La citation du jour (2)

Elle est longue, mais excellente et importante:

So there you have it. The people who have earned money are too shortsighted, hysterical, rapacious and idiotic to be trusted to invest it themselves. The money must be seized from them by politicians, who will invest it with almost perfect foresight and complete disinterestedness (as illustrated, for example, by the economic planners of Soviet Russia). For people who are risking their own money will of course risk it foolishly and recklessly, whereas politicians and bureaucrats who are risking other people’s money will do so only with the greatest care and after long and profound study. Naturally the businessmen who have earned money have shown that they have no foresight; but the politicians who haven’t earned the money will exhibit almost perfect foresight. The businessmen who are seeking to make cheaper and better than their competitors the goods that consumers wish, and whose success depends upon the degree to which they satisfy consumers, will of course have no concern for ‘the general social advantage’; but the politicians who keep themselves in power by conciliating pressure groups will of course have only concern for ‘the general social advantage.'

-Henry Hazlitt, 1959

La Bonne dette?

Via Antagoniste.net:

La bonne dette ?

Par David

Dans son discours budgétaire, Raymond Bachand a une fois de plus insulté notre intelligence en parlant de la « mauvaise dette » et de la « bonne dette ».

Pour Raymond Bachand, la « mauvaise dette » est comparable au solde impayé sur une carte de crédit alors que la « bonne dette » est assimilable à une hypothèque: on s’endette, mais ce n’est pas grave parce qu’on finance un actif (une maison ou des infrastructures dans le cas du gouvernement).

J’ai une question pour le ministre Bachand. Si une personne, qui a les moyens de s’acheter une maison de 200 000$, décide de s’acheter une maison de 600 000$, est-ce que c’est une « bonne dette » ou une « mauvaise dette » ?

Parce que la situation du Québec est la même que celle d’une personne qui se paye une maison de 600 000$ alors qu’il devrait plutôt se contenter d’une maison de 200 000$. Si un individu s’endette au-delà de sa capacité de payer pour acquérir un actif, peu importe la valeur de cet actif, cette créance sera toujours une « mauvaise dette ».

Beaucoup d’Américains s’étaient acheté une maison en se disant que c’était une « bonne dette », on voit le résultat aujourd’hui.

Les effets de la révolution bolivarienne de Chavez

Via Business Week:

IN DEPTH March 11, 2010, 11:00AM EST

A Food Fight for Hugo Chavez

With his popularity sagging, Venezuela's fiery President is seizing supermarkets from owners. But can he keep stores stocked?

By Geri Smith

Caracas - It's 10 a.m., and tempers are already flaring at the Cada supermarket in Caracas' San Bernardino neighborhood. The store has just taken delivery of two pallets of 4- and 11-pound sacks of sugar. With dozens of shoppers swarming around him, Rigoberto Fernández tries to pass out the bags one by one. The clerk hands a smaller one to a gray-haired woman, but she flings it back. "How dare you tell me I can't have one of the larger bags?" she screams. The sack splits open, spilling sugar everywhere.

Within 10 minutes, the shipment has vanished. "I am so fed up with these food shortages," Fernández mutters as he sweeps up the mess. "People get desperate and start behaving like animals."

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's response to the food shortages: find a scapegoat, in this case supermarket owners. On Jan. 17, the mercurial leader expropriated six Exito stores, controlled by France's Groupe Casino. A month later he seized Cada, another Casino chain, with 35 supermarkets and eight distribution centers.

El Presidente's efforts to transform his country into a Cuban-style socialist state are sputtering. With its vast oil wealth, Venezuela shouldn't suffer from shortages, yet inefficient farms, government takeovers of supermarkets, and a 50% currency devaluation in January have thrown the food supply into disarray. That's bad news for Chávez, whose anti-capitalist message and ceaseless drive to undermine U.S. influence in Latin America have made him Washington's biggest headache in the region. Chávez's approval rating among Venezuelans has dropped to about 45% from 70% three years ago.

Supplying low-cost food to the poor has been a centerpiece of Chávez's presidency. He has expropriated food processors, stores, and more than 6 million acres of farms and ranches, convinced that the government can feed Venezuela better than the private sector does. Under state ownership, though, production has suffered. From 1999 to 2008, per capita, sugar cane was off by 8%, fruit declined by 25%, and beef production dropped by 38%, according to Carlos Machado, an expert in agriculture at the Institute of Higher Administrative Studies, a business school in Caracas. "The cooperatives have failed and our cattle ranching has been decimated," Machado says.

While Chávez was flush with oil profits, it was easy to take up the slack with purchases of chicken from Brazil, beef from Argentina, and powdered milk from New Zealand. Food imports jumped from $1.3 billion in 1999, when Chávez took office, to $7.5 billion in 2008—about 70% of what Venezuelans eat. But falling crude oil prices and last year's 3.3% contraction of the economy left Chávez with less money to buy food abroad, or to prop up poorly run state farms and food processors. Government officials "think they know how to run businesses, but they just run them into the ground, just like they're running the country into the ground," says 47-year-old homemaker Antonia Rangel, one of the shoppers who managed to get a bag of sugar at the Cada store.

"SOCIALIST MEGASTORES"

A new consumer protection law, which went into effect on Feb. 1, allows Chávez to expropriate virtually any company if he deems it to be in the national interest. Exito's alleged misdeed: raising food prices following the January devaluation (though two months later, on Mar. 9, the government authorized stores to boost prices on some basic goods by as much as 35%). Chávez wants to transform the chain's outlets into what he calls "socialist megastores" that sell food, appliances, and clothing with virtually no markup. "The measure is one further step in the Venezuelan state's policy of transforming capitalism into socialism," Chávez declared on his weekly Hello President TV show. Exito's parent and the government haven't disclosed any details on compensation.

The supermarket seizures have alarmed grocers, but few are willing to speak publicly for fear of more harassment. "This is one of the worst times we've ever lived through," says the CEO of a major supermarket chain. "We live in constant fear that we could be shut down or taken over by the government."

Chávez has been skirmishing with supermarkets for years. In 2002, big food producers and distributors participated in a two-month nationwide work stoppage that nearly brought the economy to its knees. In response, Chávez opened a rival network of government-run grocery stores, where more than a quarter of Venezuelans now shop.

The biggest state-owned chain, Mercal, has 16,600 outlets, ranging from street-corner shops to huge warehouse stores. They employ 85,000 workers selling basic products such as rice, sugar, and beans at prices as much as 40% below those the government sets for private stores. Mercal also has a fleet of trucks that serve street markets, and it offers free lunches and afternoon snacks at 6,000 soup kitchens. "Mercal is a very noble mission that contributes to a higher quality of life for Venezuelan families," says Carlos Alonzo Sánchez, manager of a busy Mercal store near El Junquito, a vast hillside shantytown on the outskirts of Caracas.

Joelis Muñoz recently carted 9 pounds of sugar, 7 pounds of rice, and 4 1/2 pounds of corn flour home from Sánchez's Mercal outlet. Her bill was $4.88, half what it would have been at a private supermarket. "Since the government opened these stores, my family hardly ever goes to regular supermarkets anymore," says the 21-year-old single mother.

CHEAP CHICKEN

The state-run stores serve as a platform for Chávez's revolutionary message. In the middle-class California Norte neighborhood of Caracas, an outlet of a second government-controlled chain called PDVAL (owned by state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela, or PDVSA) offers frequent reminders about the source of the bounty. At the entrance, a banner proclaims: "Food Sovereignty! All power to the people!" A few feet down the first aisle, a placard reminds shoppers that the "government is fighting for your food security." Says Luis Pedro España, a sociologist at Andrés Bello Catholic University in Caracas: "It's quite clear to anyone who shops at state-run stores that they owe it all to the President, who brought cheap chicken to the people."

Sometimes, however, there aren't any cheap chickens to sell. The PDVAL store offers tomato sauce from Spain, nutritional drink mixes, and cans of tuna at regulated—but not subsidized—prices. On a recent Friday, though, there's no chicken, beef, or sugar. To fill empty shelves, the store has stocked an entire aisle with nearly 1,000 bottles of cooking oil made by a company the government took over two years ago. Another aisle is filled with hundreds of bags of corn flour. A third is jammed with industrial quantities of dried oregano and curry powder.

When scarce products do arrive, word spreads fast and long lines form. "I can only let one or two people in at a time so things don't get out of control," says Omar Gálvez, manager of a small Mercal outlet in Petare, a rough Caracas slum.

Supplying Venezuelans with cheap chicken isn't cheap. Félix Osorio, Chávez's Food Minister, oversees Mercal from a spacious office filled with paintings, handicrafts, and other gifts from constituents. Osorio, a 40-year-old Army lieutenant colonel, says the government will spend $605 million this year on food subsidies, plus $1.8 billion to run the Mercal system. "Food is a basic necessity, and not mere merchandise," Osorio says, munching on a midnight snack of white cheese and fried beef empanadas after a long day in the field. "The capitalists," he says, "don't see it that way."

Even so, the government knows it can learn something from the people it frequently calls "squalid capitalists." Taking control of the Exito and Cada supermarkets makes sense, Osorio says, because the government needs more expertise in large-scale retailing. The authorities are negotiating with Groupe Casino and may allow the French company to stay on as a minority partner to help keep the chain running smoothly. Casino declined to comment.

SUDDEN SHUTDOWNS

The capitalists, though, face constant oversight. Members of Cuba-inspired "community councils," or neighborhood watch groups, can make unannounced inspections to look for signs of hoarding. One executive from a nationwide chain grouses about constant visits from tax authorities, the consumer protection agency (to check prices), workplace safety inspectors, and even the National Guard, which monitors store hours to make sure they don't stay open too long and use too much electricity at a time of widespread blackouts. Even when no infractions are found, the executive sighs, "The inspector can say, 'It doesn't matter, I have orders to shut you down for 24 hours,' and he does it—just like that."

Supermarket managers estimate that the government regulates prices on about 20% of the items they sell, but these products account for up to 40% of volume. "We make zero profit on most of the regulated foods, so we have to make up for it by charging more for other goods," says Carlos Hernández, manager of Los Campitos, a small grocery in Caracas' upscale El Rosal neighborhood. And at Exito and Coda stores, says one executive, the government seems intent on eliminating any possibility of turning a profit. "How are they going to replace freezers and forklifts as they wear out?" he asks.

Supermarket owners are watching how the government manages Exito, renamed Bicentenario in honor of this year's 200th anniversary of Venezuela's independence from Spain. Since the takeover, sales have sagged, according to Sintesis Financiera, an economics consultancy. Now suppliers concerned over delays in payment appear to be slowing deliveries, prompting Chávez to warn 60 companies that they may be expropriated if they fail to double deliveries to the chain.

With legislative elections scheduled for September, the fiery President is likely to continue cracking down on food retailers. Although he doesn't face another presidential vote until 2012, he's determined to hold onto his party's majority in the National Assembly. Chávez has won the loyalty of poor Venezuelans with his food subsidies, but as inflation erodes spending power, that support is flagging. After climbing by more than 15% annually from 2004 to 2009, consumption has started to fall, Central Bank data show.

As supermarket owners fret about further expropriations, Venezuelans increasingly say socialism isn't the right path. In a poll by researcher DATOS taken two weeks after the Exito seizure, 58% of respondents said they disapprove of Chávez's takeover of stores. Another DATOS survey found that 86% don't think Cuba is an appropriate model for Venezuela. Chávez "is moving in the opposite direction from what people say they want for their country," says DATOS director Joseph Saade. "People look at everything the government has taken over and they're seeing that the companies have become dysfunctional."

Smith is Bloomberg BusinessWeek's Latin American correspondent, in Mexico City.

La citation du jour

Panics do not destroy capital; they merely reveal the extent to which it has been previously destroyed by its betrayal in hopelessly unproductive works.

-John Mills, économiste du 19e siècle

La citation du jour (2)

Unlike in Europe and the Western democracies, Thailand enjoys a small, ineffective government. No check in the mail, no welfare state, no half-trillion-dollar deficits. The government can self-destruct—and does so with some regularity—without anyone really noticing. -Paul Terhost, Bangkok, Septembre 2008

La science climatique à l'école

Via le blogue des Analystes:

La science climatique à l’école

Par Reynald Du Berger,

Quand j’étais professeur à l’UQAC, je visitais régulièrement les écoles secondaires de la région du Saguenay Lac-St-Jean car des professeurs de sciences m’invitaient à parler à leurs élèves des tremblements de terre ou des carrières en sciences de la Terre. Récemment, par l’entremise du programme « Innovateurs à l’école » des enseignantes en sciences d’une école polyvalente de la région de Québec m’invitaient à faire 4 présentations de 75 minutes sur le changement climatique devant leurs élèves de sec IV et V.

J’avais omis de signaler aux enseignantes mon « orientation climatique », ce qui n’est pas dans mon habitude, et contre mes principes, car le plus souvent, je présente d’abord mon exposé aux enseignants avant de le livrer à leurs élèves, d’abord question de respect et aussi afin de ne pas les heurter ni aller à l’encontre de leur enseignement. Cette fois, j’avais pris un risque.

Mon exposé s’intitule « La science défaillante et la religion florissante du changement climatique ». Ça peut donc se présenter aussi bien dans le cadre d’un cours de sciences que dans celui du nouveau cours d’éthique et culture religieuse. D’entrée de jeu, je leur dis que je ne prétends pas leur révéler la vérité sur les changements climatiques, je veux seulement semer le doute dans leur esprit, sur une question qui était scientifique à l’origine et qui a dérivé vers le politique pour devenir enfin dogmatique.

Je leur expose et explique des faits et données scientifiques dont la plupart découlent de mesures ou d’analyses récentes, qui jettent de sérieux doutes sur les affirmations et conclusions du Groupe d’expert intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat (GIEC) dans son rapport le plus récent de 2007. Je leur présente par exemple la « crosse de hockey » de Mann (graphique partiellement reproduit dans leur manuel à la page 488) et qui prétend montrer l’évolution de la température moyenne du Globe au cours de 1000 dernières années. Je mets en relief la faiblesse des données dendrochronologiques sur lesquelles elle repose, les abus et erreurs de traitements statistiques qu’on leur a fait subir (rigoureusement et habilement mises au jour récemment par deux statisticiens canadiens) et les important et pourtant bien documentés épisodes du Réchauffement médiéval et du Petit âge glaciaire qu’on a sournoisement occultés afin que le « manche » de la crosse demeure suffisamment droit pour que la « palette » de l’influence humaine demeure en relief donc alarmante. Cette crosse est une vraie crosse en effet, au sens propre français comme au sens figuré québécois. J’expose ensuite les donnés sur lesquelles les modèles du GIEC sont basés en attirant l’attention sur les lacunes, les faiblesses et les sources d’erreurs. Je leur montre enfin les données du satellite ERBE (Earth Radiation Budget Experiment), lesquelles analysées en 2009 par Lindzen du MIT, contredisent totalement les résultats issus des modèles climatiques du GIEC.

Je leur montre des photos illustrant la désinformation dans les médias (banquises se disloquant avec fracas issues des spectaculaires films antarctiques de Lemire et des émissions pathétiques commentées par Charles Tisseyre) puis ensuite à leur propre école et c’est alors que je leur demande d’ouvrir leur manuel de sciences à la page 488 où la « palette » de la crosse de hockey est reproduite puis à la page 490 où on leur présente un nounours polaire en larmes, seul et triste sur son petit glaçon à la dérive (c’est la photo qui illustre ce billet), tandis que tout fond autour de lui avec la légende « La fonte de la banquise menace la vie de l’ours polaire…. le glacier qui repose sur le Groenland est aussi en voie de se liquéfier ce qui risque de faire augmenter le niveau de la mer et d’engloutir les zones côtières ».

Je leur présente alors les dernières données sur le Groenland qui montrent que la calotte glaciaire s’y épaissit présentement au rythme « alarmant » de 5,4 cm par année, que la population d’ours polaires telle qu’évaluée par les images satellites est en nette croissance, et que dans certaines régions, on craint même la surpopulation!

On me demande alors d’où viennent ces diagrammes. Sûrement pas de Sélection du Reader’s Digest, ni du magazine l’Actualité, encore moins des délires environnementaux aussi pathétiques que pseudo-scientifiques de Charles « cet-équilibre-fragile » Tisseyre. Elles proviennent de Journal of Geophysical Research ou Geophysical Research Letters ou Nature ou Climate Research, bref des quelques revues scientifiques avec comités de lecture dans lesquelles la majorité des recherches en sciences du climat sont publiées. Et je n’aborde même pas la question de la crédibilité scientifique de Steven Guilbeault, le conseiller officiel de la Ministre de l’environnement, pas plus que celle du Climategate.

À l’aide de l’exemple de la bouteille de Perrier, je leur démontre comment c’est l’augmentation de température qui fait augmenter le CO2 atmosphérique et non l’inverse.

Je termine sur une leçon d’éthique en recherche scientifique qui rejoint en partie mes propos dans mon premier billet sur ce blogue, dans lequel je dénonçais des collègues biologistes de l’UQAC à qui l’attitude alarmiste et culpabilisante en matière climatique profite lucrativement.

En quittant la classe, je dis à un élève « tu sais, ce manuel, c’est pas la Bible ». Il me répond candidement « je ne lis pas la Bible non plus »… à quand une vraie réforme ?

La citation du jour

« Il est évident que l’âge du libre capitalisme touche à sa fin et qu’un pays après l’autre est en train d’adopter une économie centralisée que l’on peut appeler socialisme ou capitalisme d’État, comme on veut. Dans ce système, la liberté économique de l’individu et dans une large mesure sa liberté tout court – liberté d’agir, de choisir son travail, de circuler – disparaissent. Ce n’est que tout récemment que l’on a commencé à entrevoir les implications de ce phénomène. Précédemment on n’avait jamais imaginé que la disparition de la liberté économique pourrait affecter la liberté intellectuelle. On pensait d’ordinaire que le socialisme était une sorte de libéralisme augmenté d’une morale. L’État allait prendre votre vie économique en charge et vous libérerait de la crainte de la pauvreté, du chômage, etc, mais il n’aurait nul besoin de s’immiscer dans votre vie intellectuelle privée. Maintenant la preuve a été faite que ces vues étaient fausses. »

-George Orwell, 1941

La citation du jour

I believe we have a one party system in this country, called the big-government party, there is a Republican branch that likes war and deficits and assaulting civil liberties. There is a Democratic branch that likes welfare and taxes and assaulting commercial liberties. -Judge Andrew Napolitano

Le botox de Pelosi...payé par les contribuables!

Via Derek Clontz:

Nancy Pelosi’s $23 million Botox bill – you’re paying it

Copyright (c) 2009 Derek Clontz/4-Page Media, Inc. All rights reserved.

Everybody laughs about the facelifts, collagen injections and Botox shots that make politicians look like zombies who’ve just escaped the cemetery.

Pie-eyed, waxen-faced Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (right) instantly comes to mind.

As do Sen. John Kerry, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

But if you are a taxpayer, the joke is on you.

Because these expensive procedures are paid for by the deductible-free health-care packages that our elected officials give themselves as part of their compensation for “serving the people.”

Your health insurance won’t pay for cosmetic surgery or injections unless, God forbid, your face is ripped off your skull in an auto accident – or your child is burned beyond recognition in a fire.

But in the Omnibus Spending Bill just rammed through the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, our elected officials made sure they can get all the Botox, collagen and face lifts they want for no reason other than to mask their true age.

And they did it, the Office of Management and Budget found in an analysis of government spending, by earmarking a staggering $23 million to cover insurance surcharges for cosmetic procedures that aren’t medically necessary.

In boom times with a growing economy, nobody would care.

But the expenditure of $23 million during what many argue is a Second Great Depression makes no sense at all, at least not to working men and working women who are struggling to pay their mortgages and feed their children, wrinkles, frownlines and all.

Claude Picher et les négationnistes

Via Cyberpresse.ca:

Les négationnistes

Publié le 27 mars 2010

Claude Picher

LA PRESSE

Cette semaine, j'ai reçu un coup de fil fort intéressant de l'ex-premier ministre Bernard Landry, qui fut aussi un des meilleurs ministres des Finances de l'histoire du Québec. Il a été cinglant: il en a plein le dos de ces «négationnistes» (je lui emprunte sa propre expression) qui s'acharnent à minimiser l'importance de la dette publique.

Le Québec est déchiré par un immense débat sur l'importance réelle de la dette publique.

Pour les uns, la dette du gouvernement québécois se compare assez facilement avec celle des autres pays industrialisés. Le gouvernement disposerait donc d'une confortable marge de manoeuvre pour emprunter davantage sans compromettre sa santé financière. Ce point de vue est surtout répandu dans les milieux syndicaux.

Pour les autres, le gouvernement est beaucoup trop endetté. S'il était un pays indépendant, le Québec se classerait d'emblée parmi les plus endettés, et cette hypothèque pèse lourdement sur les générations futures. C'est le point de vue du vérificateur général, c'est aussi celui du ministère québécois des Finances.

Chaque camp appuie ses propos en jonglant avec des concepts alambiqués: dette directe, dette brute, dette nette, passif des régimes de retraite, déficit accumulé, dette contractée sur les marchés, dette totale supportée par le gouvernement, et j'en passe. Il n'est pas toujours facile de s'y retrouver.

Il y a un mois, mon collègue Francis Vailles a publié les grandes lignes d'une étude-choc du ministère des Finances. Le document applique la méthode de calcul utilisée par l'Organisation de coopération et de développement économique (OCDE) pour établir les comparaisons internationales. Selon cette approche, la dette publique totale des Québécois (incluant leur part de la dette fédérale) est de 286 milliards de dollars, ou 94% du produit intérieur brut (PIB). Seuls le Japon, l'Italie, la Grèce et l'Islande sont plus mal en point.

Cet article a suscité un déluge de protestations indignées chez ceux qui croient qu'au contraire, la dette du Québec n'est pas un problème important. Pour eux, la dette se situerait plutôt à 129 milliards, ou 43% du PIB. L'écart entre les deux est énorme. Pour M. Landry, il est clair que l'approche du ministère des Finances, en appliquant la méthodologie de l'OCDE, fournit un portrait plus juste de l'endettement public des Québécois, et que cela ne sert à rien de le nier: «le problème est très grave».

À la fin du dernier exercice financier, le 31 mars 2009, la dette brute du gouvernement québécois, incluant la dette directe et le passif des régimes de retraite, se situait à 151 milliards, ou 50% du PIB. Tout le monde s'entend sur ce chiffre.

Pour en arriver au chiffre de 129 milliards, on soustrait les actifs financiers du gouvernement (encaisse, réserves, prêts). Cela nous fournit le montant de la dette nette. Chez tous ceux qui minimisent l'importance de la dette, c'est ce dernier chiffre qui compte. Il faut noter toutefois que la différence entre dette brute et dette nette est loin d'être abyssale.

Or, ce montant de 129 milliards, ou 43% du PIB, fait du Québec, toutes proportions gardées, la plus endettée des provinces canadiennes. Il est suivi, très loin derrière, par la Nouvelle-Écosse (24%), l'Ontario (19%) et Terre-Neuve (18%). Le gouvernement fédéral en est à 29%. Juste là, dans ces quelques chiffres, il y a déjà un énorme problème.

Ce n'est pas tout. Le chiffre de 129 milliards ne tient pas compte de la dette d'Hydro-Québec, des dettes des municipalités, commissions scolaires, hôpitaux et universités, ainsi que la part de la dette fédérale assumée par les Québécois. C'est en additionnant tout cela que le ministère des Finances en arrive à 286 milliards.

En utilisant une méthodologie sensiblement différente, le vérificateur général en arrive à une dette totale de 219 milliards, mais ce montant exclut la part de la dette fédérale d'environ 100 milliards (j'écris «environ» parce que les experts ne s'entendant pas sur le mode de partage de la dette fédérale).

Un mot s'impose sur le dette d'Hydro-Québec (37 milliards). On peut se demander pourquoi le ministère des Finances et le vérificateur général ont choisi de l'inclure dans la dette publique, alors qu'Hydro possède un actif largement supérieur à ce montant. De plus, la dette d'Hydro est entièrement gérée par Hydro; elle ne coûte pas un seul dollar de financement au gouvernement.

En revanche, le gouvernement, en tant qu'unique actionnaire d'Hydro, est également l'ultime responsable de sa dette.

Si vous avez une maison dont la valeur marchande est de 200 000$, avec une hypothèque de 150 000$, votre valeur nette est de 50 000$. Même si vous êtes en excellente situation financière, il faut quand même la payer chaque mois la maudite hypothèque! Dans le cas d'Hydro, vous n'avez rien à payer en tant que contribuable, mais vous assumez une partie de son financement comme consommateur. Au bout du compte, cela vient de la même poche. Le même raisonnement s'applique pour les dettes des municipalités et commissions scolaires.

Même selon les chiffres les plus optimistes des «négationnistes», le Québec est de loin la province la plus endettée au Canada. Si on retient les calculs du ministère des Finances et du vérificateur, la situation est encore bien pire. Dans ces conditions, on peut très bien comprendre l'indignation de l'ex-ministre des Finances: la pire chose à faire est de minorer l'importance de la catastrophe.

Devinette: qui sont les principaux lobbyistes des 10 dernières années en Californie?

Vous serez naturellement portés à croire que ce sont de grosses multinationales maléfiques comme Wal Mart ou bien Coca Cola. Ou bien, pire encore, des compagnies pétrolières pollueuses comme Exxon Mobil ou Chevron.

Eh bien, vous auriez tort.

Les 2 plus importants lobbyistes en Californie pour ces 10 dernières années sont des syndicats d'employés gouvernementaux: The California Teachers association et The California State Council of Service Employees.

Le Chicago Tribune du 11 mars note:

Five special interests were responsible for more than half of the billion dollars spent since 2000, including:

--The California Teachers Assoc., which spent $211.8 million.

--The California State Council of Service Employees, $107.4 million.

--The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, $104.9 million.

-The Morongo Band of Mission Indians, which operates a casino under a state-approved compact, $83.6 million.

--The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, which also operates a casino, $69.2 million.

Considérant que les lobbyistes donnent des sous au gouvernement pour avancer les intérêts des groupes qu'ils représentent, il est facile de comprendre le traitement de faveur dont jouissent les syndicats et leurs membres (en Californie dans l'exemple présent, mais la situation est similaire pas mal partout) tant au point de vue légal que des conditions de travail.

Il devient également plus facile de comprendre les déboires financiers de la Californie: les élus ne mordront certainement pas la main qui les nourrit, et au contraire vont tout faire pour la remercier grassement (avec l'argent du public, bien entendu)...

Gary North et les parallèlles entre Détroit et le plan Obama

Via Lewrockwell.com:

Health Care and Detroit: Killed By Government

by Gary North

To understand what is going to happen to America's health care delivery system, we must first understand what has happened to Detroit.

Detroit is dying. Yes, I know that there are lots of books on "The Death of. . . ." That word sells books. But Detroit really is dying. It is the first metropolis in the United States to be facing extinction. We have never seen anything like this in American history. It is happening under our noses, but the media refuse to discuss it. To do so would be politically incorrect. Two factors tell us that Detroit is dying. The first is the departure of 900,000 people – over half the city's population – since 1950. It peaked at 1.8 million in 1950. It is down to about 900,000 today.

In 1994, the median sales price of a house in Detroit was about $41,000. The housing bubble pushed it up to about $98,000 in 2003. In March 2009, the price was $13,600. Today, the price is $7,000. Check the price chart.

There has never been a collapse of residential real estate values of this magnitude in peacetime history, anywhere. Detroit is dying.

We are unfamiliar with anything like this. The media are silent. The Powers That Be are not interested in reporting on this, because readers might ask the obvious question: "How did this happen?" Obvious questions tend to lead to obvious answers.

Detroit has been killed by flight out of the city. The 2008 Clint Eastwood movie, Gran Torino dealt with this problem. Eastwood plays an 80-something Korean War veteran who will not leave the neighborhood. His children keep bugging him to sell and move into a retirement home. He will not hear of it. He is alienated from them and from his immigrant neighbors: Hmong refugees from South Vietnam. The Hmong have trouble with the Blacks. Every group is essentially trapped in a neighborhood, with the gangs running the show.

There is no surge of buyers to take advantage of fabulously low prices in Detroit. Can you imagine buying a home for cash for $13,600 in 2009 – a house that had sold for $98,000 six years earlier – and losing half your money? It's incredible.

The Wall Street Journal recently ran one of the most creative stories I have seen in years. The journalist told the story of the history of a 5-bedroom home in Detroit, from the land purchase to its recent sale. It was built by one of the most influential man you have never heard of, Clarence Avery. Avery was on the Ford Motor Company team that conceived of implementing an assembly line for Ford's factory. He copied the idea from a hog-slaughtering operation.

His home was a very nice home for the time. The journalist located his daughter, now age 91. She said that she always thought the home was the best home she ever lived in.

As recently as 2005, the home sold for $250,000. It was purchased by a woman who was lent $200,000 to buy it. It was financed by a subprime loan. The asking price was $189,000. Where the other $61,000 went, the woman has no idea. She defaulted.

The deteriorating house was bought by a Christian organization that is renovating it. The house sold for $10,000.

This is simply inconceivable to anyone who is unfamiliar with Detroit since 2005. Nothing like this has ever happened. How can we conceive of a lender lending $200,000 to a woman to buy a $250,000 home offered at $189,000? How can we conceive of a fall in price from $250,000 to $10,000?

This is the sign of a dying city. This does not happen in a normal environment. Even with the mania created by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in conjunction with Alan Greenspan's Federal Reserve, nothing like this has happened anywhere else.

If you had predicted anything like this in 2005, you would have been dismissed as a crackpot on crack. You would not have been taken seriously by anyone. Yet it has happened.

The city planners, the Federal government's subsidy defenders, and the welfare state aficionados are all discreetly silent about Detroit.

The city funds its schools with property taxes. Property taxes have collapsed as sources of revenue. An honest property tax system will generate less than ten cents on the 2003 dollar.

Last week, the school board announced the closing of one-quarter of Detroit's schools. The city is out of money. The central agency of propaganda by the government is in the process of closing up shop. This is not "anti-business as usual." This is collapse. The American public does not perceive what is happening in Detroit.

When a city simply shuts down from the effects of government mismanagement, the media say nothing. Detroit has become the poster child of government regulation, welfare systems, and a population that has given up hope.

The media say nothing because they are caught in a dilemma. If they say that the local government's welfare programs are not really to blame, what does that leave? The unmentionable issue: 82% of the city is Black. So, that means blaming white employers, who discriminate, despite 40 years of Federal anti-discrimination laws. But the main non-employers today are the region's auto companies, and two of the three are partially owned by the U.S. government. One – GM – is mainly owned by the retirement fund of the United Auto Workers. So, the media are not about to blame the auto companies – not now.

That leaves that other politically incorrect issue: the rate of illegitimacy, which is in the 80% range. That social phenomenon represents a moral collapse, but the participants were all educated by the tax-funded schools.

Who ya gonna blame?

The media pundits cannot decide, so they simply ignore the collapse. "Detroit? Never heard of it."

The lesson of Detroit is this: the experts do not see a collapse coming. They assume that next year will be like today, give or take 3%. They do not believe that anything as complex as a city can collapse. So, they believe that things will continue, as they always have. Taxes need not be cut. Spending need not be cut. Schools should be allowed to educate. Tax-funded welfare programs should be increased. When it comes to tax revenues, "there's always more where that came from."

And then, overnight, the system collapses. The assumptions were wrong. Real estate prices collapse, indicating an irreversible flight of capital from the city. The ability of the government to collect taxes collapses.

OBAMACARE

This brings me to the other subject: the health care law. It is not law yet, but it soon will be.

I know what is going to happen.

1. Cost overruns

2. Fraud

3. Additional coverage extended to groups

4. Rising deficits in the program

5. Lower payments to physicians

6. Lower payments to hospitals

7. Delays in payments

8. Rising taxes on the rich

9. Rationing by doctors, hospitals, government

10. Delays in treatment

11. More HMO care: assembly line medicine

12. A search for scapegoats

In 1977, I was involved in an early warning operation. Three teams of physicians and economists toured the country. We hit 30 cities in two weeks. We warned physicians in poorly attended meetings that something like Obamacare was coming. It has now arrived. The physicians we spoke to are mostly retired. They saw some of this happen on a minor scale, but they escaped.

I spoke about the percentage of the GDP (then GNP) devoted to heath care: about 7%. Today, it is 15%. Medicare and Medicaid have increased costs. The care is no better. Except for technology, it is arguably worse.

Obamacare will lead to an expansion of these forms of medicine:

1. Concierge

2. Wal-Mart

3. ER

4. HMO

5. Mexican

CONCIERGE. The rich and very rich hire their own physicians. They pay top dollar. The physicians do not take third-party payments, either from the government or insurance companies. They are independent practitioners. They make house calls. The houses they call on are very large.

For the upper middle class, there are fee-for-service physicians. They take no third-party payments. They do not make house calls.

WAL-MART. These are the walk-in clinics. They are price competitive. They treat minor ailments. They sell services on a one-time basis. They take credit cards. They may or may not cater to the Medicare crowd. They are assembly-line clinics. There are no major surgeries or other high-cost, high-risk services.

ER. Large hospital emergency rooms are mandated by law. The poor get treated there. In a life-and-death emergency, they work. People who would otherwise die in a couple of hours are saved. For walk-in patients, the ERs ration by time. Patients demonstrate their patience.

HMO. This style of medicine is efficient. It cuts costs by cutting services and cutting time. You see the physician on duty. You may not have seen him before. His job is to get you in and out as fast as possible. Time is monitored by the company. Computers make this easy.

MEXICAN. This is off-shore medicine. In Canada, when you can't get treated for months or years, you come to the United States and pay. This will not be possible for Canadians much longer, except for rich ones. Mexico will serve upper middle-class Americans as the USA has served Canadians.

It is possible to get very good surgical care in Asia and Latin America. You have to know who the good practitioners are. Asian hospitals sell for 25% the same level of services. There is less regulation there. Plane fares are cheap. A stay in a hotel is cheap.

There will be entrepreneurs who set up Websites off-shore that direct Americans to practitioners abroad. The Web allows this sort of advertising.

Physicians who practice alone or in small limited liability corporations will find that they cannot compete under the new payment system. Assembly-line medicine will replace the traditional doctor-patient relationship.

TRAPPED

Most physicians are trapped. They cannot sell their practices. The price of practices has been dropping.

Foreign-trained physicians who can pass the U.S. tests are coming to America. They are competitive.

Technical Services that can be digitized are being outsourced to India and other Asian nations.

Young American physicians begin with a lot of debt. They need income fast. They will be hired by the HMOs and clinics. They will not reach the salary level of this generation of physicians. They will be upper-middle-class income-earners.

There will be specialists, of course. Plastic surgeons who specialize in making rich women better looking will not be part of the new system. They will be able to do well. But for the typical practitioner, his career options have been dramatically restricted by the new law.

I think most physicians will stick it out until they retire at age 67. They owe money. They need the income. The law's most restrictive provisions will not kick in until 2014. They will adjust.

Residents of Detroit also adjusted. Then, without warning, the economy changed. Those who were still living in the city saw their capital disappear.

People put up with the devils they know. They do not look for a lifeboat when they hear the ship scrape the iceberg. They assume that it will be business as usual.

Then, one fine day, it isn't.

CONCLUSION

You had better decide which kind of medical care you can live with. Then you had better locate a practitioner soon. This is especially true if you want a fee-for-service physician. People with money will go to them. They are already hard to find. They charge more. It's not easy to become a patient. They are booked up.

f you have an existing physician, do what you can to become an above-average patient.

You had better start getting into shape. You can no longer afford to be vulnerable to the diseases and afflictions of a flabby lifestyle. ObamaCare has changed the risk-reward ratio. Risk has just gone up. It will continue to go up.

There will be no roll-back of this law. It is going to be enforced for as long as the U.S. government has money.

That may not be as long as Obama thinks.

March 24, 2010

La citation du jour (2)

“The truth is the current Fed governors, together with their crack staff of Ph.D. economists and market analysts, are as close to an economic dream team, as we are ever likely to see…. The best Congress can do now is to let the Bernanke bunch do its job.”

-N. Gregory Mankiw, professor of Economics at Harvard University, past chairman of President George W. Bush’s Counsel of Economic Advisers, December 23, 2007

Bill Bonner et le rôle économique du gouvernement

Via Daily Reckoning:

On the Economic Role of Government

By Bill Bonner

03/24/10 Paris, France – Government’s role in an economy has never been properly explained. We will have a go at it ourselves. In a word, government betrays the future.

Government is a profoundly reactionary institution. It always favors its current clients – the present generation of taxpayers – over its clients of the future (who don’t pay taxes and don’t lobby). It provides protection against foreign invaders and domestic troublemakers. It also attempts to give its clients protection against the future.

Taxpayers want government to protect their existing assets…their businesses…their claims…their jobs…their franchises against all threats. In the modern world, most of those threats come in the form of economic and technological change. That’s why taxpayers demand subsidies and bailouts. It’s also why they like regulation. Anything that will keep change from diminishing what they’ve got.

A properly-functioning economy, as Schumpeter described it, is a process of incremental growth and also of creative destruction…in which old industries, old technologies and old institutions are blown up by change. This is what people pay their taxes to avoid. The present generation wants the government to “do something” to protect them from this process. It’s why they are perfectly happy to see the government take over the whole economy, if necessary, in order to prevent capitalism from happening.

What’s more, the current generation of retiring taxpayers in all the welfare states hopes to get something it cannot afford – pension and health care benefits above and beyond what it has saved for. How can it do so? Only by borrowing from future revenues – that is to say, by putting a claim on income that has not been earned yet…much of it by people who do not even exist yet. Government, again favring live voters over those who are dead or unborn, goes along. In the case of the US, the newborn child in 2010 faces about $170,000 worth of bills – his share of the net financial obligations of the federal government.

Good luck getting him to pay up!

Regards,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning