Re: [RC] Re: In Defense of Europe's Technocrats

[David R. Block]

Title: ORourke1 Signature

Huntsman's "problem" among Republicans is that he served as ambassador to China for this administration. For the conservative stalwarts, this is simply too much accommodation being shown to the most partisan President since Richard M. Nixon. Granted, Huntsman probably accepted the position before it became mightily apparent that Obama WAS such a complete partisan ideologue. For insulin, the government is supporting a duopoly. Only Lilly and Novo-Nordisk used to produce insulin. A third company, Adventis (sp?) introduced Lantus and it is now one of the most expensive, but it did not exist in 1983 for a cost comparison over the same period. David "Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine."--P. J. O’Rourke On 11/21/2011 9:28 AM, Mike Gonzalez wrote: I'm just a centrist, as unwelcome in the liberal camp as the conservative camp. I was a Democrat once, but became a Republican because, even though Republicans tend to be critical of "RINOs", it's nothing compared to Democrats who find out that one of their own doesn't support inequality before the law, partial birth abortions, large amorpheous programs that don't actually solve problems, and "free spirits". Furthermore, there's a history of the Republican party serving as a platform for different political movements (progressives, libertarians, evangelicals, neocons, etc.), while the Dems have a history of serving as a tent for their special interests. Anyway... Before I start: I'm not going to be the guy who's going to support the existing system. I've found, though, that most administrative actions proceed from some problem (either real or theoretical), and these actions should be evaluated based on, a) whether they solved the problem, b) the cost of solving the problem compared to other possible solutions, and c) the externalities they create. My criticism is not to the existence of regulation, but an unwillingness to look at other potential solutions before adding the onerous paperwork. As for the issues you've raised, here's what I've found: Mankiw, and other emininent economists, support pigouvian taxes to eliminate damaging behavior. In the case of cigarette taxes, I think a drop to $0 revenue (thus, an elimination of smoking) is more the government's final goal than any sharp increase in government revenue from smokers. Some states, like Pennsylvania, have decentralized and privatized their DMV offices. Might work better, might be worse... I don't have any experience with it. I can only really support any privatization, decentralization, or deregulation, though, when we can empirically show that the result is better. Is the service in PA somehow speedier? Are the lines shorter? The skyrocketing of insulin costs appears to be due to regulatory inaction to allow for generic entry, brought about due to heavy lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry, rather than actual regulation. Basically, the government is propping up a monopoly or duopoly. No defense of the EPA from me. I have no defense of Obama. He lost me when he derailed NASA and his cabal stripped down the NSF. It's readily apparent that the President prefers political points today to preparing the country for the future. Of everyone in the field, I think only Huntsman or Romney could get the train back on the tracks. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org