Last week I was in China. coincidentally so was President O. We had very different experiences. Iwas there on business and had no meetings with High government officials. Instead I met with our colleagues working in our Chinese business, approximately 50 people in Beijing and another 50 in Shanghai. In each case, i made a presentation about the economy and our business. But I also answer questions, and asked questions about Obama.
I found that they were remarkably well informed. I have noticed a big change over the years that I have been travelling to China on a regular basis. Our employees have a good understanding of the stock market, including our stock price, and the global economy. They also understand their government and the trade off between economic welfare and political freedom. They were very sanguine, but very proud of what the country of china had accomplished.
Some of their observations
1. Obama talks a lot but hasn't done anything.
2. They were shocked about the peace prize.
3. They thought that the townhall with the students was completely stage managed by the government. They thought Obama was naive for not understanding that this was all for show with selected participants and planted questions. They were unable to log in and listen.
4. They are worried about the US budget deficit, and the weakness of the US economy and don't understand what Obama is doing about it.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Triangulation
Bill Clinton popularized the notion of triangulation. This is President O's version of something for nothing. As in "nobody earning less than $250,000 per year will pay more in taxes". This has been the key to Dem success for nearly 20 years. Basically, the Democratic party figured out that the middle class was not going to pay for welfare for others--for themselves, yes, but not for others. so they came up with the idea of making sure that new welfare plan was paid for by someone else. However, in health care, they met their Waterloo. Now, they need to tax the young to pay for health care. Obama famously won the election with a large percentage of the youth vote; how will they feel when they get their first bill for health care? not very Democratic.....
Pelosi care
Nancy Pelosi is riding high at the moment, but her coalition is fragile. The tone deaf Dems barely managed to pass the health care bill, but really it demonstrates the old adage that there are two things that you dont want to see in process: sausage and legislation. This bill, all 1900 pages, is going to exacerbate the inefficiencies, distortions and cross-incentives that already exist.
Instead of actually studying the issue, we have a president that want to RUSH to JUDGMENT. Why? Is it good policy or good politics? We all know the answer to that question. We hear half-baked arguments like "the US is the only country in the G20 that does not have universal health care", but nobody examines the actual facts of the countries with universal care. What about waiting times for procedures? what about availability of procedures? Having lived in Europe for 10 years, I can tell you that it is a different world. Waiting times can be quite long, and availability is more limited. Finally, all of the countries are running massive budget deficits in their health care programs. This has been financed through general tax dollars, but with the aging population, they are all nervous about the creaking system.
The academics want to make health care a cost/benefit calculation. What world do these guys live in. Aside from Michael Moore, nobody is going to say "that cancer operation is too expensive, so I'll take a cheaper but less effective treatment." or "that cancer test is too expensive so I'll skip it". This is not about cost but about care. I am a trained economist and wrote my law review article about applying economic principles to medical tort cases, but it is a rough approximation for decision making. It is simply not a precise science.
Finally, what about those "cadillac plans". Whooa, the Democratic party is really off the wall on this one. Lets see, an employer wants to pay its employees more..... a novel concept......by giving them a better health care plan, but now the government wants to prohibit it. What a concept!! Only in Washington would anyone think that an employer will expose his employees to a 40% tax. At 10% people would pay, but at 40% they will simply reduce the cost to avoid the tax. No tax revenues and lower care. And dont think that the poor employee will get more money!!! if you think that, send me an email because i have some desert land to sell you. Congratulations Nancy, even your district will find someone else.
Instead of actually studying the issue, we have a president that want to RUSH to JUDGMENT. Why? Is it good policy or good politics? We all know the answer to that question. We hear half-baked arguments like "the US is the only country in the G20 that does not have universal health care", but nobody examines the actual facts of the countries with universal care. What about waiting times for procedures? what about availability of procedures? Having lived in Europe for 10 years, I can tell you that it is a different world. Waiting times can be quite long, and availability is more limited. Finally, all of the countries are running massive budget deficits in their health care programs. This has been financed through general tax dollars, but with the aging population, they are all nervous about the creaking system.
The academics want to make health care a cost/benefit calculation. What world do these guys live in. Aside from Michael Moore, nobody is going to say "that cancer operation is too expensive, so I'll take a cheaper but less effective treatment." or "that cancer test is too expensive so I'll skip it". This is not about cost but about care. I am a trained economist and wrote my law review article about applying economic principles to medical tort cases, but it is a rough approximation for decision making. It is simply not a precise science.
Finally, what about those "cadillac plans". Whooa, the Democratic party is really off the wall on this one. Lets see, an employer wants to pay its employees more..... a novel concept......by giving them a better health care plan, but now the government wants to prohibit it. What a concept!! Only in Washington would anyone think that an employer will expose his employees to a 40% tax. At 10% people would pay, but at 40% they will simply reduce the cost to avoid the tax. No tax revenues and lower care. And dont think that the poor employee will get more money!!! if you think that, send me an email because i have some desert land to sell you. Congratulations Nancy, even your district will find someone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
