"The most revealing international comparisons look at cancer survival rates, because of the universally extensive record-keeping for this disease. A European study found that, compared to 18 European countries, the U.S. had strikingly higher five-year survival rates in all 12 cancers studied, except for one: stomach cancer. Even there, the survival rates were close -- and the difference was attributed to the location of the cancer in the stomach. For all types of cancers, European men have only a 47.3 percent five-year survival rate, compared to 66.3 percent survival rate for American men. The greatest disparity was in prostate cancer, which American men are 28 percent more likely to survive than European men.
European women are only 55.8 percent likely to live five years after contracting any kind of cancer, compared to 62.9 percent for American women. In five cancers -- breast, prostate, thyroid, testicular and skin melanoma -- American survival rates are higher than 90 percent. Europeans hit a 90 percent survival rate for only one of those -- testicular cancer. Most disturbingly, many cancers in Europe are discovered only upon the victim's death -- twice as many as in the U.S. Consequently, the European study simply excluded cancers that were first noted on the death certificate, so as not to give the U.S. too great an advantage. "
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33877#
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Perspective On Euro Statism
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/09/are-living-standards-higher-in-denmark-or-the-united-states/print/
"The left loves Scandinavia, but for the wrong reason. Nations such as Denmark and Sweden have much to admire, particularly their open markets, low levels of regulation, sound money, and honest governments [1]. Indeed, if fiscal policy is removed from the equation, both Denmark and Sweden are more laissez-faire than the United States according to Economic Freedom of the World [2](as I noted in this recent video [3]).
But fiscal policy is where the Scandinavians have serious problems. Taxes are confiscatory, punishing people who work, save, and invest. High levels of government spending, meanwhile, reduce economic growth by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy and funneling them into the stifling welfare state.
Not surprisingly, this is the reason why statists admire Scandinavian nations. Matthew Yglesias, for instance, recently expressed [4]his great admiration for Denmark. And I suppose I would agree with him if asked to pick the world's best welfare state. I've been to the country several times and there is no question that laissez-faire policies in areas other than fiscal policy have helped the nation remain relatively prosperous."
"The left loves Scandinavia, but for the wrong reason. Nations such as Denmark and Sweden have much to admire, particularly their open markets, low levels of regulation, sound money, and honest governments [1]. Indeed, if fiscal policy is removed from the equation, both Denmark and Sweden are more laissez-faire than the United States according to Economic Freedom of the World [2](as I noted in this recent video [3]).
But fiscal policy is where the Scandinavians have serious problems. Taxes are confiscatory, punishing people who work, save, and invest. High levels of government spending, meanwhile, reduce economic growth by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy and funneling them into the stifling welfare state.
Not surprisingly, this is the reason why statists admire Scandinavian nations. Matthew Yglesias, for instance, recently expressed [4]his great admiration for Denmark. And I suppose I would agree with him if asked to pick the world's best welfare state. I've been to the country several times and there is no question that laissez-faire policies in areas other than fiscal policy have helped the nation remain relatively prosperous."
Rational Thought on AGW
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/GSA_alternate-Statement_SFS.pdf
We believe, and evidence supports this, that a warmer climate is on the whole beneficial to human health and endeavors, esp. for agriculture and forestry; hence we see no need to attempt climate modification of any kind. In addition, CO2 is a natural fertilizer for plants, and higher CO2 levels are desirable; historic levels have been many times higher than today's. Adaptation to climate changes has been the human norm during ice ages and interglacials and will continue to be the primary mechanism. Finally, we see no need to modify energy policy in response to fears of climate change -- although we do support energy conservation and the development of alternative energy supplies in anticipation of the gradual depletion of readily available fossil fuels.
We believe, and evidence supports this, that a warmer climate is on the whole beneficial to human health and endeavors, esp. for agriculture and forestry; hence we see no need to attempt climate modification of any kind. In addition, CO2 is a natural fertilizer for plants, and higher CO2 levels are desirable; historic levels have been many times higher than today's. Adaptation to climate changes has been the human norm during ice ages and interglacials and will continue to be the primary mechanism. Finally, we see no need to modify energy policy in response to fears of climate change -- although we do support energy conservation and the development of alternative energy supplies in anticipation of the gradual depletion of readily available fossil fuels.
Paralysis of Governance - If Only
"The cost is compromise. And the outcome is a paralysis of governance."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/24/the_partisan_industrial_complex__98407.html
He says "paralysis of governance." What he means is "paralysis of new legislation." Previously enacted legislation is still there to be governed by the Executive Branch. That does enough harm, no need to add
more of the same. If this is what it takes to keep the government somewhat in check, I'm all for it, and will in fact hope for more. I wish we could get back to the days of "gridlock" and the "Do nothing Congress." Ahh, the good old days.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/24/the_partisan_industrial_complex__98407.html
He says "paralysis of governance." What he means is "paralysis of new legislation." Previously enacted legislation is still there to be governed by the Executive Branch. That does enough harm, no need to add
more of the same. If this is what it takes to keep the government somewhat in check, I'm all for it, and will in fact hope for more. I wish we could get back to the days of "gridlock" and the "Do nothing Congress." Ahh, the good old days.
Trust Us, We're From the Govt
When they lie about AGW to make their point, what does that mean to you? Does it make you think twice about the reality of the whole AGW case? Or do you think the lying is justified because the stakes are so high? In any event - do you trust the folks we call political leaders to know the truth and do the right thing? Or do you think they'll use any event to line their pockets via their 'friends'?
This from David D Friedman:
"I am not arguing for or against claims that the greater extent doesn't really count because it is thinner ice or that all the evidence taken together still supports long term shrinking of arctic sea ice. My claim is simply that the quote above, which is still up on the JPL web page, is false. When people lie to me about the evidence for their conclusions, offering other evidence that their conclusions are still true is not an adequate defense."
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2009/09/arctic-sea-ice-latest-figures.html
This from David D Friedman:
"I am not arguing for or against claims that the greater extent doesn't really count because it is thinner ice or that all the evidence taken together still supports long term shrinking of arctic sea ice. My claim is simply that the quote above, which is still up on the JPL web page, is false. When people lie to me about the evidence for their conclusions, offering other evidence that their conclusions are still true is not an adequate defense."
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2009/09/arctic-sea-ice-latest-figures.html
One Way to Know Our Taxes Are High Enough
There are a lot of telling stats on taxes - E.G.:
"As we come to the end of the Bush administration, the top 1% of American taxpayers already pay 40% of all income taxes -- the highest level in 40 years. The top 10% of income earners pay 71% of the taxes."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910117767951201.html?mod=todays_columnists
But this one makes an unarguable point. If we desire to compete in the world for producers, we should be a place where producers can keep what they make so that we can keep them here producing.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/09/us-income-taxes-headed-in-wrong.html
"As we come to the end of the Bush administration, the top 1% of American taxpayers already pay 40% of all income taxes -- the highest level in 40 years. The top 10% of income earners pay 71% of the taxes."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910117767951201.html?mod=todays_columnists
But this one makes an unarguable point. If we desire to compete in the world for producers, we should be a place where producers can keep what they make so that we can keep them here producing.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/09/us-income-taxes-headed-in-wrong.html
The Feds Are Scary
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/09/the_feds_attack.html
I had to write my congressional delegation about this one. This is wrong, it's abusive to liberty, it must stop.
"You can't get much meaner than to threaten someone with guns. And that is what a warning letter from HHS is. Think about what would happen if Humana ignored the HHS letter and kept speaking out critically on health care. The next step would be to bring Humana to court. If Humana refused, the next step would be, literally, for the Feds to come in with guns."
I had to write my congressional delegation about this one. This is wrong, it's abusive to liberty, it must stop.
"You can't get much meaner than to threaten someone with guns. And that is what a warning letter from HHS is. Think about what would happen if Humana ignored the HHS letter and kept speaking out critically on health care. The next step would be to bring Humana to court. If Humana refused, the next step would be, literally, for the Feds to come in with guns."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)