There's this new site that I recommend,
http://tearingdownthewall.org/
Very modest target in a very short time for a very important mission.
Berlin wall fell down 2 decades ago. But there are lots of walls still standing, and even plentier ones are being erected somewhere.
What's your wall?
tear it down!
My wall is like this:
The biggest wall for us here in the Philippines and I guess in most other countries, is the abdication of the majority of people to assert their individual freedom by asserting their individual, parental, corporate and community responsibility. It is easy for the State and its politicians to retain past interventions, regulations and taxation, and to introduce new ones or expand existing ones. They do not need physical threats like the use of guns, the police, army and the prison bars. They only need a group of intellectuals and academics, media people, articulate NGO leaders and other activist groups, to extoll the beauty of forced collectivism, highlight the merits of social equity and demonize inequality and diversity.
So, again, please visit the site and make modest contributions.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
China Watch 6: China-India Blog, Eco-Protectionism
My good friend from Delhi, India, Barun Mitra, opened a new blog called
http://chinaindiacitizensinitiative.blogspot.com/
It's a good blog, it encourages the citizens of the two biggest countries in the world in terms of population size to a civil and high level discussion and dialogue.
One of Barun's posting is entitled "China and India agree on a common platform on climate change". It was a good observation by Barun that the 2 countries have formed a number of important joint positions, like (a) both will not agree to legally-binding norms, (b) both will oppose trade barriers linked to climate change issues, and (c) both will undertake joint mitigation activities to reduce carbon emission.
I am just wondering if there are enough known Indian and Chinese climate scientists, preferably solar physicists, who can explain to the Environment Ministry, the legislators and the public of both countries, that the current global cooling and deep solar minimum is a prelude to a Dalton Minimum type of 2 or more decades of severe cooling. And that CO2 has very little or nothing to do with global climate.
The environmental scammers and bureaucrats cannot understand solar cycle dynamics and Sun-climate link. They only understand CO2-warming theory and even this theory is highly discredited by current global cooling, at least over the past 7 years.
Australia's parliament set a good precedent by killing PM Rudd's cap and trade or emission trading system (ETS) bill. I sincerely hope that India and China governments will kill efforts to propagate poverty by making their otherwise cheap energy sources very expensive to "fight" a non-existent enemy. It should be impossible for China and India to grow fast and lift from poverty hundreds of millions of their poor citizens if their energy sources become very expensive. Even the poorest rice farmer need gasoline for his hand tractor. Even the poorest rural villagers need some electricity for their house, for their children's studies. Now the UN IPCC and FCCC bureaucrats, almost all of whom are non-scientists (Pachauri of IPCC is an economist, de Boer of FCCC is a diplomat), want energy prices to be as expensive as possible even for the poor countries, so that said bureaucrats can "save" the Earth from global warming?
A related note, below is my oped paper that was published by The China Post: last April:
What's killing the poor is poverty
Friday, April 4, 2008
By Nonoy Oplas, Special to The China Post
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/the%20china%20post/special%20to%20the%20china%20post/2008/04/04/150307/p1/What%27s-killing.htm
There is a growing notion that rich countries should slash imports from poor countries whose antiquated factories are heavy carbon emitters: this eco-protectionism is in fact good old-fashioned protectionism and would hit the poor hardest.
"We want a binding decision now that we will take measures to protect [EU] industries in 2012 in case there is not agreement," European Union Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso told London's The Times this March, talking about import curbs to protect Europe's energy-intensive industries.
Import duties or compulsory carbon quota purchases on goods "from countries that refuse [carbon] restriction efforts seems therefore indispensable," French President Nicolas Sarkozy wrote to Barroso in January.
This week, the U.N. official in charge of climate talks on climate change in Bangkok, Yvo de Boer, evoked the specter of "food miles" -- a tax on imported food: the greater the distance, the higher the fee. In fact, you get fewer carbon emissions overall by growing green beans in Kenya and flying them to Europe in big bad aeroplanes than you do by growing them in Europe and selling them at a charming rural farmers' market.
This is just another protectionist racket that would do little or nothing to reduce carbon emissions. What it would do is push up food prices at a time when high prices are causing street protests from Mexico to India and Cote d'Ivoire.
Such trade sanctions would slow down worldwide economic growth but not climate change.
Trade barriers would not even help industries in developed countries. After benefiting a few industries in the short-term, they would eventually raise costs for industry and consumers -- stifling growth, innovation and competitivity in world markets.
"Goals to reduce EU emissions by 50-80 percent by 2050 are pointless if this is done through pollution displacement -- by increasingly importing CO2-intensive products from the rest of the world. For the EU to reduce its global CO2 emissions, systemic changes to the European economy are needed," a recent World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) report said. The WWF wants developed countries to import "cleaner" goods but climate activists, unions, Barroso and Sarkozy want developed countries to cut their imports of CO2-intensive goods, especially from China, India, South Africa and Brazil. The European Trade Union Confederation demands "carbon taxes" on imports.
Copyright © 2008 The China Post.
--------
See also:
China Watch 1: World's Largest Economies, Population, 2005, April 20, 2006
China Watch 2: China's Tourism, May 17, 2006
China Watch 3: World's Largest Traders, 2004, June 03, 2006
China Watch 4: Chinese Nationalism, Tibet, April 23, 2008
China Watch 5: China's New Patent Law, February 10, 2009
http://chinaindiacitizensinitiative.blogspot.com/
It's a good blog, it encourages the citizens of the two biggest countries in the world in terms of population size to a civil and high level discussion and dialogue.
One of Barun's posting is entitled "China and India agree on a common platform on climate change". It was a good observation by Barun that the 2 countries have formed a number of important joint positions, like (a) both will not agree to legally-binding norms, (b) both will oppose trade barriers linked to climate change issues, and (c) both will undertake joint mitigation activities to reduce carbon emission.
I am just wondering if there are enough known Indian and Chinese climate scientists, preferably solar physicists, who can explain to the Environment Ministry, the legislators and the public of both countries, that the current global cooling and deep solar minimum is a prelude to a Dalton Minimum type of 2 or more decades of severe cooling. And that CO2 has very little or nothing to do with global climate.
The environmental scammers and bureaucrats cannot understand solar cycle dynamics and Sun-climate link. They only understand CO2-warming theory and even this theory is highly discredited by current global cooling, at least over the past 7 years.
Australia's parliament set a good precedent by killing PM Rudd's cap and trade or emission trading system (ETS) bill. I sincerely hope that India and China governments will kill efforts to propagate poverty by making their otherwise cheap energy sources very expensive to "fight" a non-existent enemy. It should be impossible for China and India to grow fast and lift from poverty hundreds of millions of their poor citizens if their energy sources become very expensive. Even the poorest rice farmer need gasoline for his hand tractor. Even the poorest rural villagers need some electricity for their house, for their children's studies. Now the UN IPCC and FCCC bureaucrats, almost all of whom are non-scientists (Pachauri of IPCC is an economist, de Boer of FCCC is a diplomat), want energy prices to be as expensive as possible even for the poor countries, so that said bureaucrats can "save" the Earth from global warming?
A related note, below is my oped paper that was published by The China Post: last April:
What's killing the poor is poverty
Friday, April 4, 2008
By Nonoy Oplas, Special to The China Post
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/the%20china%20post/special%20to%20the%20china%20post/2008/04/04/150307/p1/What%27s-killing.htm
There is a growing notion that rich countries should slash imports from poor countries whose antiquated factories are heavy carbon emitters: this eco-protectionism is in fact good old-fashioned protectionism and would hit the poor hardest.
"We want a binding decision now that we will take measures to protect [EU] industries in 2012 in case there is not agreement," European Union Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso told London's The Times this March, talking about import curbs to protect Europe's energy-intensive industries.
Import duties or compulsory carbon quota purchases on goods "from countries that refuse [carbon] restriction efforts seems therefore indispensable," French President Nicolas Sarkozy wrote to Barroso in January.
This week, the U.N. official in charge of climate talks on climate change in Bangkok, Yvo de Boer, evoked the specter of "food miles" -- a tax on imported food: the greater the distance, the higher the fee. In fact, you get fewer carbon emissions overall by growing green beans in Kenya and flying them to Europe in big bad aeroplanes than you do by growing them in Europe and selling them at a charming rural farmers' market.
This is just another protectionist racket that would do little or nothing to reduce carbon emissions. What it would do is push up food prices at a time when high prices are causing street protests from Mexico to India and Cote d'Ivoire.
Such trade sanctions would slow down worldwide economic growth but not climate change.
Trade barriers would not even help industries in developed countries. After benefiting a few industries in the short-term, they would eventually raise costs for industry and consumers -- stifling growth, innovation and competitivity in world markets.
"Goals to reduce EU emissions by 50-80 percent by 2050 are pointless if this is done through pollution displacement -- by increasingly importing CO2-intensive products from the rest of the world. For the EU to reduce its global CO2 emissions, systemic changes to the European economy are needed," a recent World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) report said. The WWF wants developed countries to import "cleaner" goods but climate activists, unions, Barroso and Sarkozy want developed countries to cut their imports of CO2-intensive goods, especially from China, India, South Africa and Brazil. The European Trade Union Confederation demands "carbon taxes" on imports.
Copyright © 2008 The China Post.
--------
See also:
China Watch 1: World's Largest Economies, Population, 2005, April 20, 2006
China Watch 2: China's Tourism, May 17, 2006
China Watch 3: World's Largest Traders, 2004, June 03, 2006
China Watch 4: Chinese Nationalism, Tibet, April 23, 2008
China Watch 5: China's New Patent Law, February 10, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Inequality 1: Rich Getting Richer is Good
Most people shudder at the thought that the "rich are getting richer" because the next phrase or sentece will be, "and the poor getting poorer". While concern for inequality in society is understandable, it should not be used as a reason or excuse to pull down the super-rich via high taxes and multiple regulations, so that the government will have more money to subsidize and uplift the poor.
By being super-rich, they immeidately pull up many people out of poverty. Compare a middle-income person who earns $1,000 a month, and a super-rich man who earns $1 million a month. In Philippine context, the former will be driving his own car and will have one house helper and would probably be renting a house. The latter will have 3 or more big houses and each house will have several employees (cleaners, cook, gardeners, electrician, etc.), will have a fleet of cars and have several drivers and mechanics, will have one or more big corporations hiring several thousands of staff and personnel.
While remaining poor for several generations in a clan is a bad thing, poverty for some is self-inflicted like the lazy, irresponsible and dishonest. They may be hard workers but if they are also party hard too often (say they work 6 days a week but they also drink and party 6 or 7 nights a week) and do not save enough for the rainy days, then poverty is the logical consequence.
Societies will be better off if inequality among people is respected. There is no limit to what the super-efficient, highly ambitious and hard working people can do. And there is also no limit or bottom to the poverty and misery of the incorregible irresponsible, zero ambition and lazy people.
Thus, instead of demonizing the super-rich, societies should respect and encourage more people to become super-rich.
What government should do is to simplify business regulations, drastically reduce business bureaucracies, open up the market to more foreign competition, reduce or control local oligarchy due to protectionism against foreign competition, promulgate the rule of law.
-------
Meanwhile, Forbes magazine released early this week its "The Philippines' 40 richest"
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/86/philippines-billionaires-09_The-Philippines-40-Richest_Rank.html
Name Net Worth ($ mill) Age
1 Henry Sy 3,800 84
2 Lucio Tan 1,700 75
3 Jaime Zobel de Ayala 1,200 75
4 Andrew Tan 850 57
5 John Gokongwei 720 82
6 Tony Tan Caktiong 710 59
7 Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. 660 74
8 Enrique Razon Jr. 620 49
9 Manuel Villar 530 59
10 George Ty 515 76
....
....
....
....
This report was picked up by some Philippine broadsheets, like this report,
"RP's richest getting richer"
The Philippine Star, August 29, 2009
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=500397&publicationSubCategoryId=68
On the above list of 10 richest Filipinos, 3 of them can be suspected of having gotten very rich because of politics. Cojuangco got very rich during the Marcos administration and was able to sustain his wealth in the succeeding administrations. He heads a big political party while 2 of his sons are Congressmen. Villar is a politician, was former House Speaker and former Senate President, now still a Senator running for President in May 2010 elections. While Razon is closely connected with past and current administrations.
All the other 7 super-rich Filipinos made money out of entrepreneurship. Of course, in an environment of heavy government regulation and intervention, it is impossible for any entrepreneur to become very big unless they have to play some politics. But such practice is kept to the minimum as the bigger part of work is on consolidating and expanding their businesses.
By being super-rich, they immeidately pull up many people out of poverty. Compare a middle-income person who earns $1,000 a month, and a super-rich man who earns $1 million a month. In Philippine context, the former will be driving his own car and will have one house helper and would probably be renting a house. The latter will have 3 or more big houses and each house will have several employees (cleaners, cook, gardeners, electrician, etc.), will have a fleet of cars and have several drivers and mechanics, will have one or more big corporations hiring several thousands of staff and personnel.
While remaining poor for several generations in a clan is a bad thing, poverty for some is self-inflicted like the lazy, irresponsible and dishonest. They may be hard workers but if they are also party hard too often (say they work 6 days a week but they also drink and party 6 or 7 nights a week) and do not save enough for the rainy days, then poverty is the logical consequence.
Societies will be better off if inequality among people is respected. There is no limit to what the super-efficient, highly ambitious and hard working people can do. And there is also no limit or bottom to the poverty and misery of the incorregible irresponsible, zero ambition and lazy people.
Thus, instead of demonizing the super-rich, societies should respect and encourage more people to become super-rich.
What government should do is to simplify business regulations, drastically reduce business bureaucracies, open up the market to more foreign competition, reduce or control local oligarchy due to protectionism against foreign competition, promulgate the rule of law.
-------
Meanwhile, Forbes magazine released early this week its "The Philippines' 40 richest"
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/86/philippines-billionaires-09_The-Philippines-40-Richest_Rank.html
Name Net Worth ($ mill) Age
1 Henry Sy 3,800 84
2 Lucio Tan 1,700 75
3 Jaime Zobel de Ayala 1,200 75
4 Andrew Tan 850 57
5 John Gokongwei 720 82
6 Tony Tan Caktiong 710 59
7 Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. 660 74
8 Enrique Razon Jr. 620 49
9 Manuel Villar 530 59
10 George Ty 515 76
....
....
....
....
This report was picked up by some Philippine broadsheets, like this report,
"RP's richest getting richer"
The Philippine Star, August 29, 2009
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=500397&publicationSubCategoryId=68
On the above list of 10 richest Filipinos, 3 of them can be suspected of having gotten very rich because of politics. Cojuangco got very rich during the Marcos administration and was able to sustain his wealth in the succeeding administrations. He heads a big political party while 2 of his sons are Congressmen. Villar is a politician, was former House Speaker and former Senate President, now still a Senator running for President in May 2010 elections. While Razon is closely connected with past and current administrations.
All the other 7 super-rich Filipinos made money out of entrepreneurship. Of course, in an environment of heavy government regulation and intervention, it is impossible for any entrepreneur to become very big unless they have to play some politics. But such practice is kept to the minimum as the bigger part of work is on consolidating and expanding their businesses.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Adam Smith's economic morals
We uploaded in our website, www.minimalgovernment.net, 2 papers the other day. The author of the first paper, Dr. Emmanuel de Dios, was my former professor in my undergrad and now the Dean, University of the Philippines, School of Economics (UPSE). Definitely among the brightest economic minds in this country, and definitely among the non-Statist economists too.
Here he reviewed and discussed Adam Smith's 2 books, Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS) and the Wealth of Nations (WN). Really fantastic way of connecting the "common denominator" of Smith's philosophical and economic works.
I told Sir Noel that Adam Smith's philosophical and economic ideas almost perfectly match our advocacies in MG. We ourselves do not advocate zero government just Minimal Government, similar to Smith's Minimal State. The liberals, european liberals I mean, call it Lean State, big emphasis on the role of markets and individual choice/freedom and individual responsibility.
In case you are interested to also post his paper in your blog or website, let me know so I can give you his email address to inform him.
The second paper is my own discussion of the evil of re-introducing re-regulation of the local oil industry.
I copy-pasted a few relevant paragraphs of the 2 papers below.
----------
(1) Smith’s Economic Morals: An Introduction
by Emmanuel S. de Dios, PhD,
July 2009 (15 pages)
http://www.minimalgovernment.net/media/ed_200907.pdf
(originally posted at UPSE's website,
http://www.econ. upd.edu.ph/ respub/dp/ pdf/DP2009- 04.pdf)
... Underlying Smith’s argument is his fundamental claim that it is in people’s nature to engage in reciprocal exchange for mutual benefit. Smith calls this "an inherent tendency to truck and barter". It will be seen that this is in fact an extension of the moral philosophy Smith had already laid down in the TMS. On the one hand, people stand in need of each other’s assistance; on the other hand, there is no more reliable means of eliciting assistance than through an appeal to the other person’s self-love. While one may appeal to the another person’s charitable motives, this is an inherently weak incentive; the only reliable incentive is for him to realise that you can perform a service for him in exchange (do ut des = I give and you give). Hence this famous line:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages." [WN I.ii.2]
...Historically, Smith argued, the attempts of government to direct and manage the course of specialisation caused more harm than good. He criticised the then-prevailing system of economic philosophy, mercantilism, for its wrong-headed ideas of protecting certain sectors of the economy, discriminating against foreign goods, and creating monopolies. While the natural price was the lowest that could be gotten in the long run, monopolies raised prices to "the highest which can be got" [WN I.vii.27]. The main reason this occurred was that lobbies frequently managed to persuade lawmakers that "the prosperity of the nation depended upon the success and extension of their particular business"
Finally, as already noted, Smith also criticised the fiscal profligacy of governments, which reduced the capital available for investment (now known as the "crowding-out" effect). He thought it presumptuous that governments should presume to lecture private individuals regarding how to spend their resources:
"Great nations are never impoverished by private, though they are sometimes by public prodigality and misconduct." [WN II.iii(2).10]
"It is the highest impertinence and presumption…in kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expence, either by sumptuary laws, or by prohibiting the importation of foreign luxuries. They are themselves always, and without exception, the greater spendthrifts in the society. Let them look after their own expence, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will." [WN II.iii(2).36]
(2) Consumers' welfare through deregulation, not politicized pricing
by Nonoy Oplas
August 26, 2009 (4 pages)
http://www.minimalgovernment.net/media/mg_20090826.pdf
".... Price regulation means politicized pricing. Politicians and government bureaucrats, not the sellers and consumers in the supply-demand dynamics, will determine what is the “appropriate” price of the regulated commodity. When demand would increase significantly, say people suddenly have extra income, or they over-spend their savings for a big fiesta or festival, etc., prices will rise when suppliers did not anticipate such big increase in demand. But under a politicized pricing regime, prices should remain where they are unless the price regulators and bureaucrats will say, “Yes, you may raise your prices, but only at this level; in addition,…”
Renewed oil price control scheme will attract the most corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. The corrupt will be so thrilled to have the power to say “Yes” or “No” to all applications for price adjustment by ALL corporations and players. All they have to do is to delay by one day, one week, one month, any upward price adjustments regardless of the reason, in order to force those companies to give them bribes so that price adjustments will be acted upon quickly...."
Here he reviewed and discussed Adam Smith's 2 books, Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS) and the Wealth of Nations (WN). Really fantastic way of connecting the "common denominator" of Smith's philosophical and economic works.
I told Sir Noel that Adam Smith's philosophical and economic ideas almost perfectly match our advocacies in MG. We ourselves do not advocate zero government just Minimal Government, similar to Smith's Minimal State. The liberals, european liberals I mean, call it Lean State, big emphasis on the role of markets and individual choice/freedom and individual responsibility.
In case you are interested to also post his paper in your blog or website, let me know so I can give you his email address to inform him.
The second paper is my own discussion of the evil of re-introducing re-regulation of the local oil industry.
I copy-pasted a few relevant paragraphs of the 2 papers below.
----------
(1) Smith’s Economic Morals: An Introduction
by Emmanuel S. de Dios, PhD,
July 2009 (15 pages)
http://www.minimalgovernment.net/media/ed_200907.pdf
(originally posted at UPSE's website,
http://www.econ. upd.edu.ph/ respub/dp/ pdf/DP2009- 04.pdf)
... Underlying Smith’s argument is his fundamental claim that it is in people’s nature to engage in reciprocal exchange for mutual benefit. Smith calls this "an inherent tendency to truck and barter". It will be seen that this is in fact an extension of the moral philosophy Smith had already laid down in the TMS. On the one hand, people stand in need of each other’s assistance; on the other hand, there is no more reliable means of eliciting assistance than through an appeal to the other person’s self-love. While one may appeal to the another person’s charitable motives, this is an inherently weak incentive; the only reliable incentive is for him to realise that you can perform a service for him in exchange (do ut des = I give and you give). Hence this famous line:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages." [WN I.ii.2]
...Historically, Smith argued, the attempts of government to direct and manage the course of specialisation caused more harm than good. He criticised the then-prevailing system of economic philosophy, mercantilism, for its wrong-headed ideas of protecting certain sectors of the economy, discriminating against foreign goods, and creating monopolies. While the natural price was the lowest that could be gotten in the long run, monopolies raised prices to "the highest which can be got" [WN I.vii.27]. The main reason this occurred was that lobbies frequently managed to persuade lawmakers that "the prosperity of the nation depended upon the success and extension of their particular business"
Finally, as already noted, Smith also criticised the fiscal profligacy of governments, which reduced the capital available for investment (now known as the "crowding-out" effect). He thought it presumptuous that governments should presume to lecture private individuals regarding how to spend their resources:
"Great nations are never impoverished by private, though they are sometimes by public prodigality and misconduct." [WN II.iii(2).10]
"It is the highest impertinence and presumption…in kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expence, either by sumptuary laws, or by prohibiting the importation of foreign luxuries. They are themselves always, and without exception, the greater spendthrifts in the society. Let them look after their own expence, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will." [WN II.iii(2).36]
(2) Consumers' welfare through deregulation, not politicized pricing
by Nonoy Oplas
August 26, 2009 (4 pages)
http://www.minimalgovernment.net/media/mg_20090826.pdf
".... Price regulation means politicized pricing. Politicians and government bureaucrats, not the sellers and consumers in the supply-demand dynamics, will determine what is the “appropriate” price of the regulated commodity. When demand would increase significantly, say people suddenly have extra income, or they over-spend their savings for a big fiesta or festival, etc., prices will rise when suppliers did not anticipate such big increase in demand. But under a politicized pricing regime, prices should remain where they are unless the price regulators and bureaucrats will say, “Yes, you may raise your prices, but only at this level; in addition,…”
Renewed oil price control scheme will attract the most corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. The corrupt will be so thrilled to have the power to say “Yes” or “No” to all applications for price adjustment by ALL corporations and players. All they have to do is to delay by one day, one week, one month, any upward price adjustments regardless of the reason, in order to force those companies to give them bribes so that price adjustments will be acted upon quickly...."
Saturday, August 22, 2009
School choice, Swedish experience
Dan Mitchell of Cato went to Stockholm this week to attend the Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) meeting. I know some friends from the US and UK who attended the said meeting. Anyway, Dan posted this in his blog:
The Mayor of Stockholm... mentioned that the number of students in private schools had skyrocketed after the implementation of Sweden’s school choice program... The number of students attending private high schools has jumped from 1.7 percent in 1992 to 19.5 percent in 2008. Not surprisingly, the quality of education is high. Indeed, researchers have looked at the data and concluded that, “Our findings support the hypothesis that school results in public schools improve due to competition.”
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/powerful-evidence-for-school-choice/#comment-97
A Swedish friend, the Sec-Gen of the World Taxpayers Association (WTA), Bjorn Tarras Wahlberg, once discussed how the Swedish Taxpayers Association of which he was a key leader then, succeeded in the campaign for "half left" or personal income tax cut to 50 percent, from something like 70 or 80 percent top marginal income tax rate. But after a few years, the income tax rate went up to something like 62 percent. I supposed this has gone down again?
Many parents will not be able to send their children to private schools and pay high school fees, if their take home pay is small due to high personal income tax.
In the Philippines, most middle class and upper class parents send their children to private schools, from pre-school to university. Private schools are very responsive to parents' needs. There is also a wide variety of education "specialties" in elementary and secondary schools.
Of course the State still insist in taking as much taxes from us as it says that education is "government responsibility and not parental responsibility".
The Mayor of Stockholm... mentioned that the number of students in private schools had skyrocketed after the implementation of Sweden’s school choice program... The number of students attending private high schools has jumped from 1.7 percent in 1992 to 19.5 percent in 2008. Not surprisingly, the quality of education is high. Indeed, researchers have looked at the data and concluded that, “Our findings support the hypothesis that school results in public schools improve due to competition.”
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/powerful-evidence-for-school-choice/#comment-97
A Swedish friend, the Sec-Gen of the World Taxpayers Association (WTA), Bjorn Tarras Wahlberg, once discussed how the Swedish Taxpayers Association of which he was a key leader then, succeeded in the campaign for "half left" or personal income tax cut to 50 percent, from something like 70 or 80 percent top marginal income tax rate. But after a few years, the income tax rate went up to something like 62 percent. I supposed this has gone down again?
Many parents will not be able to send their children to private schools and pay high school fees, if their take home pay is small due to high personal income tax.
In the Philippines, most middle class and upper class parents send their children to private schools, from pre-school to university. Private schools are very responsive to parents' needs. There is also a wide variety of education "specialties" in elementary and secondary schools.
Of course the State still insist in taking as much taxes from us as it says that education is "government responsibility and not parental responsibility".
High remittance fees for overseas workers
High cost of sending money home is one of the problems of those working abroad. In the Philippines, bank charges are normally around 5 percent of the amount sent, up to 10 percent if coming from certain countries.
I do not know the mechanics in sending the money why some 5 percent or more is taken away by the banks. But I suspect that certain government taxes and fees should be among the biggest factirs why remittance charges are generally high.
Below is a portion of a news report on the subject.
-------
Filipinos Abroad Pay a Lot to Remit Money Home
Inquirer.net, News Feature, Posted: Aug 19, 2009
MANILA, Philippines—Filipinos around the world pay between $6.93 and $19.05 to remit $200 to their families back home, the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) quoted a World Bank study of global money transfer charges as of the first quarter of 2009.
In a statement, the TUCP secretary general Ernesto Herrera said Filipino workers in
a) the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia pay an average of $6.93 remittance fee, whether they transmit $500 or $200.
b) Spain follow next, shelling out an average of $12.42 to dispatch $500, or $10.64 to transfer $200.
c) Germany pay out an average of $13.06 to forward $500, or $11.07 to convey $200.
d) United States spend an average of $12.79 to send $500 home to their families in the Philippines, or an average of $11.45 to remit $200.
e) United Kingdom shell out an average of $17.75 to wire $500, or $14.40 to transfer $200.
f) Italy spend an average of $22.28 to send $500, or $19.05 to remit $200....
--------
See the news report here,
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=9ee03bdd0a848b464d1462be15c8e571
I do not know the mechanics in sending the money why some 5 percent or more is taken away by the banks. But I suspect that certain government taxes and fees should be among the biggest factirs why remittance charges are generally high.
Below is a portion of a news report on the subject.
-------
Filipinos Abroad Pay a Lot to Remit Money Home
Inquirer.net, News Feature, Posted: Aug 19, 2009
MANILA, Philippines—Filipinos around the world pay between $6.93 and $19.05 to remit $200 to their families back home, the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) quoted a World Bank study of global money transfer charges as of the first quarter of 2009.
In a statement, the TUCP secretary general Ernesto Herrera said Filipino workers in
a) the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia pay an average of $6.93 remittance fee, whether they transmit $500 or $200.
b) Spain follow next, shelling out an average of $12.42 to dispatch $500, or $10.64 to transfer $200.
c) Germany pay out an average of $13.06 to forward $500, or $11.07 to convey $200.
d) United States spend an average of $12.79 to send $500 home to their families in the Philippines, or an average of $11.45 to remit $200.
e) United Kingdom shell out an average of $17.75 to wire $500, or $14.40 to transfer $200.
f) Italy spend an average of $22.28 to send $500, or $19.05 to remit $200....
--------
See the news report here,
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=9ee03bdd0a848b464d1462be15c8e571
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
"Predatory pricing" in Manila Times
My latest paper, "Unintentional predatory pricing via government price control" (August 4, 2009) was reported in the Manila Times. The reporter, Ms. Ira Karen Apanay, was there during the "Health Forum" that day.
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2009/aug/05/yehey/metro/20090805met5.html
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Generic-drug makers see drop in revenue
THE revenue of the local producers of generic drugs would be greatly affected once the government implements the Cheaper Medicines law on August 15.
Bienvenido Oplas Jr., president of the Minimal Government Thinkers Inc., said the local pharmaceutical companies would have to adjust their current selling prices of generic medicines once the multinational pharmaceutical companies slash their medicine’s prices into half in compliance with the law.
Oplas explained that the local pharmaceutical companies could still bring down their prices up to 50 percent, but they may have to lay off some of their medical representatives, “or they will shut down.”
The Cheaper Medicines Act of 2008 requires pharmaceutical companies to comply with the government’s own pricelist, to be sure that the poor and middle-income earners can afford the medicines being sold in pharmacies.
Oplas said the local companies will be forced to reduce again their present selling price to be competitive.
Willy Fabroa, public relations officer for the Philippine Chamber of Pharmaceutical Industries, said the local pharmaceutical companies currently produce more than 200 molecules, which are only equivalent to 500 dosage forms of generic medicines in the country. But the multinational pharmaceutical companies produces more than 600 molecules, which mean that the consumers need to buy branded medicines that the locals cannot produce.
-- Ira Karen Apanay
-----
Then this news report was picked up by Asia Business Daily,
http://article.wn.com/view/2009/08/05/Genericdrug_makers_see_drop_in_revenue/
Generic-drug makers see drop in revenue The Manila Times 2009-08-05
THE revenue of the local producers of generic drugs would be greatly affected once the government implements the Cheaper Medicines law on August 15. Bienvenido Oplas Jr., president of the Minimal Government Thinkers Inc., said the local pharmaceutical companies would have to adjust their...
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2009/aug/05/yehey/metro/20090805met5.html
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Generic-drug makers see drop in revenue
THE revenue of the local producers of generic drugs would be greatly affected once the government implements the Cheaper Medicines law on August 15.
Bienvenido Oplas Jr., president of the Minimal Government Thinkers Inc., said the local pharmaceutical companies would have to adjust their current selling prices of generic medicines once the multinational pharmaceutical companies slash their medicine’s prices into half in compliance with the law.
Oplas explained that the local pharmaceutical companies could still bring down their prices up to 50 percent, but they may have to lay off some of their medical representatives, “or they will shut down.”
The Cheaper Medicines Act of 2008 requires pharmaceutical companies to comply with the government’s own pricelist, to be sure that the poor and middle-income earners can afford the medicines being sold in pharmacies.
Oplas said the local companies will be forced to reduce again their present selling price to be competitive.
Willy Fabroa, public relations officer for the Philippine Chamber of Pharmaceutical Industries, said the local pharmaceutical companies currently produce more than 200 molecules, which are only equivalent to 500 dosage forms of generic medicines in the country. But the multinational pharmaceutical companies produces more than 600 molecules, which mean that the consumers need to buy branded medicines that the locals cannot produce.
-- Ira Karen Apanay
-----
Then this news report was picked up by Asia Business Daily,
http://article.wn.com/view/2009/08/05/Genericdrug_makers_see_drop_in_revenue/
Generic-drug makers see drop in revenue The Manila Times 2009-08-05
THE revenue of the local producers of generic drugs would be greatly affected once the government implements the Cheaper Medicines law on August 15. Bienvenido Oplas Jr., president of the Minimal Government Thinkers Inc., said the local pharmaceutical companies would have to adjust their...
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Warming Hysteria: Sunspots and Politics
"Astronomers: 'Sun's output may decline significantly inducing another little ice age on the Earth'
'Maunder Minimum will arrive in time to save planet from utterly foolish global carbon tax'"
That's the headline by Marc Morano,
http://climatedepot.com/a/2452/Astronomers-Suns-output-may-decline-significantly-inducing-another-little-ice-age-on-the-Earth
Marc quoted a number of solar physicists (Dr. William Livingston, Dr. Matthew Penn, Dr. Cornelius de Jager, etc.) who declared that
"regardless of the relation to the sunspot cycles, magnetic intensity in sunspots is decreasing and if this continues in the same way as it has for the last 15 years, the Sun will be devoid of sunspots in five years time: overall the Sun's energetic output will decline significantly inducing another little ice age on the Earth."
This is another significant scientific finding. There is too much science about the Sun, and even the cosmic rays coming from outside our solar system, that the public and policy makers especially, should consider and understand. Over-reliance in blaming carbon emission is too simplistic. There is heavy politics and rent-seeking in carbon regulations like carbon tax, carbon cap and trade, carbon offset, etc.
But as sure as the Sun rising tomorrow and everyday after, the truth about the Sun-climate link will come out.
When that time comes, I really wish that the United Nations, the mother of all climate alarmism bureaucracies in the planet, will be significantly defanged. I also wish that many of its agencies and programs be abolished. All they do is paint all the scariest projections about the planet and its inhabitants, in exchange for more tax money, more political and regulatory powers, and more expensive global meetings.
----------
As of August 13, NASA’s http://spaceweather.com/ has this tally in number of sunspot-less (i.e., zero sunspot) days:
Current Stretch: 34 days
2009 total: 176 days (78 percent)
Since 2004: 687 days
Typical Solar Min: 485 days
Since 01 January 2009 up to August 13, 176 out of 225 days or 78 percent of all days have zero sunspot. This is very significant. In terms of percentage of days with not a single sunspot, this year is already in the top three since 1849. If current slumber of the sun will continue for the rest of the year, we should be hitting 80 to 85 percent of zero sunspot days.
Over the past 160 years, the top five years with highest sunspot-less days were:
1. 1913, 311 days, 85 percent
2. 1901, 284 days, 78 percent
3. 1878, 278 days, 76 percent
4. 2008, 266 days, 73 percent
5. 1912, 253 days, 69 percent
Why is a prolonged stretch of zero sunspot important?
Long number of few or zero sunspot days means (a) weak solar magnetic field, weak solar wind, (b) more galactic cosmic rays enter the solar system including the Earth, weak solar wind to push them away, (c) more low-lying clouds are enhanced and formed, lots of sunlight are blocked, and (d) global cooling results. Such cooling has nothing or very little to do with CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
There are a number of proofs for the current global cooling. For instance, July 2009 was the coldest July or 2nd coldest July on record for at least 10 states in the US, see “July’s climate: chilly USA, torrid globe.”
Here in the Philippines, cloudy skies have been the norm since last year up to the present, which is consistent with the above-mentioned causation between few sunspots and low-lying clouds. The summer months of March-April-May this year were sidestepped by the prolonged “cold front” that started in late 2008 to April this year. The rainy season came 1 ½ month earlier, in mid-April, instead of the usual July. A number of farms planted to “summer crops” like tomato, onions and water melon were destroyed because of such early onset of the rains.
For the first half of August this year, two typhoons (local names “Jolina” and “Kiko”, international name of the latter was “Morakot”) pummeled the northern part of the country. Morakot killed at least 22 people in the Philippines despite not hitting a landfall, while it killed several hundred people in Taiwan. Too much rainfall eroded mountainsides that were previously thought to be stable, causing widespread landslides.
Meanwhile, the UN IPCC is preparing to produce its 5th Assessment Report (AR5) and the UN FCCC is busy conducting various global meetings prior to the big meeting in Copenhagen this coming December for a “post-Kyoto Protocol” agreements to drastically cut global emission of the “evil” gas, carbon dioxide (CO2).
Until the IPCC and many governments later demonized CO2 as an evil gas that causes global warming, this gas is known in the biological sciences as a very useful gas. It is the gas that we humans exhale, that our pets and farm animals exhale, and it is the gas that our vegetables, fruits, flowers and trees need when they produce their own food via photosynthesis. It is actually plant food.
Now the useful gas is pictured as evil that must be drastically reduced globally. Can environmental bureaucrats and politicians do it? Yes, they think they can. That is why they invented the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCCC), Kyoto Protocol, the various expensive global meetings to succeed Kyoto, and the various “anti-climate change” bureaucracies in so many governments, both national and local.
Their grand design is plain environmental regulation. They forget or they deliberately overlook the Sun, inter-planetary orbit around the sun, galactic cosmic rays, volcanoes, the ocean, and other natural causes. For them, only the evil CO2 matters.
Why is this so? Political science, not climate science, provides the answer. Environmental bureaucrats, politicians and their militant environmentalist group backers cannot regulate the Sun and its solar wind. They cannot regulate cosmic rays that come from outside the solar system. They cannot regulate volcanoes and ocean that contribute to emission and/or depository of certain greenhouse gases. But they can regulate carbon emission. So they play the global hero by demonizing this gas and reducing their emission, by regulating and curtailing human economic activities that emit this “evil”.
I believe that we should deal with soot, methane, CFC, lead, carbon monoxide, particulates, mercury, etc. These harmful chemicals and gases have both short-term and long-term negative effects on human health. We should have clean air, clean water, clean environment, mainly for their own sake. But not to "save" the planet because the planet is never in danger.
Because of the successful demonization of CO2 by the UN, many governments and the big environmentalist groups, a non-commodity like the gas that we exhale suddenly becomes a multi-billion dollar commodity.
The carbon cap and trade system was worth US$63 billion in 2007 and US$128 billion in 2008. That was cap and trade among private corporations alone in the EU and Japan. Not included there are corporations in the US, Canada, Australia, China, Brazil, India, Korea, etc. because some or all of them were either not signatory to the Kyoto Protocol yet, or were not covered by the deep carbon emission cut. Also not included are carbon taxes imposed by various governments. In the US for instance, the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill is estimated to bring home about US$5.7 trillion in the US federal coffer from 2012 to 2030, or US$317 billion/year in federal carbon taxes alone. These are plain carbon rent-seeking.
The trend in the current prolonged solar cycle 23 points to an even weaker solar cycles 24 and 25 (others say that we are in solar cycle 24 already), according to some known astrophysicists, geologists and meteorologists. This points to the Earth entering a little ice age period similar to what happened during the Dalton Minimum (two centuries ago) or the even cooler and longer Maundeer Minimum (three centuries ago). When this happens, people in the rich world will soon be praying for more gases that can help warm the planet. When those temperate countries in the north will have snow from November to June and only four to five months of no-snow, I am sure they will be praying for more carbon emission, if CO2 indeed causes global warming.
Among the useful websites to see the Sun-climate link and other hard sciences are:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/ by David Watts
http://www.icecap.us/ by Joe D’Aleo
http://climatedepot.com/ by Marc Morano
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ by Bob Ferguson, Willie Soon and Lord Moncton
http://www.weatheraction.com/ by Piers Corbyn
http://www.davidarchibald.info/ by David Archibald
There are many other sites actually that discuss the hard science of various external factors that influence the global climate. The above list is just among my favorite sites. Some sites, they just watch the current solar cycle, monitoring sunspots, magnetic field and the ap index. If one will compare the scientific rigor and research of those sites, and compare them with UN IPCC and climate alarmists’ sites, one will easily see the difference of how limited the scope of research of the latter.
-------
Defeat of carbon cap and trade bill in Australian Senate
Yesterday, the Australian Senate voted 42-30 junking the carbon cap and trade bill. It is still reverberating in many countries around the world, especially those that have similar legislative proposals to regulate and reduce the "evil" gas, CO2.
Partly a product of unlikely alliance between the Greens (wanted deeper carbon cuts) and the realists (no cuts). It's like James Hansen of NASA, among the top global warming alarmists today, rejecting the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill (despite having won in the lower House) because it's not making deep cuts enough.
Sometimes the rabid Greens and alarmists become too irrational that they defy even minor compromise, and worse, they defy hard science. The Sun, cosmic rays, geological changes (like volcanic eruption), the ocean, other natural factors are insignificant for them. Only the "evil" CO2 is significant for them, and the need to regulate it. And that's where Statist greed comes in.
Meanwhile, I hope that the US Senate will reject the W-M cap and trade bill. Obama and the Dems are having a hard time selling their health reform agenda, they got very little time to further scare the public and have it passed in the Senate.
Trivia: one thing i notice, the US legislators think they are encuclopedia readers.
The Waxman-Market bill is almost 1,400 pages long.
The current health care reform bill is 1,000+ pages long.
there should be some logic behind this, something like:
if you can't persuade them with terse and straight logic, confuse them.
Below is one of several news reports.
-----
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE57C0FL20090813
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia's carbon trading laws were defeated in parliament's upper house Senate on Thursday, leaving the government's plan to curb greenhouse-gas emissions in disarray and raising speculation of an early snap election.
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the government would submit the package of 11 bills to the Senate a second time before year-end. Thursday's vote was defeated by 42 to 30, meaning the government needs seven more votes to get the plan through.
'Maunder Minimum will arrive in time to save planet from utterly foolish global carbon tax'"
That's the headline by Marc Morano,
http://climatedepot.com/a/2452/Astronomers-Suns-output-may-decline-significantly-inducing-another-little-ice-age-on-the-Earth
Marc quoted a number of solar physicists (Dr. William Livingston, Dr. Matthew Penn, Dr. Cornelius de Jager, etc.) who declared that
"regardless of the relation to the sunspot cycles, magnetic intensity in sunspots is decreasing and if this continues in the same way as it has for the last 15 years, the Sun will be devoid of sunspots in five years time: overall the Sun's energetic output will decline significantly inducing another little ice age on the Earth."
This is another significant scientific finding. There is too much science about the Sun, and even the cosmic rays coming from outside our solar system, that the public and policy makers especially, should consider and understand. Over-reliance in blaming carbon emission is too simplistic. There is heavy politics and rent-seeking in carbon regulations like carbon tax, carbon cap and trade, carbon offset, etc.
But as sure as the Sun rising tomorrow and everyday after, the truth about the Sun-climate link will come out.
When that time comes, I really wish that the United Nations, the mother of all climate alarmism bureaucracies in the planet, will be significantly defanged. I also wish that many of its agencies and programs be abolished. All they do is paint all the scariest projections about the planet and its inhabitants, in exchange for more tax money, more political and regulatory powers, and more expensive global meetings.
----------
As of August 13, NASA’s http://spaceweather.com/ has this tally in number of sunspot-less (i.e., zero sunspot) days:
Current Stretch: 34 days
2009 total: 176 days (78 percent)
Since 2004: 687 days
Typical Solar Min: 485 days
Since 01 January 2009 up to August 13, 176 out of 225 days or 78 percent of all days have zero sunspot. This is very significant. In terms of percentage of days with not a single sunspot, this year is already in the top three since 1849. If current slumber of the sun will continue for the rest of the year, we should be hitting 80 to 85 percent of zero sunspot days.
Over the past 160 years, the top five years with highest sunspot-less days were:
1. 1913, 311 days, 85 percent
2. 1901, 284 days, 78 percent
3. 1878, 278 days, 76 percent
4. 2008, 266 days, 73 percent
5. 1912, 253 days, 69 percent
Why is a prolonged stretch of zero sunspot important?
Long number of few or zero sunspot days means (a) weak solar magnetic field, weak solar wind, (b) more galactic cosmic rays enter the solar system including the Earth, weak solar wind to push them away, (c) more low-lying clouds are enhanced and formed, lots of sunlight are blocked, and (d) global cooling results. Such cooling has nothing or very little to do with CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
There are a number of proofs for the current global cooling. For instance, July 2009 was the coldest July or 2nd coldest July on record for at least 10 states in the US, see “July’s climate: chilly USA, torrid globe.”
Here in the Philippines, cloudy skies have been the norm since last year up to the present, which is consistent with the above-mentioned causation between few sunspots and low-lying clouds. The summer months of March-April-May this year were sidestepped by the prolonged “cold front” that started in late 2008 to April this year. The rainy season came 1 ½ month earlier, in mid-April, instead of the usual July. A number of farms planted to “summer crops” like tomato, onions and water melon were destroyed because of such early onset of the rains.
For the first half of August this year, two typhoons (local names “Jolina” and “Kiko”, international name of the latter was “Morakot”) pummeled the northern part of the country. Morakot killed at least 22 people in the Philippines despite not hitting a landfall, while it killed several hundred people in Taiwan. Too much rainfall eroded mountainsides that were previously thought to be stable, causing widespread landslides.
Meanwhile, the UN IPCC is preparing to produce its 5th Assessment Report (AR5) and the UN FCCC is busy conducting various global meetings prior to the big meeting in Copenhagen this coming December for a “post-Kyoto Protocol” agreements to drastically cut global emission of the “evil” gas, carbon dioxide (CO2).
Until the IPCC and many governments later demonized CO2 as an evil gas that causes global warming, this gas is known in the biological sciences as a very useful gas. It is the gas that we humans exhale, that our pets and farm animals exhale, and it is the gas that our vegetables, fruits, flowers and trees need when they produce their own food via photosynthesis. It is actually plant food.
Now the useful gas is pictured as evil that must be drastically reduced globally. Can environmental bureaucrats and politicians do it? Yes, they think they can. That is why they invented the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCCC), Kyoto Protocol, the various expensive global meetings to succeed Kyoto, and the various “anti-climate change” bureaucracies in so many governments, both national and local.
Their grand design is plain environmental regulation. They forget or they deliberately overlook the Sun, inter-planetary orbit around the sun, galactic cosmic rays, volcanoes, the ocean, and other natural causes. For them, only the evil CO2 matters.
Why is this so? Political science, not climate science, provides the answer. Environmental bureaucrats, politicians and their militant environmentalist group backers cannot regulate the Sun and its solar wind. They cannot regulate cosmic rays that come from outside the solar system. They cannot regulate volcanoes and ocean that contribute to emission and/or depository of certain greenhouse gases. But they can regulate carbon emission. So they play the global hero by demonizing this gas and reducing their emission, by regulating and curtailing human economic activities that emit this “evil”.
I believe that we should deal with soot, methane, CFC, lead, carbon monoxide, particulates, mercury, etc. These harmful chemicals and gases have both short-term and long-term negative effects on human health. We should have clean air, clean water, clean environment, mainly for their own sake. But not to "save" the planet because the planet is never in danger.
Because of the successful demonization of CO2 by the UN, many governments and the big environmentalist groups, a non-commodity like the gas that we exhale suddenly becomes a multi-billion dollar commodity.
The carbon cap and trade system was worth US$63 billion in 2007 and US$128 billion in 2008. That was cap and trade among private corporations alone in the EU and Japan. Not included there are corporations in the US, Canada, Australia, China, Brazil, India, Korea, etc. because some or all of them were either not signatory to the Kyoto Protocol yet, or were not covered by the deep carbon emission cut. Also not included are carbon taxes imposed by various governments. In the US for instance, the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill is estimated to bring home about US$5.7 trillion in the US federal coffer from 2012 to 2030, or US$317 billion/year in federal carbon taxes alone. These are plain carbon rent-seeking.
The trend in the current prolonged solar cycle 23 points to an even weaker solar cycles 24 and 25 (others say that we are in solar cycle 24 already), according to some known astrophysicists, geologists and meteorologists. This points to the Earth entering a little ice age period similar to what happened during the Dalton Minimum (two centuries ago) or the even cooler and longer Maundeer Minimum (three centuries ago). When this happens, people in the rich world will soon be praying for more gases that can help warm the planet. When those temperate countries in the north will have snow from November to June and only four to five months of no-snow, I am sure they will be praying for more carbon emission, if CO2 indeed causes global warming.
Among the useful websites to see the Sun-climate link and other hard sciences are:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/ by David Watts
http://www.icecap.us/ by Joe D’Aleo
http://climatedepot.com/ by Marc Morano
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ by Bob Ferguson, Willie Soon and Lord Moncton
http://www.weatheraction.com/ by Piers Corbyn
http://www.davidarchibald.info/ by David Archibald
There are many other sites actually that discuss the hard science of various external factors that influence the global climate. The above list is just among my favorite sites. Some sites, they just watch the current solar cycle, monitoring sunspots, magnetic field and the ap index. If one will compare the scientific rigor and research of those sites, and compare them with UN IPCC and climate alarmists’ sites, one will easily see the difference of how limited the scope of research of the latter.
-------
Defeat of carbon cap and trade bill in Australian Senate
Yesterday, the Australian Senate voted 42-30 junking the carbon cap and trade bill. It is still reverberating in many countries around the world, especially those that have similar legislative proposals to regulate and reduce the "evil" gas, CO2.
Partly a product of unlikely alliance between the Greens (wanted deeper carbon cuts) and the realists (no cuts). It's like James Hansen of NASA, among the top global warming alarmists today, rejecting the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill (despite having won in the lower House) because it's not making deep cuts enough.
Sometimes the rabid Greens and alarmists become too irrational that they defy even minor compromise, and worse, they defy hard science. The Sun, cosmic rays, geological changes (like volcanic eruption), the ocean, other natural factors are insignificant for them. Only the "evil" CO2 is significant for them, and the need to regulate it. And that's where Statist greed comes in.
Meanwhile, I hope that the US Senate will reject the W-M cap and trade bill. Obama and the Dems are having a hard time selling their health reform agenda, they got very little time to further scare the public and have it passed in the Senate.
Trivia: one thing i notice, the US legislators think they are encuclopedia readers.
The Waxman-Market bill is almost 1,400 pages long.
The current health care reform bill is 1,000+ pages long.
there should be some logic behind this, something like:
if you can't persuade them with terse and straight logic, confuse them.
Below is one of several news reports.
-----
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE57C0FL20090813
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia's carbon trading laws were defeated in parliament's upper house Senate on Thursday, leaving the government's plan to curb greenhouse-gas emissions in disarray and raising speculation of an early snap election.
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the government would submit the package of 11 bills to the Senate a second time before year-end. Thursday's vote was defeated by 42 to 30, meaning the government needs seven more votes to get the plan through.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)