la derecha no existe, ni en Chile ni en ningún lado

El programa de Piñera es continuista:

http://pinera2010.cl/programa-de-gobierno/

Por definición es conservador. Comparado con lo que tenemos en nuestros países parece liberal, pero es así solamente porque Chile es un país mucho más libre que los nuestros.

En el programa no veo aumento de regulaciones, se crean unas pocas instituciones nuevas y se aumenta moderadamente el gasto "social". Nada del otro mundo. Además todo se expresa en términos muy generales, sin objetivos concretos. A los bolches esto les mete tanto miedo como despertarse abrazados a un marinero turco, porque ven que es uno que no ha sido bautizado en la fe marxista por el Santo Padre Chávez, pero cualquiera con un poco de cabeza se da cuenta de que es más de lo mismo.

Dijera Rothbard "Los conservadores no tienen más principios que la estéril defensa del status quo". Si Piñera fuera liberal estaría hablando de desregular, cortar impuestos y eliminar instituciones. La única puntita que le ví por ese lado es el de los recursos directos para los usuarios de salud y educación, pero también es algo que ya estaba haciendo de alguna forma.

Para darse lustre intelectual los conservadores intentar vestirse con ropas liberales. Como elementos de identidad propios balbucean cosas sobre valores familiares, pero una familia puede ser un soltero huérfano, dos lesbianas con un hijo accidental, un hombre con tres mujeres y un travesti y una docena de hijos e incluso puede ser un hombre con una mujer y tres hijos. Ni siquiera hay valores definidos para cada una de esas formas familiares, que son todas igualmente válidas. ¿Valores cristianos? El cristianismo cobija a ideologías de todo tipo. Con los valores cristianos se defiende a Reagan o a Chávez con la misma soltura.

Ojalá algún día los liberales sean una fuerza política en América Latina, pero actualmente sólo se puede elegir entre conservadores y socialistas. Si queremos que el liberalismo crezca y triunfe, lo primero que debemos hacer es marcar distancia de esos que se proclaman "de derecha". De lo contrario sólo tendremos control de la velocidad a la que nos movemos por el camino de servidumbre, nunca sobre el sentido del viaje.

Why on Earth---Don’t We End Government-Run Ponzi Schemes?

by Bradley Doucet

March 19, 2009 - Bernard Madoff pleaded guilty last Thursday, March 12, to running a massive Ponzi scheme that swindled investors out of some $65 billion. He seems likely to spend the rest of his life in jail. Some have suggested the Ponzi scheme should be renamed “the Madoff scheme” in honor of his audacious crime. In fact, it should instead be renamed “the Roosevelt scheme” because compared to FDR, Madoff was an amateur. Yes, the biggest Ponzi scheme of them all was started by the former American president, and it is perfectly legal. In fact, it is run by the Federal government. It is called Social Security.

In a Ponzi scheme, “investors” are paid returns from their own money and from that of subsequent dupes. The money is not actually invested. There are no actual returns. Funds are simply transferred from one group of people to another, and the whole house of cards collapses when there is no longer enough income from newer dupes to meet promised outlays.

Sixty-five billion dollars is a lot of money, but it is chump change compared with the hundreds of billions that pass through the Social Security washing machine every year. According to economist Walter Williams, Congress currently collects about $785 billion in Social Security “contributions” and pays out $585 billion to Social Security recipients. The surplus is officially placed in a so-called “trust fund” that is nothing of the kind. In reality, the government just spends the money, and writes itself an IOU. The money is gone. Nothing is invested. No profits are earned. Funds are simply transferred from one group of people to another.

Due to demographic change, there are fewer and fewer workers supporting each retiree. Due to advances in health care, those relatively more numerous retirees are also living ever longer lives. Neither of these trends shows any sign of letting up anytime soon. Within a decade, the Social Security “surplus” will have become a deficit unless Congress either raises payroll taxes, or reduces benefits paid out (either directly or by raising the age at which retirees can start collecting benefits). Most industrialized countries have similarly unfunded, “pay-as-you-go” pension systems, though some (Chile, Australia) have adopted compulsory savings schemes, which are funded but have their own problems. Reforms in countries like Sweden have been more minor, preserving their essentially unfunded nature. [Details here.] Within a few decades—a time frame relevant for current 20- and 30-somethings—all of these unfunded systems are headed for collapse.

Ending Social Security: The Third Rail

Ending Social Security abruptly would be patently unfair to all of those who have paid into the system for decades expecting it to provide for them in their sunset years. Any plan to kill the government-run scheme would therefore have to be phased in over many years. Former President George W. Bush tried and failed to get Social Security reform going—perhaps as a partial corrective to his otherwise big-spending ways. President Obama, on the other hand, seems to like the current system just fine. He has vowed neither to raise the age at which benefits begin nor to lower those benefits, counting instead on tax increases on the wealthy to keep the system solvent.

Why is it so hard to see the problem clearly and fix it by ending Social Security? One reason is that we care about the elderly poor, who are unable adequately to provide for themselves in old age. Of course, many of them could provide for themselves if they were allowed to keep their money and invest it. The small minority truly unable to look after themselves could always rely on voluntary charity.

But wouldn’t this pure, undisguised charity make the poor feel undignified, having to ask for assistance instead of receiving it as an entitlement? Wouldn’t it make them feel undignified also to be singled out for assistance instead of participating in a universal system? These are some of the arguments made in the 1930s by FDR and others. They amount to an argument for ersatz dignity, a plea to help those who are dependent evade the reality of their situation. But if dependence, whether through bad luck or bad planning, makes people feel undignified, does this justify faking reality?

If It Quacks Like a Duck…

I am not the first person to call Social Security a Ponzi scheme, and the charge has prompted supporters of the system to come to its defense. Mitchell Zuckoff, author of a book on Charles Ponzi himself, offered up one such defense in a recent Fortune column. After sketching the similarities between Social Security and Ponzi schemes, Zuckoff notes some key differences. First, Social Security is not a scam because everyone already knows the money is not invested. Second, Social Security is not doomed to collapse because it can be “tweaked and modified” to reflect changing conditions. Indeed, it has been modified many times over the years. Third, Social Security is morally good, aiming to provide for the needy, whereas true Ponzi schemes aim to defraud people for personal gain.

The question we must ask is whether Zuckoff’s differences are essential, or whether they merely indicate that Social Security is a particular kind of Ponzi scheme, namely, the kind a government would run. As it turns out, these differences are nonessential, and in no way undermine the case for doing away with the whole twisted apparatus. First, it is true that many (but surely not all) do understand the fact that their “contributions” are not invested. The Federal government, however, doesn’t need to fool people when it can force them to participate. (Zuckoff, to his credit, acknowledges this.) Second, the government’s regular tweaks and modifications to keep the ship afloat—raising payroll taxes or lowering benefits—would amount to a breach of contract if carried out in the private sphere. Every new tweak, after all, unilaterally makes Social Security a worse deal than it was before.

Zuckoff’s third point contains the implicit assumption that service to others is by definition morally good, while personal gain is morally suspect, or at least less noble. In fact, traditional Ponzi schemers are reprehensible not because they seek personal gain, but because they seek it illegitimately, by defrauding people. Well-intentioned or not, the Federal government’s Ponzi scheme also harms people, both rich and poor. Even those who make only modest “contributions” to the system could receive higher benefits upon retirement if they invested those same modest amounts conservatively for themselves. In the midst of the current financial crisis, this might sound counterintuitive, but the long run view is clearly in favor of private investment. The only real argument against private savings is purely paternalistic: Yes, people could easily earn more, but they might choose not to invest enough if left to their own devices. Translation: We, the government, know what’s best for you.

Conscription by Any Other Name

People who justly recoil from the idea of outright slavery and who rightly cheer the end of the military draft—two institutions that abrogate basic human rights—have no problem with the idea of conscripting their fellow citizens to provide for the retirement of others. They see that security in old age is a good thing, and they imagine that this good end justifies the forced “contributions” of all.

Implicit in this view is the idea that you do not belong to yourself. Others have a claim on some portion of your life without you having voluntarily come to any agreement with them. This idea of an unchosen obligation, though, is the same notion behind slavery and the draft, though admittedly in a milder form. The simple truth is that no one has the right to initiate the use of force against you. You wouldn’t accept it as legitimate if a gang of your neighbors showed up with pitchforks in hand demanding a slice of your paycheck; it is no more legitimate if they launder their efforts through the legerdemain of government legislation.

The current Social Security system fakes reality by mimicking investment for retirement when no such investment is taking place. It fakes reality by disguising dependence under a veil of universality. And it fakes reality by encouraging people to abdicate responsibility for their own lives and livelihoods. The bridge is out up ahead. How much longer will we wait before demanding a change of course?

If we left retirement planning to private individuals and enterprises, the vast majority of people, who are perfectly capable of taking responsibility for their own lives, would be encouraged to do so. This would not only work far better than the current system; even more importantly, it would accord each individual human being the genuine respect and dignity we all deserve.

Why on Earth...? is a series of cultural commentaries by Bradley Doucet.

This editorial comment has been produced and distributed by The Atlas Society. If you would like to reproduce or publish this piece, you may do so provided you include the biographical information found on this page.

For more information, please contact The Atlas Society.

If you are distributing this piece electronically, the following text must be included after the selection:

Copyright, The Atlas Society. For more information, please visit www.atlassociety.org.

In Search of Tomorrow's Biofuels - Industry Headlines - Process Heating

In Search of Tomorrow's Biofuels - Industry Headlines - Process Heating

The first generation of biofuels was relatively easy to produce. Plants produce their own concentrated stores of energy in seeds or tubers, and biofuels simply tapped into those, taking oils from seeds and ethanol from the sugars in tubers. But such crops compete directly with food for agricultural resources, and after the initial enthusiasm, it became clear that the quantities of fuel needed to make a difference would make serious inroads into food security.

Now scientists are looking at the entire plant as a source of biofuels.

"The next generation will either use byproducts, like wheat straw, or it will be grown where it won't compete with food," says Alf Game, Science Manager and Deputy Director of Research, Innovation and Skills at the British Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). "And that doesn't have to be land -- one of the most promising sources is algae."

The British Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) is administering the largest ever U.K. public investment in bio-energy research. The money is being shared between six groups of researchers throughout Britain who are working on different aspects of the problem to develop the next generation of biofuels.

"The Sustainable Bio Energy Centre is a virtual center of six teams led from five different universities and institutes that are working on different aspects of the problem," he says. "It's not like a pipeline, where each of the teams feeds into the next. What we have are exemplars, models or patterns to be copied, of what can be done at different stages of the pipeline."

Game’s job has been to lead the conception and construction of the centre so that it keeps developing towards the future. Fortunately, there's plenty of material available for research and development: waste from agriculture or the food-processing industry, bracken, various grasses, coppiced willow or poplar trees.

"A main interest of the research is to find useful ways to break down lignins and cellulose," Game explains.

Cows and termites already do it, but they have complicated digestive systems with lots of different microbes. There is an insect, though, that is attracting special attention.

"A tiny marine wood-boring crustacean called the gribble has a sterile gut and employs very few enzymes to digest the lignins," says Game. "One of our projects is to see if we can understand how these work, to replicate this in industrial processing."

Other projects are working on improving biomass crops, breaking down the materials and turning them into usable fuels. Altogether, there are 15 universities and institutes and 15 industrial partners involved.




Did you enjoy this article? Click here to subscribe to the magazine.

héroes verdaderos :: real heroes

No más Chuck Norris, he aquí a mi nuevo héroe, en carne y hueso. Es empresario, maestro de Kyokushin, evade impuestos y fue el coreógrafo de mi serie animada favorita: Street Fighter (la versión animé)

* * * * *

Kazuyoshi Ishii is a Japanese master of Seidokan Karate and the founder of the K-1 fighting circuit, a martial-arts event combining Muay Thai, Karate, San Da, Taekwondo, Kenpo, Boxing and Kickboxing, etc.

Ishii started his martial art career in Kyokushin karate where he became a well-respected bare-knuckle, knockdown karate tournament champion. When Hideyuki Ashihara left Kyokushin in 1979, Ishii followed, but left Ashihara's new karate organization after only a few months. In 1980, he established the Seidokan Karate school in Osaka, with dojos and university-based karate clubs in the Kansai area. A few years later, the All Japan Karate-Do Tournament was held in Osaka, organized by Ishii and Seido Kaikan, the new governing body for Seidokan Karate.

In 1983, Ishii became the first Chairman of the newly formed All Japan Budo (Martial Arts) Promotion Association. Five years later, two of his students, Masaaki Satake
Masaaki Satake and Toshiyuki Yanagisawa finished first and second in the Karate Real Champion Tournament, which increased his fame.

In 2003 Ishii was indicted on charges of corporate tax evasion and was arrested on suspicion of concealing a further 530 million yen. Despite all this, in January 2003 Black Belt Magazine honored Ishii as "Man of the Year." In 2004 he was convicted and sentenced to 22 months in prison for tax evasion by the Tokyo District Court
Judicial system of Japan.

There are reports indicating that Kazuyoshi Ishii has been released from a Shizuoka prison at 5:30 am JST on August 7 2008. Ishii had gone to jail on June 11, 2007 after exhausting the appeals process in his criminal court case in regards to charges of corporate tax evasion and destruction of evidence relating to the case. The report claims that Ishii was considered a ‘model citizen’ in prison and that he was released early on good behavior.
Trivia


Along with the late K-1 fighter Andy Hug, Ishii supported the production of Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie Street Fighter II: The Animated Movie, to make the fight scenes more realistic than the game.

TANSTAAFL

July 16, 2009, 11:40 am
Quotes Uncovered: The Punchline, Please
By FRED SHAPIRO
Quotes Uncovered

A while back, I invited readers to submit quotations for which they wanted me to try to trace the origins, using The Yale Book of Quotations and more recent research by me. Hundreds of people have responded via comments or e-mails. I am responding as best I can, a few per week.

Javy asked:

Scientists (professors, physicians) will know more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing, or will know less and less about more and more until they know nothing about everything.

The Yale Book of Quotations, which attempts to trace all famous quotations to their earliest findable sources, has the following:

“A specialist is a man who knows more and more about less and less.” William J. Mayo, Quoted in Reader’s Digest, November 1927.

Joe T asked:

Re: “free lunch” as punchline, what was the rest of the joke?

O.K., here’s the outline of the joke that may have given rise to “There’s no such thing as a free lunch”; it appears in an article in the El Paso Herald-Post, June 27, 1938, entitled “Economics in Eight Words.”

This is a fable in which a king asks his advisers to summarize economics in a “short and simple text.” They respond with 87 volumes of 600 pages each, drawing the king’s wrath and accompanying executions. Further demands and more executions force ever-briefer summations, until, finally, the last economist, “a man of profound wisdom,” speaks:

Sire, in eight words I will reveal to you all the wisdom that I have distilled through all these years from all the writings of all the economists who once practiced their science in your kingdom. Here is my text: “There ain’t no such thing as free lunch.”

telenovelas

Chávez instó a producir telenovelas socialistas. Acá va una idea:

La mucamita sufre trabajando para una familia de clase media alta, hasta que la situación de esta familia empeora y deben despedirla. Recibe su indemnización e ingresa a un programa de capacitación del gobierno. Allí conoce a un profesor joven, atractivo y comprometido con la causa socialista. Se enamora y comienza a militar activamente. El profesor y la mucamita se hacen amantes. Ella queda embarazada. Pasan penurias porque él tiene solamente el trabajo de profesor (unas pocas horas), ella sigue desempleada y el gobierno no les da una asignación familiar que les permita mantenerse. Trabajan incansablemente por la causa y logran que su movimiento socialista llegue al poder. El profesor es elegido ministro de desarrollo social y nombra secretaria a su esposa. Como primera medida, imponen una reasignación de viviendas. En el momento cúlmine, los tres entran tomados de la mano a la casa de la familia que había explotado vilmente a la mucamita.

Pero para equilibrar cuento la versión capitalista:

La mucama es despedida. Se da cuenta del problema de la inestabilidad laboral en el sector. Funda una empresa que brinda servicios de limpieza y cocina. Proporciona estabilidad laboral a sus empleados con lo que consigue a los mejores y eso le permite a su vez conseguir también los mejores clientes. Comienza a obtener contratos para brindar servicios en los barrios privados y en edificios de apartamentos completos, ofreciendo incluir el servicio en las tarifas de gastos comunes. Rápidamente su empresa ha crecido y es reconocida como una mujer exitosa. Mientras tanto, la relación con uno de sus asistentes se ha ido fortaleciendo por la intimidad a la que los obligan las largas horas de cada jornada. Se enamoran y se van a vivir juntos. Deciden tener hijos, por lo que para facilitar la situación firman un contrato prenupcial con sus condiciones (de común acuerdo) y se casan por civil. El momento cúlmine es cuando la mucamita, ahora una mujer poderosa, tiene a su hija en el hospital. Su marido está al lado de ella. Los tres sólos en la habitación. La cámara muestra entre los númerosos regalos un oso de felpa con una tarjeta enviada por la familia que le dio su primer empleo. Dice simplemente "Nuestras sinceras felicitaciones"

El Dinero Comienza Aquí - Conceptos y Comentarios - Industria Alimenticia

El Dinero Comienza Aquí - Conceptos y Comentarios - Industria Alimenticia