And if an intellectual pushes for certain policies that turn out to be disastrously wrong, they rarely face any ramifications for this whatsoever. For example, Paul Ehrlich claimed that “The battle to feed humanity is over… Population control is the only answer,” in his 1968 book The Population Bomb. Despite his prediction being astronomically wrong, Ehrlich’s career hasn’t been dinged by this misstep in the slightest. It would seem, as Eric Hoffer put it, “One of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming their reputation.”

Furthermore, intellectuals have an incentive to make things look as bad as possible. That, after all, gives them a reason to have a job. If things were all just fine and dandy, no one would ever want intellectuals to plan society for us. Thus, intellectuals put forth plans to fix the problems they dreamed up, such as income stagnation or the male-female wage gap, both of which are almost embarrassingly easy to refute. But since these fallacies got filtered down through the media by intellectuals over and over again, they have become ‘common knowledge’ among everyone else.

Here Sowell explains how intellectuals have treated the subject of economics:

For the complete interview, see here. And to purchase Thomas Sowell’s new book, where he takes intellectuals on from every angle, check out Intellectuals and Society.

Obama did his best Bush impression the other day talking about healthcare. See if you notice anything odd about his math:

Well damn, if employers would be paid 2900% of your current insurance premium. If those numbers are correct, well gee, they probably could give me a raise. I might have to change my mind on healthcare reform.

Of course, Obama shouldn’t feel too bad, it’s not like Bush didn’t do this all the time. Harry Reid said losing 36,000 jobs was good. Or take our space cadet, speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi, who claimed unemployment would skyrocket to somewhere around 167% if the stimulus package wasn’t passed:

Fed Pledges to Keep Rates Low For Foreseeable Future

According to Bloomberg, Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve have pledged “to keep the main interest rate near zero for an “extended period” and confirmed that emergency measures to prop up the housing market will end as planned this month.”

With the first time homeowner credit set to end soon, it will be interesting to see if low interest rates will keep the housing market from collapsing even further. It will also be interesting to see what effects such a policy will have on inflation.

Gold Rush?

Speaking of inflation, while it certainly hasn’t set in yet, gold prices have been steadily creeping up. It currently stands at $1124.30 an ounce. This could be a sign of things to come.

Jeff Clark pointed out at LewRockwell.com that both the Reserve Bank of India and China have hinted at having interest in buying the next batch of gold to be sold by the IMF (about 191.3 tons). The last time India bought 200 tons of gold, prices went up 14.2% in 4 weeks. Is demand increasing for hedges against inflation?

The End of ‘Too Big to Fail’… Hopefully, but Probably Not

Is Chris Dodd actually doing something right? I know, it doesn’t seem possible given his track record. But Dodd has put a plan together to unwind the infamous ‘too big to fail doctrine’ that created the moral hazard that helped bring on this financial crisis in the first place. Conservative financial commentator, Larry Kudlow, actually gives Dodd some credit, explaining that:

“…under the Dodd scheme, large complex companies will have to submit plans for rapid and orderly shutdowns should they go under. These are called ‘funeral plans.’”

Unfortunately, the plan has loopholes. Kudlow continues, “It is possible that a government-resolution process could keep big banks alive or in conservatorship, such as with Fannie and Freddie.” In fact, Fannie and Freddie aren’t even mentioned (two more big contributors to the financial crisis) and it also gives a lot of power to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Oh goodie, another government bureaucracy to save us all (note sarcasm).

But Kudlow concludes that at least “…with the Dodd plan, the possibility remains that a true bankruptcy process will replace government bailouts.” Well I guess that’s at least possibly an improvement.

“[In the last year] four drugs which could have benefited 16,000 people have been turned down outright and a further six which could have helped 4,000 more have been provisionally rejected.

“Just five drugs have been accepted – benefiting 8,500 people – says a damning report by the Rarer Cancers Forum. Drugs for rarer forms of cancer are often much more expensive than those for common tumours because pharmaceutical companies cannot make economies of scale.”

The methods by which we allocate those resources is critical to how much of those resources we will get. It is critical to remember that prices are not costs. As Thomas Sowell explains:

“Although it is cheaper to buy a pint of milk than to buy a quart of milk, nobody considers that to be lowering the price of milk. Although it is cheaper to buy a lower quality of all sorts of goods than to buy a higher quality, nobody thinks of that as lowering the price of either lower or higher quality goods.

“Yet, when it comes to medical care, there seems to be remarkably little attention paid to questions of both quantity and quality, in the rush to ‘bring down the cost of medical care.’”

Another way to think of this is that we could cap the price of healthcare at zero dollars and zero cents. The price of healthcare would then be zero dollars. Zero would not, however, be the cost. The cost in lives would be enormous, but in callous economic terms, dead people produce very little and thereby reducing healthcare prices to zero would have a huge economic cost.

This is why it’s rather pointless to say that the United States spends more on healthcare than other industrialized countries; other countries cap their expenditures. In many ways, it’s as absurd as saying “recreation is too expensive because Americans spend such a large amount or even such a large percentage of their income on recreation.”

Now that’s not to say the United States does it well either, our unique brand of corporatist medicine has left few winners outside of Wall Street. It’s just a government takeover isn’t the right solution, more competition is. For more on that subject, see my article on Singapore’s healthcare system.

Source: Congressional Budget Office, www.cbo.gov

“Each year CBO estimates the budgetary impact of the proposals in the President’s budget using the same economic assumptions and estimating techniques that the agency uses to produce all of its analyses and cost estimates. Because CBO’s economic forecast and estimating techniques differ from those of the Administration, that “reestimate” of the President’s budget produces estimates of federal revenues, spending, deficits, and debt that differ from those presented in the budget itself.

This report compares CBO’s projections with those of the Administration and with the benchmark figures in CBO’s baseline, which shows the budgetary outlook if current laws and policies remained unchanged. CBO’s use of a consistent methodology for all of these analyses and estimates allows direct comparisons between the Administration’s proposals and other options that are considered by the Congress during the legislative process.”

The most frightening element of this ten-year forecast is that an estimated $5.6 trillion of the debt would be interest expense. (1) Yes, that’s right, interest. This is why rational, reasonable people, as much as they would like everyone to have health insurance (which by the way will never happen, even if government mandated everyone to obtain health insurance), reject the giant spending proposals of this president. Nothing against you, Mr. Obama. The same rational, reasonable people dislike the deficits of Reagan, Bush Sr., and W. just as much. But you’re at the end of a monster accumulation of debt. Stop the major spending plans. Try cost-effective, market-based ways of insuring more people in the health care arena. Put on hold the plans for major corporations to trade carbon indulgences in a “market-based” Cap and Trade system.

As an aside to Cap & Trade, wherever you stand on climate change science, you may be surprised to learn bigger problems exist in the world, if measured by uniform costs and benefits.

The idea that we’re going to continue to increase spending for the next 10 years, only at a slower clip, and make up for it by raising tax revenues is quite a gamble on its own. And that gamble is to get us to this projected fiscal outcome? Yikes.

And I leave you with a road map to reduced deficits laid out by the Obama Administration for the next four years:

Source: CNNMoney.com

Note the roughly $1 trillion increase in tax revenues over the next four years.

____________________________________________________________

(1) Congressional Budget Office, Preliminary Analysis of the President’s 2011 Budget, retrieved March 5, 2010, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11231/index.cfm

Glenn Beck vs. Keith Olbermann: Watching either of their shows brings us uncomfortably near the absolute epitome of douchebag, but alas, when push comes to shove, only one can be the victor. Here I will discuss their individual merits and try to determine who can rightfully claim the throne in all of its douche-filled glory. Honorable mentions go out to Bill O’Reilly, Rachel Maddow, Lou Dobbs, Nancy Grace, Chris Mathews, Greta Van Susteren and Sean Hannity. But when the chips are down, we all know that it is either Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck who will hold the crown of greatest douchebag in the history of the world.

Admittedly, during the Bush administration, I could enjoy Olbermann’s over-the-top rants a bit, and now with Obama, I can sometimes find Beck tolerable. I actually agree with Beck on most things domestic and with Olbermann on most foreign policy issues. Olbermann, while normally being a mouthpiece of the Obama administration,  has occasionally criticized the Democrats and Beck has consistently attacked both parties. However, both Olbermann and Beck are so biased, so hyperbolic, so inconsistent and so utterly douche-baggish that merely enjoying the train wrecks that are their respective shows does not prove either to be any less of a train wreck.

Both can make ridiculous, often hypocritical claims. Olbermann defended Cash for Clunkers, probably the dumbest program ever. His evidence was that car sales went up. Wow, when the government pays people to buy cars, car sales go up. Who would have thought? The question of whether or not destroying our wealth to increase spending was a good economic policy was not addressed. (1)

He then agreed with his guest, Dan Gross, that because Republicans voted against the stimulus package, Cash for Clunkers and other government programs, “…they are heavily invested in its failure.” Of course, the same logic could be recklessly applied to Olbermann and those who opposed the war in Iraq. Since Olbermann opposed the war, is he “heavily invested” in the United States being defeated? (2)

Glenn Beck also went overboard with Cash for Clunkers, claiming that the government’s website, cars.gov, attempted to “access your computer” if you signed up. The site was however, only for car dealers. (3) And he is not above changing the past to fit a narrative of the day, once saying the “[the Iraq War] was never about Saddam Hussein or weapons of mass destruction, I mean that was a bonus, it was always about getting to Iran.” (4) Huh? If the war was about getting to Iran, why invade Iraq? After all, Iran has been the big winner since the United States ousted Iran’s top foe. (5)

But Glenn Beck makes his strongest case for being the ultimate bag of douche with his passionate, unrestrained rants of douche-baggery. Beck is the king of over-the-top melodrama: whether it be crying on screen or putting some quote on his blackboard just in case we forget it. My personal favorite, though, is the time he decided that since “we don’t look each other in the eyes anymore” he would do a split screen, with one screen on him and another with a close up shot of his eyes (which were strangely enough, not looking at the camera). (6)

Keith Olbermann, on the other hand, goes back and forth between unbearably unfunny attempts at humor and unhinged, self-righteous outrage. In an example of his uncanny ability to not provoke laughter, I give you this bit he did in a discombobulated and extraordinarily awkward attempt at making fun of Sarah Palin for writing notes on her hand before a speech.  You must watch it to understand, I cannot explain it. The English language simply lacks the words to clarify how unfunny this is when a standard instructions manual amounts to a George Carlin standup routine in comparison:

When it comes to douche-soaked, self-righteous outrage, I refer you to Olbermann’s description of then Republican Senatorial candidate, Scott Brown:

“…In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and politicians with whom he disagrees.” (7)

Olbermann later apologized for not adding the word “sexist.” (Apparently someone can support violence against women without being sexist). Surprisingly, some people actually took offense to Olbermann’s characterization of Brown. And in fact, I did too. Olbermann forgot to mention that Scott Brown was also a fascist, war-mongering, child-abusing, corporate-controlled, Islamophobic, blood-sucking vampire who not only supports violence against women, but also men, hermaphrodites, Na’vi and every animal on the planet with the exception of nutria, termites, malaria-bearing mosquitoes, rabies-infected dogs and the infamous Man-Bear-Pig.

Back in reality though, Olbermann’s accusation that Brown is irresponsible is because he once swore in front of some high school students. Apparently, Olbermann failed to notice that he was using an explicit, sexual reference in his diatribe. Olbermann also swears on his show, while consistently bragging about how well his program does in the younger demographic (I should note that I make no claim of being ‘responsible’ myself). The accusation that Brown is in favor of violence against women—even though Brown has two young daughters—is because he said, “We can do this” after a guy at one of his rallies yelled out, “We should shove a curling iron up Martha Coakley’s butt!”

Okay Keith, aside from the fact that shoving a curling iron up someone’s butt is not really something “we can do,” it’s quite obvious that Scott Brown didn’t hear the man. And does Olbermann really expect Brown to disavow every crazy thing one of his supporters says? I mean honestly, have you ever heard what people say about politicians?

Of course, Glenn Beck is no opponent of baseless name-calling and random conjecture. From claiming he couldn’t “debunk” the theory of FEMA death camps to an assortment of other, often contradictory, conspiracy theories, Glenn Beck is all about name-calling and conjecture. (8) Perhaps the most infamous was his accusation that Barack Obama has a “…a deep seated hatred for white people.” One minute and 22 seconds later he recanted, saying “I’m not saying that he doesn’t like white people” after he was challenged by the fact that some 70% of Obama’s administration is white. Unfortunately, for consistency’s sake, five seconds later he then said again Obama is “..I think, a racist.” (9) At least Beck was able to avoid crying this time.

But baseless name-calling is secondary to outright lying. And while both are extremely biased, I have never seen Beck, nor anyone else for that matter, do what Olbermann did regarding the so-called “climategate.” Olbermann accused the show Fox and Friends of taking a clip from Jon Stewart out of context, which Olbermann himself took out of context. Honestly, I’ve seen people take others out of context, but never have I seen someone take something out of context, while accusing others of doing so.

Fox and Friends showed the first bit of a Jon Stewart segment where he jokingly says global warming is completely debunked. Then Keith Olbermann showed a little more where Jon Stewart said the leaked emails weren’t a big deal, it was just scientists talking casually. But Olbermann conveniently left out the next part, where Jon Stewart goes over a handful of the emails and concludes:

“[The scientist] was just using a trick to hide the decline. [It’s] just scientist speak for using a standard statistical technique to recalibrate data to trick you and hide the decline.”

Here’s Stewart’s bit and here’s Olbermann’s hack job of it.

But at least Olbermann doesn’t abuse his guests. Nothing he’s done can compare to Beck losing his mind at a caller about healthcare. Again, the written word can do no justice here. You must see it:

While that is quite damning to those who would argue Glenn Beck is actually sane, it does tell us something good about him; namely, that he is willing to at least talk (if you can call it that) to people who disagree with him. I think the problem with Beck is that his frontal lobe inhibitors aren’t functioning properly and thus he pretty much says whatever comes to mind in all of its driftless, tear-soaked, conspiratorial, stream-of-conscious, douche-baggishness. But he does debate people. I even have video evidence of Beck debating people, for example here.

I cannot say the same for Keith Olbermann. Sure, when he’s challenged, he’ll use his television show to launch a string of invective at whoever dared speak ill of him, albeit usually in the way befitting the most douche-baggish of douchebags. For example, when Ann Coulter pointed out that Olbermann didn’t graduate from the Ivy League Cornell University, but an affiliated university, Keith Olbermann decided it was a good idea to bring out his framed diploma to show his audience (I kid you not) in an attempt to prove that he did, in fact, graduate from the university that Coulter accused him of graduating from. (10)

But that doesn’t count for actual debate. It is truly a brave form of cowardice to have a “worst person in the world” segment every show without ever having anyone on who would disagree with him on anything. It’s actually quite funny to watch when someone who basically agrees with Olbermann on everything says something that may, in some way, kind of contradict his line of thinking. Take this clip, where Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean explains why it’s out of line for Republicans to call the president a fascist, even though Olbermann had called George Bush just that many times before. Of course, Olbermann sounded more dignified by calling the president a fascist in between random quotes from Bertrand Russell and Oliver Cromwell.

In the end, the willingness to debate is what makes the difference. Glenn Beck may ramble on, between sobs, about inane connections he’s written on his wholly-unnecessary chalk board, but he’s willing to talk to people he disagrees with. He’s even changed his mind on several issues, such as marijuana legalization. (11) Olbermann instead hides behind his television show to launch hypocritical and illogical vitriol at those he refuses to give a chance to respond. And for that, Keith Olbermann is victorious. Congratulations Keith, you are the biggest douchebag on the planet.

_________________________________________________________________

For more on Glenn Beck, see South Park’s parody.
And for Keith Olbermann see Saturday Night Live’s Take on him .

_________________________________________________________________

(1) “ ‘Countdown with Keith Olbermann’ for Monday, August 3, August 3, 2009, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32284299/
(2) Ibid
(3) For Beck’s segment see “Glenn Beck: Cars.gov allows government to takeover your computer,” uploaded July 31, 2009,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWs12ccbOiE and for what it actually means see Hugh D’Andrade, “Cars.gov Terms of Service: What Glenn Beck Gets Right and Wrong,” August 3, 2009, http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/cars-gov-terms-service
(4) “Beck: Iraq “was always about getting to Iran” & WMD’s bonus,” uploaded April 5, 2007, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUbBbGVF6Q8
(5) For a good, albeit rather old, rundown of Iran winning by the Iraq War is Juan Cole, “The Iraq war is over, and the winner is… Iran,” Salon Magazine, July21, 2005, http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/21/iran
(6) See “Beck Wants You to Look Deep Into His Eyes,” Uploaded February 4, 2009, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex695VSHmSs
(7) “Olbermann’s “Apology” To Scott Brown,” Uploaded January 19, 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydNY-9xNzB0&feature=related
(8) “Glenn Beck’s FEMA Backflip,” Uploaded April 4, 2009, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izjfdfDHjWQ
(9) “Glenn Beck: Obama is a RACIST! Hates White Folks!,” Uploaded July 28, 2009, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ndc2LX2u98&feature=related
(10) For Coulter’s article, see Ann Coulter, “Olbermann’s Platic Ivy,” Townhall.com, March 4, 2009, http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2009/03/04/olbermanns_plastic_ivy and for Olbermann’s bit “defending himself” and the subsequent lampooning on Fox’s Red Eye, see “Olbermann is So Insecure, I Pity Him,” Uploaded March 7, 2009, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5qgQ_71M2c
(11) “Glenn Beck Legalize Marijuana & Stop The Violence,” Uploaded March 3, 2009, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFmtirw5io8

Senate majority leader Harry Reid provides us with one of the great quotes of our time. Enjoy:

Now this is one of those ‘taking people out of context’ moments, but it is still funny as hell to watch. Perhaps losing 36,000 jobs is better than expected, or even a sign of a recovery (which I doubt), but needless to say, it’s hard to spin losing 36,000 jobs as good news.

Spying on Our Trash

In Britain, 2.5 million trash cans (or excuse me, rubbish bins) have had electronic microchips installed to measure the amount of trash each home throws away. According to the Daily Mail,

“This is an increase of nearly two-thirds in just a year. The bins, which can be electronically identified and weighed, are designed for ‘pay-as-you-throw’ rubbish tax schemes. Under such schemes  -  which are likely to be hugely unpopular  -  families who put out more waste will pay higher taxes to their local council.”

While no tax has yet to be introduced, it would seem obvious that a tax is the plan. This does make some sense; people who throw away more should probably be charged more. But to me, the scheme comes across as just  another method for the government to extract money from its citizens and intrude into their private lives.

Selling Judicial Appointments?

In a disturbing story, Barack Obama has appointed Scott Matheson to the 10th Circuit Court of appeals. That would appear rather innocuous, but at the same time he is hosting congressman Jim Matheson–Scott Matheson’s brother–to convince him to change his vote on healthcare. Now Scott Matheson is very qualified, but so are a lot of other people. And given the shady dealings in Nebraska and Louisiana, it begs the question: coincidence?

It’s no secret that spending is down these days. And while I think it’s about time that American citizens actually start saving money, it undoubtedly hurts businesses when consumer spending tanks.

One of the reasons consumer spending is down, other than an increased propensity to save, is simply that during the mortgage meltdown, massive amounts of money disappeared as housing equity morphed into devalued foreclosure sales. The Federal Reserve and Treasury have responded by pumping an ungodly amount of money back into the economy, which raises serious concerns about future inflation. But for now, much of that money is stuck in the banks and velocity is extremely low. Thus, businesses are still hurting for sales.

So what have some city governments and businesses done to combat this? Well, they’ve decided to print their own money. MSN Money highlights one such example:

“Last year, two Detroit tavern owners were sitting at the bar, sampling their beverages and bemoaning the local economy — no one in the city had cash, and when they did, they spent it in the suburbs. Then the pair hit on a solution: Print their own money.

“It is, after all, perfectly legal for anyone to issue currency, as long as it doesn’t look too much like a U.S. dollar. Thus was born the Detroit Cheer, a local scrip accepted by a handful of city businesses, including a pizzeria, an electrician and a doggy day care center.”

Indeed, this money appears to act more as a coupon which is accepted by a handful of businesses. However, in some cases these currencies have really taken off, such as “The western Massachusetts berkshare [which] is accepted by an estimated 400 businesses and has circulated to the tune of $2.5 million.”

In the end however, most of these currencies fail. Sociologist Ed Collum’s study of 82 of these currencies showed the survival rate to be only 20%.  It is, however, interesting to see how currencies can formulate from the ground up instead of the top down. It also makes one wonder whether people should be able to use gold or silver or something else like that as a competing currency. That is, after all, what is written in our constitution.