Tag Archives: Markets

New study shows how capitalism and religion promote co-operation

From the National Post.


Free-enterprising, impersonal markets may seem cutthroat and mean-spirited, but a provocative new study says markets have been a force for good over the last 10,000 years, helping to drive the evolution of more trusting and co-operative societies.

“We live in a much kinder, gentler world than most humans have lived in,” says anthropologist Joe Henrich of the University of British Columbia, lead author of the study that helps topple long-held stereotypes.

The finding, reported in the journal Science, suggests people trust and play fair with strangers because markets and religion — not some deep psychological instinct inherited from our dim tribal past — have helped shape our neural circuitry over the eons.

The 13 researchers on Mr. Henrich’s international team spent time — and played clever psychological games — with more than 2,000 people in 15 different societies.

[…]The study found that the likelihood that people “played fair” with strangers increased with the degree people were integrated into markets and participated in a world religion.

[…]The study also suggests world religions, such as Christianity and Islam, were a potent evolutionary force, favouring the growth of complex societies by reinforcing fairness and trust.

Science is the number one peer-reviewed journal in the world. Capitalism, for lack of a better word, is good. Capitalism works.

Supreme Court sides with Conservative Party against price-fixing monopoly

Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Story here from the Vancouver Sun. (H/T Andrew)


The Canadian Wheat Board cannot spend money on advocacy to protect its monopoly, following a Supreme Court of Canada decision Thursday against hearing an appeal from the Winnipeg-based agency, which asserts that it has been silenced by the Conservative government.

Without giving reasons, the high court declined the appeal application to a Federal Court of Appeal ruling that sided with the federal government in its 2006 order from then-agriculture minister Chuck Strahl for the board to refrain from spending its money on lobbying.

[…]The federal Conservatives are seeking to end the board’s monopoly, which is controlled by farmers. The monopoly makes the agency one of the world’s biggest exporters of wheat and barley.

The board maintains that the monopoly ensures farmers receive the best prices for their grain, but the federal government, along with some farmers, say that they would be better off in a free market, selling their products on their own.

Conservatives are for a free market and competition, because we believe that it is the best way for consumers to get a low price and high quality. The proper role of government is to ensure that no organization or business enjoys monopoly status due to the government insulating them from competition. The Canadian Wheat Board is just one option, but farmers should have other choices to sell their product.

Capitalism is opposed to monopolies and it is the proper role of government to make sure that no government policy is set up to favor one corporation over any competitor. Let the farmers choose what is best for them. Choice and competition.

MUST READ: How Nancy Pelosi plans to bankrupt private medical insurers

Story here at Director Blue. (H/T Fausta’s Blog via ECM)

Here’s section 2714 of the health care reform bill.

(a) In General- Each health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the small or large group market shall provide that for any plan year in which the coverage has a medical loss ratio below a level specified by the Secretary (but not less than 85 percent), the issuer shall provide in a manner specified by the Secretary for rebates to enrollees of the amount by which the issuer’s medical loss ratio is less than the level so specified.

Unless I am mistaken, this means that medical insurers will be forced to pay out 85% of premiums collected as either losses (claims) or as rebates to customers.

So, private medical insurers will only be able to use 15% of all premium collected for operating expenses, such as salaries, rate dvelopment, claims processing, etc. But is 15% of income from premiums enough to keep a business afloat?

Director Blue writes:

Why would a loss ratio that permits only a 15% administrative margin for insurers cause companies to fail? Consider that the administrative expenses include collecting premiums; processing and paying claims; monitoring patient care; staffing customer service functions; paying costs to state and federal regulators; paying sales agents; and general overhead (rent, power, heat, light); etc.

I repeat: No company has ever survived with a loss ratio approaching 85%.

What are we to make of Obama’s claim that we could keep our health plan if we liked it, in light of this new evidence? If what Director Blue has argued is true, you will be depending on the federal government for health care. You will have no choice. And whatever they tell you to do, you will do it. They will be the sole provider of health care for you  and your family. This is how liberty dies – to thunderous applause.

What the Democrat’s health care bill means to you

Director Blue also has a post up about what the Democrat health care bill means to you, in 90 seconds.


The CBO now estimates health bill spending at $3 trillion over 10 years. Since the CBO historically underestimates expenses, assume massive new deficits for a country that can ill afford them.

You’ll be required to buy a ‘qualified’ health plan. A family earning $102K a year will pay $1,700 a month in premium and out-of-pocket expenses. ‘Willful’ failure to buy a plan will result in a fine of up to $250,000 and ‘imprisonment of up to five years’. Illegal immigrants are exempt from fines and imprisonment.

Every business in America must provide a ‘qualified plan’ for employees and pay 72.5% of the cost. Failure to do so results in an 8% payroll tax.

Read the rest. I would think that some people who worked for medical insurers voted for Obama. Actually, one of the strongest Democrats I know actually left our company recently to go work for a medical insurer. He said that health care was a safe industry during a recession. He’s going to learn the importance of studying economics if this bill passes.

How the Democrats got endorsements from the AMA and AARP

One last thing. ECM also sent me this article on how the Democrats were able to get endorsements from the AMA and the AARP.

Thomas Sowell explains the economics of cutting health care costs

The Democrats are talking a lot of about their plan to reduce the costs of health care. And they think that the way to do that is by having government take a bigger role in health care provision. Well, Thomas Sowell doesn’t like the idea that the government can reduce health care costs by using govenrment, and he’s written a four part series on it.

Here’s a quote from the first part about how Democrats attack the suppliers of health care products and services:

Despite all the demonizing of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies or doctors for what they charge, the fundamental costs of goods and services are the costs of producing them.

If highly paid chief executives of insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies agreed to work free of charge, it would make very little difference in the cost of insurance or medications. If doctors’ incomes were cut in half, that would not lower the cost of producing doctors through years of expensive training in medical schools and hospitals, nor the overhead costs of running doctors’ offices.

What it would do is reduce the number of very able people who are willing to take on the high costs of a medical education when the return on that investment is greatly reduced and the aggravations of dealing with government bureaucrats are added to the burdens of the work.

Britain has had a government-run medical system for more than half a century and it has to import doctors, including some from Third World countries where the medical training may not be the best.

And a quote from the second part about how reducing costs means rationing:

There is no question that you can reduce the payments for medical care by having either a lower quantity or a lower quality of medical care. That has already been done in countries with government-run medical systems.

In the United States, the government has already reduced payments for patients on Medicare and Medicaid, with the result that some doctors no longer accept new patients with Medicare or Medicaid. That has not reduced the cost of medical care. It has reduced the availability of medical care, just as buying a pint of milk reduces the payment below what a quart of milk would cost.

Letting old people die instead of saving their lives will undoubtedly reduce medical payments considerably. But old people have that option already— and seldom choose to exercise it, despite clever people who talk about a “duty to die.”

A government-run system will take that decision out of the hands of the elderly or their families, and thereby “bring down the cost of medical care.” A stranger’s death is much easier to take, especially if you are a bureaucrat making that decision in Washington.

[…]You can even save money by cutting down on medications to relieve pain, as is already being done in Britain’s government-run medical system.

You can save money by not having as many high-tech medical devices like CAT scans or MRIs, and not using the latest medications. Countries with government-run medical systems have less of all these things than the United States has.But reducing these things is not “bringing down the cost of medical care.” It is simply refusing to pay those costs— and taking the consequences.

And a quote from the third part talks about free markets versus government price controls:

If you think the government can lower medical costs by eliminating “waste, fraud and abuse,” as some Washington politicians claim, the logical question is: Why haven’t they done that already?

Over the years, scandal after scandal has shown waste, fraud and abuse to be rampant in Medicare and Medicaid. Why would anyone imagine that a new government medical program will do what existing government medical programs have clearly failed to do?

If we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical drugs now, how can we afford to pay for doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical drugs, in addition to a new federal bureaucracy to administer a government-run medical system?

And a quote from the fourth part talks about equality versus liberty in health care:

What about insurance companies denying reimbursements for treatments? Does anyone imagine that a government bureaucracy will not do that?

Moreover, the worst that an insurance company can do is refuse to pay for medication or treatment. In some countries with government-run medical systems, the government can prevent you from spending your own money to get the medication or treatment that their bureaucracy has denied you. Your choice is to leave the country or smuggle in what you need.

However appalling such a situation may be, it is perfectly consistent with elites wanting to control your life. As far as those elites are concerned, it would not be “social justice” to allow some people to get medical care that others are denied, just because some people “happen to have money.”

But very few people just “happen to have money.” Most people have earned money by producing something that other people wanted. But getting what you want by what you have earned, rather than by what elites will deign to allow you to have, is completely incompatible with the vision of an elite-controlled world, which they call “social justice” or other politically attractive phrases.

What’s frustrating to me is how quickly people think of growing government as the solution to their problems. They don’t want to deal with paying for health care themselves. But what the government does to solve the high prices is fix prices and regulate the producers of health care, like doctors and medical device manufacturers. They make the supply smaller. But when the cost apparently goes down, people are signaled to use more health care. That makes the demand larger. And this is why there is a shortage of health care in countries that have health care provisioning highly regulated by the government.

You can even save money by cutting down on medications to relieve pain, as is already being done in Britain’s government-run medical system.

You can save money by not having as many high-tech medical devices like CAT scans or MRIs, and not using the latest medications. Countries with government-run medical systems have less of all these things than the United States has.But reducing these things is not “bringing down the cost of medical care.” It is simply refusing to pay those costs— and taking the consequences.

Michele Bachmann in defense of free trade agreements

Representative Michele Bachmann
Representative Michele Bachmann

ECM sends word of a Michele Bachmann column posted at the Heritage Foundation!


Each day in Minnesota and all across the nation, billions of dollars worth of products begin their journey to be sold overseas. American farmers, manufacturers, and businesses rely on exports to strengthen and grow both their bottom line, as well as our economy’s.

Free and fair trade agreements help spur economic growth; improve efficiency and innovation; create better, higher-paying jobs for hard-working Americans; and increase the availability of lower-priced products here in the United States.

Furthermore, the role of free trade as an expression of liberty and opportunity for all individuals signifies the very principles our country was founded upon.

Yet, the free trade agreements with Panama, South Korea and Colombia negotiated under the Bush Administration remain little more than words on paper. Despite having been carefully negotiated over a period of two and half years, these agreements have become bogged down by partisan divides. In the meantime, with an average tariff of 53% imposed on U.S. agricultural products by South Korea last year, for example, there is little wonder the United States International Trade Commission estimates U.S. sales of agricultural products could increase by as much as $3.8 billion once the U.S.–South Korea agreement is fully implemented.And while Congressional leaders seem content to leave these agreements on the back burner, America’s fragile industries are left hanging in the balance. The impact of depressed exports is fully evident to those who make their livelihood from them. In fact, Minnesota’s manufacturing exports experienced a 19% decline during the first quarter of 2009, mirroring a similar decrease nationwide. And our agricultural sector, especially our ailing pork and dairy producers, certainly needs no reminder of the importance of expanded export channels to the survival of their farms.

Click through and read the whole thing.

Reading this column filled me with joy and admiration, because Michele Bachmann shows  how good a Christian woman can be if she puts her mind to it. It’s so good that she has an informed view of economic policy and realizes how prosperity is important to Christians who are trying to marry and raise a family. Money is the fuel we use to run our life plans, so we all need to have jobs and to make sure that our dollar buys as many useful things as possible, by keeping prices low.

Here are my recent posts on Michele Bachmann:

You can click here for her video blog.

Please contribute to her 2010 campaign, if you can.

Here are all the posts tagged “Michele Bachmann”.

New Alfonzo Rachel video

By the way, for my female readers, the male equivalent of Michele Bachmann is Alfonzo Rachel. You can see his latest video which explains why Christianity is not compatible with socialism. He’s a devout Christian and he understands economics. He also is very entertaining in these videos he makes for PJTV.