Monday, December 23, 2013

Christmas - The glue that binds

Christmas - The glue that binds us all.




Christmas is celebrated by almost every person in America. According to a Pew Research poll 96% of people in the U.S. celebrate Christmas. 81% of the non-Christians who celebrate are a diverse group of atheists, agnostics, and those of other religions. Although, Christians are decreasing as a percentage of Americans, the percentage who celebrate Christmas is still about the same.

Even if one doesn't attend church on a regular basis, over 60% say they will attend services. And of those who don't attend church at all, 16% say they will. 86% say they will gather with friends and family and exchange gifts for Christmas.

The first recorded date of Christmas was 336AD, during the rule of the Roman Emperor Constantine. December 25th is the winter solstice, the celebration of the Roman sun god Mithras. Wishing not to participate in the sun god celebration, Christians adopted that day for their own as the birth of Jesus (which many experts suggest was sometime in the spring). Orthadox and Coptic churches chose the use of the Julian calendar and celebrate Christmas in January. I personally like the play on words of the sun god verses the son of God. 

As you can see by the map, most countries around the world also celebrate Christmas.

No other holiday is as festive and cheerful as Christmas. It crosses political party lines and cultural divides. It is the one holiday that literally forces people to set aside their differences to come together. It is easy to focus on the negative aspects of the holidays, such as suicide or commercialization, but I believe people really want a chance to renew relationships and have a reason to be kind to others.

It really is the holiday of holidays, because it binds us like no other day of the year. I believe Jesus is the best reason for us to be merry, but I am also thankful that we in America and around the globe consider it important enough to observe this special day to celebrate and have a Merry Christmas.






Sunday, December 8, 2013

Ideal Healthcare - Part 2

Ideal Healthcare – Part 2
Practical implementation…think schooling.



In my last article, I offered the solution to healthcare as dependent upon three key elements to be successful:
1) Healthcare must be provided for all U.S. citizens.
2) Medical professionals must be able to work in a profitable environment.
3) Insurance companies should be excluded from healthcare

Unless the Affordable Care Act is dismantled, the law forces us to continue with government controlled healthcare. I would like to continue to outline how we can modify the ACA to have a successful healthcare system.
As expected, a more liberal view would doubt that my proposed system could work without government control overseeing abuse in healthcare institutions. While the conservative view believes that government should not be involved in healthcare operations due to inefficiencies. To achieve this, I believe it necessary to detail items 2 and 3 to resolve these concerns.

I have said before that we should not do what other countries have done, but learn from their mistakes. I will begin with two countries who I believe have the most promising of healthcare plans and expand upon them.

First, the Netherlands changed their government controlled “single-payer” (single-funded) system in 2006 to a privately run single-payer system by the insurance companies. The key point is that they realized a few things that occurred when government was completely in control. Health inequality between rich and poor, long waiting lines, and cost increases were a few of the reasons to let the private sector run the program. (See link below)
After 2006, the healthcare system did improve, but negatives also crept in. 80% of the insurance now operates through only a few companies. This is an example of an oligopoly and not true competition (something the state wanted to avoid)…the results were costs increases. Besides increases in health spending, there are also many instances of less competition and consumer choice.


Second, In 1995, Taiwan’s “single-payer” system was implemented and modeled after the U.S. Medicare concept. The working population pays premiums split with employers. Waiting lists are short and most preventative services are free. They use a smart card with their health info on it, which keeps fraud down and efficiency up. They have the lowest administration costs in the world...in a way. 
After closer scrutiny, Taiwan is spending more than taking in, and borrowing to finance the rest. The government is afraid to raise premiums because they fear a voter reprisal. Their solution is to ration care to keep spending in line with revenues. (see link below). Unfortunately, there is a low doctor-to-population ratio resulting in too many patients depending on too few doctors. Patients visit the doctor more frequently causing doctors to keep visits short to about 2 to 5 minutes per patient. There is no system to regulate systematic reporting of clinical performance, patient outcomes and adverse events. Taiwan is also slow at adopting technology except for drugs, and borrowing is needed to cover for these needed costs.

Both the Netherlands and Taiwan have good healthcare at a good price. Both countries initiated their programs after looking around the world and gleaning the good from others. As they examined other countries learn the good and bad, so too should we in the U.S.

I'm suggesting that a common negative with these two countries is the lack of incentives and the greater reliance on punitive measures to control healthcare. Doctors and medical institutions need efficiency at a reasonable cost if they are to remain profitable and successful. Competition can resolve this issue (see link below).
     In the Netherlands, with only a few insurance companies in the system, lack of competition restricts efficiency in operations and choice, ultimately leading to cost increases.
     In Taiwan, with insurance companies removed and smart cards in use, millions have been saved. Again however, there are no incentives for doctors; this reduces a reason for doctors to enter the workforce, ultimately resulting in a burden of a high patient ratio and reduction of effective health care (i.e. those visits of only 2-5 minutes). Additionally, with no competition between health institutions, advancement in new medical technology has been suffering.

I would like to veer off topic a moment to examine the U.S. school system...the reason will soon become clear. Our government requires every child to attend school. Not every child is required to attend a public school, but every parent must pay into the public school fund (taxes). My proposal for healthcare would mimic the U.S. education system - with one exception.
The exception is that the school system, albeit quite functional, could be much more efficient and successful…by implementing private sector techniques. Charter schools have been experimenting with better techniques in the last several years. The jury is out on the total effectiveness of charter schools in general, but some areas are proven (see link below). Examples would be to give teachers rewards for high performance, or maybe a bonus to school principles effective in high standards and efficient use of funds. The ideas are endless, but the basic concept is sound.

Healthcare can run in a similar fashion. 
Every person should pay their taxes for their healthcare, like we do for the school system. 
Every person should be able to go to the doctor, like we do for the school system. 
Every person should have a local healthcare administration center to monitor effectiveness of the program in the community, like we do with the local school board (creative incentives would best work closest to the source).

In the end, the United States school system has a ways to go to achieve excellence in education, but the private sector has already proven some techniques that can help make improvements. And so too can we implement the current school system as a model to redesign our healthcare system, then make additional improvements that have proven successful. 
I contend that if we exclude the insurance companies from the process and allow doctors and institutions to be profitable, our healthcare system could once again be truly rated the best in the world.



Netherland healthcare

Taiwans healthcare

Teacher performance incentives

Sample of competition gains

Sample private sector incentive plan

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Ideal Healthcare in the USA

Ideal Healthcare – Part 1
Can we handle the truth?



With all the current controversy about healthcare, it’s time to point out what could be the best possible solution to Health care in America. The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) may hold an ideological solution to healthcare, but not a practical one. Regardless of party affiliation or current mental paradigm, we have moved too far across the divide to turn back to the old ways. The two dirty little truths are that we must face up to the fact that good healthcare comes with sacrifice and that money doesn’t grow on trees. It is vital we set aside our sacred cows, realize the common goal, then get to problem solving.

It’s well known that our society is a benevolent one. We send financial aid to every corner of the globe and most often we are the first physically available to assist. We also do the same for our own citizens, but unfortunately not to the extent we wish to. Our government is in a pickle, because it must act before current healthcare policies are too entrenched and bogged down by a cumbersome expensive new system.  

The ACA/Obamacare website has already been experiencing roll-out inefficiencies, and soon it will have to contend with huge cost overruns (see link below). This has the ire of a large majority of people, with the list getting longer everyday. Nevertheless, I would risk it to say that everyone in America truly wants to help out those less fortunate. The key question is how will it work, still be efficient, and stay within reasonable costs?

I believe there are three key elements to good cost effective healthcare.
1) Healthcare must be provided for all U.S. citizens.
2) Medical professionals must be able to work in a profitable environment.
3) Insurance companies should be excluded from healthcare.

1.  For many years the United States has led the way in areas such as economics and freedom. The U.S. has also led the way in medical innovation, but it hasn't trickled down to all its citizens to accomplish true healthcare leadership. Even though every man woman and child is provided emergency care, whether they could afford it or not, millions of dollars are wasted addressing the illness at the latest stages of the illness. Preventative healthcare could reduce emergencies and serious conditions before trauma and expensive medical costs spiral out of control. I have to admit that this is one promising goal of Obamacare.

2.  Doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies must be able to function with a profit. It is my contention that once healthcare becomes only a benevolent institution it will fail. The reason is that there are only a few medical professionals bred with internal philanthropic motivations but there are many more with monetary motivations (see link below). If the system becomes a non-profit system, incentives and motivation will vanish. Not only would the quality of care be lost, but quantity of caregivers as well (think of long lines). Doctors and other healthcare professionals provide a service that should be rewarded for their talent. Just like the rest of us in our jobs. Unfortunately, Obamacare will hinder this process.

3.  Insurance companies that facilitate the operation of healthcare should be obsolete. I believe we must ask ourselves why we need insurance companies in the mix. The easy answer would be that by grouping healthy people with sick people it will lessen the burden on all people. But the insurance companies are only middlemen who don’t really help with this process. Insurance companies make a profit speculating the risk of those who will be sick and pocket the profit off that speculation. Where is the direct health service?
          I assert that the real insurance providers should be the citizens of America. This means that we would still utilize the grouping mentality as stated before, but instead our group plan is all of us. In other words, we Americans are the one big group plan paid for by us in the form of taxation.
          After enacting the Affordable Care Act, we inadvertently backed into what is known as a “single payer” – or more accurately, a single-fund system. Since the government has been given authority by the Supreme Court to tax every citizen (that pays taxes) for healthcare, the IRS can now charge or penalize Americans through taxation. There is no longer a need to involve an insurance company to profit from that same process.
          An example of implementation would be as follows: The sick person sees the doctor for free, the doctor and his/her clinic attends to the needs of the sick, the doctor sends the invoice to a local branch of the HHS (health and human services), the HHS sends the invoices to the IRS, and the IRS makes a yearly adjustment in our taxes if required. That is where we ultimately pay the bill. In our progressive tax system, the rich pay the most and the poor pay little or nothing.
          Those concerned with overspending might say, “Hey, the doctors and hospitals will get away with sending in huge overblown bills, burdening the taxpayer with astronomical increases.” The solution to this is where I pointed out that the doctors would send the bill to the local HHS. It would be a branch that is run by the local community; it would oversee funds, critique and monitor any excessive income, and even provide rewards for those who stay healthy. This would be much like the committees that handle a local utility company profits…adjusting rates periodically due to extenuating circumstances related to the region. It’s not perfect but it’s the best check on overreach.


These are three key elements for good healthcare that would ultimately produce good service at a fair price, and it would provide care for the sick in a timely fashion (since more doctors would choose to enter the system knowing they can make a living). Billions of dollars (see link below) could be used for real health needs rather than absorbed by insurance companies; not to mention the freedom from the monetary headaches and hassles dealing with insurance.

A final bonus to this plan is that by default Medicaid and Medicare (and their associated inefficiencies) would no longer be necessary. All people, rich and poor, young and old, with any type of medical issue would bring it to their doctor to be appropriately dealt with. If someone wishes to pay for custom or unique medical situations, such as cosmetic surgery, these services would be available for clients to be paid out of their own pockets. In fact, if a doctor can survive without sending the bill to the government for reimbursement, he/she should have the freedom to operate as they choose.

If you want an efficient healthcare system at a good price, I believe this is the most effective one available. However, I did mention some sacrifice. At the turn of the 20th century, it was assumed that the horse and buggy suppliers would be sacrificed as the automobile grew in popularity. What’s not mentioned is that many of these companies didn’t die. Sure, buggy whips were out, but the 1890 style roller wheel bearings were easily adapted to automobile wheels. So too will the insurance industry find other opportunities to keep their business afloat.

If we choose not to fear change for the things we love we will always be successful. We do not have to do what other countries have done, but we should learn from their mistakes - then do what is best for the United States of America. This is the time to make a great sacrifice for an even greater healthcare system…one that will allow us to once again be known as the country with the best most affordable health care in the world.



Healthcare increases

Sample of Insurance company profits.


 High-quality medical graduates leave Canada for better-paying careers in the U.S http://www.cmaj.ca/content/161/8/1028.full

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Decade of Decline

Is this the Decade of Decline?

I’m going to keep this simple and let these pictures do much of the talking. 
Normally after a recession, there is a rebound. But after this last recession the U.S. has not been so fortunate. Unemployment, median income, insurance rates, housing, Gross Domestic Product (the sign of economic strength) are all sluggish if not declining.
As a result, promises by politicians and economists could be better viewed as entertainment and not reality. Here is reality:


UnemploymentSummary: There has been a bumpy positive road to new jobs; however, the majority of those jobs are coming from lower-wage occupations.








Median Income -  Summary: The average U.S. family makes less than it did 20 years ago.






Insurance rates – Summary: U.S. insurance rates have risen in all but a few states…despite President Obama’s promise in February of 27, 2008.  “If you’ve got health insurance, we’re going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2,500 per family per year. And we will not wait 20 years from now to do it or 10 years from now to do it. We will do it by the end of my first term as president of the United States of America.”


Here is a more detailed example of the State of California.





Housing – Summary: Housing sales haven’t seen it this bad for decades and affordability is in decline. The first is new home sales, the second is an affordability index.









GDP – Summary: real GDP is trending downward.

In the next graph, pay particular attention to the dotted line (real GDP growth).








As a result, there has been an anemic recovery at best. The rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer and a hollowing out has occurred in the middle. Shame on those who are in power.
I've noted in previous post http://www.garyriedl.com/2012/09/and-for-his-next-trick.html that jobs are a sign of a recovery (not low wage jobs). The Federal Reserve has been pumping billions of dollars per month into the economy as a way of propping it up from its wobbly foundation. It can't continue indefinitely. But when it stops, the U.S. has got to be in better condition to recover. 
So for all you people who voted for the last decade of economic policies, I recommend some serious introspection. It may be that many had good intentions, but these good intentions allowed the rich to become the greatest beneficiaries in the last several years at the suffering of the middle class and poor.




The links below include the sources for the images above.












Friday, November 1, 2013

Brrrrrrr!

Global Warming: The end of a beautiful relationship


        I’m not a scientist. But when I see a curious correlation, I can't help but to hypothesize. I had written this article back in 2009 (which even I was skeptical about). But since becoming aware of the news on polar climate (see links below), I believe my idea has credibility.

        Ice core samples have shown that Co2 goes up a few hundred years after temperature goes up. Why? Know one knows. However, if they are related, then current day Co2 could be high not necessarily because of anything man has done, but because of the medieval warm period that ended around 1600AD. Additionally, since the medieval ice age followed after the medieval warm period, we may also see a corresponding drop in Co2 and temperature in the future.

        Should we care about Co2? Is what we breathe out really horrible? Besides, plants love it. More plants mean more oxygen for us and more food on our tables. But let’s set aside Co2 and address global warming.

        The world news has not been diligent about reporting the fact that in the last decade, there has been more cooling going on*, and coincidentally with virtually no sunspots. What do sunspots have to do with it?

        Sunspot activity means more solar wind pushes out and around the Earth to force away the cosmic rays that bombard the earth. These same cosmic rays stimulate cloud activity. When there are more sunspots, low cloud condensation nuclei formation decreases, more clear sky increases the incoming radiation to, paradoxically, elevate gaseous water, the most important part of the greenhouse effect. Thus, more heat.  When there are more sunspots, the earth warms, and ultimately the oceans will warm up and create more Co2. Sounds like global warming, eh? Well, hold on a minute.

        When the oceans warm, they stimulate what is known as the ocean conveyor system called the thermohaline circulation. This ocean conveyor is a process where warm salt water moves heat from the equatorial zones and up to the north where it cools. The cool salt water then sinks down and flows back to the equator. Fresh water is provided by northern ice melts, and mixes with the salt water. When the mix is heavy with fresh water, the water sinks less and slows the ocean conveyor process down.

        When the fresh water ice melts too much, the ocean conveyor will slow down and restrict the warm southern waters from circulating to the northern regions of the earth. In the near future there will be a tipping point in the ocean conveyor system where it will shut down and start to reverse, allowing the north to cool again.

        Remember I said that there could be a correlation between the Co2 drop and the medieval ice age. We are near that event. My hypothesis is that when the ocean conveyor slows and Co2 starts to decrease, look out…This could be the beginning of a new ice age.


        During 1645-1715, few if any sunspots were seen, and Western Europe entered what is known as the Little Ice Age. So if the sunspots activity increases, it may contribute to a warm decade; but in the long run it will assist in the acceleration of the ocean conveyor process to what I believe is the tipping to cooling. With this in mind, I believe we’re due for a cold century.

 

Gary Riedl 12/1/09 rev3

 

The Arctic: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html 

Antarctica: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

       

*Over the last six years, global temperatures from satellite and land-temperature gauges have cooled (-0.14 F and -0.22 F, respectively). Ocean buoys have echoed that slight cooling since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration deployed them in 2003.

 

 

Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas," asserted climatologist Luc Debontridder of Belgium's Royal Meteorological Institute. "It is responsible for at least 75 percent of the greenhouse effect. 

 

 

 

 


 

Monday, September 30, 2013

A Psychotic Quantitative Easing


QE 3 Revisited

America is in a state of economic psychosis. The psychosis stems from the current polarized political system. The political left states that the economy is back on track and headed for prosperity for all. The political right states that the economy is waffling and will eventually fall into second rate system.

My goal is to summarize where QE-3 is now, and to include information from a blog by Fabius Maximus (the name was taken from the Roman leader who saved Rome from Hannibal). He outlines this very topic beautifully in this link.  http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/09/27/fed-qe-taper-55812/

Point #1
Last year at this time, I pointed out that the purpose of the QE3 was to inject $40 billion a month into the marketplace to lift the spirits of investors and stimulate the economy. In December of 2012 the Fed increased the amount to $85 billion/month...all with little impact.  The stock market enjoyed the ride to new highs, but true economic growth and jobs are stagnant.  As Bernanke hoped, home buying increased.
Has the QE3 been a success? Yes and no. 
Yes because a majority of home buying was by bankers and investors inside and outside the U.S.
No because, although the unemployment rate did drop, most of that is attributed to part-time work; additionally, more able bodied people are drawing food stamps, indicating adequate incomes are lacking. So it depends on who you are that makes it a success. However, the overall economy is still sluggish.

Point #2
Chief economist of Nomura Research Institute Richard Koo says that the QE3 that Bernanke instituted last year is in a “QE trap” of the Fed’s own making. In other words, Bernanke wants to ease up on dumping money into the market (otherwise known as tapering) but backed off because just mentioning the idea causes interest rates to rise; therefore, tapering would slow down the economy. 

Koo explains that there is a vicious cycle. "While rates might then decline, reassuring the markets for a few months, talk of tapering would probably re-emerge as soon as the data showed some improvements, pushing rates higher and serving as a brake on the recovery." 

Many people, including me, feel that it was a bad idea from the start. It’s like a drug addiction that at first seems wonderful and takes away the pain, but later on has less effect, all the while encouraging the market to become more dependent upon it.

Point #3
The Fed has injected so much of its reserves into the system that the shock of getting off of it will lead to negative effects, such as an increase in the national debt and possibly hyperinflation or currency re-denomination (not good for the average American).

Expectations.
Based on the past several years, the current political forces complicate matters by producing a foggy weather pattern with their polarized ideas, which only makes the economic future that much more difficult to navigate through. However, if ruling powers (The Fed and polititians) use good sense to allow the business sector to operate without additional bureaucratic conditions, I don’t foresee hyperinflation or a dollar collapse, but rather a slow erratic growth. 

Real growth occurs when Americans feel optimistic, and at this juncture, there is little chance for that to occur. However, I believe the economy stabilizes when the people feel confident there are capable leaders at the helm working in unison. That would mean the market may be revitalized after the next mid-term and presidential election or a change in the Federal Reserve leadership. Only time will tell.


Understanding the QE3
Here is a comical view of the QE2, but it still is relative to the QE3.

Other sources:






Saturday, August 24, 2013

Two Cows




Major Government Systems – using the two cow philosophy

I thought I'd take a break from my serious side and bring in some humor. I haven't seen this in years and thoroughly enjoyed the humorous comparison of governments and economies to that of two cows.  The original idea started in Canada, but in 1938 a column in the Chicago Daily Tribune posted this from and address by Silas Strawn at the Economics Club in November of 1935. The article has been modified from many sources to include other models.


ANARCHISM: You have two cows. You steal your neighbor's bull and ignore the      government.

COMMUNISM: You have two cows and donate them to the government. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk and gives you an allotted amount in return.

CHINESE COMMUNISM: You don't have any cows. The government sets up a joint venture with McDonald's. 

CUBAN COMMUNISM: You no longer have any cows. They sailed to Miami.

DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY (A republic): You have two cows. The government exercises those powers delegated to it by the people, who are sovereign. The representatives (elected, appointed and employed) are constrained by various checks and balances, including the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the three co-equal branches of government, and the 50 state republics (see, e.g., Article IV, section 4). So what the government does with your cows and with the milk from those cows depends on the interaction between the people and the checks and balances mentioned above.      Note: The government taxes you on your two cows and, in the form of a gift, supports a man in a foreign country who has only one cow.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

EUROPEAN FEDERALISM: You have two cows which cost too much money to care for because everybody is buying milk imported from some cheap east-European country and would never pay the fortune you'd have to ask for your cows' milk. So you apply for financial aid from the European Union to subsidize your cows and are granted enough subsidies. You then sell your milk at the former elevated price to some government-owned distributor which then dumps your milk onto the market at east-European prices to make Europe competitive. You spend the money you got as a subsidy on two new cows and then go on a demonstration to Brussels complaining that the European farm-policy is going drive you out of your job.

LIBERTARIANISM: Go away. What I do with my cows is none of your business.

NAZISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and then shoots you.

NEW DEALISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and pours the milk down the sink. The government insists there is a giant storage tank where all the milk goes.


BUERACRACY: Same as New Dealism, but then requires you to fill out                               forms accounting for the missing cows.

SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes one of them and gives it to your neighbor.

PURE SOCIALISM:   You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as many eggs as the regulations say you should need.

FINNISH SOCIALISM: You have two cows. Soon you have to kill one of them because in the Netherlands there is an overproduction of milk and the European Union rules say so. When you do so, you realize that it was not necessary, only the system was too slow in getting you the up-to-date news. From the stress, you get an ulcer in your stomach so you go to a doctor. The doctor realizes that this ulcer is a serious one, so you need an urgent treatment. Therefore, you soon get a call to the local hospital. The call's date is for 3 months later, because there is a queue with more urgent cases. Then your ulcer becomes even more serious because you remember that 40 percent of your income is taken for social tax.


SAUDIISM: You have two cows. Since milking the cow involves nipples, the government decides to ban all cows in public. The only method to milk a cow is to have a cow on one side of a curtain and a guy milking the cow on the other side.

TALIBANISM: You have two cows. At first, the government makes them wear burkas, but later shoots them because "they are Hindu religious symbols."

TOTALITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.

A REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what?

A DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who tax your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous.

AN INDEPENDENT: Has to wait for the cow the Republican and Democrat fight over.

Economics - using the two cow philosophy.

CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

CAPITALISM - AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.


PROTECTIONISM: You have two cows. You can't buy a bull from another country.

REDISTRIBUTIONISM: You have two cows. Everyone should have the same amount of cow. The government takes both cows, cuts them up, and spends more than the cows are worth giving everyone a little piece of cow.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.

A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows, none of which belongs to you. You charge for storing them for others.

A BRAZILIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You enter into a partnership with an American corporation. Soon you have 1000 cows and the American corporation declares bankruptcy.

A TALIBAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You turn them loose in the Afghan "countryside" and they both die. You blame the godless American infidels and the Jews.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship them.

A COWSMIC VIEW OF WORLD ORGANIZATION

ARTIST -- VISUAL: You have two cows. You stuff them and put them in glass display boxes.

AUSTRALIANISM: You have two cows. You take one to the beach and teach it to surf, then you bung the other one on the barbie, drink some VB, and laugh at the idea of a surfing cow.

COUNTER CULTURE: Wow, dude, there's like... these two cows, man. You got to have some of this milk. Far out! Awesome!


DARWINISM: You have two cows. They develop opposable thumbs and milk you.

ENVIRONMENTALISM: You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them.


PACIFISM: You have two cows. They stampede you.

PLATONISM: You have a reflection of two perfect cows. Their milk tastes like water. You look for two real cows to milk.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: You are associated with two differently-aged bovines of non-specified gender.


SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Social Additives - Beware



Beware of Societal Artificial Preservatives


The idea behind using an additive is to enhance or improve a process or substance. However, the additive itself could be destructive. When we think of additives, our first thought is artificial preservatives used in food. I have noticed a surprising similarity between food and ethics, which led me to the idea that our culture is heading toward an unknown territory of societal dysfunction.

In the early part of the 20th century U.S. industry was conjuring up ways to mass produce methods to preserve food.
In prior centuries, popular ways of preservation were sun dried, or canned in jars, or salted the heck out of.  Thanks to refrigeration, food decay was delayed.
However, by the middle of the 20th century, the food industry got the bright idea to preserve foods with additional chemicals, which would add to shelf life in the store and at your home. 
Supporters considered this development a success; it allowed perishables sitting in the store or at your home to be left alone for extended periods of time without having them waste away. Consumers and retailers alike would lose less food, thus profiting in the end.
Everyone should have been happy, but this was not to be the case. Many of the chemical additives, such as nitrates, sulfides, and so on, were actually harming us. Allergies, respiratory illnesses, or other negative reactions began to appear throughout the following decades. Currently, there are so many chemicals in American’s food no one really knows to what affect these additives have on our body.
In recent decades, people have steered away from rolling the dice of food preservatives and have moved toward a simpler life style. Organic and natural foods are the mantra of today. Many people swear by the change, and the food industry has taken notice. Presently, it is not uncommon to see what used to be a tiny section in the stores now remodeled with large swaths of floor space for natural products. And cooking shows are very popular. People are replacing their rush toward the fast food restaurants with the old fashioned way of cooking at home.

In prior centuries, birth control was a form of discipline, religious virtues were passed down through family systems, and poverty was averted by providence and hard work. By the middle of the 20th century, ethical industrialists were figuring ways to mass produce the freedom from societal prisons; a few examples being unwanted pregnancies, stagnant religious views, and negative health conditions.
Thanks to educators, the medical community, and policy makers, ethical additives enhanced the lives of people throughout the U.S. Supporters considered this development a success; it freed American women from the prison of reproductive consequences with birth control, opened up a citizen’s religious tunnel vision with counseling, and tackled the downtrodden citizen with social welfare.
These additives should have brought happiness to the American household, but again this was not the case. Many of the societal additives began to show side effects in society.
Birth control, the first example, spawned some problems in the following decades. On one end of the scale were minor inconveniences such as mood changes and breast tenderness, at the other end was serious medical conditions, including the risk of cancer. Birth control also allowed mothers to stave off unwanted children. Thus, children were no longer a reason to develop a committed relationship and get married. By 2010, 48% of unwed women between 15 and 44 were cohabiting with a partner.
Religion, the second example, is not as it was. Persons (known as the Nones - those who are atheist or agnostic) are the fastest growing non-religious group in America. As societal pressure to conform to religion lessens, so too is the need to regulate births. Thus, the stigma for having a baby out of wedlock is no longer relevant. In 2013, nearly 50% of births are by unwed women.
The last example highlights the poor, who are still poor. Here too, even with the artificial preservatives (providing funds to enhance the lives of the poor) in half a century hardly has made a dent in the lives of the poor. Between 2008 and 2010, the number of able-bodied adults on food stamps increased from 2 million to 4 million. Providing funds to lift the poor out of poverty in the last several years have not only shown little improvement for the poor, but they have become poorer (see footnote).
These are three examples of how societal artificial preservatives can have serious side effects. And no one really knows to what extent these and other policies will affect our society in the future.  But I contend that these additives are hurting us…that ultimately our lives will become empty and without purpose.

Ultimately, people will have to decide whether or not to roll the dice of moral additives, or to return to the “old fashion” ideas of morality. It is my contention that we must realize that loose sex is like a loose cannon; being free from pledges has no honor like a long term commitment; and that the short term gain of throwing money to the needy doesn’t come close to the endless satisfaction of helping a person get a new job and career. In essence, old fashion isn’t a definition for old useless ideas; it’s a proven notion for good sense.





Fact links:





Sunday, June 2, 2013

Health Tips, Three


Summary of Health Tips, Three

1 Keep heart rate low.
2 Keep moving.
3 Keep belly small.


The summer months are upon us and it’s natural to think about wearing less clothes and pondering how we look. What I'm concerned about is how healthy we are...now and into old age. The three tips I just presented  above are the best and simplest indicators to a healthy long life. 

Everyone wants to be healthy…without doing anything. Sigh. Thanks for dreaming with me. Now let’s get down to work. Let me rephrase that. Let’s get down to fun work. If you follow these simple guidelines (all things being equal) I guarantee you good health.

1 Keep your heart rate low.
A lower heart rate (taken when you're at rest) implies an efficient heart and cardiovascular fitness. What is a low heart rate? There are some cases where an athlete’s resting heart rate could be as low as 40 beats per minute.  I’m not advocating we become elite athletes; most of us don’t have the time or inclination.  A normal heart rate for adults is between 60 and 100 beat per minute. Therefore, aim for 60 bpm.
With that said data shows that our life span will increase if our heart rate is low. See the link below:
My favorite method to measure heart rate: Place your index and third fingers either on your neck by your windpipe or inside your wrist (do not use your thumb – it has it’s own heart beat). Press your fingers down on the skin until you feel a pulse. When you find the pulse, count the number of beats for 15 seconds. Multiply this number by 4 and you’ve got your heart rate per minute.
If your heart rate is at the high end (over 80) I seriously recommend you start some sort of exercise program soon. It doesn't have to be complicated…see tip number 2.
2 Keep moving.
The more you move, the healthier your heart (and everything else) will be. High blood pressure is one of the greatest risk factors for heart disease. A good normal reading is 110-130 (systolic) over 65-85).  Higher than this range is called Hypertension and lower than this is called Hypotension…neither of which is good.
How much exercise should you do if either heart rate or blood pressure is out of the norm? The good news is that you don’t have to do a lot. Just do more than what you’re doing. I know, that’s not a lot of help.  Most experts recommend 30 minutes of exercise a day. The better good news is that you can split up that 30 minutes into 2 or 3 chunks and still get the same benefits. See the link below:
The goal is to get your heart rate up and keep it up until the exercise is completed. Walk, take stairs, run, jog, lift low weights, row – anything that brings up your heart rate will work.
The important thing is that you map out a plan for the week and use it as a guide. If you can’t do 30 minutes a day (or three 10 minute sessions a day) seven times a week, then plan to do it three times a week. On off days mow the lawn or do other household chores that bring up your heart rate.
As you improve (I’m guessing within three weeks), you will notice that it becomes easier to accomplish the same exercise and your heart rate will decrease. At that point, I suggest that you make your exercise either longer on more difficult to achieve even greater success. Another thing you will notice – your belly will get smaller. Which leads me to the next topic.
3 Keep your belly small.
In short, excess belly fat is bad. I’m referring only to the excess fat around ones mid section.
A doctor friend of mine calls it Cardiac Belly; with the assumption that there is a correlation between belly fat and heart disease. As belly fat increases – so does heart disease, when belly fat decreases – so drops heart disease.  As we age (and our hormones decrease), our bodies start to loose muscle mass and gain fat. It is vital that to maintain good health into old age, stomach size should be managed. 
Too much fat also interferes with other hormonal and blood vessel activity. My focus is on belly fat because it is a simple indicator of what the total body is going through. See link below:
How much is excess? Everyone is different, but I think we all know that ripples are great and potbellies are not. I’m sorry, I didn't mean to make you feel like crap at this moment, but don’t panic. Most people in the U.S. have too much belly fat. Our society encourages us to eat and live poorly. But it really is easier to change than you might think, and you can still have your cake and eat it too. J
How to reduce belly fat? Don't worry about doing a strenuous regiment of sit-ups. It’s more important to eat a little less and/or exercise a little more in general. To ensure you don’t go through a traumatic experience and drop the whole idea within a week, I suggest doing it one small step at a time.
I recommend eliminating one extra soda a day, junk food, or anything that is a useless food…like doughnuts. They are what I call awesome non-foods. If you just won't give them up, eat one instead of two. [Side note: If a person only smells the food deeply, it gives pleasure close to that of actually eating it].
Do tips #1 and #2 along with a little better food control and you won’t believe how good you will feel and how much you will be able to accomplish on a daily routine. And more importantly, you will have a longer and healthier life. These are quick, easy, and potent tips to live by.

Keep the faith! And as Spock would say, "live long and prosper."