Friday, April 23, 2004
Oh That Liberal Media, Chapter XXXIVII^2
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Y.R.O.O.?
You have to be kidding.....
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- A self-proclaimed "anti-American" group is threatening terrorist attacks against eight U.S. allies by the end of the month, including South Korea, Japan, Australia and Pakistan, a South Korean official said Thursday.
The group, called the "Yello-Red Overseas Organization," warned in a one-page letter sent to the South Korean Embassy in Thailand that it will launch the attacks through April 30, embassy spokesman Ryoo Jung-young told The Associated Press.
The group described itself as "anti-American" and threatened to attack diplomatic compounds, airlines and public transportation systems in the eight countries that are U.S. allies or have plans to send troops to Iraq. The four other countries are Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore and Kuwait.
"Yello-Red Overseas Organization"?
Maybe it loses something in the translation, but that is a name for a terrorist organization that you couldn't even use in an Austin Powers movie.
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- A self-proclaimed "anti-American" group is threatening terrorist attacks against eight U.S. allies by the end of the month, including South Korea, Japan, Australia and Pakistan, a South Korean official said Thursday.
The group, called the "Yello-Red Overseas Organization," warned in a one-page letter sent to the South Korean Embassy in Thailand that it will launch the attacks through April 30, embassy spokesman Ryoo Jung-young told The Associated Press.
The group described itself as "anti-American" and threatened to attack diplomatic compounds, airlines and public transportation systems in the eight countries that are U.S. allies or have plans to send troops to Iraq. The four other countries are Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore and Kuwait.
"Yello-Red Overseas Organization"?
Maybe it loses something in the translation, but that is a name for a terrorist organization that you couldn't even use in an Austin Powers movie.
Earth Day
Has the environmental movement left the world behind?
Thirty-four years ago, the first Earth Day heralded a new era of ecological awareness -- when, as Earth Day founder Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D- Wis., put it, "the environmental issue came of age in American political life" by showing "the political leadership of the nation that there was broad and deep support for the environmental movement." Enough time has passed to take stock of the impact that the movement has had on nature and mankind. The record is decidedly mixed.
There is no doubt that the environments of wealthy, developed countries are considerably healthier today than on the first Earth Day. Air and water are cleaner. Human life expectancies are longer. Forests are abundant and growing. Developed countries have wanted improved environments and they have been wealthy enough to afford them.
But the story is much different elsewhere. Indeed, for much of the rest of the world, conditions are worse than they should be. Ironically, the very movement that made its presence felt in rallies across this country in 1970 and that thrives in the developed world today must shoulder much of the blame for the developing world's sorry state. It is impeding both economic and environmental progress due to an agenda that is anti-development, anti- technology and, in the final analysis, anti-human.
For example, today's eco-activists boast that they have blocked more than 200 hydroelectric projects in the developing world over the past two decades. It is true that hydro power has a large ecological footprint, creating lakes and filling valleys. But it is a renewable energy that makes it possible to read after the sun goes down, boosting literacy in poor areas. It provides controlled irrigation for better crop yields and mitigates flooding and the loss of life and property damage.
Moreover, green groups have zero-tolerance policies when it comes to genetically modified crops. This includes the genetically modified "golden rice" that could help prevent blindness in Asian and African children (as many as 500,000 go blind every year, according to the National Institutes of Health) plus hundreds of millions of others who suffer from vitamin A deficiency. Because of activist opposition to GM crops, it will be at least five years before golden rice can be planted in many parts of the developing world. That means another 2.5 million kids could go blind even though no human or natural risk is associated with planting this crop.
Indeed, many GM crops such as cotton and corn can make impoverished families wealthy enough to have dignified lives, educate their children and afford clean water and sanitation -- things we in the developed world take for granted. Farmers in Indonesia, China, Brazil, India and the Philippines are now benefiting from this technology with no demonstrable harm. Yet Greenpeace and other environmental groups oppose all GM crops and are succeeding in blocking them in many countries.
The fear of GM crops, fed by environmentalist hysteria in Europe and the United States, has prompted a number of African countries, including Zambia and Angola, to ban U.S. food aid because it may contain GM corn. Desperate Africans have broken into government silos to take GM food aid donated by the United States that is being denied them. Yet you can go into any supermarket in these countries and buy Kellogg's corn flakes and hundreds of other prepared foods that contain GM ingredients. There are no restrictions on these foods. The people who can afford to buy them do so; yet the people too poor to purchase their next meal are denied the same foods. These policies border on genocide in the name of environmental concerns, yet environmental groups support them.
Or consider that the pesticide DDT has been proven to radically reduce malaria in South Africa, while activist groups such as the World Wildlife Fund push for a total ban on its use. It only needs to be sprayed inside houses, where it poses no threat to the external environment, to make it effective. Despite the ability to stop malaria in its tracks with DDT -- as the United States had already done before its use was prohibited here -- 300 million people will become infected every year and at least 1 million will die, according to the World Health Organization.
Until the environmental movement comes to terms with the harm it has fostered in addition to the victories it has achieved, there will be no reason to celebrate Earth Day for millions of people around the globe.
Patrick Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace who left that organization and became chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit (www.greenspirit.com), a consulting firm that works for sustainable development. Nick Schulz is editor of TechCentralStation.com, a public-policy Web site that promotes free-market technology.
Has the environmental movement left the world behind?
Thirty-four years ago, the first Earth Day heralded a new era of ecological awareness -- when, as Earth Day founder Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D- Wis., put it, "the environmental issue came of age in American political life" by showing "the political leadership of the nation that there was broad and deep support for the environmental movement." Enough time has passed to take stock of the impact that the movement has had on nature and mankind. The record is decidedly mixed.
There is no doubt that the environments of wealthy, developed countries are considerably healthier today than on the first Earth Day. Air and water are cleaner. Human life expectancies are longer. Forests are abundant and growing. Developed countries have wanted improved environments and they have been wealthy enough to afford them.
But the story is much different elsewhere. Indeed, for much of the rest of the world, conditions are worse than they should be. Ironically, the very movement that made its presence felt in rallies across this country in 1970 and that thrives in the developed world today must shoulder much of the blame for the developing world's sorry state. It is impeding both economic and environmental progress due to an agenda that is anti-development, anti- technology and, in the final analysis, anti-human.
For example, today's eco-activists boast that they have blocked more than 200 hydroelectric projects in the developing world over the past two decades. It is true that hydro power has a large ecological footprint, creating lakes and filling valleys. But it is a renewable energy that makes it possible to read after the sun goes down, boosting literacy in poor areas. It provides controlled irrigation for better crop yields and mitigates flooding and the loss of life and property damage.
Moreover, green groups have zero-tolerance policies when it comes to genetically modified crops. This includes the genetically modified "golden rice" that could help prevent blindness in Asian and African children (as many as 500,000 go blind every year, according to the National Institutes of Health) plus hundreds of millions of others who suffer from vitamin A deficiency. Because of activist opposition to GM crops, it will be at least five years before golden rice can be planted in many parts of the developing world. That means another 2.5 million kids could go blind even though no human or natural risk is associated with planting this crop.
Indeed, many GM crops such as cotton and corn can make impoverished families wealthy enough to have dignified lives, educate their children and afford clean water and sanitation -- things we in the developed world take for granted. Farmers in Indonesia, China, Brazil, India and the Philippines are now benefiting from this technology with no demonstrable harm. Yet Greenpeace and other environmental groups oppose all GM crops and are succeeding in blocking them in many countries.
The fear of GM crops, fed by environmentalist hysteria in Europe and the United States, has prompted a number of African countries, including Zambia and Angola, to ban U.S. food aid because it may contain GM corn. Desperate Africans have broken into government silos to take GM food aid donated by the United States that is being denied them. Yet you can go into any supermarket in these countries and buy Kellogg's corn flakes and hundreds of other prepared foods that contain GM ingredients. There are no restrictions on these foods. The people who can afford to buy them do so; yet the people too poor to purchase their next meal are denied the same foods. These policies border on genocide in the name of environmental concerns, yet environmental groups support them.
Or consider that the pesticide DDT has been proven to radically reduce malaria in South Africa, while activist groups such as the World Wildlife Fund push for a total ban on its use. It only needs to be sprayed inside houses, where it poses no threat to the external environment, to make it effective. Despite the ability to stop malaria in its tracks with DDT -- as the United States had already done before its use was prohibited here -- 300 million people will become infected every year and at least 1 million will die, according to the World Health Organization.
Until the environmental movement comes to terms with the harm it has fostered in addition to the victories it has achieved, there will be no reason to celebrate Earth Day for millions of people around the globe.
Patrick Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace who left that organization and became chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit (www.greenspirit.com), a consulting firm that works for sustainable development. Nick Schulz is editor of TechCentralStation.com, a public-policy Web site that promotes free-market technology.
without Monkey Leader
Dude must be on .
In Other News
Mordechai Vanunu is free after 18 years in an Israeli prison, put there for talking about Israel's nuclear secrets.
He has a bright future ahead of him. I'm sure employment offers are pouring in from all over the middle east for this nuclear technician. From pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and even as far away as North Korea......
He has a bright future ahead of him. I'm sure employment offers are pouring in from all over the middle east for this nuclear technician. From pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and even as far away as North Korea......
Movies Revisited
Via the Brothers Judd, this article in the NYT(Registration required) gives a better look at the revenues coming in from DVDs and rentals.
It now apparently dwarfs domestic box office. Emphasis mine.
LOS ANGELES, April 19 — The other day the chairman of 20th Century Fox, Jim Gianopulos, said he got a call from a lawyer friend. The friend said it was an anniversary of the firm and asked where he could get 100 DVD copies of the cult Fox movie "Office Space." The film made only $10 million at the box office but has become a hit on DVD. No one at Fox pretends to know why, but the film's success is another big drop in the river of DVD cash now flowing into Hollywood's coffers.
[..]
There's good cause. Between January and mid-March this year, Americans spent $1.78 billion at the box office. But in the same period they spent $4.8 billion — more than $3 billion more — to buy and rent DVD's and videocassettes.
Little wonder then that studio executives now calibrate the release dates of DVD's with the same care used for opening weekends, as seen by Miramax's strategic release of "Kill Bill: Vol. 1" a few days before the theatrical release of "Kill Bill: Vol. 2." (The DVD made $40 million its first day out.)
I noticed that Miramax made their posters for the DVD release a two-fer. They advertised both the DVD and the Squel Kill Bill vol 2.
Studios now spend comparable amounts of money on DVD and theatrical marketing campaigns. Disney spent an estimated $50 million marketing the "Finding Nemo" DVD last year, said officials at Pixar, which made the film. It was money well spent. The DVD took in $431 million domestically, about $100 million more than the domestic box office. DVD has resuscitated canceled or nearly canceled television series like "The Family Guy" and "24," and has helped small art movies like "Donnie Darko" win rerelease in theaters. It is also beginning to affect the kinds of movies being made, as DVD revenues figure heavily in green-light decisions and are used as a perk to woo craft-conscious movie directors.
"There's not a sector of the entertainment industry to which DVD is not a significant, if not the dominant, contributor of revenue," said Scott Hettrick, editor in chief of DVD Exclusive, a trade paper, pointing to the movie and television libraries being released on DVD. Even in the ailing music industry, he noted, music DVD's are an area of growth.
"This is an unprecedented, huge influx of new money into the motion picture business," Dan Petrie Jr., president of the Writers Guild of America, West, said of the DVD boom. Union negotiators are demanding higher royalty payments in contract talks under way with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents the studios. Whatever deal is finally struck when the contract runs out on May 2 is expected to be followed by all the other Hollywood guilds.
While few dispute that DVD's are low-cost, high-profit items for the studios, the studios say they need every penny to survive in a time of dwindling profit margins, and with the menace of piracy looming large. The average movie now costs $64 million to make and another $39 million to market, according to the Motion Picture Association of America.
So there's a benchmark to measure against, the avarage movie costing about $100 million.
"In the last five years maybe 6 pictures out of 1,000 recouped their cost in the theatrical marketplace," said Nick Counter, president of the studio alliance. "Today the hits have to make up for all the losses."
For bigger-budget movies the DVD revenue has become critical. Nowadays, "basically the movies are commercials for the DVD's," observed John Lesher, an agent for the Endeavor talent agency who represents leading directors like Walter Salles, Paul Thomas Anderson and David O. Russell. Movies with budgets over $100 million now commonly just break even at the box office.
Stacey Snider, chairwoman of Universal Studios, said she had just asked her executives to analyze more closely the breakdown of profits in terms of the DVD revenues to figure out the changing model of the industry.
The old Hollywood model of needing to recoup three times the production cost at the box office to make a profit is long gone. But many are asking: What is the new model?
The answer to that may lie with a little-known movie called "Office Space" (1999). The satire by Mike Judge, co-creator of the animated television series "King of the Hill," cost 20th Century Fox about $10 million to make, and took in just $10 million at the box office. But on DVD the movie has become a hit, with the studio so far selling 2.5 million units, well over $40 million worth.
There are other examples of surprising windfalls. The Lion's Gate comedy "Van Wilder" was renamed "National Lampoon's Van Wilder" and has unexpectedly become a hit on DVD, where it sits alphabetically next to other National Lampoon movies.
A moderate hit like the DreamWorks comedy "Old School" starring Will Ferrell took in $73 million at the box office, but made an astounding $143.5 million on DVD.
Of course, even before DVD some films found larger audiences on video than at the box office; DVD has amplified the effect and the profits.
[...]
But that does not mean the studios do not wring every cent from each movie. Miramax is planning to release a half-dozen different DVD editions related to "Kill Bill."
It now apparently dwarfs domestic box office. Emphasis mine.
LOS ANGELES, April 19 — The other day the chairman of 20th Century Fox, Jim Gianopulos, said he got a call from a lawyer friend. The friend said it was an anniversary of the firm and asked where he could get 100 DVD copies of the cult Fox movie "Office Space." The film made only $10 million at the box office but has become a hit on DVD. No one at Fox pretends to know why, but the film's success is another big drop in the river of DVD cash now flowing into Hollywood's coffers.
[..]
There's good cause. Between January and mid-March this year, Americans spent $1.78 billion at the box office. But in the same period they spent $4.8 billion — more than $3 billion more — to buy and rent DVD's and videocassettes.
Little wonder then that studio executives now calibrate the release dates of DVD's with the same care used for opening weekends, as seen by Miramax's strategic release of "Kill Bill: Vol. 1" a few days before the theatrical release of "Kill Bill: Vol. 2." (The DVD made $40 million its first day out.)
I noticed that Miramax made their posters for the DVD release a two-fer. They advertised both the DVD and the Squel Kill Bill vol 2.
Studios now spend comparable amounts of money on DVD and theatrical marketing campaigns. Disney spent an estimated $50 million marketing the "Finding Nemo" DVD last year, said officials at Pixar, which made the film. It was money well spent. The DVD took in $431 million domestically, about $100 million more than the domestic box office. DVD has resuscitated canceled or nearly canceled television series like "The Family Guy" and "24," and has helped small art movies like "Donnie Darko" win rerelease in theaters. It is also beginning to affect the kinds of movies being made, as DVD revenues figure heavily in green-light decisions and are used as a perk to woo craft-conscious movie directors.
"There's not a sector of the entertainment industry to which DVD is not a significant, if not the dominant, contributor of revenue," said Scott Hettrick, editor in chief of DVD Exclusive, a trade paper, pointing to the movie and television libraries being released on DVD. Even in the ailing music industry, he noted, music DVD's are an area of growth.
"This is an unprecedented, huge influx of new money into the motion picture business," Dan Petrie Jr., president of the Writers Guild of America, West, said of the DVD boom. Union negotiators are demanding higher royalty payments in contract talks under way with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents the studios. Whatever deal is finally struck when the contract runs out on May 2 is expected to be followed by all the other Hollywood guilds.
While few dispute that DVD's are low-cost, high-profit items for the studios, the studios say they need every penny to survive in a time of dwindling profit margins, and with the menace of piracy looming large. The average movie now costs $64 million to make and another $39 million to market, according to the Motion Picture Association of America.
So there's a benchmark to measure against, the avarage movie costing about $100 million.
"In the last five years maybe 6 pictures out of 1,000 recouped their cost in the theatrical marketplace," said Nick Counter, president of the studio alliance. "Today the hits have to make up for all the losses."
For bigger-budget movies the DVD revenue has become critical. Nowadays, "basically the movies are commercials for the DVD's," observed John Lesher, an agent for the Endeavor talent agency who represents leading directors like Walter Salles, Paul Thomas Anderson and David O. Russell. Movies with budgets over $100 million now commonly just break even at the box office.
Stacey Snider, chairwoman of Universal Studios, said she had just asked her executives to analyze more closely the breakdown of profits in terms of the DVD revenues to figure out the changing model of the industry.
The old Hollywood model of needing to recoup three times the production cost at the box office to make a profit is long gone. But many are asking: What is the new model?
The answer to that may lie with a little-known movie called "Office Space" (1999). The satire by Mike Judge, co-creator of the animated television series "King of the Hill," cost 20th Century Fox about $10 million to make, and took in just $10 million at the box office. But on DVD the movie has become a hit, with the studio so far selling 2.5 million units, well over $40 million worth.
There are other examples of surprising windfalls. The Lion's Gate comedy "Van Wilder" was renamed "National Lampoon's Van Wilder" and has unexpectedly become a hit on DVD, where it sits alphabetically next to other National Lampoon movies.
A moderate hit like the DreamWorks comedy "Old School" starring Will Ferrell took in $73 million at the box office, but made an astounding $143.5 million on DVD.
Of course, even before DVD some films found larger audiences on video than at the box office; DVD has amplified the effect and the profits.
[...]
But that does not mean the studios do not wring every cent from each movie. Miramax is planning to release a half-dozen different DVD editions related to "Kill Bill."
"Walk With An Old Dog" -- by Gayl Jokiel
Because you will not be forever,
Hope against time though I may,
I paint your picture in my memory,
Eyes blue with age, muzzle gone gray.
Because you walked with me in Springtime,
Puppy-clumsy, running free.
As you grew, we grew together-
You became a part of me.
Because you shared with me my sorrows,
Not understanding- simply there.
Often spurring me to laughter--
My friend, you know how much I care.
Because the years have slowed your fleetness,
Though your spirit still is strong.
I promise I will take more time now,
So that you can go along.
Because you do not fear the future,
Living only in the now,
I draw strength from your example-
Yet time keeps slipping by somehow.
Because the day will soon be coming
When I will no longer see
You rise to greet me-but in memory
You will always walk with me.
Hope against time though I may,
I paint your picture in my memory,
Eyes blue with age, muzzle gone gray.
Because you walked with me in Springtime,
Puppy-clumsy, running free.
As you grew, we grew together-
You became a part of me.
Because you shared with me my sorrows,
Not understanding- simply there.
Often spurring me to laughter--
My friend, you know how much I care.
Because the years have slowed your fleetness,
Though your spirit still is strong.
I promise I will take more time now,
So that you can go along.
Because you do not fear the future,
Living only in the now,
I draw strength from your example-
Yet time keeps slipping by somehow.
Because the day will soon be coming
When I will no longer see
You rise to greet me-but in memory
You will always walk with me.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
here there be Dragons
A SILVER Dragon Lies Beneath!
My inner dragon is to dragons what the Ranger is to humans. I possess considerable intelligence and self-confidence. I live by my own code of ethics and I stick to it at all times. Click the image to try the Inner Dragon Online Quiz for yourself.
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Say What again?
The travel schedule is tortuous and the stresses and strains on one's personal life are as bad as it gets. As a nation, we should count our lucky stars that parliamentarians do not snap and treat themselves to five-fingered discounts more often.
-Ben Mulroney on the stresses of being an MP, discussing Svend Robinson's shoplifting.
We should count our blessings?
Ah, no.
Let's try doing some substituion there.
"As a nation, we should count our lucky stars that teachers do not snap and treat themselves to five-fingered discounts more often"
Or how about...
"As a nation, we should count our lucky stars that surgeons do not snap and treat themselves to five-fingered discounts more often."
Or finally, which would be my point...
As a nation, we should count our lucky stars that taxpayers do not snap and treat themselves to five-fingered discounts more often.
"Snapping" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. There is an old, once respected and now marginalized idea called responsibility that has something to say on this. If you do something, in so doing, you accept the possible outcomes of that action. Not thinking it through is not a magic shield that will protect you from consequences.
At least not in the real world. the one where action and consequence are determined by physics. In the social world of politcs, proclaiming victimhood as your justification for misdeeds has become regrettably bulletproof.
Most people are stressed. Always have and always will be. People who are in high paying, high powered jobs are especially stressed and they have chosen to be there. Svend chose his path. If things were too stressful for him, he should have the self control and discipline to take a vacation for chrissakes. Political figures cancel meetings all of the time. I know, I've been at many events where the speakers have cancelled at the very last minute. Parliament does not sit 24/7 365 days a year. It's not like Svend can't afford a vacation either, given MPs' compensation.
Yes, I understand that there are costs to the job, which Mulroney harps on at length. However any discussion of the costs is not complete without a discussion of the benefits gained from incurring those costs. There's the pay and the perks, the travel on junkets to various parts of the world, and the oh, I don't know, the chance to put forward legislation that will make the bible hate speech, the power to help shape a nation's future.
Life isn't perfect, and you make tradeoffs.
Oh wait, socialists don't have to.
Let's try another substitution. See what your reactions would be and imagine how the media would spin the following.....
"Today Republican Senator John Doe made a tearful confession to shoplifiting a $50,000 ring. Police, following the store's decision have decided not to press charges."
Does anyone think for a moment that a Conservative MP who had done the same thing would get the kind of pass from both the media and colleagues that Svend has received?
Didn't think so.
-Ben Mulroney on the stresses of being an MP, discussing Svend Robinson's shoplifting.
We should count our blessings?
Ah, no.
Let's try doing some substituion there.
"As a nation, we should count our lucky stars that teachers do not snap and treat themselves to five-fingered discounts more often"
Or how about...
"As a nation, we should count our lucky stars that surgeons do not snap and treat themselves to five-fingered discounts more often."
Or finally, which would be my point...
As a nation, we should count our lucky stars that taxpayers do not snap and treat themselves to five-fingered discounts more often.
"Snapping" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. There is an old, once respected and now marginalized idea called responsibility that has something to say on this. If you do something, in so doing, you accept the possible outcomes of that action. Not thinking it through is not a magic shield that will protect you from consequences.
At least not in the real world. the one where action and consequence are determined by physics. In the social world of politcs, proclaiming victimhood as your justification for misdeeds has become regrettably bulletproof.
Most people are stressed. Always have and always will be. People who are in high paying, high powered jobs are especially stressed and they have chosen to be there. Svend chose his path. If things were too stressful for him, he should have the self control and discipline to take a vacation for chrissakes. Political figures cancel meetings all of the time. I know, I've been at many events where the speakers have cancelled at the very last minute. Parliament does not sit 24/7 365 days a year. It's not like Svend can't afford a vacation either, given MPs' compensation.
Yes, I understand that there are costs to the job, which Mulroney harps on at length. However any discussion of the costs is not complete without a discussion of the benefits gained from incurring those costs. There's the pay and the perks, the travel on junkets to various parts of the world, and the oh, I don't know, the chance to put forward legislation that will make the bible hate speech, the power to help shape a nation's future.
Life isn't perfect, and you make tradeoffs.
Oh wait, socialists don't have to.
Let's try another substitution. See what your reactions would be and imagine how the media would spin the following.....
"Today Republican Senator John Doe made a tearful confession to shoplifiting a $50,000 ring. Police, following the store's decision have decided not to press charges."
Does anyone think for a moment that a Conservative MP who had done the same thing would get the kind of pass from both the media and colleagues that Svend has received?
Didn't think so.
A Wish for a Claude Rains Moment
In the spirit of the recent discosures about Will Hutton, the british critic of all things capitalist- who turns out to be married to a rapacious developer, I have imagined another such moment of revelation and schadenfreude.
Imagine someone going through Michael Moore's garbage, finding his brokerage statements and finding among the stockholdings....
HALLIBURTON......................15000 SHARES @$30.50 $ 457 000
Y'know, given that Mikey rails against private schools, but sends his daughter to one, rails against "the rich" and is filthy stinking rich, moreso than 99.99999 percent of humanity to ever have lived, etc, etc, etc- it's not actually out of the question.....
(Article Hat tip- Damian Penny)
Imagine someone going through Michael Moore's garbage, finding his brokerage statements and finding among the stockholdings....
HALLIBURTON......................15000 SHARES @$30.50 $ 457 000
Y'know, given that Mikey rails against private schools, but sends his daughter to one, rails against "the rich" and is filthy stinking rich, moreso than 99.99999 percent of humanity to ever have lived, etc, etc, etc- it's not actually out of the question.....
(Article Hat tip- Damian Penny)
Monday, April 19, 2004
Kiwiland 2
It gets better as I read.....
Some of the things that government was doing simply didn’t belong in the government. So we sold off telecommunications, airlines, irrigation schemes, computing services, government printing offices, insurance companies, banks, securities, mortgages, railways, bus services, hotels, shipping lines, agricultural advisory services, etc. In the main, when we sold those things off, their productivity went up and the cost of their services went down, translating into major gains for the economy. Furthermore, we decided that other agencies should be run as profit-making and tax-paying enterprises by government. For instance, the air traffic control system was made into a stand-alone company, given instructions that it had to make an acceptable rate of return and pay taxes, and told that it couldn’t get any investment capital from its owner (the government). We did that with about 35 agencies. Together, these used to cost us about one billion dollars per year; now they produced about one billion dollars per year in revenues and taxes.
We achieved an overall reduction of 66 percent in the size of government, measured by the number of employees. The government’s share of GDP dropped from 44 to 27 percent. We were now running surpluses, and we established a policy never to leave dollars on the table: We knew that if we didn’t get rid of this money, some clown would spend it. So we used most of the surplus to pay off debt, and debt went from 63 percent down to 17 percent of GDP. We used the remainder of the surplus each year for tax relief. We reduced income tax rates by half and eliminated incidental taxes. As a result of these policies, revenue increased by 20 percent. Yes, Ronald Reagan was right: lower tax rates do produce more revenue.
Some of the things that government was doing simply didn’t belong in the government. So we sold off telecommunications, airlines, irrigation schemes, computing services, government printing offices, insurance companies, banks, securities, mortgages, railways, bus services, hotels, shipping lines, agricultural advisory services, etc. In the main, when we sold those things off, their productivity went up and the cost of their services went down, translating into major gains for the economy. Furthermore, we decided that other agencies should be run as profit-making and tax-paying enterprises by government. For instance, the air traffic control system was made into a stand-alone company, given instructions that it had to make an acceptable rate of return and pay taxes, and told that it couldn’t get any investment capital from its owner (the government). We did that with about 35 agencies. Together, these used to cost us about one billion dollars per year; now they produced about one billion dollars per year in revenues and taxes.
We achieved an overall reduction of 66 percent in the size of government, measured by the number of employees. The government’s share of GDP dropped from 44 to 27 percent. We were now running surpluses, and we established a policy never to leave dollars on the table: We knew that if we didn’t get rid of this money, some clown would spend it. So we used most of the surplus to pay off debt, and debt went from 63 percent down to 17 percent of GDP. We used the remainder of the surplus each year for tax relief. We reduced income tax rates by half and eliminated incidental taxes. As a result of these policies, revenue increased by 20 percent. Yes, Ronald Reagan was right: lower tax rates do produce more revenue.
Lessons from New Zealand
LOTR isn't the only good thing to come out of Kiwiland. I read this article on NZ's 1980s reforms and I can only dream of such things here in Canada....
I mean the reforms, not the initial situation.
New Zealand’s per capita income in the period prior to the late 1950s was right around number three in the world, behind the United States and Canada. But by 1984, its per capita income had sunk to 27th in the world, alongside Portugal and Turkey. Not only that, but our unemployment rate was 11.6 percent, we’d had 23 successive years of deficits (sometimes ranging as high as 40 percent of GDP), our debt had grown to 65 percent of GDP, and our credit ratings were continually being downgraded. Government spending was a full 44 percent of GDP, investment capital was exiting in huge quantities, and government controls and micromanagement were pervasive at every level of the economy. We had foreign exchange controls that meant I couldn’t buy a subscription to The Economist magazine without the permission of the Minister of Finance. I couldn’t buy shares in a foreign company without surrendering my citizenship. There were price controls on all goods and services, on all shops and on all service industries. There were wage controls and wage freezes. I couldn’t pay my employees more – or pay them bonuses – if I wanted to. There were import controls on the goods that I could bring into the country. There were massive levels of subsidies on industries in order to keep them viable. Young people were leaving in droves.
Spending and Taxes
When a reform government was elected in 1984, it identified three problems: too much spending, too much taxing and too much government. The question was how to cut spending and taxes and diminish government’s role in the economy. Well, the first thing you have to do in this situation is to figure out what you’re getting for dollars spent. Towards this end, we implemented a new policy whereby money wouldn’t simply be allocated to government agencies; instead, there would be a purchase contract with the senior executives of those agencies that clearly delineated what was expected in return for the money. Those who headed up government agencies were now chosen on the basis of a worldwide search and received term contracts – five years with a possible extension of another three years. The only ground for their removal was non-performance, so a newly-elected government couldn’t simply throw them out as had happened with civil servants under the old system. And of course, with those kinds of incentives, agency heads – like CEOs in the private sector – made certain that the next tier of people had very clear objectives that they were expected to achieve as well.
Check the results....
When we started this process with the Department of Transportation, it had 5,600 employees. When we finished, it had 53. When we started with the Forest Service, it had 17,000 employees. When we finished, it had 17. When we applied it to the Ministry of Works, it had 28,000 employees. I used to be Minister of Works, and ended up being the only employee. In the latter case, most of what the department did was construction and engineering, and there are plenty of people who can do that without government involvement. And if you say to me, “But you killed all those jobs!” – well, that’s just not true. The government stopped employing people in those jobs, but the need for the jobs didn’t disappear. I visited some of the forestry workers some months after they’d lost their government jobs, and they were quite happy. They told me that they were now earning about three times what they used to earn – on top of which, they were surprised to learn that they could do about 60 percent more than they used to! The same lesson applies to the other jobs I mentioned.
I mean the reforms, not the initial situation.
New Zealand’s per capita income in the period prior to the late 1950s was right around number three in the world, behind the United States and Canada. But by 1984, its per capita income had sunk to 27th in the world, alongside Portugal and Turkey. Not only that, but our unemployment rate was 11.6 percent, we’d had 23 successive years of deficits (sometimes ranging as high as 40 percent of GDP), our debt had grown to 65 percent of GDP, and our credit ratings were continually being downgraded. Government spending was a full 44 percent of GDP, investment capital was exiting in huge quantities, and government controls and micromanagement were pervasive at every level of the economy. We had foreign exchange controls that meant I couldn’t buy a subscription to The Economist magazine without the permission of the Minister of Finance. I couldn’t buy shares in a foreign company without surrendering my citizenship. There were price controls on all goods and services, on all shops and on all service industries. There were wage controls and wage freezes. I couldn’t pay my employees more – or pay them bonuses – if I wanted to. There were import controls on the goods that I could bring into the country. There were massive levels of subsidies on industries in order to keep them viable. Young people were leaving in droves.
Spending and Taxes
When a reform government was elected in 1984, it identified three problems: too much spending, too much taxing and too much government. The question was how to cut spending and taxes and diminish government’s role in the economy. Well, the first thing you have to do in this situation is to figure out what you’re getting for dollars spent. Towards this end, we implemented a new policy whereby money wouldn’t simply be allocated to government agencies; instead, there would be a purchase contract with the senior executives of those agencies that clearly delineated what was expected in return for the money. Those who headed up government agencies were now chosen on the basis of a worldwide search and received term contracts – five years with a possible extension of another three years. The only ground for their removal was non-performance, so a newly-elected government couldn’t simply throw them out as had happened with civil servants under the old system. And of course, with those kinds of incentives, agency heads – like CEOs in the private sector – made certain that the next tier of people had very clear objectives that they were expected to achieve as well.
Check the results....
When we started this process with the Department of Transportation, it had 5,600 employees. When we finished, it had 53. When we started with the Forest Service, it had 17,000 employees. When we finished, it had 17. When we applied it to the Ministry of Works, it had 28,000 employees. I used to be Minister of Works, and ended up being the only employee. In the latter case, most of what the department did was construction and engineering, and there are plenty of people who can do that without government involvement. And if you say to me, “But you killed all those jobs!” – well, that’s just not true. The government stopped employing people in those jobs, but the need for the jobs didn’t disappear. I visited some of the forestry workers some months after they’d lost their government jobs, and they were quite happy. They told me that they were now earning about three times what they used to earn – on top of which, they were surprised to learn that they could do about 60 percent more than they used to! The same lesson applies to the other jobs I mentioned.
A Short Introduction
Hi, If anyone has notice the multiple personality disorder that has hit this blog, that's because Monkey Leader has invited another blogger onto the blog with him. I'm the Banana Counting Monkey, who has in the past posted at Banana Counting Monkey, but have been on extended vacation from posting duties.
In general I'm much more economically Liberal (in the traditional John Locke/Adam Smith sense) than ML, but pretty much as hawkish on foreign affairs as ML. This format will of course allow us to highlight and have fun with our differences.
I guess ML is one barrel, I'm the other.
In general I'm much more economically Liberal (in the traditional John Locke/Adam Smith sense) than ML, but pretty much as hawkish on foreign affairs as ML. This format will of course allow us to highlight and have fun with our differences.
I guess ML is one barrel, I'm the other.
A Short Question
Hey Monkey Leader! Don't you have a hit counter on this thing?
Monkey Leader: Right and Wrong
In the previous post about the electricity rates in Ontario, Monkey Leader guessed that I'd disagree with him.
He was, of course, correct in that. (BTW, it's BCM, not BMC)
Now to have some fun on where I think he's wrong.
ML sets out his opinion and then gives several examples to back his case. There's a few problems with his examples, but one that underllies all of them that needs to be addressed first.
They're all strawman arguments.
A Strawman argument is where you create a scenario out of whole cloth and then proceed to demolish it. Because you know you're going make a point by citing it, you make it easy for yourself.
One example of this that is used in politics all of the time is "My opponent wants to raise taxes on you! He thinks you should be paying more of your income to his buddies in XYZ corp and letting them off easy!"
Of course, the opponent may never have said anything of the sort. The example is made up or inferred from other positions. pretty much every politcal party does it because it makes for a nice short snappy soundbite that - let's face it- works.
...and that's what Monkey Leader has done here. Hypotheticals constructed so as to be easy to knock down in service of his argument.
"Imagine having to pay for a service call to get police to arrive at a neighbour's house when you hear one of their windows break at 4am?"
Well, imagine indeed. Just why exactly would you expect that such services would be handled in that way? Are the heads of all of these companies going to be stupid to the way people would react to that? Why exactly is this scenario likely? Why wouldn't they charge a basic fee (like is mandated now) or compete with other providers on the price of that service? Given that the cost of providing access to 911 is not exactly high (the nominal cost of any given call approaches zero for telephone networks- the variable cost per call is almost nil, it's the overhead that's huge and ends up determining the cost of phone services) it would be a slam dunk for any phone service to offer 911 calls for free. ("In case of emergency, all 911 calls are free...")
As for who should get the ambulance bill if you're t-boned by a car running a red light? You should. And then you should be free to sue the ass off the driver who hit you. Don't like that answer? Turn it around then. Why should you or I pay for the ambulance for someone else who gets hit by a car running a red light?
I am interested in the answer ML would provide to his question: who does he think should pay if he gets t-boned? If it is anyone other than himself, I'd like his explanation of why.
More soon on the topic, as time and answers permit......
Oh yes, here's an online definition of the Strawman fallacy.
He was, of course, correct in that. (BTW, it's BCM, not BMC)
Now to have some fun on where I think he's wrong.
ML sets out his opinion and then gives several examples to back his case. There's a few problems with his examples, but one that underllies all of them that needs to be addressed first.
They're all strawman arguments.
A Strawman argument is where you create a scenario out of whole cloth and then proceed to demolish it. Because you know you're going make a point by citing it, you make it easy for yourself.
One example of this that is used in politics all of the time is "My opponent wants to raise taxes on you! He thinks you should be paying more of your income to his buddies in XYZ corp and letting them off easy!"
Of course, the opponent may never have said anything of the sort. The example is made up or inferred from other positions. pretty much every politcal party does it because it makes for a nice short snappy soundbite that - let's face it- works.
...and that's what Monkey Leader has done here. Hypotheticals constructed so as to be easy to knock down in service of his argument.
"Imagine having to pay for a service call to get police to arrive at a neighbour's house when you hear one of their windows break at 4am?"
Well, imagine indeed. Just why exactly would you expect that such services would be handled in that way? Are the heads of all of these companies going to be stupid to the way people would react to that? Why exactly is this scenario likely? Why wouldn't they charge a basic fee (like is mandated now) or compete with other providers on the price of that service? Given that the cost of providing access to 911 is not exactly high (the nominal cost of any given call approaches zero for telephone networks- the variable cost per call is almost nil, it's the overhead that's huge and ends up determining the cost of phone services) it would be a slam dunk for any phone service to offer 911 calls for free. ("In case of emergency, all 911 calls are free...")
As for who should get the ambulance bill if you're t-boned by a car running a red light? You should. And then you should be free to sue the ass off the driver who hit you. Don't like that answer? Turn it around then. Why should you or I pay for the ambulance for someone else who gets hit by a car running a red light?
I am interested in the answer ML would provide to his question: who does he think should pay if he gets t-boned? If it is anyone other than himself, I'd like his explanation of why.
More soon on the topic, as time and answers permit......
Oh yes, here's an online definition of the Strawman fallacy.
