The Wall Street Journal  has an op-ed today by Charles Gasparino, a CNBC on air-editor and author, in which he explains why the government encourages the risk that led to our current crisis.

We’ll never know if LTCM’s demise would have tanked the financial system or simply tanked a couple of firms that bet wrong. But one thing is certain: A valuable lesson in risk-taking was lost. By 2007, the years of excessive risk-taking, aided and abetted by the belief that the government was ready to paper over mistakes, had taken their toll.

With so much easy money, with the government always ready to ease their pain, Wall Street developed new and even more innovative ways to make money through risk-taking. The old mortgage bonds created by Messrs. Fink and Ranieri as simple securitized pools had morphed into the so-called collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), complex structures that allowed Wall Street banks as well as quasi-governmental agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to securitize ever riskier mortgages.

Mr. O’Neal, the man considered most responsible for Merrill’s disastrous foray into risk-taking, told me in an interview last year that in the fall of 2007, when he saw that the firm’s problems were insurmountable, he had a deal to sell Merrill to Bank of America for around $90 a share. But Merrill’s board rejected it, believing he would be selling out cheaply. The CDOs would eventually recover, they argued, as the Fed pumped life into the markets.

Likewise, nearly to the minute he was forced to file for bankruptcy, former Lehman CEO Dick Fuld believed the government wouldn’t let Lehman die. After all, government largess had always been there in the past.

All of which brings me back to Mr. Fortsmann’s comment about policy makers helping turn a cold into cancer. What if the Fed hadn’t eased Wall Street’s pain in the late 1980s, and again after the 1994 bond-market collapse? What if policy makers in 1998 had allowed the markets to feel the consequences of risk—allowing LTCM to fail, and letting Lehman Brothers and possibly Merrill Lynch die as well?

There would have been pain—lots of it—for Wall Street and even for Main Street, but a lot less than what we’re experiencing today. Wall Street would have learned a valuable lesson: There are consequences to risk.

via Charles Gasparino: Three Decades of Subsidized Risk – WSJ.com.

This is another case of where we think government behavior can get different outcomes than we get in our personal lives. The results are the same. How many of you know a parent that constantly bails their child our of trouble? Does it lead to less trouble? How about someone who gives money to a drug or alcohol addict? How about someone who always gives or lends money to that one person who always seem to be broke? In our personal lives, we call these people enablers. They are not helping the person in question. They are enabling them to continue the bad habits they are claiming to help.

This is no different when the government does it. Are we to believe that executives and banks will not be more cautious if they know that the government will not bail them out? Of course they would be. The problem is mommy government has always bailed out and enabled her baby Wall Street. The behavior will continue as long as Washington continues enabling. Don’t fall for the excuses. Mommies always have what they believe are good reasons for bailing out their children, but the problem is they aren’t letting their children learn their lessons.

An article on CNNMoney.com highlights that for the $3 billion we spend on Cash for Clunkers, we only got an additional 125,000 additional car sales over what we would have got without C4C. That comes out to tax payers paying $24,000 per car.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — A total of 690,000 new vehicles were sold under the Cash for Clunkers program last summer, but only 125,000 of those were vehicles that would not have been sold anyway, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the automotive Web site Edmunds.com.

via Cash for Clunkers costs taxpayers $24,000 per car – Oct. 28, 2009.

While this shows how stupid our government officials are in and of itself, it doesn’t even talk about what opportunity costs we bared. Everything has an opportunity cost. For example, if I have $25 to take my wife out on a date (I know she’s a lucky lady) and we decide to go to the movies, there is an opportunity cost to that. Those costs related to what we gave up in order to go to the movies. We could have went to eat, seen a play (maybe at the local high school), or stayed home. If the benefit of going to the movies was less than the benefit of the passed up opportunities, we made a bad decision. While my example is subjective, because going to the movies that night might have been what brought us the most happiness, C4C is not as subjective.

The $3 billion dollars had to be pulled out of our private sector in order to pay for this program. By taking it out of the private sector, what opportunities were passed up? The free market allocates resources, in this case capital, to its most efficient use. Most efficient use means benefits are maximized for the resources used. For example, I might have the resources of a lawn mower, gas, and labor. The most efficient use of those resources would be to get my lawn cut. It would not be to have the laborer hand pick the grass, so he could use the gas for something else. The lost time the laborer would incur would not justify the savings of the gas. Government on the other hand diverts capital away from what would other wise be the most efficient use of that capital. By definition, the opportunities that were passed up would have had higher benefits.

As you can see, we did not get a good deal on the increased sales at $24,000 per car. Also, this was a one time program that now has come and gone like all government stimulus. No one is hiring now for a program that is over.

Also, how are we better off as a society? We destroyed cars that were in most cases perfectly functioning vehicles. We replaced one automobile for another. This does not add to the wealth of society. If it did, we should just trash our cars once a month.  If that $3 billion was left to the private sector to create new products, it would have improved the wealth of our society. For example, it may have produced the next medical treatment, a faster computer or the next innovation that advances society in general.

What politicians don’t understand is they cannot guess centrally what is best for the economy. Only the fine tweaking of millions or private transactions can do that.

In an op-ed in the Washington Times, Senator Susan Collins calls into question the constitutionality of the czars. While I completely agree, I’d ask the senator where she has been all this time?

When it comes to accountability and transparency, who is actually in charge and making the policy decisions? Is it the secretary, whom the Senate confirmed, or is it the czar, whom the president unilaterally appointed? These czars operate outside the established structure of checks and balances.

As ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I also am concerned about the management dysfunction that so many czars create. They duplicate or dilute the statutory authority and responsibilities Congress has conferred on Cabinet officers and other senior officials.

Unfortunately, because czars can circumvent the constitutionally mandated process of “advice and consent” and because the president’s advisers have informed me that no White House czars will be allowed to testify before Congress, we cannot ask them for the answers.

Czars bypass the constitutional oversight authority of Congress, tipping the balance of power in favor of the executive branch.

via Reining in the czars – Washington Times.

The czars without a doubt undermine the constitution. If I was President and wanted to become a tyrant, one of the things I would do is put my select people in places and positions where they could seize control at the right time. While I am not saying this is Obama’s intent, although everyday I wonder, once the precedent is set,  it allows future Presidents to do the same thing. If one of those Presidents has the intention of becoming a tyrant, he’ll have precedent on his side.

While I agree with Collins on this issue, I would hope she’d be consistent in her concern for the constitution. The congress violates the constitution with almost every bill they write. Will we see an op-ed about the constitutionality of health care reform, cash for clunkers, bailouts, etc?

In the International Business Times’ article on the coming inflation, they talk about government debt being at record levels. This is true, and I’ve already talked about how we are enslaving our children with with ever increasing debt. The paragraphs below also mentions how much we are already robbing ourselves. In 2008, the government paid $451 billion in interest on the debt. How much production was eaten up by that $451 billion? How much would that have stimulated our economy? This was before the massive almost $2 trillion deficit Obama is running in 2009. Instead of benefiting from our production, we will be paying for yesterday’s waste. We’ll be robbing ourselves to pay for the bailouts of yesteryear. The bailouts that benefited none of us. They only benefited Geithner and Paulson’s buddies at Goldman Sachs. Couldn’t this classify as modern day enslavement by the rich and politically connected?

2: GOVERNMENT DEBT IS AT RECORD LEVELS

Canada’s budget surplus has turned into a multi-billion dollar deficit as a result of the credit crisis. But Canada’s problems pale in comparison to those of its neighbour to the south. The richest country in the world is drowning in debt.

Let’s examine for a moment the sorry state of US indebtedness. Due to ongoing bailouts and stimulus packages, the US will experience a record $1.75 trillion deficit in 2009. US debt (accumulated deficits), as tracked by the famous US National Debt Clock in Manhattan, stands at a staggering $11.8 trillion and counting. In 2008 alone, the government paid a staggering $451 billion in interest, according to the government’s own website, TreasuryDirect.gov. And that number is expected to rise substantially in 2009.

That figure – $11.8 trillion – is a mindboggling amount of money. But it represents only a part of America’s total liabilities. If Social Security and Medicare obligations are included (which they should be), obligations rise to over $106 trillion dollars, according to the US Treasury.

None of this money has been set aside, but has instead been borrowed by the government for its own use. When combined with the debt of nearly $11.8 trillion, total debt soars to an astonishing $118.6 trillion, or nearly ten times total GDP, or $300,000 per person.

via The Next Crisis: Spiralling Inflation – Part 1 – International Business Times -.

Just to be clear to populist liberals, government will not solve this. The government is the means of the enslavement, so they cannot be expected to set us free.

As I’ve explained in previous posts, the free market in order to make the most profit utilizes resources to their highest and best benefit. Efficiency reigns. Government always has the opposite effect. Government intervenes in order to divert resources for political means. What this does is lower our economic output and value, in other words, it lowers our standard of living below what it would other wise be. Here is a perfect example of the government not caring what’s best, but instead they care what is politically best for the politician. So much for self-interest being the purview of the free market.

By NEIL KING JR.

Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg was no fan of the $58 billion federal rescue of General Motors Co., saying he worried taxpayer money would be wasted and the restructuring process would be vulnerable to “political pressure.” Now the lawmaker says it’s his “patriotic duty” to wade into GM’s affairs.

Along with Montana’s two Democratic senators, the Republican congressman is battling to get GM to reinstate a contract with a Montana palladium mine nullified in bankruptcy court. “The simple fact is, when GM took federal dollars, they lost some of their autonomy,” Mr. Rehberg says.

Federal support for companies such as GM, Chrysler Group LLC and Bank of America Corp. has come with baggage: Companies in hock to Washington now have the equivalent of 535 new board members — 100 U.S. senators and 435 House members.

Since the financial crisis broke, Congress has been acting like the board of USA Inc., invoking the infusion of taxpayer money to get banks to modify loans to constituents and to give more help to those in danger of foreclosure. Members have berated CEOs for their business practices and pushed for caps on executive pay. They have also pushed GM and Chrysler to reverse core decisions designed to cut costs, such as closing facilities and shuttering dealerships.

via Politicians Butt In at Bailed-Out GM – WSJ.com.

Wow, can’t wait till these jackasses taking over health care and are making political decisions with our lives.

In a great article on Reason.com, the view that the Fed caused our current crisis is highlighted in great detail. While the article focuses on the anti-Fed movement in general, you can see from the quotes and understanding of politicians and economists that the Fed is responsible for the housing boom.

Blame-the-Fed sentiment now stretches across the spectrum of economic thought, from Keynesians such as DeLong to monetarists (who generally want the bank to maintain a fixed rate of money supply growth). In October 2008, the monetarist Anna Schwartz, co-author with Milton Friedman of one of the most important books of monetary economics, A Monetary History of the United States, told The Wall Street Journal: “If you investigate individually the manias that the market has so dubbed over the years, in every case, it was expansive monetary policy that generated the boom in an asset. The particular asset varied from one boom to another. But the basic underlying propagator was too-easy monetary policy and too-low interest rates that induced ordinary people to say, well, it’s so cheap to acquire whatever is the object of desire in an asset boom, and go ahead and acquire that object.”

While Anna Schwartz believes the Fed is neccessary, she admits that the Fed’s expansive monetary policy causes a boom in an asset market, the most recent being the housing market. The last one being the tech bubble.

Even the Obama administration has gotten into the act. “Monetary policy around the world was too loose too long,” Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told PBS interviewer Charlie Rose in March. “And that created this just huge boom in asset prices, money chasing risk. People trying to get a higher return. That was just overwhelmingly powerful.”

Even Geithner, although he doesn’t blame Greenspan and the Fed directly, basically said the Fed’s low interest rate policies caused the spike in housing prices and encouraged the risk that politicians now blame on greed. Did Geithner forget he was on TV?

In this time of political ferment, Stephen Axilrod, a longtime Federal Reserve staff director and monetary policy guru, has issued a memoir from MIT Press titled Inside the Fed. Axilrod admits that Fed interest rate actions precipitated the crisis without letting that fact dent either his admiration for the institution or his belief in its necessity. Still, Axilrod notes something that should encourage Fed skeptics of all varieties: that “a country’s monetary policy is almost necessarily limited by conditions generated from the political, philosophic, and social ethos of the time.”

Here former Federal Reserve, and lover of the Fed, admits the Fed’s actions caused the housing bubble. He then says the Fed is only as powerful as political, philosophical, and social conditions permit.

But the Fed doesn’t have a stellar track record of timing monetary shifts with scientific precision, and any actions that rein in inflation, thereby cutting off the short-term stimulative effect that governments love, are bound to be politically dangerous both to the Fed and to the president who appoints its overseers. As Bernanke admitted at his televised town hall meeting in July, the Fed can maintain its independence only if it can “show that we are producing good results,” and while he added lip service to independence, the people he must show those results to are Congress and the administration. Though he was appointed to a new four-year term in August, if he flubs inflation, Bernanke will be facing a whole new wave of political attacks.

Bernanke states here that the Fed must show results to Congress and the Administration, which highlights the biggest problem with the Fed. While we have plenty of confirmation that the Fed caused the housing bubble, we still have politicians that want it to exsit. Why?

Because they want the Fed to, as Bernanke said, “produce good results.” What are good results? Was all Americans owning a home a good result? Was refinancing your equity away to drive up consumer spending a good result? Was as Austrian economist show, driving up unwarranted business investments a good result?

This is at the heart of the problem for any government institution. While the Fed claims its independence, it is swayed by politics.  The market delivers based what billions and billions of individual transactions say. It is fine tuned by every transaction made. Government on the other hand tries anticipating what the market needs, and it is always wrong. This is why communism was an abject failure. Government cannot conceive of the circumstances and motivations of billions of transactions. There is no difference in the ability of communist dictators trying to decide the right amount of light bulbs to be produced, and the Fed trying to decide what interest rates should be. Both of them are trying to decide for the market what they believe should be over what would normally be decided by millions of individuals acting in their own interest.  It has never worked, and it will never work. It eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now let’s hope it leads to tearing down the wall of the Fed.

While Obama has declared H1N1 a national emergency, the government as usual has caused the delay in vaccines being delivered to the public. Whether you agree or disagree with vaccinations is not the point. The point is when government is involved there is always a negative effect. We are told this could possibility be a pandemic, but because of government regulation, everyone who wants a vaccination has to sit on their thumbs and hope they don’t get sick for months as vaccines are finally released to the public.

By SCOTT GOTTLIEB

Though the swine flu is widespread in 46 states many Americans are still waiting to get their vaccines. The Obama administration blames the shortage on manufacturing delays at the five firms making these products. But production issues only explain part of the shortfall. Also to blame are a series of policy decisions that reflect our extreme caution when it comes to these products.

From a regulatory standpoint, vaccines are unique in many ways. Since we distribute them widely to otherwise healthy people, they deserve careful oversight. But right now we are shunning new, superior vaccine science by being overly cautious.

On Saturday, when President Obama declared the outbreak a national emergency, he enabled the suspension of federal rules in order to speed the distribution of treatments. Yet less than half the projected vaccine has been actually shipped. Supply is far below the government’s estimate of 40 million ready vaccines by November.

The first fateful policy decision, made last spring, was to forgo vaccine additives—called adjuvants—that activate the immune system and make shots more potent. Adjuvants allow a smaller supply of vaccine stock to be stretched across more doses. These adjuvants are included in H1N1 vaccines world-wide, but not in the U.S.

Why do adjuvants matter? An adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine being used in Europe contains 3.75 micrograms of vaccine stock. The same vaccine in the U.S., without the adjuvant, requires 15 micrograms of vaccine for equal potency. If we used adjuvants, we could have had four times the number of shots with the same raw material.

The second cautious decision was to require that the H1N1 vaccine be a single shot. The government demanded single-dose syringes because they contain smaller amounts of thimerosal than multi-dose vials. This mercury-containing vaccine preservative continues to stir concern it can trigger childhood autism, even though this has been firmly disproven.

The third policy decision was to stick for too long with a proven, but slow process for making flu shots that uses chicken eggs to grow the raw vaccine material. Shots can be made much faster using mammalian cells to grow vaccine, and this process is already being used in Europe. The cell-based vaccines are unlikely to be approved in the U.S. Our precaution when it comes to vaccines means we don’t easily embrace novel technologies, even if the Europeans would part with some of their limited supply.

How can we improve our regulatory process to prevent such shortages? First, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) needs to create a review pathway for adjuvants that can become components of multiple vaccines. One, called monophosphoryl lipid A, was recently the first modern adjuvant to be approved in the U.S.—in this case as part of a vaccine for cervical cancer. We’ve been slow to integrate vaccine additives, bowing to imprudent activism and litigation. The European strategy of having adjuvants preapproved, as part of mock up pandemic vaccines, was smart. We should adopt it.

Second, the FDA requires vaccines to sit for weeks after they come off the manufacturing line to make sure they haven’t grown bacterial impurities. This is why most of the H1N1 vaccine supply is released in waves and won’t be ready until later this winter. The FDA can work with manufacturers to develop better standardized tools, called assays, to quickly assess new vaccine.

Finally, we need to invest in more modern facilities for manufacturing flu vaccine, particularly cell-based facilities. These plants can be scaled more quickly, enabling rapid production. A certain amount of these facilities should be built here at home. In a full-blown pandemic, with a very deadly strain of flu, it’s hard to imagine that foreign nations would allow limited supplies of vaccine to be shipped outside their borders.

The Obama team deserves credit for ordering vaccines early last spring when H1N1 first emerged. They contracted properly for the shots and negotiated a fair price. But passing all the blame for our current vaccine shortage onto manufacturers is unfair. The administration needs to take responsibility for improving our current system.

Dr. Gottlieb, a practicing physician and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was deputy commissioner of the FDA from 2005-2007. He is partner to a firm that invests in health-care companies.

via Scott Gottlieb: Why You Can’t Get the Swine Flu Vaccine – WSJ.com.

I think the writer misses the market a little here. While he rightful shows how bad policy has caused the shortage, he misses the point that the government always gets it wrong. If these vaccinations were delivered in a free market, they would be delivered efficiently and quickly to those seeking them. In the free market, different variations of the vaccine would be delivered based on varying concerns and needs. Those who believe mercury based preservative can lead to childhood autism would choose a vaccine without the preservative.  Adults could take the vaccine with the additive.

The author mentions different types of cells that might work better for the production of the vaccines. In a free market, resources would be brought together and utilized to their highest efficiency. If chicken eggs have their benefit, some vaccines would be developed that way and others using mammalian cells.

The problem you run into is government can never coordinate and organize resources more efficiently than the free market. They try cramming one size fits all policies on vaccine production. So if this truly becomes a pandemic, you can thank the government that your a sitting duck while waiting for your vaccination to be produced as inefficiently as possible.

Are we really going to hand over health care to a government who enslaves our future generations to bail out their buddies on Wall Street? TARP was sold as a bailout of banks in respect to freeing up credit. It turned out to be a slush fund to spread the wealth around to the wealthy.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program will expire on December 31, unless Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner exercises his authority to extend it to next October. We hope he doesn’t. Historians will debate TARP’s role in ending the financial panic of 2008, but today there is little evidence that the government needs or can prudently manage what has evolved into a $700 billion all-purpose political bailout fund.

We supported TARP to deal with toxic bank assets and resolve failing banks as a resolution agency of the kind that worked with savings and loans in the 1980s. Some taxpayer money was needed beyond what the FDIC’s shrinking insurance fund had available. But TARP quickly became a Treasury tool to save failing institutions without imposing discipline (Citigroup) and even to force public capital onto banks that didn’t need it. This stigmatized all banks as taxpayer supplicants and is now evolving into an excuse for the Federal Reserve to micromanage compensation.

TARP was then redirected well beyond the financial system into $80 billion in “investments” for auto companies. These may never be repaid but served as a lever to abuse creditors and favor auto unions. TARP also bought preferred stock in struggling insurers Lincoln and Hartford, though insurance companies are not subject to bank runs and pose no “systemic risk.” They erode slowly as customers stop renewing policies.

TARP also became another fund for Congress to pay off the already heavily subsidized housing industry by financing home mortgage modifications. Not one cent of the $50 billion in TARP funds earmarked to modify home mortgages will be returned to the Treasury, says the Congressional Budget Office.

via TARP Should Not Be Extended – WSJ.com.

Those who love the government and think they will serve justice up on a platter of compassion, need look no further than the scam of TARP that was pulled on the American public. I’m sure the Wall Street Journal was all for the bailouts, and now they say the government didn’t enforce discipline. How do you force discipline on companies by bailing them out. The free market delivers discipline by the prospect of failure. When that failure option is removed by the government, discipline goes with it. This is a great lesson in A) don’t trust the government when it tells you something has to be done right away or society will suffer and B) government would sell your children in to slavery quicker than you can say TARP if that is what it takes to bailout their buddies. Don’t believe me, that is exactly what they did.

Apparently, one of the tweeps I was debating on Twitter was so hot and bothered by my blog, he thought he would set me straight. The problem for him is when debating, feelings don’t count and distortions are against the rules. Here is the criticism with my response and corrections interspersed.

The other day I had an interesting back and forth on Twitter about healthcare. The debate was whether to let the free market have its way or whether the Federal government should have a stronger hand in a “Medicare Part E” plan for everyone. At the end of the discussion I was pointed to an article on Jason’s The Proud Profiteer website entitled Health Care Reform – The red herring of the pre-existing condition. I read every word of the article and have some thoughts about the free market as it exists today and where I think the author is wrong about where we should go.

Wow, the author couldn’t even get out of the first paragraph without showing the weakness of his argument. Saying “some thoughts about the free market as it exists today” shows the the author doesn’t understand the free market. I was not arguing for the status quo. I was arguing the problem with the current health care isn’t a lack of government meddling but too much government. The government currently accounts for 50% of all health care spending. If government was the solutions, we would have already seen improvements. The fact that health care costs have risen above inflation since the government inserted itself into the market shows the government actually makes the problem worse. It also proves that the problem isn’t the free market. The problem is you don’t have a free market. As soon as you introduce government coercion, you no longer have a free market. It is no different than if the government took away you freedom of speech. You technically are still free, but you are less free than you were.

I’m all for freedom and principles in this country. The author is correct in pointing out that the country was founded on the freedom and the need to get away from tyranny, taxes and religious persecution. Now the drumbeat throughout certain people in this country is that free markets and freedom will be the pill that will cure the country’s ills. Just get government out of the way of everything but defense and we will be a better place for it. Make it “small enough to drown in a bathtub,” to coin a phrase used by one of our most memorable politicians.

One of the ways we applied these principles was to allow mortgage companies, insurance giants and auto makers to, as the author says it, be free to succeed or fail. They’re good at what they do, so why not turn them loose to thrive and then we can all benefit at their success. So how do you explain the story of Goldman Sachs, AIG and the Freddie/Fannie debacles? Weren’t these companies free to pursue their own fortunes? And what would’ve happened if they were allowed to just fail? I guess those that would’ve allowed the complete meltdown wouldn’t mind what is happening in their free market 401(k).

Surely, this part had to be a joke. The author, if he has any understanding of the free market, would not have used the examples above to discredit the free market. The entire mortgage crisis was created and encouraged by the very government that the author claims is the solution. The artificially low interest rates by the Fed spurred on by affordable housing legislation and pressures caused the bubble, and it was only a matter of time before it burst. While the author may think he had me nailed here, people that know me, know that I predicted this bubble was going to go down very soon at the height of the housing bubble. The thing is if you understand economics, you can recognize business growth from bullshit.  This disaster was the culprit for the so called failed examples above. Freddie and Fannie are government sponsored agencies for pete’s sake. They are told what to do by the government and they are the ones who invented the securitization of mortgages that the evil banks were selling.

“But we should still get out of the health insurance company’ way,” you say. “Once they have complete freedom they’ll offer a virtual cornucopia of health insurance options that every thirst will be slaked. You’ll see that there will be lots of companies and options.” If you Google health insurance company monopoly, you will quickly discover that for several years large companies have had a lock on providing health care for people. If we get out of the way, what do the Blues, Aetna and the rest do? Do they allow rigorous competition and thousands of new companies to spring up? I think they either buy up those companies to stifle competition or squash them. I was told in the Twitter conversation that we should force these companies to compete with each other. So which is it – get out of their way with no regulation or force them to compete?

Hmm, not sure who said you have to force competition. It sure wasn’t me. My whole point in my post was that force is the evil. The role of the government is to prevent force from being used by one person against another. If you are tying in another conversation you had, don’t credit it to me. As far as your argument, again you are talking about a market that is not free. Companies cannot acquire a monopoly and stifle competition unless they have government backing, or they are the absolute best at what they do. If they are a monopoly because they are the best at what they do, then we all benefit.

The fact that health care and insurance are so heavily regulated now is what prevents many competitors. What you don’t seem to realize is regulation equals costs. When you have extensive regulation the costs get so high that they are a barrier to entry and only the big boys can afford to play the game. Don’t blame the free market for lack of competition. Your argument is easily disproved by looking at less regulated industries, such as the IT industry. The less regulation you have the more innovation, the more competition, and the quicker you see costs driven down.

If government is our own worst enemy as the author’s comments point out, why not just get rid of everything? Courts – who needs them? You’ve gotta beef with someone, handle it yourself and if you don’t get anywhere, kick the person’s ass or kill them. If one of those purely good companies make a product that turns out to seriously injure or kill people and you’re one of the poor schmucks that gets hurt or killed, tough luck bud. Like I just said, take a truck of Anthro and fuel and have at it.

Police and fire – we don’t need them, right? I’m sure there’s a security company that would be glad to give you your own security detail cause it’ll “fill a need.” Don’t have enough money to hire a security agency? Deal with it. There’s lots of crime victims out there. Go find the turkey yourself and dispense justice.  The 911 system is a socialist, government run system – get rid of that too. You’re having a heart attack, stroke? Get someone to put you in their car and drive you to the doctor. We don’t need no stinkin’ government run ambulances and medical staff. Hire some doctors and paramedics to stand by if you think you’ll need them.

Like you all say, for every need there’s someone to fit the bill at competitive rates, and since we’ll all be SO much more profitable when everyone gets out of free market’s way, we’ll be able to afford all these new things, right?

“But these are all ESSENTIAL government services,” you say. “You can’t take that away!” You know what, here’s where I want you to draw the line. Black & white. Think of all the things that you might need in life. Tell me why you would keep or privatize them. Then tell me why health care is not as important as 911, police, fire & paramedics. Why would you want to keep 911 as a government service but leave health care – the ability to live or die – as a FOR PROFIT endeavor.

Here is where you take my arguments and just completely distort everything. My argument is governments role is to prevent coercion. Now where does that say get rid of the courts? Where do you think government would enforce laws against coercion? Where do you think contract breaches would be adjudicated? Again, you take my argument and add a bunch of your own ridiculous arguments to it. Where did I say handle it yourself, kill people, etc? I’m pretty sure that would be included in the coercion I said the government should prevent, which is the whole point of founding a government. Your argument is very childish.

This police argument is not new. You haven’t had a brilliant brain fart. This is the typical response from socialists. The problem is police are a part of the government role to prevent coercion. What the hell do you think police do? As far as fire, in most communities the fire department is funded by charity. They hold fund raisers, and the fireman are volunteers. Apparently, you think that is socialism? In cities, this could be privatized, and it would probably be cheaper than paying your taxes. It would be no different than paying for security monitoring on your house. I’m not sure if you’ve read a newspaper lately, but there are many “government” services, such as trash collection being privatized. Do you think it’s being privatized because it’s worse?

Lastly, even if you leave these as government roles, which I personally don’t have a problem with, they are not federal programs. Apparently, you don’t seem to recognize the difference between local services provided and agreed upon by local citizens, paid for by their local taxes with Federal entitlement programs.

If you can’t afford heath insurance, Jason says that you’ll have to turn to charity. Leukemia and unemployed – charity. Stroke leaving you the inability to walk, speak or do your job – charity. Born with cerebral palsy or autism and your parents or unemployed/underemployed – charity. Jason, do me a favor, a little experiment. Take you & your son down to a doctor’s office you’ve never been to before. Tell the receptionist that you’re out of work and need your child seen for whatever – you name the illness. After they get done telling you to pay cash or you don’t get seen, take the amount of money the doctors wants you to shell out and start calling some churches. Give them the same story and tell them that you’ll probably need that same amount of money each month since your child might need special ongoing treatment. When you find the charity that’ll dole out that money month after month, let me know. The difference in your opening paragraphs – each of these families you mention probably has at least ONE working member in the household providing pay for health insurance. If I’m wrong, tell me how they’re handling things on charity.

To start, I said in my blogs that you should pay out of pocket for day to day care, and you should buy a low cost catastrophic insurance plan for things, such as the ones mentioned above. The purpose for insurance is to be there for catastrophe. Again, you distort my argument.

Second, I can guarantee you I have way more experience dealing with health care than you do. My son does have cerebral palsy, and while you and Obama discredit doctors as profit seeking devils, I’ve seen first hand the charity of doctors. Doctors don’t go through 8 years of schooling followed by years of residency because of the money. It’s a calling, and they do it to help people. Most of them already do charity. Also, charities already help people every day. You many want to check them out. Most liberals claim to love charity, but it’s usually only the charity from someone else’s pocket via goverment coercion. Who do you think fled down to New Orleans after Katrina? It was the charities on the front lines getting the hard work done, while the government, as usual, stumbled and caused more harm than good.

In addition, my argument talked about charitable donations exploding because of more money remaining in the pockets of citizens. Do you think a rich guy who’s kid died from leukemia, wouldn’t setup a foundation to research and help other parents with children who have leukemia? Where do you think charitable foundations come from? Have you ever heard of Shriners? I’m pretty sure they offer health care and are a charity. How about this report, that charitable donations reached a record in 2007 under the Bush tax cuts. Oh, and that doesn’t even take into account time and labor. You may want to give your fellow man a little more credit.

When I’m buying a car or a toaster, I want free market competition. I want the government to stay out of the way UNLESS what those kind folks are selling is hurting people. When I’m having a heart attack or stroke, I want an ambulance and crew to show up as quickly as possible and save me life! I don’t want to have to think if I paid my premiums that month or that some FOR PROFIT company “with my best interest in mind” will deny me life saving treatment.

How does a publicly traded company, beholden to its stockholders and profits, have my best interest in mind? If I’m a stockholder that’s easy. If you’re a CEO with complete free market freedoms, how do you take care of people with serious medical problems and still make your bottom line? How would Ford survive as a company if most of the vehicle they sold were Pintos or some other high maintenance vehicle? What incentives and marketing schemes would they contrive to make it profitable?

via RIAsults may vary: Health Care Reform – The AIG, Freddie & GM pill. Take two of these and don’t call me in the morning.

You final argument just demonizes businesses. It’s silly to act like business people are evil, and that some how government people are angels. You may want to challenge your assumptions. Government employees and especially politicians have their self interest in mind as well, and it is more often than not detrimental to the public good. Private capital is rewarded by efficiency, which means it addresses the most needs at the least cost. That is why you can buy your toaster so cheap. This does not take place in government. In government, politics and inefficiency are rewarded, resulting in less needs being met.

While I appreciate the time you took to respond and I enjoy the debate, I really wish you would keep your arguments away from your feelings and would not distort my arguments. We are talking about a gigantic issue, and we cannot make this decision on feelings. We have to make it on reason. Just because you get a warm feeling in your belly when you talking about everyone having health care doesn’t make it so. You may want to read my other blogs on health care, where I talk about what the real problems with health care are and why government intervention will only make things worse. Then again, I’m sure that doesn’t feel good.

A must read. Now go read it!

How They Are Turning Off the Lights in America by Edwin X. Berry.