Richard J Grant

Published in The Tennessean , December 27, 2009 Those who take medical risks get Congress' help By RICHARD J. GRANT "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master — that's all." We can only wonder what Humpty Dumpty would have said about health insurance. The word "insurance" used to have a clear meaning. But as insurance has come increasingly under the control of our masters in the various levels and branches of government, the thing itself bears less and less correspondence to the word we use to describe it. Life comes with a natural uncertainty, and each of us must find a way to handle this fact. We can identify and, in many cases, measure the various risks that we face.

Published in The Tennessean , December 20, 2009 Constitution keeps us on the straight and narrow Richard J. Grant In Homer's epic, The Odyssey, Ulysses knows that he, like other men, will not be able to resist the Sirens' song and the temptation to get closer and turn his ship into the rocky shores of destruction. He wants to lead his ship and crew safely past the land of the Sirens, but he also wants to hear the Sirens' song and to know when he has passed the danger. So he orders his men to fill their ears with beeswax and to bind him tightly to the mast so that he can take no action that might endanger the ship as his men continue to row. Each of us has lived a similar story in that we have adopted rules of conduct that might at times clash with our temptations but guide us safely through the challenges of life. Sometimes we adopt these rules consciously and take responsibility for living up to them. But for the most part we absorb such rules, as part of our growing up, f

Published in The Tennessean , Sunday, December 13, 2009 Don't confuse environmentalism with science by Richard J. Grant Truth is not determined by majority vote. Any talk of a "consensus" in science is best not taken as the final word. As Somerset Maugham once put it, "If 40 million people say a foolish thing it does not become a wise one, but the wise man is foolish to give them the lie." Climatology is a science, not to be confused with environmentalism. The heart of environmentalism is not to be found in the natural sciences. It is ideology and nothing more. That is why it ends in "-ism." Environmentalism is itself not a monolith, but its dominant strand is distinctly statist in character. As such, its main nemesis is the science of economics, not climatology or any of the other natural sciences. A sound understanding of economics is all that is needed to discredit the emerging interventionist social agenda of the environmental movement. The methods

Published in The Tennessean , Sunday, December 6, 2009 Fudged global-warming data melt under scrutiny by Richard J. Grant Have you noticed how often it is assumed that people in business are ruthless, greedy and unprincipled in their pursuit of profit, but that people in government are assumed to be selfless, benevolent and unerring in their pursuit of social justice? Is there something about the two types of service that magically transforms human nature, or is there just some mysterious sorting mechanism? Here's an example. A corporation, let's say a big oil company, gives a monetary grant to a group for the purpose of funding research related to the issue of climate change. Around the same time, a government agency gives a monetary grant to another group, also for the purpose of funding research related to the issue of climate change. Is there a difference? Are the results of the two grants portrayed in the media in exactly the same way? If the research results cast doubt on

Published in The Tennessean , Sunday, November 29, 2009 Government intrusion is not the American way by Richard J. Grant When talking to Canadians about the drawbacks of their universal healthcare system, I often heard the retort, "But I sure don’t want an American-style system!" My honest response was, “Don't worry, Americans don’t have one either.” “American-style” used to connote “free and prosperous.” Respect for economic freedom has always been associated with the American way of doing things. Now, although this association persists in our minds, it does not persist in the reality around us. Government is already the largest medical "insurer" in the country, and pays at least half of all US medical expenditures. It is also the most wasteful. The Medicare program is an actuarial disaster that, within five years, will begin running deficits that will increase rapidly over time, leaving it no way to cover its trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities. Attem

Published in The Tennessean October 11, 2009 Peace without freedom is no source of pride By Richard J. Grant "Peace" can mean different things to different people. At the superficial level, we speak of being at peace when we do not see actual war or acts of violence. But peace comes in at least two forms. There is the peace of free, voluntary cooperation; and there is the peace of subjugation. The first is the idealized American version: As individuals, we are free to associate or disassociate with others as we choose. We are free, and "have the right," to defend ourselves and our property against aggression, but we do not have the right to initiate the use force against those who respect our rights to life, liberty and property. Such a social environment fosters cooperation between fellow countrymen, even though they may be strangers. I might be friends with the local butcher, but loathe the baker; and I might never have met the candlestick maker. But I can find c

Published in The Tennessean September 3, 2009 Reforms have had negative results By Richard J. Grant Calling something "reform" does not make it good or necessary. Campaign finance reform has been neither. It has produced effects that are the opposite of those intended. We were told that campaign finance limits would help protect us from political corruption, from vote buying, from cynicism and negativity, and reduce the amount of resources directed into political campaigns. But this has not been the actual result. The No. 1 beneficiaries of campaign finance limitations have always been incumbent politicians. These are the same people who vote for such limits. Incumbents are already better known than potential challengers, who must work harder to build up name recognition. As in the promotion of any new product, new candidates must spend more resources to become known to the electorate and to make their positions clear. With campaign finance "reform," the percentage

Published in the Tennessean , July 21, 2009 Economy stimulus plans amount to quackery By Richard J. Grant Politicians have two talents: 1) ignoring or hiding the full costs of their projects, and 2) pretending that their stated intentions are as good as results, even when their projects can't possibly succeed. The so-called "stimulus" plans of the current and previous administrations exhibited both of these characteristics. They cost far more than we were told, and provided stimulus in name only. Worse than that, their net effect is de-stimulus. Belief in "stimulus plans" is to economics what bloodletting was to medicine. Such economic quackery persists because it serves political interests. As the signs of recession, such as job losses and mortgage defaults, began to show up in the economy, politicians at all levels came under pressure to "do something." So they did. The result was one of the biggest agglomerations of pork-barrel projects in history.

Published in The Tennessean , March 29, 2009 Treasury program is destined to fail By Richard J. Grant If the purpose of the new Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP) is to make the financial markets work better, then it will fail. If the purpose is to transfer wealth from U.S. taxpayers and holders of U.S. dollars to those who are politically favored, then the plan will succeed. It always amazes me how much effort some people will expend to get something for nothing. Increasingly, the role of the federal government has become one of aiding and abetting such efforts. As the Treasury secretary takes on his new role as wet nurse to the financial industry, we should be under no illusion as to who is really being milked. This latest plan, like most government plans, is a net destroyer of wealth. Does it not make sense that, if you want markets to work, you should not interfere with them? But I hear you respond, "We need a basic legal structure for markets to work!" Do you mean

Published in The Tennessean February 19, 2009 We know the 'plan' is not the answer By Richard J. Grant, Ph.D This current recession will end. But that will be no thanks to government "plans" and "packages." The new "Financial Stability Plan" has something in common with its companion "stimulus package," It will do the opposite of what its name promises. When Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner introduced his plan, and the markets fell, it was said that the plan lacked adequate detail. But we don't really need the details to know that the plan is wrongheaded. First, let's deal with the silly assumption that the current downturn was caused by a free market. In the U.S., governments account for almost 40 percent of all spending, and banking is one of the most heavily regulated, and distorted, sectors. The government even has a monopoly in the creation of currency, a power that it uses to interfere daily in the credit markets. It sho