Thursday, November 05, 2009

Quotes of the Day: Thomas Sowell

1. 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?

2.
Economics and politics confront the same fundamental problem: What everyone wants adds up to more than there is. Market economies deal with this problem by confronting individuals with the costs of producing what they want, and letting those individuals make their own trade-offs when presented with prices that convey those costs. That leads to self-rationing, in the light of each individual's own circumstances and preferences.

Politics deals with the same problem by making promises that cannot be kept, or which can be kept only by creating other problems that cannot be acknowledged when the promises are made.


~Thomas Sowell's new column

21 Comments:

At 11/05/2009 9:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that if the Republicans get their way, and healthcare reform is defeated, they will pay the price. There will be a backlash for obstruction.

 
At 11/05/2009 9:15 AM, Blogger W.E. Heasley, CLU, LUTCF said...

Sowell hit the nail on the head. He is exactly correct.

Unsustainable Political Promises of the past regarding Social Welfare (entitlements), based on Political-Political rather than Political-Economy, have rolled up at least $53 Trillion of unfunded future obligations.

 
At 11/05/2009 9:29 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"...they will pay the price. There will be a backlash for obstruction"...

Hmmm, why the backlash for trying to put the brakes on the ever increasing debt?

Consider the following: Balancing the Obama Budget With a Mandatory Gorilla

 
At 11/05/2009 10:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a matter of priorities. Just the annual interest payment on the national debt could fund four ObamaCare plans...

 
At 11/05/2009 11:19 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"Just the annual interest payment on the national debt could fund four ObamaCare plans"...

Well anon @ 11/05/2009 10:54 AM as monumentally huge as the interest amounts are I don't think so...

Consider what Martin Feldstein is writting about over at the WSJ...

Investors Business Daily has a running collection of Thomas Sowell commentaries on the economics of medical care plus a podcast interview...

 
At 11/05/2009 11:25 AM, Anonymous CompEng said...

Of course, Sowell's statements in this instance are completely correct.

 
At 11/05/2009 11:34 AM, Blogger Coach Davis said...

We seem to have been able to fund the war machine to ever increasing amounts over the last 6 decades.

The entitlements of the defense industry go unquestioned, undebated.

Heaven forbid that a weapon system be cancelled.

 
At 11/05/2009 11:52 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"The entitlements of the defense industry go unquestioned, undebated."...

Hey Coach Davis, ever read the Constitution, Article One, Section 8?

Is there ANY part of the Constitution that mandates federal government interference in medical care?

Onto something else...

From the Washington Examiner: CBO: Republican health plan would reduce premiums, cut deficit

From the Congressional Budget Office Director's blog: A Preliminary Analysis of a Substitute Amendment to H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act

Will Rep. Boehner's amendment ever see the light of day in this Congress?

 
At 11/05/2009 11:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

@juandos:"as monumentally huge as the interest amounts are I don't think so..."

We paid $383 billion in interest on the national debt in FY09. If the debt did not grow another penny, that is nearly $4 trillion over ten years. Albeit, there is no way ObamaCare stays within budget, but current projections hover around $1 trillion over ten years.

There have been continual adjustments and budget cuts made to Defense spending over the decades. George H W Bush cut the number of standing divisions from 18 to 12 and Clinton reduced it another two, leaving us with the current ten divisions.

I know Rumsfeld wanted to kill a number of defense projects. He had it out for the $11 billion dollar Crusader artillery program and some other program that had something to do with building HUGE aircraft carriers. Osprey and Comanche were other military spending programs Rumsfeld was ready to chop, but the reasons for those were more technical rather than personal.

 
At 11/05/2009 12:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We seem to have been able to fund the war machine to ever increasing amounts over the last 6 decades.

And in the process managed to defeat communism everywhere, except here.

In case you haven't noticed, "Coach", there are no walls. Feel free to move to some European welfare state at any time.

 
At 11/05/2009 12:50 PM, Anonymous Benny "Tell It LIke It Is Man" Cole said...

It is a bit curious that Dr. Perry, with his salary, benefits and health care provided for by the taxpayers of the Michigan, then rallies against national health insurance.

 
At 11/05/2009 1:21 PM, Anonymous gettingrational said...

Does the U.S. have to borrow money to fund this? If the answer is yes then it cannot be afforded.

 
At 11/05/2009 1:24 PM, Blogger OA said...

Anonymous said...
I think that if the Republicans get their way, and healthcare reform is defeated, they will pay the price. There will be a backlash for obstruction.


Nancy, is that you? Glad to see you're reading economics blogs now. But have you noticed it's members of your own party who are holding up your bill?

If you think there will be a backlash for obstruction, watch the backlash for passing your ridiculous bill. Oops, we already saw previews of that on Tuesday, your claims to a win notwithstanding.

 
At 11/05/2009 1:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is a bit curious that Dr. Perry, with his salary, benefits and health care provided for by the taxpayers of the Michigan, then rallies against national health insurance.

Can't help yourself, can you? It's comments like this that expose you for the leftist troll you really are. Your slip is showing.

 
At 11/05/2009 2:08 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"George H W Bush cut the number of standing divisions from 18 to 12 and Clinton reduced it another two, leaving us with the current ten divisions"...

O.K. anon @ 11/05/2009 11:55 AM, two liberal Presidents couldn't or wouldn't consider the Constitution while being President...

Is that an excuse for the following Presidents to do the samething?

"I know Rumsfeld wanted to kill a number of defense projects"...

Did you happen to note how far over budget those programs were that Rummy wanted to cut?

The Army has spent $2 billion on the Crusader and would have needed another $9 billion to complete the program. A prototype had not yet been made...

Meanwhile $9.3 billion EXTORTED TAX DOLLARS were wasted on the constitutionally dubious school lunch program...

 
At 11/05/2009 3:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

With the AARP and the AMA coming out in favor the the House bill I assume it is doomed to failure and the result of an obnoxious political compromise.

I just wish the Republicans had more backbone and went all out arguing there are death panels.

Maybe we can get Sarah Palin out campaigning with the guy from upstate NY.

 
At 11/05/2009 5:10 PM, Anonymous Benny "Tell It LIke It Is Man" Cole said...

Anon-
Wrong. I am the one who advises Dr. Perry start a small, low-cost high-quality private college in Michigan, to attract bright people to his state, and get the University of Michigan off taxpayer backs. Perhaps they should close down the University of Michigan.
How is that being a leftie?
I do not understand how wanting free markets and a limited military is leftie.
Speaking of the Constitution, many founders advocated an outright ban on a permanent military, and that is the actual genesis of the 2nd amendment. The right to bear arms and form militias--that right rests with the citizens, not the federal government.
Congress can fund a military, but only in one-year increments, as spelled out in the Constitution.
Your right to form milities is permanent, and spelled out, and shall never be abridged.
Ironically, the school Dr. Perry went to, George Mason University, is named after the most-dedicated opponent of a federal standing army, George Mason. Mason argued fervently against standing armies, but had to settle for the 2nd amendment, and written ban on a permanently funded military, and that ban is in the Constiution to this day.
Lord, would I like to see some strict constructionism going on.

 
At 11/05/2009 5:14 PM, Anonymous Appy Conservative said...

I actually just put together a list of my favorite Thomas Sowell quotes last week (Hey, you gotta do something to keep your sanity during these times). He's brilliant!

http://appalachianconservative.blogspot.com/2009/10/thomas-sowell-quotes.html

Sowell also just penned a four part op-ed series detailing the cost of health care. Links to all four here...

http://appalachianconservative.blogspot.com/2009/11/bringing-down-cost-of-medical-care.html

 
At 11/05/2009 8:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

George Mason University, is named after the most-dedicated opponent of a federal standing army, George Mason. Mason argued fervently against standing armies ...

I'll see your George Mason, and raise you a George Washington:

I am persuaded, and as fully convinced as I am of any one fact that has happened, that our liberties must of necessity be greatly hazarded, if not entirely lost, if their defense is left to any but a permanent standing army; I mean, one to exist during the war. Nor would the expense, incident to the support of such a body of troops, as would be competent to almost every exigency, far exceed that, which is daily incurred by calling in succor, and new enlistments, which, when effected, are not attended with any good consequences. Men, who have been free and subject to no control, cannot be reduced to order in an instant; and the privileges and exemptions they claim and will have influence the conduct of others; and the aid derived from them is nearly counterbalanced by the disorder, irregularity, and confusion they occasion.

- GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to the President of Congress, Sep. 2, 1776

 
At 11/05/2009 8:40 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Who can more likely afford Avastin, "which can extend a patient's life by a few months and costs $48,000 annually per patient?" Someone who earns $45,000 with a 29% tax rate or someone who earns $32,000 with a 45% tax rate. Now you know why a French "death panel" finds Avastin "far too expensive...to provide to all patients, so it's available to none. If you can afford the cost, you can afford the benefit.

 
At 11/06/2009 8:55 PM, Anonymous Ἱερώνυμος Αματι Nώνυμος said...

"
forbid that a weapon system be canceled.
"
~~Coach Davis~

"
Want more bang for your gun, Buck?

Take 1% of the weapons budget, buy birth control things, sit at the border to hand it out for free to undocumented democrats along with a ticket back home and enough control supplies for their friends. Dollar for dollar, you will have reduced the enemy population without any neutron bombs, without any high tech, without any expensive software updates, without any update tax. Best of all -- no public debt expansion.
"
"
Whoops!
We can't do that.
It is politically incorrect.
"
"
What it means politically incorrect?
"
"
It means that the lobbyist can't make a fast buck on it.
No bang for the buck.
"
"
Fcuk!
"

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home