Political Economy of Harry Potter: Ministry of Magic

The 2000’s have been a decade of Harry Potter. Although the series has finished, the story continues through the movies, and the love for the story spreads. Interestingly enough, a main theme through out the series has been the error in the Ministry of Magic who continuously undermine one of the most powerful greatest Wizard of all time.

The lesson? Government failure and their disillusion that they have the correct solution over the experts. Does real life need a villain in order for any fan of Harry Potter to see the errors of a strong central government which believes it knows better than the specialists?

Within the Potter world, could many events have been avoided if the Ministry of Magic had only listened to Harry Potter and Dumbledore?

Within the real world, could the events of the economic collapse been avoided if the government had corrected their policies according to what most economists viewed as the correct policy?

My last question is, why aren’t Harry Potter fans skeptical about government intervention?

This world to our Heavenly home.

The wisest words I had heard this past week came from a priest who instructed me that it is not this world that matters but the next. We must not begin to think that God is on our side, but rather must keep asking ourselves are we in on his.

In other words, it is understandable why we get disgusted and upset by all the atrocities in the world today, but we should not allow these things to deter us from our goal of fulfilling the Father's will. There will always be violence, theft, murder, and other vile acts. The only possible way to reach zero crime is to have no freedom, and even then it is only obtained for a short period of time.
I am guilty of allowing myself to get upset and fired against the wickedness of the collectivist state, against the murder of innocents, etc. I must not allow myself to grow with this rage as it is deterring me from fulfilling the end that I want, to perform God's will.

Economics is a very unique study. It allows us to comprehend human cooperation in ways no other study can. With this I bring up price fixations. When economists speak of the market, they simply mean the players, the actors, the choosers, or in other words, all of us in this world who each day make a decision at a certain moment. We are the market. We, upon making a decision, impact an individual who we never have met. By purchasing an apple, that individual now cannot. By performing a job, that individual now can not. This is not to give the perception that the market is simply those taking from others, but rather to simply demonstrate how your choice would affect my own without your knowledge of ever meaning to.

Prices are a reflection of our choices. They help us understand where the good or services should go and to whom. Law of demand states as price goes up quantity demanded goes down. Likewise if price goes down quantity demanded goes up. Law of supply states that as price goes up, quantity supplied goes up. Following, price goes down and quantity supplied will go down. This also works vice-versa so we can find price from supply and demand. The key is the word and here, supply and demand.

What I am getting at is simple, there is an equilibrium, where supply and demand meet, for everything. There is a price and quantity for everything and the equilibrium is where they interchange. To create a law setting something at zero such as zero crime would be a price fixation. It is called a fixation because naturally our choices in the world give us a natural equilibrium meaning there is still crime in the world, but with a price fixation at zero we find something different. Now my choices have an increased cost which will impact the world in a harsh way because less people are doing it which means that quantity demanded is low that lets us know from the law of demand that price must be high. Accordingly with the law of supply we know that when price is high; quantity supplied is high. The signal this law is giving to the world is to cheat the system. Find a way to perform a crime, as the benefits are extremely high.

Think of Batman the Dark Knight. He begins to lock up all the criminals and with the lesser amount of criminals to rob from the innocent, the profit and amount of people to choose from stealing from is inherently high. A market that is hard to get into yet highly profitable; these are incentives that give rise to the Joker. (Money is not always the incentive. In the case of the Joker, being THE criminal of Gotham was more important.)
In the 1920's, Al Capone was a product of the Prohibition. He loved the law as it created more wealth for him. When competitors moved in, he moved them out or recruited them through force.
We can not hate anything of this world and seek government assistance to help us reach our solutions. We can not allow ourselves to be consumed in combating certain aspects of this world that we condemn ourselves from being in full communion in the next. What is here is only temporal. It is important and we should fight, but let our life's work be to do God's will and not our own. There will always be a form of evil in this world. We can not fight evil with evil, but fight it with love. As we hear time and time again, Love conquers evil.

Love thy Neighbor: How I as a Catholic don't Vote

I am first a Catholic. My faith comes before all other things in my life. With this, how can I have been expected to vote for anyone who supports abortion, immigration barriers, war, etc. How can I choose between politicians who do not support my own beliefs. Perhaps I agree with them on one of the three things listed above, but the probability that they agree with me on all three is incredibly slim. Am I to bend my faith in order to make a political vote?

The answer is clearly and always a No. You do not have to do anything you do not wish to, and to support someone that may bring other evils but not the one you are morally against is wrong. As a Catholic I must stand up for my faith and point that an open door immigration policy is the only possible way to love thy neighbor. They help with the economy in ways unimaginable by most who vote, and to deny them entry is preposterous as by creating such a law to restrict migration is not a demonstration of love.
War, which politicians have more control over, is not Love. Laws that prohibit abortion will not end abortion, there is no such thing as zero amount of murders and lets have it abortion is murder. So with such few words that proclaim "Love thy Neighbor" I find that it is not love that brings you to vote for a politicians hoping for salvation. Short term policies create short term gains but long term failures that must then be corrected again. When glass shatters its not easy to put the pieces back. Fortunately for us, the economy is not glass. It is a process that reflects each and every individual's choice. Stop looking for an easy way out with a new savior in politics. It is disgusting and not an act of love.
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR cooperate with him and trade. It is through social cooperation that man has decreased poverty in the modern world, NOT through government action. Be a Catholic and do good works, not vote in hope that good intentions may not lead us to Hell "this time".

The BuyOut Bet: Caplan is at it again.

I have to say that I get excited when Caplan wants to make a bet. Anytime someone who knows little about economics but can not help themselves from making outlandish claims; Caplan calls them out. With a gesture of a bet, he tells them that "Talk is Cheap", and that they need to "Put their money where their mouth is." For anyone can say anything, but if you ask them to put money behind their claims, it will prove how much they truly believe in what they say.

Is it time do more Crunches? FT on the Credit Crunch

Samuel Britton of the Financial Times had stated in May this year:

One striking feature of recent events is how slow they have been to hit the real economy. Although the credit crunch was first discerned last August no major area has yet recorded a downturn in activity, as distinct from a growth slowdown. This suggests not that the crisis is coming to an end but that it is slow-burning. The ominous feature is the one I have already hinted at in my reference to the continued trend rise in commodity prices, which could well be part of a long-term shift in the terms of trade against the industrial west, as well perhaps as part of a shift in political and economic power. Here is an area where it will be necessary to adapt to market movements rather than to attempt to reverse them by ill-considered intervention.

and recently on discussing Chris Coyne's book After War:

he(being Coyne) accepts the case for occasional intervention for humanitarian reasons or to protect US citizens. His main suggestions are to avoid nation-building types of intervention and adopt free trade, if necessary unilaterally by the US. It is perhaps déformation professionelle for economists to overrate the spillover benefits of the latter. But peace and welfare may depend on how far the next US president accepts the main lines of his analysis – a subject even more important than the current credit crunch.

HT to Chris Coyne.

Immigration Policies are Lame

Thought experiment on labor...
We know that people immigrate for a better life. In the less developed nations, it is usually the lower class that travel to the U.S., and we know that by them coming to the U.S. alone raises the amount they produce. From this estimation alone we know that the immigrant came to the States with only his own human capital, and the increase in production must then be due to other elements found in the U.S.
Comparing the immigrants from less developed nations to those from more developed nations (see Olson's Big Bills Left on Sidewalks) we find that immigrants from more developed nations are more productive and therefore receive a higher wage than immigrants from less developed nations. The human capital from developed nations is substantially higher than that of the less developed nations. With this fact, isn't it strange that the government wants to uphold immigration with a quota? Yet clearly there is a difference between the immigrants from developed nations and less developed nations. Is the government so full of itself it believes it can set the quota to fit all different types of labor?
The more developed nation's immigrants would take the middle class jobs while the less developed nations would work in the lower class jobs within the American economy, so why is it many Americans believe Hispanic immigrants are taking most of American jobs again? Especially since they are in the lower level positions...
Government policy needs to get over itself; the market sets the equilibrium and the U.S. labor economy obviously is no where near the equilibrium for high human capital and low human capital labor.

Render Unto Caesar

For those that know me, they know I claim that economics helped me find faith. From social cooperation, entrepreneurship, to taxes... all are included in the Bible.

Well I have entered many arguments in justification of a smaller government, and in religious circles have always faced the same question. "What about 'Render unto Caesar'?"
Their take is that Jesus, being perfect, would not leave the words to be interpreted.

I see it as Jesus being perfect. The question of taxes was asked of Jesus in order to provoke him, and rather than answer against taxes, which would surely allow the state to arrest him. Jesus answers the question perfectly, 'render unto Caesar'. This does not mean that taxes are meant to be given; he referred to the coins that had the face of Caesar, but currency was not originally founded by government. In fact, the Roman empire needed taxes for their everyday regulatory society. If taxes are rightly the governments to have, then as are slaves.Roman coins with Caesar on it. Government's began to put their face on currency that cycled as to extend their control.

The Roman empire could not survive without its slaves, and yet we do not justify the slaves with the saying 'Render unto Caesar'.
No, I tell you, it is only the most perfect answer to the tricky question. It is like the middle school game where you ask your friend "Have you told your family you have AIDS?" If you answered yes you admit that you had AIDS. If you had answered no, you had admitted you had AIDS. It was a catch-22. While Jesus, so perfect, was able to overcome the Catch-22.
Taxes are an unlawful taking as we have no choice but to give and if we refuse we will be punished. As God gives us free will and does not restrict us from either choosing Him or against Him, why should we think He would restrict our choice towards government taxes.

So Render Unto Caesar What is Caesar's... Nothing.

This is a case of the Lydian Lion: Considered by some as the world's first coin.

Tax Freedom Day

Today we celebrate Tax Freedom Day. This is the last day of the year we work to pay off all the taxes that are taken from us by the government. Thanks to The Tax Foundation for the info...
and to celebrate our freedom, they even made a song.


I had thought about it and thought today wouldn't be complete without a little tune from the Beatles:

Austrian Knights: China's Influence in the Western Hemisphere

Last night two Mason students, one a philo/econ major and the other a global affairs major discussed China's influence in the Western Hemisphere. They had found their sources mainly from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in an article title Enter the Dragon; they had also had recorded a lecture series upon the topic which you can find here. The discussion relied upon the actions of China and its effects with Latin America. The state department has assembled their own study of the program here, and the Heritage Foundation has also had some work published here. It should be noted that the State Department's and the Heritage Foundation's work is from 2005 and therefore will not have some things brought to light by the Wilson Center.

For a brief summary of the paper, China wishes to bully Taiwan by taking their customers and intends on making its presence known as a world power by spreading its market network across the globe. China has thus increased its market activity within Latin America relying on the Latin American nations for food, oil, and other necessary resources for the growing economy within China.
The main fear is that the United States will then be surrounded by 21st century socialism and a rise of another cold war as China ties itself to national leaders such as Chavez, Morales, Castro, etc.
What answer are we searching for? The best conclusion has been given without this research, Free trade. If the U.S. would open its borders the ideas of liberty would spread out through out the foreign nations. Is there a policy such a Free Trade Policy needed in order to promote this system? Only if that policy is one sentence "There will be Free Trade"; anything else is unjustified and will deny the spread of liberty.
How then do we spread liberty? Is it the best to trade, to teach and spread the ideas, or is it to have a government involvement?
Note: I do not agree with the government involvement as by reading the conclusion of the State Department's statement, their solution is the Millennium Challenge promoted by Jeffrey Sachs, which most of us know is an insane policy which would not help the foreign nations.
The best answer therefore is to promote trade and the spread of the ideas. We need to get the actors, the artists, the musicians, and the writers to help spread the our views.
What do you think?
Should we fear China or is it just another ploy for the government to involve itself in affairs it has no need to meddle with?

Why Austrians Appear to be so Negative: undergraduate response to Dr. Kling

Arnold Kling on his blog (EconLog) says:

To the extent that Austrians make predictions that sound falsifiable, they tend to be like Paul Krugman (who is not an Austrian), repeating a mantra "bad times are coming, bad times are coming" every year. Then, when bad times come they can say, "See, I told you so." It would be more interesting if every once in a while they predicted good times.

From my studies, I have learned that it is easy to predict occurrences when we have information. Heck, anyone can do that; if poker players knew what each other had in their hand there would be no game. In football, if the opposing team knew something about their opponents offense they have a better chance of stopping them. The Austrians are no different. They continuously call out the bad times when there is government interference. Government intervention allows for more information which with common sense can be applied to predict the outcome.

What was preached by Hayek and now by Austrians such as Easterly? There is no way to predict the future. There is too much information within the market for any individual or group of individuals to be able to make any comprehension of it. Therefore there is no plan on how to predict a good time or a bad time, but when the government intervenes... information is given that allows for a prediction. That Austrians predict only bad times therefore tells us one thing, any government interference is viewed as the cause of a bad time.

FEE @ MASON!!

Foundation for Economic Education, now participating in university outreach, is hosting a full day of lectures at George Mason University on April 19th.











We have all heard the cries "IT IS NOT FAIR"
Well it is not, and FEE is here to help address the issues that are largely debated but hardly understood.

The issues will be from Foreign Aid; International Labor Standards; even to Institutions, Constitutions, and Economic Growth...

Speakers include Doug Bandow, Geoffrey Lea, and Joshua Hall.
Program for the event can be found here, and don't forget to register here, as it is to guarantee a copy of The Law (already have it? Good! Now get another to pass to someone else you may believe may benefit) and a lunch on Saturday afternoon.

The GMU Economic Society will kick off the FEE event the night before with a social gathering and a chance to hear from our very own Professor Bryan Caplan of The Myth of the Rational Voter fame.

Don't forget to sign up for the wonderful Summer Seminars at FEE in Irvington-on-Hudson, NY just a half hour outside of NYC!!! The seminars are first come first serve if you meet the criteria for the program basis, so act now and apply. Apply to more than one to increase your chances or to be the rare individual who gets to attend more than one...(note: Although you may get accepted to two programs, you may be asked to pay for the hotel accommodations for one of the seminar programs.)
Be on the look out for more information...

Liberty Fund has an Interactive Room Too Good Not to Share

AS POSTED ON GMU ECONOMICS SOCIETY BLOG

Most know Liberty Fund for their catalog of books and online library. Now how about a chance to tour their online interactive GOODRICH ROOM. The room's walls have different names throughout history that have helped lead the argument on Liberty. From the Amagi and Gilgamesh to the Declaration of Independence. Each historical figure opens a new tab with a small historical note and its importance for liberty.

If you knew about the catalog but did not know about the online library, then it is time to get acquainted. It is a large database of online materials and difficult to decide where to begin. Liberty Fund has made easier and given us a starting point, HERE. You can log on to create reading lists, share with others, and view other members lists. Can it get any better?

ENJOY!

Always begins with One; Is he the one?

I won't say much here. Former government employee wants to own a large dog. In fact, he owns two which are considered by the government of China to be owned illegally. Illegal because of their size. The court system has stopped his crusade this far, but as he tells it, he will continue according to the laws of China and take it to the Supreme Court.
This is a man determined to own his large dogs against a government who rules against ownership of not only large dogs but also more than one. This is not even going into the topic of internet censorship.
Good article. Good man.

For those who fought with the war cry "Freedom" President Lincoln was not one.

ORIGINALLY POSTED ON GMUECONSOCIETY.BLOGSPOT.COM
I am sure everyone has heard it by now since the outcry of
most Americans was an uproar at a statement by Ron Paul on President Lincoln.
Last year, the GMU Economics Society was fortunate to have a lecturer, Thomas DiLorenzo on this issue. Unfortunately we do not have any audio or video of the lecture, but I will link to support the argument as best as I can. I wish only to place some evidence to those looking to comprehend Ron Paul's statement. Not endorsing any politicians as the Econ Society, although the members may have full support for whomever they wish, but do wish to clarify a statement in which many Americans seem to be growing upset towards.

What is taught to children?

• That President Lincoln's nickname was Honest Abe, yet we understand that most politicians do lie. Why should we view him differently?
  The American Indians are led to believe so...
  
• Lincoln saved the Union therefore denying the South the right to secession, yet when Jefferson had installed an embargo on trade with the British the Northeastern states met in convention for secession led by U.S. Senator Timothy Pickering
• Note: Lincoln states he is against state secession in his first Inaugural Address:
  

  But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

  It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

• Lincoln had abolished slavery, yet in his first Inaugural Address he states:
  

  I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

I leave it to you to decide if Lincoln was as good as we were taught he was, or if he is just another politician that lies, cheats, and steals.
I end with a link to a blog by Mister Snitch! Who does a great job of linking to valid sources to go with his argument on the bad press for Lincoln.

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.

Tyranny of the Majority in the New Testament

We saw it best on The Passion of the Christ. The masses cried out for crucifixion. "Crucify him" the answer shouted in unison when asked by Pilate on what they wanted him to do. It is the same words recited every Easter at a Roman Catholic mass and yet many Christians still believe in majority rule, at least it appears so through what I have seen.

The tyranny of the majority is not a new concept. John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville were only two of many who had spoken on the topic. Christians had read of this tyranny since the Church began. There it was written, spoken, even viewed (as in the Passion) for us to see, the Crucifixion of Christ. The masses had called for it. They threatened and Pilate to complete his duty as governor completed what the masses demanded in order to keep his own position. What else do we expect of a politician? To do the right thing and not kill an innocent man? It was either crucify an innocent man or have a mob on his hands which would cause him to lose face in Rome. Naturally, we would expect the politician to choose his own selfish needs and condemn an innocent man to his death.
Is the innocent's death the fault of the politician or the fault of the tyranny of the masses? Perhaps it is both, but the event has passed and the innocent man had died only to be born again. Thanks to the murderous mob that persuaded a Roman governor to crucify an innocent man. A man heralded by many today as the savior. Even through evil, Good arises.

Silly Bolivian; Why I stopped watching the Daily Show...

I flipped the channel to Comedy Central and found an interesting person being interviewed by Jon Stewart. None other than the Nationalist Bolivian President, Evo Morales.

It is easy to speak about life and caring for mankind, yet asking for government intervention is not the answer to salvation. The lower class look towards government to assist them with the complaints that society is holding them down and Evo is unlike any of the lower class. He dreams that government is the savior and empowered with his position as President has nationalized the gas industry, subsidized other industries, and believes in the end the money will end in the hands of the poor natives of Bolivia. This is not the first time it has been tried Evo get over yourself and learn to be a better farmer so that you can produce more food as PRODUCTION increases worker wages, not government subsidization.

Jon Stewart appeared to support Evo in his performance as President of Bolivia. Applauding and commenting that Evo had completed the promises he had made while campaigning within 8 months of his election; promises filled with the nationalization of Bolivia's resources.
Evo sat proud of his accomplishments even commenting on how much money was now in the hands of the government due to the nationalization of the gas industry. Of course there is an increase of money going to the government since it now owns most of the industry. What kind of idiot would have expected less?

I am not impressed with Evo. I feel for my family still in Bolivia and hope that one day they can all become citizens of the United States; the nation in which Jon Stewart liked to say holds 'rigged' elections. Thanks Jon, we know that elections are flawed haven't you heard of the field of public choice?

Yes, I no longer watch the Daily Show. The show is not dull only to much to left for my own taste although the Colbert Report is incredibly fun to watch as it has broken wrists and water fights with billionaire guests. In the end it all goes back to the Bolivian. Silly Bolivian, government intervention takes away individual rights... to think he said that he knew about rights at the beginning of the interview.

The Market's Answer to Animal Cruelty

The media is calming down its firestorm that it reigned down upon Atlanta quarterback, Michael Vick. The government prosecution had taken him to court on charges taken a great amount of time before he pleaded guilty. Yet who responded first?

The police found evidence of dog fighting in Michael Vick's home. The prosecution at that point began. Throughout the summer the court system carried on with protesters outside calling for Vick's own blood to be spilled. Yes, this was it what all people want, the government response.

Yet is the government punishing Vick for his actions? He has to pay a fee, face court time, has a jail sentence. No, I do not see the government as a punishment at all. The government in its will to punish Vick is actually saving him from his punishment. Yes the view point of society is that the government announces punishment, yet I say who responded first?

By the time the uproar of disgust arose around Vick's actions, Nike had canceled their deal, Reebok had canceled their deal, and the NFL had declared him ineligible to play. The market had retaliated. Call for blood if you like but it was his own wants that would drive his pain. The want to keep his home, the want for luxury goods, the want for hanging out at a club; they all cost money. Money he would begin to lose and his lifestyle would decline. Would Reebok, Nike, any other business give him a deal? Perhaps, when the public calms, but would the public calm if Vick were among the living? Or would the public be more calm as Vick is housed in a jail cell where our tax dollars pay for him to live leaving him to spend none of his own funds. In the jail cell, Vick is no longer in the view of the public giving them the opportunity to remember why they dislike him. Would anyone buy his jersey again? Probably, but no where near the amount that had before.

Yes, it was the Market not the Government who had first responded. While the government took its time in prosecution waiting for a chance to prove guilt, the market did not care and reacted with a swift hand. Sometimes the market over reacts, but blessed is the market and it adjusts giving more in return for the pain it had caused. Market vs Government is a clean shutout, or in tennis term 6 - love. Love for minimal government perhaps...

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.

Politicians and the things they say

It is said "Economists do not vote". The reasons why are numerous. You can ask many on how do you vote and they may answer that they choose the lesser of the two evils. If it is evil why should we vote on it? Evil is evil no matter how much.

I think I am officially tired of politics. Those who are part of the party in power will always say "Stay the course". If they say we need change, then they are dividing their party which will harm their political career. Those who are not in the party in power will run with the slogan of change. What else is new? We expect it, but how much can we be lied to?

I was at a rally and heard that we need to discontinue the politicians supporting special interest groups. Furthermore, we need to end the politicians supporting their own agendas. I have heard it dozens of times before. Yet, here was the rally for change. A movement that was meant to be a beginning, and yet the politician spoke to a special interest group. The topics he touched related to this special interest group.

The politician was Senator Barrack Obama, whose heart is in the right place, but so caught up in caring he may in reality hurt those he wishes to help. How? Why? I will briefly discuss the items that were discussed yesterday which were universal health care and education, but we shall save that for my next posts as they deserve to be the topic of their own posts.