxes. However, mainly due to the failure to index the AMT for inflation in 1981 when the regular income tax was indexed, the reach of the AMT has expanded over time to hit middle-income people it was never intended to tax, says Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. As a result, the AMT impacts a growing share of the population.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, last tax season 4.5 million taxpayers were affected by the alternative minimum tax, an increase of over 4 million taxpayers since 1970. Until 2000, less than 1 percent of taxpayers paid the AMT in any given year; by 2008, 3 percent of taxpayers were subject to the AMT.
This stands in sharp contradiction with the original purpose of the AMT, which was to prevent 155 millionaires from using deductions and credits to avoid paying any federal income tax. Nearly half of all states pay less than 0.7 percent of total AMT revenues each, but in California taxpayers who paid the AMT made up 22 percent of total AMT revenues, while 15.5 percent of AMT revenues came from New York, 7 percent from New Jersey and 3.5 percent from Massachusetts.
The bottom line is that the AMT hits people in some states harder than others, says de Rugy.
Well, of course, it isn't all that hard to understand in that those in power that need the funds to get reelected cater to the moneyed group that pressures the politicians to keep the old system. Why is that? The old system benefits are easier to manipulate and therefore everyone makes out except the middle class that always has to pay the bills.
The Alternative Minimum Tax's Ever-Expanding Reach
Source: Veronique de Rugy, "The Facts about the Alternative Minimum Tax," Reason Magazine, June 10, 2011.
The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was created in 1969 to prevent 155 wealthy taxpayers from using deductions and credits to avoid paying any federal income taxes. However, mainly due to the failure to index the AMT for inflation in 1981 when the regular income tax was indexed, the reach of the AMT has expanded over time to hit middle-income people it was never intended to tax, says Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. As a result, the AMT impacts a growing share of the population.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, last tax season 4.5 million taxpayers were affected by the alternative minimum tax, an increase of over 4 million taxpayers since 1970. Until 2000, less than 1 percent of taxpayers paid the AMT in any given year; by 2008, 3 percent of taxpayers were subject to the AMT.
This stands in sharp contradiction with the original purpose of the AMT, which was to prevent 155 millionaires from using deductions and credits to avoid paying any federal income tax. Nearly half of all states pay less than 0.7 percent of total AMT revenues each, but in California taxpayers who paid the AMT made up 22 percent of total AMT revenues, while 15.5 percent of AMT revenues came from New York, 7 percent from New Jersey and 3.5 percent from Massachusetts.
The bottom line is that the AMT hits people in some states harder than others, says de Rugy.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Ethanol's Biggest Accomplishment : Third World Starvation
Even the UN hates Ethanol? That's hard to believe. The real question is where are the environmentalists on this issue? You know, all those demanding we save the planet by using only wind, solar or bio fuels to energize our economy while most of the world is starving to death.
Starve the planet and reduce the carbon foot print with dead bodies.
Oh wait, it's not really about saving the planet is it, it's about power and control. It's about getting rich on the backs of others.
Biofuel Subsidies Cause Agricultural Price Shocks
Source: "Even the U.N. Hates Ethanol," Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2011.
A new study, requested by G-20 leaders last November, fingers biofuel subsidies as among the leading causes of agricultural price shocks. According to the report, "between 2000 and 2009, global output of bioethanol quadrupled and production of biodiesel increased tenfold," a spike which "has been largely driven by government support policies."
The report cites forecasts suggesting that the price of coarse grains could increase as much as 13 percent, oilseeds by 7 percent and vegetable oil 35 percent on average each year between 2013 and 2017, says the Wall Street Journal.
As farmers respond to artificially high prices for biofuels, farmland is diverted from crops like wheat that people consume to the feedstocks for inefficient energy production. Biofuel production now absorbs 20 percent of the world's sugar cane, 9 percent of oilseeds and coarse grains, and 4 percent of sugar beets -- and more than 40 percent of U.S. corn production.
As food prices rise, both the quantity and the quality of food available to consumers in the developing world have decreased, says the study. The report's recommendation is clear: G-20 governments should "remove provisions of current national policies that subsidize (or mandate) biofuels production or consumption."
Starve the planet and reduce the carbon foot print with dead bodies.
Oh wait, it's not really about saving the planet is it, it's about power and control. It's about getting rich on the backs of others.
Biofuel Subsidies Cause Agricultural Price Shocks
Source: "Even the U.N. Hates Ethanol," Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2011.
A new study, requested by G-20 leaders last November, fingers biofuel subsidies as among the leading causes of agricultural price shocks. According to the report, "between 2000 and 2009, global output of bioethanol quadrupled and production of biodiesel increased tenfold," a spike which "has been largely driven by government support policies."
The report cites forecasts suggesting that the price of coarse grains could increase as much as 13 percent, oilseeds by 7 percent and vegetable oil 35 percent on average each year between 2013 and 2017, says the Wall Street Journal.
As farmers respond to artificially high prices for biofuels, farmland is diverted from crops like wheat that people consume to the feedstocks for inefficient energy production. Biofuel production now absorbs 20 percent of the world's sugar cane, 9 percent of oilseeds and coarse grains, and 4 percent of sugar beets -- and more than 40 percent of U.S. corn production.
As food prices rise, both the quantity and the quality of food available to consumers in the developing world have decreased, says the study. The report's recommendation is clear: G-20 governments should "remove provisions of current national policies that subsidize (or mandate) biofuels production or consumption."
Monday, June 20, 2011
Medicare Bought AND Paid for With Cash?
The concept of having the individual take responsibility for their personal health care expenditures sound like a good idea, but the problem that might arise for a lot of people that will require financial help are among the 'dependent' for everything the need, which means they don't have a good sense of proportion when it comes to spending money.
Will the 'dependent' and or needy actually make good decisions when it come to their health care remains the burning question?
Can Medicare Save Money by Giving Patients Cash?
Source: Peter Suderman, "Spend More, Save More," Reason Magazine, June 16, 2011.
With major changes to the Medicare program tied up in political gridlock, health wonks are on the hunt for innovative ways to lower spending. Lorens Helmchen, a professor at George Mason University's Department of Health Administration and Policy, has proposed a novel method of constraining the program's spending: He thinks the program may be able to save money by spending money -- specifically by giving cash to patients who make more cost-effective choices, says Peter Suderman, an associate editor at Reason Magazine.
The basic idea, dubbed cash-for-care, is as simple as a year-end performance bonus.
When faced with two treatments of roughly equal efficacy but dramatically different cost, Medicare would pay patients a cash fee if they chose the less expensive option. The idea is a form of shared savings.
But where most shared savings plans share exclusively with health care providers, Cash for Care shares it with patients. Greater utilization of lower-cost treatments could be a vehicle for savings. But many doctors are reticent to factor cost into their treatment decisions, says Suderman.
So-called shared-savings programs give providers an incentive to provide less care overall, and to only steer patients toward the cheapest treatments. But the underlying idea -- giving patients financial incentives to make wise health care decisions -- isn't new.
According to Devon Herrick, a senior fellow and health care expert at the National Center for Policy Analysis, Cash for Care is "definitely trying to harness the same type of incentives as consumer-driven health care plans," which typically pair high-deductible insurance with health savings accounts.
Under those plans, patients have a financial stake in their care decisions and can save money depending on what sort of care they choose.
Will the 'dependent' and or needy actually make good decisions when it come to their health care remains the burning question?
Can Medicare Save Money by Giving Patients Cash?
Source: Peter Suderman, "Spend More, Save More," Reason Magazine, June 16, 2011.
With major changes to the Medicare program tied up in political gridlock, health wonks are on the hunt for innovative ways to lower spending. Lorens Helmchen, a professor at George Mason University's Department of Health Administration and Policy, has proposed a novel method of constraining the program's spending: He thinks the program may be able to save money by spending money -- specifically by giving cash to patients who make more cost-effective choices, says Peter Suderman, an associate editor at Reason Magazine.
The basic idea, dubbed cash-for-care, is as simple as a year-end performance bonus.
When faced with two treatments of roughly equal efficacy but dramatically different cost, Medicare would pay patients a cash fee if they chose the less expensive option. The idea is a form of shared savings.
But where most shared savings plans share exclusively with health care providers, Cash for Care shares it with patients. Greater utilization of lower-cost treatments could be a vehicle for savings. But many doctors are reticent to factor cost into their treatment decisions, says Suderman.
So-called shared-savings programs give providers an incentive to provide less care overall, and to only steer patients toward the cheapest treatments. But the underlying idea -- giving patients financial incentives to make wise health care decisions -- isn't new.
According to Devon Herrick, a senior fellow and health care expert at the National Center for Policy Analysis, Cash for Care is "definitely trying to harness the same type of incentives as consumer-driven health care plans," which typically pair high-deductible insurance with health savings accounts.
Under those plans, patients have a financial stake in their care decisions and can save money depending on what sort of care they choose.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Social Security Cuts Since 1983
Social Security is running on empty, and what is amazing, most of those receiving benefits now have no idea where the money is coming from and don't care as long as they get theirs.
It seems a lot of the loudest protests center on the fear of not having a continuing unchanged flow of funds to themselves rather than looking at the big picture. And the big picture is if we don't cut back now, there will be no future funds at all.
This concept is totally incomprehensibly to the dependent classes.
Have Social Security Benefits Really Been Cut by 19 Percent?
Source: Andrew Biggs, "Have Social Security Benefits Really Been Cut by 19 Percent?" American Enterprise Institute, June 8, 2011.
Based on changes implemented in the 1983 Social Security reforms -- increases in the normal retirement age from 65 to 67; a one-time reduction in cost-of-living adjustment payments; and the taxation of retirement benefits -- future retirees will receive benefits 19 percent lower than what they would have received had the 1983 reforms not been implemented. This is according to a recent issue brief by the National Academy of Social Insurance titled, "Social Security Beneficiaries Face 19% Cut; New Revenue Can Restore Balance," says Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Some perspective is needed, says Biggs.
First, the 1983 reforms didn't only reduce benefits; they also increased taxes, by covering newly hired federal workers and non-profit associations, accelerating tax increases already on the books, prohibiting state/local workers from leaving the system, and so on.
Second, while benefits in any given month will be lower in the future than they would have been under 1983 rules, that doesn't mean they'd be lower in real terms.
Third, future retirees will live longer than those in the past did, so while they may receive somewhat lower replacement rates than in the past, they'll collect them over longer retirements.
You could argue that people would want the same replacement rate even over longer retirements, meaning that these almost four extra years of collecting benefits shouldn't factor in. Fine. But the life-cycle theory of consumption says that as life expectancies increase, people will tend to target lower replacement rates relative to preretirement earnings.
It seems a lot of the loudest protests center on the fear of not having a continuing unchanged flow of funds to themselves rather than looking at the big picture. And the big picture is if we don't cut back now, there will be no future funds at all.
This concept is totally incomprehensibly to the dependent classes.
Have Social Security Benefits Really Been Cut by 19 Percent?
Source: Andrew Biggs, "Have Social Security Benefits Really Been Cut by 19 Percent?" American Enterprise Institute, June 8, 2011.
Based on changes implemented in the 1983 Social Security reforms -- increases in the normal retirement age from 65 to 67; a one-time reduction in cost-of-living adjustment payments; and the taxation of retirement benefits -- future retirees will receive benefits 19 percent lower than what they would have received had the 1983 reforms not been implemented. This is according to a recent issue brief by the National Academy of Social Insurance titled, "Social Security Beneficiaries Face 19% Cut; New Revenue Can Restore Balance," says Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Some perspective is needed, says Biggs.
First, the 1983 reforms didn't only reduce benefits; they also increased taxes, by covering newly hired federal workers and non-profit associations, accelerating tax increases already on the books, prohibiting state/local workers from leaving the system, and so on.
Second, while benefits in any given month will be lower in the future than they would have been under 1983 rules, that doesn't mean they'd be lower in real terms.
Third, future retirees will live longer than those in the past did, so while they may receive somewhat lower replacement rates than in the past, they'll collect them over longer retirements.
You could argue that people would want the same replacement rate even over longer retirements, meaning that these almost four extra years of collecting benefits shouldn't factor in. Fine. But the life-cycle theory of consumption says that as life expectancies increase, people will tend to target lower replacement rates relative to preretirement earnings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
