Saturday’s editorial blasts Congress for credit-card regulation on the grounds that “banks scurry to make up for lost revenue” by identifying accounts that don’t generate a lot of revenue (i.e., they pay the balance every month) by hitting them with annual fees instead and that this “stems from government’s poorly thought out desire to give consumers relief.”
And the evidence this is the reason? The proof that if Congress had let companies raise rates the way they wanted they would never, ever, ever have tried to hit cardholders with fees?
None. Because being a good libertarian, the author just KNOWS they would never do anything that mean if government didn’t force them.
As the free-market champions tell us over and over, companies have no ethical responsibilities other than to raise money for shareholders, so why not try this as a way to make money? Every person who accepts a fee, after all, will be that much more profit—is the writer suggesting there are companies who say “Well, we’ve got enough profits, let’s not try to make more.”
Even a cursory few minutes research will turn up accounts of banks and credit companies playing financial games long before Congress took action–but of course, a dedicated, serious libertarian doesn’t need to do research, because they KNOW regulation is a bad thing.

That’s the title of this blog post, which discusses whether America can sustain itself purely by consumer spending.
I’ve often been bothered by the idea we need to get out and spend, not to get things we really need or things we really want but for the good of the country: It seems to me that says something is seriously wrong in the economy. Ourfuture.org captures what I was reaching for and spells it out.

From a CNN article:
“Barry Schilmeister, health care consultant with Mercer, a global firm specializing in employee benefits, agrees.

“Most people are shielded from the true cost of care because all they pay when they go to the doctor is a $15 to $20 co-pay,” he said. “To me the catch phrase in 2010 will be ‘Taking responsibility.’ ”

Excuse me, but isn’t that the reason we buy insurance? So we’re shielded from some of those costs? It’s like arguing that we shouldn’t have car insurance because it shields us from the true cost of accidents.

I usually see this argument as a matter of libertarian PC—the free-market can’t fail, so it must be us consumers screwing it up—but here it seems to be more one of those bureaucratic euphemisms for raising fees (”No, we’re not taking more of your money, we’re making you more responsible.”).

I find myself wondering how many companies feel the need to make CEOs and upper-level management more responsible this way?

Walter Williams’ column arguing that capitalism is preferable to Communism wouldn’t have annoyed me except, as usual, faced with any suggestion capitalism isn’t perfect, he ducks and weaves.
Case in point: In explaining why the poor are better off under capitalism, he argues that someone who’s poor in America “whether he has health insurance or not, he is able to obtain medical care when needed.”
Sure. Because E/Rs have to provide it if someone shows up sick. This is wildly expensive and also a very poor way to deal with things like diabetes and heart disease, which are much easier to manage it treated before they get to the emergency point. It’s an inefficient, clumsy way to get medical care, and hugely expensive if you don’t have insurance (been there, done that); and frankly the “socialized” medicine practiced in other countries would seem a better alternative.
Then Williams goes on to explain that our country’s problems “can be laid at the feet of Congress and the White House”—for example, “banks didn’t mind making risky loans and Wall Street buyers didn’t mind buying those repackaged loans because they assumed they would be guaranteed by the federal government … Under a capitalist system, financial institutions would not have been intimidated or encouraged into making risky loans.”
In the first place, even if that were true, wouldn’t the banks be at least as much at fault? It’s not as if the government used Jedi mind tricks.
And in reality, we have multiple first-hand accounts, tape-recorded conversations and records that show that it was indeed capitalism—i.e., an intense desire to make money—that led to some of the meltdown. People who approved lots of dubious loans, knowing they’d get bigger bonuses and better performance reviews. Or that they’d be gone by the time the bill came due.
Apparently admitting that sort of thing isn’t acceptable in Williams’ universe.

I’ve noticed two or three pundits and letters to the editor this week explaining that malpractice reform MUST be part of the solution to kill all those unfair lawsuits.
Curiously enough, none of these writers suggest that we should you know, cut malpractice. Or encourage doctors, who are notorious for defending their own, to report and oust the bad ones (a majority of malpractice suits target a minority of doctors).
And there’s no suggestion that medical advertising might play just as big a role as “defensive medicine” (ordering lots of tests so you can prove you did the right thing by your patient). Pretty much every issue of Men’s Health touts some amazing new test “that can save your life” because even if all the standard tests say you’re fine, this can check better for heart disease/cancer/whatever. No discussion of percentages, costs, anything—it’s like a medical services advertorial.
But of course, criticizing doctors or the medical industry would imply that they might be (gasp!) doing some things wrong. Much better to stick with the corporate truisms that all those lawsuits are from greedy grasping people and have absolutely no basis.