Policy

Some Thoughts

Dave Davis Commentary, COVID-19, Policy, Uncategorized

We’ve known almost from the time China admitted the contagion, only 15% of the US population would be at risk of severe complications from the Coronavirus. The rest will have, at worst, have the equivalent of a cold. Many, if not most, will hardly be affected. Importantly, those really at risk are, for the most part, easily identifiable. The medical community knows who is under cancer, diabetes, heart and kidney treatment, or anything else might compromise immune systems. We know exactly where all the nursing homes, assisted living, senior communities, and senior centers are located. Would it have been better to segregate and protect these communities, rather than disrupting the lives of the other 85% at an enormous cost? After all, the fear is our ICUs, and other medical facilities will be overwhelmed by a spike. The ones most likely needing hospital care are the at-risk group. A healthy 20-year-old isn’t going to tax the system. By making a massive targeted effort to slow down, the spread among the older and compromised population would’ve lessened a crunch and made it manageable.

Meanwhile, the rest go on as they would in a bad cold or flu season. It wouldn’t have been fun but might’ve been better than the total dislocation we’re experiencing. The virus would’ve spread rapidly throughout the younger and healthier population. However, the immunity that comes from once having it would also spread quickly, bringing an end to the epidemic. In this case, the old saying “time is money” is true to the tune of trillions. In this worldwide panic, it seems any cost-benefit analysis hasn’t even been considered.

Italy was slow to take action on movement to and from China, resulting in it being massively struck. Its single-payer health system fell behind and suffered the dreaded spike where it was overwhelmed, resulting in a high death count. Italy’s generally older population probably contributed, but that was a given. It will be interesting to see if the faster spread in that country leads to a swifter epidemic fade. If true, they might have a high death rate but a speedier return to normal. If this is the case, the idea of making every effort to protect the vulnerable while leaving the virus to run its course through the younger, generally healthy public was worthwhile. We didn’t do this. Older people are just now getting help with things such as food delivery and shopping priority at stores while they shelter in place. Segregating this population from the mass population requires reliable support these vulnerable groups are just now getting. While data from China and South Korea, among others, pointed out where the real mortal danger was. There was a bureaucratic failure of the CDC and the FDA to enlist all private government sources in widespread testing. This deprived us of knowing who needed to be kept away from the vulnerable and visa versa. Still, we knew enough to require protective garb for those serving nursing homes and assisted living and other identifiable at-risk people. Maybe an earlier bullet rather than a belated shotgun blast was the way to go. Unfortunately, this just isn’t in the bureaucratic DNA.

Amid all this turmoil, this remains an election year. The Democrats have concluded Bernie Sanders accomplished his task of moving the party to the far left. He and his election losing socialist label now can be safely dumped. Unfortunately, the only alternative they had left was good old Uncle Doofus, aka Joe Biden. Joe seemingly has a clear path to the nomination. It has been pointed out our prediction of a hung convention giving the nod to Michelle Obama is a dead letter. We beg to differ. No matter what closet they hide good old Joe in, he still has seven months to be Joe. Does anyone really think he can go that long without a significant gaff or worse a defining senior moment?

The Democrats didn’t get rid of Bernie only to nominate another undetectable. Joe has always been a walking gaffe machine. However, his ugly attack on a gun-owning voter just asking a pointed question appeared to indicate something else. It looked like the actions we’ve seen in older friends and loved ones. Angry uncalled for outbursts more often than not accompany the onset of some form of dementia. If we saw it that way, others also see it. Can the Democrats take that risk? Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York apparently doesn’t think so. How else do you explain his almost endless daily coronavirus news conferences? No other Governor even comes close to his TV time. He is running for something, and unless he gets a quick sex change operation, it isn’t Vice-president. If he sees an opening due to a medical drop out(or push out) ending Joe’s run, party movers and shakers also see it. Joe leaves before the convention, leaving it wide open. In that case, Michelle is a much better spot than Andrew or anyone else. Place your bets.

The Road to a Better Middle East Future Runs Through Erbil

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized

What do we do now? What we should’ve done years ago. Establish our Middle East Bastion in Kurdistan. Train and arm the Kurds to protect themselves and us. The Shia dominated Iraqi Government has passed a non-binding resolution for Americans to leave their country. Given how our last Iraq withdrawal turned out, this can’t even be considered. However, it gives us another chance to exert control in a strategic part of the world. As we pointed out in our 2014 & 2015 “Shhhhhhh” Middle East posts, turmoil in the Moslem World has brought problems to the fore we can’t ignore. Radical Muslims are attacking everyone disagreeing with their dogmas worldwide. There are threats to the world’s oil supply. Mass migrations of the displaced and the possible destruction of Israel. The extermination of minorities demands our interest, whether we want to engage or not. Even Trump had to realize his withdrawal from the Kurdish areas along the Turkey-Syria border was boneheaded. In the end, he had to keep troops in Syria after all. We can reverse this significant mistake by making a move to Kurdistan. The Shia dominated Government in Baghdad would hardly risk the breakup of their country. In any case, they probably would prefer we stay close by as an offset to Iran and to prevent a re-emergence of ISIS. 

We realize this is a very unpopular idea in some quarters. Across the political spectrum from Rand Paul to Bernie Sanders, the proposition of involvement in areas “far from home” violates American principles. They say we should stay at home and mind our own business just as the founding fathers handled things. Of course, this was never historically true. In just the 1st quarter-century, after the ratification of our Constitution, we were involved in hostilities beyond our borders. Mostly they were over commerce and free seas. We even established a Mediterranean Naval Squadron and, for most of our history, maintained it. We were also involved in regime change in a foreign country. As we established in our series on “More,” trade is one of the three ways you can get it. The idea we can retreat into a shell and let some else handle the world’s problems is fanciful. Do we really think Iran, Russia, and China have our interests at heart? 

Continue reading →

Fare Share and Other Signs of Envy

Dave Davis Commentary, Dave's Healthcare Plan, Policy, Uncategorized

Even a well-publicized crisis that turns out to be more hype than fact can serve a noble purpose. This is the way it should be with the well-publicized widening gap between the rich and the rest of the populace. Wealth inequality is said to threaten the ties that bind our society together. Based mostly on the work of economists, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman, the expanding gap is menacing not only the United States but all of the rich world. The latest addition to this argument is presented in the new book by Saez and Zucman, “The Triumph of Injustice.” These two advisors to Elisabeth Warren’s Presidential campaign, are revered across the progressive world. The widening disparity between rich and poor is taken as gospel, bringing forth demands the rich “pay there fair share.” Unfortunately, much as it was with Piketty’s 2013 book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” this book is riddled with false assumptions and poor methodology leading to erroneous conclusions. Don’t take our word for it; recent articles in the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, and by the Cato Institute, among others, do an excellent job of dismantling this thesis brick by brick. Just leaving out the effect of transfer payments and taxation was bound to have it go off the rails. Apparently, you can find academics to back up any point of view no matter how far out, if you look hard enough. Logic and experience needn’t get in the way of currying political favor. How else can you explain Trump’s trade advisor, Peter Navarro?

Yet, increasing the general individual wealth is a worthy goal. It’s just taking it from the successful and giving it to others after the government takes a healthy processing fee that’s self-defeating. That idea relies on a deadly sin, envy. We’re better than that. In any case, this never works. Any community is far more vibrant top to bottom with more wealthy entrepreneurs. Any community adopting policies and taxes that force them to leave can only be more impoverished. Remember our rule, “if people are clamoring to get in, you’re doing something right, and if they’re rushing to get out, you’re doing something wrong.” Instead of beggaring your more affluent neighbor, it would be better to consider ways to make you wealthier. Does the government assist you in finding better economic conditions, or does it in fact work against you?

Continue reading →

DO WE REALLY WANT TO SOLVE PROBLEMS?

Dave Davis Dave's Healthcare Plan, Policy, The Future Party, Uncategorized

Now that Deval Patrick and possibly Michael Bloomberg are entering the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Why not? None of the multitudes already running has wowed the populace. The nominal leader, Joe Biden, is suffering from a wound named Hunter. As we’ve pointed out, you simply can’t go for impeachment with a leader so ethically compromised. As the Dems push impeachment, the Republicans can point to the Bidens. Saying they did nothing wrong, just insults the electorate. Joe Biden’s only real source of strength is the Black vote. This arises out of his association with Barrack Obama. Patrick has a much older friendship with the former President, and he’s black. This can’t help but diminish Biden’s black support. This will further fragment the delegate totals for those running, probably leading to a hung convention. After two ballots, the nomination we think will go to Michelle Obama by acclamation. For years we’ve predicted Michelle would be the nominee, and Patrick’s entry in the field is just another Obama cool move. In any case, the Dems are committed to promising endless spending and crushing taxes. Michelle only has to appear to be a little less extreme.

Forcing both parties to the extremes is a given with our present primary system. As we’ve pointed out in our series “the Future Party” (series available on this site), our failing nominating system gives us less acceptable candidates. Instead of the parties offering capable candidates with broad appeal, we have populist Trump facing candidates at the other extreme. The lack of fiscal restraint is indicative of the lack of sound thinking. The present President is running trillion-plus deficits, yet any of the Democratic contenders make him look like a miser.

At the forefront of the Dems proposed eye-popping spending is healthcare. Cost estimates in the tens of trillions are offered to replace our present system or slightly less to significantly expand it. Nowhere is there any reasonable elements in any of the plans to actually cut the real costs of healthcare. Rationing, along with price controls and caps, we are told will bring prices down. They claim eliminating the profit motive will make healthcare much cheaper. One doesn’t have to recall the failure of the USSR’s command society to know this is the path to long waits and shortages. We just have to look at the current crisis in Britain’s single-payer health service. Presently, almost a quarter of a million have been waiting 6 months or more for needed treatment. Remember, Britain has only 1/6th of the Us population. Worse, 25% of cancer patients failed to start treatment on time even though timely treatment is often the difference between life and death. Do we really want needless deaths on the national conscience? We want better for our loved ones.

Continue reading →

Cold War II

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Long Journey to "More", Uncategorized

We were asked if we’re slipping into a new cold war. Our answer is you haven’t been paying attention, it’s already started. It probably started even longer ago, but when Xi was named President for life, it was inevitable. Anytime you have a president for life or anything close to it, the situation already is off the rails. You just don’t get liberalization with the rule of law when you can’t change the people at the top. What you get increasing repression. As we’ve pointed out in our “More” series, top-down one-party states are inherently inefficient as the elite substitute their judgment for that of free markets and the choices of free people. As they fall further behind, the people become restive, and the rulers have to make a choice between ceding power or crushing dissent. Too often, the latter wins out. So it appears with China. 

Given the actual state of things, what should we be doing? Decouple as soon and as thoroughly as we can without upending our and the world’s economy. That was the beauty of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). While increasing free trade among the members and protecting intellectual property rights, it makes it more expensive to make or buy in China. Unless China changed its ways, it would become increasingly isolated. This would’ve given everyone time to adjust without sudden dislocation. Unfortunately, the Trump administration dumped TPP and instead levied stiff tariffs. This is causing pain on both sides without isolating China. Evidently, the Trump administration thinks we can continue to have linked economies with just some adjustments. That wouldn’t have worked with the old Soviet Union, and it won’t work with China.

You only have to look at two of the recent happenings to two of our prominent business institutions, the NBA and Disney. Each fearing a loss of Chinese profits has bent their American Principles into a pretzel. Given our ideals, is there any reason not to know where Americans should come down on freedom. Houston Rockets general manager knew Daryl Morey and twitted his support for the people of Hong Kong. China had an immediate meltdown and used full force to bend the NBA to its will. Disney under similar pressure made changes to content to please China. In both cases, these entities initially chose profits over integrity. In doing so, they have lost any moral authority to speak out on anything at home or abroad. Unless you’re willing to pay the price of speaking up against injustice everywhere, you can’t really speak out anywhere. Nobody needs to listen to hypocrites.

Continue reading →