Cap and Trade

[Breakable]

In my opinion some taxes are actually good. I believe we all can imagine the outcome if all taxes are abolished.

It is also my idea that nobody can predict the full impact of any law, because we don’t have a model of our society, so all the speculation is what it is – speculation. Even if we had a model it would have to deal with the Chaos theory.

Currently if you want to know how a law works you have to put it into force, and still determining all of actual outcome is not actually possible – we can only see what we can measure. And the outcome can depend on the circumstances.

So I guess the best politics in this situation is to become corrupt 😀

PS:opinions are not facts.

[Breakable]

It still remains to be seen if fusion power would make electricity 10 or 20 times cheaper. Anybody care to share current production/consumption costs and prices? I heard its in the order of 10 magnitude different, at least in nuclear fission case.

If by “Other Uses” you mean cheap Chinese plastic stuff, then I would really not mind to pay twice more for it. Considering that the world is less trashed and polluted, and that stuff would become better quality, carbon tax would be a great idea.

[Breakable]

Btw I heard a professor of Economics once mentioning that price of oil is reversely proportional to the production of Intellectual products, because when the price of oil goes up, it becomes more profitable to produce non-substantial products and services (oil is used everywhere else). So basically lower oil price encourages low-paying jobs in manufacturing and transportation, and high price in design and development. What kind of job would you like to do?

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote: In my opinion some taxes are actually good. I believe we all can imagine the outcome if all taxes are abolished.

It is also my idea that nobody can predict the full impact of any law, because we don’t have a model of our society, so all the speculation is what it is – speculation. Even if we had a model it would have to deal with the Chaos theory.

Currently if you want to know how a law works you have to put it into force, and still determining all of actual outcome is not actually possible – we can only see what we can measure. And the outcome can depend on the circumstances.

So I guess the best politics in this situation is to become corrupt 😀

PS:opinions are not facts.

But all facts are opinions, with or without evidence.
Read up on Bastiat.

As for taxes, you get less of whatever you tax. My point is that lowering carbon production is has no evidence to support the benefits claimed, and much to reject them.

Something you may not have read about is the origins of the whole shambamboozaloolah.
When Maggie Thatcher was faced with yet another coal miners’ strike crisis, she had the brilliant idea of discrediting the industry by funding research that showed burning coal harmed the climate. She also wanted to supplant coal-burning power plants with nuclear, so it all fit together. The academics responded enthusiastically, and began cranking out papers and studies, all with her required conclusion, of course. And we were off to the races …

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

In my opinion some taxes are actually good. I believe we all can imagine the outcome if all taxes are abolished.

It is also my idea that nobody can predict the full impact of any law, because we don’t have a model of our society, so all the speculation is what it is – speculation. Even if we had a model it would have to deal with the Chaos theory.

Currently if you want to know how a law works you have to put it into force, and still determining all of actual outcome is not actually possible – we can only see what we can measure. And the outcome can depend on the circumstances.

So I guess the best politics in this situation is to become corrupt 😀

PS:opinions are not facts.

But all facts are opinions, with or without evidence.
Read up on Bastiat.

As for taxes, you get less of whatever you tax. My point is that lowering carbon production is has no evidence to support the benefits claimed, and much to reject them.

Something you may not have read about is the origins of the whole shambamboozaloolah.
When Maggie Thatcher was faced with yet another coal miners’ strike crisis, she had the brilliant idea of discrediting the industry by funding research that showed burning coal harmed the climate. She also wanted to supplant coal-burning power plants with nuclear, so it all fit together. The academics responded enthusiastically, and began cranking out papers and studies, all with her required conclusion, of course. And we were off to the races …

And our British heritage led to the infamous campaign statemement, lol.

Rather than debate the alleged scientific facts, let’s start cataloging the big winners from carbon credits and how easily they could be brought on board…

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote: It still remains to be seen if fusion power would make electricity 10 or 20 times cheaper. Anybody care to share current production/consumption costs and prices? I heard its in the order of 10 magnitude different, at least in nuclear fission case.

If by “Other Uses” you mean cheap Chinese plastic stuff, then I would really not mind to pay twice more for it. Considering that the world is less trashed and polluted, and that stuff would become better quality, carbon tax would be a great idea.
_____
Btw I heard a professor of Economics once mentioning that price of oil is reversely proportional to the production of Intellectual products, because when the price of oil goes up, it becomes more profitable to produce non-substantial products and services (oil is used everywhere else). So basically lower oil price encourages low-paying jobs in manufacturing and transportation, and high price in design and development. What kind of job would you like to do?

“its in the order of 10 magnitude different, at least in nuclear fission case.” The grammar of that sentence defeats me. One order of magnitude is 10X. Ten orders of magnitude is 10,000,000,000X. Current cost of production of electricity excluding capital costs ranges from about 1.5¢/kwh for fission to about 30¢ for wind and wave power. Capital costs and indirect costs increase those figures drastically.

Of course it “remains to be proven”; that’s what the entire enterprise at FF is about achieving. For the purposes of discussion we are assuming it will succeed. As for sneering at “cheap Chinese plastic stuff”, the alternative is expensive local plastic stuff. Or more expensive Chinese plastic stuff if you bump the price of oil enough. Make no mistake: cheap energy from FF will make more of everything available, including plastic stuff. But it will be possible (economically feasible) to “close the cycle” on waste much more completely. E.g.: that plant-based plastic I mentioned is naturally biodegradable.

Concerning your professor (and I refer you to John Tamny [John Tamny is editor of RealClearMarkets, a senior economic adviser to H.C. Wainwright Economics, and a senior economic adviser to Toreador Research and Trading (www.trtadvisors.com). He can be reached at jtamny@realclearmarkets.com] for a contrary opinion), I suspect his data set is very selective. The US’ oil price is much lower than Europe’s or Asia’s, but the scientific and technological output per capita and in total measured in patents or however you like is far higher, and has been since petroleum was first used as a fuel.

The low-paying jobs are never coming back to the US, regardless of oil pricing. The stages of development of the rest of the world guarantee other countries will always have a competitive advantage there, whatever the price of oil, until they “catch up”. Japan lost much of its manufacturing base to Hong Kong, China, India, etc. for the same reason the US lost much of its base to Japan decades earlier. The process of cost reduction cannot be reversed by fiat, taxes, import duties, or any other policy or law or program.

As a side note example of misconceptions about the resultant quality of life, if you exclude car crashes and gunshot wounds (for which the US has a particular liking, it seems!), Americans’ life span is greater than anyone else’s. Including Japan, France, Sweden, etc.

[Breakable]

Well I will promise to read up on Bastiat if you promise to read up on Karl Marx. There is always different (and extreme) opinions present in each matter of importance. I don’t believe that any extreme opinion can be right, as usually a synthesis is adopted. Anyone knows a purely socialist or purely liberal country?

Thank you notifying me about the source of the infamous “Global Warming”, but I don’t believe it is of any relevance. Most important is to determine if it real, if it is caused by carbon dioxide and if it can cause any problem. It is really interesting when skeptic’s attack those three points out of order. Does it mean attacking the “causing problem” point that they accept it is real? In my opinion this should be left for scientists to determine, and as far as I know there is a 90% consensus on all three (or at least a conspiracy).

Sorry for the huge mistake in grammar, still you got my point nevertheless. Now lets imagine that the nuclear guys cost will be reduced from 1.5¢/kwh to 0.15¢/kwh. Does this change anything if there are no changes in infrastructure? Hopefully the regulators will interfere and fix the consumer price. By 1.3¢ 😉

Concerning your professor, I believe everyone is entitled to an opinion. Some facts would be nice. I have none. Do you? That correlation you mentioned is a very inaccurate. Different countries, different education, different spending. Same country different time-line might be better, but compensation for delay is needed. I am not scientist of course.

Interesting notice about the heath-care. I guess you should get what you pay for.

PS:I don’t agree that Facts are Opinions, would you like a separate thread to discuss that?
PSPS:Sorry for being brief – I have two infants on my hands, and they are not open for debate 😀

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote: Well I will promise to read up on Bastiat if you promise to read up on Karl Marx. There is always different (and extreme) opinions present in each matter of importance. I don’t believe that any extreme opinion can be right, as usually a synthesis is adopted. Anyone knows a purely socialist or purely liberal country?

Thank you notifying me about the source of the infamous “Global Warming”, but I don’t believe it is of any relevance. Most important is to determine if it real, if it is caused by carbon dioxide and if it can cause any problem. It is really interesting when skeptic’s attack those three points out of order. Does it mean attacking the “causing problem” point that they accept it is real? In my opinion this should be left for scientists to determine, and as far as I know there is a 90% consensus on all three (or at least a conspiracy).

Sorry for the huge mistake in grammar, still you got my point nevertheless. Now lets imagine that the nuclear guys cost will be reduced from 1.5¢/kwh to 0.15¢/kwh. Does this change anything if there are no changes in infrastructure? Hopefully the regulators will interfere and fix the consumer price. By 1.3¢ 😉

Concerning your professor, I believe everyone is entitled to an opinion. Some facts would be nice. I have none. Do you? That correlation you mentioned is a very inaccurate. Different countries, different education, different spending. Same country different time-line might be better, but compensation for delay is needed. I am not scientist of course.

Interesting notice about the heath-care. I guess you should get what you pay for.

PS:I don’t agree that Facts are Opinions, would you like a separate thread to discuss that?
PSPS:Sorry for being brief – I have two infants on my hands, and they are not open for debate 😀

There’s no possible way to reduce the nuclear guys’ costs by a factor of 10. That was the marginal cost for production from an existing plant, by the way, without allowance for catastrophic maintenance or replacement. (Which happens about every 30-40 years. I grew up in the community that mans the atomic plant at Chalk River Ontario that just developed (discovered) serious leaks in its vessels and plumbing, and cut the world’s supply of medical radioisotopes in half. The pressure vessel that failed was installed in the ’70s. Recommended replacement time by the supplier was 15 years. The repairs may be completed in 6 months, or the plant may shut down permanently because it’s irreparable. Even little fission plants are subject to very expensive corrosion! It’s all them nasty neutrons.)

I’ve read a fair amount of Marx, btw. He assumed the proletariat could be motivated to work for the state out of sheer love for the corpus socialismus (as ruled and regulated, of course, by his dedicated and enlightened disciples, the vlasti). In practice the Russian workers’ motto, e.g., was, “The state pretends to pay us, and we pretend to work.”

Getting back to Cap-and-Trade, the fundamental assumption is that the state owns the rights to produce carbon dioxide (or anything else), and can sell and limit the supply of those rights — globally! Neither is valid, except by force of arms. It’s just another way for the middle and lower classes of the world to fund the AGW gravy train carrying the bureaucrats, academics, green power scammers and exploiters, and speculators.

CO2 is a resource, not a pollutant. Plants love it (greenhouse operators keep their atmospheres at 1000-2000ppm to maximize crop growth and health), and it has no marginal effect on climate (its absorption spectrum capacity is maxed-out already. Even Venus, with 90+ times the atmospheric density, and 100% CO2 atmosphere, has only a tiny fraction more CO2 GH effect than Earth. Earth has experienced ice ages during periods when CO2 levels were 10X those currently present. CO2 is irrelevant.)

It certainly wasn’t responsible for the heating of Pluto, Triton, Mars, etc. that occurred during the ’90s. Or of Earth.

[Breakable]

There’s no possible way to reduce the nuclear guys’ costs by a factor of 10. ….

I’ve read a fair amount of Marx, btw. … “The state pretends to pay us, and we pretend to work.”

Getting back to Cap-and-Trade, the fundamental assumption is that the state owns the rights to produce carbon dioxide (or anything else), and can sell and limit the supply of those rights — globally! Neither is valid, except by force of arms. It’s just another way for the middle and lower classes of the world to fund the AGW gravy train carrying the bureaucrats, academics, green power scammers and exploiters, and speculators.

CO2 is a resource, not a pollutant. Plants love it (greenhouse operators keep their atmospheres at 1000-2000ppm to maximize crop growth and health), and it has no marginal effect on climate (its absorption spectrum capacity is maxed-out already. Even Venus, with 90+ times the atmospheric density, and 100% CO2 atmosphere, has only a tiny fraction more CO2 GH effect than Earth. Earth has experienced ice ages during periods when CO2 levels were 10X those currently present. CO2 is irrelevant.)

It certainly wasn’t responsible for the heating of Pluto, Triton, Mars, etc. that occurred during the ’90s. Or of Earth.

Well it seems you disagree that CO2 can cause global warming. In my opinion this is a job for a scientist.
I cannot refute your points, because I am not a climatologist, and don’t follow that debate closely. I can only offer a few more ideas to consider:
Would you think that all those scientists that defend global warming and CO2 link are perpetuating a fraud and falsifying their data/results?
Well plants love co2, what about mammals?
It seems we are still 2 orders of magnitude away from deadly levels, but the curve is exponential and there does not seem to be any changes from 1985. Anything needs to change? What about if we get some fusion power online and everything continues to be “business as usual”, is it ok?

I think its pretty important to agree that there is no complete model of our planet, and scientists cannot predict outcome to the changes in its atmosphere accurately, but if there is even a remote possibility that by a slight reduction the quality of living a catastrophe can be prevented isn’t it a good idea to take that chance?

Returning to Cap & Trade. We should talk about it only if we agree that CO2 is a problem and should be addressed. Now as I understand Cap&Trade;is a multinational agreement. It works best when all the countries are involved, but even if not it should alleviate the problem. There are technologies that can monitor the outcome such as satellites that can measure the CO2 emissions on the ground. Of course there are problems lots and huge (such as USA refusing to ratify Kyoto protocol), but they can be addressed more or less, sooner or later. If there is no better alternatives there seems little reason not to use this solution.

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote:

There’s no possible way to reduce the nuclear guys’ costs by a factor of 10. ….

I’ve read a fair amount of Marx, btw. … “The state pretends to pay us, and we pretend to work.”

….

Well it seems you disagree that CO2 can cause global warming. In my opinion this is a job for a scientist.
I cannot refute your points, because I am not a climatologist, and don’t follow that debate closely. I can only offer a few more ideas to consider:
Would you think that all those scientists that defend global warming and CO2 link are perpetuating a fraud and falsifying their data/results?
Well plants love co2, what about mammals?
It seems we are still 2 orders of magnitude away from deadly levels, but the curve is exponential and there does not seem to be any changes from 1985. Anything needs to change? What about if we get some fusion power online and everything continues to be “business as usual”, is it ok?

I think its pretty important to agree that there is no complete model of our planet, and scientists cannot predict outcome to the changes in its atmosphere accurately, but if there is even a remote possibility that by a slight reduction the quality of living a catastrophe can be prevented isn’t it a good idea to take that chance?

Returning to Cap & Trade. We should talk about it only if we agree that CO2 is a problem and should be addressed. Now as I understand Cap&Trade;is a multinational agreement. It works best when all the countries are involved, but even if not it should alleviate the problem. There are technologies that can monitor the outcome such as satellites that can measure the CO2 emissions on the ground. Of course there are problems lots and huge (such as USA refusing to ratify Kyoto protocol), but they can be addressed more or less, sooner or later. If there is no better alternatives there seems little reason not to use this solution.

Some are fraudulent, some are following the money, and many are simply covering their butts. To “deny” is to kiss your grants and tenure prospects and publication hopes goodbye. The IPCC has about 20 of its 54 “contributing” scientists who have ANY background in “climate science”, and they review each others’ papers and research glowingly, and reject all others who dare to quibble. There are now thousands of QUALIFIED scientists who are either rejecting the IPCC models and conclusions outright or say that so little is known that no conclusions are justified.

As for the “precautionary” principle, it is to laugh. The IPCC’s own figures show that the proposed agreements MIGHT cut temperature by 0.2°C in the next century. Which is below the error bar of measurement accuracy of the global temperature system (notwithstanding that the models pretend to predict fluctuations of 0.01° );. And as the legendary genius Dr. Freeman Dyson points out in other publications ( yes, he has DIRECT involvement in some of the basic data collection and analysis that is the basis of the field ) , relatively minor adjustments of horticulture and silviculture would have many times the CO2 mitigation impact of even the most drastic human industrial restrictions, at a tiny fraction of the cost.

The whole thing is a venal sham.

Here’s Vaclav Klaus, President of the recently Obama-shafted Czech Republic in an interview:

* Q: On Wednesday, the European Commission (EC) has approved limits on carbon dioxide emissions for new cars. One week ago, the U.N. climate panel (IPCC AR4) released a report that has described, much like previous reports, the global warming as one of the major threats for the whole civilization. The Stern review about similar threats was published before that. At the same time, you decide to declare that the global warming is a myth. Try to explain, how did you get your idea?
* A: The idea is not mine. Global warming is a myth and I think that every serious person and scientist says so. It is unfair to refer to the United Nations panel. IPCC is not a scientific body: it’s a political institution, a kind of non-government organization with green flavor. It’s not a forum of neutral scientists or a balanced group of scientists. Its members are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided sentiments and one-sided tasks. Also, it’s an undignified practical joke that people don’t wait for the complete report that will appear in May 2007 but instead react, in such a serious manner, to the summary for policy makers where all the “ifs” and “whens” and “buts” are scratched, erased, and replaced by oversimplified theses.
* This is obviously such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians… If the European Commission were instantly going to buy such a trick, we would have another solid reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar matters.
* Q: How do you explain that we can’t see any other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would defend your viewpoint? No one else seems to offer such strong opinions…
* A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-tier politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voices.
* Q: But you are not a climatologist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?
* A: Environmentalism as a meta-physical ideology and as a world view has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or the climate itself. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Despite these facts, it is getting fashionable and this process scares me. The second part of the assertion should be: we also have plenty of reports, studies, and books of climate scientists whose conclusions are diametrically opposite.

[Breakable]

I agree with you that there must be bias, conformity, corruption and fear involved in the Climate Change debate. However the actual scale is not known, neither to you nor me. What percentage of scientists are you willing to bet is suppressed? My guess about 5%. Would you bet it to be more than 20%?
In this case I would say there is really big problem with the science here. It might be easier to exterminate all the scientist and start over from scratch. Or maybe the problem is exaggerated?

Here is an interesting quote:
A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming.[34] A summary from the survey states that:
“ It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”[35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus

[Brian H]

But to continue about precautionary Cap-and-Trade. You are stating/implying that it is harmless or benign. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Bastiat tries to show people, the “unseen” (aka Law of Unintended Consequences) must always be looked for. The deflection of resources away from what actually works and keeps people growing and economically thriving is immense, far outweighing the apparent benefits (as I mentioned above, by a 2.2:1 ratio in Spain). It’s a matter of life and death to many in Africa, India, and Asia, e.g., but is significant everywhere.
http://www.westernroundtable.net/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100046527.292136.423&gen=1
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml
http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2047
http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=4095

Your worry about the graph since 1985 is also in error. Since the peak in 1998, the global temperature has been flat or declining, and the “climate changeologists” now concede there may be a wee temporary severe cooling for the next 20-40 years. IOW, they don’t know their elbows from their armpits.

Global warming, even the massive 6°C+ peak in the Halocene Optimum, about 5000+ years ago, has produced boom times for humanity (and other species, including polar bears — whose populations surge when it gets warmer (more food) ).

The only precautions needed are those to prevent the Cap-and-Traders from ravaging the world economy.

[Breakable]

So you are still not convinced co2, is causing climate change?
Well I am not here to convince you. I am not convinced myself, I just choose to believe one side. I am not a scientist, but I think a definitive proof would be if we had a model that can predict climate changes for 10 years ahead with 1% accuracy. We don’t have that model. That means we can believe anything? Well if you want to doubt the most of scientific establishment, then yes. But then what about Big bang? Quantum mechanics? Evolution theory? Thermodynamics? Germ theory? Gravity? Newton physics? Calculus? Round earth? Reality? There are skeptics everywhere. All those explanations and predictions of the world around us are based on some Axiom that we have to accept without proof. They are build one on top each other, and if you pull out the bottom building blocks they just collapse. Faith is the root of all science. What you believe is what you can build upon. Proof just complements that belief.

The situation for Cap and Trade is even worse. We don’t have a perfect economic theory that can predict how Cap and Trade will affect the markets. We don’t even have a working one. Consensus is much harder to form when there is nothing to test on. There are skeptics and there are believers. I can find you Blogs from both sides on the net, but what good would it do – its just opinions.
One interesting point I could show you is some calculations I made about renewable energy. This is a very simplified chart of what would happen if energy was taxed 10% and this tax (plus any savings) would be used to build renewable energy sources which payback time is 20 years.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rh1gl1vIfbzoWublfQ7ORnQ&oid=4&output=image

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote: So you are still not convinced co2, is causing climate change?
Well I am not here to convince you. I am not convinced myself, I just choose to believe one side. I am not a scientist, but I think a definitive proof would be if we had a model that can predict climate changes for 10 years ahead with 1% accuracy. We don’t have that model. That means we can believe anything? Well if you want to doubt the most of scientific establishment, then yes. But then what about Big bang? Quantum mechanics? Evolution theory? Thermodynamics? Germ theory? Gravity? Newton physics? Calculus? Round earth? Reality? There are skeptics everywhere. All those explanations and predictions of the world around us are based on some Axiom that we have to accept without proof. They are build one on top each other, and if you pull out the bottom building blocks they just collapse. Faith is the root of all science. What you believe is what you can build upon. Proof just complements that belief.

The situation for Cap and Trade is even worse. We don’t have a perfect economic theory that can predict how Cap and Trade will affect the markets. We don’t even have a working one. Consensus is much harder to form when there is nothing to test on. There are skeptics and there are believers. I can find you Blogs from both sides on the net, but what good would it do – its just opinions.
One interesting point I could show you is some calculations I made about renewable energy. This is a very simplified chart of what would happen if energy was taxed 10% and this tax (plus any savings) would be used to build renewable energy sources which payback time is 20 years.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rh1gl1vIfbzoWublfQ7ORnQ&oid=4&output=image

Your comparisons are invidious. You obviously have not looked at the evidence and quality of the work on climate prediction involved in the GW and Cap-And-Trade work. The models can’t even be run on recent historical data and get the direction of change right, much less come within 1%, or 10%, or 50%. They’re off by more than 100%!! And they can’t predict, therefore, the climate or weather in 1 year, much less 10, or 20, or 50, or 100. It is in the nature of non-linear modelling that the errors increase exponentially and chaotically with time.

This has nothing like the science or accuracy associated with any of the science and math examples you gave. It is, in fact, impossible to get the “group” to come up with one even approximately accurate prediction. The core one, that the system would be driven by a hot spot in the atmosphere above the tropics, not only failed to appear, but was measured as a slight cooling. The response has been that, rarely, the thermometers used in radiosondes develop an error. Therefore it’s theoretically possible that the hundreds used in the sampling could all be in error. Therefore the inaccurate prediction can be ignored.

This is not science. I don’t know what to call it. But it wouldn’t be polite.

And CONSENSUS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE! The data is not there. The Emperors have no clothes.

About your graph, the less said the better. Not one of the assumptions underlying it can be justified.

[Brian H]

Going way back up to your comment “I guess you get what you pay for”, re health care: here’s another little kick in the consensus can:

France is rated best and most efficient for its health delivery system, plus (reasonably) long life expectancy, all paid for with only 10.5% of GDP, vs the US, rated 37th by the WHO, spending 14.5% unfairly and unevenly. Aside from “cooking the books” by heavily weighting “fairness” to mean evenness of distribution, it also turns out that the GDP% figure is fudged, by well over 100%. The Social Service agency, whose mandate is almost entirely delivery of health care there, has a budget which is 22% of GDP, and there’s another 2 or 3% in other departments. So France is paying about 1/4 of its entire economy for health care. Its doctors, btw, earn about 1/3 of what American ones do. That accounts for about 1/10 of the American cost of health care. So you could make all the doctors work for free, at gunpoint, and it wouldn’t begin to resolve the cost issue.

And apparently France’s health-socialism is delivering WAY less than what it is getting paid for.

[Author]

Posts