patrick.net

I don't see gold falling below $1000 ever again but I have on clue how long it takes to break out no the upside and go parabolic.

I see the medium-term structured differently.

We need to raise taxes. That's deflationary if you pay taxes.
We need to cut government spending. That's deflationary if you're someone receiving some of the $6.5T in annual government spending.
Oil supplies will continue to be constrained vs global demand -- that's deflationary if you buy petroleum products.
Interest rates can't get any lower (?). Deflationary if true!

The money's already been done created, 1995-2009. It is in the process of being moved from weaker to stronger hands.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MZM?cid=30

We'll see $2000 gold right around when Walmart's paying $20/hr.

^ honest abe can only express himself in a series of cliches apparently.

also, honest abe clearly doesn't understand anything about economics in general or land economics in particular.

"Its the same thing that caused house prices, over time, to increase"

Monetary inflation has ZERO to do with land values. Rents and land values respond to producer surplus of the wage earning class, moderated by their access to credit.

Productivity goes up? Assuming labor sees a piece of this increased wealth (not a given) rents and home prices will go up.

Spouses join the workforce? Household income goes up, and rents and home prices will also go up.

Interest rates go down? Household buying power goes up, and rents and home prices go up. (see the chart)

50% down becomes 20% down becomes 5% down becomes 0% down becomes -4% down? Home prices go up.

Borrowers qualified on the temporary teaser rates not the back-end actual rates? Buying power goes up, home prices go up.

Tax cuts increase household aftertax income by hundreds of dollars a month? Buying power goes up, home prices go up.

I could go on but I think anyone with a brain gets the point. None of these factors has ANYTHING to do with the metallic backing of money.

Troy, everything you said is correct, with two exceptions: (1) I believe my understanding of economics is sound and (2) monetary inflation has EVERYTHING to do with the cost of EVERYTHING. Inflation can not pick and choose what it will effect and what it won't. It either exists or it doesn't (hint: it exists).

Honest Abe says

Inflation can not pick and choose what it will effect and what it won’t. It either exists or it doesn’t (hint: it exists).

As I said about a month ago, housing inflation has historically existed with both fiat money and with fully convertible money. The core problem is credit (and credit-worth borrowers), not money supply. And credit isn't always a problem, credit can either fuel capital creation (good!) or plain consumption (bad!), which is why we attempt to regulate credit through government oversight of the private credit markets.

Historically, the United States was on the gold standard from 1900-1932, fat lot of good it did preventing real estate bubbles in LA and Florida.

Expanding money supply hasn't prevented the Japanese real estate market from pancaking since 1990, either. Japanese M1 has expanded almost 4X since then, yet prices are down 50% or more, and would be done even more except 10yr mortgage interest rates are 2%.

Economies are somewhat subtle processes. Money supply is tied to turnover, trade flows, dark pools, sovereign wealth funds.

But inflation is also pretty simple, too. If you can ask your boss for a COLA, and get it, we've got "inflation expectations" and the economy will be off to the races in a wage-price spiral, like what we saw in the 1970s and late 1990s.

Without more earning power -- takehome pay -- in J6P's grubby little hands, there can BE no total price inflation -- just reallocation of inflation in things we need and deflation in things we want.

This is a brutal process as prices readjust to what the buyers are ready and willing to pay. I just bought 3 2L of Mountain Dew from Safeway for 88c each. That, my friend, is not inflation.

Troy says

Expanding money supply hasn’t prevented the Japanese real estate market from pancaking since 1990, either. Japanese M1 has expanded almost 4X since then, yet prices are down 50% or more, and would be done even more except 10yr mortgage interest rates are 2%.

I think this is the point where gold-bugs / inflationists (they tend to be the same people), put their fingers in their ears and go la, la, la, la.

Economic theory from 100 years ago that has been thoroughly debunked is coming in to fashion among some groups. Blame it on the internet I guess.

I personally think it is understandable. In finance and economics "common sense" is often dead wrong since it's not very intuitive. Intuition tells us that money is a "thing", some sort of commodity. But it is unlike any other "thing" in that it cannot exist without it's opposite, anti-money (debt). There is no such thing as "anti-gold", or anti-anything-else in the real tangible world, so the human mind does not naturally take to the concept.

Let's not forget, as I noted elsewhere, the Fed has abandoned QE (at least for now). When you shut down the printing presses, I cannot imagine that not having an effect on the price of gold. We'll see how long Ben can tow the line...

MarkInSF says

Troy says

Expanding money supply hasn’t prevented the Japanese real estate market from pancaking since 1990, either. Japanese M1 has expanded almost 4X since then, yet prices are down 50% or more, and would be done even more except 10yr mortgage interest rates are 2%.

I think this is the point where gold-bugs / inflationists (they tend to be the same people), put their fingers in their ears and go la, la, la, la.
Economic theory from 100 years ago that has been thoroughly debunked is coming in to fashion among some groups. Blame it on the internet I guess.
I personally think it is understandable. In finance and economics “common sense” is often dead wrong since it’s not very intuitive. Intuition tells us that money is a “thing”, some sort of commodity. But it is unlike any other “thing” in that it cannot exist without it’s opposite, anti-money (debt). There is no such thing as “anti-gold”, or anti-anything-else in the real tangible world, so the human mind does not naturally take to the concept.

Actually, the only economics that have really been debunked is pretty much the entire field of academic economics that has plagued our universities for about 70 years.

Nomo,

There you go again, interjecting reason. How dare you?

The problem with tea party and the grandstanding senators and the palins of the world is that they play on emotion and manipulation. Take palin for example - she denounced the bridge to nowhere and publicly refused to build it because it was bad PR.

Then she kept the money. Kind of like the girl you ask to marry you, find out she's been sleeping with all your friends, and you break off the engagement. But she keeps the ring.

elliemae says

The problem with tea party and the grandstanding senators and the palins of the world is that they play on emotion and manipulation.

Kind of like the White House playing on emotion and manipulation by purposefully misrepresenting Wellpoint's profits last quarter in order to incite anger against the insurance industry?

Even the above plays on emotion and manipulation. The "reality" answers of some of them are not at all reality, because they are yet to be seen. It is likely that both sides will be correct about some and incorrect on others. To call them all "reality" now is simply an emotional wish.

EBGuy says

Let’s not forget, as I noted elsewhere, the Fed has abandoned QE (at least for now). When you shut down the printing presses, I cannot imagine that not having an effect on the price of gold. We’ll see how long Ben can tow the line…

How do we know they have abandoned this?

Paralithodes says

Kind of like the White House playing on emotion and manipulation by purposefully misrepresenting Wellpoint’s profits last quarter in order to incite anger against the insurance industry?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/177566.php

funny, I didn't see the white house quoted in this article. In fact, I looked on three pages of google searches before I got bored, with none of the results being white house oriented. In fact, the only mention of politics was by Wellpoint, bitching that they'd have to raise premiums if the democrats had their way... I guess that they'd have to raise thier rates in order to continue to rake in huge profits. But do tell us how the white house manipulated this information and the media chose not to report the facts.

I have assumed the thought that Tea Party followers are simply former Republicans who feel that Republicans are now too liberal.

we so called LIBERALS hit Bush so hard for the past 8 years mistakes that now Republicans, Libertarians and any other supporter of his is out for nothing but vengence. They dont care about societal improvements because they have everything they need.

We're past "Death Panels" Suga'.

Get ready for the Facist Death Squads, when they catch you, with out your Medi Corp Card. party papers, and Insurers logo branded on your ass.

yea, but it was different back then. 'cause she is so awesome, you know.

"The Tea Party is a golem created by Karl Rove that is haunting the Republican party."

Karl Rove is the lunatic fringe. The Tea Party Movement is the mainstream in that the Tea Party movement is all about the government being too big which is simply common sense, and labeling common sense "lunatic fringe" is a bit nutty in itself.

That's even better than Glen Beck telling his audience that he educated himself on the evils of Progressivism at the public library.

"It's Free!"

The tea party is a lot of old white people who are afraid of black people. It's obvious.

If the tea parties are such lunatic fringe nuts, why are they being discussed? It's like the democrats are not capable of ignoring idiocy. It's a typical straw man mentality. Ignore any reasonable criticism of the healthcare bill, while focusing on overblown stories of drunk rednecks spitting on random congress people. The tea parties are all a silly media hyped distraction.

The article in the OP is full of fluff, while lacking much content. Of the "myths" presented in the article, there are only a few that are worth discussing at all. (The rest is a convenient straw man.)

1) MYTH: The bill will cover illegal immigrants. --I am curious to see how this works out in practice. The truth is that illegal immigrants already get medical care via Medicare. If they don't change Medicare, it really doesn't matter that they won't be getting extra care from this program. Perhaps they have addressed this problem already, but I can't gain any relevant info from the article.

2) MYTH: Under the bill, there will be health care rationing and/or death panels. --Notice how the author didn't deny this point. She merely twisted the definition of rationing (doublespeak?) to claim that life will be better with government mandated rationing rather than limited access via costs. To be fair, when someone can't afford something, THAT IS NOT RATIONING. Rationing is when you CAN afford something, but you are not allowed to buy it. There is no system that can offer ever advanced medical services to every citizen. A capitalistic system makes the most use of limited resources via costs, whereas a government run system makes use of resources via some bureaucrat's god-complex.

It is an ugly fact in healthcare, that we can not afford to pay for every procedure for every patient. Furthermore, there has never been a system of healthcare that didn't offer a higher tier of service to the most powerful/rich/politically connected. There is no way to ration healthcare in a "fair" way, though the government will be forced to make these decisions. The method by which our government rations healthcare has been conveniently left out of every debate, simply by associating the concept with Tea Party types. The democrats are simply putting on blinders and plowing ahead. These are scary times.

3) MYTH: The bill will make health care costs skyrocket. --This is forecasting, but the smart money is on this prediction coming true. Notice again that RAND doesn't even mention how they come to the 2% increase figure. Most figures that I've seen are using "costs" synonymously with "government net costs minus funding." Therefore, the fact that all of our private insurance bills will increase (which they absolutely must), is probably not included in any of these calculations. All they "count" is the net effect on the national debt from the tax increase revenue minus the projected government expenditure of the program. Does anyone know the actual projected cost of this legislation? This would be akin to me saying my new Ferrari won't cost a thing, because I plan to downsize my mortgage, which will fully cover the monthly payments. It's doublespeak logic.

I don't mind reading an article that is shooting down ridiculous criticisms of a bill. I would also like to see honest critiques and valid complaints regarding the bill. What could they do better, what did it fix, what did it not fix, what will get better/worse, etc. Unfortunately this article reads like a Pelosi webpage. It adds nothing of interest to the discussion. This article reads like propaganda to me. At best, its an opinion piece.

Rand is a mostly government sponsored think tank, who's job it is to critique and effect public legislation (can you say conflict of interest?). The money they recieve from "private" sources comes mostly from huge corporations (including the health insurance business), and from a small group of the filthy rich individuals.

elliemae says

funny, I didn’t see the white house quoted in this article. In fact, I looked on three pages of google searches before I got bored, with none of the results being white house oriented. In fact, the only mention of politics was by Wellpoint, bitching that they’d have to raise premiums if the democrats had their way… I guess that they’d have to raise thier rates in order to continue to rake in huge profits. But do tell us how the white house manipulated this information and the media chose not to report the facts.

Even funnier, I found direct White House references to Wellpoint in the second entry on the very first page of a Google search, simply using "White House Wellpoint" as the search term.
"http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/11/when-health-insurance-companies-attack

Here alone, the White House reports: "In recent weeks, you’ve probably heard a lot about WellPoint, the big insurance company that reported earning $2.7 billion in one quarter, and then promptly raised rates on some customers in California by up to 39 percent. " This is aside from other public statements by the White House and by KS directly about Wellpoint, but this example will do fine.

What the White House doesn't tell you is that their reference to "$2.7 billion in one quarter" was literally just in one quarter, and that $2.2 billion of that was due specifically to the sale of a business unit. Their regular profit from operations in that "one quarter" was more in the $500M range, similar to their normal quarterly profits, and consistent with their profit margin of between 2-5%, across its quarterly profit margins across the last several years.

And this is part of the problem with the whole debate. Many conservatives, such as me, don't actually want to defend insurance companies. I see them as a huge part of the problem, but not for the over-simplified - to the point of being practically untrue -, non-"nuanced" explanation that it is all about their wish to "rake in huge profits." If that were in fact the case, then the Administration could simply tell the untarnished truth that does not depend on financial/accounting ignorance on the part of most of the population. Wellpoint, from a financial performance standpoint, does NOT stand out among the large insurance companies, which do not "rake in huge profits." But I guess it is just very easy to pick a target (the insurance companies in general and Wellpoint specifically) and make it THE scapegoat for the entire issue. Plenty of folks will fall for the propaganda and jump right on the bandwagon.

Nomograph says

Even the above plays on emotion and manipulation. The “reality” answers of some of them are not at all reality,

For example?

Paralithodes says

because they are yet to be seen. It is likely that both sides will be correct about some and incorrect on others. To call them all “reality” now is simply an emotional wish.

Next time, try quoting my entire statement....

This article doesn't seem to understand the law very well. An executive order is absolutely useless in this situation, because executive orders cannot contradict or add to law, but simply establish policy in situations where a law is not directly applicable. Thus, the executive order is meaningless in this situation (executive orders cannot affirm law anyway, law is law), and all that matters is how the courts interpret existing statutes versus the new law. Thus, it is possible that money could go to pay for abortion. Also, executive orders are one of the easiest things to change. Most presidents countermand many of the executive orders of previous administrations, and Obama himself could choose to countermand the order at any time. If executive orders could override law, every presidency would see an executive order making abortion illegal, legal, or legal with a variety of restrictions. Again, I don't see this as an issue, because as long as abortion is the law of the land, it seems strange to restrict federal funds from paying for it.

It's also interesting that this article states that the bill will increase health care costs by 2 percent, which is at odds with the stated purpose of the bill.

CBOEtrader says

3) MYTH: The bill will make health care costs skyrocket. –This is forecasting, but the smart money is on this prediction coming true. Notice again that RAND doesn’t even mention how they come to the 2% increase figure. Most figures that I’ve seen are using “costs” synonymously with “government net costs minus funding.” Therefore, the fact that all of our private insurance bills will increase (which they absolutely must), is probably not included in any of these calculations. All they “count” is the net effect on the national debt from the tax increase revenue minus the projected government expenditure of the program. Does anyone know the actual projected cost of this legislation? This would be akin to me saying my new Ferrari won’t cost a thing, because I plan to downsize my mortgage, which will fully cover the monthly payments. It’s doublespeak logic.

I have a few issues with this paragraph. First, what exactly is "smart money"? People who agree with what you think? Second, our private insurance bills do not "absolutely" have to increase. We already pay by far the most per captia for health care. Why do you think it absolutely has to increase?? The myth is that all these uninsured people weren't receiving health care before the bill passed. In fact, they were receiving the most expensive form possible--in the ER--and we were already paying for it.

I don't see how the Ferrari analogy is at all relevant. The analogy is defiintely doublespeak logic...

tatupu70 says

First, what exactly is “smart money”? People who agree with what you think?

I stated my opinion. Do you disagree? Have something to add? Or are you simply trying to play word games?

tatupu70 says

We already pay by far the most per captia for health care.

Let's be clear about the "we" part of your statement. Our federal government, without even counting private insurance fees, pays more per capita for healthcare than the rest of the industrialized world.

The analysis that I have read (mostly articles) of the healthcare bill ONLY DISCUSSES NET GOVT EXPENDITURES. These analysts typically argue that "we can't afford NOT to pass this bill" since they estimate the taxes to more than compensate for the cost. This logic INGORES THE ACTUAL COST OF THE BILL, exactly like my Ferrari analogy.

tatupu70 says

Second, our private insurance bills do not “absolutely” have to increase.

How would they go down? We are making it illegal to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. This is massive extra risk that the insurance company must be paid to accept. Electronic medical records and a government mandated insurance exchange, while not necessarily bad concepts, will not make up for the extra risk premium.

Clearly there are a lot of assumptions being made before any opinion can be formulated about this. We could agree to disagree if you like. Let's check insurance rates in 2 years, and see who was right. I'll bet everything I own that they go up. Our government already spends more than any other government on healthcare. Simply throwing more government money at healthcare is NOT THE ANSWER to lowering costs.

tatupu70 says

I don’t see how the Ferrari analogy is at all relevant. The analogy is defiintely doublespeak logic…

Nonsense. Care to explain yourself?

Tat, you are better than this. This reminds me of when a child simply repeats what someone calls him. Child #1," You're a dummy!" Child #2, "No, YOU'RE A DUMMY."

CBOEtrader says

1) MYTH: The bill will cover illegal immigrants. –I am curious to see how this works out in practice. The truth is that illegal immigrants already get medical care via Medicare. If they don’t change Medicare, it really doesn’t matter that they won’t be getting extra care from this program. Perhaps they have addressed this problem already, but I can’t gain any relevant info from the article.

Explain. You have to be a citizen to sign up for medicare or medicaid. The just signed bill specifically excludes illegals. The only reimbursement from medicare for illegals (bush 2003) is to hospitals which by law must treat anyone who walks into the er. Interesting that 2/3 of illegals pay into medicare which they will never be able to collect. It's more than a little shameful that the wealthiest country on earth uses these people to be able to have cheap fruit and lawn care then knowingly steals from them besides.

Paralithodes says

If that were in fact the case, then the Administration could simply tell the untarnished truth that does not depend on financial/accounting ignorance on the part of most of the population.

Very valid point. It never ceases to amaze me the way the liberals point their fingers at Fox news and the neocons for distorting reality to support their agenda, WHEN THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING.

The average democrat is like a golden retriever that is easily distracted by his ball (the tea party republican media reporting) any time his master wants some privacy. A word of advice to democrats: IGNORE COMMON IDIOCY. So the tea partiers are drunken, redneck, and racist. So what? They are nothing more than an unimportant distraction to the theft going on in front of your eyes.

For the future of our country, I do hope the democrats can figure out that their leaders are liars and demogogues faster than the 25 years it took the average republican to deduce the same.

bob2356 says

CBOEtrader says

1) MYTH: The bill will cover illegal immigrants. –I am curious to see how this works out in practice. The truth is that illegal immigrants already get medical care via Medicare. If they don’t change Medicare, it really doesn’t matter that they won’t be getting extra care from this program. Perhaps they have addressed this problem already, but I can’t gain any relevant info from the article.

Explain. You have to be a citizen to sign up for medicare or medicaid. The just signed bill specifically excludes illegals. The only reimbursement from medicare for illegals (bush 2003) is to hospitals which by law must treat anyone who walks into the er. Interesting that 2/3 of illegals pay into medicare which they will never be able to collect. It’s more than a little shameful that the wealthiest country on earth uses these people to be able to have cheap fruit and lawn care then knowingly steals from them besides.

I am most likely mixing up medicare/medicaid names. Nor am I a healthcare expert. What I do know is that many ER's accept illegals as patients, costing our hospitals billions per year. This will not change under the current plan.

Additionally, though they are citizens, the children of illegals get full government medical coverage costing us many more billions per year. (Aside: How do the socialized medicine countries handle this? I was in Germany back in 1998, when my professor was hit by a car. He went to the hospital, was asked for minimal paperwork, got fixed up with a splint, and was sent on his way without ever being handed a bill. I have heard that most of europe does not have the automatic citizen laws that we have here, but they do cover foreigners traveling their country at least. How do they pay for this?)

My only point is that: for the author to claim that illegals will not be covered by this plan is disingenuous. What he means is they will not recieve additional coverage under this plan.

Days Since Socialist Health Care Destroyed America

Helpful counter for y'all!

CBOEtrader says

How would they go down?

I thought I was pretty clear in my post outlining one way. The uninsured go to ERs now to get any treatment. That is the most expensive way to dispense health care. Also, because they have no insurance, it's likely that the uninsured wait until a sickness or disease has become critical before going to the ER, likely significantly raising the costs of treatment.

“Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything they've stolen.”

Mort Sahl

CBOEtrader says

tatupu70 says
First, what exactly is “smart money”? People who agree with what you think?
I stated my opinion. Do you disagree? Have something to add? Or are you simply trying to play word games?

I do disagree. And I tire of seeing people say "smart" money is doing xyz, implying that it is the correct course without providing any evidence to back it up. I was trying to ascertain to who you were referring when you say "smart" money.

CBOEtrader says

Very valid point. It never ceases to amaze me the way the liberals point their fingers at Fox news and the neocons for distorting reality to support their agenda, WHEN THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING.

Just today I browsed through World Health Organization reports and publications, as well as an analysis (by Cato I believe) of some of the methodological problems with such reports. The "US is ranked 37" mantra is incredible propaganda when you figure out what actually goes into that metric. We could completely nationalize the entire US health system today, without increasing actual medical care outcomes a single bit, and the US ranking would go up substantially simply because the "social" aspects of the health care system are baked into the metric. Even if not a single specific metric changes regarding cancer survival rates, etc., our rankings after 2014 will improve from 37 (on the specific metric referenced by Michael Moore and others here) simply because of the cost "equality" of the system. (In addition, metrics have very wide margins of error and factor in many lifestyle and cultural traits that are separate from the actual health care system.)

That aside, readings of the WHO's reports and goals make it clear that they, among other things, are against commercialization of health care in nearly any form, and support a very specific concept very common to a particular ideology: "social justice." The term is all over their literature. There is no wonder that the "37" is so subjectively loaded.

MarkInSF says

That’s even better than Glen Beck telling his audience that he educated himself on the evils of Progressivism at the public library.
“It’s Free!”

Wow, libraries are run by the Federal government? Or... The "government" runs libraries well, so therefore the "government" will run health care well? Who knew!

US is 33rd in infant mortality rates. You're right, much better than 37th.

Who cares what Sarah Palin says. Its not like she's going to fix things or make things worse either. She'll do what the corporations tell her to do. So listen to the corporations instead. Same thing goes for any politician!

"Lifestyle and cultural issues"? Please. USA sucks so bad because not enough people are doing regular checkups and catching things EARLY because they are not insured.

I find the infant mortality issue hard to reconcile. Seems like a system in which masses of uninsured underclass don't get proper prenatal care, is arriving at the same pile of dead babies that they wanted to save? It's very confusing to me that the NeoCons oppose a system in which preventive medicine reaches everyone. I see it as rationalizing loathing of poor people into "God's will".

tatupu70 says

US is 33rd in infant mortality rates. You’re right, much better than 37th.

Sigh. This one makes me extremely angry any time it is trotted out because it is so devious. What is pushing up the infant mortality rate in the US is low birth rate, acknowledged in this report:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6219&type=0

“Low birthweight is the primary risk factor for infant mortality and most of the decline in neonatal mortality (deaths of infants less than 28 days old) in the United States since 1970 can be attributed to increased rates of survival among low-birthweight newborns. Indeed, comparisons with countries for which data are available suggest that low birthweight newborns have better chances of survival in the United States than elsewhere. ”

Doesn’t that strike you as odd? Babies in the highest risk group for infant mortality have a BETTER chance for survival in the United States? Somehow that doesn’t seem to jive with the propaganda that we’ve been fed telling us that babies die because our health care system sucks.

Oh, but it gets better. If you read further in that report, we find out that the reason for the high infant mortality in the US is that more low birth weight babies are born. In fact, a baby born with low birth weight is 37 times more likely to die within 28 days than one with normal weight, here: http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/34415043/Effect-of-low-birth-weight-on-infant-mortality-Analysis-Using-Weibull-Hazard-Model

37 times more likely to die. Keep that number in mind. That’s 97% of infant mortality attributable to a single cause.

“Aha”, the vigilant socialist says, “those low birth weights wouldn’t be happening if our medical care didn’t suck so much!” Not quite. There are many risk factors for low birth weight. Smoking, multiple births, alcohol, and socioeconomic background can all be risk factors. The biggest overall factor is teenage pregnancy. Guess which country has the highest rate of teenage live births. Anyone?
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/repcard3e.pdf

Take a look at page 6. I would have liked to have had more recent data, but scattered references seemed to suggest that there was a slight increase in the last 10 years. The next closest nation, the UK, has only about 60% as many, and it drops off quite a bit more after that. Much of the difference can be attributed to a higher rate of abortion in those nations, especially among teens.

So, in essence, if universal healthcare in the US is going to tackle the problem of infant mortality, its first task will be to prevent teen pregnancy while promoting more abortions among this troubled age group.

Do you understand why I’m angry now? They lie. They know the facts, or they would if they studied it for any reasonable amount of time, but cherry pick the truth to present the picture they want to promote. It is sickening.

For a little more color read "The Infant Mortality Crises" by Murray Rothbard :

http://mises.org/Econsense/ch15.asp