Monthly Archives: April 2011

A Pit Of Perverse Incentives

Free Markets, Government, Political Economy, Regulation, Socialism, The State

Any government-controlled system is a pit of perverse incentives. It’s hard to get kinkier than to make failure tantamount to success. If an airplane crashes, in the US, because an air-traffic controller was napping, his bosses have cause to celebrate. Why? Because they will be rewarded with more funds to ostensibly “fix the problem,” and more staff, whether they need it or not. Failure is defined as success in a socialized system.

No wonder the FAA, and Ray LaHood, the US transportation secretary, flailed about aimlessly when a US air traffic controller was caught sleeping “while a medical flight was landing in the state of Nevada, marking the fifth lapse so far this year among controllers at American airports.” They faffed because they have no way of “diagnosing” the problem in an unaccountable system, which is not subject to the controls imposed by private property: an owner furious at the looming loss of contracts, law suits, and bankruptcy.

Show me a company in the private sector (which is not the recipient of government handouts) that is shielded from bankruptcy. An audit would reveal that most government departments, the FAA included, are insolvent, yet the fact that the taxpayer is forced to bankroll them indefinitely with tax dollars, immunizes these systems against all forms of accountability, fiscal and other.

Why do some of you want your doctor operating under the same set of incentives, where the doctor gets off scotfree for the odd slip of the scalpel; the taxpayer (you) pays.

BHO’s Never-Never Debt-Payment Plan (Comments Section Restored)

Barack Obama, Debt, Democrats, Economy, Government, Individual Rights, Military, Political Economy, Taxation, Welfare

When President Obama mouths off about a “free society,” you know that the tokenism will be followed by a list of “liberties” that takes the “vision thing” away from private individuals, and leaves it to souped-up civil servants and voracious bureaucrats. After BHO took great care to tether his “vision” of America to the size of state social programs, here is what the president’s vague, debt-reduction plans entail. A “more balanced approach,” he called it, of “$4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years.” Or, the Never-Never scheme. [Transcript]

It’s an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission I appointed last year, and builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget. It’s an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table, but one that protects the middle-class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future.
The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week – a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years. We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. We’ll invest in medical research and clean energy technology. We’ll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. We will invest in education and job training. We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future.

Meaningless so far.

Next in BHO’s noncommittal outline is a mention of the giant defense budget. No specifics are offered. And a centerpiece of the promise to get serious about such cuts is this cunning catch: cuts are in future spending.

As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America’s national security is America’s debt.
Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.

[SNIP]

Nothing ventured, a lot gained is the (mangled) maxim Obama follows.

You’ll buy BOH’s “third step,” which “is to further reduce health care spending in our budget,” if you were one of those people who bought the novel idea that an enormous entitlement program, as Obamacare is, will drastically reduce the deficit and debt. The poster person for this mathematical improbability was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Finally, “the fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code,” preached the president. By which he and his menagerie of morons mean not to shorten the tax code to one page, and both reduce and flatten individual and corporate rates—but to sock it to the rich.

Reduction of government debt, in Obama’s perverse moral universe, translates into an increase in state-sanctioned theft.

[My appreciation goes to the New York Times, one of the few outlets that provides transcripts of anything, these days.]

UPDATED: I’m sorry comment section was disabled. it was unintentional. It is restored. Thanks, IronGalt, for the alert.

UPDATED: An Egyptian Revolutionary Tribunal?

Democracy, Economy, Islam, Justice, Law, Middle East, Welfare

Former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak suffered a heart attack in the course of an inquisition “investigating graft and abuse allegations.” Also on the public prosecutor’s docket: “violence against protesters.” (Link)

Expect Egyptian freedom fighters, many of whom are of the once-thwarted Muslim Brotherhood, to grow more restive as it becomes clear that “freedom” will not make manna fall from the heavens—especially since most Egyptians are not, as far as I know, demanding a liberalization of their economy.

The Egyptian court judging Mubarak will oblige the masses. It’ll masquerade as a court of law, but I suspect that this tribunal will more closely resemble the French Revolutionary Tribunal, meting justice by popular demand.

UPDATE: A “Day of Cleansing” is what the rebels are, ominously, calling the next stage of the Egyptian revolution.

During “the early days of the movement … Egyptians showered the Army with flowers and saw them as defenders of the people after tanks rolled into the streets to restore order after violent clashes with police.” It was not as though “hundreds to thousands of people have [not] been detained by the Army and tried in military courts without access to civilian lawyers. Yet until recently, such criticism of the Army had not been widespread.”

The people, it would seem, have changed their fickle minds.

The blood will flow, and still something will be amiss.

Why do you think that, bar the likes of the tea party, is it never real liberty that the majority wants?

Here’s why: Radicals, libertarians among them, believe that because all people seek safety and sustenance for themselves, they’ll allow those they dislike to peacefully pursue the same. These radicals are oblivious to reality. People are not naturally good. They want what is not theirs. Free up the Egyptian economy. Some will rise, others will fall.

A cry will then go out for a third party (the new government) to take from those who rose and give to those who fell.

UPDATED: When The Pleasure Principle Rules (Graft Vs. Genius)

America, Debt, Economy, Education, Pop-Culture, Psychology & Pop-Psychology

Our society runs on the pleasure principle: unless something is fun, it is discouraged as unworthy of pursuing. This is one reason why the many youngsters now entering the job market are so dumb, difficult ( and “dispensable”). They’ve been taught, falsely, that learning must be fun at all time: Unless you find a field of endeavor fun, don’t pursue it. (So you follow that advice and end up a surfer, a struggling “actor,” etc.)

Anyone who has studied seriously, or worked to master a craft, knows that nothing worth learning or mastering is easy or “fun,” unless you’re a genius (most of us are not), gifted at it, etc. With mastery comes fun. And mastery means hard work.

The principle extends to saving for future financial security. That’s not fun, because it means postponing immediate pleasure for the sake of solvency, or more ambitious future gains.

A survey by the National Foundation for Credit Counseling reveals that “more than half of all Americans say they don’t use a budget. Also, 26% of adults in the U.S. admit that they’re spending more than they did a year ago. And 40% of consumers are still battling unpaid credit card debt month to month.”

(“The rich,” after all, will be forced to take care of them.]

This “frugal fatigue” [sic: shouldn’t it be “frugality fatigue”?] has financial planner Lynnette Khalfani-Cox tailoring her advice to the pleasure principle: “The real problem is that relatively few of us can live happily — for any sustained period of time — on an overly restrictive financial diet.”

Ms. Khalfani-Cox’s advice is fit for infants: “Make the process of saving fun.”

UPDATE: GRAFT VS. GENIUS. Myron, didn’t I say that my recommendation did not include those who do not need to work hard b/c geniuses? On BAB, everyone knows Myron Pauli is a genius, and comes from a line of similar folks. Someone who is able to work smartly already forms a sub-section, which is a cut above the rest. Not everyone can reach a solution through abstract, creative thinking. Most have to master a method. If you discover your kid can do the former, lucky for you. But for the rest, it’s safe to assume you need to hard work.