Another Failure of Public Schools

"The Replacements" NY Times January 2, 2010

The NY Times editorials has consistently supported more money for public schools and teacher's unions demands.

At the same time, the NY Times editorials point out failure after failure of the public schools, in this case, unprepared substitute teachers.

Maybe they should ask themselves about their political assumptions. Take a fresh look at education and maybe they would come up with different solutions.

Ya think?

in reference to: Op-Ed Contributor - The Replacements - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Japanese lost decade was because....

Not that the Japanese government didn't go far enough...it didn't let the market clean up the balance sheets which hung over the economy for a decade.

What this article asks is that we do MORE of what the Japanese did that created their lost decade.

Does this make sense to you?

in reference to: Editorial - Avoiding a Japanese Decade - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

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)