Tribute to my Dad
My dad, Richard H. Timberlake, Jr. PhD, died on May 22,
2020, after a brief illness. He was 97
in whole years, missing his 98th birthday by about a month.
I feel very lucky to have had my dad for such a long time. He
was in good physical and health for his age until a few weeks ago. Part of the
reason for Dad’s good health was my youngest brother, Tom, who has lived with
our parents for the last few years & has worked tirelessly to care for
them.
Dad was a WWII veteran, a B-17 copilot who flew 26 missions
from southeast England to Germany. He received three Purple Hearts: 1 from flak
on his 5th mission, and 2 due to flak and flying glass from the
windshield during his final mission. He wrote a memoir of his wartime
experiences: They Never Saw Me Then.
After the war, Dad became an economist. He received his MS
degree from Columbia University and his PhD from the University of Chicago.
(One of his professors there was Nobel laureate Milton Friedman.) Dad taught,
did research, and published books and articles for the rest of his life. Institutions
where he worked were include Muhlenberg College, Norwich University, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, Florida State University, and the University of Georgia,
where he ultimately retired. Dad was an Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute. His
most recent works were Constitutional Money, published in 2013, and Gold,
the Real Bills Doctrine, and the Fed: Sources of Monetary Disorder, 1922-1938,
(as coauthor). It was published in 2019.
My dad was quite an influence on me and my siblings. His
flying experience inspired interest in airplanes in me and my brothers Dave,
Chris, and Tom. Dave and I never got beyond model airplanes, but Chris and Tom became
military pilots and retired from the USAF. Both of them are now pilots for
Delta.
Dad taught us the values of work hard work and personal
responsibility. I have tried live up to those values and to instill the same
values in my children.
I miss Dad very much. Dad & I often exchanged emails and
sometimes had phone conversations. I visited the parents’ home once or twice a
year for the past few years. It was always good to see my dad. And I’m proud to
be named after him.
Richard H. (Dick) Timberlake, III
Coronavirus Government Restrictions: Preview of Green New Deal
Coronavirus Government Restrictions: Preview of Green New Deal
Due to the coronavirus (CV) pandemic, much of the US economy
has been forcefully shut down to reduce social interaction. The central
government has posted guidelines that are being followed in most states. Also,
some companies have been forced to produce medical devices and PPE. In effect,
government at some level has seized control of most of the economy.
Since the shutdown has caused the private economy to hemorrhage
money and people are being thrown out of work, a $2.2 trillion spending law,
the CARES Act, has been passed to “help”. This $2.2T is 100% borrowed – because
the central government does not have that kind of money in pocket change. The
2020 budget before CV contains a $1T deficit. The CARES Act money will add at
least $2.2T to the deficit this year. But it will likely be even more – if the
private economy is sputtering along, the government is collecting much less in
taxes. The current national debt (the sum of all past annual deficits) is
estimated to be $24,235,640,500,000 on April 13, 2020. IF we suddenly stopped
borrowing today, and IF we waived all interest on the debt, it would take 768,000
years to pay off.
The Green New Deal (henceforth GND), a document that would
make Karl Marx proud, would seize control of all buildings to “upgrad[e] all
existing buildings in the United States … to achieve maximum energy efficiency,
water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including
through electrification…”. In other words, government would seize control of
all buildings. The GND is supposed to provide all electricity and water – but no
natural gas, which would be eliminated, despite its low-carbon combustion. It
would provide training and education. It would provide housing. On & on
& on, with control, control, control.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, one of the GND’s proponents, said it
would cost $16 trillion over 10 years. Bloomberg’s Noah Smith estimates it
would cost more like $66T over 10 years. And since the GND would actually kill
off some industries, the government’s tax base would shrink. If you think the national
debt is bad now, imagine what more than doubling the central government’s
budget would do to the debt.
Government control and spending to combat CV has drastically
reduced our liberties and killed jobs. The CARES act had drastically increased
government spending. These are supposed to be temporary, and I hope they are. But
the GND would expand government control over us for years – at best. It would
do the same for spending – at best. But, as the great economist Milton Friedman
said, “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”
The silver lining of the fight against CV is that it gives
us a taste of what the GND would be like – a bitter pill to swallow, indeed.
Labels: coronavirus, COVID-19, Green New Deal
The Selfishness Surcharge
In any severe emergency, some people feel the need to hoard supplies,
and others try to sell items for many times the original prices. While some
stores try to ration supplies and the government tries to prevent “gouging”, I
think I have a better idea. I call it the Selfishness Surcharge.
Here’s how it works. Retails stores will continue to sell an item at
regular price for the first package of the stuff. But the 2nd
package in the customer’s order will cost double what the 1st does.
The 3rd will cost double what the 2nd does, the 4th
will cost double what the 3rd does, etc. So, if hand sanitizer, for
example, costs $10 for a large dispenser, and a customer insists on buying two,
the charge for the order will be $30. For an order of 3 dispensers, the price
will be $70. Four of them will cost $150. And if you really have deep pockets
and are really greedy about the item, you will pay $655,350 for 16 jugs of hand
sanitizer.
Of course, the customer who wants a lot of hand sanitizer might leave
the store after buying a single jug and come back to get another. But the same
can be said of store-implement rationing. I think that few would take the time
to return, especially when some stores have long lines just to get in.
I suggest that our retailers implement the Selfishness
Surcharge immediately.Labels: hoarding, price gouging, selfishness
Solution to the Embarrassment caused by Republicans and Democrats
The Republican and Democrat processes
to nominate candidates for President are an embarrassment. The leading
candidates for the major parties are absolutely terrible and terrifying.
Let’s begin with the Republicans.
Donald Trump, the leading candidate, has made a lot of news. He is a caricature
of a businessman, a caricature sketched as if by a leftist cartoonist. He’s a
loud, foul-mouthed, insulting, bullying braggart. He has literally tried to
turn a widow out of her home by using government cronies. Trump says nothing of
substance in his rants. He may be rich, but he clearly doesn’t know anything
about economics. Trump thinks that free trade makes our country “lose”. He
promotes protectionism. He thinks he can build an impenetrable wall on our
southern border and make Mexico pay for it. Trump wants to “bomb the shit” out
of ISIS and torture people. If Donald Trump is elected president, the country
and its economy will suffer greatly.
Ted Cruz, who appears to be
catching up to Trump, seemed at one time to be a fairly reasonable candidate.
But he has adopted a lot of Trumpism and saber-rattling. Furthermore, he has
probably written off New York with his remark about “New York Values”.
Republicans embarrassing? You
bet! But the left-leaning majority of media outlets don’t seem embarrassed
about the Democrats. They should be, and so should you.
On the Democrat side, former
senator and secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the leading Democrat, used a
private email server to store classified messages. She blamed the Benghazi
attack on an obscure anti-Muslim video, something even her emails have shown to
be false. She told of coming under fire in Bosnia as she got off a plane – but
there was video to show that this was incorrect. Clinton said that she
“misspoke”, of course. It’s no wonder that polls show more than half of
respondents think that she’s not trustworthy.
Clinton is partly trading on her
name. Bill Clinton was a popular president, who, despite his rather unsavory
character, did or proposed several good things. Bill signed NAFTA and welfare
reform into law. He also proposed the reforming Social Security – partially
privatizing it – following the very successful Chilean model. Hillary Clinton
opposes free trade, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership – something she pushed
as secretary of state. She now says that she does not like her husband’s
welfare reform. And she frequently states that privatizing Social Security is
“off the table”.
Now to Bernie Sanders. Sanders is
a self-described socialist. In the United States, where the Constitution
protects individual liberty, Sanders’ popularity should really be embarrassing.
His supporters are mostly young people, who don’t remember the 70-year
experiment known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This experiment in
totalitarianism and collectivism cost hundreds of millions their liberty and
tens of millions their lives. However, just a taste of capitalism in socialist
countries like India has lifted a couple of billion people out of extreme
poverty. Sanders wants a “revolution”. Somebody needs to ask him how the
Russian, Chinese and Cuban revolutions turned out.
We have a two-party system in the
U.S. – a system concocted by the two major parties to prevent other choices.
Minor parties, such as the Libertarian Party (of which I am a member), have to
jump through all kinds of hoops just to get onto state ballots. “Campaign
finance reform” also requires a daunting load of paperwork to run for office.
If you think that minor parties are just a nuisance, remember that a two-party
system is just one party away from a one-party system.
It’s time to dissolve the
DemoPublican duopoly and let minor parties flourish and grow. Only then will the voting
public have a real choice in elections. Only then can we cease to be
embarrassed by politicos such as Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton and
Bernie Sanders.
Labels: 2-party system, 2016 campaign, campaign finance, Democrats, Republicans
Why I believe that “climate change” (CC) is junk science.
1. The
“hiatus” in warming. For the past 18 years, there has been no statistically
significant change in the global mean temperature (GMT). When I saw a link to
an online article about this (don’t remember what organization posted it, but
it wasn’t a CC skeptical one). The article said that there probably wasn’t a
hiatus after all – it was just poor recording of temperatures. “Probably”, the
recorders measuring sea temperature didn’t dip their thermometers into buckets
of sea water soon enough – allowing the water to cool off.
a. What
evidence is there that this took place?
b. What
if the buckets were kept in a place warmer than the water in the buckets?
c. Why
did “global warming” become “climate change”?
i.
Is it because the globe has steadfastly refused
to warm during this “hiatus”?
ii.
Is it a way to blame me and my 148 tons of
automobiles in case global cooling inconveniently occurs?
2. “Climategate”.
The hacked emails of the Climate Research Unit show that its members tried to
cover up their own research that might have indicated CC was not occurring or
not serious. They also showed attempts to “investigate and expose” skeptical
climate scientist Steve McIntire, as well as assertions that they “must get rid
of” the editor of science journal for publishing papers contradicting CC.
a. Are
these people hiding evidence?
b. Are
they intimidating skeptics? I’ll answer that myself: the derogatory term “denier”
says it all. And I have heard some climate scientists claim that the CC people
are doing just that.
c. Is
the “science” of CC so fragile that contrarian articles will debunk it? If
skeptical articles are indeed wrong, the pro-CC crowd should be able to show
why. Apparently, it’s too hard.
3. Weather-related
disasters are more common. But the weather is not any more violent than in the past.
a. There
are more people in areas prone to dangerous weather.
b. The
government is partially responsible because it subsidizes flood insurance.
4. Two
existing, reliable and safe energy sources that already exist can help reduce
CO2 emissions.
a. Natural
gas, which is mostly methane, which is mostly hydrogen. Of course, there are
many on the left who don’t like the method that has produced much more natural
gas – the decades-old and proven safe practice of hydraulic fracturing.
b. Nuclear
power, which is advocated by Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace
Canada.
5 The
models used by CC scientists can’t predict the past. Why should we believe
anything based on these models?
6 Follow the money and power. Who benefits from the “catastrophe” of CC?
a. Al
Gore and his ilk.
b. Scientists
who get government grants to find more “danger”.
c. The
low-lying countries who are promised “reparations” for the alleged damage caused
by countries like the US.
d. Politicians who get
to exercise more power over us.
Labels: big government, climate change, junk science
Richard H. Timberlake Jr. guest editorial: Global warming is political, not scientific, issue
This article originally appeared in the Athens, GA Banner-Herald on October 31, 2014.
Dr. Richard H. Timberlake Jr. is a retired University of Georgia economics professor. His most recent book is titled “Constitutional Money: A Review of the Supreme Court’s Monetary Decisions.”
=======================================================
Many global
warming proponents have asserted that the science is settled, that global
warming is a reality.
And when an
inquiring skeptic examines reliable scientific data and research conducted by
independent scientists with no government connections, it’s clear the science
is settled, but the scientific conclusion is that anthropogenic (man-made)
global warming does not exist to any measurable degree, that the carbon dioxide
portion of total Earth atmosphere is both trivial and benign, and that what
little there is of it is absolutely essential for human existence.
Here are some
universally understood and irrefutable meteorological facts:
The Earth’s
atmosphere is a sea of gases that includes carbon dioxide — CO2, the villain
“greenhouse gas,” plus nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and water vapor. To visualize
the relative volume of CO2, let the atmosphere be represented by $100, or
10,000 pennies. Nitrogen is about $78, or 7,800 pennies; oxygen is a little
less than $21, argon is $1, and carbon dioxide is $0.04 — four pennies, or four
one-hundredths of one percent of the total. Water vapor, the more plentiful
greenhouse gas, is between 1 and 100 pennies, depending on location. Methane,
the other advertised “greenhouse gas,” is not even one penny.
Additionally,
carbon dioxide, which is odorless and colorless, is also very beneficial.
Plants love it, and without it, human existence would cease.
What about the
extraordinary growth in atmospheric CO2 since the burgeoning use of hydrocarbon
fuels since about 1950? Yes, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased,
from 0.03 percent in 1950 to near 0.04 percent in 2014. Yes, the increase of
CO2 — 33 percent — is a large percentage increase. But a large percentage
increase in almost-nothing adds almost-nothing to almost-nothing, leaving
almost-nothing. More important is the fact that this relatively scarce CO2 is
absolutely essential for the existence of both plant and animal life. Optimal
public policy should logically encourage it rather than vilify it.
Also, recorded
Earth temperatures since about 1850 have increased 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit, less
than one one-hundredth of a degree per year. So the real trend is that global
warming is no more an ongoing phenomenon than global cooling.
So why do the
media, government agencies, university foundations and prominent politicians
make such a big deal out of such a benign substance as CO2, especially when the
sun, by itself, heats everything in the solar system? Several scientific
studies have verified that the sun, and its sunspot variations, is a much more
probable determinant of Earth temperatures than any puny man-made increases of
CO2. Furthermore, just the degree of error in heat-measuring instruments
(thermometers earlier and satellite devices later) over 100 years could explain
the 1-degree “warming” that alarmists emphasize.
A scientific
document on this issue, the “Petition Project,” circulated about 10 years ago.
It provided a summary of long-time global temperature variations. It was
published in the Wall Street Journal, and was endorsed by more than 31,000 bona
fide scientists. The study concluded that CO2 is a benign and useful gas, that
the major determinant of global warming is the sun, and that anthropogenic
global warming is trivial.
Yet the drumbeat
from the media, government agencies and their allied university grantees not
only continues, but increases. This counter-scientific movement is very
dangerous to both true science and civilized society, and it raises a big
question: Why do these institutions propagandize such a non-problem?
Labels: climate change, global warming
Help Oprah Fight Racism
Oprah Winfrey seems to find racism everywhere. However, I think
she’s missing a big part, because she lacks the proper tool. Therefore, I’m
starting a new charity to help. It’s called Buy Oprah One Mirror (B.O.O.M.).
This should give her something to reflect on.
Every little bit helps! You’ll get lots of bang for your buck!
Labels: Oprah, racism
The Disaster of Obamacare
Obamacare’s web site,
healthcare.gov, was rolled out on October 1, 2013. It was an immediate
disaster. The utter failure of the web portal is only part of the catastrophe.
(More about that is available here:
http://aropmeto.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-failure-of-healthcaregov.html).
The real calamity is the program itself – the devastating effect it is having
on health care in this country.
This program consists of two
laws: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act. Together these comprise 961 pages of legalese. In
addition, there are approximately
10,535
pages in the 109 additional regulations created by unelected bureaucrats.
This program is already reaping
an ill harvest. Many people who were happy with their actually affordable
health care plans are losing them, because Obamacare imposes a certain set of
features that these plans lack. Many medical plans are dropping doctors. The
Prevaricator-in-Chief has told us repeatedly that we’ll be allowed to keep our
plans and doctors if we like them. (Cue the Knickerbockers:
"Lies!") Obama’s
administration knew in 2010 that
93
million Americans would lose their plans. The Bystander-in-Chief may not
have known about this, since he doesn’t seem to be actually in charge of anything
he’s in charge of.
Those who actually were able to
register on healthcare.gov have often found that new Obamacare-approved plans
cost much more than what they had before. They are also finding that their
deductibles will be very high. The new plans have a one-size-fits-all template.
For example, any plan that doesn’t offer family planning or maternity care –
even if the would-be client is a man, or is a woman in her 60s – is verboten by
Obamacare.
Obamacare is a Government with
Guns Ponzi (GGPS) scheme, like Social Security and Medicare. Obamacare robs
younger, healthier people to subsidize older, sicker people. It ignores all
laws of economics, and is hence driving health care costs higher and will
probably end with fewer people having health care coverage than did before this
web of deceit, privacy theft and power-grabbing was passed by a partisan
congress.
Obamacare is to health care what
healthcare.gov is to software development: a disaster.
There is a solution to this train
wreck. It’s called free market medicine. In a free market, suppliers of a good
or service compete with each other, spurring innovation and lower prices.
Unfortunately, even before
Obamacare, there was no free market in most of medicine. About 60% of the money
spent on medical care comes from
government
programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare and the VA, per Wikipedia.
These programs subsidize the prices paid by the recipients. Therefore, the real
costs have to be made up by those who do not receive care via these entitlement
programs. Also, the artificially low prices paid by those on government
programs increase demand. Medical care entitlement is one of the most
significant factors in rising costs.
Some of medicine is relatively
free-market. Laser eye surgery, for example, isn’t covered by “entitlements” or
most health plans. People have to pay for this kind of procedure themselves. Therefore,
this field is very competitive. The cost has gone down from thousands of
dollars to hundreds of dollars, and the process has become easier on patients.
All medical care should be
provided by the free market. That is the only way to keep costs down and to
ensure that people get what they need.
Labels: medical care, ObamaCare
