Eco-pigheadedness and costly paranoia - DDT

National Post editors will never be accused of being shrinking-violets. The fiftieth anniversary of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring is upon us and the Post pulled no punches marking the occasion in an editorial this week. Wikipedia calls it the book that helped launch the environmental movement.

The Post points out that Carson was correct in that the indiscriminate use of synthetic chemical pesticides is not wise: "spraying large quantities of pesticides can have serious, and sometimes fatal, consequences. Ms. Carson helped sow a degree of caution about synthetic chemicals by showing the ill effects they can have on plant life, animals (Silent Spring focuses on the effects of DDT on birds — the Spring season will be “silent” once they have all been killed off) and, potentially, humans."

But, and it's a big BUT, the editorial continues: "DDT is not nearly as harmful to humans (or birds), in moderate doses, as Ms. Carson suggested. But it is harmful to the mosquitos that transmit deadly malaria and typhus that kill millions every year across the developing world." That's the issue of course, the uses of pesticides and other methods to increase crop yield or protect humans are rarely black or white situations, there are levels of appropriate use.

Its thought that the total ban or at least diminished use of DDT, particularly in areas where serious diseases (malaria) are carried by insects has led to untold millions of human deaths. How many deaths can be shown to be caused by DDT spraying? Certainly not anywhere near the deaths attributed to malaria. What I'm suggesting is that there is a level of DDT use that allows it to be used effectively without undue risk to human health, and therefore it should be used in that context.  

The ban and abandonment of DDT is for me a perfect example of the "lets be safe attitude" that many environmentalists have with regard to global warming and similar situations. You know the attitude, where they come out and say lets curtail energy output, lets cut back on industrial production, lets stop using fossil fuels to drive our economy, just in case it may cause catastrophic global warming, melting of the ice caps, raising sea levels - in fact the whole Al Gore "inconvenient truth" scenario that only the most fanatical still believe. That attitude has the effect of destroying or diminishing our economy on the chance that global warming or whatever will lead to catastrophe.

The Post's editorial mentions the use of chemical spraying in Dallas Texas to curtail the spread of West Nile virus. The irony there is that West Nile's North American invasion is likely an effect of global warming, but the spraying went ahead without much fuss.

My point being, that environmental issues are best examined where they actually affect people, and that is in local situations where those involved can make use of all the tools that are available to them and make rational and objective choices.

The elephant in the room: Rollover risk

chart from PFS Group....

Interest rates are at historic lows, still. Most people take for granted that government Central Banks dictate interest rates, and most of the time they seem to. And yet there are stories from the financial crisis in Europe that you may be aware of, where local country rates in Greece or Spain have spiked far higher than anywhere in the Western world. What's going on? If rates are in fact controlled, why are they seemingly out of control in some countries?

The answer is related to the confidence of the lenders, markets and money supply.

As an investor or lender you may not want to consume some of your money over a defined period of time. You could choose to put the money in the stock market, but the risk is high and the return is unknown. You may want to make certain you will be repaid for your investment and also paid interest for the time the money has been lent out of your control. The rate of return, interest, is a function of the time the lender is willing to forgo consumption and control of the money invested. However, you expect to be repaid.

High rates of return (high cost of money) should indicate that investment money is scarce, this might entice investors to take advantage of good returns, and it also tells business people that it might not be the best time to expand their particular business. As money is saved in banks and becomes more plentiful, rates of interest would fall indicating more money is available to be borrowed.

On the other hand, with low rates of interest (when borrowing is cheaper), it should be a signal to the business community that there is more money available now for borrowing and that means it's a good time to expand business.
   

According to the Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT), originated by Fredrick Hayek and part of the reason he received a Nobel Prize in 1974, interest rates serve the purpose of signalling to the competitive business community whether they should be expanding or contracting their business. Interest rates have an important function that way in regulating the movement of capital, and allowing the market to operate most efficiently.

When Central Banks took on the role of issuing currencies and regulating market conditions by manipulating interest rates, they created distortions and inefficiencies in the operation of the free market. For example, the ABCP crisis of 2008-09, had its roots in years earlier, when interest rates were set artificially low (ignoring the lack of savings at the time) by the US Federal Reserve Bank which sent a false signal to builders that expansion was a good idea. The housing bubble thus created, popped as soon as variable interest rates "rolled over" and moved slightly higher exposing the extent of overall consumer and business debt. Banks stopped lending because they feared they would not be repaid. Financial transactions froze in the US.

But that crisis was primarily in one country, the US, and of course it had huge ramifications around the world. But what if there were a similar borrowing bubble with the same root causes, only bigger?  

Central banks around the world have set their interest rates very low through a variety of complex manipulations since the US housing bubble. The "interest signal" to the market is, money is cheap to borrow, it must be abundant (according to ABCT). Governments are borrowing, individuals are borrowing, all because rates are low. Cumulative debt is increasing, rollover risk is also increasing. What is rollover risk? The following is from a newsletter I received recently from Agcapita.

"Rollover risk can be defined broadly as the possibility that a borrower cannot refinance maturing debt. If combined with insufficient funds/liquid assets on hand to fund the shortfall, the borrower will experience a liquidity problem and technically may be considered insolvent.

Here is a concrete example of rollover risk that may be unfolding right in front of us: Bloomberg estimates that the developed economies have $7.6 trillion of debt maturing in 2012 led by Japan ($3 trillion) and the U.S. ($2.8 trillion) and more than $8 trillion must be financed when interest payments are included. By 2015 it is estimated that half of the debt of the top 10 global debtors ($15 trillion) will mature and must be rolled.

Debt Maturing in 2012 ($)

Japan - 3,000 billion

US - 2,783 billion

Italy - 428 billion

France - 367 billion

Germany - 285 billion

Canada - 221 billion

Brazil - 169 billion

U.K. - 165 billion

China - 121 billion

India - 57 billion

Russia - 13 billion

Considering that global GDP is estimated at $70 trillion the magnitude of these numbers beg the questions of 1) how this will be financed and perhaps more importantly 2) at what rates?"

So, you see, there is an elephant in the room, the question is how will it be dealt with? The answer could come sooner than we might like. 

Ready for more on Austrian Economics and interest rates? Robert Murphy:

Watch while you can, Robert Higgs on Warfare, Welfare and the State

The other day I was speaking with a colleague about his fear that governments will become less and less comfortable with the freedom of the internet. I'm not talking about China or Iran, I'm talking about Canada, and the United States.

The US tried SOPA and PIPA in recent months and while most people think they are gone, defeated, the fact is, the danger is still present, just delayed.

Those US laws are supposed to stop piracy and protect intellectual property, don't believe it. If they are passed they will be the thin edge that signals the end of internet freedoms. Who knows what will follow, what interests need to be "protected" by government fiat?

One thing that may disappear is the kind of thing displayed in Robert Higgs' speech last month at the Mises Institute. Higgs pulls no punches, and tells it like he sees it. It's almost an hour long, but well worth your time.

When Collectivists clash with the State

The Quebec student strike, that I have already written about here, raises some interesting issues.

The students have formed a "union," wherein every member (like it or not) is subject to the will of the group, just like a labour union. The protest, of course, should make anyone with any sense morality, cringe. The students want full funding for their post secondary education, the right to free schools. Already 90% of their tuition is borne on the backs of taxpayers, but they want it all.

To get it all they have taken to the streets.But a new law passed, called Bill 78, restricts student access to free speech and assembly.

I don't know where to start critiquing this. Does a good citizen support the students right to speak on behalf of their desire to confiscate money from the general population and pay to send them through university? Or should the State be criticized for such a draconian law? Probably both. Watch what ReasonTV makes of this.    

Liberty with a side of sauerkraut - Part 3 - Equality vs. Freedom

Jan Narveson at LSS 2012...

In my previous post, John Tomasi raised the idea of social justice through the fostering of the "democratic citizen," both concepts not common to libertarian discussions. The Sunday session at the Liberty Summer Seminar (LSS) began with a response to John Tomasi's presentation from Prof. Jan Narveson. Jan is the Chairman (among other things) of the Institute for Liberal Studies which runs the LSS.

Jan started his response with some comments on democracy, or more accurately some swipes at democracy. Our society, indeed much of the planet, views democracy as the ultimate form of government, and very often confuses it with freedom. It is after all, rule by the majority, the "will" of the people, so it must be correct.

Jan's first comment sounded like this: it was decided in a democratic vote (51 to 49) that you should be boiled in oil (ouch), then he went on to Churchill's famous quote about democracy. He then asked "if your rights were protected, would you still want democracy, maybe not?"

The great lie of democracy is that laws are passed by the majority, its never true. And even if it were true, is it right, is it moral? In a representative democracy such as we have, laws are never passed by the majority, always a plurality, and as for the laws themselves, some, we would all want, but many are designed to benefit certain groups at the expense of others. "Democracy," Jan continues, "proves only who would win in a fair fight." It's not the most rational approach, it's rarely the best idea, and is simply based on the size of the mob and its clout. "Is this a good system of government, he asked?"

The democratic citizen that John Tomasi wants, must submerge his "self-ownership," his right to his property, to people he doesn't know, and for a purpose he does not necessarily support, mediated by a government he may not have chosen. That is essentially what we have now, but John Tomasi thinks that if we allow people to accumulate as much wealth as possible, this satisfies libertarians.

Prof. Narveson points to a principle that is popular among some left liberals called the Difference Principle, based on the faulty premise that: "Each member of society has an equal claim on their society’s goods." Jan referred to it as the "maximin" principle, or maximize the minimum, favouring the bottom but allowing the wealthy no restrictions. Note that word "allowing." The reason this inequality might be acceptable to some left liberals, that typically have problems with property rights and wealth accumulation, is that it could be to the advantage of those who are worst-off, because the really wealthy have more to "share" with them.

I doubt that satisfies many libertarians, not me anyway. Many people think that the wealthy have a duty to share. That is a moral position that I don't support, it's typically a religious dictate. I prefer the word responsibility, it's not as strong as duty which is obligatory. A responsible human being, that has the where-with-all to share, probably should, but they should be able to choose.

Prof. Narveson finished by stating that this issue highlights the difference between "equality and freedom." The former is forced, the latter is not. "Free markets," he said provide equality," because no one has coercive powers.

The next speaker Jacob Levy, a political science professor from McGill, and a more frequent writer for Bleeding Heart Libertarians, argued from a more practical position in support of John Tomasi. His point was that the state already exists, its been around since the 1600's, and has evolved along with modern financial institutions in most jurisdictions. "The state will not be legislated away," he said, an aspiration of some libertarians. The state has armies, taxation and spending authority and in many ways national defence is already redistributionist, both rich and poor are defended equally. That argument is a bit of a cop out I think. I kept thinking of the argument from the American Revolution, when the slaves are freed who will pick the cotton?

The final speaker was Pierre Desrochers, who introduced his book (The Locavore's Dilemma) co-authored by his wife Hiroko Shimizu - that I have already talked about here.

LSS 2012 was a memorable experience, you should come next year.  



   

Liberty with a side of sauerkraut - Part 2 - Social Justice

The Flag that flew over LSS #12......

I've separated this post of my experience at the Liberty Summer Seminar 2012 (LSS) from the previous post because this one may prove to be a bit more contentious.

In the previous post I implied that libertarians come in various flavours. Our final speaker on Saturday, the keynote speaker, John Tomasi is a case in point, a different flavour. John was there with his new book Free Market Fairness. John is also an occasional contributor to the blog Bleeding Heart Libertarians (BHL).

Sometimes I try to read BHL and generally I find it difficult to understand. It's typically written for academics by academics, with lots of philosophical jargon and references sprinkled everywhere. But, I have a sliver of sympathy for some of the concepts espoused.

This paragraph was copied from the "About" section of BHL, and gives you an idea of the blog's purpose:

"Bleeding Heart Libertarians is a blog about free markets and social justice. All of us who blog at this site are, broadly speaking, libertarians. In particular, we are libertarians who believe that addressing the needs of the economically vulnerable by remedying injustice, engaging in benevolence, fostering mutual aid, and encouraging the flourishing of free markets is both practically and morally important."

You can see from the first line of the "BHL About" their mention of the term "social justice," not a common phrase among libertarians. In his keynote presentation at LSS, John Tomasi outlined the various forms of Liberalism that applied to his argument. There are Classical Liberals and Libertarians, both seeking Economic Liberty, the former for utilitarian reasons, and the latter because of the concept of self-ownership. Then there are High Liberals that seek social justice through what Tomasi called the Democratic Citizen. What Tomasi wants to do is to somehow meld Economic Liberty with the Democratic Citizen idea to create the Neo-Classical Liberal, a hybrid of libertarianism and high liberalism who favour social justice.

Really, this all boils down to: what is social justice? That was not entirely clear to me except that it somehow allows a strictly limited government to redistribute the wealth of its well off citizens, such that, the not so well off are better off. Tomasi never got down to the mechanics of how this was to be done, he is a political philosopher after all. I kept thinking that there needs to be an element of coercion here, this is not a voluntary situation, so how is it different from what we have now except by degree? Most governments in the Western democracies already do a considerable amount of redistribution, and then some. So is it the same? Tomasi says no, he believes in Economic Liberty. But is that true?     

Early on in his presentation Prof. Tomasi, confided to us that he was uncomfortable with the Libertarian idea of "self-ownership," a comment I thought was rather strange coming from a libertarian. Self-ownership is foundational to the right to property, your most fundamental property is your self. From self-ownership it follows that you have the right to those things produced by your self, through your labour, be it money or whatever. Its all your property, to dispose of as you wish, that is true Economic Liberty. So fudging on "self-ownership" is like fudging on property rights, and if that is free market fairness, then I'm really missing something.

I'll have more to say in Part 3. 

Liberty with a side of sauerkraut - Part 1

The Libertarian "big tent..."

It didn't rain! For the first time in its 12 year history, the rain held off, in fact the weather was spectacular during the Liberty Summer Seminar (LSS) at the Jaworski Estate in Orono Ontario last weekend.

This annual two day seminar is one of the largest gatherings of libertarians of all stripes in Canada. Stripes of libertarians? Absolutely, if you thought libertarians came in only one flavour, this seminar would have been an eyeopener. I'll say more about that later in Part 2.

I'm always impressed with the selection of speakers at LSS, this year was no different. For me each speaker was a highlight, so let me select for you what it was I learned from them.

Fred McMahon of the Fraser Institute was first up on Saturday talking about economic freedom and how it relates to other freedoms. Fred pointed out that economic freedom is the fundamental freedom on which all the others are built. Historically the first European nations that were free, were market oriented. Freedom, he said, is often confused with democracy, and has little to do with it. In fact, to be economically free means being liberated from dependence on government, something that most democracies today, do their best to thwart.

The Fraser Institute produces much of its research based on econometrics, which most Austro-libertarians dismiss because human action, they say, is impossible to model through laboratory experiments as other sciences are. That didn't stop Fred from displaying slide after slide demonstrating the positive relationship based on econometrics, of economic freedom to wealth and happiness.

Next up was Cindy Cerquitella of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. Cindy's topic was Freedom Champions: Stories from the field. For those who are unaware of Atlas (not named after Atlas Shrugged) its mission: "is to discover, develop and support Intellectual Entrepreneurs worldwide who advance the Atlas vision of a society of free and responsible individuals. Achieving Atlas’s vision of a “peaceful and prosperous society of free and responsible individuals” requires respect for the foundations of a free society: individual liberty, property rights, limited government under the rule of law, and the market order. To move public policy debates toward these classical liberal ideas...." In other words, an organization after my own heart.

Cindy spoke about think tanks around the world, and demonstrated a positively encyclopedic knowledge about them. After speaking of a few interesting groups that Atlas supports in some countries, the audience was invited to shout out a country, to which she named the think tank and some of its members, for country after country, no notes, very impressive. And I was buoyed by how many countries there were that had liberty oriented think tanks.

Our next speaker was Victoria Henderson speaking about Advancing Liberty in the Americas (Latin America). Victoria was part of a panel on drug policy that I attended last January, though drugs are not her field of study. Her field is Latin American Studies and Geography, and she is the Managing Director at the Institute for Social and Economic Analysis (ISEA).

Victoria used two terms with which I was not familiar: Epistemic Communities - voluntary groups held together by ideas, and Epistemic Landscapes for which she gave an interesting example: in her class of 174 at Queen's University, students were shown pictures of Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Karl Marx and then, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Milton Friedman. Ninety percent of the class knew the first trio, only one person knew all of the second. That is the "landscape" we are up against, an educational apparatus in Canada that is geared to teaching about collectivist thinkers and thinking.

One fact that Victoria mentioned, a surprise to me, was that the Austrian School had a precursor in 16th Century Spain. Further investigation suggests there was no direct influence, but the School of Salamanca was in many ways so similar to the Austrian School that Murray Rothbard referred to them as proto-Austrians.

Another surprise to me, was Victoria's mention of the Universidad Francisco Marroquín (UFM) - The Free Market University in Guatemala! Who knew? A university that teaches about Mises, Hayek, Friedman etc. In fact there is a library named after Mises: La Biblioteca Ludwig von Mises. UFM is 41 years old, and on its a 40th anniversary last year it wrote "if Guatemala were to enjoy prosperity, it would be necessary for a group of influential people to understand, very clearly, the ethical, legal and economic aspects of a society of free and responsible persons," that is a worthy and wonderful mission.

Stay tuned for Part 2, BTW, I love sauerkraut.

    

After Ron Paul what?

So what happens after the GOP convention in Tampa Bay? Who will carry Ron Paul's message into the future. Here are some thoughts from ReasonTV.

A libertarian diet: How the government makes you fat.

About 2 years ago, I discovered that I required hernia surgery, it's not uncommon at my age. I chose to go to one of the few private hospitals remaining in Canada (near my home). This hospital was a hold over from the time before socialized medicine, a centre of excellence for hernia surgery worldwide. Unfortunately (for me) they refused to do the surgery unless I lost some weight. According to the doctors in the private hospital, weight loss would make the surgery easier and the recovery quicker.

So, I had a dilemma, lose weight, endure the discomfort of the hernia, or go to a government run hospital and get the surgery done. Maybe the queue in the government hospital would be shorter than the time it would take to lose the weight, I needed to lose over 20 pounds.

I chose to lose the weight and go to the private hospital, and they were good enough to give me a diet they recommended to lose weight quickly and safely. I've posted a part of this diet here, and you can see from the "forbidden list" that this is a low carb diet. What you can't see on the other side, is that meats, fats, cheese, eggs, nuts and mostly vegetables, make up the greater portion of what I was allowed to eat.

This was definitely not a "fat free" diet, but it was virtually a "no carb diet".

The diet worked marvellously well, I was able to eat more often in some cases, but of smaller amounts of food. I learned to eat less and as I reached the goal set by the doctors, and had my surgery scheduled I was put on a "maintenance diet" that was very similar to the original, I was just allowed to eat a bit more. My weight levelled off as if by magic, I had the surgery and was out in two days. Recovery was pretty quick as predicted.

The best part of the story is most of the weight is still off, and I have good evidence that this diet really works. Emulating it, on a daily basis works to keep my weight down, and it's so simple.

The diet that I was on, is similar to diets advocated by Gary Taubes. The TIME cover (top) and the story that went with it, was one of the major impetuses that led to the "fat-free" craze that still grips our society. Listen to Gary Taubes as he was interviewed by ReasonTV and look at the notes I have appended below for more information, he thinks fat free diets are crazy:

From the YouTube video:

Reason.tv's Zach Weissmueller talked with Taubes about his controversial work in the world of nutrition and epidemiology, including Taubes' hypothesis that carbohydrates, not dietary fat, overeating, or lack of physcial activity, are the primary factor causing obesity. Other topics include the inability of governments and large informational institutions such as the American Heart Association to adapt to new information, the mess of bad legislation and bad science that Taubes believes led to America's obesity problem, and why many libertarians seem to love the Paleo Diet . 
Taubes' work has unsurprisingly invited criticism from scientists, government officials and journalists, even in the pages of Reason Magazine, where he went back and forth with Reason contributor Michael Fumento. Read below and decide for yourself who, if anyone, is right:
Fumento on Taubes - http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/big-fat-fake
Taubes' response - http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/an-exercise-in-vitriol-rather
Fumento's rebuttal - http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/gary-taubes-tries-to-overwhelm

The 100-mile-diet? - The Locavore's Dilemma

cabbage storage

Anyone that has grown up in the Toronto area knows that the city's nick name is Cabbagetown. Why? The name Cabbagetown comes from stories of Irish immigrants arriving during the Irish Potato Famine in the middle of the nineteenth century. They grew cabbages in front of their homes in an area that became part of Toronto. Why cabbage? Probably because potatoes, historically a food staple of the Irish, had become unreliable through successive crop failures due to the potato blight back home. Cabbage was reliable and could be stored through the harsh Canadian winter, and avoiding starvation is an excellent incentive.

"This standard winter vegetable (cabbage) may be stored either indoors or out. In the former case a good way is to put the trimmed heads in slotted or open vegetable barrels. Or the plants may be taken up roots and all, the loose outer leaves trimmed off, and three or four heads tied together by the roots and suspended from nails in the cellar rafters. In this way they will keep well without occupying any floor space, which is needed for other things, such as root crops and fruits. .......... It is well to store at least part of the crop out of doors, as this will keep in perfect condition until late spring, when it will be much more fresh and crisp than that which has been stored indoors."
"......Well matured cabbage can easily be kept through the winter in an outside trench or pit. The heads are packed as shown (see above right), covered with straw or marsh hay, and as freezing weather approaches, gradually cover with soil."

One of the most effective ways to avoid starvation is through trade. Even the Irish got tired of eating cabbage, not to mention the fact that growing anything in Canada, even relatively balmy Toronto in winter, is tricky. Trade, of course, reduces the risk that local food issues will impact local families with famines. The chances of widespread famine are remote especially if the trade areas are farther away. The greater the distance between traders, the more likely there will be food to trade.

But the anthropogenic global warming crowd has again bullied its way into an economic area blissfully unaware of the facts. They claim that to reduce one's carbon footprint its best to follow the dictates popularized in a book the100-Mile-Diet, eat locally to reduce transportation and thus CO2 emissions.

There is nothing wrong with eating local foods, its makes perfect sense when they are available. But is it wrong to source food from distant shores? Does it really help the environment to eat locally? Is the food more nutritious and safer if its local?

In a new book Pierre Desrochers and Hiroko Shimizu dispel some of the myths around eating locally versus globally. Watch this lecture that Desrochers presented to CATO recently in Washington D.C.

Land of the free, home of the brave.....Canada

Recently I attended a meetup in Toronto. The host made some passing remarks about the upcoming Canada Day holiday and all the "benefits" that accrue from government. The last bit was more in jest. He spoke of how there were no roads, no laws, no rights, no freedoms BEFORE there was a Canada. Of course none of that is true, all of them existed before there was a Federal State or any state or colony.

We have just celebrated the birth of two nations the United States and Canada, in the 200th anniversary year of the last battles fought between the people of our two territories in the War of 1812.

So think about this: where does your freedom come from? Is it granted to you by government, by constitutions, by laws? Or does it exist from the moment of your birth, which is what I believe.

If you believe what I believe, then you must ask yourself what is the purpose of government? Make no mistake, I believe government is important and should have a defined and limited purpose and that is to make sure our freedoms are protected so that we may live our lives as best as we can. I know some who will say there is no need for government even to do those things, and I have great sympathy for that idea. But we're not there yet, and reigning in the excesses of governments today, will keep those of us in the freedom business busy for some time to come.

Our American cousins have for over 200 years celebrated their freedoms with such zeal and vigour, that peoples around the world think America invented liberty. Living here in Canada, often in the shadow of America, many Canadians dismiss our connections to freedom and the fights for liberty as being trivial and unimportant. Many will point to our allegiance to the British Crown as that which distinguishes us from our cousins to the South. They forget our two countries are both children of Great Britain, one older, one younger, but with the same heritage and it is NOT the British Crown, it is British liberty.

British liberty goes back to the days of Magna Carta, and the beginning of the end of the power of the British Crown. We cherish our British heritage, not because of the Crown, but because the Crown is irrelevant, powerless, and just fodder for the tabloids in the modern era.

Canada does not need to play second fiddle to America on liberty, on the contrary Canadians are more aware of it than ever. Need proof? The video below is from a radio program broadcast from Saskatchewan, the cradle of socialized medicine in Canada, listen to the zeal and vigour of Canadian liberty.

Obama-care and unlimited government

Most Canadians walk around under the delusion that the American healthcare system is a free market system, and that's why it's so expensive. Of course Americans probably believe that too, which doesn't help matters.
Many Canadians pride themselves in thinking: "we take care of our own - no matter what," that makes us better then our Yankee cousins. Well, our Yankee cousins have finally come around to our way of thinking, too bad for them.

Of course Obama-care will fix everything, score another point for unlimited government. Maybe once, a long time long ago, the American health care system was a free market, but the picture to the left and the second video below should dispel that misconception for today. There has been no free market in American health care for generations. The truth is, in a genuinely free market system, health care prices would be controlled strictly by supply and demand, like anything else.

Amazingly, those same people that believe health care is overpriced because of greed from insurance companies, doctors, you can name your own scapegoat here; well those people, put healthcare in a special category different from other services or products. The reason is easy to understand, if your income is low and you need healthcare you may have a problem, health care is pricey. People view this problem in the same way as they do if you have low income and you need a vacation. Your income is low and you need a vacation? Well, you may be out of luck, low income individuals typically cannot afford vacations. But it's not entirely out of the question. There are so many choices in the vacation industry, at so many price levels its possible even for low income people to find something that is affordable. How is that possible? Its possible because the vacation industry has far less regulation, no monopolies and as a result tremendous competition. Competition invariably lowers prices and improves service and those people that put health care in a different category know this is true for everything else.

What works for the vacation industry, the computer and electronics industry, the food industry, any industry, would also work for medical insurance and the health care industry. Why wouldn't it?

So, as Canadians become more and more disenchanted with socialized medicine, our American cousins are embracing it more and more. Here is what Nick Gillespie on ReasonTV thinks about Obama-care:    

Here is a historical perspective on the American health care system with some alternative solutions to a needlessly complex issue. 

Restoring Fiscal Sanity to Ontario

A general election in Ontario was narrowly averted over the last few weeks, at least that was the perception. It would have been the second in less than a year, though realistically the disagreement was likely just political theatre.    

The current Liberal government has what amounts to a one seat minority. That means that the government can be defeated if the opposition parties gang up and declare they have "no confidence" in the government. That generally happens over substantial matters that deal with money, in this case it was the province's 2012-2013 budget that was presented back in late March 2012. The Ontario legislature gets to discuss and vote on the budget provisions as if it were a bill.

Of the two opposition parties, the Progressive Conservatives (oxymoron?), were against the budget from the outset, and so-called socialist New Democratic Party (NDP) carried the deciding votes. The NDP decided to do some arm twisting, and managed to add an additional tax on the wealthy along with some other minor tweaks.

The budget was supposed to address the growing provincial deficit and debt, something that the Liberals have exacerbated over the past 8 years. Now they wanted to fix it, and this budget was designed to balance the books in five years. Not the debt, mind you, it would continue to grow over those five years, just stop spending more than you bring in, that was the goal. Of course eliminating the deficit in Ontario depends on continued growth of the economy and no surprise shocks that may negatively impact the province. The latter is about as likely as the sun NOT rising tomorrow morning. But I am no expert. Why not watch and listen to an expert who thinks the Liberal plan is flawed and unrealistic. Not only that, but Niels Veldhuis has a better idea:      

Bjorn Lomborg: "The Skeptical Environmentalist"

Are all the billions of dollars spent on "saving the planet" from overheating wasted. YES, according to Bjorn Lomborg. 

Is recycling paper and glass smart? NO.

Here is Lomborg in conversation on ReasonTV advocating for sensible ways to help people and the planet.

 

Gaia Man says cool it on global warming

Now that Rio 20+ is over, you wonder if there is any point in continuing the long string of seemingly pointless annual environmental conferences.
This one did not go well according to two stories here and here. The first Rio Conference 20 years ago, was more generalized toward sustainability and environmental action on a broad front. As time went on, each succeeding conference became more and more focussed on the perceived immediate threat of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). That hysteria peaked at Copenhagen in 2009, and began to fade at Cancun in 2010. Since then, the idea that humans are responsible for bringing Earth out of the last ice age toward thermal doom from excess carbon dioxide has been getting 'colder-than-a-well-diggers-ass-in-the-Klondike' or similar such sayings.
Last week a noted purveyor of the AGW hypothesis recanted, and then, shock of shocks, the Father of Mother Earth Gaia shared his second thoughts on the AGW issue with The Guardian.
Ninety-two-year-old James Lovelock was one of the worlds leading alarmists on the AGW hypothesis. In 2006, in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote:“before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”  That is alarmist, wouldn't you say, right up there with Al Gore? But Lovelock is a respected scientist, and you have to wonder why he would bother doing this so late in his life with his contributions to environmental research assured? Why bother if he didn't feel strongly that this is an error? Lovelock first showed his change of heart in April 2012, in an interview with MSNBC, where he was quoted: “All right, I made a mistake.”

Lorrie Goldstein, writing in the Toronto Sun, this past week summarized some of Lovelock's views originally posted in The Guardian. Here are some of the observations:

(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.

As Lovelock observes, "Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They've gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it ... Let's be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it." (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)

(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.

"It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion," Lovelock observed. "I don't think people have noticed that, but it's got all the sort of terms that religions use ... The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can't win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air."

(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.

As he puts it, "so-called ‘sustainable development' ... is meaningless drivel ... We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can't stand windmills at any price."

(4) Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don't know it."