An interesting discussion of Obama’s glamour problem, and the perversities of health care.
Category Archives: Economics
Cooperation
John Hare has some interesting speculations on how a Masten/XCOR team might reduce costs to orbit.
We Are So Fortunate
…to have a president wise enough to know how much money we should all have.
For all these wealth gluttons, I have a suggestion: stop earning any more money for the next two years. Since most of you voted for him anyway, grant the president his wish. Stop.
Withdraw all your money from all investments. Shutter your stores, restaurants, factories, movie studios, banks and financial brokerages. Evict all tenants from your apartment buildings and shopping centers, and board the buildings up. Invent nothing, bring no products to market, write no books and hire no one. Stop adding to your unjust, unfair, beyond-the-point income or wealth. Take a vacation. File next year’s federal, state and local tax returns with big, fat zeroes written on the payment-due lines.
While you’re at it, buy as little as possible too. After all, at other times, the president has indicated he thinks many of us keep our homes too warm or too cool, drive around too much (on under-inflated tires), eat too much salty food, buy ‘Cadillac’ health plans that are too good. He has a point of too much in mind about everything. He is the Decider of your too-much. Everybody at the too-much point could relieve him of a lot of worry by spending nearly nothing for the next two years.
I wonder if he thinks he has enough, or too much?
We Are Doomed
Some cheery thoughts from Marc Faber.
Shocked
Only a Harvard professor could be surprised that when government grows, private enterprise shrinks. Well, OK, that’s not fair. Lots of schools could have professors who would be shocked at that. And at least the business school professor finds it concerning.
The Cooked Books
The country is being run by blatant liars and charlatans.
[Update a few minutes later]
So, now the Donkeys and “liberals” think that “ObamaCare” is a pejorative? When did that happen? I thought that once they passed it, we were all going to love it. Now they don’t want to take creditblame for it?
I like the suggestion of one commenter that we call it National Socialist Healthcare.
Prepare To Be Shocked
California’s insane “go it alone” “green” energy policy is going to damage the state’s economy. But the idiots keep going into the voting booth and reelecting these morons.
“Little-Noticed”
Actually, many of these things were noticed at the time by people who actually read the bill. Which of course doesn’t include most of the people who voted for it, one of whom told us we’d have to pass it to find out what was in it. Here’s hoping that she’s not running the House next January.
The True Scientists
…win a debate at Oxford Union on climate change:
Lord Monckton, a former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the UK, concluded the case for the proposition. He drew immediate laughter and cheers when he described himself as “Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, scholar, philanthropist, wit, man about town, and former chairman of the Wines and Spirits Committee of this honourable Society”. At that point his cummerbund came undone. He held it up to the audience and said, “If I asked this House how long this cummerbund is, you might telephone around all the manufacturers and ask them how many cummerbunds they made, and how long each type of cummerbund was, and put the data into a computer model run by a zitty teenager eating too many doughnuts, and the computer would make an expensive guess. Or you could take a tape-measure and” – glaring at the opposition across the despatch-box – “measure it!” [cheers].
Lord Monckton said that real-world measurements, as opposed to models, showed that the warming effect of CO2 was a tiny fraction of the estimates peddled by the UN’s climate panel. He said that he would take his lead from Lord Lawson, however, in concentrating on the economics rather than the science. He glared at the opposition again and demanded whether, since they had declared themselves to be so worried about “global warming”, they would care to tell him – to two places of decimals and one standard deviation – the UN’s central estimate of the “global warming” that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The opposition were unable to reply. Lord Monckton told them the answer was 3.26 plus or minus 0.69 Kelvin or Celsius degrees. An Hon. Member interrupted: “And your reference is?” Lord Monckton replied: “IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2.” [cheers]. He concluded that shutting down the entire global economy for a whole year, with all the death, destruction, disaster, disease and distress that that would cause, would forestall just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 Kelvin or Celsius degrees of “global warming”, so that total economic shutdown for 41 years would prevent just 1 K of warming. Adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective.
Mr. Mike Mason, founder and managing director of “Climate Care”, concluded for the opposition. He said that the proposition were peculiar people, and that Lord Monckton was more peculiar than most, in that he was not a real Lord. Lord Monckton, on a point of order, told Mr. Mason that the proposition had avoided personalities and that if Mr. Mason were unable to argue other than ad hominem he should “get out”. [cheers] Mr. Mason then said that we had to prepare for climate risks [yes, in both directions, towards cooler as well as warmer]; and that there was a “scientific consensus” [but he offered no evidence for the existence of any such consensus, still less for the notion that science is done by consensus].
As usual, the opponents employed the logically flawed precautionary principle.
I think that the tide has really turned on this nonsense, at least over the Pond, if not quite hear yet. That may have to wait until November.
Speaking of which, there was an awful story on ABC Sunday night, where the focus was on death threats to climate scientists. Note that they make no mention of the threats against climate skeptics in the emails. And they set up a straw man, when they say there’s a “conspiracy” to foist a “hoax” on the world on the part of the scientists. Yes, some people have made such allegations, but that’s not the point. I’m willing to believe that most climate scientists are sincere in their beliefs. The problem is that they drink too much of their own bathwater, and suffer too much from confirmation bias. Not to mention that it’s difficult to get funded if you don’t hew to the party line. But that kind of story wouldn’t accomplish ABC’s purpose — to present the noble scientists trying to save us from ourselves as victims of conspiracy mongers.