Quick points on healthcare

I think the following facts are ingnored by both conservatives, liberals, and yes libertarians.

1. We are already paying for everyone's healthcare. Just right now we often wait till it reaches the point of being emergency care, and so it costs more. So people who complain about not wanting to subsidize other people need to wake up because we already do. The only way that would change is if we stop providing emergency care to people, but that's just not going to happen.

2. If we accept point 1, then are mission is to try and provide healthcare in the most efficient and cost effective method provided. I think most of us would agree that will require people paying for their own healthcare costs as much as possible. For example, right now the connection between healthy lifestyle choices, and healthcare costs is broken. If you restore it and make people pay for their own choices (shocking) then people will start to make better choices, and total costs will come down. Ideally this would mean that people's premiums would be tied to their health and lifestyle choices.

3. Now accepting points 1 and 2, we ask what about poor people. Since they normally don't pay for their own healthcare anyway, how could you tie their premiums into their healthcare. Obivously with some type of refundable credit. Broken down this means you are paying some people to remain healthy. Not nessecarily a plesant thought, but IMO an inescapable one.

In general it costs $2400 a year ($200 a month) or so to insure a healthy person, but the costs quickly clime to $6000 a year or more to treat someone with any number of chornic ailments that are prinipally caused by poor lifestyle choices. We need to restore the direct link between healthy living, and medical costs. Once we do that we can begin to lower overall medical costs that are in danger of bankrupting our country.

Have you donated yet?

I’ve sent out a lot of e-mails about Mike Huckabee, and why I think he’s the right man for the job. Moreover, I’ve also laid out why the other candidates are NOT the right ones for the job. Huckabee is a proven leader, and true conservative. That will be able to unite the Republican Party, and turn out the base for another win in 2008. Mike Huckabee is the first candidate that we have ever donated too, but I think he’s one of the first that I have really believed in. I think because of his humble origins he really cares about the little guy, and he has the leadership skills needed to accomplish change for the better.

It’s time to ask yourself do you care about the direction of the country? Do you want Hillary in 2008? If not, it’s time to put your money where your mouth is. Go to http://www.mikehuckabee.com/ and make a donation, and then get your friends on the bandwagon. If you don’t take a stand for what’s right, then who will?

Thanks,

End Prohibition?

I believe one of the most contentious issues of today is drug use, and the war on drugs (WoD). The WoD has cost around 1 trillion dollars since it started in the 1970 but has had a negligible effect on actual drug use in this country. In the overall cost of drugs has fallen, while teenagers report that it is easier to purchase drugs that alcohol. Therefore if the purpose of the WoD is to reduce drug use and access, it is certainly not working. Let’s look at some facts and values then and see if we can’t formulate a better policy, one that works.

First, I think people on both sides of the isle can acknowledge that drug abuse is bad. People that abuse drugs ruin their own lives, and often the lives of people they love. Moreover, drug abuse can be linked to increased crime. Therefore, strategies to reduce drug abuse should be encouraged. However, the problem is that incarceration does little to nothing to discourage drug abuse. Drug abuse is a medical and social problem, and locking people up has been repeatedly shown to not be an effective treatment option. Instead incarceration just keeps people down, and encourages that same type of behavior that led to drug abuse in the first place. Therefore, treatment not incarceration is the solution if our goal is to reduce drug abuse.

Next, drug use does not equal drug abuse. For example, a person that likes to smoke a joint, or drink a beer on Saturday while watching TV, is a drug user. They have their life in order, pay their bills and taxes, and just enjoy getting high. On the other hand the person, who has lost their job, can’t pay their bills etc, because of drugs or alcohol is an abuser. That person needs treatment (not incarceration). Moreover, drug use does not have to lead to drug abuse. As with many things moderation is key, and those that are able to partake responsibly should not be punished or incarcerated because some others can’t. If my neighbor Jake gets drunk and beats his wife, does that mean I should not be able to drink a glass of wine? No, that is the worst kind of nanny state that says no one can do anything.

Therefore, I believe that we should end prohibition on the grounds that one it is not working, and two it is morally wrong to take away someone’s individual liberties by prohibiting them from using drugs.

Ending prohibition would have many benefits. It would stop ruining people’s lives because they did drugs on occasion. It would force gang members to get jobs because they would no longer be able to sell drugs for a living. It would save billions of dollars in prison costs. It would allow police to focus on actual crimes. It would stop invasive policies designed to deter drug use that really just amount to spying on citizens. And, it would raise billions in new tax revenues that could be then put into crime prevention, drug abuse prevention and treatment, and maybe even into schools J

However, I realize that there are some that are not willing yet to end prohibition. They have been scared so long by the tales about reefer madness that they are certain that society would crumble if we ended prohibition (just like it ended when alcohol prohibition was ended in the 1930’s). So I propose that if people are not willing to end prohibition nation wide, why not do a test. Let’s take a city and revoke prohibition in that city. Then see how things go, if the city turns into one great big ghetto then go back to what we are doing. But if somehow magically life goes on, and maybe even gets better, then we will have an objective manner in which to evaluate the new policies.

I think the best choice for this would probably be Las Vegas. It’s already known for partying etc, and would have the infrastructure necessary to do something like this. The drugs would be treated in a similar manner as to alcohol. You would have to be 21 to purchase, and they would be heavily taxed. The large amounts of extra tax revenue would be used to extra police, and drug prevention/abuse programs. Plus, I’m sure that you would have enough extra revenue left over for other projects. I posit that a program like this would actually make Las Vegas safer. There would be more cops on the street, less gangs, and no more shootings over things like drug deals gone bad. Drug use would be treated the same as alcohol, IE no drugged in public etc.

If prohibitions look at this proposal objectively they will have no choice but to agree to a trial. Unless of course they don’t want to try it because they are afraid that it will actually work. It’s time to move on and try something new, and stop locking people up for getting high. Open your mind, and give this a shot.
PS. you can find a number of very good articles on the WoD here http://www.reason.com/topics/topic/144

Huckabee, Gingrich 2008!

After giving it some serious thought, I think I’ve come up with the perfect ticket. Huckabee & Gingrich 2008! I think this would be a balanced ticket with Huckabee’s executive experience as governor combined with Gingrich’s legislative experience in the house. Both have shown themselves to be progressive thinkers willing to look outside the box for solutions. Importantly this would be a winning combination. Gingrich’s weaknesses would be downplayed in the VP position (personal life etc doesn’t matter as much for VP) while his national presence and strong idea skills would strengthen the campaign.

To be honest, I think this would be the ticket that could beat Hillary. I just don’t see any other combination working. Millions of conservatives would probably sit home with a Giuliani or Romney candidacy. And neither would be able to offer a clear alternative to Hillary. I both hope and pray that these two men can come together for the good of the country and provide a viable means of change for us all.

Click PleasE!

Everyone please click the link below!

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=VerticalDay.Home&l=6D26CA12B7F637F5AB2D596BD36C434B

If I get enough clicks I might end up with a change to meet Huckabee. Also if you know any one else ask them to click it too. I also encourage you to take a sec to read through his website and find out why I like Mike, and think he’s the one person that could really change things in Washington!

Thanks,

American Solutions

Here is the American solutions website. http://www.americansolutions.com/ They will be hosting a series of “bipartisan” workshops Sept 24-27 on how to get go government working again. The topics are here http://www.americansolutions.com/General/?Page=f57be05e-5b03-4fb7-b238-f9a4ec278266

It really is a wide variety of topics. I’ll be interested to here some of their ideas to get things going again. Imagine a world where things like Schools and healthcare worked, imagine a world where bridges didn’t fall down. This can happen, we just have to make it happen.

Failed War on Drugs

I REALLY encourage everyone to read this article on the failed war on drugs. Besides energy independence I don’t think there is anything else we could do as a country that is more important besides end the failed war on drugs.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-cole21sep21,0,6041974.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Thanks,

Failed War on Drugs

I REALLY encourage everyone to read this article on the failed war on drugs. Besides energy independence I don’t think there is anything else we could do as a country that is more important besides end the failed war on drugs.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-cole21sep21,0,6041974.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Thanks,

Putting my money where my mouth is!

I’ve put my money where my mouth is. I’ve made a small contribution to the Huckabee campaign. This is actually the first time that I’ve ever made a donation to a candidate but I really believe Huckabee is the right man for the job. He’s extremely competent and has his values straight. I plan to get some signs etc when I have the chance. I encourage anyone else that is thinking about it to donate as well. Plus contact me if you are interested in helping to campaign.

Thanks,

Haloscan

I’ve switched over to haloscan so people can get e-mails when they get a response to comments. I figured it was better to do this while the blog was still new. Sorry to all who lost comments.

Thanks,

My various beliefs etc

(posted to help give people general idea of where I stand on various issues. please ask questions etc if you like)

I wouldn’t say that’s my only basis for why I identify as a conservative. So I’ll try and outline my general beliefs. I’ll probably also try and copy and paste them to my own blog for easy reference. I don’t use my blog for daily stuff but more for longer papers on general beliefs. (http://kronesblog.blogspot.com/)

1. I favor smaller government and less interference in people’s lives as much as possible (libertarian). But I also realize that government intervention is sometimes necessary when markets or society is not able to provide some necessary good. I’m also in favor of legalization of most drugs etc. IMO it’s a personal choice. And as long as it doesn’t effect others do what you want.

2. I favor continuing the American tradition of being a Christian nation based on Christian values (conservative). But again as noting #1 I don’t think government should normally mandate stuff. For example, I’m fine with Christmas trees, Christmas vacation, and Easter break. I’m also fine with the 10 commandments in the US Supreme court, and prayer in general. I don’t think people should be forced to do stuff though. IE, if other people are praying etc nobody is going to require them to join in. I’m also fine with other faiths in America, but I think just like a Church in Iran is a church in a Muslim nation, so to a Mosque in the US should be a mosque in a Christian nation. Again no coercion but instead a general acknowledgment of where we came from and the basis for society etc.

3. Strong supporter of Gun rights (conservative). I know we were given the second amendment to protect ourselves against crime, and more importantly against the government if needed. The second amendment is not about hunting.

4. I’m a HUGE supporter of building a sustainable and green future (currently considered liberal but that’s changing to some extent). IMO our addiction to fossil fuels is killing our environment, and will kill our economy. We should build our economy on sustainable renewable and clean energy. I also believe we need to seriously address the issues of world over population. They are tough issues but if not resolved will cause future human suffering (read Beyond Growth).

5. If everyone should have access to quality healthcare (which I’m generally in favor of, liberal) then people should have to pay more based on their life style choices (economist). IE, if you want to smoke, drink, do drugs, or be obese etc. Then feel free. But you should have to pay more because of the increased costs. If you can’t afford it then you can’t do it. The poorer you are the healthier you should live because you are not paying for your own healthcare.

6. I think everyone should have access to good education. I think we should have national standards that you MUST pass in order to graduate. Moreover, those standards should be based on what you should learn in the 12^th grade not the 8^th. I think the money should be provided to full fund the education programs, but we should also gut the bureaucracy and brake the teachers unions. No more spending 40%+ on bureaucracy and no more being able to not fire bad teachers.

7. I think we should secure our borders. Once we do we can look at other solutions. I think assimilation is and should be the key to the continued success of our nation. Also English is key to assimilation. A secure border is one of the first responsibilities of the federal government. It’s one that should be taken seriously. Moreover, it’s shameful to keep importing cheap immigrant labor instead of paying Americans a decent wage.

8. Free trade overall is good. But it should be fair. Read through Beyond growth to get a better understanding of this issue. But basically we don’t want to create a race to the bottom in other countries while loosing good jobs here. Goods are supposed to be mobile but capital is not. IE, it’s one thing to trade cars for electronics, but it’s another thing to just shut down all the factories and import stuff. That’s not trade.

That’s most of the stuff I can think of right now, I’ll to my blog if I think of more. IMO nobody is just one thing. I’m liberal on some stuff, conservative on others, and in many places somewhere in the middle. I think anytime people let their party do their thinking for them our whole country looses. Hope that helps :)

Mike Huckabee for president!

After a good deal of reading and research I have decided to support Mike Huckabee for president. I’ve looked at both his stated values and his actual accomplishments as governor of Arkansas and I think he’s the real deal. He not only espouses conservative principles but he applies them in a common sense fashion that is quite refreshing. Moreover, he appears to judge each idea on its merit instead of relying on across the board judgments.

One of my favorite examples, when Huckabee took over as Governor of Arkansas the state had horrible roads. So Huckabee increase the gas tax slightly an actually fixed the roads. Now even though I’m generally for low taxes, I also think there are a number of important services that government does provide and to provide them they do need money. In my opinion providing a sound infrastructure is one of the chief duties of government. And it’s quite refreshing for a governor to actually come in and fix what’s wrong. Yes we all want low taxes, but I am more than willing to pay a bit extra if need be so that my car doesn’t get swallowed by a pot hole, or worse the bridge I’m driving on collapse. I very much admire Huckabee because he is smart enough to realize that we can’t apply generalities like all taxes and government is bad. Instead he seems willing to evaluate each proposal on a case by case basis and actually made things better for his state. I believe he would apply that same leadership to this country and actually make things better. For while, I’m very much in favor of smaller government, I’m also very much in favor of bridges and levies etc not collapsing.

Next as an economist and an accountant myself I’m very happy to see that Huckabee supports the fair tax act. The fair tax act would save the country billions that are wasted on an impenetrable tax code. As it stands the tax system is so complicated NOT 1 PERSON ALIVE understands the whole thing. That’s just not right. The fair tax act would reward hard work and savings, and would compliance costs that now burden the nation. I can only think of one other thing more important to do than implement the fair tax act, energy independence.

Governor Huckabee recognizes the grave threat to national security, economic security and the environment that our current dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil represent. Although I would still like to get more details on his exact plan, I’m convinced that Huckabee will lead us in the right direction here. I also plan on posting my own ideas for how best to achieve that here, and forwarding that to Huckabee if he’s interested.

In addition, Huckabee has a strong record on education where he has improved the test results for students in Arkansas. It’s crucial to have an educated and informed nation both to have a functional democracy and to succeed in today’s competitive world. I like the governor realizes that the 3 R’s are the foundation of education but that music and art etc are needed to fill things out. I also like the fact that he has implemented policies so that they can actually fire bad teachers etc. I only hope the governor will take the final step and institute a voucher system to ensure school choice for all children.

I’m also very impressed by Huckabee’s healthcare plans. He realizes that the key to healthcare is prevention. We waste so much money in this country on care when what we really need to do is just eat right and go to the gym. I believe that after conquering his own problems Huckabee is in a unique position to lead us through our healthcare crises.

Last although certainly not least, Huckabee has a strong moral character. His values and positions don’t change depending on what position he’s running for. He stands up for traditional values, and actually lives them. Just as important Huckabee seems to be able to reach out across the isle and work with people to accomplish things. A true leader brings people together to accomplish objectives and time and again Huckabee is able to accomplish that without sacrificing his principles.

For all these reasons and more I believe Governor Mike Huckabee is the right person to be the next president of the United States. He’s a true leader that is competent to lead our nation through these trying times. I urge people to check out his website here and to find out more about him themselves. Then join me in supporting Mike Huckabee for president!

Healthcare Reform

(for those that don’t know I attended California Speaks on August 11. It brought almost 3500 people from across California to talk about the future of healthcare in CA. You can find more about them here. And look at the some of the results here. This is the letter I sent to the governor. I plan to send more to the legislature, as well as try and write another op-ed on this.)

Governor Schwarzenegger,

I was fortunate enough to participate in California Speaks where I was heartened to hear both you and the legislative leadership promise healthcare reform this year. After taking part in California Speaks and talking with many friends and family I feel confident that I can present to you a number of the ideas that we favor as well as some that we are against.

First we believe that all Californians should have healthcare and that all Californians should pay at least some small portion of the costs of their own healthcare. In this regard either your own proposal or SB 840 would be acceptable. AB 8 is not acceptable because it does not provide for all Californians or require that everyone have healthcare. In the same token whatever program is passed should make sure that insurance is affordable for all Californians. We believe that your current proposal could be too costly for some moderate income people. For example, an individual making $40,000 a year would have a hard time paying $7500 per year in medical expenses. A limit of say 5-10% of income combined with a total limit of $7500 would prevent this problem. In conjunction of course with everyone being required to have coverage, insurers would no longer be able to deny people coverage or charge exorbitant rates for pre-existing conditions.

Next, as mentioned in many of the proposals, prevention and wellness programs are key to reducing future costs. I propose the following program to provide plenty of incentives to get Californians in shape while at the same time cutting overall healthcare costs. Insurers or the state would provide a refundable rebate program to people that were determined to be “fit” by their doctors. This designation would have to be made at least once a year during a yearly checkup and it could include such measures as being a non smoker, being reasonably in shape given age etc, and not being obese. The amount of the rebate would be a percentage of the savings that are realized by the person being fit and therefore not developing a chronic disease such as diabetes or hypertension. For example, if it costs $2400 a year to provide healthcare for the average person but on average $6000 to treat someone with a chronic disease then people that stayed fit could be refunded 2/3 of the cost savings or $2400 a year ($200 a month) while the insurer or the state would save 1/3 of the cost or $1200 a year by the person staying fit. This would provide strong incentives for people to stay fit while simultaneously reducing total healthcare costs. This rebate could still be given to people enrolled in the states program and would be refundable for people who in this example paid less than $2400 a year in premiums. The logic being in this case the state would be better off paying people to stay fit then treating them for their health problems for being unhealthy. In similar fashion, as mentioned in your proposals, all preventive healthcare should be free to encourage people to use it. This will reduce overall healthcare expenditures.

We also believe that in order to control costs it is important for people to always pay a small co-pay. One of the main problems with SB 840 is that it does not require people to make a co-pay. We believe this will encourage excessive and in most cases unnecessary use of healthcare resources. A small co-pay would discourage that while not preventing people from getting needed medical care.

We are also very concerned with 25% of all healthcare dollars being spent on administration. We support proposals that would require capping monies spent on administration to 15% or less of total premiums. We also believe that the state should also offer competitive polices for people of all income levels to ensure competition in the private market. We believe that would also help prevent a bloated or inefficient bureaucracy from developing because it would be competing against private insurance companies. In fact it is for this prime reason that we are distrustful of SB 840 because we are not convinced that the resulting state bureaucracy would remain effective and efficient. As always, a bit of competition ensures a better product for all.

We also believe that no matter which system we end up with all hospitals and providers should be reimbursed by the state for at least cost plus a small premium for their services. Providers should be paid for their work. Moreover, we all recognize the hidden tax that is passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher insurance premiums if they are not paid the full cost of services.

Finally we agree with your assessment that illegal immigrants should only be provided the most basic emergency care. We do not believe people who enter illegally should be rewarded for their illegal acts, and that all state policies should discourage their presence as much as possible.

We encourage you to be bold in taking on these challenges in California. We are willing to pay a bit more to get healthcare to all Californians, realizing that by focusing on prevention and cost controls, the overall cost will eventually be lower. Moreover, we realize that a fit and healthy California is a productive place that can be competitive in today’s global economy. Please take these suggestions into account and make sure reform happens this year.

Thanks,

Mathew

Public and Private goods (education)

The first question that is often raised about goods is why should the public sector provide them at all. It is generally acknowledged that the private sector is significantly more efficient and providing goods than the public one. The private sector provides the cars that we drive, the clothes that we wear, and even the food that we eat. Moreover, it does all of that very efficiently. For example, in old communist Russia the public sector tried to provide everything and the result was bread lines. Now that they have started privatizing the bread lines are gone. That’s not a coincidence. So if the private sector is more efficient shouldn’t they provide all the goods and services?

Some goods though would probably not be provided in sufficient quantity or quality if left to the public sector. National defense is an obvious one, police and fire protection are others. It would seem to be inefficient for each neighborhood to have to hire a security guard. However, not all goods are so easy to divide up into just public or private. There are other goods that many people believe provide enough benefit to society that even though the private sector can produce them should not be left up just to the private sector. I will look at a number of those different goods and the implications for society over the next couple articles.

Education is one prime example of a good that is easily provided by the private sector but is often instead provided by the public. Why is education often considered to be a different good than say the house we live in. And why is lower and higher education often treated different? The main reason is because the education level of a society is a large factor in how successful that society is. People want a good education for themselves so they can make a good living etc, but it’s also important for their friends and neighbors to have a good education too. People with an education normally commit less crime, and are more productive members of society. Therefore by ensuring that the education level of a society is of a high level the whole society is better off. Thus it is beneficial for people of greater means to pay a bit extra in taxes so that people of lesser means get an education. Society as a whole will be better off. So since the private sector is not providing enough education, the public sector steps in and starts providing it.

However, because we gave the public school systems a virtual monopoly over our nations kids, our public schools started to behave like a monopoly. IE, many of them started to not worry about the quality of the product they were producing, or giving the tax payers good value for their money. The teachers unions, and the school bureaucracy became entrenched interests that without competition did not have to focus on producing a good product (IE educated kids). So the taxes people are paying to raise the nations education level are in many cases being wasted. One has to look no further than LAUSD with it’s 50% dropout rate than to see that tax payers are not getting their monies worth.

How do we fix this then? If you ask the teachers unions, or the school bureaucracy you will always get the same uniform answer, “WE NEED MORE MONEY!”. However, we already are spending more money per pupil than most private schools but achieving poorer results. And year after year even though schools promise they are reforming and improving no real results emerge. What can we do then to improve our schools, are there any other models that produce better results? Actually if you look past high school and to college you will see a dramatic difference. Our colleges and universities are ranked as some of the best in the world. And this includes our public ones. People from all over the world try to enroll in UCLA, but strangely not so many at the high school located just a short distance from it. What is the difference between the two sets of schools? In a word “choice”. When people have the choice on where they want to go it creates competition. Competition spurs product quality and innovation in both the public and private sector. Once you take away competition the quality of the product goes down.

The education establishment is against choice because they will be forced to improve or die. Instead they prefer the status quo where they can continue to muddle along while mouthing platitudes about improvement. Yes it’s possible some might get shut down if they don’t improve. But why should a school be able to keep operating if it’s not teaching kids? Isn’t that just a huge waste of tax payer money as well as the kid’s time? If they aren’t going to learn anything mine as well let them go play outside :)

We need to wise up, stop listening to the bull, and start demanding results. I propose the first thing we should do is make funding for schools a national issue. No matter which state, county or city a kid is born in they should be able to get a quality education. In conjunction with this we should institute national standardized tests that all kids both public, and private should have to pass. Thereby assuring that all kids would be educated to a certain standard. Public or private schools that whose students were not properly educated would be cut off from funding (again why pay for schools that don’t educate). Different schools would be free to use different methods to educate, as long as they met the national standards. After that they would be free to provide whatever services consumers (parents) wanted. Some maybe more music, some maybe more sports, others perhaps a trade. Innovation and choice would ensure that all kids received a good education and would graduate with the basic set of skills needed to make it in today’s fast paced world.

The evidence is already in, we know choice works and produces better schools. The question is do we have the courage and conviction to change.

Also people might be interested in checking out this article

But what happened to Global Cooling

In response to this article about "what happened to global cooling"

I think one of important things to get out of this is just because theories on occasion change as we get new information doesn’t mean we should never pay attention to science. For example, just because it was a common practice to bleed patients for medical purposes and that turned out to be wrong, would that mean that we should never pay attention to any new medical advances? It’s only in the world of politics where it seems you can’t learn from your mistakes, admit you are wrong, and move on.

Now that being said, there are two others factors that are important, the level of certainty and the risk of being wrong. The evidence for global warming continues to mount, and thus we have achieved a high certainty level. Of course there is still the chance that we could be wrong, that’s why it matters what we are suggesting to do about it. However in this case even if we turned out to be wrong the actions we would be taking to fight global warming would still be beneficial on the whole. Stuff like clean air and water are beneficial whether global warming is correct or not. In addition because fossil fuels are not a renewable resource a sound energy policy for the future would naturally focus on the development of renewables because duh they are renewable.

Therefore what you have here is a win win situation if you do something about global warming. If the scientists are right and we take measures to prevent global warming we have saved many lives, as well as possibly trillions in lost GDP. Plus helped to clean up the environment and build a sustainable future. If by some slight change the scientists turn out to be wrong, oh well. We still end up with a sustainable energy policy and a cleaner environment.

In the end basically what we are doing is spending a small amount of money now to purchase insurance against the good change that the scientists are right and we are roasting the planet. With the added benefit of building a sustainable future for our country and our world. It seems hard to beat that deal

Beyond Growth

So as many of you know I’ve been reading “Beyond Growth” by Herman Daly for the last little bit. The book overall is excellent, although it presupposes a decent amount of economic knowledge by the reader. That being said, I think the average reader will still get a lot out of it. Moreover, the central themes are crucially important to our times and the choices we make both individually and collectively. In fact I would submit that the choices we make in regards to this subject will have a huge impact on the future quality of life for all species on this planet for hundreds if not thousands of years. Of course many of the conclusions he reaches are unpleasant at best and therefore will be politically hard to achieve. After all they require something that is never in vogue namely self sacrifice. However, just because a choice is unpleasant doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be made. As anyone who is an actual adult (mentally not just physically) knows, sometimes hard choices must be made now or very painful consequences will result later.

The first and probably overriding point that he makes is that the earth’s environment is a finite system composed of finite resources. This should really be an easy point to make. For example, do you think the earth is still growing either in size or resources? Or is it instead still the same size. If you can correctly deduce that the earth is in fact remaining the same size then you must accept that the environment and resources are remaining constant as well. Now this is not to say that changes don’t happen in composition of the resources (grassland might change to desert or forest etc) but that no growth of the overall resource base is occurring. Now the next step is to realize that humans and our economy depend on the environment. We depend on it to provide clean air and water, as well as a source of natural capital (raw materials) and as a sink for our waste. Therefore since our environment is not growing, it stands to reason that our economy can only get to be so big in relation to the environment. In addition, as our economy gets larger, the rest of the natural environment gets smaller with a resulting reduction in the benefits that the environment provides. Crucially if we try and grow our economy too big it will eventually cripple the basic environmental functions that we depend on for life itself.

If we accept that the environment is finite then the economy must also have a limit then to how large it can grow in relation to the environment. Any further growth beyond is actually uneconomic because the costs (in reduced natural services) outweigh the benefits that we get from further growth of the economy. And as we push further past the optimal size of the economy the costs of growing will increase exponentially. If we can accept all this then we are accepting that the economy cannot grow without limit. Our quest to continuously grow GNP is not only impossible but also uneconomic after a point. Therefore we must ask how big do we want the economy to be in relation to the environment. Also, what is the optimal point after which growth of the economy actually costs more than the benefits that result. Some might argue that we have already passed the optimal point, and at the minimum the point is close at hand. One has but to look at the increasing overloads of natural systems such as fish stocks, or waste disposal sinks such as the atmosphere and the ocean to realize this is the case. And while the optimal size of the economy can be argued, the important thing is that we switch away from a growth economy that is not sustainable and transform into a development economy. An easy way to differentiate between growth and development would be to say that growth requires the use of more resources while development increases the efficiency of resources use. Therefore while growth is limited by our natural and finite world, development is only limited by human ingenuity and resourcefulness.

Now having accepted that we must place a limit on the growth of the economy it’s helpful to look at the two different parts of the economy that drive consumption and thus resource use and/or growth. Consumption is population multiplied by per capita consumption. Therefore if overall growth and thus (without further development) consumption is limited we have two choices to maintain that limit. If population increases we must decrease per capita consumption, or if we want to increase per capita consumption we must decrease population. Of course neither of those choices is normally popular. People don’t like to be told either how much they can consume, or how much they can populate. But unfortunately this being the real world, our wants often have little to do with reality. Moreover, if we ignore reality and continue on our current path we will experience what has been termed overshoot and collapse. A simple example, say there are two species on an island wolves and rabbits. As long as the wolf’s population remains small enough in proportion to the rabbit population then they can continue pretty much indefinitely. But say that the wolf population starts to grow. The increased amount of wolves will need to consume an increased amount of rabbits. But as more wolves consume more rabbits, the rate of rabbit reproduction will actually decrease which will make it ever harder for the wolves to stay fed. As we follow this to its logical conclusion the wolves will continue to feed on the rabbits until the rabbit population is so devastated that there is a massive wolf die off due to starvation. Of course wolfs are not self aware, they due not limit there own reproduction to stay within the limits of their environment.

This example is directly comparable to human existence on Earth. We to depend on nature to provide us with the resources and nourishment we need to stay alive. If our population grows too large it’s just as easy for us to devastate the environment we depend on to stay alive. The difference being that as self aware individual it shouldn’t be impossible for us to realize that the rabbit population is decreasing and thus we must halt our population growth (and consumption growth) to prevent possible future mass starvation (or other equally dire consequences).

However, as hard as the population growth might politically be to stop (no matter how necessary), equally troubling is the next logical step of limiting and/or shifting of consumption of resources. For example right now the USA with 6% of the world population consumes about 33% of the world’s resources. Of course the rest of the world would like to consume at the same level as the USA, but look what happens when we try to generalize our consumption patterns. If 18% of the world’s population consumed as much as the USA that would consume all the worlds’ current production of resources (and sinkage of wastes), what then would the other 82% of the world consume? If you wanted all 100% to consume at the same level as American that would require 5.56 times the total resource production of the entire world. To make it simple think about 5.5 times demand for oil what would the gas prices be (and how quickly would we drain every last drop) or how much rain forest would we be loosing each day to satisfy the paper needs for 5.5 times our current demand. And how would our fisheries already fished to the collapsing point in many cases produce 5.5 times more fish? The simple common sense answer is of course they cannot. The world simply cannot produce enough resources or absorb enough waste for even our current population to all enjoy the American lifestyle, much less a steadily increasing one. Of course increase in technology (aka development) will continue to allow for more efficient use of resources, but how much more efficiently can you use say the wood to build a house? Will better or more saws mean that less wood is used? The fact is that technology is an amazing thing but it to has limits. And none of the technology in the foreseeable future (and most likely ever) will remove the limits of resource use.

Therefore as people in the southern nations understandably want to increase there consumption, it will most likely require countries in the north to moderate their consumption to achieve anything near an equitable solution. If the countries in the north are unwilling, then why will the countries in the south behave? North and South will instead just consume their way into a devastated environment with all the problems that will result from such. Here again it’s very similar to the idea of fisheries. Each country can either, try to consume as much as they want with the end result being no fish, or they can all work together to limit their own catches and so insure a sustainable harvest in perpetuity. Now just because some changes of consumption patterns will undoubtedly be necessary, do not think I am advocating some kind of mass redistribution of wealth, or that we must strive for some communist society where everyone has exactly equal consumption. Instead it is just to recognize that if we limit the overall size of the economy in relation to the environment then some shifting of consumption from north to south must occur at a minimum to bring the south up to some base standard of living. And of course in conjunction with that the North, but especially the South must limit population growth. Otherwise whatever consumption is sacrificed by the North is bring up the South’s standard of living will instead be gobbled up by an ever increasing population. The result will be a never ending cycle of poverty in the South.

The last point I will touch on for now from the book is the idea of the measurement of income and GNP. First lets define income. Income is the amount you can consume either from interest or labor without reducing your stock of capital. For example, if you have $100 of resources at the beginning of the year, and you produce (or nature produces) $10 worth of resources during the year, then you can consume $10 during the year without reducing your base capital. The problem with our current systems of accounts is that to often we count the reduction of capital as income. But if you have $100 in your bank account and then spend it all, is that income? Or have you actually just spent all your savings or capital. It should be quite clear that you have spent capital and that therefore it should not be counted as income. Why then does our current system of accounts count the reduction of capital as income? If you pump all the oil from a field have you earned income? Or have you instead spent your capital. If we fish more fish than are produced in a year shouldn’t those extra fish be counted as a reduction of capital instead of an increase as income? GNP counts each decrease in capital as if it were income, and then we go about consuming that capital as if it was income instead. But what will we do when the capital runs out? Why the party will be over of course. Moreover, as we use up more capital each year the interest we earn off the capital decrease which results in an ever increasing use of capital. IE, we rush quicker to our doom.

The other half of the GNP problem is it currently counts costs as benefits. Did hurricane Katrina come through and leave a path of destruction in its wake. No matter our efforts to rebuild will just increase GNP. What about when an oil tanker spills Hurray, more GNP growth. In fact, all the costs of environmental protection that we must pay for our over consumption our instead being counted as benefits and increasing GNP. What sense does that make? If your water heater explodes and you have to replace it, is that a cost or a benefit. It rightly should be counted as a cost, but GNP increases so we are counting it as a benefit. Or maybe you suffer Lung problems from all the pollution in the air and must seek medical treatment, shouldn’t that be a cost? But not instead it increases GNP and so is considered to be a good thing.

Therefore to move towards a sustainable world, we must first realize that there are limits to how big the economy can grow in relation to the environment, and decide on an equitable basis for resource use between the North and South combined with limits to population growth. In conjunction with that we must change our methods of measuring progress to one that actually measures progress. We should only count as income in each year that which is actually income. That is the amount we can consume without reducing our capital. Finally we can then focus on development. How to increase our quality of life by increased growth in efficiency of resource use as well as other methods of social growth (the arts etc).

I thank everyone that has actually read this far, I know this isn’t always the most glamorous topic, but in many ways it’s one of the most important. I’ve tried to provide a summary of many of the most important topics in the book, but I of course encourage you to read it yourself. I also realize that many of these ideas will be hard both personally and politically to implement. But I also believe that failure to do so will most likely result in extremely unpleasant consequences. Of course if anyone would like to discuss any of these ideas in more detail feel free to ask.

Thanks again for taking the time to read this,