Philip Greenspun’s Weblog

Dictionary: Socialism–Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Yesterday’s New York Times: “the government is the nation’s biggest lender, insurer, automaker and guarantor against risk for investors large and small. … government spending accounts for a bigger share of the nation’s economy — 26 percent — than at any time since World War II. The government is financing 9 out of 10 new mortgages in the United States. … To Mr. Obama’s critics, thousands of whom took to the streets of Washington this weekend to protest a new era of big government, all these efforts are part of a plan to dismantle free-market capitalism.”

Who decided to print trillions of dollars and give them to banks? The Bush Administration. Who decided to print hundreds of billions of dollars and give them to AIG? The Bush Administration. Who decided not to tell General Motors and Chrysler to work out their problems in bankruptcy court like any other company not smart enough to recognize the implications of pension and health care guarantees (see While America Aged)? The Bush Administration started with the Detroit bailout.

A theory consistent with the facts is that King Bush II knew that the next president would be a Democrat, due to the endless depressing Iraq/Afghanistan war. He therefore intentionally wrecked the economy and then took over much of it in order to make the next administration look like socialists.

Going by the numbers and facts, an economic historian would have little choice but to classify the U.S. circa 2009 as a socialist nation. Government at all levels spends a greater percentage of GDP than does China’s (source), for example, and the government either directly owns or assumes financial risks for a lot of our largest enterprises. How did we get here? It was a Republican plot to make Obama look like a socialist, by the clever strategy of converting the U.S. into a fully socialist economy prior to January 20, 2009.

Full post, including comments

In a couple of postings from my trips to Africa in 2007 (link1; link2), I wrote about how the Dark Continent’s slow connection speed to the worldwide Internet was making it unlikely that businesses would invest in Africa. The owner of the fiber optic cable linking London to South Africa, for example, is a crony of the rulers and is able to charge 100X the price per bit per mile compared to any other undersea cable anywhere in the world. Now it seems that Africa’s Internet woes are not limited to connectivity with Europe, the U.S., and Asia. Even internal data transfers are slower than via carrier pigeon, according to this ABC News article.

With communications speeds so slow and costs literally 100 times what people in other countries pay, coupled with air transportation costs that are at least 4 times higher (due to government-imposed restrictions on competition), the question is not “How come Africa is in such bad economic shape?” but rather “Why is there even a single free market business in Africa?”

Full post, including comments

… until Americans are paying more for a set of tires than Indians pay for an entire car (Tata Nano; also the subject of an analysis of what our Detroit bailout money would have bought). According to this New York Times story, President Obama has imposed a 35 percent tariff on Chinese tires, not because they were doing anything unfair, but simply because some American factories are unable to compete on price and quality, at least with their current union labor contracts. If you’re managing one of the businesses that is not fortunate enough to command Washington’s attention, e.g., a software company, you now have to pay your workers extra so that they can buy tires to get to work. This comes on top of the extra money that you have to give them because they are required to participate in the world’s most expensive health care system and the extra money you have to pay them so that they can pay enough property and state income tax to make good on public employee pension commitments from 30 years ago (more).

Separately, EMC, the data storage company, announced that it would invest $1.5 billion to expand its services, customer support, and research and development operations. Is the money going to be invested in Massachusetts, where EMC is headquartered and where we already have achieved the kind of health care reform currently being proposed in Washington? This Boston Globe article says that the money will be invested and the jobs created in India.

For an American of my age (45), there is something humiliating about being engaged in a trade war with China. The Chinese were supposed to be rural peasants in rags, too poor to feed themselves, and oppressed by Communism, the world’s worst system of government. Now it seems that our Democracy, supposedly the world’s best system of government, has transferred much of our wealth to cronies of the rulers (Wall Street executives, Detroit automakers, specific labor unions, health insurance companies (soon)). The evil and inefficient Communists, by contrast, spent their stimulus money on solar power and lithium battery technology and infrastructure. The Chinese economy is recovering nicely (source) while we continue to stagger. Can we afford to start a trade war with these guys? Aren’t we eventually going to need to buy renewable energy and battery technology from them?

Full post, including comments

Virtually every product sold in America that requires consumers to have expert computer system administration skills has experienced rapid growth among early (geeky) adopters and then hit a sales wall. Even VCR programming was something that most Americans couldn’t be bothered to learn. The first million people who bought VCRs read the manual carefully and time-shifted all of their favorite shows. The next 200 million bought them, lived with the flashing 12, and rented tapes.

Let’s consider iTunes. A music-loving consumer purchases 400 albums worth of music from Apple. Assume there are 10 tracks per album at a cost of $1.30 per track. That’s a $5,200 contribution to Steve Jobs’s Gulfstream fund (will pay for about one hour of fuel and overhaul reserves). These are downloaded to the consumer’s $3,000 desktop Macintosh and used to feed his home music system. The hard drive dies. If our consumer is one of the 80 percent of home computer users who don’t have a  backup regime in place, this $5,200 investment in Apple’s low-quality compressed music files evaporates. (Of course, our music lover might have a copy on an iPod, but in order to protect the recording industry from its consumers, Apple software prevents him from copying the data back from the iPod onto his new $3,000 Macintosh.)

After a few such incidents, you’d think that word would get around and people would stop paying big money to listen to music while they pick cotton on Steve Jobs’s plantation.

How could a product that requires home computer users to be expert sysadmins continue to enjoy expanding sales? Especially as an increasing number of consumers have migrated all of their data onto cloud-based services, such as Hotmail, Flickr, Google Docs, etc.

Full post, including comments

On this 8th Anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States, I’d like to devote a little space in this Weblog to remembering the heroes of that day. For me, the essence of heroism is choosing to take a personal risk, especially, but not necessarily, a physical one. A hero is someone who chooses to help others despite the risk of a terrible negative consequence for himself. Anyone who walked into the World Trade Center after the first airplane hit, in order to help those who were originally inside, meets my definition of hero. A good example of a civilian who did this is Rick Rescorla, profiled in “The Real Heroes are Dead”, a February 11, 2002 New Yorker story that I recommend highly. Any of the firefighters and police who went in could have called in sick or otherwise found an excuse to run in the opposite direction.

So I’m giving thanks today that I live in a society in which there are so many who step up to the hero level when the situation requires it.

[My personal 9/11 story is not inspiring. I was on a camping trip in Nova Scotia for most of September 2001 and missed almost everything.]

Full post, including comments

I’m reviewing the transcript of Barack Obama’s health care speech to Congress yesterday. I’m confused by a couple of points.

Obama was careful to stress that there will be no health insurance for illegal immigrants. Why does this matter? If a very sick illegal immigrant shows up at a hospital, the hospital has to provide him with emergency care. If a very sick and very old illegal immigrant shows up at a hospital, he will have the same $250,000 death in the ICU as an American citizen. The current standard of care does not consider costs and does not consider citizenship. Why would people get excited over whether an illegal immigrant gets a free flu shot or not? As far as the expensive stuff goes, we’re already paying for it (where “we” includes the illegal immigrant, of course, since, as I pointed out in my own health care reform plan, illegal immigrants pay most of the taxes that citizens pay).

Another point that struck me as bizarre is “most of this [multi-trillion dollar] plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. … The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies … Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan”.

The proposed changes to our health care system would start to be phased in during the year 2013, according to H.R. 3200. If we’re wasting hundreds of billions of dollars a year right now in Medicare and Medicaid, why aren’t we taking immediate steps to stop the waste? Why would we wait until 2013? Why would we say that we’re only going to stop this waste if we implement some unrelated changes to the U.S. health care system?

Speaking of immediate fixes, Obama says that the insurance market is not very competitive: “Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company. And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down.” The federal government pays for more than half the cost of health care in the U.S. The Feds regulate all sorts of other things whose connection to “interstate commerce” is more tenuous. If the 50 state insurance commissions and licensing procedures are reducing competition and raising pricings to consumers, why not get rid of them tomorrow? Why wait until 2013 and predicate the efficiency improvement on implementing unrelated new schemes?

The speech constantly equated health insurance with health care, as though it were not possible to have health care without insurance companies, despite the fact that a person’s routine health care is predictable and therefore classically would not be considered something to be insured at all (except against catastrophic accidents or rare disorders). Food is even more important than health care. Without food, an American would be dead within just a few months. Why don’t we have food insurance if it is so much more important than health care?

Nowhere did the speech mention the most obvious reason that our spending is so high: Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers pay providers more if they do more and fancier procedures and tests. Nowhere did the speech mention any proposed change to this practice, only that the government would spend more money and hire more people to crack down on “fraud” and “abuse” by providers. Given that medicine is not a science and doctors often disagree on how to treat a patient, how is this ever going to work? Someone at a desk in Washington didn’t think the doctor in Texas should have ordered an MRI, perhaps done at a MRI clinic partially owned by that doctor? Did the desk jockey talk to the patient? Is the desk jockey an MD? If not, how is he going to be able to say with authority that the MRI wasn’t necessary? Some of the words in the speech are fine, but when one puts forward a specific example it is impossible to understand how it could work in practice.

“For some of Ted Kennedy‘s critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty.” Finally a part of the speech with which I can agree, as there is no doubt that Ted Kennedy’s brand of liberalism deprived Mary Jo Kopechne of her liberty.

Full post, including comments

One of our new neighbors here in the western suburbs of Boston is a recent refugee from Cambridge, home to some of the most expensively funded public schools in Massachusetts (and therefore among the most expensive in the world). Sadly for the taxpayers, they aren’t very effective schools and she had her son enrolled in a private school for 3rd grade. Now that the kid is in a high-scoring school district, she decided it would be okay to test the public school waters. I asked the kid how he liked the public school. “It is much better than private school,” he enthused. Were the teachers, inspired by Barack Obama’s address to the nation’s schoolchildren, encouraging him to stretch his intellect to its limits? “We get two recesses every day; in private school we only had one.”

More: New York Times story on the back-to-school scene.

Full post, including comments

… in tortured election rules. In 1812, our Governor Gerry redrew electoral district boundaries to ensure the reelection of incumbents and the term gerrymandering was born. Lately we’ve decided that we should change the rule on what happens what a Senator leaves office in the middle of his term. The rule was last changed in 2004 to prevent a Republican governor, Mitt Romney, from appointing a successor to John Kerry, whom we felt sure that the country would grow to love as its President. When Senator Kerry ascended to the White House, a special election would be held and the people of Massachusetts would pick a new senator. Now that Ted Kennedy has followed Mary Jo Kopechne into the grave (having outlived his victim by 40 years), folks want to change things back to the way they were five years ago. Our current governor, Deval Patrick, is apparently better qualified to choose a senator than was Romney.

More: New York Times story.

[You might wonder how Massachusetts legislators could possibly have the time and energy to rewrite laws every five years. According to the NCSL, we live in one of the few states where the legislature is in session “all year”. Given that the legislature has been controlled by the Democratic Party almost continuously since 1812 and that the Democrats have a supermajority, it is unclear to me why they need to be in session (and get paid by the taxpayers, approximately $200,000 per year including travel supplements, health care, and pension benefits) for more than one day. The party’s Web site contains a platform. They could have staff members come up with a full set of legislation for each year, circulate it around for discussion via email or Google Docs, and then come into the State House to approve it in 10 minutes. The only reason they should need to come back to the State House would be if there were some dramatic change in external conditions, e.g., a catastrophic fall in tax revenues.]

Full post, including comments

I’ve drafted an essay on health care reform. Comments would be appreciated.

Full post, including comments

In “Universities and Economic Growth”, I blamed the poor job that colleges do of educating for our sluggish economic growth. A story in today’s New York Times also blames colleges for our dim economic prospects, but says that the problem is that students don’t stick with the full program.

Full post, including comments