The World Has Lots More” Now What? IV

Never in human history has the average human had “More.” Capitalism if left alone to continue to work its magic promises to bring even “More” to everyone allowed to participate. Only where economies are increasingly run by top-down dictates is the human condition deteriorating. Yet as we have seen this highway to more is threatened both at home and abroad. Even China where allowing capitalism rum a major part of its economy brought a billion people out of abject poverty is reasserting top-down control. No wonder its growth rate is slowing in line with every turn of the screw. We know where this leads, increasing oppression and, of course, “Less.” At home, we have a large part of our populous favorable to socialism and outright hostility to capitalism. To understand this strange reaction to a system that has provided everyone with far “More” than our forebearers ever dreamed possible, Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950) gave us some insight. The economist popularized the phrase “Creative Destruction” to describe the dynamics of market capitalism and how its disruptive the forces of innovation undermined norms. With the widespread change, some suffer near term loss but overall most gained. He lauded the entrepreneurial spirit of the capitalists, but thought the loss of equilibrium would cause socialism to win out in the end. He based this on the hostility of intellectuals on one hand and workers on the other. He couldn’t have been more wrong. As we’ve shown, socialism and every other top-down system have proven to be an utter disaster. As it turns out the equilibrium under these systems is upset but not in a good way. However, this hasn’t quashed the hostility among many intellectuals and workers.

Today’s intellectuals are the direct descendants of the small number of literate elites topping the heap all over the world for all those centuries prior to 15th. Whatever “More” there was to have belonged to them. They were the military leaders, the governors, the lawmakers and keepers, the bureaucrats running most everything, the repositories of whatever passed for knowledge and the intermediaries to the gods. The vast majority of humanity was just dust beneath their feet. The uncouth deplorables were put on earth to serve their betters. They only suffered merchants and artisans to provide them with the good things of life. They were the top of the human pyramid. The commercial class had to kowtow and often bribe these officials in order to survive. This still exists but much more muted in liberal capitalist countries. As commerce grew and entrepreneurs prospered, the intelligentsia had to share power and place. They are not happy.

Continue reading

The World has Lots “More” Now What? III

n our last post, we laid out how old-style top-down governments cannot keep up in a world where change can come from anywhere at any time. Lumbering bureaucracies must become increasingly repressive to maintain the control that has only provided “Less”. Moreover, you can’t be part of a worldwide trading system and supply chain while intimidating and undermining your more liberal neighbors. Threatening supply routes whether it be the South China Sea or the Straits of Hormuz just doesn’t denote a commitment to world trade. Top down just isn’t compatible with the continued growth of “More.” Yet even countries once appearing to follow the liberalizing path (in the classical sense) to”More” somehow found a way to be increasingly top-down and moved in the opposite direction. Venezuela surely has made the trip. Turkey seems headed in that direction. China is at the crossroads. Could others follow? Could we actually get off the highway that has brought us so much “More”? There is always a danger of backsliding and unfortunately, there are worrying signs.

But don’t we need Laws and rules? Of course, all civilized societies have to have them, but there are rules and laws and there are rules and laws. In order for us to flexible and adaptable they have to be needed, fair, level playing field, workable, and reviewable. A good example of this is how we approach energy in light of a warming world. Presently we have a hodgepodge of mandates and subsidies favoring some while penalizing others. A tax subsidy to the producers of luxury electric cars puts competitors with a much different solution at a disadvantage. Many think a better way is to have a carbon tax and let everyone choose what is the least costly way to have energy in light of the tax. Definitely, this would be superior to what we have today, but how do we determine the proper amount of the tax. Once the tax is collected what do you do with the money? Spend it or rebate it? However, the biggest negative is even if it works and we reduce our emissions further unless the rest of the world does the same it will hardly move the needle. However, it would raise our relative costs putting us at a huge disadvantage. Even if the rest of the world buckled under and adopted high cost Zero carbon emission energy sources it would doom a billion plus people to continued poverty. How moral is that?

Continue reading

Pills Shouldn’t be Bitter

High Drug prices have been the subject of endless news stories. Politicians are railing against greedy “Big Pharma.”  It is hardly surprising people ask , “what does Dave’s Plan do to control drug prices if anything?”  They note the subject isn’t specifically mentioned. That’s true , but only because medicine is an integral part of healthcare not something apart.  One of the basic tenets of”Dave’s Plan” is to make the vast majority of healthcare transactions for cash by individuals.  Today the incomprehensible 3rd party maze of  drug companies, pharmacy-benefit managers (PBMs), discounts, rebates and insurance companies have resulted in Americans in many cases are paying much more for patented and other drugs than they should.  Yet Americans also have the most access to the advanced and in many cases life saving drugs in the world which of course is the real meaning of medicine.  After all, leaches may be cheap but are hardly crest of the medical wave. So what is the best way to balance price and the best medicines.  Scott W. Atlas of the Hoover Institution writing in the Wall Street Journal asked “so how can policy makers bring drug prices down?  By empowering consumers not insurers  or other intermediaries.”  That is exactly what Dave’s Plan does by allowing transactions to be made at the first dollar for cash.

We know this works even today.  With deductibles getting ever higher, shopping around can mean real savings.  Use pricing apps such as GoodRX.com or RXSaver.  Shop online at Blink Health.com or HealthWarehouse.com. Rather than using your insurance, just asking what the drug price would be if you pay cash at the pharmacy might result in major savings. New rules allow pharmacists to quot e direct prices,but only if you ask. If cash does better in many cases now, imagine what the price pressure would be from virtually all Americans paying cash and looking for the best deal? Could Amazon, Walmart or new entrants ignore such a vast market? That would be the case under Dave’s Plan.

Continue reading

Howard Small

Howard Schultz is on the verge of running for president as an independent.  The billionaire former Starbucks’s chief surely has the money to self finance a run, but we think this would be going small.  His reasons for making a run outside the Democratic party center on the party’s inability to face reality.   Entitlements about to swallow the national budget with  huge deficits as far as the eye can see if left unaddressed The hot ideas in the party are Medicare for All, free college tuition and a guaranteed job and/or income for all among other expensive things. As a successful businessperson, he asks the simple question, how do we pay for all this?  The answer given is “make the rich pay their fair share.”  While Mr. Schultz might be willing to pay more in taxes, he is well aware a 70%+ top bracket and/or a wealth tax wouldn’t come close to covering all this but it would do irreparable harm. Obviously, he concluded there was no way forward for a candidate for the Democratic nomination who throws cold water on the party’s fantasies.  We came to the same conclusion about both major parties, so even though we don’t agree with him on every issue, we applaud his courage in facing the facts. However, we question a singular independent run is the way to go.

An independent run to our mind is a small solution probably doomed to costly failure.  In essence he would be running in a party of one. That’s why we proposed a new party. We laid this out in our series on”The Future Party” on this Blog.  The people actually building the party would pick the delegates to the conventions and they would  determine the candidates and platforms. Across the country there are people from both parties being forced out  by those on the extremes.  For instance, take Arizona where the Republican elected Kelli Ward a total Trump partisan twice overwhelmingly rejected  by Republican voters in runs for the senate to the Party’s  chairperson.  A state John McCain won handily numerous times has no room in the Republican party for his supporters.  This has been repeated across  the country in both major parties. These homeless are more informed, moderate and realistic than those that have replaced them.  They feel just as orphaned as Howard Schultz but they’re party workers looking for their party not a one-off.  Howard Schultz is going to spend a fortune establishing an organization in every state.  After all, if he can’t get on the ballot in almost every  state he as no chance to win. Even if he wins, he’ll be alone in Washington in a sea of Democrats and /Republicans.  What will he accomplish?  If he loses it all goes away probably without a trace.

Continue reading

Wrong Turns on Major Problems at Year end

The news  late in the year seems to be filled with actions which if not handled well could lead to decades of  loss and danger.  Our confusion as to goals and relationships in the middle east highlighted by the Khashoggi murder, a Federal judge declaring Obama Care unconstitutional bringing healthcare front and center and the Harvard discrimination case shining light  on  discrimination against Asians all need close attention.

The dilemma posed by the apparent murder of  the Saudi Journalist
Jamal Khashoggi for the United States was all too predictable.  After all, in our posts SSSHHH! A MIDDLE EAST POLICY ON THE QT  and SSSHHH! MORE MIDDLE EAST POLICY ON THE QT  we warned committing completely to either the Sunni or Shia blocks in the Middle East was not in our interest.  What was in our interest was letting the Moslem civil war continue to exhaustion.  Neither side shares our values. Both operate in a different world of times gone by.  As we have pointed out, we have important interests in the Middle East, the survival of Israel, prevention of minority genocide, our relationship with the modernizing Kurds and the free flow of oil.  The ascendancy of either side in the Moslem civil war would continue and probably worsen the threat those interests.  While our present arrangement with the Kurds in Syria isn’t quite what we recommended, it shows what could be accomplished by a Kurdish connection. For a small (2,00+troops) contingent, we control nearly  a 1/3 of Syria ,blocking an Iranian land bridge to the Israeli border. This earns us a seat at the table over the future of Syria and by extension the middle east.  Many people have gained a measure of safety. All this is imperiled by the Trump administration. First by tying itself much to close to the Saudi crown prince strongly associates us with his odious policies.  We can back the Saudis against Iran without  condoning the actions of a medieval monarchy.  Instead, Trump wants an immediate withdrawal of all our troops in Syria. This would be disastrous to our now favorable position. It would stab the Kurds in the back and by extension expose minorities such as Christians and Yazidis to genocide by a reconstituted ISIS or other radical Moslems and bring Iran’s Shia coalition right to Israel’s border.  By giving a great victory to Putin, it could well encourage him in other dangerous adventures. This is the direct opposite of what we have advocated. If the administration continues down this road, it will not end well.

Continue reading