"Tomorrow's superpower will be the society who makes it a moral imperative - a social responsibility - for each individual to obtain and maintain capital wealth. In that generation, mankind will finally be free of the bondages of capitalism and socialism."
-- Charles Knobloch, May 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Ending Poverty....
"The only way to end poverty is to vest all people with capital."
-- Charles Knobloch, 23 May 2009
-- Charles Knobloch, 23 May 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
So why does Obama get to talk to Congress and I don't?
This last summer, both the Media and the Republicans have done a fine job of mis-educating the public about how our government works. It is now September 11th, and there is hardly a single person who sees how Joe Wilson's outburst in Congress symbolizes how anti-American the President and the Congress have been acting. We have drifted so far from understanding the role of the Presidency, and especially the role of a Congressman to realize the depths of the indencency of their actions.
What in the world am I talking about?
You see, the summer of 2009 was litered with Congressmen holding Town Halls in order to "educate" the public about their health care legislation. Those trying to speak out at those town halls were scolded, demeaned, and shut out. The Press gladly joined in, questioning the "civility" of these citizens --- but never once raising the issue of what the definition of a town hall is supposed to be.
Between Democratic Congressmen and the supporting role of the Media, they managed to re-define the meaning of the word "Town Hall". Lost on the media was the concept that Congressmen are elected to represent the people. By definition, it is the Congressman who is supposed to be listening at a Town Hall! Instead, we the people got a Summer's worth of Media-provided government re-education in how we are supposed to listen -- and not speak -- to our Congressman!
Bingo -- first step in re-writing our Constitution through social re-engineering. Now we have the people trained to not realize the impropriety of the actions of these Congressmen.
(By the way, the Republicans did not do very much to stop this little exercise in mis-educating the public. If anything, they assisted by agreeing that people should be more "civil"!)
Now, fast forward to 9-9-09, just moments before the 9/11 anniversary. Congressmen across the country have successfully "trained" the public that it is the role of the Congressman to speak to them -- and NOT for the people to tell the Congressman what to do. The Congressmen have successfully indoctrinated the people to believe that they "don't get paid extra for being here" -- that is: they do not have to listen to the people. Now it is 9-9-09. While we, as a nation have had almost no voice and no say in this health care debate, there stands Obama before Congress, telling Congress what the health care legislation must look like.
He's doing what none of us are allowed to do! OBAMA IS FORCING CONGRESS TO LISTEN TO HIM!
The problem with this picture is that he is THE LAST PERSON who should be authorized to speak to Congress. Why should I, or we the people, be prevented from (and even scolded for) telling our representative how we want him to represent us --- and then be subjected to watching the one person in this Country who has no right to tell Congress what legislation they should consider or how they should vote?
On 9-9-09 the Democrat and Media re-education program came full circle -- the education was completed. One soul saw that the Emperor had no clothes -- saw the impropriety of the entire event -- the fraud on we the people -- and burst out in anger. The rest of the souls had already lost sight of their roles and positions.
Yes, poor Joe Wilson symbolized all the thousands of people who got shut out, demeaned, and brushed aside at the Summer Town Halls. At the same time, the media re-education was busy at work, subtly re-teaching us the new structure of our government. The Press very nicely put every body in their new place and their new role:
The President has full voice and reign over Congress. Congress has full voice and reign over the people.
So, as the folks from World War II drift out of political power, and are replaced by children educated by this wonderful media, fewer and fewer people are even around to realize how indecent and, in many ways, how unlawful our Congress is being run. Unlawful? Yes, the Constitution is our law and Congress is answerable only to the people. Instead, they have made themselves subservient to the President, with their reward for doing so to now be our masters and not our representatives.
So, shame on Joe WIlson for his lack of refinement, and more so for apologizing. A bigger shame on the President for accepting his apology instead of sticking up for Joe. An even bigger shame on Congress for not censuring the Congressmen who ran despotic Town Halls. And the biggest shame, to the Republicans for allowing this change in government structure to happen. I would even dare to suggest that "allowing" is to too weak of a word. Shame on them, they have been participating in this deception, too.
Joe Wilson, Joe the Plummer. We need a bunch more Joe's to help us out of this mess.
So, my question remains. Why does Obama get to talk to Congress and I don't?
(c) 2009 Knobloch. All rights reserved. Contact for publication permission. http://www.charlesknobloch.blogspot.com/
What in the world am I talking about?
You see, the summer of 2009 was litered with Congressmen holding Town Halls in order to "educate" the public about their health care legislation. Those trying to speak out at those town halls were scolded, demeaned, and shut out. The Press gladly joined in, questioning the "civility" of these citizens --- but never once raising the issue of what the definition of a town hall is supposed to be.
Between Democratic Congressmen and the supporting role of the Media, they managed to re-define the meaning of the word "Town Hall". Lost on the media was the concept that Congressmen are elected to represent the people. By definition, it is the Congressman who is supposed to be listening at a Town Hall! Instead, we the people got a Summer's worth of Media-provided government re-education in how we are supposed to listen -- and not speak -- to our Congressman!
Bingo -- first step in re-writing our Constitution through social re-engineering. Now we have the people trained to not realize the impropriety of the actions of these Congressmen.
(By the way, the Republicans did not do very much to stop this little exercise in mis-educating the public. If anything, they assisted by agreeing that people should be more "civil"!)
Now, fast forward to 9-9-09, just moments before the 9/11 anniversary. Congressmen across the country have successfully "trained" the public that it is the role of the Congressman to speak to them -- and NOT for the people to tell the Congressman what to do. The Congressmen have successfully indoctrinated the people to believe that they "don't get paid extra for being here" -- that is: they do not have to listen to the people. Now it is 9-9-09. While we, as a nation have had almost no voice and no say in this health care debate, there stands Obama before Congress, telling Congress what the health care legislation must look like.
He's doing what none of us are allowed to do! OBAMA IS FORCING CONGRESS TO LISTEN TO HIM!
The problem with this picture is that he is THE LAST PERSON who should be authorized to speak to Congress. Why should I, or we the people, be prevented from (and even scolded for) telling our representative how we want him to represent us --- and then be subjected to watching the one person in this Country who has no right to tell Congress what legislation they should consider or how they should vote?
On 9-9-09 the Democrat and Media re-education program came full circle -- the education was completed. One soul saw that the Emperor had no clothes -- saw the impropriety of the entire event -- the fraud on we the people -- and burst out in anger. The rest of the souls had already lost sight of their roles and positions.
Yes, poor Joe Wilson symbolized all the thousands of people who got shut out, demeaned, and brushed aside at the Summer Town Halls. At the same time, the media re-education was busy at work, subtly re-teaching us the new structure of our government. The Press very nicely put every body in their new place and their new role:
The President has full voice and reign over Congress. Congress has full voice and reign over the people.
So, as the folks from World War II drift out of political power, and are replaced by children educated by this wonderful media, fewer and fewer people are even around to realize how indecent and, in many ways, how unlawful our Congress is being run. Unlawful? Yes, the Constitution is our law and Congress is answerable only to the people. Instead, they have made themselves subservient to the President, with their reward for doing so to now be our masters and not our representatives.
So, shame on Joe WIlson for his lack of refinement, and more so for apologizing. A bigger shame on the President for accepting his apology instead of sticking up for Joe. An even bigger shame on Congress for not censuring the Congressmen who ran despotic Town Halls. And the biggest shame, to the Republicans for allowing this change in government structure to happen. I would even dare to suggest that "allowing" is to too weak of a word. Shame on them, they have been participating in this deception, too.
Joe Wilson, Joe the Plummer. We need a bunch more Joe's to help us out of this mess.
So, my question remains. Why does Obama get to talk to Congress and I don't?
(c) 2009 Knobloch. All rights reserved. Contact for publication permission. http://www.charlesknobloch.blogspot.com/
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Selling Personal Payor Health Care to Obama
The recent town halls are showing how small the "d" is in "democrat" and how even the democrats have forsaken democracy and turned to the republican powers of our government in order to advance their principles and beliefs. Even the republicans have renounced democracy in their own way. They are refusing to represent. The result of all this mischief by the two political parties is to leave most Americans virtually disenfranchised from their government -- and any legitimate voices fully silenced.
In all the noise and roar, and fresh acqusations of "trojan horse" legislation, there is hardly any way that a health care plan that is truly good for the people will emerge. History is poised to repeat itself -- be the future for us a Soviet-style health care or the failures of socialist-European health care -- it looks like the collective voice of Washington will prevent the American people from developing a superior, American-made system.
Like "Horton Hears a Who", perhaps there is one Congressman, or one radio talk-show host, or some public staffer who can get Personal Payor into the public debate.
Personal Payor healthcare is a graduated way to make health care affordable for all. Rather than the government trying to set up an entire new way to distribute health care -- which is just some professors' pipe dreams of how they want to see the world work -- personal payor converts our current system to one that is directly fair to the people, remains a profitable and free-enterprise business for insurers, and contains government costs.
What is "Personal Payor" Health Care?
Personal Payor Health Care uses free-enterprise health care insurance balanced with societial goals provided by the government in a non-socialistic and non-communistic way. Personal Payor works by applying three basic principles to existing and new health insurance plans:
1) it reduces or eliminates the concept of "group" versus "individual" health insurance by funding basic, but specific levels of health care for everyone
2) it eliminates direct intervention by the government into an individual's own health care
3) it requires all members in the same plan to pay the same amount for their health care
How does "Personal Payor" Health Care really work?
Any health care plan that is offered by an insurance company is potentially eligible to participate in the government "Personal Payor" program. Although some other government program or programs may exist for a public health care option, under the pure form of "Personal Payor" the government does not provide a public option through the Personal Payor program.
One condition for participation of a health care plan is that all participants pay the same amount for their insurance, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Ultimately, a compromise Personal Payor system may impose a twelve month waiting period on pre-existing conditions (such as is required under Texas law) or allow an age-based rate scale. These variations, however, are not a part of the Personal Payor system in its pure form.
An eligible health care plan then qualifies for one or more government entitlements for its plan participants, based on the total number of participants in the plan. Generally, the more participants the more entitlements are available. In one variation, different plans having the same premiums to their participants would be eligible to be aggregated for the purpose of adding the total number of participants together.
Individuals and families may belong to more than one health care plan in order to combine benefits.
The government entitlements are a basket of different subsidies offered to the eligible health care plans. Each entitlement covers a specific type of diagnosed condition, diagnostic plan, preventative or wellness procedure. These entitlements may be added, amended, or deleted based on a standardized governmental regulatory process and legislative funding.
The following table lists an example set of entitlements:
The actual list of conditions is to be based on the public's desire to have universal access to care for particular ailments. In a departure from tradional insurance-style accounting, they constitute packages of goods and services and not individual consumables and procedures. The subsidiation is not based on an itemization of consumables and procedures that are consumed in the course of diagnosing and treating the ailment. The subsidy is provided for the condition or diagnosis as a package, leaving the private sector freedom to technologically advance the actual goods and services that make up the package of care provided.
So, how does Personal Payor work in practice?
A plan become eligible for one or more subsidies -- that is, one or more packages covering various conditions, wellness, or diagnostic needs -- such that the insurance provider receives the subsidies so long as it maintains the mimimum number in the plan. In this way, for example, the insurance provider is price protected even if a disproportionate number of the plan's participants have the same ailment.
The plan participant, the individual, is able to choose an insurance plan based on the coverage it provides. More plans will be available to a broader base of people, as each insurance plan will strive to maintain the maximum number of participants in order to receive and maintain eligibilty for as many of the subsidy packages as possible. This will push cost per participant down while also favoring plans having the best coverage and simpliest terms and lowest processing costs. The more expensive medical procedures and ailments will subsidize at larger participant plan sizes, meaning a competition for participation from lower income households. Expensive plans, out of reach to the lower and middle class due to expensive premiums, will not meet the minimum participation requirements and will remain unsubsidized. On the other hand, certain types of health care, such as flu shots, mammograms and colonoscopies, which are seen by the public as warranting universal access, will be subsidized at relatively small minimum participant sizes. They will, therefore, be more universally accessible through a multitude of available health care programs.
Although the concept of Personal Payor is initially hard to understand, its effects will have a tremendous effect on not only the United States, but the rest of the world. It is the one program that is insulated from the defects of socialism and communism, yet also avoids the harsh side-effects of an unregulated, winner-take-all system. It minimizes government intrusion into the private sector and into the lives of its citizens, yet provides the compassion and authority for the government to guide the standard of care and the access to that standard of care. Personal Payor does not prevent the governments from launching separate programs to provide additional assistance to remaining disadvantaged groups. Personal Payor does not prevent any person, group, plan, or company from continuing to provide any current or future insurance plan in any form. Personal Payor does, however, greatly incentivize any plan that provides equal cost and equal access to all its participants. Personal payor does, also, greatly incentivize any plan that is economical and efficient enough to generate a large participant base -- that incentivation being increased subsidies for expensive or rare procedures. The Personal Payor system is able to differentiate the truly universal elements of health care, such as mammograms, by providing subsidiation even to those plans with a small participation base. Personal Payor, unlike all the other proposed health care plans, enables funding of new technologies and new ideas for advancing the level of care and new ideas for cutting health care costs.
Personal Payor also is the only system that provides a built-in mechanism to encourage cost savings rather than maximizing reimbursable claims. This is because subsidies are not based on goods and services received, as reimbursements are based today, but rather the subsidy is a total amount provided for the occurance of a particular ailment, major procedure, diagnostic or wellness function. Thus, it keeps the government out of the business of counting the number of sponges used and the acceptable price to reimburse for each sponge. If a bypass is necessary, then the overall procedure gets a subsidy at the insurance provider level, where it can be averaged out over many bypass procedures and be immune to variations in cost or complexity from individual to individual.
So in summary, Personal Payor Health Care is:
1) A list of major medical conditions, procedures, or diagnosis that the government deems worthy of insuring widespread or by universal coverage -- these are "packages"
2) A mimimum participant requirement is assigned for each package
3) A health care plan is eligible for a government subsidy for a package if their plan provides the same coverage terms at the same price to at least the minimum number of participants as required for that package -- all participants must have the same plan at the same price
4) The minimum participant requirement is generally greater for rarer and experimental packages and generally lower for packages designed for universal access
5) Few, if any, limitations on pre-existing conditions -- the plan can be group or "individual", that meaning having little or no effect under Personal Payor as all plans will become an effective group plan in order to qualify for any subsidies
6) Inssurance companies will be free to have participant qualifications, such as non-smoker or office worker, or a plan for a particular corporation -- but their limited number of participants will dictate eligibility for package subsidies
7) Participants may join more than one health care plan, as some plans may appear that are focused on particular conditions or extremes -- the current distinction between catastrophic or major medical insurance and comprehensive insurance will beccome less distinct when Persoanl Payor becomes available
8) Personal Payor does not preclude additional government programs to aid severely disadvantaged groups
(c) 2009 Knobloch. All rights reserved. Contact for publication permission. http://www.charlesknobloch.blogspot.com/
In all the noise and roar, and fresh acqusations of "trojan horse" legislation, there is hardly any way that a health care plan that is truly good for the people will emerge. History is poised to repeat itself -- be the future for us a Soviet-style health care or the failures of socialist-European health care -- it looks like the collective voice of Washington will prevent the American people from developing a superior, American-made system.
Like "Horton Hears a Who", perhaps there is one Congressman, or one radio talk-show host, or some public staffer who can get Personal Payor into the public debate.
Personal Payor healthcare is a graduated way to make health care affordable for all. Rather than the government trying to set up an entire new way to distribute health care -- which is just some professors' pipe dreams of how they want to see the world work -- personal payor converts our current system to one that is directly fair to the people, remains a profitable and free-enterprise business for insurers, and contains government costs.
What is "Personal Payor" Health Care?
Personal Payor Health Care uses free-enterprise health care insurance balanced with societial goals provided by the government in a non-socialistic and non-communistic way. Personal Payor works by applying three basic principles to existing and new health insurance plans:
1) it reduces or eliminates the concept of "group" versus "individual" health insurance by funding basic, but specific levels of health care for everyone
2) it eliminates direct intervention by the government into an individual's own health care
3) it requires all members in the same plan to pay the same amount for their health care
How does "Personal Payor" Health Care really work?
Any health care plan that is offered by an insurance company is potentially eligible to participate in the government "Personal Payor" program. Although some other government program or programs may exist for a public health care option, under the pure form of "Personal Payor" the government does not provide a public option through the Personal Payor program.
One condition for participation of a health care plan is that all participants pay the same amount for their insurance, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Ultimately, a compromise Personal Payor system may impose a twelve month waiting period on pre-existing conditions (such as is required under Texas law) or allow an age-based rate scale. These variations, however, are not a part of the Personal Payor system in its pure form.
An eligible health care plan then qualifies for one or more government entitlements for its plan participants, based on the total number of participants in the plan. Generally, the more participants the more entitlements are available. In one variation, different plans having the same premiums to their participants would be eligible to be aggregated for the purpose of adding the total number of participants together.
Individuals and families may belong to more than one health care plan in order to combine benefits.
The government entitlements are a basket of different subsidies offered to the eligible health care plans. Each entitlement covers a specific type of diagnosed condition, diagnostic plan, preventative or wellness procedure. These entitlements may be added, amended, or deleted based on a standardized governmental regulatory process and legislative funding.
The following table lists an example set of entitlements:
| Required plan size | Condition, Procedure, or Diagnosis | Amount of Govt Subsidy |
| 5,000,000 | Experimental drug therapy for X | $100,000 |
| 1,000,000 | Heart Bypass | $30,000 |
| 100,000 | Course of Treatment for Breast Cancer | $75,000 |
| 10,000 | Insulin Dependent Diabetes | $3,000 |
| 1,000 | Up to Five doctor Visits | $25 co-pay $350 |
| 100 | One CBC | $100 |
| 10 | One wellness checkup | $100 |
The actual list of conditions is to be based on the public's desire to have universal access to care for particular ailments. In a departure from tradional insurance-style accounting, they constitute packages of goods and services and not individual consumables and procedures. The subsidiation is not based on an itemization of consumables and procedures that are consumed in the course of diagnosing and treating the ailment. The subsidy is provided for the condition or diagnosis as a package, leaving the private sector freedom to technologically advance the actual goods and services that make up the package of care provided.
So, how does Personal Payor work in practice?
A plan become eligible for one or more subsidies -- that is, one or more packages covering various conditions, wellness, or diagnostic needs -- such that the insurance provider receives the subsidies so long as it maintains the mimimum number in the plan. In this way, for example, the insurance provider is price protected even if a disproportionate number of the plan's participants have the same ailment.
The plan participant, the individual, is able to choose an insurance plan based on the coverage it provides. More plans will be available to a broader base of people, as each insurance plan will strive to maintain the maximum number of participants in order to receive and maintain eligibilty for as many of the subsidy packages as possible. This will push cost per participant down while also favoring plans having the best coverage and simpliest terms and lowest processing costs. The more expensive medical procedures and ailments will subsidize at larger participant plan sizes, meaning a competition for participation from lower income households. Expensive plans, out of reach to the lower and middle class due to expensive premiums, will not meet the minimum participation requirements and will remain unsubsidized. On the other hand, certain types of health care, such as flu shots, mammograms and colonoscopies, which are seen by the public as warranting universal access, will be subsidized at relatively small minimum participant sizes. They will, therefore, be more universally accessible through a multitude of available health care programs.
Although the concept of Personal Payor is initially hard to understand, its effects will have a tremendous effect on not only the United States, but the rest of the world. It is the one program that is insulated from the defects of socialism and communism, yet also avoids the harsh side-effects of an unregulated, winner-take-all system. It minimizes government intrusion into the private sector and into the lives of its citizens, yet provides the compassion and authority for the government to guide the standard of care and the access to that standard of care. Personal Payor does not prevent the governments from launching separate programs to provide additional assistance to remaining disadvantaged groups. Personal Payor does not prevent any person, group, plan, or company from continuing to provide any current or future insurance plan in any form. Personal Payor does, however, greatly incentivize any plan that provides equal cost and equal access to all its participants. Personal payor does, also, greatly incentivize any plan that is economical and efficient enough to generate a large participant base -- that incentivation being increased subsidies for expensive or rare procedures. The Personal Payor system is able to differentiate the truly universal elements of health care, such as mammograms, by providing subsidiation even to those plans with a small participation base. Personal Payor, unlike all the other proposed health care plans, enables funding of new technologies and new ideas for advancing the level of care and new ideas for cutting health care costs.
Personal Payor also is the only system that provides a built-in mechanism to encourage cost savings rather than maximizing reimbursable claims. This is because subsidies are not based on goods and services received, as reimbursements are based today, but rather the subsidy is a total amount provided for the occurance of a particular ailment, major procedure, diagnostic or wellness function. Thus, it keeps the government out of the business of counting the number of sponges used and the acceptable price to reimburse for each sponge. If a bypass is necessary, then the overall procedure gets a subsidy at the insurance provider level, where it can be averaged out over many bypass procedures and be immune to variations in cost or complexity from individual to individual.
So in summary, Personal Payor Health Care is:
1) A list of major medical conditions, procedures, or diagnosis that the government deems worthy of insuring widespread or by universal coverage -- these are "packages"
2) A mimimum participant requirement is assigned for each package
3) A health care plan is eligible for a government subsidy for a package if their plan provides the same coverage terms at the same price to at least the minimum number of participants as required for that package -- all participants must have the same plan at the same price
4) The minimum participant requirement is generally greater for rarer and experimental packages and generally lower for packages designed for universal access
5) Few, if any, limitations on pre-existing conditions -- the plan can be group or "individual", that meaning having little or no effect under Personal Payor as all plans will become an effective group plan in order to qualify for any subsidies
6) Inssurance companies will be free to have participant qualifications, such as non-smoker or office worker, or a plan for a particular corporation -- but their limited number of participants will dictate eligibility for package subsidies
7) Participants may join more than one health care plan, as some plans may appear that are focused on particular conditions or extremes -- the current distinction between catastrophic or major medical insurance and comprehensive insurance will beccome less distinct when Persoanl Payor becomes available
8) Personal Payor does not preclude additional government programs to aid severely disadvantaged groups
(c) 2009 Knobloch. All rights reserved. Contact for publication permission. http://www.charlesknobloch.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Only One Decision to Make with Health Care
With all the fanfare over the town hall meetings, the press and the political parties are obscuring one basic fact about any government-run health care system: a deadly, built-in conflict of interest.
Imagine this. What if some super-major, greedy oil company were to run all the social security, medicare, medicaid and health care insurance in this country? Now imagine that Mayo Clinic or Cleveland Clinic developed a heart procedure or drug that would extend everyone's lives by ten good years. The cost to the greedy oil company would be enormous! Folks would live longer, meaning more social security payouts. And, more chances for other ailments to crop up during those extra ten years -- more medicare and medicaid health care costs!
There is no way the greedy oil company wants you to live longer! In fact, they will need to do what it takes to suppress any new health care innovation that may extend your life.
Why don't we let some super-major, greedy oil company run health care in this way? Why, because that would be a conflict of interest! Their interests will be to keep your life to 65 years or less. Your interests will be to live as long as possible!
It is that simple --- under any legal standard, the government has a built-in conflict of interest. But, unlike the greedy oil companny, they have ultimate power and control. They can restrict new drugs and new medical procedures through their FDA. They can slow funding to research institutions. They can restrict the level of care based on age alone. They can hide how they pull the plug on grandma.
(c) 2009 Knobloch. All rights reserved. Contact for publication permission. http://www.charlesknobloch.blogspot.com/
Imagine this. What if some super-major, greedy oil company were to run all the social security, medicare, medicaid and health care insurance in this country? Now imagine that Mayo Clinic or Cleveland Clinic developed a heart procedure or drug that would extend everyone's lives by ten good years. The cost to the greedy oil company would be enormous! Folks would live longer, meaning more social security payouts. And, more chances for other ailments to crop up during those extra ten years -- more medicare and medicaid health care costs!
There is no way the greedy oil company wants you to live longer! In fact, they will need to do what it takes to suppress any new health care innovation that may extend your life.
Why don't we let some super-major, greedy oil company run health care in this way? Why, because that would be a conflict of interest! Their interests will be to keep your life to 65 years or less. Your interests will be to live as long as possible!
It is that simple --- under any legal standard, the government has a built-in conflict of interest. But, unlike the greedy oil companny, they have ultimate power and control. They can restrict new drugs and new medical procedures through their FDA. They can slow funding to research institutions. They can restrict the level of care based on age alone. They can hide how they pull the plug on grandma.
(c) 2009 Knobloch. All rights reserved. Contact for publication permission. http://www.charlesknobloch.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Cash for Clunkers - The Ultimate Attack on the Environment!
What?! Isn't Cash for Clunkers supposed to help the environment? After all, look at all those nasty gas-guzzling cars we are taking off the road!
OK, let's look and see if the numbers really add up!
First, let's assume that each clunker would have gotten 50,000 more miles on the road before their owners finally retired them. (Now, wait a minute, if these are clunkers, then they probably weren't going to last another 50,000 miles!) Yes, I know -- but actually, we better use the 50,000 mile figure -- otherwise the environmental savings we calculate will be next-to-nothing.
OK, 50,000 miles at 10 miles per gallon savings. (Hey, wait a second, that is not even close to the reported average MPG difference -- it is much less.) Yes, I know -- but actaully, we better give this program the benefit of the doubt and use the 10 MPG figure.
That's 5,000 gallons of fuel saved over 50,000 miles. Not bad, we spend $4500 to save $10,000 in fuel. Oops! That's not the way to calculate the savings! 50,000 miles at 17 miles per gallon is about 2950 gallons of gasoline. 50,000 miles at 27 miles per gallon is about 1900 gallons of gasoline, a difference of just under 1100 gallons. That's $2200, not $10,000.
But wait, gasoline represents only 1/4 to 1/3 of the total energy compared to the energy used to make the car. At least as much oil and gas is used in making the car as will be consumed in gasoline over the life of the car. Since we are retiring that car 50,000 miles early, we are replacing it with $10,000 to $15,000 in energy costs to make the replacement.
The net result? We save $2,200. We spend $19,500 doing it. Not counting the environmental costs of disposing the clunker.
That's assuming the clunker would have been on the road for another 50,000 miles. At 25,000 miles, a more reasonable figure, you are looking at consuming $19,500 to save $1,100. Sounds like a twenty-for-one attack on the environment!
So, if you are an anti-environmentalist -- go ahead and trade in that clunker, now! It may be a long time before you get a better chance to slap an environmentalist in the face!
(c) 2009 Knobloch. All rights reserved. Contact for publication permission. http://www.charlesknobloch.blogspot.com/
OK, let's look and see if the numbers really add up!
First, let's assume that each clunker would have gotten 50,000 more miles on the road before their owners finally retired them. (Now, wait a minute, if these are clunkers, then they probably weren't going to last another 50,000 miles!) Yes, I know -- but actually, we better use the 50,000 mile figure -- otherwise the environmental savings we calculate will be next-to-nothing.
OK, 50,000 miles at 10 miles per gallon savings. (Hey, wait a second, that is not even close to the reported average MPG difference -- it is much less.) Yes, I know -- but actaully, we better give this program the benefit of the doubt and use the 10 MPG figure.
That's 5,000 gallons of fuel saved over 50,000 miles. Not bad, we spend $4500 to save $10,000 in fuel. Oops! That's not the way to calculate the savings! 50,000 miles at 17 miles per gallon is about 2950 gallons of gasoline. 50,000 miles at 27 miles per gallon is about 1900 gallons of gasoline, a difference of just under 1100 gallons. That's $2200, not $10,000.
But wait, gasoline represents only 1/4 to 1/3 of the total energy compared to the energy used to make the car. At least as much oil and gas is used in making the car as will be consumed in gasoline over the life of the car. Since we are retiring that car 50,000 miles early, we are replacing it with $10,000 to $15,000 in energy costs to make the replacement.
The net result? We save $2,200. We spend $19,500 doing it. Not counting the environmental costs of disposing the clunker.
That's assuming the clunker would have been on the road for another 50,000 miles. At 25,000 miles, a more reasonable figure, you are looking at consuming $19,500 to save $1,100. Sounds like a twenty-for-one attack on the environment!
So, if you are an anti-environmentalist -- go ahead and trade in that clunker, now! It may be a long time before you get a better chance to slap an environmentalist in the face!
(c) 2009 Knobloch. All rights reserved. Contact for publication permission. http://www.charlesknobloch.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Did Nick Anderson (Houston Chronicle) Get It Right?
On July 28th, 2009, Nick Anderson of the Houston Chronicle published a Sarah Palin political cartoon. It caught my eye. It was Pro-Palin! Wow, this cartoonist understands the reality of the world we live in.
What was this cartoon?
The first frame shows a Sarah Palin in a helicopter, shooting at a wolf on the ground. The second frame shows the same scene, but with a reporter in the helicopter with a camera pointed at a Sarah Palin on the ground.
How true this cartoon rings!
Then, I noticed two things about the cartoon that make me realize that Nick Anderson's love for Sarah Palin may not be as it seems.
The cartoon is captioned "Sarah Palin's World". The wolf is drawn to appear as a lovable creature with begging eyes.
Now, why would my immediate reaction to Nick's cartoon be that it was Pro-Palin? And why would Nick put out a cartoon that would have such an unintended effect on people like me?
You see, packs of wolves are not cuddly cartoon creatures with begging eyes. Historians have long attributed the slow advance of the Russian empire to the inability of man to conquer the wolf. Packs of wolves would eat children and families at every opportunity, preventing development of the Russian territories into the economies of Europe and America. It has been a scant one hundred years since wolves enveloped an entire continent in darkness. And, back then, Alaska was a part of Russia. Today's slow emergence from darkness is thanks in large part to man's modern achievements, such as the automobile and the helicopter.
Nick's symbolism could not greater and could not be more on-point. Palin in that helicopter is a cartoon symbol of America's and Russia's emergence -- of man's emergence -- from a hostile, primitive, inhospitable and animal-infested environment -- to the world of thriving factories, cities and transportation infrastructure that we have today. Without the Palins of yesterday and today, Nick and I would be fending off wolves and bears and rattlesnakes to find food for our families.
You see, to get Nick's cartoon, you must also immediately see shooting a wild wolf as something more sinful than destroying a person. His first frame is taking aim at a wolf, his second frame is taking aim at a person. Again, Nick's inadvertent symbolism is right on point. The cameraman is one wolf of a nation-wide pack of wolves, each one aiming a camera and biting off a piece of Palin's character and reputation.
The point that astonishes me is that I don't believe Nick would have put out such a cartoon if he recognized how Pro-Palin it was, or if he realized how much it reflected reality and historical truth in a message opposite of what he intended. It astonishes me that we have drifted so far as to venerate a wild wolf above a human. Likewise, to not see the media-pack with their cameras as so many times more deadly to our society and our way of life.
Has our love-affair with socialism created such an engrained fantasy-view of the world --- to have taken us so far from reality --- that our journalists can no longer see the world around them? They say it is "Sarah Palin's World". But, it has nothing to do with Sarah Palin -- the attacks are made in our world.
Perhaps it is Nick who is holding the bigger gun. Perhaps it is Nick and his pack who are hunting down the Palins of the world. But, actually, is us with the begging eyes. Yesterday, that wolf ate some of our ancestors, today our journalists are eating us.
(c) 2009 Knobloch. All rights reserved. Contact for publication permission. http://www.charlesknobloch.blogspot.com/
What was this cartoon?
The first frame shows a Sarah Palin in a helicopter, shooting at a wolf on the ground. The second frame shows the same scene, but with a reporter in the helicopter with a camera pointed at a Sarah Palin on the ground.
How true this cartoon rings!
Then, I noticed two things about the cartoon that make me realize that Nick Anderson's love for Sarah Palin may not be as it seems.
The cartoon is captioned "Sarah Palin's World". The wolf is drawn to appear as a lovable creature with begging eyes.
Now, why would my immediate reaction to Nick's cartoon be that it was Pro-Palin? And why would Nick put out a cartoon that would have such an unintended effect on people like me?
You see, packs of wolves are not cuddly cartoon creatures with begging eyes. Historians have long attributed the slow advance of the Russian empire to the inability of man to conquer the wolf. Packs of wolves would eat children and families at every opportunity, preventing development of the Russian territories into the economies of Europe and America. It has been a scant one hundred years since wolves enveloped an entire continent in darkness. And, back then, Alaska was a part of Russia. Today's slow emergence from darkness is thanks in large part to man's modern achievements, such as the automobile and the helicopter.
Nick's symbolism could not greater and could not be more on-point. Palin in that helicopter is a cartoon symbol of America's and Russia's emergence -- of man's emergence -- from a hostile, primitive, inhospitable and animal-infested environment -- to the world of thriving factories, cities and transportation infrastructure that we have today. Without the Palins of yesterday and today, Nick and I would be fending off wolves and bears and rattlesnakes to find food for our families.
You see, to get Nick's cartoon, you must also immediately see shooting a wild wolf as something more sinful than destroying a person. His first frame is taking aim at a wolf, his second frame is taking aim at a person. Again, Nick's inadvertent symbolism is right on point. The cameraman is one wolf of a nation-wide pack of wolves, each one aiming a camera and biting off a piece of Palin's character and reputation.
The point that astonishes me is that I don't believe Nick would have put out such a cartoon if he recognized how Pro-Palin it was, or if he realized how much it reflected reality and historical truth in a message opposite of what he intended. It astonishes me that we have drifted so far as to venerate a wild wolf above a human. Likewise, to not see the media-pack with their cameras as so many times more deadly to our society and our way of life.
Has our love-affair with socialism created such an engrained fantasy-view of the world --- to have taken us so far from reality --- that our journalists can no longer see the world around them? They say it is "Sarah Palin's World". But, it has nothing to do with Sarah Palin -- the attacks are made in our world.
Perhaps it is Nick who is holding the bigger gun. Perhaps it is Nick and his pack who are hunting down the Palins of the world. But, actually, is us with the begging eyes. Yesterday, that wolf ate some of our ancestors, today our journalists are eating us.
(c) 2009 Knobloch. All rights reserved. Contact for publication permission. http://www.charlesknobloch.blogspot.com/
Saturday, May 23, 2009
A Case for an International Monetary Unit
- A World Currency for Capitalization
The recent freezing of American financial markets has proven how the economies of the world are controlled by accounting rules and government regulations. It also reveals the inherent, invisible force that makes capitalization work: vast reserves of pledged capital ("reserves") that are needed to fuel liquidity in our day-to-day commerce.
The current "crisis" shows us, numerically, that about $45 Trillion Dollars are required to generate a $25 Trillion Dollar economic system. In other words, we need a reserve of tied-up money to fuel a smaller amount of actual, day-to-day commerce. This $45 Trillion in pledged dollars would appear to evaporate if it were actually called upon. A crisis would occur, as only $25 Trillion is actually available in liquidated assets.
Alexander Hamilton appears to be the first American to recognize and understand this. Hamilton was the first American to successfully create illiquid capital reserves in excess of their true underlying, liquidated, equity. Without Hamilton, the U.S. very likely would not exist today. Unfortunately, our society's understanding of this basic, natural and mathematical law of economics has been repeatedly lost and regained throughout our march through human history.
Roosevelt saw this, as the world economy expanded and roared past the amount of gold available to back it. Roosevelt instituted mechanisms to create stable sources of trapped valuation. Appreciated stock, bank loans based on marginal reserves, and insurance policies are examples of creation of trapped valuation. This trapped valuation does not really exist, but serves as means for creating illiquid capital reserves in excess of their true underlying, liquidated, equity.
To illustrate, imagine if everyone tried to sell all their shares of a stock; the price would go down. Therefore, the market capitalization of a stock is wealth that only exists in theory and only exists as long as few are willing to sell. The valuation is therefore "trapped". One could say that the valuation is "virtual". It is this trapped capital -- capital that is segregated from the day-to-day economic system -- that creates liquidity in day-to-day commerce. When this "trapped" or "virtual" capital is called upon -- when attempts are made to put or liquidate this virtual capital into the flow of day-to-day commerce -- its value falls and liquidity is lost.
Attempts to inject funds into the economic system -- without reintroducing this virtual capital -- actually make the problem worse. A $25 Trillion Dollar economic system now becomes a $30 Trillion Dollar economic system -- requiring now perhaps $51 Trillion instead of $45 Trillion to fuel liquidity back to a robust economy.
The required key is creation of virtual capital that is adequately segregated from the operational economy. Just as Roosevelt found virtual capital mechanisms greater than the world's gold supply, a new form of virtual capital must be recognized that can be greater than capital markets, lending on bank margins, and insurance credit default swap generation.
One solution that provides adequate political opportunity and social stewardship is the creation of an international monetary unit -- in short, a world currency.
Such a currency would be restricted from being used in the day-to-day economic system. Similar to loans to third world countries that are never repaid (another form of virtual capital), such a world currency is only used as the source for securing capital borrowing. It does not flood out into the day-to-day economic system -- as will stocks, mortgage-backed securities, and investment insurance instruments. Such an international monetary unit is a world-governor that can control run-away currency devaluation and enable industrial development in otherwise destitute countries.
Such empowerment belongs to people, not corporations or banks. In one application, a country may choose to vest international currency ownership as a social security resource. It represents capital accumulations to be used to support the aged, disabled, and widowed. Allocation by population and relative economic need creates, over several generations of time, an equitable way to secure and vest all peoples through capitalization. The only way to end poverty is to vest all people with capital.
The timeless problem of lack of personal wealth can be mitigated with a global currency. Individual capital is the key to permanent, sustained prosperity in world dominated by energy, machines, and robots. The individual who is without capital to generate income is forever enslaved to work or rely on some charitable force. An international currency unit that is dedicated as a trapped capital pledge to an individual's social security provides the virtual capital needed to drive liquidity in the global economy. That currency also provides a universal unit of capital that recognizes the need and obligation of the world's citizens to accumulate capital.
Currently, the world needs approximately $45 Trillion Dollars in stable, virtual capital. Recent financial events -- mostly caused by regulatory changes -- have contracted the amount of recognized virtual capital by $11 Trillion to $22 Trillion Dollars. This has resulted in a cascading series of events leading in a rush to liquidate equity and collapse in stock and real estate values. The immediate creation of a $10 Trillion Dollar international monetary unit, distributed or otherwise made available to G-20 nations, will place the global economy back to year-end 2007 levels. Continued, measured periodic distributions of additional virtual capital will fuel global progress and cushion the loss of jobs caused by the expanding success of environmental and sustainability programs.
(c) 2009 Knobloch. All rights reserved. Contact for publication permission. http://www.charlesknobloch.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
A Solution for Mark to Market
Much, if not all, of the current economic crisis has been caused by the government's changing rules on valuation of key bank assets. It can be debated whether these changes were purposely caused in order to seize political control in Washington, but there is no need to comment on that in this article. What does need comment is the incredible power that can be exerted over the entire global financial system through manipulation of accounting rules!
This article is straight-forward: right now, politicians and regulators are wrangling over whether to value bank assets using mark-to-market or mark-to-model. The solution is essentially: "both" and "neither"!
There is one other valuation standard that is amazingly simple to understand: mark-to-performance. This standard simply requires valuation based on the actual income performance of the underlying asset. An asset that is generating income is doing so at a very measurable rate of return. This is a standard that even anyone on the street can understand! Wow!
But, let's not get too simple -- otherwise we will lose all the sophisticated New York bankers, experts, and politicians! The basic problems with mark-to-model and mark-to-market also exist with mark-to-performance. All three, under certain conditions, will not reflect true, long-term value of the underlying asset. But, the three, together, will reflect that true, long-term value of the underlying asset. This makes the solution rather straight-forward.
The solution is to allow banks to value each asset based on the middle valuation chosen from the three standards: mark-to-model, mark-to-market and mark-to-performance.
When there is no liquidity in the market, as we have seen over the past several months, then the mark-to-performance and mark-to-model will provide a higher (and more accurate) valuation. The middle one, probably mark-to-performance, will be the appropriate model to use during these economic times. In times of "irrational exuberance", then the mark-to-market may very well exhibit the highest valuation. In those economic times, either the mark-to-performance or mark-to-model will be the middle ground. Again, that middle model will be the appropriate model to use during such economic times. The examples go on....
So, the only problem with the Mark-to-Performance & Middle-of-the-three approach is that it will leave regulators with little to do and politicians with no red-meat. It does not enable seizure of political and industrial control of entire nations (even ones the size of the United States). It does not create new Hitlers, Stalins, Regans, or Napoleons. So, except for this lonely blog, Mid-3 and Mark-to-Performance will sit in the dark corners of idle thinking.
(c) 2009 Knobloch. All rights reserved. Contact for publication permission. http://www.charlesknobloch.blogspot.com/
This article is straight-forward: right now, politicians and regulators are wrangling over whether to value bank assets using mark-to-market or mark-to-model. The solution is essentially: "both" and "neither"!
There is one other valuation standard that is amazingly simple to understand: mark-to-performance. This standard simply requires valuation based on the actual income performance of the underlying asset. An asset that is generating income is doing so at a very measurable rate of return. This is a standard that even anyone on the street can understand! Wow!
But, let's not get too simple -- otherwise we will lose all the sophisticated New York bankers, experts, and politicians! The basic problems with mark-to-model and mark-to-market also exist with mark-to-performance. All three, under certain conditions, will not reflect true, long-term value of the underlying asset. But, the three, together, will reflect that true, long-term value of the underlying asset. This makes the solution rather straight-forward.
The solution is to allow banks to value each asset based on the middle valuation chosen from the three standards: mark-to-model, mark-to-market and mark-to-performance.
When there is no liquidity in the market, as we have seen over the past several months, then the mark-to-performance and mark-to-model will provide a higher (and more accurate) valuation. The middle one, probably mark-to-performance, will be the appropriate model to use during these economic times. In times of "irrational exuberance", then the mark-to-market may very well exhibit the highest valuation. In those economic times, either the mark-to-performance or mark-to-model will be the middle ground. Again, that middle model will be the appropriate model to use during such economic times. The examples go on....
So, the only problem with the Mark-to-Performance & Middle-of-the-three approach is that it will leave regulators with little to do and politicians with no red-meat. It does not enable seizure of political and industrial control of entire nations (even ones the size of the United States). It does not create new Hitlers, Stalins, Regans, or Napoleons. So, except for this lonely blog, Mid-3 and Mark-to-Performance will sit in the dark corners of idle thinking.
(c) 2009 Knobloch. All rights reserved. Contact for publication permission. http://www.charlesknobloch.blogspot.com/
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Protection from Religious Supremacy Movements
It is interesting that the original Maryland State Constitution is/was the only legal document that provides protection against religious supremacy movements. You can find the exact words in the following Supreme Court Case:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/457/case.html Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
Constitution of Maryland, 1867 (from 143 U.S. 457 at 469-69):
"That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty, wherefore no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief, provided he believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution."
The key point here is that our US Constitution does not include the words: “…unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights…”
There should be a movement to incorporate these words into our State Constitutions and Statutes, our Federal Statutes and also by Constitutional Amendment.
(c) 2009 Knobloch. All rights reserved. Contact for publication permission. http://www.charlesknobloch.blogspot.com/
http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/457/case.html Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
Constitution of Maryland, 1867 (from 143 U.S. 457 at 469-69):
"That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty, wherefore no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief, provided he believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution."
The key point here is that our US Constitution does not include the words: “…unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights…”
There should be a movement to incorporate these words into our State Constitutions and Statutes, our Federal Statutes and also by Constitutional Amendment.
(c) 2009 Knobloch. All rights reserved. Contact for publication permission. http://www.charlesknobloch.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
