Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Post No. 162d: Chicago School Bans Some Lunches Brought from Home
According to the Chicago Tribune, an Illinois school has banned certain lunches brought from home. According to the school head, the new policy is designed to assist students in making healthy food choices.
Is this a responsible or irresponsible approach?
Check out the article here.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Post No. 146a: Article of Interest re Response to BP Oil Spill
Over the past several years, there has been much discussion regarding the role of government versus the role of the private sector in addressing societal issues and needs.
The Laughingman came across the following article from Garden and Gun Magazine, which details the efforts of one private sector entity to deal with the Gulf event.
Should the US leave the response effort entirely in the hands of the private sector, entirely in the hands of the government, a combination of the two, or even perhaps neither, thus leaving it to individual citizens to address as they see fit?
July 1, 2010
Garden and Gun Magazine
Goings On
THE PERFECT GULF RESCUE BOAT
No one understands the tragedy in the Gulf as well as fishermen. So it's no surprise two diehard anglers have made it their mission to make a difference - government red tape and BP be damned.
Mark Castlow, the owner of Dragonfly Boatworks in Vero Beach, Florida, and his colleague, Jimbo Meador, took one look at the crafts used to rescue oiled birds and knew that they would be of no use in the marshes and shallows of the Gulf Coast, precisely where many injured birds will go when in distress. So thanks to some financial backing from Jimmy Buffet, they halted their production line, sketched a resue boat on a napkin, and ....
To view the remainder of the article, click here.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Post No. 96: Should Government Get Out of the Business of Education?
It is our goal to examine every imaginable issue in society about which reasonable people may differ. We’re nothing if not eclectic.
For some time now, it has been our intention to delve into the subject of education. We tangentially touched on it in a prior post, “Recognizing the Potential of the Innovative Thought Process,” but never approached the subject directly.
Today, we seek your thoughts about a very specific issue: whether government should be involved, in any way, in the education of American citizens.
Earlier today, C-Span2 Book TV aired a book discussion program featuring author John Taylor Gatto. Mr. Gatto was a teacher in the New York Public School system for almost 30 years. He discussed his latest book, Weapons of Mass Instruction: A Schoolteacher’s Journey through the Dark World of Compulsory Schooling.
Mr. Gatto contends that compulsory schooling cripples the imagination and discourages critical thinking. The entire time that we listened to his presentation, we thought about the current debate about the government’s involvement in our lives, and the suggestions that many of the policies of the current administration are socialist in nature.
Many have argued that the only things that government does well are the maintenance of the armed forces and law enforcement. We occasionally hear from those who contend that private schools are of higher quality of than public schools. (At this point, we do not wish to discuss school vouchers.)
However, we have never heard anyone suggest that government remove itself entirely from the field of education. We all know the arguments which prompted government involvement years ago.
However, many argue today that the “free market” is a far better mechanism for driving progress and innovation in society than the government. Should we just let everyone in society decide for themselves how their children should be educated, and leave them to fend for themselves?
Should we let competitive forces decide who gets an education and its quality? Sort of an educational Darwinism?
We believe that any responsible organization should revisit its underlying assumptions on a daily basis, and constantly question whether there is a better way to achieve its goals. Otherwise, it will become stagnant, fall behind in relation to its international competition, and ultimately lose sight of its reason for being.
Tell us – should government get out of the business of education? At the elementary school level? High school level? Collegiate and graduate school level?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Post 41c: Article of Interest from Forbes.com
Adviser Soapbox
Professional Bailout No. Six
Ron Rowland, All Star Fund Trader 09.08.08, 2:49 PM ET
Austin, Texas -
Monday brought a sense of deja vu in the markets. How many financial sector bailouts can we have in one year? Quite a few, apparently. Six times in the last 13 months, the game has changed or appeared to change due to political intervention in the markets. Let's review:
August 2007: The Federal Reserve makes emergency cut in the discount rate
December 2007: Fed announces creation of special lending privileges for banks
January 2008: Another emergency 75 basis point rate cut
March 2008: Bear Stearns bailout
July 2008: First Fannie/Freddie rescue attempt
September 2008: Another Fannie/Freddie rescue attempt
The latest action effectively brings Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under governmental control. Existing shareholders in these institutions are not, to our surprise, being totally wiped out--yet. There is still plenty of time for that to happen.
There is an even bigger loser in this transaction: anyone who owns U.S. Treasury bonds. Interest rates spiked higher, leaving the principal value of government debt sharply lower than it was last week. This is perfectly logical. Having just taken on the massive obligations of Fannie and Freddie, the Treasury's own credit rating had to take a hit. There are no free lunches.
In the big picture, the government's goal is clear: drive down mortgage rates and, more important, convince bankers to actually lend money to people who want to buy houses. Wholesale mortgage rates dropped dramatically Monday morning, so by that standard we have to say the bailout is doing what it is supposed to do. Whether the new liquidity will trickle down to individual borrowers is not yet clear.
Will the sixth bailout be the charm? The record of the last year is not very encouraging. Each action brought a market rally, but the rallies have been getting progressively weaker and shorter each time. As noted above, there are no free lunches. Risk cannot be eliminated, but it can be moved around. What is happening now is that the losses in the mortgage market are being transferred to what may be the only larger fixed-income sector: U.S. Treasury securities.
Since other kinds of bonds take their cue from the Treasury market, the bottom line is that interest rates on all kinds of debt will rise so that those who lost money in mortgage debt can be saved from loss. Is this a good thing? Maybe. But whatever it is, it is not capitalism. It is not what happens when markets are allowed to operate freely and without interference.
In a free market economy, people bear the cost of their own decisions, for better or worse. With that principle out the window, who will be next? This precedent is now in place: If an industry proves that its continued functioning is crucial to the economy and its failure will bring widespread pain, it is entitled to be saved from its otherwise inevitable demise by the collective action of society. The automobile industry is already making noise along these lines. Other applicants will no doubt follow.
For now, stocks are rallying around the globe. Monday morning's opening surge faded with remarkable alacrity, though, suggesting that at least a few investors remain skeptical. We count ourselves among them.
Professional Bailout No. Six
Ron Rowland, All Star Fund Trader 09.08.08, 2:49 PM ET
Austin, Texas -
Monday brought a sense of deja vu in the markets. How many financial sector bailouts can we have in one year? Quite a few, apparently. Six times in the last 13 months, the game has changed or appeared to change due to political intervention in the markets. Let's review:
August 2007: The Federal Reserve makes emergency cut in the discount rate
December 2007: Fed announces creation of special lending privileges for banks
January 2008: Another emergency 75 basis point rate cut
March 2008: Bear Stearns bailout
July 2008: First Fannie/Freddie rescue attempt
September 2008: Another Fannie/Freddie rescue attempt
The latest action effectively brings Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under governmental control. Existing shareholders in these institutions are not, to our surprise, being totally wiped out--yet. There is still plenty of time for that to happen.
There is an even bigger loser in this transaction: anyone who owns U.S. Treasury bonds. Interest rates spiked higher, leaving the principal value of government debt sharply lower than it was last week. This is perfectly logical. Having just taken on the massive obligations of Fannie and Freddie, the Treasury's own credit rating had to take a hit. There are no free lunches.
In the big picture, the government's goal is clear: drive down mortgage rates and, more important, convince bankers to actually lend money to people who want to buy houses. Wholesale mortgage rates dropped dramatically Monday morning, so by that standard we have to say the bailout is doing what it is supposed to do. Whether the new liquidity will trickle down to individual borrowers is not yet clear.
Will the sixth bailout be the charm? The record of the last year is not very encouraging. Each action brought a market rally, but the rallies have been getting progressively weaker and shorter each time. As noted above, there are no free lunches. Risk cannot be eliminated, but it can be moved around. What is happening now is that the losses in the mortgage market are being transferred to what may be the only larger fixed-income sector: U.S. Treasury securities.
Since other kinds of bonds take their cue from the Treasury market, the bottom line is that interest rates on all kinds of debt will rise so that those who lost money in mortgage debt can be saved from loss. Is this a good thing? Maybe. But whatever it is, it is not capitalism. It is not what happens when markets are allowed to operate freely and without interference.
In a free market economy, people bear the cost of their own decisions, for better or worse. With that principle out the window, who will be next? This precedent is now in place: If an industry proves that its continued functioning is crucial to the economy and its failure will bring widespread pain, it is entitled to be saved from its otherwise inevitable demise by the collective action of society. The automobile industry is already making noise along these lines. Other applicants will no doubt follow.
For now, stocks are rallying around the globe. Monday morning's opening surge faded with remarkable alacrity, though, suggesting that at least a few investors remain skeptical. We count ourselves among them.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Post No. 19: Katrina, Iowa Style
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
In late August of this year, it will have been three full years since Hurricane Katrina unleashed her fury on the Gulf Coast, with significant damage to the State of Louisiana. Additionally, we’ve all seen reports of what still remains to be done, and the manner in which the lives of many have been disrupted and have not yet returned to normal. In Post No. 8, the following questions were posed regarding the then current earthquake in China:
1. Three years from now, do you think that China will have done a better job of responding to its earthquake than America did in responding to Katrina?
2. What factors have you taken into consideration in arriving at your position?
3. Are there differences in our cultures and governments that will contribute to the differing responses?
4. How significant will the difference be?
5. Will China have repaired all of the physical damage within three years?
6. Will China have reconstructed the lives of all of the affected people within three years?
Over the past couple of weeks, we have witnessed epic flooding in the State of Iowa. President Bush, during his visit there earlier this week, indicated that he was not unmindful of the ways in which FEMA could have been more responsive to the events of Katrina. The following questions are now posed with respect to the Iowa flooding, and the potential federal response:
1. Three years from now, do you think that America will have done a better job of responding to events in Iowa than it did in responding to Katrina?
2. What factors have you taken into consideration in arriving at your position?
3. Are there differences between Louisiana and Iowa which will contribute to the differing responses?
4. How significant will the difference be?
5. Will America have repaired all of the physical damage in Iowa within three years?
6. Within three years, will China have reconstructed the lives of a larger percentage of the people affected by their earthquake, than America will have reconstructed the lives of the people in Iowa affected by the flooding?
7. Three years from now (i.e., six years post-Katrina), will there still be citizens of Louisiana, affected by Katrina, whose basic needs still have not been addressed?
Please be sure to provide the basis for your positions. This, like the series of questions posed regarding the Chinese earthquake, should be interesting.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
In late August of this year, it will have been three full years since Hurricane Katrina unleashed her fury on the Gulf Coast, with significant damage to the State of Louisiana. Additionally, we’ve all seen reports of what still remains to be done, and the manner in which the lives of many have been disrupted and have not yet returned to normal. In Post No. 8, the following questions were posed regarding the then current earthquake in China:
1. Three years from now, do you think that China will have done a better job of responding to its earthquake than America did in responding to Katrina?
2. What factors have you taken into consideration in arriving at your position?
3. Are there differences in our cultures and governments that will contribute to the differing responses?
4. How significant will the difference be?
5. Will China have repaired all of the physical damage within three years?
6. Will China have reconstructed the lives of all of the affected people within three years?
Over the past couple of weeks, we have witnessed epic flooding in the State of Iowa. President Bush, during his visit there earlier this week, indicated that he was not unmindful of the ways in which FEMA could have been more responsive to the events of Katrina. The following questions are now posed with respect to the Iowa flooding, and the potential federal response:
1. Three years from now, do you think that America will have done a better job of responding to events in Iowa than it did in responding to Katrina?
2. What factors have you taken into consideration in arriving at your position?
3. Are there differences between Louisiana and Iowa which will contribute to the differing responses?
4. How significant will the difference be?
5. Will America have repaired all of the physical damage in Iowa within three years?
6. Within three years, will China have reconstructed the lives of a larger percentage of the people affected by their earthquake, than America will have reconstructed the lives of the people in Iowa affected by the flooding?
7. Three years from now (i.e., six years post-Katrina), will there still be citizens of Louisiana, affected by Katrina, whose basic needs still have not been addressed?
Please be sure to provide the basis for your positions. This, like the series of questions posed regarding the Chinese earthquake, should be interesting.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)