Capitalism and Death Challenge

There have been many comments in recent threads across the net (such as this one) stating that to find the problem with abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, etc one must simply follow the trail of money.

Let me first define money in economical terms.
Money is a

• Good
• Medium of Exchange
• Standard of Value
• Store of Value

Do they believe the "Culture of Death"to be a product of capitalism?
Why do we not hear, follow the trail of voters or political pull?
Let's hear your replies.
What do think the Culture of Death is a product of?
Is money the trail to follow to reach the root of the problem?
And how do you commend we fix it?

GMU Catholic Economists First Gathering

Tonight, there was a gathering of a few students (some former, including myself) who decided to get together to discuss Catholic Social Teaching. Kevin Burke, the head of the Peace and Justice committee for the GMU Catholic Campus Ministry, had put together the group and assigned the discussion to be on Rerum Novarum.
All that attended had something to say on the social teaching's of Pope Leo XIII. The discussion went from the good points to the bad points of the Papal Encyclical and even to one another sharing why some points we thought were bad are really good. It was a fun time shared by all. Most gatherings last an hour to allow students to get to other class projects such as homeworks, but it appeared no one wanted to leave.
With a group full of students such as these, who would want to leave?
If you get a chance, head up to Brion's Grill on Tuesdays at 7:30 p.m. Don't have to be Catholic to discuss, and Tuesdays at Brion's is half price burger day in case you needed another incentive to come.

Saving the Environment: No need for government

If you did not know, today the U.S. government had passed their energy bill. This is supposed to jumpstart the use from petroleum fuel to bio-friendly fuels. Thank you government for all your hard work in passing a bill that is useless except to halt the choices of your own citizens.

PETA's efforts have failed in halting the amount of middle class citizens from buying chicken from KFC; should the U.S. government get involved in order to promote the practice of fast food chicken services? If your answer is no, then what is the difference between the government passing a law with chickens to passing a law with fuels.

There have always been alternatives to oil. We may not use these alternatives, but the reason is that it is too costly. The same reason why PETA's effort fail with KFC. Their chicken is cheap and to go to PETA friendly substitute is more costly. If their celebrity friends such as Paul McCartney and Pamela Anderson would pay me the difference I would happily stop eating at KFC; THIS IS NOT A CALL FOR GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES IN ANY MANNER. Notice that Pam nor Paul HAVE NOT given money to me or anyone else to stop eating only raised their voice in a cheap protest that hardly costs them.

The new law makes it costlier to maintain of life that we have; the cheaper one and replaces it with the more costly. Is this the work of business lobbying allowing for government rules to go in favor? It appears so since we know through Ludwig von Mises that

[r]estrictive action on the other hand is always advantageous for the privileged group and disadvantageous for those whom it excludes from the market. It always raises the price per unit and therefore the total net proceeds of the privileged group. The losses of the excluded group are not taken into account by the privileged group.

From this we can judge that the government must be giving the blessing to one at the cost of the others. Thank you government.

Why do we have alternatives? Naturally, businesses want to make money and are always searching for the best method; at least, this is the popular stereotype. Thus there must have been alternatives although not cheap alternatives since no one was using them. This law allows for the more expensive alternatives to be cheaper only because their is a law made up by certain individuals to solve a problem that they define.
No, there is no need for such laws. This is just a disgrace and an abuse of power.

Note: this does not necessarily mean that the government is hurting one business at the cost of the others such as in oil giants. Rather, it may be the case that they all agreed to this law as it keeps each in line to searching for alternatives away from foreign oils. This would mean that the cost was transferred to the average citizen who must now PAY more for his fuel. Bio-friendly fuels were coming. It was inevitable, but the law is a disgrace. Atlas Shrugged could be rewritten with Hank Rearden as the bad guy, with his Rearden Steel benefiting from the government law that benefit the few at the cost of the Many.

Shame, Shame on you U.S. Government for increasing the costs to the many rather than having the product improved to be better suited for us all. Shame.

I did not discuss the issues with lightbulbs or most of the energy, but I think the broad case here makes its case in each argument.

Too long forgone

So I have been away for too long. I have been in seminars throughout the summer. Don't worry I will comment on each so that others may learn about each institution their summer seminar and whether it is worth the time or not.

My summer of seminars began with the History of Economics seminar at George Mason University followed by the History of Economics Society annual conference which was held at George Mason University this year. The summer ended with a weekend conference in Connecticut held by the Acton Institute. Over all, I spend most of my days in lectures arriving back to the room only to debate roommates and others who wished to express their views.

My experience and critiques of the seminars will be blogged on the GMU Economics Society blog which is beginning soon. Not that I am an expert, only wish to share the info to allow others the chance to attend these great events that promote economics, ethics, philosophy, politics, individual rights(which included separate from philosophy just to add emphasis), and even religion.

Can not be Pro-Life and Pro-War

So I slack on my blog entries. Luckily for me this is not a popular blog. Perhaps because my arguments have been said over and over again. I have never said anything new, only things I had read elsewhere.

But I am bothered. The religious are Pro-Life therefore against any action that takes away life. For this reason abortion is an important political issue which I completely understand, but for the same people who are against abortion yet support any type of war seems to be a contradiction. Can you support a war and be Pro-Life? Wars bring death, and war is promoted by those politicians who we vote for. As war is the decision of those elected officials it only makes sense for war to be a major political issue for the religious. Yet abortions, with laws or without are always at the hands of the woman in labor. If she is going to choose to have an abortion she will find a way, there is hardly anything law can do to prevent this. Yet, war which brings death is caused by the elected officials.

You can not be Pro-Life and Pro-War. If you support life then you support all life, you can not pick and choose between which lives you support.

The Season for Giving

I give all credit to this post to Professor Larry Iannocconne from GMU. Although, I had never had a class from him; listening to podcasts, his debate with Professor Caplan(GMU), and other sources helped me to understand the reason for giving gifts.

We spoke before upon the issue that gifts are not efficient. If you don't remember you can find it here. Now it is true that it is inefficient because we do not have perfect information; but what is it about the winter holiday season that gives it a name like "The Season for Giving"?

We have one season, one season for as individuals in a capitalistic society to break off time in order to help others. Why is that? Shouldn't we do it year round? And the thought of not giving presents on birthdays and holidays had simply left some with a foul taste in their mouths. Is it because they wished to receive gifts, or perhaps, the pure enjoyment of giving? It is actually more than selfish reasons of wanting to receive or give.

We give gifts in order to show others we care. It is inefficient upon the lens of individuals, but as a community, as a family. It unites the individuals to not look only upon themselves, but to others in hope of being something more. Some families do not need to give gifts because there is no need as they are already so close, but then there are those who live distant from one another, who once a year get a moment to unite and show that they care. The gifts are shared not necessarily to make yourself feel good or make someone else feel good, but to bring everyone closer, to build the community/family. We are social beings after all...

Giving to the Needy

This past weekend a religious group went into the Nation's Capital to give food. They were not going to spread the Word of God, but to spread the love that they could give to those who felt had none.
What occurred was miraculous. Many were grateful for the giving without any cost. The poor, the well off, who ever was walking down the street was encountered by a warm smile on a chilly, rainy day. There was no preaching, only a giving of love. Loneliness was something that almost died that day to those walking in the city. The giving of food, the listening to stories shared while huddling under a form of shelter, to even a chat over if the Redskins would win that day(they unfortunately lost).
Yes, I know this is getting long, but here it is, the main event. While going through the city, the group had encountered another religious group giving out warm food, but the other group was spreading the Word of God and not allowing anyone to receive or eat until after their plan of the day was complete. The cost of time to the needy for food was high. They could have been working. As the group spreading love approached the site of the preaching, they encountered a few people who were hungry. Soon after the needy found that the group full of love had food. The numbers that were waiting for the warm food came in a flood towards the group who only wanted to spread love. The point is give to give. Don't give in search of getting something in return. That is a payment for work. If it is salvation of the people you seek to spread do not give them incentives that would make the people even worship the devil such as food to the hungry, or medicine to the sick. There was a well spoken gentleman who approached to get a bag lunch. He had a sign in his hand to which he huriedly returned to since he had work to do. He was holding a sign at the intersection. The sign read of a store's final closing sale. He did not have time to listen to the lecture or wait in a long line for warm food. He had work to do. The cost is high. Give to give. Learn from the group who only wished to love. Love is not spreading of wealth evenly as it does not give incentives, but of giving as to allow them more time to work in achieving their goals and receiving their incentives. You give to show your love, to show you care. Mother Teresa continously gave, and in return the whole world mourned to her death. Give to give not in hopes of a return of your investment. If it is an investment you want, then it is not a giving, but a trade. A trade of goods, services, faith, etc.

Faith in Life

After writing my previous post, I read one comment. Thank you Anon 7:59 for your comment although instead of writing you a comment in return I had decided for a new post.
Faith is more than religion. Faith is knowing with almost up most certainty that it is true.

Everyday, we walk across streets. We are placing faith in walking across for at any moment we may be run over. It is improbable but the chance is there.Your faith makes it worth taking the risk. Nothing in life is for certain except that we are born and then die. Some are born with sight and find themselves blind after a tragic event. The doctors have told many of people that they may never walk, and we find more and more people with the drive to overcome what the doctors had said would not occur. They had faith. They had a certainty that they would succeed.
Statisticians would tell you that there is nothing that is 100% accurate outside of certain known laws; law of supply, law of demand. For example 1+1 always equals 2, but it is not known for certain that you will live or die today. You believe that today you won't die and so you invest your time in working to enable you to receive more in the future. If you knew without a doubt you would die today, you would not go to work but do anything that may actually kill you.

Faith is what lets you complete actions throughout the day. No, faith is not dumb. How can it when it allows us to live.
Because of faith we cannot understand government intervention. Why government intervention only proves a lack of faith in the market. Are we really to believe that government officials can control an economy better than a market that fixes itself? I think not, and I came to my conclusion through faith...

It all returns to Faith

Its almost Halloween, not that I am a huge fan of Halloween, it is just another day... but I was writing a post upon horror films when I decided it was about time to discuss one of my favorite movies, which I do not classify as a horror film, The Exorcist.

Oh yes, people tremble at just the name of the movie. Many have only viewed the movie once and have only traces of the demonic scenes imbedded into their memory of the movie. I tend to try to speak about this movie any chance I get because what I believe the message is, even though the movie executives would rather the message be different. I won't lead you on, I'll tell you what I found in this movie that makes me smile whenever Halloween comes around, because I know it would lead to The Exorcist to be played on tv. It is like the Christmas Story for many others on Christmas. I just enjoy the Exorcist. Yea, I know I must be a Satanist to enjoy a movie with this topic, but the topic to me is not of demonic possession; but of Faith.

I first noticed this years ago when watching the movie. I like to find explanations to anything, for this reason I like watching Ghost Hunters on Sci Fi when I can since they tend to disprove any supposed hauntings. Where is the faith you might ask? Although the movie is loosely based on a true event, we do not know what actually occurred. It is really just a screen writer/book author and Hollywoods rendition of a demonic possession and exorcism. Yet, from the beginning of the film we are introduced to a young priest. This young priest is continuously attacked and has begun to lose his faith in the Catholic Church. Recall that his mother is dying; he is approached and told that if only he wasn't a Catholic priest he would be a rich psychiatrist able to take better care of his dying mother. Here is when the demonic face first rises in the young priest's dreams when he is chasing his mother.

I am not going to make this longer but just describe the loss of faith from the young priest who could find no explanations in the possessed girl's actions. His faith was so low that when the Exorcist had told him not to listen to the demon that possessed the girl the young priest could not. Remember, the demon began talking like the young priest's deceased mother, to which the elder priest remarked not to listen the demon's lies. Attacking his spirit from the beginning of the movie, I believe the demon's goal was the priest not the young girl. The Exorcist made the young priest leave the room because he knew his faith was too weak to be of any help in performing the exorcism. The next scenes are not shown, but we are next invited back into the room where the demon lived in the girl with the limp body of the Catholic priest who was performing the exorcism. It was not that the demon was too strong for the exorcism, but I believe that although the Exorcist was strong in faith that he could call out to God to wield him the power to cast the demon, his physical strength was too weak; recall he was sick since his first meeting with the demon both from a past exorcism and in the dig in Iraq. The Exorcist had needed the young priest in order to wield the power of God to cast the demon, but as the young priest had little faith he was of no use causing the Exorcist to die. Entering the room, the young priest has no choice. It appears he finally understood what it was the demon wanted and his faith grew. He knew it was he the demon wanted and called out to it, commanding the demon to take him and leave the girl. For this, I believe the movie to be about faith, that the demon left the girl for the Catholic Priest who finally found enough faith and strength that he could hold on to his physical body enough to kill himself and the demon.

Because of this movie, I am not afraid of demonic possession. I know that it is faith that wields the strength in order to cast out the demon. In this time of fright before Halloween, perhaps you should build up your own faith. Not neccessarily Catholic, but with whatever it is you have faith in. I am not here to say what religion is right, only that when you feel like you are falling you mean only to look into oneself and strengthen your faith.

War is good for the economy?

I have returned to this debate more than once, and this weekend appeared to be when everyone rose the question. Why, I do not have the slightest idea, but the question was asked... er the statement was made. "War is good for the economy".

Their points?

1. That war creates more jobs
2. More jobs mean more families with an income
3. More income means more money is spent
4. The money spent creates more jobs

Cute thought and true, although the market model that they are viewing is incomplete.

Who is the main consumer during times of war? The government.
Who has raised the amount purchased? The government.
If you begin to spend more than you have what do you do? Work more to raise income.
What does government do to spend more? Usually raise taxes.
(I leave it at this point, but today the government does not increase income while increasing spending which causes a higher deficit. This is able to be done under a fiat system. One of the many arguements against it, but for my point I will leave it at raising taxes.)

Therefore, citizens receive jobs to gain income to support their family, yet their taxes are increased taking away from the income for their family. The new jobs do not neccessarily help the citizens, but did increase the amount of revenue the government received.

It returns to the same arguement as government subsidies. The government taxes all citizens and gives a subsidy to farmers to not grow as much of a product. The overbundance of the product is disposed of rather than sold. In World War II, excess military equipment was disposed in order to maintain the high level of employment for the citizens. Thus, citizens work and accomplish nothing. A return to Sisphysm, which I spoke of before. A time of full employment, but never having anything to show for it. The citizens work hard; are taxed taking from their own income; the tax is used to purchase the goods they made, but then the good is disposed of just to keep them employed. Is this really efficient? And we haven't even begun to discuss the loss of citizens who are underpaid fighting in the war...

Birthdays; Holidays; old past time

I have decided to finally post this topic, well just because I think it is time and I don't want to talk about politicks or government.

Birthdays, why do we celebrate them? We are only born once, and by using different calendars we could have multible birthdays throughout the year. Therefore, I think we should stand up for the right to save our money and not celebrate birthdays. Everyday, I have to congratulate someone for their birthday. Here's a hint, if you are passed 21 there is not much left to look forward to except for when you turn 25 and the cost of insurance falls; therefore its time to stop counting birthdays. Years come years go, we live and then we die. Why should we count just to know we are only getting older? How about you stop counting that way you feel forever young?

Well, my real point is namely on gifts. If you want to celebrate someone's birthday that is your choice, but do not waste your time by searching for the perfect gift. Most likely, whatever you buy will not be the perfect gift. Why? Because you are not them therefore you do not know for certain what they would like. You only increase the price of the gift by spending the amount of time searching for it. To save time (cost) and make the gift more efficient you should just give money or a gift card. This way, whoever you were given the gift to could buy themselves what they would like. Since they know what they would like, they will be able to maximize the gift's utility(someones rate of enjoyment).

How many times have you been given the sweater that you never wear? How many times have you given the bread maker that was given to you two years ago for your birthday but it just is returned to you at another birthday/holiday?

If it were up to me, you save your money, I shall save mine. On your birthday, you buy yourself a gift with the money you would have spent on me, and I will do the same with the money I would have spent on you for your birthday/holiday. This way, we will actually use or admire what it is we had bought for ourselves, since we know what it is that we want.

Online Gambling

I am a little upset by James Martin from Virginia Progressive. He writes some great posts, keeps the blogosphere informed upon the political races, but sometimes I believe he takes a step into the wrong side.
On Saturday, James commented upon a new law, which supposedly "cripples online gambling". Why was the bill proposed for the law in the first place, well taking from the Virginia Progressive website:

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), said he opposes all gambling, citing its “ill effects on society,” but particularly Internet gambling, which led him to draft the legislation in the summer.
“All the problems that manifest themselves with gambling, even in heavily regulated states, are even worse on the Internet,” Goodlatte said yesterday. “There are family problems, bankruptcy problems, gambling addiction, gambling by minors, using gambling to launder money for criminal and terrorist organizations and organized crime. It does not help our society.“

A law imposed on the rest of the American society because someone believed it to cause damage. He does not note the happiness people receive from gambling only the negative points against the action. Have we not heard this before, say with alcohol? People will gamble. They enjoy it. The internet does not have boundaries nor see national borders.

I do not gamble. I do not even smoke, but I am for smoking. Why not, if there is a call for a nonsmoking bar I am sure someone will open a bar that they do not allow smoking; no need for regulation. The point is if I did smoke or gamble, I would want to be allowed the opportunity to. It is my earnings, who is a congressman to tell me what I can do with my own self gain?

Let us note that just because a law is passed does not mean the action will stop. During prohibition the alcoholics still found ways to drink. The cost had rose to drink, but as they did enjoy the alcohol they did pay the high price. For gambling, I'd expect the same turn of events. A high price causes more gains giving gamblers a larger incentive. Once again the government attacks supply believing if they attack the suppliers they can halt the demand.

Loss of Free Speech, on the Net?

A young girl in Texas was questioned over posting a picture on the net that said "Kill Bush". I did not see the picture but, as exclaimed in the article linked in the title, it was a picture of President Bush and a dagger stabbing his hand. She is fourteen and had posted the picture on her Myspace page over her upset over certain political issues. Whats almost comical is the fact that they said her picture included a dagger stabbing President Bush's hand with only the words Kill Bush. I had wanted to see the picture so naturally, I searched Google for "Kill Bush" images. I did not find any picture that is described as the one the young lady posted on her myspace page, but I found a list of over 3,000 images. Not all are graphic but just the same, most say "Kill Bush".
Are we losing our own right to say whatever we wish, including a remark as"Kill Bush"? If a young girl can be questioned without her parents in the room, are we giving too much power to the Secret Service to impose a supposed safety? Are citizens of the United States next to be sent to Guantanomo Bay for questioning without any remorse for ethics and morals?

The Penalty of Teaching

I like reading articles on the net. I try to link to them when I can because they strengthen arguements. I have written long posts describing the articles, but if you have noticed I am trying to refrain from it. Only a synopsis is needed and you can click on the article for further reading.

A teacher in Texas had taken her students on a field trip to an art museum. She was not the only teacher chaperoning the students nor was it the first time the musuem had a students walk through as part of a school activity. The problem occurred after the field trip, when a student had told their parents that they had seen some nudity. Outcries from some rang out, and now the teacher who had led the field trip is suspended.
What makes this case more fascinating is that the school officials along with the parents had to give permission for the teacher to take the students on the field trip. An art museum is an art museum. Sometimes there is nudity in art, the art museum does not seperate art with nudity in to a room with a black curtain and black lights. For the art community, nudity is a wonderful gift that helps express nature's beauty or whatever else the artist finds the use of nudity for. But for a teacher to receive a suspension for taking students to an art museum is absurd. The art teacher is only doing her duty as a teacher, introducing the students to the world of art. Are we to have a seperate room for art that depicts climates of war and famine?
In this case, the parents had allowed their children to attend the field trip to the museum. If they had felt that their children's views were compromised they should have politely declined the invitation and kept their children at home for the day. The school officials had given permission to the teacher to hold the field trip at the art museum. The guilty party is not the teacher who had led the field trip, but the parents and the school officials who feel that students should not be allowed to view the artistic material. Next parents will claim that the "School House Rock" videos are damaging their children's minds by showing an image of a talking bill. Art is art. There is nudity in religious art; is the Sistine Chapel to lose its ceiling due to its exposure of Adam? For this, I say let the parents attack my freedom of speech through the blogosphere and I shall include the photo of the Sistine Chapel on the Creation of Adam.

Actions

Trying to fight supply, we find politicians trying to increase their own power so they can attack the mass amount of supply let it be terrorists, drug traffickers, or even immigration.

"If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic," Bush said, his voice rising. "It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."

Are our values that different from others? Reading a blog from earlier this week we find the topic to be upon just that American Values, but more importantly is how much power must we give the government until we are safe? Are we to lose all freedoms so that we can feel safe?

If I had a prize to give out it would definitely be to the Armed Services Committee in the Senate for their alternative military tribunal bill proposed to help the United States maintain its morals and values. If I had a second prize it would be given to General Powell for his letter expressing his fear that the world will lose their faith on us. Read the blog on values as it is fascinating; I do not reccommend reading all the comments as there are many, but scroll to the bottom where you will find a few comments worth reading, my picks are from Mike Bailey(Sept 14 10:35 pm) and Hap Stokes (Sept 15 7:17 am)