Wall Street 2 - Money never sleeps

Yeah, 25 great years.  I can hardly wait for the next 25.

Gary Becker interview in WSJ

Gary Becker is still going strong.   The father of the economics of "Human Capital" and a stalwart supporter of the Chicago School had an interview with the Wall Street Journal.  Question #1?   What do you think of the ObamaCare Bill?

The health-care legislation? It's a bad bill," Mr. Becker replies. "Health care in the United States is pretty good, but it does have a number of weaknesses. This bill doesn't address them. It adds taxation and regulation. It's going to increase health costs—not contain them."

Drafting a good bill would have been easy, he continues. Health savings accounts could have been expanded. Consumers could have been permitted to purchase insurance across state lines, which would have increased competition among insurers. The tax deductibility of health-care spending could have been extended from employers to individuals, giving the same tax treatment to all consumers. And incentives could have been put in place to prompt consumers to pay a larger portion of their health-care costs out of their own pockets.

"Here in the United States," Mr. Becker says, "we spend about 17% of our GDP on health care, but out-of-pocket expenses make up only about 12% of total health-care spending. In Switzerland, where they spend only 11% of GDP on health care, their out-of-pocket expenses equal about 31% of total spending. The difference between 12% and 31% is huge. Once people begin spending substantial sums from their own pockets, they become willing to shop around. Ordinary market incentives begin to operate. A good bill would have encouraged that."

My last question involves a little story. Not long before Milton Friedman's death in 2006, I tell Mr. Becker, I had a conversation with Friedman. He had just reviewed the growth of spending that was then taking place under the Bush administration, and he was not happy. After a pause during the Reagan years, Friedman had explained, government spending had once again begun to rise. "The challenge for my generation," Friedman had told me, "was to provide an intellectual defense of liberty." Then Friedman had looked at me. "The challenge for your generation is to keep it." 

Unfortunately, he has no political sense at all.

The Fray opens for U2 - June 23 in Edmonton

Micheal Coren interviews Ann Coulter

Coren interviews Ann Coulter, here.

Some interesting points:

• She learned a decade ago not to do "non-live" interviews because of the potential to misrepresent her views (i.e Ambush Interview techniques of 60 Minutes) where editors have willfully parsed selected quotes from audio and print interviews that twist her answers. Hence, The Micheal Coren Show!
• "Have you ever regretted" saying something?  No.  Coulter says she is a polemicist who tries to use the logic of her political opponents to show the absurdity of their claims. To wit, Abortion.  On murder of prominent abortionist Tellman, she said she didn't know what the fuss was as he was just "terminated in his 203 trimester".
• 4 women who represented themselves as 9/11 widows known as "Jersey Girls" and were Democrats called to create ads calling for an end to the Iraq war.   When Ann was criticized them she was called cruel and unfeeling - which she disputes on the basis that in entering the "public debate" they are fair game. It is hiding behind "victimhood" to act otherwise. What is next using orphans to sell health care? (uh, who's that kid in the picture of Obama signing the Healthcare bill?)
• Are you a Christian?  Yes.
• Antisemitic? Not at all. That slag came from a poorly informed Liberal interview who was determined to be offended by me and selectively used examples to achieve it.
• She has been called "racist" for insisting on "profiling" of air passengers - (i.e names, skin, dress,gender) which Ann suggests is just common sense. She is astounded that these issues have been taken off the table in considering the obvious security threat from Islamic countries is ludicrous. (we could profile by names - Mohammad would be at the top fro me.)
• This is what Liberals learned from Hitler - never discriminate.  Conservatives learned - don't kill.
• Same people who want Coulter to be barred from Canada also campaigned to admit George Galloway
• Discrimination is acceptable - necessary for survival. Morbid obsession with ethic differences unless you you are using it in a bad manner. 
• Is Obama great?   He may bring in the most massive right wing government ever. Worse that Carter on Foreign Policy and Clinton on Domestic Policy.

Ann Coulter - Calgary proceeds

After the University of Ottawa address was canceled on Wednesday, Calgary managed to make up for by selling-out with a vastly larger, upgraded venue.  Still, a small group of protesters did do a bit a damage and raised a ruckus (Coulter's excellent retort to the noise they were making a they banged on windows - cracking some safety glass - "Sorry, not everyone who wanted to, could get in".)

Tellingly, one was interviewed and quoted as saying:

"I'm for social justice, and she's just full of moronic talk."

Which is THE problem.  Liberals feel they have a god-given right (no pun intended) to spout off whatever they want, but as soon as a Conservative make a comment THEY find controversial everyone runs away with their hands over their ears wailing about how offended the "feel".

George Jones of the National Post had an excellent comment entitled "Censorship and Satire":

On Tuesday, a howling mob demonstrated Canada’s commitment to restraint and respect by blocking Coulter (and those who came to hear her) from entering a lecture hall on campus.

The only group exhibiting Canadian-style restraint was the police. They cast a calm eye on the pandemonium, took a balanced view and chose no sides between people trying to exercise their rights and bullies trying to prevent them. Resisting any temptation to enforce the law, Ottawa’s finest exemplified Canada’s definition of moral leadership by observing neutrality between lawful and lawless.

I’d say Houle’s risk of being charged with practising law without a licence for giving legal advice to Coulter is higher than Coulter’s risk of being charged with hate speech for anything she’s said. But was the provost’s letter really for Coulter — or was it a green light for the mob?

Mike and Ellen [protesters in crowd] are the idealistic, demonstrating, book-burning, sometimes violent spear-carriers of social trends and ideas that shape all periods, occasionally for the better, usually for the worse. Many are educated beyond their intellectual means; all concern themselves with matters beyond their maturity. They’re the collateral damage of higher education.

Here’s the circular sophistry of two-tiered freedom: Approved speech = free speech; censored speech = hate speech. This is what corrupts minds, and I don’t mean students. I mean professors, provosts and presidents. The operating fallacies come from them. Mike and Ellen provide only the noise, the echo and the muscle.

Some say Coulter is an attention-seeking ninny. Assume it’s true. So? Offered as an excuse for a university preaching respect and civility while practicing suppression and intimidation, it’s worse than immaterial. It’s demeaning. Hypocritical. Ludicrous. I regret to say, it’s so Canadian.

Here is debate on Joy Behar - useful I think as she was a comedian so the free speech line is dear to her - plus they cover Sarah Palin's "Don't retreat, RELOAD" comment.

Ann Coulter = lightening rod to discontent

The controversy over Freedom of Speech has been whipped into a fevered pitch at the University of Ottawa.  The event was canceled last night due to concern by police over the safety for the attendees to the talk. The left and various fringe groups (i.e UK Labour MP George Galloway)  can say whatever they want and we are supposed to tolerate it, but try to turn the tables and this what happens.  The other recent example was the disallowing a York University Jewish Students group to mount a "rebuttal" display during that university's controversial, racist "Israel Apartheid Week" protests.  They were told that because of the likelihood of provoking violence was so high - not withstanding they had agreed to pay for security - they could not participate.

What an outrage!   She will be in Calgary tomorrow.    I can hardly wait because I bet she will be welcomed with open arms.

Hopefully, the Provost at University of Ottawa will get some come-comeuppance from his misconceived idea. Here is his contact info if you wish to tell him your thoughts.

François Houle
Vice-recteur aux études / Vice-President Academic and Provost
Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa
550, rue Cumberland Street
Ottawa (ON) K1N 6N5
Telephone : (613) 562-5800 ext. 5737
Fax : (613) 562-5106
e-mail: francois.houle@uottawa.ca

What level of pensions do Canadians really want

This was in the Financial Post on Friday March 19 - courtesy C.D Howe. Here is link to C.D Howe brief.

It basically suggests that there is a problem with our RRSP limits as they do NOT allow taxpayers to accumulate a comfortable retirement lifestyle. 

There are a number of problems with this analysis - plus it ultimately has limited value as  retirees have no alternative but to change their future behaviour (unless they want to work part-time). Although I suppose one could use it to point to Policy Catch22. We want to design policy alternatives to help citizens provide for themselves, but these need to be tested to ensure they are feasible..

1) In the lowest income deciles (upto 4th decile or 30-40% - that C.D. Howe calls the Working Poor?) are theoretically well served by existing RRSP limits above and beyond Mandatory CPP/OAS coverage (upto 60-70% of pretax income). EXCEPT we know that most Canadians DO NOT make their annual RRSP contributions. But I imagine CCRA has done this *analysis - matching say last 5years RRSP contributions against pretax deciles. * Horner, Keith. 2009. “Approaches to Strengthening Canada’s Retirement Income System.” Canadian Tax Journal. Vol. 57. No. 3. November.

2) Is assumption that taxpayers target 60-70% of pretax income reasonable for upper income earners? Probably not.   In Table C1 we can see that those who earn very high earning early in life AND start saving early (age 30-41) will have no trouble saving for retirement IF expectations are reduced to 50% of income.   This will only involve saving 7% of income - which I think is quite acceptable.

3) Clearly, these are not "lifetime income" - just a single year snapshot - so there is a logic gap in assuming these taxpayers stay in these cohorts.

4) No assumption is made about non tax sheltered investment like a small business, personal investment portfolio or most the important asset for many - including the middle class - owned/free& clear principal residence.

In conclusion it at least shows that below Median Pretax taxpayers COULD, if they wanted protect themselves in retirement - absent if these income levels provide an acceptable standard of living.

In the online comments, another surly point was made:

Meanwhile federal civil "servants" retire at age 58 with 70% income replacement and put it only 10% of their income - taxpayers putting in the other 22%!!

George Jonas is no "Gun Nut"

Following up on his excellent defense of freedom last week - is his self defense.  He is no "Gun Nut" but believes that others should have the right to protect themselves if they wish. That seems very reasonable to me.

Go George!

Some Economist's blogs

I have just fallen upon a number of economists blogs - some are quite good.
Tim Duy's FedWatch
Economist View
The Money Illusion
Adam Smith Lost Legacy

And here is Larry Summers recommendations on how to save the economy.

Why Christians should be politically conservative

Anglican Samizat mentions the following article in the NYTimes, that explains the basic premise behind this claim.

Conservatism is built on the idea of original sin — on the assumption of human fallibility and uncertainty. To remedy our fallen condition, conservatives believe in civilization — in social structures, permanent institutions and just authorities, which embody the accumulated wisdom of the ages and structure individual longings.

However, under Brooks "Wal-Mat Hippies" theory:

Members of both movements [the so called "New Left" and "Tea Partiers"] believe in what you might call mass innocence. Both movements are built on the assumption that the people are pure and virtuous and that evil is introduced into society by corrupt elites and rotten authority structures. “Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains,” is how Rousseau put it.

Thus they are doomed. Glen Beck is more  Abbie Hoffman than he knows.