Economist Vernon Smith, 2002 Nobel Laureate (and my thesis advisor) said in “Trust the Consumer!” in today’s WSJ:

Health-care costs doubled over the decade ending in 2004, in fact reaching an all-time high measured as the share — 16% — of GDP; and they continue to greatly outpace inflation. Similarly, education costs from primary levels up through college continue to grow faster than other categories of national spending. Why?

Here is a bare-bones way to think about this situation: A is the customer, B is the service provider. B informs A what A should buy from B, and a third entity, C, pays for it from a common pool of funds. Stated this way, the problem has no known economic solution because there is no equilibrium. There is no automatic balance between willingness to pay by the consumer and willingness to accept by the producer that constrains and limits the choices of each.

I am not sure that an education subsidy is a bad idea. The nation’s take from higher tax revenues from graduates may well cover the cost at the margin. Graduates earn $25k/yr more than non-graduates mid career. If we can get the health industry to extend work life, a subsidy might be justified there too. But paying 60% of what the service costs instead of a 20% co-pay or a politically-set tuition would surely create a higher quality, lower cost product.

a) I’m busy tearing down walls and removing cabinets in the kitchen (though I could still listen while doing that, amidst the noise of the hammering and reciprocal sawing).

b) I haven’t seen any of the movies that are up for awards.

c) I have no interest in the glitterati–I think that for the most part they’re pompous, pretentious pseudointellectuals, attempting to make up for what they know are largely lucky breaks (surely there are many more great actors and directors than are given opportunities in Hollywood–just look at how much it helps to be have a family member in the business) in their success, by “giving something back” in the form of wacko progressive politics. I’ve also lived long enough in LA to have met many of them in real life, and for the most part, they’re not even people you’d particularly like to know.

d) I have no interest in listening to their inevitable ignorant digs, or outright rants, at the president, or Republicans (though I’m no big fan of the president or Republicans myself–I just find the Bush-hating derangement tiresome, when there are so many real things that they could be criticizing both for).

[Update a few minutes later]

It just occurred to me that I did see “Pride and Prejudice.”

But I’m still not watching.

a) I’m busy tearing down walls and removing cabinets in the kitchen (though I could still listen while doing that, amidst the noise of the hammering and reciprocal sawing).

b) I haven’t seen any of the movies that are up for awards.

c) I have no interest in the glitterati–I think that for the most part they’re pompous, pretentious pseudointellectuals, attempting to make up for what they know are largely lucky breaks (surely there are many more great actors and directors than are given opportunities in Hollywood–just look at how much it helps to be have a family member in the business) in their success, by “giving something back” in the form of wacko progressive politics. I’ve also lived long enough in LA to have met many of them in real life, and for the most part, they’re not even people you’d particularly like to know.

d) I have no interest in listening to their inevitable ignorant digs, or outright rants, at the president, or Republicans (though I’m no big fan of the president or Republicans myself–I just find the Bush-hating derangement tiresome, when there are so many real things that they could be criticizing both for).

[Update a few minutes later]

It just occurred to me that I did see “Pride and Prejudice.”

But I’m still not watching.

a) I’m busy tearing down walls and removing cabinets in the kitchen (though I could still listen while doing that, amidst the noise of the hammering and reciprocal sawing).

b) I haven’t seen any of the movies that are up for awards.

c) I have no interest in the glitterati–I think that for the most part they’re pompous, pretentious pseudointellectuals, attempting to make up for what they know are largely lucky breaks (surely there are many more great actors and directors than are given opportunities in Hollywood–just look at how much it helps to be have a family member in the business) in their success, by “giving something back” in the form of wacko progressive politics. I’ve also lived long enough in LA to have met many of them in real life, and for the most part, they’re not even people you’d particularly like to know.

d) I have no interest in listening to their inevitable ignorant digs, or outright rants, at the president, or Republicans (though I’m no big fan of the president or Republicans myself–I just find the Bush-hating derangement tiresome, when there are so many real things that they could be criticizing both for).

[Update a few minutes later]

It just occurred to me that I did see “Pride and Prejudice.”

But I’m still not watching.

I don’t know how history will rank Jimmy Carter among the presidents (my guess will be pretty low, definitely in the bottom quarter), but there’s not question in my mind that he’s absolutely the worst ex-president we’ve ever had:

Mr. Carter said he made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan, and Cuba on the U.N. change issue that was undermined by America’s ambassador, John Bolton. “My hope is that when the vote is taken,” he told the Council on Foreign Relations, “the other members will outvote the United States.”

…Asked yesterday about his views on religion, Mr. Carter said, “The essence of my faith is one of peace.” In a clear swipe at Mr. Bush’s faith, and to a round of applause, he then added, “We worship the prince of peace, not of pre-emptive war.” Mr. Carter then went on to attack American Christians who support Israel.

Shameful.

While I thought that Harry Browne went off the deep end in the last few years on foreign policy, he was a great, and I think good (if occasionally misguided) man in advancing the ideas of liberty. I always thought it a shame that he wasn’t allowed to participate in the presidential debates–he would have mopped up the floor with both candidates, at least in being coherent and articulate. And passionate (unlike Al Gore, who considers bellowing absurdities and wonktalk with a red face and bulging veins to be passion).

Brian Doherty has a tribute over at Reason’s Hit’n’Run.

Tibor Machan writes that Hollywood only finds villains nuanced when they’re anti-American:

Let us not forget that most of the writers and producers in Hollywood — the ones who make a quintessential American institution, namely, business, look so terrible in their various vehicles — are politically sympathetic with the Left. They have been that for a long time. (Even today, after the true nature of communists has been clearly demonstrated — based on, among other things, KGB and similar archives — there is still far more hostility shown from much of Hollywood against Joe McCarthy than against Joe Stalin — for instance, in George Clooney’s movie, “Good Night and Good Luck”.)

No, there is no sudden discovery of subtlety and complexity within the minds of evil people by Hollywood writers and producers. Rather what we have here is apologetics, plain and simple. The folks who put out this stuff just cannot work up a genuine disgust of terrorists because, well, most of the terrorists share their anti-American point of view. That seems to suffice for them to place most terrorism — which, one must keep in mind, consists primarily of killing people who are innocent, among them civilians and many children, and whose only “crime” is to be Americans or Westerners, meaning, they belong to the tribe the terrorists want to wipe out — into a sympathetic light.

Anne Bayefsky points out the latest reason that the UN is not just useless for human rights, but an ongoing disaster.

Jim Geraghty isn’t impressed by the response to the Danish cartoon controversy by the left regions of the blogosphere:

The one common refrain on the blogs of the left has been to compare the rioters, the imams threatening violence, and embassy-torchers to prominent members of the religious right. Oliver Willis huffed,

…if the judge grants Scooter Libby’s request for dismissal? The Merry Fitzmas would be officially over.

Filing such things is pro forma, of course, and I’ll be surprised if it’s granted, but Fitzgerald’s stonewalling on the evidence doesn’t make his case look very good. It also seems to be on novel grounds.