Liberal Democracy Faces Competition

TW: We have remarked on this before. Western nations have been ascendant since the Renaissance. Liberalized democracies were ascendant throughout the 20th century albeit not without competition from the Soviets and various fascists. With the collapse of the Soviet Union folks felt pretty arrogant about Western liberalized democracies having become the world's predominant power structure.

As history has evolved over the past several years, however, this view is suffering. The Western liberalized democracy has stiff competition from alternative forms of governance. The GDP numbers above bear this out. The ramifications are immense.

Aspiring nations will have viable alternative governance models to which to benchmark their nations. China is the obvious alternative model but hegemonic regimes amongst the oil rich will also hold significant power.

The silver lining is the value of competition. The increasingly sclerotic governance processes by which Western nations and institutions seek to govern may be improved by exposure to significant international competition. The insular nationalistic tendencies of Americans may require some re-thinking. Will these changes occur without a major international crisis to force the absorption of change? We shall see.
http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/07/31/geoeconomics-in-pictures/

Bad Uniforms: Did the Sox Really Wear These?

TW: Bill Veeck was the best but his uniform ideas a bit off. I think the major leagues banned the shorts.

End Of Life Fearmongers Are the Worst Kind Of Scum

TW: There are few who have not dealt with end of life issues at some level. They are some of the most stressful, ethically wrought and emotional processes with which responsible adults deal.

The effort by the Palins, Gingrichs, Limbaughs etc. to lie, cheat or steal in order to kill health care reform partially by stoking irrational fear and confusion about the end of life implications of the health care reform effort should give pause to all of their supporters. Many Republicans claim to ignore their leaders but I call BULLSHIT, if you actually do not agree with this approach then stand up and say so instead of meekly mumbling "oh it is just politics" or "they don't really mean that".

From Joe Klein at Time:
"...It is difficult to bear the nihilist cynicism of mainstream Republicans like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on this issue. The cruelty inherent in scaring the elderly to score political points is beyond reprehensible. I've had recent personal experience with this issue. In fact...

I've spent quite a bit of time with my elderly parents--they're both 89 and have been together since the age of 5--trying to help them steer their way through some difficult decisions, and trying to guarantee that their decisions about the rest of their lives will be honored, even if they have lost the ability to announce those decisions themselves. This isn't easy. My mother and her two sisters are quite frail and entirely dependent on my father, who has made no specific plans about what should happen to them should he lose the ability to take care of them. He has a living will, he thinks. My mother has often said that if she becomes severely debilitated, "Just let me die." But I'm not sure she has made that clear in a legal document. My father is reluctant to talk about these sensitive subjects and has resisted signing a power of attorney, to be activated if he becomes incapacitated.

My father grew up during the Depression and like many of his peers, he doesn't like spending money on services he suspects are unnecessary. End-of-life counseling on issues like living wills and powers of attorney is something he could clearly use--from a skilled professional who, unlike me, knows the best way to describe these things and the easiest way to enact them--and he would be more likely to take advantage of this service if it were offered free-of-charge, and regularly updated, by Medicare. Although, even then, I have to admit I'm not sure he'd want to take advantage of it.

I could say a lot more about this situation, about the details that make it particularly difficult, but those details are, of course, private. Suffice to say that I am personally appalled and outraged that Republicans like the nitwit Palin and the showbiz demagogues Limbaugh and Hannity have chosen this particular subject to exploit. It is an issue that needs sunlight and careful explanation. It involves the saddest and most lonely moments of life--and with a population living longer and longer, it is one that affects ever increasing numbers of parents and children.

I can understand conservatives who oppose government activism as a matter of principle. They say they hold their beliefs as a matter of respect for the rights of the individual. But the sort of scurrilous campaign they are conducting--the seditious fear-mongering that is the main staple of their public diet--is a matter of profound disrespect and incivility toward the individuals whose rights they claim to cherish. The sort of people who would conduct such a campaign can only be described as ingrates."

ADDENDUM Update from Klein: (TW: Americans deserve the governance they get. I know most Americans could give a shit about how they look to others around the world but we are really undeserving of world leadership at times):
"Senator Chuck Grassley has announced his membership in the Limbaugh mainstream of the Republican Party on the non-issue of Death Panels. This is the man who is the lead Republican negotiator in the Senate Finance Committee's effort to create a bipartisan health care bill--and he either (a) hasn't the vaguest notion of what's in the bill or (b) he is so intimidated by the ditto-head-brown-shirts that he is trying to fudge a response to keep them happy. Either way, he should be ashamed. And once has to wonder about the fate of the Senate Finance Committee deliberations if this is what the Administration is dealing with."

Where Things Actually Stand On Health Care Reform

TW: A good concise summary of where things stand on the health care reform process. Just the facts maam (on this post).

From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"...When you step back," she told me, "there is broad agreement about 85 percent of what we're talking about."

...Here are the things that, broadly speaking, legislators agree about: insurance market reforms, including community rating, guaranteed issue, an end to rescission, an end to discrimination based on preexisting conditions, and an individual mandate. Subsidies for low-income Americans. Delivery system reforms. Health insurance exchanges. An expansion of coverage to about 95 percent of legal residents. Prevention and wellness policies. Retaining and strengthening the employer-based insurance market. Creating some kind of incentive for employers to offer, and keep offering, health benefits. Expanding Medicaid to about 133 percent of poverty.

Here are the things that legislators disagree about, but are discussing, and will probably figure out: whether subsidies should reach 300 percent of poverty or 400 percent. Whether there should be an employer mandate or something milder. Whether medium-size employers should be eligible to enroll in the health insurance exchanges. Whether health reform should cost $1 trillion over 10 years or $1.4 trillion over 10 years. Whether it should be paid for through new taxes on the wealthy or a change to existing tax subsidies in the health-care system.

Here are the things legislators don't agree about: whether we should have a public option that is open only to the minority of Americans on the exchanges or a co-op option. How to handle abortion. How to handle geographic disparities in insurance costs.

Here are the things that aren't under consideration but are alive in the public debate: socialized medicine. Euthanasia. Government-driven rationing. Death panels. Illegal immigrants.

...There just aren't that many scary elements in the bills, because the legislation is oriented toward preserving the existing system and avoiding points of controversy. You can make an argument that the policy is worse because of its modesty. A more ambitious approach could save more money and do more to fix the system. But that's the way it is.

Insofar as there are real debates remaining, they are not about the policy. They are about whether people trust the Obama administration, and the government more generally, to do anything at all. They are about whether Republicans want some sort of bill, or whether they see more political upside in handing the president his "waterloo" on health-care reform. They are about whether people will fall to fear and retrench to the relative predictability of the status quo when faced with the chaos and polarization present in our political system..."

End Of Life ABC Fact Check

TW: Given the insanity of the town halls, it is tempting to retort with much emotion. Will try to retort with facts (although as the right wing-nuts typically say, one should meet force with force so I make no emotion will be part of the response). This was a concise, ABC rebuttal of the Palinesque, Limbovian demagoguery.

Things I Like - Food

I'm not ready to be back from vacation yet so the rest of this week I'll be taking it easy. This one is for Mr. White. Because he likes bananas.

So We Are Back And Some Random Observations

TW: It was nice not to post at all for a week or so. Will remember to try that rather obvious recuperative every now and then.

We drove about 1,600 miles through the heartland, some random observations:
1) We have a frightening obesity problem. We live in an urban cocoon where obesity exists certainly but not quite as much as when one stops at a roadside McDonalds or Shoney's. I do not have many suggested solutions but we must do something or our society will implode inwardly from its own weight. At this point in our lives we shun buffets, my only proposal would be that all others above the age of 18 follow suit (same goes for super-sizing).
2) Aggressive, loud, in your face expressions of Christianity on public thruways are in apparently. Certainly within folk's rights. Seems to reflect insecurity from my vantage though. I would also hope those who so enthusiastically embrace these displays would be comfortable with similiar displays from other faiths or non-faiths. Our constitution after all is meant to protect all faiths or non-faiths not just one. I suspect this last concept is not universally accepted much less respected.
3) Town hall meetings...sigh.
4) Health care is ranting up, debating is down, what a shame.
5) Read a book on RFK's last campaign, woulda coulda shoulda, a world with more RFK and less RMN that would have been interesting. Also read Studs Terkel's last memoir, he wrote a bunch of good stuff if you get a chance.

Blogging Break

TW: We have been posting just about every day since the start of this modest blog last September. We are taking a blogging break and driving around (driving is big deal for us since we have not owned a car for ten years) to see a number of family members. We will resume posting on Wednesday August 11th (err the 12th...)

I would expect to return re-filled with abundant piss and vinegar aimed at various nefarious elements of society.

The Most Simple Of Health Care Reform Explanations

From Krugman at NYT:
"...The essence is really quite simple: regulation of insurers, so that they can’t cherry-pick only the healthy, and subsidies, so that all Americans can afford insurance.

Everything else is about making that core work. Individual mandates are a way to prevent gaming of the system by people who don’t sign up until they’re sick; employer mandates a way to hold down the on-budget costs by preventing a rush by employers to drop insurance; the public option a way to create effective competition and hold costs down further.

But what it means for the individual will be that insurers can’t reject you, and if your income is relatively low, the government will help pay your premiums.

That’s it. Any commentator who whines that he just doesn’t understand it is basically saying that he doesn’t want to understand it..."

TW: It is never quite so simple but this encapsulates the big picture fairly well.

And another quick hit from the Economist:
"...The fundamental problem with the private health insurance industry as currently constituted in the United States is that companies can make money by avoiding coverage for people who are likely to get sick, and by denying payment for people when they do get sick. Take those perverse incentives out of the system, and many other problems vanish too."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/07/community_rating_and_the_commu.cfm

On Behalf Of a Certain Segment Of America...I Apologize To Holland

TW: To Bill 'O and Monica et al...I know Holland and you sir/maam are ignorant, ill-informed and basically full of sheeeat.

The Political Orientation Of Scientists

TW: I agree with Sullivan in that I suspect many scientists are not so liberal on many economic and national security issues but when the right stresses anti-intellectualism so strongly relative to social issues then it becomes tough for them to identify with the conservatives. As I mention frequently Rockefeller Republicanism is a popular political strain it has merely been eradicated almost completely from the Republican Party and absorbed, if not fully at least partially, into the Democratic Party.

From Andrew Sullivan:

"Robin Hanson points to the above graph from a recent survey and posits:

'If the public knew the truth, I expect two effects:
The public would consider scientists to be less authoritative as a neutral source on policy questions, and
Since scientists are respected, the public would become less conservative and more liberal.'

But it seems to me that scientists may simply be responding to the redefinition of conservatism in America as a fundamentalist...religious grouping that denies evolution, favors (intellectually indefensible) Bibical literalism, and has a problem with the Enlightenment. Many scientists might remain conservative in the sense I hold - belief in limited government, pragmatic change, individual freedom - but feel they have to call themsleves "liberal" considering the views of those who now go by the name "conservative."

Sunday Funnies

Core Health Care Issues: Why Not Keep the Status Quo?

TW: A bit sarcastic but I think u get the idea. The status quo has numerous faults and regardless of whether you think you personally benefit from the status quo, its finances are unsustainable. The challenge is the bad parts are hidden to many if one is well-insured and the economics are merely corrosively bad rather than explosively obvious.

From Jon Alter at Newsweek:
"Go ahead, shoot me. I like the status quo on health care in the United States. I've got health insurance and I don't give a damn about the 47 million suckers who don't. Obama and Congress must be stopped. No bill! I'm better off the way things are.I'm with that woman who wrote the president complaining about "socialized medicine" and added: "Now keep your hands off my Medicare." That's the spirit!

Why should I be entitled to the same insurance that members of Congress get? Blue Dogs need a lot of medical attention to treat their blueness. I'm just a regular guy and definitely deserve less.

I had cancer a few years ago. I like the fact that if I lose my job, I won't be able to get any insurance because of my illness. It reminds me of my homeowners' insurance, which gets canceled after a break-in. I like the choice I'd face if, God forbid, the cancer recurs—sell my house to pay for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment, or die. That's what you call a "post-existing condition."

I like the absence of catastrophic insurance today. It meant that my health-insurance plan (one of the better ones, by the way) only covered about 75 percent of the cost of my cutting-edge treatment. That's as it should be—face cancer and shell out huge amounts of money at the same time. Nice.

I like the "lifetime limits" that many policies have today. Missed the fine print on that one, did you? It means that after you exceed a certain amount of reimbursement, you don't get anything more from the insurance company. That's fair.

Speaking of fair, it seems fair to me that cost-cutting bureaucrats at the insurance companies—not doctors—decide what's reimbursable. After all, the insurance companies know best.

Yes, the insurance company status quo rocks. I learned recently about something called the "loading fees" of insurance companies. That's how much of every health-care dollar gets spent by insurance companies on things other than the medical care—paperwork, marketing, profits, etc. According to a University of Minnesota study, up to 47 percent of all the money going into the health-insurance system is consumed in "loading fees." Even good insurance companies spend close to 30 percent on nonmedical stuff. Sweet.

The good news is that the $8,000 a year per family that Americans pay for their employer-based health insurance is heading up! According to the Council of Economic Advisers, it will hit $25,000 per family by 2025. The sourpusses who want health-care reform say that's "unsustainable." Au contraire.

And how could the supporters of these reform bills believe in anything as stupid as a "public option"? Do they really believe that the health-insurance cartel deserves a little competition to keep them honest? Back in the day, they had a word for competition. A bad word. They called it capitalism. FedEx versus the U.S. Postal Service, CNN versus PBS—just because it's government-backed doesn't mean you can't compete against it. If they believed in capitalism, the insurance companies would join the fray and compete. "

Things I Like - Odds & Ends

I don't know how this guy didn't piss his pants



If you have your volume turned up all the way, you can hear the cats ruffing at the beginning.

So You Want To Buy Stocks...

TW: Literally as I was punching out this post (Saturday) a feed came across from Barry Ritholz's blog quoting a Barrons piece quoting the same Rosenburg stuff I have below. Funny how the blogosphere works. But we pay more attention to Rosenburg than any other analyst. He used to be at Merrill Lynch before Bank of America gutted the place and replaced him with some happy talkers. Time will tell who is right.

In the mean U.S. employment is in very poor shape, maybe China is miraculously better managed than everyone else lets hope so or else that bubble will pop, and our banking system remains shattered with little consensus on how to fix it. Meanwhile our government remains split between those who would implement Hooverian policies and those who are more broad minded but very beholden to other interest groups (i.e. unions, pensioners etc.).

From David Rosenburg at Gluskin Sheff:
"...It is amazing that anyone would go long an equity market with a reported P/E multiple of 700x but that is indeed what we have on our hands. The end of the recession and the onset of a sustainable recovery, as we saw in 2002, are not the same thing. So this could still end badly but we will await confirmation signs that this is more than a very flashy bear market rally before shifting gears. As we said...yesterday, the cost of missing out on the first leg of a bull market, between the lows in the major averages and the lows in employment, is 20% — the price to pay to sleep at night. If we are late, and we do not intend on being too late or staying excessively bearish, we will know once the most important component of the business cycle, the engine that keeps the motor turned on, otherwise known as employment, begins to turn around on a discernible basis. We shall wait for that event, then make up our minds, and if this is the real deal, which at this time seems unlikely in the context of an ongoing credit contraction, then we will at least have 80% of the bull market to participate in … that is, if historical experience can be used as a guide.

...Something tells us that the marginal buyer of equities today at that price may well be the same person who was loading up on real estate during the summer of ’06..."

Another Reason Not To Like Ballet

(via TKwkiwdbi blog)
TW: I have always heard ballet destroys the performers feet. This appears to validate the concept.

We Do Not Have the Best Health Care System In the World

TW: Americans like to think of ourselves as the best in the world at just about everything (but for soccer). This is in many ways a great attitude. But the line between arrogance and confidence is always narrow and frequently counter-productive. Our cellular and broadband services suck compared to most of the rest of the world. Entrenched interests and legacy systems mean our cell coverage and internet speeds are borderline embarrassing.

As this piece frames, one of the problems with the health care debate is getting Americans to face up to our health care system being deeply flawed compared to many alternative developed nation systems. Most Western Europeans, Japanese and Canadians are far happier with the net results from their systems than Americans are. As you know by now we spend 2X compared to them on health care with only marginally better care (for those with coverage).

But no American politician can campaign on "the foreigners have it better than us", we have become so insular and arrogant that the thought of someone doing something better than us is borderline unpatriotic.

From Economist:
WHATEVER happened to "greatest healthcare system in the world"? This used to be a shibboleth of those opposed to reform, as in 1994: we already are "the greatest", and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Today, it seems I don't hear it as much. I Googled the phrase to see if I could find anyone using it recently. Sure enough, the phrase is not dead, but apparently limited to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

I hope this means that this trope is no longer a staple in the more responsible quarters of the debate. (Commentators, let me know if you've seen more centrist figures use it.) The fact is that "the greatest" could apply in one area, and one only: expensive, high-tech care. It's true that people don't flock from America to elsewhere to get higher-quality care.

But it also seems true that pro-reform types have successfully steered the debate to a correct focus on the system's flaws, not its "greatness". You can't call it the greatest "system" if millions are uninsured, and if overall, other countries see far better health results. Nobody flocks from America for higher-quality care, but hundreds of thousands do flock from it to get the same services cheaper. It's not an easy tack to take, but Barack Obama has gently made clear that we're spending more and getting less than other countries. He doesn't line up countries side-by-side, of course. It still would be political suicide to be seen saying "France is better than America" in any regard. But it's true, and he's getting that across quietly, to judge from the dearth of voices saying "it ain't broke".

... 82% of Canadians prefer their system to ours, because their system works. America may have the greatest care at the top, but the system is a flaming mess. It's hard to make that point without denigrating America at the expense of foreigners, something American presidents may never, ever do. But that doesn't change the facts."

Do You Really Exert Self-Control

TW: This is a open piece from New Yorker on the psychology behind self-control. The analysis it reviews is pretty compelling, as in one exerts far less self-control than one would think. When at some point in the future they actually unravel the brain it will be pretty astounding.

click here for article New Yorker

Economic Advice For Everyone

TW: Would have been nice if folks had paid attention to this concept at various points over the past thirty years and it makes sense at the individual level everyday. I realize reconciling this concept to the notion of Keynesian stimulus confuses many. But yesterday's GDP report bears out what would have happened without the stimulus.

GDP= personal consumption (PCE)+ investment (I)+ government spending (G)+ net imports/exports (X)

PCE and I were down, net exports up slightly and G up greatly. Without G the overal GDP would have plummeted reinforcing the dreaded paradox of thrift whereby everyone in the face of economic contraction and uncertainty seeks to save at the same time, killing asset values and reducing wages.

Which leads to even less PCE and less investment, in other words a deflationary spiral and an economic depression.

The fair question is what happens when the G spending train slows in 2010.

Things I Like - Chicago

I went in to the office on Wednesday. Although this is unusual in itself because I only work on a project basis and don't go in to the office all that often, the truly unusual aspect of this event is that I commuted by water taxi!

Yep, the Erie / Larrabee stop of the Shoreline Water Taxi commuter route opened this week. Aside from being a MONSTER bargain ($1 in the morning, $3 in the afternoon), it was also a delightful way to make my way in to the loop.

click to enlarge.

The route couldn’t be more perfect for my commuting needs – one dock is 2 blocks from my house, the other is 1 block from my office. Almost makes me wish I was working full time again…

Photos from my ride - taken with a pretty low tech cell phone so not all that high def