This book brings home the verse in 2 Peter 3:8, “But the day
of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a
roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth
and the works that are done on it will be exposed.”
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Review of the book, “Bomb”
Nancy and I have recently read the book, “Bomb,” by Steve
Sheinkin. This book is an account of the invention and manufacture of the 1st
atomic bombs. It is a fascinating story; and it is not meant to be a tome on
the dangers of the weapons race. However, one cannot read this book without
realizing a strong feeling of apprehension about the possibility of world-wide
disaster in the form of a nuclear war. Russia has already exploded a 50 megaton
hydrogen bomb, which is absolutely unthinkable as a weapon of MASS
destruction—the magnitude of this weapon is beyond description. Robert
Oppenheimer was right that the job before mankind is to figure out how to keep
civilizations from destroying themselves.
Monday, September 1, 2014
Let’s Smoke Out the Truth About Marijuana!
Colorado and Washington State
both legalized recreational marijuana in 2013. Now, data is available from
Colorado about how that is working out for that state. Let’s see!
The market demand for marijuana in Colorado is 130 metric tons per year. Colorado has licensed 739 sites for growing pot; and this is spread across more than 1,200 acres of land. The marijuana industry now leases more than one million square feet of space in the Denver area, for both indoor growing and warehousing.
There has been a sharp increase in pot-related calls to poison control centers; seizures have quadrupled; and two deaths so far are attributed to marijuana overdoses.
Police departments across the country report that 27% of seriously injured drivers nationwide test positive for pot. Long-term studies in the United States and New Zealand show regular marijuana smokers—like cigarette smokers—demonstrate much more symptomatology of chronic bronchitis and emphysema than non-smokers. That should be no surprise to any thinking person.
Marijuana is sold in Colorado in the form of cigarettes, candy, suckers, cookies, and pot sodas.
An interesting account of marijuana use was published by a New York Times columnist, Maureen Down when she visited Colorado to research pot use for a future column in May 2014. Here’s how she described her encounter with a pot cookie. She bought a pot cookie, which had no dosing instructions and nibbled on it. Noticing nothing, she nibbled more. And then she writes:
“I felt a scary shudder go through my body and brain. I barely made from the desk to the bed, where I lay curled up in a hallucinatory state for the next eight hours. I was thirsty but couldn’t move to get water. Or even turn off the lights. I was panting and paranoid, sure that when the room-service waiter knocked and I didn’t answer, he’d call the police and have arrested for being unable to handle my candy.”
Levy Thaba, a 19 year-old college student on spring break, became delirious and agitated after eating a pot-laced cookie in March. He began shaking, screaming and throwing things before jumping off a four-story balcony to his death.
Marijuana use has been linked to depression, anxiety, and mental illness—especially schizophrenia and psychosis, according to systematic reviews of studies published in Lancet, Archives of General Psychiatry and the British Medical Journal.
There should be no surprise that there is big money being made on the marijuana sales business. State legislators estimated the first full-year sales estimate at $600 million, and industry watchers expect it to reach $1 billion annually in Colorado. The money being spent in Colorado to advertise and market marijuana is coming from two major investors. George Soros and Peter Lewis, both multimillionaires, are spending 67% of the money used to spread the use of the weed. Soros has spent $80 million and Lewis has spent $40 million on this industry. You can be sure they are not investing charitably in this business—they are making money!
Pot dispensaries, like liquor stores are located primarily in low-income and minority neighborhoods. Advertising is done through billboards, taxis, bus stops, sign twirlers, and newspapers. The push is on to get more and more people hooked on the drug.
Marijuana is an entry drug into harder drug use; and I do not believe that thinking people in America should every vote to legalize the drug. It is just not worth the cost in human suffering and disablement for constructive participation in society and especially in the workforce. Would you like to meet a marijuana-intoxicated driver on the highways?
(This blog post was excerpted from Citizen Magazine, published by Focus On The Family for September 2014.)
The market demand for marijuana in Colorado is 130 metric tons per year. Colorado has licensed 739 sites for growing pot; and this is spread across more than 1,200 acres of land. The marijuana industry now leases more than one million square feet of space in the Denver area, for both indoor growing and warehousing.
There has been a sharp increase in pot-related calls to poison control centers; seizures have quadrupled; and two deaths so far are attributed to marijuana overdoses.
Police departments across the country report that 27% of seriously injured drivers nationwide test positive for pot. Long-term studies in the United States and New Zealand show regular marijuana smokers—like cigarette smokers—demonstrate much more symptomatology of chronic bronchitis and emphysema than non-smokers. That should be no surprise to any thinking person.
Marijuana is sold in Colorado in the form of cigarettes, candy, suckers, cookies, and pot sodas.
An interesting account of marijuana use was published by a New York Times columnist, Maureen Down when she visited Colorado to research pot use for a future column in May 2014. Here’s how she described her encounter with a pot cookie. She bought a pot cookie, which had no dosing instructions and nibbled on it. Noticing nothing, she nibbled more. And then she writes:
“I felt a scary shudder go through my body and brain. I barely made from the desk to the bed, where I lay curled up in a hallucinatory state for the next eight hours. I was thirsty but couldn’t move to get water. Or even turn off the lights. I was panting and paranoid, sure that when the room-service waiter knocked and I didn’t answer, he’d call the police and have arrested for being unable to handle my candy.”
Levy Thaba, a 19 year-old college student on spring break, became delirious and agitated after eating a pot-laced cookie in March. He began shaking, screaming and throwing things before jumping off a four-story balcony to his death.
Marijuana use has been linked to depression, anxiety, and mental illness—especially schizophrenia and psychosis, according to systematic reviews of studies published in Lancet, Archives of General Psychiatry and the British Medical Journal.
There should be no surprise that there is big money being made on the marijuana sales business. State legislators estimated the first full-year sales estimate at $600 million, and industry watchers expect it to reach $1 billion annually in Colorado. The money being spent in Colorado to advertise and market marijuana is coming from two major investors. George Soros and Peter Lewis, both multimillionaires, are spending 67% of the money used to spread the use of the weed. Soros has spent $80 million and Lewis has spent $40 million on this industry. You can be sure they are not investing charitably in this business—they are making money!
Pot dispensaries, like liquor stores are located primarily in low-income and minority neighborhoods. Advertising is done through billboards, taxis, bus stops, sign twirlers, and newspapers. The push is on to get more and more people hooked on the drug.
Marijuana is an entry drug into harder drug use; and I do not believe that thinking people in America should every vote to legalize the drug. It is just not worth the cost in human suffering and disablement for constructive participation in society and especially in the workforce. Would you like to meet a marijuana-intoxicated driver on the highways?
(This blog post was excerpted from Citizen Magazine, published by Focus On The Family for September 2014.)
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Progressivism, What Is It? What Has It Done?
Progressivism is a broad
political philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advances
in science, technology, economic development, and social organization can
improve the human condition. It emerged from the vast social changes brought
about by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century,
particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic
inequality between the rich and the poor, minimally regulated laissez-faire
capitalism with out-of-control monopolistic corporations, intense and often
violent conflict between workers and capitalists, and a need for measures to
address these problems.
Progressivism has been the sweetheart dream of American Presidents, mostly Democrats, for more than 100 years, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and culminating with the most progressive of all presidents, Barack Obama. Progressive presidents have cherished the idea that more and more government control over the culture, economy, and society is just the prescription our country needs to develop to the apex of its good accomplishments.
Progressivism entered the vocabulary of Barack Obama through the teachings of Saul Alinsky, in Obama’s younger years in Chicago, when he and wife Michelle worked in Alinsky’s organizations promoting what was called “community organization. “ Present day conservatives call this kind of governmental thinking and policy-making, socialism. Let’s see what Progressivism has done to America, these days.
President Obama and Congressional Democrats have implemented the most massive expansion of federal regulatory authority since the Great Depression, manifested mainly by the Dodd-Frank bill, which regulates financial institutions and the Affordable Care Act, which regulates 1/6 of the economy through the health care system. Every Senate Democrat voted for each of those bills. No Republicans in either house voted for the ACA.
As is well known, the Obama recovery from the 2008 recession is the weakest in postwar WW II history. If the Obama recovery had been as strong as the average of the previous 10 postwar recoveries, 13.9 million more Americans would be working today and the average real per capita income of every man, woman and child in America would be $6,308 higher.
Since the Senate Democratic Class of 2008 took control, the average real income of the poorest one-fifth of American families has declined every year, falling to $15,534 in 2012 from $16,962 in 2008 (the 2013 data will be released Sept. 16). The average real income of the lowest quintile of Americans is now below the level it was in 1968, the year when the War on Poverty began its spending surge under Lyndon Johnson.
The next-highest income quintile, often referred to as the working class, has also experienced a continuous decline in real income since January 2009. The average income of these Americans has fallen 6.5% and is now $1,182 lower than it was when President Reagan left office.
The third quintile—America's middle class—has seen its average income decline to $62,464 from $65,672. More than half of this decline has occurred since the recovery officially began in the second quarter of 2009.
In Alaska, household income in 2012 was 7.2% lower than it was at the end of 2008, falling back to its 1988 level. In Arkansas, household income has dropped 8.2%. Colorado households have 13.5% less income than they did before the Democratic Congress and President Obama transformed America. The same is true in Louisiana, where household income has fallen 7.9%. And in North Carolina, household income has declined 10.2%—falling to the lowest level in the 28 years the Census Bureau has provided state-by-state income data.
Census data also show the progressive program has failed women and minorities. Married women, unmarried women and women living alone all saw their incomes fall. Under the Obama administration, the median income of women has fallen more during the recovery than it did during the recession, an unprecedented economic failure in postwar America.
The real median income of African-American households has fallen by 9.5%, more than any other major census classification. Hispanic income has fallen, especially for middle-income Hispanic families, whose income has declined every year since 2008.
The Democratic Party's great political victory in 2008 led to the realization of a progressive agenda in the making for a century. That agenda has resulted in economic failure for working Americans. It failed as it has always failed: Progressive policies buy votes but destroy prosperity. The entire Obama program is now endangered because their program has hurt the very people it was supposed to benefit.
(Much of this blog post was redacted from the Wall Street Journal of 8/17/14, an op-ed by Phil Gramm and Michael Solon.)
Progressivism has been the sweetheart dream of American Presidents, mostly Democrats, for more than 100 years, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and culminating with the most progressive of all presidents, Barack Obama. Progressive presidents have cherished the idea that more and more government control over the culture, economy, and society is just the prescription our country needs to develop to the apex of its good accomplishments.
Progressivism entered the vocabulary of Barack Obama through the teachings of Saul Alinsky, in Obama’s younger years in Chicago, when he and wife Michelle worked in Alinsky’s organizations promoting what was called “community organization. “ Present day conservatives call this kind of governmental thinking and policy-making, socialism. Let’s see what Progressivism has done to America, these days.
President Obama and Congressional Democrats have implemented the most massive expansion of federal regulatory authority since the Great Depression, manifested mainly by the Dodd-Frank bill, which regulates financial institutions and the Affordable Care Act, which regulates 1/6 of the economy through the health care system. Every Senate Democrat voted for each of those bills. No Republicans in either house voted for the ACA.
As is well known, the Obama recovery from the 2008 recession is the weakest in postwar WW II history. If the Obama recovery had been as strong as the average of the previous 10 postwar recoveries, 13.9 million more Americans would be working today and the average real per capita income of every man, woman and child in America would be $6,308 higher.
Since the Senate Democratic Class of 2008 took control, the average real income of the poorest one-fifth of American families has declined every year, falling to $15,534 in 2012 from $16,962 in 2008 (the 2013 data will be released Sept. 16). The average real income of the lowest quintile of Americans is now below the level it was in 1968, the year when the War on Poverty began its spending surge under Lyndon Johnson.
The next-highest income quintile, often referred to as the working class, has also experienced a continuous decline in real income since January 2009. The average income of these Americans has fallen 6.5% and is now $1,182 lower than it was when President Reagan left office.
The third quintile—America's middle class—has seen its average income decline to $62,464 from $65,672. More than half of this decline has occurred since the recovery officially began in the second quarter of 2009.
In Alaska, household income in 2012 was 7.2% lower than it was at the end of 2008, falling back to its 1988 level. In Arkansas, household income has dropped 8.2%. Colorado households have 13.5% less income than they did before the Democratic Congress and President Obama transformed America. The same is true in Louisiana, where household income has fallen 7.9%. And in North Carolina, household income has declined 10.2%—falling to the lowest level in the 28 years the Census Bureau has provided state-by-state income data.
Census data also show the progressive program has failed women and minorities. Married women, unmarried women and women living alone all saw their incomes fall. Under the Obama administration, the median income of women has fallen more during the recovery than it did during the recession, an unprecedented economic failure in postwar America.
The real median income of African-American households has fallen by 9.5%, more than any other major census classification. Hispanic income has fallen, especially for middle-income Hispanic families, whose income has declined every year since 2008.
The Democratic Party's great political victory in 2008 led to the realization of a progressive agenda in the making for a century. That agenda has resulted in economic failure for working Americans. It failed as it has always failed: Progressive policies buy votes but destroy prosperity. The entire Obama program is now endangered because their program has hurt the very people it was supposed to benefit.
(Much of this blog post was redacted from the Wall Street Journal of 8/17/14, an op-ed by Phil Gramm and Michael Solon.)
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Which Nation Belongs in the Land of Israel?
“That
all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent
rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot by any
compact deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and
liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property….” Virginia Bill
of Rights 1776
During World War I, the Arab states had fought alongside of the Western Allies against the Central Powers, i.e., Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and especially against the Ottoman Empire. In return for their help, the Allies had promised the Arabs independence. Instead, at the Paris peace conference after the war, the Allies carved up the Arab lands formerly controlled by the Ottomans and gave it over to the administration of the French and British. Present day Iraq, Trans-Jordan, and Palestine/Israel were given to the British. The areas of present day Syria and Lebanon were given to the French. This outraged the Arabs.
When the British took over Palestine, their Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour issued the famous Balfour Declaration which specified that Palestine should be set up to house Jews and thereby win political support of European Jews. The Declaration stated, “Nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing not-Jewish communities in Palestine.” Those “non-Jewish communities” were Arabs. The Declaration aggravated conflict between Arabs and Jewish nationalists.
Since Roman times, Jews had dreamed of returning to Palestine; and, indeed, a small Jewish population had stayed in the area for all those hundreds of years, even after World War I. As anti-Semitism spread in Germany and Eastern Europe after that war, increasing numbers of Jews immigrated into the land of Palestine, bringing with them money and technical expertise. They bought farmland and established businesses and industries. All of this activity offended the much poorer Arab residents, because the Arabs were pushed out of their homes and jobs.
In 1948, Britain and the United States agreed that the land of Israel should be established as a Jewish state; Israel was designated an independent nation. This action stimulated mass migration of Jews from Arab states, Europe, and the United States. It also escalated the conflict between the Israeli Jews and their Arab neighbors. Since then, Israel has been continuously mobilized for war; and it has actually been involved in defending itself against aggressive Arab neighbors in seven shooting wars.
Despite all the adversity facing the nation of Israel, the country has prospered. The Israeli culture has produced a vibrant literature, pace-setting arts and six of the world's leading universities. A huge program of reforestation has been accomplished and is still developing. The philosophy and religion of Zionism in Israel has reinstituted the ancient language of Hebrew. The family values that Zionism has fostered have produced the fastest natural population growth rate in the modernized world and history's largest Jewish community. The average secular couple in Israel has at least three children, each a reaffirmation of confidence in Zionism's future. The population is annually rated among the happiest, healthiest and most educated in the world. Life expectancy in Israel, reflecting its superb universal health-care system, significantly exceeds America's and that of most European countries. Unemployment is low, the economy robust. A global leader in innovation, Israel is home to research and development centers of some 300 high-tech companies, including Apple, Intel and Motorola. The beaches are teeming, the rock music is awesome, and the food is of excellent quality.
Jews and Christians recognize a centuries’ long principle of Jewish hegemony over the land of Israel. It is attested to in the 12th Chapter of Genesis and in subsequent chapters. Abraham, the father of the Jews was promised this land by God, himself. The nation is named after one of the Patriarchs (Jacob). Jews strongly identify with this 4,000-year-long bond between themselves and their historic homeland. They have sustained this belief throughout 20 centuries of exile.
We return to our previous question, i.e., to whom does this land belong? For my part, I think Israel belongs to the Jews. It has belonged to the Jews through many centuries of exile. They have returned and converted the land into a prospering democratic republic, honoring the rule of law, property rights, and the dignity of individuals. All this accomplishment in contrast to the outright poverty and squalor of the Palestinian culture across the Jordan River.
(Some of this blog post was gleaned from an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Michael B. Oren, a former ambassador to the United States, written 1 August 2014.)
During World War I, the Arab states had fought alongside of the Western Allies against the Central Powers, i.e., Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and especially against the Ottoman Empire. In return for their help, the Allies had promised the Arabs independence. Instead, at the Paris peace conference after the war, the Allies carved up the Arab lands formerly controlled by the Ottomans and gave it over to the administration of the French and British. Present day Iraq, Trans-Jordan, and Palestine/Israel were given to the British. The areas of present day Syria and Lebanon were given to the French. This outraged the Arabs.
When the British took over Palestine, their Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour issued the famous Balfour Declaration which specified that Palestine should be set up to house Jews and thereby win political support of European Jews. The Declaration stated, “Nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing not-Jewish communities in Palestine.” Those “non-Jewish communities” were Arabs. The Declaration aggravated conflict between Arabs and Jewish nationalists.
Since Roman times, Jews had dreamed of returning to Palestine; and, indeed, a small Jewish population had stayed in the area for all those hundreds of years, even after World War I. As anti-Semitism spread in Germany and Eastern Europe after that war, increasing numbers of Jews immigrated into the land of Palestine, bringing with them money and technical expertise. They bought farmland and established businesses and industries. All of this activity offended the much poorer Arab residents, because the Arabs were pushed out of their homes and jobs.
In 1948, Britain and the United States agreed that the land of Israel should be established as a Jewish state; Israel was designated an independent nation. This action stimulated mass migration of Jews from Arab states, Europe, and the United States. It also escalated the conflict between the Israeli Jews and their Arab neighbors. Since then, Israel has been continuously mobilized for war; and it has actually been involved in defending itself against aggressive Arab neighbors in seven shooting wars.
Despite all the adversity facing the nation of Israel, the country has prospered. The Israeli culture has produced a vibrant literature, pace-setting arts and six of the world's leading universities. A huge program of reforestation has been accomplished and is still developing. The philosophy and religion of Zionism in Israel has reinstituted the ancient language of Hebrew. The family values that Zionism has fostered have produced the fastest natural population growth rate in the modernized world and history's largest Jewish community. The average secular couple in Israel has at least three children, each a reaffirmation of confidence in Zionism's future. The population is annually rated among the happiest, healthiest and most educated in the world. Life expectancy in Israel, reflecting its superb universal health-care system, significantly exceeds America's and that of most European countries. Unemployment is low, the economy robust. A global leader in innovation, Israel is home to research and development centers of some 300 high-tech companies, including Apple, Intel and Motorola. The beaches are teeming, the rock music is awesome, and the food is of excellent quality.
Jews and Christians recognize a centuries’ long principle of Jewish hegemony over the land of Israel. It is attested to in the 12th Chapter of Genesis and in subsequent chapters. Abraham, the father of the Jews was promised this land by God, himself. The nation is named after one of the Patriarchs (Jacob). Jews strongly identify with this 4,000-year-long bond between themselves and their historic homeland. They have sustained this belief throughout 20 centuries of exile.
We return to our previous question, i.e., to whom does this land belong? For my part, I think Israel belongs to the Jews. It has belonged to the Jews through many centuries of exile. They have returned and converted the land into a prospering democratic republic, honoring the rule of law, property rights, and the dignity of individuals. All this accomplishment in contrast to the outright poverty and squalor of the Palestinian culture across the Jordan River.
(Some of this blog post was gleaned from an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Michael B. Oren, a former ambassador to the United States, written 1 August 2014.)
Sunday, August 3, 2014
85 People Own Half of the World’s Wealth!
"Princes or lords may flourish, or may fade;
A breath can make them, as a breath has made;
But a bold peasantry, their country's pride,
When once destroy'd, can never be supplied."
Oliver Goldsmith 1728-1774 The Deserted Village
There has been great concern among lots of Americans that the government’s present course of redistribution of wealth, intended to reduce inequality in the country, will harm our nation’s financial status and growth direction. The fear is that taking money away from the rich will impair their ability to invest money and will impede real job creation. To a considerable extent, this fear has some truth to it.
On the one hand, it is common knowledge that inequality in world wealth is at an all-time high. There is also a fear that inequality is bad for our society.
Nicholas Kristof writing in the New York Times on 7/23/14 (An Idiot’s Guide to Inequality) http://nyti.ms/1rMPSuh (control+click) reports that the top 1% of people in the income distribution of our country now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. As a result of this maldistribution of wealth, it was found that in 2010, 93% of the increased wealth created in the United States went to the top 1% of our population who live in the upper economic levels of society.
There is a tentative agreement in the literature written by economists about growth that inequality can undermine progress in health and education, causing investment-reducing political and economic instability, and undercut the social consensus required to adjust in the face of major shocks, and thus that it tends to reduce the pace and durability of growth. Markedly unequal distribution of wealth also causes the wealthy class to seek rents instead of actually contributing to real growth (“Rent-seeking” is the practice of using wealth to create more wealth, without actually contributing to the stock of goods and services in the country.) This practice diminishes economic growth in the country.
It has long been known that lower levels of economic inequality are correlated with faster and more durable growth. So…governmental gurus who run the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve always seek ways to redistribute wealth through fiscal and monetary means.
Modern-day politicians with a “progressive” viewpoint think that redistributing wealth by increasing taxes and government spending on roads, dams, and other infrastructure will help the underclass by giving them more money and, thus, stimulate growth. The problem with this idea is that the jobs created by government spending on such things do not last; and, in the end, they do not help with national economic growth. Only jobs created in the private sector will give long-term economic growth.
Writers at the International Monetary Fund point out that inequality may impede growth at least in part because it calls forth efforts to redistribute through the fiscal system, efforts that themselves may undermine growth. In such a situation, even if inequality is bad for growth, taxes and transfers may be precisely the wrong remedy. http://bit.ly/1dzoFjl (control+click)
So much for the bad news. What is the answer to the inequality/slow-growth problem? The answer to this is very hard to say; and economists have wrestled with this question for a long time. It is the considered opinion of several that the answer does not lie in more governmental redistribution through the monetary and fiscal system. The answer probably lies in efforts to equalize opportunity rather than income.
Rather than dumping money into more roads and dams, I believe that the United States would do better to put more money into equalizing educational opportunities for our people. It is a fact that in America, the sharper edge of public funding for education still goes to the rich rather than to the poor. If our people would have less inequality in financial affairs, they must have less inequality in opportunity to advance themselves. http://nyti.ms/1nDoyvC (control+click) That means they must be able to compete better as a result of better education.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Ebola—A Hemorrhagic Fever of West Africa
The
whole world is worried these days about the possible spread of a West African disease,
Ebola fever. That fear is justified; many of the victims of the disease have
died—about 50% of them in Sierra Leone and Liberia, at last count.
The disease is communicable from person to person. It is transmitted by touching, coughing, and eating contaminated foods. There is no specific treatment—only good nursing care. Careful means of avoiding direct contact with patients can prevent person-to-person contact and spread of the infection.
So far, in the present spread of Ebola in West Africa, three doctors working in the infection have contracted the disease.
The disease is one of 12 known hemorrhagic diseases. In West Africa, the ones that cause problems are yellow fever, Marburg fever, Ebola fever, and Lassa fever.
Ebola fever has five strains of the virus that is causing the problem. The one from Liberia and Sierra Leone is the most deadly of the five.
It is significant in looking at disease epidemics to realize several things: In the early stages when a society is dealing with a relatively new disease, the disease appears to have a much higher mortality rate than it subsequently proves to have. (Ebola is not exactly a new disease; it has been known since 1976 when it was first described in Sudan and Zaire. However, it has not been a large threat until very recently.) This is because only the most severe cases come to the attention of the public and the medical community initially—many of the new infections cause death; but later, the disease is discovered in patients who are only mildly ill or who might not even have any symptoms (They are carriers of the infection.)
T he
other reason for the declining mortality from a new disease is that the virus
evolves into a less dangerous infectious agent. From the disease agent’s (the
virus’s) point of view, it is not advantageous for that virus or infectious
agent to kill its victims. It is better from the point of view of the virus to
infect victims and have them live to spread the infection to other people. So…as a result of this evolution, less
dangerous forms of the virus survive while the more deadly forms die out,
themselves.
The last point to remember in the understanding of epidemics is that they have all mostly ended for no known reason. This has happened repeatedly in the history of the world’s epidemics, e.g., plague of the 15th Century. No effective cure for that disease was known then; but the disease quit causing epidemics, anyway; nobody knows why.
The disease is communicable from person to person. It is transmitted by touching, coughing, and eating contaminated foods. There is no specific treatment—only good nursing care. Careful means of avoiding direct contact with patients can prevent person-to-person contact and spread of the infection.
So far, in the present spread of Ebola in West Africa, three doctors working in the infection have contracted the disease.
The disease is one of 12 known hemorrhagic diseases. In West Africa, the ones that cause problems are yellow fever, Marburg fever, Ebola fever, and Lassa fever.
Ebola fever has five strains of the virus that is causing the problem. The one from Liberia and Sierra Leone is the most deadly of the five.
It is significant in looking at disease epidemics to realize several things: In the early stages when a society is dealing with a relatively new disease, the disease appears to have a much higher mortality rate than it subsequently proves to have. (Ebola is not exactly a new disease; it has been known since 1976 when it was first described in Sudan and Zaire. However, it has not been a large threat until very recently.) This is because only the most severe cases come to the attention of the public and the medical community initially—many of the new infections cause death; but later, the disease is discovered in patients who are only mildly ill or who might not even have any symptoms (They are carriers of the infection.)
The last point to remember in the understanding of epidemics is that they have all mostly ended for no known reason. This has happened repeatedly in the history of the world’s epidemics, e.g., plague of the 15th Century. No effective cure for that disease was known then; but the disease quit causing epidemics, anyway; nobody knows why.
Friday, July 25, 2014
The Creeping Socialist State
Property rights and the rule of law are essential
foundations for a vibrant economy. When they are threatened, or uncertain, the
result is inefficiency, a larger underground economy, capital flight, and rent-seeking
(the process of using one’s assets and resources to increase one’s share of existing
wealth without actually creating new wealth).
In today’s creeping socialist state, individual rights to capital, land and the fruits of one's labor are threatened—in many cases redistributed from creditors to debtors, from those who don’t have political power (owner/managers) to those increasing in power (voters who do not own anything), and especially from young to old. And a much larger battle is looming.
Nine years ago the Supreme Court gutted the Constitution's "public use" restriction on eminent domain (Kelo v. City of New London, 2005), allowing local governments to take the property of some individuals for the benefit of others, especially private developers. So much for property rights!
The biggest future threat will be to the fruits of one's labor. The unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare are now several times the national debt; the unfunded liabilities of state and local governments for pensions and other benefits are in the trillions of dollars and mounting. The panoply of other government programs nonetheless continues to expand. The result, according to Congressional Budget Office projections, is that federal spending will reach 36% of GDP in a generation. This implies that taxes will have to double from the current, near-historic average, 18% of GDP. All federal taxes will increase—on income, capital gains, dividends, corporate earnings, employer and employee payrolls.
As economic growth has slowed and the population has aged, the ratio of people receiving government benefits to those paying taxes has been rising rapidly. Social Security and Medicare are the two big government wealth-transfer programs. Spending on these two and other entitlement programs will gobble up bigger and bigger chunks of the federal budget. They are already crowding out defense.
There is a widespread belief that Social Security payments are due to the people in a legal, contractual sense. In other words, many Americans believe that the money they have put into Social Security will be paid back to them when they retire; and the government is obliged by law to pay them that money. Politicians feed this belief to the people; but it is false. As far back as 1960 the Supreme Court (Flemming v. Nestor) ruled that benefits can be changed by Congress at any time—and they have been. In the recent past, the age for collection of full Social Security payments has been raised from 65 to 67 years of age. Payments are coming later and less. The growth of retirement benefits will have to be slowed. The notion that people not yet born "own" Social Security benefits in the future is a fairy tale.
It seems likely that benefits for the more affluent among us will be reduced first by our government in an attempt to bring Social Security benefits into a situation where they are payable. To bureaucrats, it makes no sense to diminish the income of wealthy people through taxation in their most productive years, only to subsidize them heavily a few years later by paying them Social Security benefits. The government would like to simply keep the incoming tax money and diminish the pay-out of Social Security benefits. On the other hand, it seems unjust to the workers to take money away from them with the promise that that money will be used for their retirement and then deny those payments later when the worker needs the money.
Despite the recent hikes in taxes on income, dividends and capital gains, many on the left are clamoring for more: an 80% top income-tax rate and even a progressive global wealth tax with rates as high as 10%. This is exactly the wrong road to take. Such taxes will only discourage production, encourage black markets, raise far less revenue than proponents claim and—by curtailing capital accumulation—lower future wages and living standards. Over time, such rates would expropriate a sizable fraction of wealth.
Ultimately, behind this and other attacks on property rights is the notion that the government owns all income, leaving to you only what it doesn't demand. But as President Reagan said in July 1987, "working people need to know their jobs, take-home pay, homes, and pensions are not vulnerable to the threat of a grandiose, inefficient, and overbearing government." In particular, taxation "beyond a certain level becomes servitude. And in America, it is the Government that works for the people and not the other way around."
Someone has said, “A democracy will last only until the people learn that they can vote themselves benefits.” I greatly fear that the progressive philosophy being trumpeted by President Obama and the Democrat Party will sink this nation under the waves.
(This blog post was redacted from an op-ed by Michael Boskin, Wall Street Journal 7/16/14.)
In today’s creeping socialist state, individual rights to capital, land and the fruits of one's labor are threatened—in many cases redistributed from creditors to debtors, from those who don’t have political power (owner/managers) to those increasing in power (voters who do not own anything), and especially from young to old. And a much larger battle is looming.
Nine years ago the Supreme Court gutted the Constitution's "public use" restriction on eminent domain (Kelo v. City of New London, 2005), allowing local governments to take the property of some individuals for the benefit of others, especially private developers. So much for property rights!
The biggest future threat will be to the fruits of one's labor. The unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare are now several times the national debt; the unfunded liabilities of state and local governments for pensions and other benefits are in the trillions of dollars and mounting. The panoply of other government programs nonetheless continues to expand. The result, according to Congressional Budget Office projections, is that federal spending will reach 36% of GDP in a generation. This implies that taxes will have to double from the current, near-historic average, 18% of GDP. All federal taxes will increase—on income, capital gains, dividends, corporate earnings, employer and employee payrolls.
As economic growth has slowed and the population has aged, the ratio of people receiving government benefits to those paying taxes has been rising rapidly. Social Security and Medicare are the two big government wealth-transfer programs. Spending on these two and other entitlement programs will gobble up bigger and bigger chunks of the federal budget. They are already crowding out defense.
There is a widespread belief that Social Security payments are due to the people in a legal, contractual sense. In other words, many Americans believe that the money they have put into Social Security will be paid back to them when they retire; and the government is obliged by law to pay them that money. Politicians feed this belief to the people; but it is false. As far back as 1960 the Supreme Court (Flemming v. Nestor) ruled that benefits can be changed by Congress at any time—and they have been. In the recent past, the age for collection of full Social Security payments has been raised from 65 to 67 years of age. Payments are coming later and less. The growth of retirement benefits will have to be slowed. The notion that people not yet born "own" Social Security benefits in the future is a fairy tale.
It seems likely that benefits for the more affluent among us will be reduced first by our government in an attempt to bring Social Security benefits into a situation where they are payable. To bureaucrats, it makes no sense to diminish the income of wealthy people through taxation in their most productive years, only to subsidize them heavily a few years later by paying them Social Security benefits. The government would like to simply keep the incoming tax money and diminish the pay-out of Social Security benefits. On the other hand, it seems unjust to the workers to take money away from them with the promise that that money will be used for their retirement and then deny those payments later when the worker needs the money.
Despite the recent hikes in taxes on income, dividends and capital gains, many on the left are clamoring for more: an 80% top income-tax rate and even a progressive global wealth tax with rates as high as 10%. This is exactly the wrong road to take. Such taxes will only discourage production, encourage black markets, raise far less revenue than proponents claim and—by curtailing capital accumulation—lower future wages and living standards. Over time, such rates would expropriate a sizable fraction of wealth.
Ultimately, behind this and other attacks on property rights is the notion that the government owns all income, leaving to you only what it doesn't demand. But as President Reagan said in July 1987, "working people need to know their jobs, take-home pay, homes, and pensions are not vulnerable to the threat of a grandiose, inefficient, and overbearing government." In particular, taxation "beyond a certain level becomes servitude. And in America, it is the Government that works for the people and not the other way around."
Someone has said, “A democracy will last only until the people learn that they can vote themselves benefits.” I greatly fear that the progressive philosophy being trumpeted by President Obama and the Democrat Party will sink this nation under the waves.
(This blog post was redacted from an op-ed by Michael Boskin, Wall Street Journal 7/16/14.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
