g m g D e s i g n . c o m

Every time I see a headline like this one I am reminded of the verbal manipulation used by the media. We hear a lot about healthcare reform. Prior to the medical insurance debate, we heard a lot about the economic stimulus package.

Do you see the Orwellian thought manipulation here? It’s not outlandish government spending, it’s a stimulus package. I.e., the government is giving us something for free—like magic!—and it goes without saying that it will have a stimulating effect to the economy, all without any rational justification for this conclusion.

The even thornier subject of “healthcare reform” is fraught with similar manipulation. First, it’s apparently “reform” to introduce yet more government in an already heavily regulated system. Second, apparently, healthcare is synonymous with medical insurance.

Oh, and did I mention that those who rationally oppose the current Big Government effort to overhaul healthcare are extremists?

Very weird. Just noticed that a pseudo-blog site plagiarized a blog post I wrote some time ago. The copy-cat site is: freeofstate.org/new/?p=7590. Looks like a straight copy, word for word. May have been done by a bot rather than a person.

Is this the future of blogging: bots that copy other peoples’ blog entries in an effort to ride their virtual coat tails? It seems the answer is probably yes.

Just finished watching 20/20 (w/ John Stossel). Predictable positions, but unusually good today. He asked the questions we’re not allowed to ask, and it was quite refreshing (even on points that I don’t necessarily agree w/ him). Key points of interest…

1. He points out that anti-discrimination laws, such as those protecting pregnant women, actually make employers less willing to hire women in the first place (!), fearing lawsuits later on.
2. Stossel questions why more food isn’t irradiated as a way of augmenting food safety. The reason is that people are scared of the process (it has the word “radiation” in it, after all), despite the illogic in that position. Hence, thousands will die every year in preventable food poison deaths & many more will be sickened, unnecessarily.
3. Finally, he questions legislation such as Medicare, a generational wealth transfer program that takes money from younger people and gives it to older people, regardless of the elderly person’s material wealth. He correctly points out that the potential support ratio (ratio of working persons per retiree) has declined over time as people live longer & have fewer children, making the wealth transfer program unsustainable and unfair.

Not that anyone wants workplace discrimination, carcinogenic food, or old people w/o medical care, of course. His bottom line point is that government legislation is a) often ineffective and counterproductive, and b) fraught with unintended consequences.

On those points, I couldn’t agree more.

Extremely funny editorial by O’Rouke on why print media needs a government bailout. Teaser first paragraph:

The print journalism industry is taking a beating, circling the drain, running on fumes. Especially running on fumes. You could smell Frank Rich all the way to Nome when Sarah Palin was nominated. Not that print journalism actually emits much in the way of greenhouse gases. We have an itty-bitty carbon footprint. We’re earth-friendly. The press run of an average big-city daily newspaper can be made from one tree. Compare that to the global warming hot air produced by talk radio, cable television and Andrew Sullivan.

Here’s some evidence that the editorial board of the NY Times is clueless about econ. The board proposes that, in addition to the bailout, the US gov’t do the following:

• extend unemployment benefits
• allow bankruptcy courts to reduce homeowner’s mortgages
• provide subsidies to cities/states for food stamps and financial aid for health care, construction jobs, etc.

In economics, there’s no free lunch, so money that subsidizes the unemployed comes from somewhere in some form, such as from taxes–from companies. I.e., the companies that provide employment. Additional taxes on those companies reduce their capacity to provide employment. Sorry, but I measure progress not by how many are “successfully” on unemployment benefits, but how many people are off such benefits. Providing economic incentives for people to remain unemployed is a bad idea.

I have no idea why bankruptcy courts should arbitrarily be allowed to alter mortgages. Maybe there’s a compelling reason (seriously). But it seems like a perversion of normal market incentives. In fact, I can see the number of bankruptcies going up for people who are on the “edge” financially, banking on a reduction in their monthly mortgage rate. Oh, and how would this affect lenders’ willingness to lend? Probably not positively, knowing that the state could dissolve loan agreements en masse. Sounds like a bad idea to me.

Bottom line is that the editorial is economically simplistic, revealing an underlying lack of understanding of basic economics (or a failure at explaining their points rationally). I’m all for an improvement in living standards and an easing of the stress from the current market turmoil. But fiat manipulation of markets by the government often winds up doing much more harm than good for Wall Street and Main Street alike.