Study: Native Americans arrived in three waves, all from Siberia

It's a quite interesting study, and the DNA seems to confirm what was said years ago, but dismissed by many -- that native Americans came from Siberia in three distinct waves.

North and South America were first populated by three waves of migrants from Siberia rather than just a single migration, say researchers who have studied the whole genomes of Native Americans in South America and Canada.

Some scientists assert that the Americas were peopled in one large migration from Siberia that happened about 15,000 years ago, but the new genetic research shows that this central episode was followed by at least two smaller migrations from Siberia, one by people who became the ancestors of today’s Eskimos and Aleutians and another by people speaking Na-Dene, whose descendants are confined to North America. The research was published online on Wednesday in the journal Nature.

The finding vindicates a proposal first made on linguistic grounds by Joseph Greenberg, the great classifier of the world’s languages. He asserted in 1987 that most languages spoken in North and South America were derived from the single mother tongue of the first settlers from Siberia, which he called Amerind. Two later waves, he surmised, brought speakers of Eskimo-Aleut and of Na-Dene, the language family spoken by the Apache and Navajo.

Read the rest of this post...

Let's draft senior citizens instead

As Atrios points out, people who call for the reinstatement of the draft are invariably older than the upper-limit on the draft age they propose. And Matthew Yglesias points out that enslaving teenagers is hardly an equitable alternative to paying taxes. But what really offends me about the latest outburst of conscription nonsense from General McChrystal and Thomas Ricks is the idea that providing the military with more people would mean fewer wars rather than more.

Consider Ricks' piece in the New York Times:

Unlike Europeans, Americans still seem determined to maintain a serious military force, so we need to think about how to pay for it and staff it by creating a draft that is better and more equitable than the Vietnam-era conscription system.

Like much authoritarian logic, this argument begins with a stated premise that is completely untrue and several unstated assumptions that are false. The European military is a serious force. The French and British heads of government were sufficiently convinced of their military capability to begin planning an assault on Libya even if the US did not take part in the operation.

Even if the premise is assumed to be true, the conclusion only follows if it is assumed that (1) The US needs to increase its military to make up for the purported deficit left by the Europeans, and (2) The US needs a 'serious' military.

At root, authoritarians are cowards. They can't face the risk of disorder, it frightens them. So they desperately try to prevent change or disorder no matter how clear the evidence that their attempt is counter productive. So they will always want more guns, more tanks and more bombs and more people to carry them for them. And whenever they see a threat, their first reaction is to fire all that weaponry they collected over the years.

Speaking on a panel, McChrystal argued that bringing back the draft would make people more 'connected' to the war.

We've never done that in the United State before; we've never fought an extended war with an all- volunteer military. So what it means is you've got a very small population that you're going to and you're going to it over and over again," he said. "Because it's less than one percent of the population... people are very supportive but they don't have the same connection to it.

But here is the thing, how is sending our teenagers to fight in McCrystal's hunger-games going to make voters feel more connected when almost all of them are older than the proposed draft age? The only way that is going to be possible is if everyone knows that they might be drafted in the future. If we accept McCrystal's logic we should draft everyone, especially senior citizens.

In fact, drafting seniors has obviously superior benefits on every single one of the reasons given for conscription.

Seniors have experience, and so the free labor provided by the typical senior would be more valuable than that of the typical teen. Seniors are a powerful voting block, and governments would be even more reluctant to fight unnecessary wars. And seniors also have a shorter remaining life expectancy, so the social sacrifice is less.

So the next time someone starts talking about reinstating the draft, let's start with Dick Cheney. Read the rest of this post...

Video: HD version of San Diego's now-infamous fireworks' display this year

Read the rest of this post...

THIS JUST IN... Boston Globe refuses Romney demand to "correct" Bain story

The Boston Globe reported this morning that federal and state documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain claim that Mitt Romney remained the CEO, chairman of the board, and sole stockholder well beyond the 1999 retirement date that Romney had claimed in federal documents filed with the FEC.

If Romney lied, this could be a felony.  And he appears to have lied to someone as you can't "retire" but still remain CEO and Chair of the Board for a couple more years.

The Romney campaign demanded that the Globe "correct" their story, which Romney called "inaccurate."  The problem is that, as the Globe notes in their subsequent letter to the Romney campaign, the Globe can't correct a story that quotes federal and state documents that Romney wrote himself.  Via Politico, the Globe writes:

The Globe story was based on government documents filed by Bain Capital itself. Those described Governor Romney as remaining at the helm of Bain Capital as its “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” until 2002. The story also cited state financial disclosure forms filed by Romney that showed he earned income as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.

Only in Romney-land does someone retire and then keep his job for a few more years. If Romney is now claiming that he took a leave of absence from Bain, then why did he tell the FEC that he "retired"? And why did he file state documents showing he was still earning income if he supposedly no longer worked there?

Lots of questions, and no answers, from Camp Romney.

Then there's today's story from Buzzfeed in which Mitt Romney said during a recent GOP primary debate that he "worked" at Bain - you know, that place he "retired" from - until 2002.

As a result of all the bad news, Romney's camp is losing it. They issued a statement today demanding Obama apologize for the "out of control behavior" of his staff. Their behavior was accurately commenting on Romney's own federal and state filings.

But the Romney camp's statement is a sign that their worried, very worried, about today's news, and more generally, the traction the Bain story is clearly starting to have. For them to risk making the story bigger by issuing such an over-the-top statement smells of desperation. They felt they to had to do something, anything, to stop the story. And instead, they keep making it bigger. Read the rest of this post...

Krugman on Mitt's taxes—Is he "hiding something seriously damaging"?

The Professor has a fine column contrasting Romney the Elder (George, the mid-century businessman and politician) and Romney the Younger (our Mitt). It's a great read, end to end.

But I just want to highlight this one comment:

[U]nless [Mitt Romney] does reveal the truth about his investments, we can only assume that he’s hiding something seriously damaging.

There's great stuff in this column, but this bottom line is the Mitt Romney question, don't you think?

Calling Jimmy Olsen — it's Hall of Fame honors for the first one who finds Mitt's secret. Because I think The Professor is exactly right.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...

Feds go after "world's largest" medical marijuana dispensary

Wow, we're all safe now. Aren't we lucky that the Feds are cracking down on this rather than prosecuting Wall Street for creating the Great Recession that now may be a depression?

Federal prosecutors have filed civil forfeiture actions against an Oakland medical marijuana dispensary that bills itself as the world's largest, as part of a crackdown by U.S. authorities on California's massive cannabis trade.

The lawsuits, filed on Monday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, seek forfeiture of two properties where Harborside Health Center operates, said Melinda Haag, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California.

Harborside says it is the largest medical marijuana dispensary in the world, serving more than 100,000 patients in a "beautiful waterfront location," and is subject of the Discovery Channel reality TV show "Weed Wars."

There's only so much bandwidth at the federal government level and this should be a low priority. The last time I checked, it wasn't the medical marijuana industry that destroyed the economy. Read the rest of this post...

Romney campaign now lies about Mitt's felony-lie

In response to the news that Mitt Romney may have committed a felony by lying in federal documents about when exactly he left Bain Capital, the Romney campaign today lied about Romney's lie.

Here's what Romney himself claimed (via his campaign) in documents filed with the federal government:

"Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake
Organizing Committee."

Here's what the Romney campaign is now claiming that Romney said in those documents:

"FactCheck was saying, if Mitt Romney was actively managing Bain, as the Globe asserts, and he certified that he wasn't actively managing Bain, then he would be guilty of a federal felony," McDonald said. "They are not saying that he would be guilty of a federal felony [just] for saying he left in 1999." [emphasis added]

Actually, a fact sheet from Factcheck.org isn't the basis for determining whether something is a felony.  But putting that aside, since the Romney campaign wants to go there... contrary to what the Romney campaign is now alleging, Romney didn't say in federal documents that he "wasn't actively managing Bain."  He said that he had "retired."  And retired means you're gone.  And Romney wasn't "gone" at all.  He remained the CEO, chair of the board, and sole stockholder, we now know from SEC documents filed by Bain.

So either Romney lied in his federal filing, or Bain lied in theirs.  Either way, someone may very well be guilty of a felony. Read the rest of this post...

Video: Girl goes fishing, shark steals her catch

Apparently this is real, the local media covered it and interviewed them. This part of the story seems to prove Darwin's "Natural Selection" theory of evolution:

The story doesn't stop with the shark getting away because Hughes and Moore along with their relative Dylan caught the shark again using chum as bait.

"We had to use the boat. It was exciting," said Moore.

But like a scene from "Jaws", the men realized they 'needed a bigger boat'.

"We needed a bigger boat and a bigger net," said Hughes. "I just wanted to touch it. Put my hands on it and let it go."

The family did finally let the shark go after a short fight, but they're still trying to catch it again.

Read the rest of this post...

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Big Pharma) is why you pay 4x too much for prescription drugs

We've already established

what you are, Sen. Carper.

Now we're simply haggling

over the price.

US Senator Thomas Carper from Delaware isn't the only reason you pay an exorbitant price, as compared to Europeans and Canadians, for prescription drugs.  But he's definitely one of the main reasons (it also didn't help that the administration traded this amendment away to Big Pharma.)

You see, Senator Carper is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries who have paid him nearly half a million dollars over the years for his service to their cause.

It's currently illegal for US pharmacies and wholesalers to import prescription drugs from abroad, where the exact same drugs, made by the exact same drug companies, are often sold at a quarter of the price of their US counterparts.

And even private American citizens, when traveling abroad, are only permitted to bring a few month's worth of prescription drugs back home with them, lest American pharmaceutical companies, that pay big money to buy off the US Congress and presidential candidates, lose out on the opportunity to gouge the American people for billions in excess profits each year.

Back in 2009, during the health care reform debate, all that might have changed.

You see, former US Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota offered an amendment that would have permitted "pharmacies and wholesalers to import U.S.-approved medication from Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, where drug costs are far lower because of price controls." And who led the opposition to that amendment, but the Democratic Senator from Delaware, Thomas Carper, who has the big pharmaceutical firm AstraZeneca headquartered in his state.

More from the Washington Post:

An anticipated vote on Dorgan's amendment was initially blocked on Thursday by Democratic Sen. Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, home to the U.S. headquarters of pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca. Carper backs a different version of the legislation that supporters decry as a poison pill.

Carper said in a statement that he shares the FDA's concerns that "Senator Dorgan's amendment could potentially allow unsafe, counterfeited drugs into the United States, contaminating our drug supply. This is a complicated issue that affects people's lives. We should make sure that the FDA says it's safe before we reimport drugs from other countries."

Right, Senator Carper and the FDA are worried about unsafe counterfeit drugs coming into the US, that's why they won't let American citizens buy the same drugs, made and sold by the same pharmaceutical companies, for a quarter of the price in Europe.

Contrary to Senator Carper's assertion, it's actually not that complicated.  You see, Senator Carper has received $166,300 from pharmaceutical lobbyists, and a whopping $320,210 from insurance lobbyists. That's nearly half a million dollars in bribes appreciation from lobbyists who have zero interest in making your health care affordable and every interest in gouging you for every penny you've got.

Carper has received $27,200 alone from AstraZeneca.  You know AstraZeneca, they're the pharmaceutical company that charges Americans nearly four times what it charges Europeans for one of the world's most popular asthma drugs, Symbicort.

As I reported yesterday, it's even worse.  Not only does AstraZeneca discriminate against Americans simply because of our "crime" of being born US citizens, but AstraZeneca has found a new way to gouge American consumers.  Over the past three years, AstraZeneca has raised the price of Symbicort in the US by 20%.  In Europe, over the same three-year period, AstraZeneca raised the price of the already relatively-cheap drug by a whopping 0%:

The price of Symbicort in France three years ago was 54 Euros ($66) - that's the same price Symbicort goes for today in Paris - AstraZeneca hasn't increased the price one cent in three years. But a funny thing happens when you look at the price of Symbicort in the US over that same time period. Three years ago it was $194. Today it goes for $233. That's a 20% increase in the price of the drug since 2009.

So, AstraZeneca is not only charging Americans 3.5x what it charges Europeans for the same drug, but over the past three years AstraZeneca has kept the relatively-low price of the drug in Europe stable - a zero percent increase in the price charged Europeans - while AstraZeneca increased the already-exorbitant US price by 20% while US inflation never topped 3% in any of those three years.

You can thank Senator Carper for that too.

Here's what the federal government and consumers would have saved had Dorgan's amendment passed.  More from the Washington Post:

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the proposal would save the government $19 billion over the next 10 years, and Dorgan estimated that consumers would save $80 billion more. He pointed to vast price differences in drugs made in the same factories; an equivalent amount of the heartburn medication Nexium, for example, costs $36 in Spain and $424 in the United States, he said.

But it's not just about saving money.  Senator Carper didn't just ensure that Americans will continue to be ripped off by drug companies, he helped ensure that nearly a quarter of American seniors, and nearly one-third of America's uninsured, won't get the life-saving drugs they need.  From NIH:

Due to the increasing burden of medication costs, Americans, especially elderly and the uninsured, avoid taking medications or skip doses. According to a study, 22% of seniors do not fill their prescriptions because they cannot afford the cost of their medications (Safran et al 2002). The percentages are higher (32%) for uninsured population, which account for approximately 10% to 15% of the US population (Safran et al 2002).

So the next time grandma can't afford her meds, be sure to call up Senator Carper and ask him if his cool half a million was worth it?

To wrap up, let me take you back to what Senator Carper had to say in 2009 about why it should remain illegal for people like me to buy a year's supply of AstraZeneca's Symbicort in France for nearly 1/4th the price I pay for the same Symbicort in the US:

"Senator Dorgan's amendment could potentially allow unsafe, counterfeited drugs into the United States, contaminating our drug supply."

Senator Carper is afraid that the Symbicort AstraZeneca is selling me in France is unsafe and counterfeit?  If that's true, then I wouldn't trust any of AstraZeneca's drugs anywhere, even in the US.

I'm sure Senator Carper would be happy to clear up any confusion... for another half a million bucks. Read the rest of this post...

Is TPP ("NAFTA on steroids") Obama's Bain Capital?

More about the super-secret (and genuinely scary) Trans-Pacific Partnership ("TPP") trade agreement, courtesy of Public Citizen.

The TPP pact is a world-wide "corporate coup d'état"

A characterization of the super-secret TPP from Lori Wallach, writing in The Nation (my emphasis and paragraphing throughout):

The TPP has been cleverly misbranded as a trade agreement (yawn) by its corporate boosters. As a result, since George W. Bush initiated negotiations in 2008, it has cruised along under the radar.

The Obama administration initially paused the talks, ostensibly to develop a new approach compatible with candidate Obama’s pledges to replace the old NAFTA-based trade model. But by late 2009, talks restarted just where Bush had left off. [Note this; I have a separate point to make on this below.]

Since then, US negotiators have proposed new rights for Big Pharma and pushed into the text aspects of the Stop Online Piracy Act, which would limit Internet freedom, despite the derailing of SOPA in Congress earlier this year thanks to public activism.

In June a text of the TPP investment chapter was leaked, revealing that US negotiators are even pushing to expand NAFTA’s notorious corporate tribunals, which have been used to attack domestic public interest laws. [Our coverage of those sovereignty-killing trade courts here.]

Think of the TPP as a stealthy delivery mechanism for policies that could not survive public scrutiny. Indeed, only two of the twenty-six chapters of this corporate Trojan horse cover traditional trade matters.

The rest embody the most florid dreams of the 1 percent—grandiose new rights and privileges for corporations and permanent constraints on government regulation.

They include new investor safeguards to ease job offshoring and assert control over natural resources, and severely limit the regulation of financial services, land use, food safety, natural resources, energy, tobacco, healthcare and more.

"The most florid dreams of the 1 percent—grandiose new rights and privileges for corporations and permanent constraints on government regulation." Like them apples? Obama does. That's why he's negotiating for them.

Ms. Wallach makes the same point we did earlier, that TPP is a world-wide "corporate coup d'état":

The stakes are extremely high, because the TPP may well be the last “trade” agreement Washington negotiates. This is because if it’s completed, the TPP would remain open for any other country to join. ...

Countries would be obliged to conform all their domestic laws and regulations to the TPP’s rules—in effect, a corporate coup d’état[.]

This means, as we said earlier:

Because treaties like NAFTA are folded into national constitutions, international corporations have found a way to establish a new international system of dispute resolution that trumps national governments. ... "NAFTA" Bill Clinton has much to answer for.

Like them apples? Obama does.

Does TPP undercut Obama's "enemy of vulture capital" pose?

As you know (I hope) a presidential election is just an ad campaign — "these hub caps are shinier" or "this candidate is nicer to dogs." Like with all ad campaigns, the campaigners are primarily concerned with the manipulation of appearances.

As in 2008, Barack Obama has reverted from the "here's how I roll" reality to his "think of me this way" self-presentation. (See here for a Tale of Two Baracks.)

So President Obama is back in the closet, and Candidate Obama is back on the stump, saying nice things about himself.

This year's version of "Candidate Obama" is selling himself as the Bane of Bain, the enemy of offshoring predator capitalism.

You're not the first to have noticed that Obama, Bane of Bain is the enemy of Obama, Friend of the Corporate Coup. Will voters notice? They will if this keep up. From a Public Citizen press release:

Growing congressional, state legislator and activist protests of closed-door negotiations on the Obama administration’s first trade pact, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), threatened to undermine the Obama campaign’s attack on Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital U.S. job offshoring activities.

The latest round of TPP talks wrapped up today in San Diego following a week of protests outside the venue, growing concern about TPP in Congress, a letter warning of opposition from state legislators representing all 50 states and delivery of two different petitions with nearly 100,000 signatories each.

A text of the TPP’s investment chapter that leaked last month shows that it includes an expanded version of the rules in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that incentivize investment and job offshoring by eliminating the risks of relocating to lower-wage countries and guaranteeing preferential treatment for relocated firms.

“U.S. negotiators have tried to keep TPP negotiations totally below the radar, but even so opposition to the current “NAFTA-on-steroids-with-Asia” approach is escalating, which is good news for the public but a serious complication for the Obama campaign’s attack on Romney as a U.S. job offshorer,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.

Ms. Wallach is the author of the Nation article quoted above, and well-versed in this subject.

Will Obama's high-pressure support for TPP undercut the Obama campaign's primary selling point? Stay tuned.

A post-2012 note to Progressives: We need a plan

NeoLiberal Robert Rubin–acolyte Barack Obama is pushing TPP as hard — and as secretly — as he can. What does that make Barack Obama?

In my view, it might make Barack Obama the second most dangerous enemy of progressive and anti-corporate causes in the country. The first most dangerous is anyone bankrolled by Movement Conservative billionaires, because those guys don't even have to pretend.

This doesn't mean I'm telling you how to vote in November. In my opinion, that election is over, and I have no interest in inciting Left-on-Left violence over a done deal. People can do what they like till November; I'm good with all of it.

But I am saying that Movement Progressives better get ready, starting now if possible. Because of all possible outcomes post-November, one of them is a full-on assault on progressive values by a completely unfettered 2nd-term friend-of-the-corporate-coup.

It's up to you to decide what an unfettered Obama will do. I don't have a crystal ball. But whatever it is he really really wants, I guarantee that's what he'll shoot for.

• Does he want TPP? Seems to.
• A nice new sludge-filled Keystone Pipeline? Almost guaranteed.
• Expanded drone-kill rights? Jonas Bros, watch out.
• A Grand Bargain on steroids? Just watch in December (search for the phrase "still on the table").
• Anything else? My guess: yes. He's going to owe a lot of favors in return for his $1 billion dollar ad campaign.

We could spend a long time on that list. I haven't even touched Israel and the war with Iran.

My point? Hope is not a plan. If Progressives want to be a player in the Battle of the Next Four Years, we need to do better than hope for the best. We need a plan for a worst-case Obama second term. It's called hugging the monster.

I'm serious. It's a good thing to act. It's better to act with a plan. Mes centimes (French for "word").

Our previous TPP coverage

For reference, a short list of our previous coverage:

■ Why are the Trans Pacific free trade negotiations secret? — May 11, 2012

■ Obama trade document leaked, reveals new corporate powers and broken promises — June 14, 2012

Thanks for your attention to this subject. In my opinion, this pales next to the global warming catastrophe, but not by much, since it will structurally change the government of the world. And this catastrophe will happen first, unless we put ourselves in the way of it.

Mes centimes,

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Romney may have committed felony lying about role with Bain

This is big news, as it backs up what the Obama campaign has been alleging - that Romney was still in charge of Bain when it outsourced US jobs - and this directly contradicts Factcheck.org's claim otherwise. From the Boston Globe:

Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time.

Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”

Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.

It should be noted that David Corn broke this story a few weeks ago in a great piece everyone should read, though the Globe appears to have found additional disclosure forms to back up their case.

Oh but it gets worse. As Factcheck.org so graciously pointed out, if Mitt Romney lied in any federal forms about the extent of his role with Bain, Romney may have committed a felony.  From Factcheck.org:

If the Obama campaign is correct [that Romney remained at Bain past 1999], then Romney is guilty of lying on official federal disclosure forms, committing a felony. But we don’t see evidence of that.

Here’s what Romney has said:

Mitt Romney Public Financial Disclosure Report, Aug. 11, 2011: Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.

Romney’s signature appears on the line that states: “I certify that statements I have made on this form and all attached schedules are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge.”

Making false statements to the federal government is a serious crime (under 18 USC 1001) carrying possible fines and up to five years in federal prison.

Senior Obama adviser David Axelrod has already weighed in on Twitter:

Based on Globe report, either Bain filed false SEC statements 1999-2002 about Mitt's status, or his campaign is making false statements now.

But Axelrod isn't even right about how bad this is. It's not an "either-or."

1. Romney told the SEC that he remained the firm’s "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" up until 2002.

2. But Romney said in a more recent financial disclosure form that he left Bain in 1999 - so the two federal forms contradict each other, at least one is a lie:

Mitt Romney Public Financial Disclosure Report, Aug. 11, 2011: Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.

In other words, Romney lied to the federal government either way. Either to the SEC, or in his more recent financial dislocure forms.  And either one appears to be a felony.

Interestingly, Politico now has up a post echoing what I already wrote, and reaching the same conclusion about a felony. Read the rest of this post...

British Conservatives continue assault on middle class and poor

The new plan for dumping massive healthcare costs onto others is "still under review" but if you glance at Tory history, there's a high likelihood of this succeeding. The bankers still walk free following their destructive policies yet everyone else is being asked, again, to pay for their crimes. Who has this kind of money when they're retired?

And yes, it's similar to the outrageous healthcare costs in the US that Americans already are paying whenever they get sick. For some reason, the Tories want to implement more of the US-style healthcare, which has been a colossal failure and the most expensive system in the world. What are they thinking?:

Elderly people could be forced to pay up to £100,000 [$155,000] towards the cost of their care before the state begins picking up the bill, the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, suggested yesterday.

The figure is nearly three times the £35,000 [$54,000] cap suggested by Andrew Dilnot, the author of an independent report into care funding. While the economist proposed a universal scheme that would cover the care fees of all pensioners, Mr Lansley indicated he was also considering the possibility of a voluntary scheme that would cap only the contributions of those who had paid for some form of insurance.

Pensioners moving into residential care homes would be able to borrow money from their local authorities, meaning that their homes would not have to be sold to meet costs until after they had died.

Whether in the UK or even here in France, I'm always amazed when people complain about their systems being inefficient or expensive or not that great. The dysfunctional US healthcare system that will start to change somewhat with Obamacare is by far the most expensive system in the world and it's been a nightmare to navigate. There's a reason why the US system is ranked #37 in the WHO rankings and the other systems are much higher.

Anyone who thinks moving towards more privatization and borrowing elements of the US system needs their head examined. It's a system exclusively by the rich, for the rich. It should have been gutted and thrown into a garbage dump rather than mildly reformed. Read the rest of this post...

Australia the next Spain?

The Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan is saying no and it may be an overstatement, but there are definitely some similarities. Spain also had a budget surplus (despite what austerity people believe) as well as strong jobs growth. What Spain did not have is a large export market heavily reliant on a booming China. During the good times, the economic ties were worth a lot to the Australian economy. But those good times are fading.

“It’s absurd - the Australian economy and its economic fundamentals are very strong. On a yearly basis we are growing at 4 percent – we are going to grow faster than any other developed economy this year and next,” Swan told CNBC's "Capital Connection" on Wednesday.

“Let’s go through the fundamentals – bringing our budget back to surplus in 2012-2013, low unemployment, strong job creation over time, a record investment pipeline in resources – half a trillion (dollars). What planet does he live on?” he added.

Xie, an independent economist with sometimes controversial views, argues that Australia is at danger of becoming the next Spain due to its reliance on foreign demand, especially from its biggest trading partner China, which he believes is decelerating faster than headline growth numbers suggest.

Read the rest of this post...