|
Media Infiltrations: Deadly Rescue  National Review November 17, 2008 Krugman’s Posthumous Nobel National Review Online October 14, 2008
"What has been your worst blogging experience? "That's a guy who actually stalks me on the Web and once stalked me personally." "I'm saying this...guy's a jerk."
 A Bound Man Shelby Steele What I'm listening to:  Langley Schools Music Project What I'm watching:  There Will Be Blood What I'm playing:  Speed Racer Order these from Amazon.com at Amazon's normal low prices... and a fraction of your order goes to help support this site. Thanks!
Thanks to Irwin Chusid, public editor. Some of the sites
|
The Conspiracy Letters
Join the fray! Email us at letters@poorandstupid.com. We reserve the right to publish all letters with authors' names, unless specified as not for publication or for publication anonymously. Letters may be edited for clarity and brevity.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
OH, YEAH, THE ECONOMICS THING... Of course the French ["French Choice" 8/2/2005], who work 35 hour weeks, have higher productivity per hour than 40-hour-per-week Americans. You have to make it to about your third micro class to know why: the diminishing marginal product of labor.Now for the real puzzler: If Krugman thinks it's noteworthy that productivity in the 40th hour of work in a week is less than in the 35th, how on earth did he ever derive the upward-sloping supply curve for goods? After all, what he's really saying is that there's something out-of-the-ordinary about needing additional labor per unit to produce additional units.
Anonymous
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:50 AM | link
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
DEPENDS ON HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT ARMPIT HAIR, I SUPPOSE Thank you for showing your ignorance, arrogance and stupidity to the world ["French Choice" 8/2/2005].In France, we live longer, we eat better food, we have more vacations, women are prettier and we play better soccer than in your shity [sic] country.
The fact is that France is the world's top tourist destination because numerous people dream to come and live in France (and not in your shity [sic] country).
You are pathetic and almost the entire world hate [sic] you and your country.
I am proud and happy not being an american [sic].
Keep making us laugh with your articles.
Nicolas Wesner
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:21 AM | link
DYNAMO? HMMMMM.... So that's why France is such an economic dynamo -- it's all about productivity "per hour worked" ["French Choice" 8/2/205] When the comparatively few French nationals who are employed deign to go to work they kick our butts on a per hour worked basis.
This methodology applies equally well to other French accomplishments. While Soviet, British, and U.S. troops foolishly bled and died in tiresome places like Stalingrad, El Alamein, and Guadalcanal the clever French were exercising the much smarter lifestyle choice of waiting to be liberated.
With a few weeks of fighting followed by four years of occupation France was the military superpower of World War II on a per day fought basis. This may be the secret to national greatness in the Krugman parallel universe -- work as little as possible in peacetime and surrender as soon as possible in wartime, so that your per hour worked and per day fought numbers will look good.
Kenneth Krantz
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:17 AM | link
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
FRANCE AS A "FAST FOLLOWER" I'm an American working in Paris, France ["French Choice" 8/2/2005]. Have been for the last 5 years and we are just making plans to return home.My view of the French standard of living (ie. the so-called quality of life
trade-off) is mixed. On the negative side, we certainly are taxed to death, have lower living space, mini-world appliances, and have to put up with constant arrogance. For all their love of food, their kitchens are miniscule. Getting to know the French is impossible since they value their privacy so much. Our friends are generally all ex-pats or foreign spouses of the French.
On the positive side, there is a bit more politeness and courtesy on the street. Crime seems to be far less violent (that we see that is) and the holidays are great 'cept that they are so damn expensive. Very nice, but deluded, people. Economically speaking, I have often theorized that their central planning educated elite model of government brings them slightly more efficient government, but that's about it.
For us, with a daughter with cystic fibrosis, the strength of the French medical system comes into its own. For chronic diseases, the French system is superior in that it eliminates the burden for the family (paper work, visitations, etc). Also, the medical practitioners are excellent, though the general tawdry look of some hospitals collides with typical American perceptions of what a hospital should look like. However, from what I can see, for the normal user of the medical system, I'm not sure there is a difference really.
Our relationship with our doc and physical therapist has become so intense that both nearly cried when we said we were probably leaving. This is of course not the norm and could happen in the US too.
Because of our unique situation, however, you'd probably think we were supporters of universal health care. We are not. For CF in particular, certain aspects of the care may be better here, but the long-term cure will orginate from the US and the private sector. Even our docs know that.
France is the ultimate "fast follower." It talks of being an anti-pole to the US, but in fact is one of the first to adopt things they see as working (unless of course it is blatantly anti-socialist). They have not problem putting cost caps on American ingenuity. The common French consumer loves American brands especially McDos, the only family restaurant where it is acceptable to bring your kids. Thus, the French love their kids, but are afraid to take them into the public. Though, it is true their kids are better behaved (quieter) in general.
It is commonly understood amongst thinking professionals in France that the current level of medical care, pensions etc. cannot be sustained. And that is the story really. The quality of life might be better here in some ways, but it is plainly borrowing from the future. It can't last. Krugman is obviously talking to the wrong folks, though I think he hears what he wants to hear and a quick vacation in France does not make you an expert.
For my daughter, I'd like to see an upsurge of VC money piling into respiratory-disease start-ups centered in a vibrant biotech cluster so we can cure the damn disease once and for all. I am not interested in the French way of accepting your fate, letting the government do all the work and getting as much time in the sun as you can until you die. That is the difference between Americans and the French.
Joel Farrier
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:24 PM | link
CANADIAN FATHER KNOWS BEST As a dual citizen (US-Canada) I naturally follow politics in both countries closely. The issue of Toyota choosing to locate its new plant in Ontario instead of Alabama ["'Bamagate" 7/29/2005] is particularly interesting, since it deals with Ontario, where I live, and with the Canadian health insurance program, which is sadly misunderstood in both the USA and Canada. Some points for you to consider:
The Toyota deal is not without its controversy here in Ontario, with some voices arguing that our flat-broke government gave away far too much in tax concessions. That said, about 30% of the Ontario economy is wrapped up in the auto sector and the attractions of the Toyota deal are obvious…at least on the surface. When all is said and done, however, the net gain in jobs might be more than offset by the tax concessions.
Canada’s health care program does give us a comparative advantage, from the point of view of a corporation, in that it means lower company-paid health care benefits.
But Canada’s health care system is, as you have pointed out, totally messed up – but the reasons may go a little deeper than you indicate. For some reason (and I’ll leave you to guess), Canada’s policy-makers have determined that the goal of our health care system should not be merely to provide access to public medical care for everyone, but to make it illegal for anyone to access private care, except for services not already provided by the government. They interpret “equal access” as meaning that Person A is not allowed to pay for health care services out of his own pocket for no other reason than that Person B cannot afford to pay for those services. So in the interests of “fairness”, neither person is allowed access to those services through the private sector. This means that government-delivered services are a monopoly, which in turn means a steady erosion both in the quality and the availability of those services to the point where the health of people is materially jeopardized. For example, in Ontario the average waiting time for hip replacement surgery is approaching 24 months. As a result, wealthier Ontarians are simply traveling to the USA (our newspapers are increasingly filled with ads from Detroit-based providers, for example, specifically targeting Canadians) to obtain those services, and the government winds up with the very “two-tiered” health care system it has apparently been seeking to avoid.
Though I know it is not part of the mandate of your column, you (or someone at NR) could do a very interesting piece about how Canada has blown a good thing in health care. There are aspects of the Canadian system that are superior to the hodge-podge of the USA. The notion that the government should provide a certain “opening level” of health care, by acting, in effect, as the insurer of last resort so that nobody is left uncovered, is not in itself a bad thing. What’s more, the single payer model makes the back-end much more efficient – Canada does not drown in the paperwork, multiple forms and procedures, high non-medical costs of delivering a dollar’s worth of pure medical care, that the US suffers from. As well, Canada’s tort system is far superior – the “loser pays” model discourages frivolous lawsuits, and medical malpractice awards are in the real world. The simplified administrative costs and sane malpractice regime is something the US could profitably learn from.
But Canada’s goofy doctrinaire liberal mindset, driven by class revenge rather than practicality, takes this good base and twists it beyond all sense, seeking to actually prevent access to care rather than broaden it. Canada could have used its good basic model as a springboard to a mixed system, providing a base of care for all and delivering such care much more cheaply and efficiently than the US, and then having private sector services go wherever the market took them – exactly the model throughout Europe, which is hardly a bastion of right-wing thought. But, no. Canada’s idiot leaders decided that it was a sin, somehow, to permit anyone to buy medical care that anyone else could not buy – the dreaded “two tier” or “American style” system that Canada’s leaders never stop preaching against. If everybody died, they would consider it a success because at least Person A didn’t get ahead of Person B. This insane point of view was expressed in a letter to the editor only today, from George Smitherman, Ontario’s Minister of Health. He was complaining of the coverage by the National Post (our only conservative newspaper) of the opening of a private clinic (they are allowed, as I have pointed out, but only in those instances where the government does not deliver the service at all). You may find some of his language instructive:
“While I am uncomfortable with the notion of personal wealth buying improved health care, I am enough of a realist to know that it is nothing new: every day in Ontario, people access different drugs depending on their means or coverage. What makes me more uncomfortable is another proposed clinic that wants to offer a ratio of just 50 patients for every doctor in exchange for a hefty front-door fee and monthly minimums. To put that into context, and explain why I don’t believe such clinics should be allowed: if all Ontarians received that ratio of care we’d be short 217,000 doctors in this province, instead of the 1,000 we are short now. Wealth shouldn’t buy you a spot at the front of the line, nor better access to publicly-trained doctors. Period. I was also uncomfortable with the proposal by the American company Lifeline, which would have seen roving clinics come to town telling people like my mother that she’s at risk if she doesn’t pay for some scan or other. At her age, she doesn’t need that – and neither do the rest of us. We’ll continue to depend on our public health professionals for advice like that, thanks very much.”
Nice, isn’t it? Note the obligatory use of “American” as a debate-ending pejorative – it has become ritual here in Canada. Note, too, the smug, patronizing, father-knows-best attitude that reaches almost Stalinist proportions – almost bragging that Ontario is short 1,000 doctors (in many communities, people cannot find a single family practice doctor to go to). And this is the kind of system our friend Krugman admires?
As a result of this mind-set, our system is pretty much shot. Health care represents a skyrocketing portion of federal and provincial budgets, and we “ain’t seen nothin’ yet” as the Boomers continue to age and the demand for services increase. Already, health care consumes 40% of the budget of the province of Ontario --and the figure is not decreasing. With dolts like George Smitherman overseeing a policy that is irredeemably flawed in the first place, you can see that the outlook is not bright.
David Cravit
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:16 PM | link