Thursday, April 01, 2004
Health Care Costs and Outsourcing
This article isn't exactly pro-outsourcing, but it isn't exactly against it, either. It recognizes the cost advantages to outsourcing and how that helps outsourcing, even if he laments the loss of American jobs.
An interesting point made, however, is the claim that Canadian labor costs less because health care costs are lower, and picked up by the government. Maybe Clinton wasn't so crazy in trying to craft a national health care plan.
We DON'T have to do it exactly like the Canadians. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that American health care is ridiculously expensive compared to the rest of the world. Find a hybrid model that harnesses the efficiency of free markets while ensuring that everyone is guaranteed health care. But do SOMETHING. It sounds like American competitiveness is being pared down by our inability to control soaring health care costs.
This article isn't exactly pro-outsourcing, but it isn't exactly against it, either. It recognizes the cost advantages to outsourcing and how that helps outsourcing, even if he laments the loss of American jobs.
An interesting point made, however, is the claim that Canadian labor costs less because health care costs are lower, and picked up by the government. Maybe Clinton wasn't so crazy in trying to craft a national health care plan.
We DON'T have to do it exactly like the Canadians. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that American health care is ridiculously expensive compared to the rest of the world. Find a hybrid model that harnesses the efficiency of free markets while ensuring that everyone is guaranteed health care. But do SOMETHING. It sounds like American competitiveness is being pared down by our inability to control soaring health care costs.
The murder of contractors in Iraq
If something like this had happened under a Saddam Hussein-style regime, the perpetrators would have been rounded up and publicly executed, their relatives tortured, and the entire city subject to random killing, if not destined for mass graves.
They can only DO something so grisly because Americans don't think that way, and they know that won't be the penalty.
Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see the crowd of revelers tied to the ground and rolled over with steamrollers. Americans might not do that to people, but it doesn't mean they don't get pissed off when idiots do something to people whose only crime was to be involved in rebuilding the country so they can GIVE THE PLACE BACK.
If something like this had happened under a Saddam Hussein-style regime, the perpetrators would have been rounded up and publicly executed, their relatives tortured, and the entire city subject to random killing, if not destined for mass graves.
They can only DO something so grisly because Americans don't think that way, and they know that won't be the penalty.
Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see the crowd of revelers tied to the ground and rolled over with steamrollers. Americans might not do that to people, but it doesn't mean they don't get pissed off when idiots do something to people whose only crime was to be involved in rebuilding the country so they can GIVE THE PLACE BACK.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
America's Petroleum-based drug addiction
This is an old-ish article, but the "high" price of gasoline is turning into a campaign issue. What the article points out, in passing, is that in today's dollars (that is, dollars adjusted for inflation), we were paying $2.90 for a gallon of gasoline in March, 1981. In other words, our gasoline prices are NOT high by historical standards.
That isn't to say that it doesn't FEEL high, given the popularity of huge, gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks. In 1981, America was still feeling the hangover from the gas crunch of the early 70s (a function of a middle eastern embargo of western countries to "punish" us for our support of Israel in the "Yom Kippur" war of 1973). I'm guessing (and this isn't a scientific study, just random musings) that our miles per gallon average was MUCH higher than is common among the armored vehicles passing for automobiles that trundle down modern American highways. That will make the price of gasoline "feel" much higher, even if it isn't.
We NEED to wean ourself off our dependence on cheap oil. It has led to an explosion in wasteful consumption, as the ever gathering trend towards huge cars/trucks shows. It puts the lie to administration claims that it wants to reduce our dependence on unstable parts of the world for our energy needs. We can thank our lucky stars that our number one source of oil is Canada. Our second source in Saudi Arabia, a country I would suggest we DO NOT want to depend on in future.
Kerry is accused of backing an increase in the price of gas. Of course, the bills he voted for tended to be loaded with other stuff that he considered important. That's the problem with being a Senator. You have to vote on bills to which unrelated riders have been attached, leaving lots of ammunition for your opponent, who can take those votes out of context and make it look like you were voting to have old people ground up and reprocessed as soylent green.
Heck, perhaps Kerry DOES want a gasoline tax. In my book, that's a GOOD thing, just as it was a GOOD thing for McCain to vote for gasoline taxes after September 11th. America needs to control its consumption of gasoline. It's a national security issue, and it's an environmental issue.
This is an old-ish article, but the "high" price of gasoline is turning into a campaign issue. What the article points out, in passing, is that in today's dollars (that is, dollars adjusted for inflation), we were paying $2.90 for a gallon of gasoline in March, 1981. In other words, our gasoline prices are NOT high by historical standards.
That isn't to say that it doesn't FEEL high, given the popularity of huge, gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks. In 1981, America was still feeling the hangover from the gas crunch of the early 70s (a function of a middle eastern embargo of western countries to "punish" us for our support of Israel in the "Yom Kippur" war of 1973). I'm guessing (and this isn't a scientific study, just random musings) that our miles per gallon average was MUCH higher than is common among the armored vehicles passing for automobiles that trundle down modern American highways. That will make the price of gasoline "feel" much higher, even if it isn't.
We NEED to wean ourself off our dependence on cheap oil. It has led to an explosion in wasteful consumption, as the ever gathering trend towards huge cars/trucks shows. It puts the lie to administration claims that it wants to reduce our dependence on unstable parts of the world for our energy needs. We can thank our lucky stars that our number one source of oil is Canada. Our second source in Saudi Arabia, a country I would suggest we DO NOT want to depend on in future.
Kerry is accused of backing an increase in the price of gas. Of course, the bills he voted for tended to be loaded with other stuff that he considered important. That's the problem with being a Senator. You have to vote on bills to which unrelated riders have been attached, leaving lots of ammunition for your opponent, who can take those votes out of context and make it look like you were voting to have old people ground up and reprocessed as soylent green.
Heck, perhaps Kerry DOES want a gasoline tax. In my book, that's a GOOD thing, just as it was a GOOD thing for McCain to vote for gasoline taxes after September 11th. America needs to control its consumption of gasoline. It's a national security issue, and it's an environmental issue.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Taiwan's Quest for Democracy
President Chen Shui-Ban of Taiwan, who is currently facing a recount (which he is likely to win), is making some rather strident statements relating to Taiwan's future independence from China.
I support the notion that Taiwan should remain de facto independent from China. China is not a democracy, while Taiwan is. Hong Kong had only just been granted democracy within the final years of Britain's rule. Taiwan has long since given themselves democracy.
They are still a part of China, however, at least in theory. No official independence has been declared. That's partly an acccident of history, as the Kuomintang used to consider themselves the official (albeit exiled) rulers of all of China. Over the years, though, there were also practical barriers, as Mao liked to rile up his fellow Chinese with promises of reconquering their renegade province.
Politically, China CAN'T let Taiwan declare independence. They've been promising too long to reunite the "motherland," and that promise has worked its way into the national psyche. Really, how many Chinese would be "harmed" by the independence of Taiwan? None. It's all vague feelings of nationalism cultivated over many decades.
However, those vague feelings can be dangerous. Taiwain is practically independent, even if they aren't officially independent. They get lots of foreign investment, and now that China is part of the WTO, are integrated into the global economy (though they've always had preferential access to American markets). Why not persist the status quo for a few more decades, until China has matured to a point where they don't CARE what happens to Taiwan?
Unfortunately, Chinese on the mainland are as prone to nationalism as Chinese in Taiwan. That could be dangerous. I don't see any reason for people to die because of a title. I really wish Chen would concentrate on deepening Taiwanese democracy, and refrain from ANY statement related to independence. One might argue that the Taiwainese want independence, but one might ALSO argue that politicians have a tremendous amount of influence on the kinds of things people want.
Politicians aren't just expressions shaped by the inputs of democratic elections. Politicians have a lot of power to shape popular opinion. Chen has been doing that, IMO, to convince his fellow countrymen to push for indepence. I wish he'd stop doing that.
President Chen Shui-Ban of Taiwan, who is currently facing a recount (which he is likely to win), is making some rather strident statements relating to Taiwan's future independence from China.
I support the notion that Taiwan should remain de facto independent from China. China is not a democracy, while Taiwan is. Hong Kong had only just been granted democracy within the final years of Britain's rule. Taiwan has long since given themselves democracy.
They are still a part of China, however, at least in theory. No official independence has been declared. That's partly an acccident of history, as the Kuomintang used to consider themselves the official (albeit exiled) rulers of all of China. Over the years, though, there were also practical barriers, as Mao liked to rile up his fellow Chinese with promises of reconquering their renegade province.
Politically, China CAN'T let Taiwan declare independence. They've been promising too long to reunite the "motherland," and that promise has worked its way into the national psyche. Really, how many Chinese would be "harmed" by the independence of Taiwan? None. It's all vague feelings of nationalism cultivated over many decades.
However, those vague feelings can be dangerous. Taiwain is practically independent, even if they aren't officially independent. They get lots of foreign investment, and now that China is part of the WTO, are integrated into the global economy (though they've always had preferential access to American markets). Why not persist the status quo for a few more decades, until China has matured to a point where they don't CARE what happens to Taiwan?
Unfortunately, Chinese on the mainland are as prone to nationalism as Chinese in Taiwan. That could be dangerous. I don't see any reason for people to die because of a title. I really wish Chen would concentrate on deepening Taiwanese democracy, and refrain from ANY statement related to independence. One might argue that the Taiwainese want independence, but one might ALSO argue that politicians have a tremendous amount of influence on the kinds of things people want.
Politicians aren't just expressions shaped by the inputs of democratic elections. Politicians have a lot of power to shape popular opinion. Chen has been doing that, IMO, to convince his fellow countrymen to push for indepence. I wish he'd stop doing that.
