100th Blog

I am celebrating my 100th blog post...I hope one day I can look back and see what I was thinking in my "younger days".

Arnold Kling on Private vs. Public

From Arnold Kling at EconLib...if only people in Washington D.C. could see this...

"That is, if a private-sector worker commits a crime, then the liability for the lawsuits falls on the private firm, not on the taxpayer. The costs of the new training and procedures needed to prevent a recurrence of the crime are borne by the private firm, not by the taxpayer"

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/02/my_tax_dollars.html

Thomas Sowell (My Hero)

Market Based Education System

I been thinking about the educational system in America and thinking about how it can improve. The other night I re-watched Milton Friedman’s “Free To Choose”. I re-watched certain parts but the part I found interesting was the education part and how really we have not advanced. “Free To Choose” was made in 1980 and 30 years have no past and still the educational system is rotten. I would argue rotten for parents, teachers, and students. The main problem I see with the public educational system is that the government has a monopoly on education.

Performance at schools has been downright terrible. The usual argument is “If the schools had the more money”. Schools do take money to run no doubt. However, do schools need the most modern football stadium scoreboard or other nice perks? I say no since the role of the school is to educate people. Thinking back to my own days in K-12 there was always an emphasis on programs that sometimes had nothing to do with learning. Not only were some programs a waste of money but time as well. One example of this was in 5th grade when we everyone had to stay after school to practice various skits for D.A.R.E. (now defunct I believe). Going back to the money point the Heritage Institute issued a report in 2008 showed “Total real spending per student (including all levels of government funding) has increased by 23.5 percent over the past decade and 49 percent over the past 20 years.” Yet, if you also look at tests scores from the same 20 years they were flat. Where is all this money going? It obviously can’t be towards educating students if scores have remained flat. Schools offer programs that may or may not benefit students but if schools were in a market place they would have to answer to customers. I myself would like to see a market-based school system. Charter schools would still be better than the current situation however; a market-based school system would be the golden standard. So in this market-based school system parents would pay for their kids K-12 education. If parents paid for their children’s education I would be willing to bet the parents would be much more involved than they are today. True, one could argue that parents do pay for school through taxes however, if you have two families (one poor and one rich) and kids from both families go to the same school then the rich family has to pay more even though both kids are getting the same service. Schools could offer different programs. One example might be a “traditional” education where students took courses in history, math, science, English. Other schools could emphasis art and acting. Schools could cater to different wants and desires by students and parents. Some people really should not have to take art courses or music classes when they know they will never use it and it has no value to their future job. I feel the same way about people that want to work in some type of vocational job but really can’t get training in the normal school setting. Low income families could still get a voucher and decide where they wanted to go. Schools could also dismiss students if parents were not active enough if their children’s education development.

This market-based school system would be free to open entry and allow schools to be run like businesses in terms of serving parents and students and creating education value. Schools could compete on where their graduates go after graduating, feedback from previous students/parents, and the quality of the teachers. Bad teachers would be replaced and good ones would stay and get paid more. Bullying has been a big topic recently and under a market based school you could argue there would be less bullying since instead of two students being forced to go to school with one another they could pick where they wanted to go.

Nancy Pelosi In Need of Economics

Over the Counter Prescription Drugs?

The idea of this blog post came to me when I had to call a doctor to get my prescription refilled. I was able to refill my medication (face wash) only if I scheduled an appointment to see the doctor within the next few months. I started to wonder how many people make appointments simply to get medication. According to Health State Facts Organization in 2009 there were 3.6 billion prescriptions filled. Obviously, the older people are the more likely they are to have prescriptions. What is interesting though is woman have per capita have many more prescriptions then men (14.4 vs. 9.4). So let’s assume it took 1 second to write each prescription. This would equate to 3.6 billion seconds which is around 114 years. Obviously one second is very conservative since it takes time for the doctor to write the prescription, the pharmacist has to fill the prescription, we have to drive to pick up the prescription. Obviously this time imposes costs on the doctors, pharmacists, and consumers. So what if we lived in a world where we didn’t need a prescription in order to get medication? Also let’s assume we abolish the FDA. For instance, people would be able to get Lipitor, Nexium, and Plavix over the counter. People might think this is very dangerous and we shouldn’t leave people alone with medication. My argument would be if people really wanted to damage themselves there are far easier ways then prescription medicines.

Allowing prescription drugs to be over the counter would make consumers more informed about drugs and improve the quality of life. Of course, if prescription drugs could be bought over the counter but people already abuse drugs with prescriptions. Believe it or not nearly all the information regarding benefits and side effects for all drugs are published online. People could use this information to decide whether or not they believe a certain pill or treatment is right for them. Of course, if people were really unsure they could consult their physician. I don’t understand how anyone else except for me can estimate or guess with any precision my own risk/reward model. The benefits of a system like this would allow experimentation and would allow research to be conducted to see who would benefit most from certain drugs. If people with a unique illness or disease wanted to create their own trial groups to see what works or doesn’t work I am all for that. Less regulation would create more information for consumers.
In addition to this, the cost of drugs and treatments would decrease since it would be sold for over the counter. Companies like CVS and Walgreens would have to be competitive with each other. Of course, one caveat is that insurance companies would no longer cover drugs under plans since they would be sold over the counter.

Drug companies would also be forced to innovate more often since nearly every drug on the market would face competition. This would allow smaller companies to compete with major drug companies which would benefit consumers.

As I mentioned in an earlier blog, I believe we will have a biotech/genetic revolution. Over time we will understand more about our bodies and how they react to food, stress, and just being human. Although, this information could help us I believe allowing people to not have a prescription could do wonders for modern medicine.

TCU Champs!

I am so proud of my alma matta winning the Rose Bowl. I would have been proud even if they had not won but I think TCU shows the remarkable story of how a small private school in Fort Worth, Texas that no hardly anyone knew 10 years ago stepped up and showed everyone what they were made of. I give Gary Patterson a lot of credit for changing the program to what it is today. Patterson started out as a defensive cordinator and it shows with TCU's defense usually being the best in the country. Andy Dalton (Katy, Texas native) has been dazzling on the field as well and a pleasure to watch now and when I was a student at TCU. Dalton has grown as a quarterback from last year's loss to Boise State where he looked like a dear in the headlights. Jeremy Kerley also is fun to watch since he can recieve, run, and even a couple of times play quarterback. The only problem I see is that no TCU team will ever be as great as the 2010 Horn Frogs. All good things must come to an end. However, I am proud and so glad to see TCU put itself on the map which this victory for not only TCU but the Fort Worth community. As a student, I remember going to nearly all the games (after studying all day) and how the stadium wasn't always full even when TCU was ranked. A shift seemed to change year after year with more people going to games once people saw how well the team was playing. TCU students at least would talk about what parties they were going to or what they were doing this weekend while at the game. Next season I would imagine TCU sells out all its home games (and perhaps raises ticket prices in the process). Although, my time at TCU was probably the best four years of my life this win makes those four years seem a bit more magical.

Smart Toilets and How They Could Save Your Life

I have been thinking recently about an invention that could greatly improve information in the healthcare industry. In recent years, there have been toilets invented that can check blood pressure, BMI, urine analysis, stool analysis, and much more. TOTO makes a toliet called the "smart toilet". If a toilet was able to analyze all of this can send the results to our doctor or allow people to save the data everyone would have more information. Urine analysis alone can be used to diagnose high blood pressure, diabetes, kidney stones, kidney failure, urinary infections, and liver disease. Stool analysis can help find diseases of the liver and pancreas. In addition to this, it can screen for colon cancer. If the toilet could measure weight (most likely by the force pressed down on the seat) it could provide people with very valuable information. People are literally flushing down valuable information that could be used for preventive care and perhaps save thousands of lives per year. The toilets are currently in Japan but have not debuted in the United States. One problem could be the cost of the toilet. The cost ranges from $4,100-$5,850. Although, this sounds like a lot one group that could benefit from the toilets are hospitals that use the same room over and over again. The toilet could monitor patients without as required care since more tests would be done through the toilet. Competition and technology will ensure over time the prices will go down and the technology will get better. Once prices come down to levels that consumers can afford I believe there will be a better revolution when it comes to diagnosing and preventive care. Usually people don’t go to the doctor they feel or think something is wrong. Information can give people the power to make choices. This is especially important when it comes to healthcare. Not only could people get their results from their home but they would have to avoid going to the doctor and free up the doctor’s time to see patients with more important illnesses.

One problem however is how much people will reveal. Insurance companies could I suppose ask to have some of the information sent to them in order to figure out how much to charge in premiums to customers. Also it may take time before the stool and urine analysis for a toilet become as accurate as those found in a medical lab. Although, I think these are minor issues that I think will be solved in time. Just remember next time you flush what important health information could be going down the toilet too.

Driverless Cars: More GDP, Less Deaths, More Leisure?

One thing I have been thinking about lately is driverless cars. True, it does sound like something out of the future but I don’t think these cars are too far away. Google a couple of months ago made news with its driverless car. The car drove 1,000 miles without any human intervention and 140,000 miles with occasional human intervention. The technology will continue to improve and allow cars to go even more miles without humans. Driverless cars do pose some interesting questions though.

In 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey estimated that Americans spent more than 100 hours a year commuting to work. If people instead of driving could be doing something work related or thinking without having to worry about driving they could be more productive. If millions of people are able to do this then it could easily add a couple of billion dollars to GDP since people could become more efficient. If cars were able to drive themselves and people had a long commute and the car was able to take people to their destination people could sleep an extra hour or so and not have to worry about driving. This brings me to my next point. Driverless cars would also reduce the number of cars theoretically to zero. Around 40,000 people are killed each year in car accidents and in 2005 there were nearly 6.4 million auto accidents per year. The economic cost to America in 2000 was around $230 billion. People could go out as late as they wanted to party since they would have a designated car for them. Another point about driverless cars is that people would no longer need insurance which would be like a tax cut for everyone. Cars could also become more fuel efficient if they were able to drive themselves because the cars could figure out from traffic congestion who was driving and what paths to take. Sometimes drivers drive at speeds that are fuel inefficient if cars drive at a speed that optimizes fuel efficiency this could be beneficial as well.

While these are all positives I am somewhat skeptical of how long this will take. Driverless could be here in 10 years, 20 years, or even 30 years. Technology will continue to improve and get cheaper. The first cars might be $80,000 and only the rich will be able to afford them. Highways might have to set up sensors or signals to help cars get around and this could have problems and cost a lot of money. Although, they can claim it really is the information superhighway. Plus, people who really enjoy driving cars (Jay Leno) will not like this. I also think people won’t trust a computer driving them from place to place. However, this is odd when most planes run on auto-pilot. The first cars won’t be perfect and might lead to some accidents but they will improve over time. Police officers wouldn’t have to arrest people for under the influence, give people tickets for not obeying the law, or have to pull people over. This would free up a lot of police resources. Let’s review. Driverless cars have the potential to save thousands of lives, prevent millions from getting in accidents, increase GDP and increase leisure/sleep time, increase fuel efficiency, decrease traffic congestion, get rid of car insurance, and most likely decrease crime. Although this is assuming the driverless cars are actually safe and courts rule that they are legal to operate. Only time will tell what the future holds.

Walter Williams: An Autobiography

The autobiography of Walter Williams just came out (December 1, 2010). I can't wait to read it although the Hoover Press claimed I would have to wait 10 painfully long business days before I could get my hands on it. This book should be a great gift for any capitalist on your Christmas list! Hopefully Dr. Williams will live to be 100 so there can be many more editions.