13-Year Old tried to Rape Mother then Killed Her in a Fit of Rage for taking away his Call of Duty Videogame

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 5th, 2013

Week in Review

The Sandy Hook shooting, the Aurora movie theater shooting, the Tucson shooting (Representative Gabrielle Giffords) and the Virginia Tech shooting have one common element.  The shooters all suffered from mental health problems.  They weren’t radical conservatives.  They weren’t militia members.  They were not in the Tea Party.  These shooters didn’t commit their atrocities because of guns.  They went on these shooting sprees because our mental health system didn’t take these dangerous people off of the streets before they could harm innocent bystanders.  And what have we done since Sandy Hook?  Tried to pass gun control legislation.  Instead of fixing the problems of our mental health system.  And because of that we still miss warning signs.  And a 13-year old does this (see Noah Crooks reportedly tried to rape mother before killing her by Chelsea Hoffman posted 5/4/2013 on the Examiner).

The tragic death of his mother was gruesome, but the details being shared by multiple sources paint a picture of a deeply troubled teen who may continue to be a danger to society. The WFC Courier reports that two of the teen’s friends testified that his “behavior had changed” prior to the death of his mother. One friend testified that Crooks became aggressive suddenly…

Multiple reports are varied, but this source claims that the incident may have stemmed from his mother Gretchen Crooks taking away his Call of Duty video game. His lawyers are trying to prove that he suffers from intermittent explosive disorder — which can be a violent mental disorder. If this young man truly suffers from this affliction, he needs quality mental help away from society where he cannot be a danger to others.

Noah Crooks reportedly shot his mother at least 21 times with his .22 rifle after trying to rape her unsuccessfully. This horrific story is shockingly similar to incidents in the life of serial killer Edmund Kemper — who is murdered several coeds in the 1970s. Prior to his stint as a serial killer and necrophiliac, Edmund Kemper shot his grandparents at the age of 15 with his own hunting rifle. He did a short amount of time in a mental institution but was released back to society just in time for his body to fully mature as a young man. After Kemper murdered several college girls he ended his murder spree by murdering his mom and sexually assaulting her body. Kemper is now serving life behind bars in Calif., but what will come to be of this young man?

There were signs there that something was changing with this kid.  Former classmates provided testimony in court that Noah Crooks would occasionally stab other students with pencils.  A red flag if there was ever one.  Still, one wonders what they would have done if they had acted.  Would they have locked him up in an institution?  His mental illness was so new that his mother probably would have fought that.  Unaware of how fast he could get so violent.

Would this have happened if there was no gun in the house?  Well, he tried to rape her before he shot her.  So the assault would have started.  And if he was lost in a fit of rage he could have used another weapon.  Like a knife.  A blunt object.  Or his hands.  So the crime probably would have happened even without the gun.

Was the videogame to blame?  Well, if he didn’t have one it wouldn’t have been there to take away.  Sending him into that fit of rage.  But did it make him violent?  It is a violent game.  Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook Shooter, had a spreadsheet of videogame scoring.  And may have been living a videogame scenario during his shooting.  But it doesn’t appear that Crooks planned his attack.  So it is unclear if the game had any influence in this crime.  Which really leaves mental health as the most likely cause.

As his behavior is shockingly similar to a serial killer who did similar things the state should look long and hard at his mental health and do what’s necessary to prevent this kid from maturing into something worse.  Instead of trying to pass new gun control legislation.  One has to wonder what might have happened in the Crooks home that day if they reformed the mental health system to better identify these early warning signs.  Perhaps building new mental hospitals to incarcerate the mentally ill.

Just think what might have been in place if they did this after Sandy Hook.  After Aurora.  After Tucson.  After Virginia Tech.  Which happened in April of 2007.  About 5 years before Crooks tried to rape then killed his mother.  If they had they may even have been able to stop at least one of these other massacres.  But, instead, all we’ve done since Virginia Tech is talk about the need for new gun control legislation.  Which has shifted attention away from something far more important.  Identifying these people who are a danger to others due to their mental health problems.  And getting them off of the streets before they can do harm to others.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wall Street Cheers a Dismal Jobs Report

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 5th, 2013

Week in Review

The markets reacted positively to the new jobs report.  The unemployment rate changed little.  But what really got them excited was that the economy created 165,000 new jobs.  More than last month.  But not really good.  But you wouldn’t know that from reading the report (see Employment Situation Summary posted 5/3/2013 on Bureau of Labor Statistics).

The unemployment rate, at 7.5 percent, changed little in April but has declined by 0.4 percentage point since January. The number of unemployed persons, at 11.7 million, was also little changed over the month; however, unemployment has decreased by 673,000 since January. (See table A-1.)…

The civilian labor force participation rate was 63.3 percent in April, unchanged over the month but down from 63.6 percent in January. The employment-population ratio, 58.6 percent, was about unchanged over the month and has shown little movement, on net, over the past year.(See table A-1.)

When you read this it sounds good.  But it’s not.  The labor force participation rate holding at 63.3% is horrible.  It wasn’t this bad since the Seventies.  That’s a lot of people who have just disappeared from the labor force.  Who just gave up trying to find a job.  Because they just aren’t out there.  And because they’ve disappeared the government doesn’t count them anymore.  Which is the only reason why the unemployment rate has fallen during the Obama presidency.

When President Obama entered office the labor force participation rate was at 65.8%.  Which means it has fallen 3.8% in little over four years.  This is a huge fall.  The steepest decline ever.  And the fact that it is holding at 63.3% means there are a lot of people out of work that have to reenter the workforce.  Also, the current number is the lowest it has been since President Obama entered office.  Which means we haven’t even begun the economic recovery yet.   So these jobs numbers couldn’t be worse.  Yet Wall Street celebrates.  Why?  Probably because they’re suffering from irrational exuberance.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

Medical Tourism may offer a Final Option if we can’t Repeal Obamacare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 5th, 2013

Week in Review

It’s amazing that as unpopular Obamacare is that we have been thwarted at every attempt to prevent its implementation.  We lost in the Supreme Court.  Some states are now buckling and are building their exchanges.  Basically exhausting all our options to repeal Obamacare.  But there may be another way (see Steve Forbes speaking in Edina: ‘Obamacare will collapse under its own weight’ by Ed Stych posted 5/1/2013 on Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal).

“We will undo it (Obamacare) piece by piece,” Forbes told about 250 people in a speech to the Freedom Club at Interlachen Country Club in Edina. “All of it can be reversed, and we can have lower health care costs through innovation.”

If Obamacare is not repealed, Forbes said he could see American Indian tribes using their limited sovereignty from the federal government to develop medical tourist destinations on their reservations…

Forbes, the CEO of Forbes Inc., spent much of the evening talking about the benefits of free markets and how they can solve the nation’s health care problems. He said those problems stem from the government and insurance companies playing middlemen, leading to a disconnect between health care providers and consumers.

He said health care is one of the few industries where few people know the cost of services…

“Why is demand for health care considered a problem when demand for anything else is considered an opportunity?” Forbes asked. “The problem is that we don’t have free markets in health care.”

This is a good point.  The American Indian tribes opened casinos on their reservations because there was a demand for gambling venues when there were few places to go.  Now every city and state is falling over themselves to legalize gambling.  Which has greatly diluted the earnings of all casinos as supply is outstripping demand.  But Obamacare will create a huge demand for quality health care as Obamacare reduces quality, increases wait-times and rations services in what was once the best health care system in the world.  And the American Indian tribes can be there to meet that demand.

And these hospitals can use free markets and innovation to attract the best doctors and nurses by eliminating the middle man.  The reservation hospitals can even bring in the old health insurers.  But revamp that system so insurance is insurance and not simply welfare.  People will pay out of pocket for most health care needs.  And buy a true insurance policy for unexpected catastrophic health issues.  In this way market forces will keep costs down.  Because the consumers will be making the spending decisions.  Doctors will be able to charge less because they’ll push less paper.  And spend more time with patients.  And people will actually pay before leaving the doctor’s office.  Like they used to.  And it could get even better.

The American Indian tribes could implement a fair and reasonable medical malpractice legal system.  To reduce the amount of frivolous lawsuits with, say, a loser pays requirement.  Thus reducing the cost of a doctor’s medical malpractice insurance.  Allowing them to earn more money while charging less.  Because they will spend less time doing paperwork.  And have lower overhead costs.

The American Indian tribes could reinvent health care, health insurance and tort law.  They could.  Or perhaps we should.  Let’s look at what the American Indian tribes could do because they are free from the long arm of the federal government.  Build the ideal system.  And then reform our systems to become that ideal.  But if we can’t then let’s help the American Indian tribes build it.  For if they do Americans in pursuit of quality health care will come.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The Canadians are Cutting Doctors’ Medicare Reimbursements due to the Costs of an Aging Population

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 5th, 2013

Week in Review

The United Kingdom has national health care.  Which is struggling to meet the demands of an aging population.  And is currently working on cutting their health care spending by £20 billion ($31.8 billion) to help stretch their limited resources meet the demands of their aging population.

Canada has private health care providers but a single-payer system.  So it’s not quite national health care.  But it is somewhat universal.  And something the proponents of Obamacare would settle for if they can’t get national health care.  But like the UK the Canadians are struggling to meet the demands of an aging population (see ‘Future of health care’ hangs on medicare talks posted 5/3/2013 on CBC News).

More than 200 doctors have voted in favour of supporting a lawsuit against the provincial government over medicare cuts, says the head of the New Brunswick Medical Society.

The doctors, who gathered for an emergency meeting in Fredericton on Friday to discuss the matter, were unanimous, other than one abstention, said president Dr. Robert Desjardins…

Desjardins said doctors are still willing to help Health Minister Ted Flemming find ways to cut $20 million from the health budget, but first things first.

“First and foremost importance is respect of the actual signed agreement,” said Desjardins.

“There’s not much of an incentive to discus the future of medicare when there’s no plan on the table and the signed agreement isn’t respected. So from there, what are we talking about?”

In March, the government announced plans to cut funding for doctors who bill medicare for each service by $18.8 million to $425 million and to cap that amount for two years.

The medical society, which represents about 1,700 doctors, contends that violates a fee agreement that expires next March.

Cutting doctors’ Medicare reimbursements?  That’s how Obamacare plans on bringing down health care costs in the United States.  Guess cutting doctors’ Medicare reimbursements isn’t the panacea they thought it would be.  As Canadian doctors actually want pay commensurate with their education, skill and experience.  Imagine that.

Becoming a doctor isn’t easy.  That’s why few people in the population become doctors.  And why countries that don’t pay their doctors well have doctor shortages.  Like they often do in countries with national health care.  Or in countries with a single-payer system.  Who look to break contracts to pay their doctors less.  To help stretch their limited resources meet the demands of their aging population.

Just something to look forward to under Obamacare.  People will at first praise the government for punishing those who choose to make a profit off of other people’s suffering.  But when doctors start leaving the profession and these people have to wait months for an appointment because of the doctor shortage they will long for a return to the old days.  When we had the finest health care system in the world.  And doctors got rich for being the best in the world.  How it once was.  Before Obamacare.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Keynesian Economics is as Corrupt and Immoral as is Crony Capitalism

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 5th, 2013

Week in Review

Before John Maynard Keynes came along the established economic thought was classical economics.  Those principles that made America the number one economic power in the world.  A sound money like the gold standard gave you.  Low tax rates to encourage economic risk taking.  Responsible government spending for only those things a federal government should be doing.  And only spending what that minimal federal tax revenue could pay for.  Little government intervention into the private sector economy.  And thrift.  People spending money very cautiously.  And saving as much as they possible could.  To save for the future.  While providing investment capital for businesses.

These policies made the United States the number one economic power in the world.  Laissez-faire capitalism.  Tried and proven for over a century in the U.S.  But then government got big in the beginning of the Twentieth Century.  The progressives came into the government.  And they needed a new way to lie to and deceive the American people.  And then came along John Maynard Keynes.  The answer to their dreams.  Whose Keynesian economics has destroyed nation after nation with his assault on classical economics.  And now debt crises from excessive government spending in the Twentieth Century have plagued Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Japan, the United States, and other nations that dared to embrace Keynesian economics.

President Obama’s economic recovery has been horrible because he embraces Keynesian economics.  He lied like a good Keynesian to the American people to pass his stimulus.  It did nothing.  As predicted by everyone that isn’t a Keynesian.  He continues to destroy the American economy with near zero interest rates.  Destroying our savings.  Creating stock market bubbles while the labor force participation rate falls to its lowest since the Seventies.  And caused the federal debt to soar to levels that we can never pay down.  Putting us on the road to Greece.  All because of the corrupt economic school of thought John Maynard Keynes gave us.  That governments everywhere are using to increase their size and power.  To elevate the government class into a new aristocracy.  That lives very well thanks to those people beneath them.  The working class.  That works longer while earning less.  Like the nobility and peasants of old.  And a little Orwellian.  As they built this upon a house of lies.  Beginning with changing the meaning of words (see Two Sides of the Same Debased Coin by Hunter Lewis posted 5/2/2013 on Ludwig von Mises Institute).

When we turn to Keynes’s economics, perhaps the most fantastic self-contradiction was that an alleged savings glut, too much supposed idle cash, could be cured by flooding the economy with more cash, newly printed by the government. Perhaps even more bizarrely, Keynes says that we should call this new cash “savings” because it represents “savings” just as genuine as “traditional savings.” That is, the money rolling off the government printing presses is in no way different from the money we earn and choose not to spend.

All this new “savings” enters the economy through the mechanism of low interest rates. At this point, Keynes further confounds his forerunners and elders by arguing that it is not high interest rates, as always thought, but rather low interest rates, that increase savings, even though we started by positing too much savings in the first place.

Keynes’s followers echo this even today. Greenspan, Bernanke, and Krugman have all written about a savings glut which is supposed to be at the root of our troubles, and have proposed more money and lower interest rates as a remedy, although they no longer call the new money “genuine savings.” They prefer quantitative easing and similar obscure euphemisms…

The General Theory does argue that interest rates could and should be brought to a zero level permanently (that’s pages 220–21 and 336)…

Keynesians hate savings.  They don’t want people saving their money.  They want them to spend every last dime.  And then borrow more money to spend when they run out of their own.  Because consumer spending is everything to them.  Spending is what drives economic activity.  And any money they save they don’t spend.  And drain out of the economy.  Which is why they want zero interest rates.  Or even negative interest rates.  To discourage people from saving.  For if you lose purchasing power when you put your money in the bank you might as well spend it now.  And generate economic activity.

This is, of course, a ‘live for the day and screw the future’ mentality.  For if people spend all of their money going out to dinner, buying new cars, going on more vacations, running up their credit cards, etc., that will create a lot of economic activity.  But when these people retire they will have to live like paupers.  Because they didn’t save for their retirement.  Even if someone loses their job and is out of work for a few months if they have no savings they will struggle to pay their mortgage or rent.  Struggle to put food on the table.  They will struggle to pay their utility bills.  And their credit card bills.  This is the problem of living as if your income stream will never end.  It sometimes does end.  And if you didn’t bank a rainy day fund you could find yourself suffering some extreme hardship as you can no longer afford to live like you once did.

Keynesians once called printed money ‘savings’.  Today they call tax cuts ‘spending’.  A little Orwellian doublespeak.  Change the meanings of words.  So they can fool the people into believing that the government printing money and depreciating the currency is the same thing as you working hard and saving for your retirement.  And not taking more of your hard-earned paycheck is irresponsible government spending.  The only government spending, incidentally, they find irresponsible.  This is a fundamental tenet of Keynesian economics.  Deceiving the people.  So politicians can continue to recklessly spend money they don’t have to buy votes for the next election.  And to reward their campaign contributors with the favors of crony capitalism.

These Romney advisors also, of course, believed in the fairy tale of borrow-and-spend stimulus. It is usually forgotten that Keynes assured us that each dollar of such stimulus would produce as much as twelve dollars of growth and not less than four dollars. Even the most ardent Keynesians have, of course, been unable to demonstrate as much as one dollar. How did Keynes know that you would get four dollars at least? He didn’t. He told the governor of the Bank of England, Norman Montague, that his ideas were “a mathematical certainty” but that was just a crude bluff.

What is empirically verifiable is that all debt, private or public, has been generating less and less growth for decades. In the ten years following 1959, the official figures say that you got 73 cents in growth for each dollar borrowed. By the time of the Crash of ’08, that was down to 19 cents. And I expect it was really negative by then and is deeply negative now.

Keynes lied.  But that lie sanctioned governments to expand into the private sector economy.  So they embraced the lie.  And continue the lie.  Because none of these politicians want to give up the good life and get a real job.  They like it the old fashioned way.  Before the Founding Fathers had to muck it up with their attacks on the nobility.  They like being part of the aristocracy.  To live better than any of the poor schmucks that work a 40-hour week.  They just want to take a percentage of that poor schmuck’s earnings for themselves.  Rub elbows with the beautiful people.  And laugh at the working class.

The idea that you can take a dollar from the taxpayer, run it through a costly bureaucracy that a portion of that dollar has to pay for and think you’re going to generate more than a dollar in economic activity is absurd.  By the time that dollar reenters the economy the government has skimmed so much off the top that any economic activity it generates is negligible.  Now compare that to how the taxpayer who earned that dollar spends it.  He or she spends a dollar out of that dollar.  Because they’re not putting it through a costly bureaucracy before they spend it.

Which begs this question.  If a wage earner gets more economic activity when spending that money why not let that wage earner keep more of his or her money to spend?  For each additional dollar they can keep they can generate another dollar of economic activity.  Not the 19 cents the government will be lucky to generate from it.  Ah, well, if they can keep their money they may just do something responsible with it.  Like save it.  Which Keynesians hate.  And the government won’t be able to skim at least 81 cents from each dollar if they don’t tax it away.  Which Keynesians hate even more.

The common theme [of Keynesian Economics] is that market prices don’t matter…

Is this, then, the essence of Keynesianism, its blind destruction of the price mechanism on which any economy depends, as Mises demonstrated? Yes. But there may be an even deeper essence…

For the Victorians, spending within your means and avoiding debt were not just financial principles. They were moral principles. Keynes, who was consciously rebelling against these same Victorians, described their “copybook morality” as “medieval [and] barbarous.” He told his own inner circle that “I remain, and always will remain an immoralist…”

So, in conclusion, when we strip down Keynesianism to its essence, the relationship to crony capitalism becomes even clearer. Crony capitalism represents both a corruption of capitalism and a corruption of morals. Keynesianism also represents both a corruption of economics and a corruption of morals. Crony capitalism and Keynesianism are just two sides of the same debased coin.

The price mechanism allocates scarce resources that have alternative uses.  Through the laws of supply and demand.  Guaranteeing that the people who most want a resource—and are willing to pay more for it than others—will get that resource.  While those who don’t want that resource as badly are not willing to pay the higher prices others are willing to pay.

This is capitalism.  This is what enables you to go out and buy the things you want.  Because the price mechanism has automatically allocated millions upon millions of resources in the economy to get them into the things people most want to buy.  Crony capitalism smashes this apart.  By distorting market forces.  With government fiat.  Which allocates those resources first to their close friends who, in return, favor their friends in government with generous campaign contributions.  Or gifts of gratitude.  While others must pay a higher price.  If they can even get these resources at all.  Which they might not be able to do if they don’t please someone in government who has power over these resources.

This is crony capitalism.  Corrupt.  And immoral.  Just as is Keynesian economics.  Unlike the classical economics that made this country the number one economic power in the world.  Thanks to the gold standard, low taxes, low government spending, little government intervention into the private sector economy and thrift.  Things that kept a government moral.  However hard they may try not to be.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,