NY Times points out policy makers incompetence

"When It's Cold Inside" NY Times December 27, 2009

Yes, policy makers were caught unprepared. But before we send out lightening bolts to strike them down, let's find a bit of compassion for their job.

The economics of our country is very complex. The interactions, feedback loops, individual unique reactions and preferences, unintended consequences of rules, regulations and policy all create a complex matrix that cannot be modeled or predicted.

Stephen Wolfram, in his book, "A New Kind of Science" shows how the outcome of simple rules can creates systems that cannot be predicted. Complex adaptive systems, such as energy, which are thousands of times more complex than the systems Wolfram works with simply cannot be modeled or controlled for an outcome.

What is amazing to me is that the NY Times editorials wax eloquent time after time about failures of government and still promote the solution of more and better government.

The ability of governments to manage, predict and create outcomes for the "good of the whole" are just not possible.

I predict, NY Times will publish editorial after editorial about the failure of the health care plan once implemented. The solution will be more and better government and the cycle will continue.

If energy systems, health care systems, and larger economic systems are too complex to manage and predict, what is the alternative?

Simplex rules that allow complex interactive systems to flourish, grow, evolve and change. But this requires letting go of control, which most people are not willing to do.

in reference to:

"The surge has caught policy makers unprepared."
- Editorial - When It’s Cold Inside - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

The Health Coverage Unfairness Begins

"States With Expanded Health Coverage Fight Bill" NY Times December 26, 2009

This headline says it all. A health bill that is so complicated that no one has read, that few people understand, that has exemptions for the politicians favorites will move health care from a personal decision to a political debate.

There is no way legislation can understand the complexities of our health care decisions, the complex state laws, the licensing, multiple layers of different kinds of health care organizations, insurance companies and so forth.

This will create a new group of people who get the shaft. They will complain, new legislation will be created and the process will repeat itself forever.

I predict we will see headline after headline in the NY Times about how different groups are getting the health care shaft.

in reference to: States With Expanded Health Coverage Fight Bill - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

You can't get it the number of doctors right

"Doctors No One Needs" NY Times December 22, 2009

The number of doctors and what types of doctors is being debated in this article. Lobbying groups are trying to get their type of doctors subsidized by the feds.

Doesn't this strike you as a bit odd?

We are trying to decide how many medical slots to fill in the NY Times.

This problem is far too complex to be resolved politically and by debate. If the number of doctors is determined in a political process, the powerful interests will win out almost always.

Your health care is being determined by debate and it just won't work. Becoming a doctor and deciding on a specialty is a personal decision that is complicated in and of itself. A person has to WANT to be a doctor, be motivated to work very hard and make significant trade-offs in their lives. Yet this article makes it sound like there are slots to be filled and there are robots out there to be plugged into these slots. We wise ones just need to make sure we have allocated the correct number of slots.

No one suggests that the feds should determine the number of software engineers. (Well, actually they do determine how many can come from abroad, but that is another story.) If the feds were to do this we would all laugh our you know whats off. We know for certain that they couldn't get it right. Software and its specialties are a fluid market that changes from month to month. Market demand, technology advances and capital are shifting continually.

So, why do we think we can determine how many doctors are the right number? It is just as silly, yet Shannon and Goodman believe more doctors will "provide poor-quality care at too high a price."

Let's treat the medical industry like the technology industry and let the market place creatively work to compete for our business with better quality and lower prices. The computer industry has been the least regulated industry in the world and we know have incredible advances and collapsing costs.

Last week I got my annual physical (ok...the last one was three years ago) and the doctor (actually the nurse practitioner because to get an appointment with the doctor - it takes three months) gave me a form to get a blood test. I asked her how much it would cost. She said she had no idea. So I called the lab on the back of the form and it took awhile, but finally they said it would cost $505. Whew! We have an $8000 deductible and an HSA account so this means we are paying for it ourselves. So I go on the web and find a website that would send me to a local lab that would do it for $278. I called that lab directly and they said if I paid for it with my HSA debit card, it would be only $190. That is a discount of over 60%.

So I went to the lab and they were professional aand quick. I asked the receptionist why they were so much cheaper than the lab I was referred to and they said they had to be better because they were competing against other companies.

I know that this is just once example, but what if all medical services had to compete. Would the national health care cost drop by 60%? Perhaps it would.

So, you wise guys who think you can manage the complexity of health care and allocate the number of doctors, back off. You can’t do it. Let the health care system compete to meet our needs. This will determine just the right number of doctors without the need of wise guys.

in reference to: Op-Ed Contributors - Doctors No One Needs - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Think about it - Can the Government Create Jobs?

"Americans Without Work" NY Times December 22, 2009

Let's pay attention to what this article says about jobs and then let's look at the assumptions they stand on.

-care about unemployment
-job creation a priority
-inding people work
-government boost to job growth
-coordinated stimulus plan
-job-creation programs enacted
-spur small business lending

Amazingly, not one mention of private enterprise...where jobs come from. It is as if the only source of jobs is the government. That business itself will just sit on its heels and wait for Washington to stimulate it into creating jobs.

To understand why these assumptions are so destructive, let's define the concept of "job."

A sustainable job is created by providing a service or product that adds value to someone's life. If my company can add value to your life at a price that is lower than the value I add, I increase your well being. If you then perform your service for another, you add value to their lives. Soon, we are all adding value to each other's life which is measured in an expanding economy with lower unemployment, higher GNP and better health and lives for us all.

To add value to your life isn't easy. I have to first, understand what you need or want. Then I have to create an option for you that you can't do for yourself. I have appeal to you with something that is better, faster or cheaper. Then I have to communicate this is a way that you can hear my message and provide a way to distribute the product or service and finally to support its use.

Ok, this ain't easy, but it is how businesses succeed. This process creates a sustainable job because no outside stimulus is needed to keep it viable. It is viable because it is smart and delivers value and grows and changes with your needs.

If you are an entrepreneur you have to do all of this process yourself. If you are a fortune 500 company, a team of people need to work together to deliver value to the customer. If you are an employee, you need to deliver value to the company...your compensation needs to be less than the value you deliver.

If a business fails to deliver value, it will eventually fail (unless it is subsidized by the government) as it should.

This article ignores this basic concept...that jobs are about delivering value. If they don't they aren't sustainable. The government can pass all the jobs legislation it wants, but unless creative people are figuring out ways to make your life better, the job will eventually go away.

So, the real question is: "What environment supports creative people to find ways to deliver value to others?"

If the government taxes you to create "jobs" you have less money to spend on your own welfare. If you spend money on something that improves the quality of your life, you have contributed to a sustainable job. If that money is used by a government to "create a job" there is no feedback mechanism to assure that that job contributes to someone's better life. The money is gone, and it didn't improve my life or your life.

In short, it isn't sustainable.

Every dollar spent on a job creation program takes a job from a sustainable value adding position to a one that is a mysterious "job" as left undefined by this article.

This article talks about the horrific rates of unemployment among inner city youth. This is partially the result of rising minimum wage rates that are set higher than the value a new employee can add to the company.

So, if a sustainable job adds value to our lives, then how do we support more of these wonderful things?

As we move more and more jobs from competing for your dollar to ones that are setup by the government, we will lower productivity and slowly reduce the tax base in our country.

Here is a thought experiment:

Imagine that tomorrow a new law was passed. It eliminated all capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, corporate taxes, employer mandates, hiring compliance, worker's comp AND unemployment payments.

What do you think would happen to the stock market with that surprise out of the blue? What would happen to business growth? What wo

in reference to: Editorial - Americans Without Work - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

And you think health care will be fairly administered?

"Deep in Health Bill, Very Specific Beneficiaries" NY Times December 20, 2009

The massive health care bill isn't about your health care. It is about power, money and influence...who has it and who gets it.

I just read that the longshoremen will be exempt from taxes on the best health care insurance while other employees will have to make up the difference.

Your experience with your own health care and your life will be no different. You can expect the political process to grant privileges to favored groups.

We have moved your health care from your control to a political process. We will have to fight each other to get the health care we want. This will not be about more productivity, improved services, competitive creativity...it will be about dividing up the pie and fighting for what you can get.

Welcome to political health care.

in reference to:

"Deep in Health Bill, Very Specific Beneficiaries"
- Deep in Health Bill, Very Specific Beneficiaries - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Take your solar power and stick it where the sun don't shine

Comments on "Desert Vistas vs. Solar Power" NY Times December 22, 2009.

The environmentalists have been pushing solar energy as the pollution free energy source. But wait...we can't put it where the sun shines!

I understand how competing uses for the desert can create a debate...but this isn't a debate. This is the Queen of California terrorizing her constituents who wouldn't speak publicly for fear of antagonizing a powerful politician.

Have we moved from a democracy to an aristocracy? If they did antagonize Senator Feinstein, what would she do? Shoot bolts of retribution to those that disagree with her?

As soon as citizen are afraid to speak up for fear of antagonizing a powerful politician we have lost a critical element in our country.

The whim of the Queen of California...first we demand the utilities develop renewable energy, then the Queen stops the solar projects.

This isn't about the environment. This is about the "whim of royalty."

in reference to:

"Union officials, power industry executives, regulators and some environmentalists have also expressed concern about the impact of the monument legislation, but few would speak publicly for fear of antagonizing one of California’s most powerful politicians."
- Protection of Desert Land Faces Off With New Energy Sources - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

OK, let me get this straight...

Taming the Fat Cats, NY Times December 19,2009

President Obama is upset (now this is a helpful emotion for a president) the way America's VORACIOUS bankers leveraged hundreds of billions in taxpayer bailouts to line their pockets.

He is UPSET? Has he tried stamping his feet? Throwing a temper tantrum?

Gosh, just what America needs a president that shows how much he cares by being UPSET.

OK, let me get this straight. First, the Fed keeps interest rates very low, exacerbating the real estate bubble. Then it passes the community lending bill that forces banks to lend to high risk home buyers. Then it mismanages the Macs who are at the epicenter of the the financial collapse.

Then, when the banks get caught playing the game defined by the Fed and Congress and their agencies... when the music stops they get bailed out.

IMHO the free markets only work when we are disciplined by reality. Congress has insulated them from reality and now it bails them out because they are too big to fail. Really? They should allow reality to meet out the punishment they deserve for not paying attention to systemic risks.

Now that the Feds set up the crash, created perverse incentives for the banks, regulated the banks into bad lending practices (for the social good of course), failed to regulate their own housing agencies, then they shovel billions of dollars at the banks....

President Obama is upset at how the banks are handling the money?

Maybe the solution is HOLDING HIS BREATH until they lend they way he wants them to. Oh...wait...isn't this how they got into the problem...by bad lending practices encourage by the Feds?

I know some of my readers will be agitated, claiming this whole financial mess was created by greedy capitalists...but I would argue that this could only happen on this scale when the Feds provide massive incentives.

This article concludes that the government needs to align banking compensation with performance. How about we just don't bail them out?

Curbing the bankers appetite for risk as suggested should apply FIRST to the government and its agencies. The huge debt, the mismanaged entitlement programs, the social programs that fail year after year.

After reading my own blog I realize that "I" am upset. Yes, I am really upset. Me and President Obama are VERY UPSET.

We are both going to hold our breath, stamp our feet until bankers stops making money from the billions we gave them.

in reference to: Editorial - Taming the Fat Cats - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Part of the solution seems so obvious

New York Finds Extreme Crisis in Youth Prisons
NY Times December 13, 2009

Why don't we simply de-criminalize drug use. The reasons not to are emotional and not rational.

The damage our drug laws do far outweighs any potential benefit.

We can stop destroying the lives of young people in trouble by simply stopping what we are doing. Why don't liberals push hard for this change? It is a natural for them...what is stopping them? Comments?

in reference to:

"New York Finds Extreme Crisis in Youth Prisons"
- Task Force Finds Crisis in New York’s Juvenile Prison System - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

We know what New Orleans Needs

In reference to NY Times December 11, 2009 editorial "What New Orleans Needs."
http://bit.ly/8pzTwt

How does the world run without Washington? Apparently rather poorly according to the NY Times editorial telling New Orleans what it needs to develop affordable housing.

Can you believe the local politicians want to use federal funds to clear abandoned buildings! Oh no!

It is complicated. People's decisions on what to spend their money on, (i.e. rent) is driven by personal considerations that we cannot comprehend on an individual basis or heaven forbid, on a group basis.

Rents in a competitive market place reflect supply and demand. High rents, mean high demand. This may be a temporary condition because the market place hasn't been attracted to building to meet the demand yet, or it could be structural, (i.e.government restraints on building which I understand there are).

I know nothing about the situation in New Orleans. But I will bet that the problem is political structure that prevents the market place from building.

Tell me I am wrong.

in reference to: Editorial - What New Orleans Needs - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Democrats advocate a regressive tax

OK, in the NY Times article "Many See the VAT Option as a Cure for Deficits" this trial balloon is being floated to raise more money from the taxpayer.

A "VAT" or value added tax is like a sales tax that is levied at the various stages of production. It doesn't matter what your income level is, you pay when you buy.

So, if I understand correctly, this tax will make everyone poorer by billions of dollars. Each family or individual will have less money to spend on what they need to survive and thrive.

Now, the part I am confused about, is how does making everyone a bit poorer help them out?

The answer is that the money collected by the Feds will go to pay down the deficit! Yes, we have less money to spend on surviving so we can pay down the deficit!

Let's get this straight...the politicians in Washington, (yes both parties) have spent more money than they have for years. The Democrats have promised to pay for these programs by taxing the rich. Oooppps. Not enough money there...so let's tax the middle class and the poor!

We as voters deserve what we get. It just amazes me that my liberal friends just don't see this coming.

in reference to: Payback Time - Many See the VAT Option as a Cure for Deficits - Series - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Put down the guitar and pick up the sledge hammer

The unemployed are kind of like pawns. If there are too many of them, heck, let's move them around the board and make them useful.

Is this just me or do you sense an arrogance in this piece "Tear Down That House?"

The "unemployed" are actually people who are unique and running their own lives the best they can. A teeny weeny percentage have demolition experience. I know my niece doesn't...and it would play hell on her long nails.

So, we have the feds giving money to the cities...who will look at this as another boondoggle to get federal funds...and then they will be effective at figuring out what properties need to be leveled? Real estate acumen isn't a skill likely to be found in city bureaucracy.

Yes, we have no idea how many abandoned properties are out there. It is arrogant to think that if some bureaucrat in Washington can come to a number and then allocate funds that will go to financially strapped cities who will then hire my unemployed niece (hey, be careful of her fingernails).

It gets complicated with union rules...oh my god...

How about auctioning off the properties...let private individuals and companies figure out what to do with them.

Mr. O'Neill...you aren't smart enough to make a complex program like this work...I mean you are smart, this isn't a comment on your intelligence, but a comment on the difficulty creating the outcome you want in a complex adaptive world.

in reference to: Op-Ed Contributor - Tear Down That House - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Amazing, Only the NYT could view charitable giving as a government cost

If something costs me money, it means that something I own (money) is exchanged for something else. The only way charitable giving can cost the U.S. if you make the assumption that they really own my money.

Non-profits are "Exploiting" the tax code? Oh my god...they should be good citizens, and not follow the law, but Ms. Strom's personal preferences of how she would like the law interpreted. Perhaps we should set up a "Supreme Strom Court" that gives our charitable institutions further "guidance" about what is acceptable and what isn't so that they can have clear guidelines and stop "exploiting."

The $300 billion donated to charities makes Americans the most generous people on the face of the earth.

"...so we need to do something to make sure taxpayers are getting a big enough benefit in return.” It is as if the money belongs to the government and they need to make sure that "their" investment gets a return.

The assumptions in this article are astounding and leave me grasping for words. Perhaps Ms. Strom would like us to give ALL our money to the government so they can give it back to us and make sure we don't mismanage it.

in reference to:

"so we need to do something to make sure taxpayers are getting a big enough benefit in return.”"
- More Charities Seek Tax Break for Donors, Costing U.S. Billions - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Anger

One of my overseas coaching clients had become frustrated with the complex trading system he was using. He had recently received a stinging set of losses.

We had just completing our third phone coaching session and I suggested that he stop trading. There was a long pause on the line.

“You want me to stop trading?”

I responded positively suggesting that since he wasn’t making money anyway it wouldn’t hurt to just stop as a way to find out what was going on.

He agreed.

Three days later he gave me an unscheduled call. He was very frustrated with not trading. So I had him do some relaxation breathing exercises with me on the phone. Then I asked him if he was willing to experience a guided imagery. He agreed.

We did some exploration of his frustration until it was located and had a voice of its own. The voice was anger. Anger and not being perfect. Anger at losing money. Anger that if he couldn’t trade, his dreams of the future were threatened.

This session was very productive. While he was trading, this anger was still there, but unrecognized. By stopping trading, we were able to see the emotional state that he brought to the market. This same emotional state was sabotaging his efforts.

This trader was smart, and had made a lot of money in past and had a workable trading system. We are now working with the anger with a new awareness. It has some important message for the client.

We all have voices and emotions that we have walled off. If not recognized, they can undermine even the best traders and systems. One of the processes we use in coaching is to create an environmental shift that gives the client new powerful awareness. Even a simple awareness can produce significant breakthroughs and return trading to profitability.

Health Care Success – Establishing the framework to make health care work. Chapter 1

Summary: How we structure the fundamental continuum between individual freedom and social outcomes makes a significant difference in the quality of health care that is available.

A dear friend of mine who is smart, caring and innovative recently took up the cause of Universal Health Care in a Facebook entry. I sent her an email listing some of the problems of Universal Health Care. She responded with "So you think we should...?"

This exchange gave me the opportunity to take a look at my assumptions and the root cause of our differences. The result of that analysis is this series on health care. I want to uncover the core concepts that drive our disagreement in a way that we can better understand each other and produce more light than heat.

My discussions with people, whose health care solutions are polarized, reveal two fundamentally different starting points. Those that support universal health care talk about outcomes such as free health care for the poor and lowering costs to everyone. The problem as they see it is simple – high numbers of people lack adequate health care and the solution is to pass laws that make health care available to all who need it. Those that oppose universal health care tend to distrust Washington to manage such a complex structure and prefer the market place to provide these services. It recommends tweaks to the current health care systems such as Health Savings Accounts.

My goal for this article series is to clarify the assumptions of both ends of this spectrum. If this is done well, it will give everyone a better understanding of their own position and move the debate from symptom to values. At best, this will produce a more productive conversation because common values can be agreed upon (i.e. most of us want the best health care for the most people possible.) Once we agree on our shared value, can be more flexible about a wider range of solutions. At worst, we will realize that our values are incompatible and we can stop wasting time arguing about strategy.

For those who desire the best health care for the most people, I will then introduce the concept of complex adaptive system, also known as complexity science. I will show how it works in other critical areas of our lives then I will expand this model into health care and demonstrate that we can have our cake and eat it too.